IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i3p2490-2512d46269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Identification Key for Selecting Methods for Sustainability Assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Michiel C. Zijp

    (Department of Sustainability, Environment and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University (CML), P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
    Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University Nijmegen (RUN), P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Reinout Heijungs

    (Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University (CML), P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
    Department of Econometrics and Operations Research, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Ester Van der Voet

    (Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University (CML), P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Dik Van de Meent

    (Department of Sustainability, Environment and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University Nijmegen (RUN), P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Mark A. J. Huijbregts

    (Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University Nijmegen (RUN), P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Anne Hollander

    (Department of Sustainability, Environment and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Leo Posthuma

    (Department of Sustainability, Environment and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Michiel C. Zijp & Reinout Heijungs & Ester Van der Voet & Dik Van de Meent & Mark A. J. Huijbregts & Anne Hollander & Leo Posthuma, 2015. "An Identification Key for Selecting Methods for Sustainability Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:3:p:2490-2512:d:46269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/3/2490/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/3/2490/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohringer, Christoph & Jochem, Patrick E.P., 2007. "Measuring the immeasurable -- A survey of sustainability indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 1-8, June.
    2. An M. De Schryver & Rosalie van Zelm & Sebastien Humbert & Stephan Pfister & Thomas E. McKone & Mark A. J. Huijbregts, 2011. "Value Choices in Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Stressors Causing Human Health Damage," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 15(5), pages 796-815, October.
    3. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.
    4. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    5. Tom Waas & Jean Hugé & Thomas Block & Tarah Wright & Francisco Benitez-Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability Assessment and Indicators: Tools in a Decision-Making Strategy for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-23, August.
    6. Özdemir, Enver Doruk & Härdtlein, Marlies & Jenssen, Till & Zech, Daniel & Eltrop, Ludger, 2011. "A confusion of tongues or the art of aggregating indicators--Reflections on four projective methodologies on sustainability measurement," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 2385-2396, June.
    7. Tom Waas & Jean Huge & Thomas BLOCK & Tarah Wright & Francisco Javier Benitez Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189410, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Browne, David & O'Regan, Bernadette & Moles, Richard, 2012. "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," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 97-107.
    9. Carof, M. & Colomb, B. & Aveline, A., 2013. "A guide for choosing the most appropriate method for multi-criteria assessment of agricultural systems according to decision-makers’ expectations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-62.
    10. David Niemeijer & Rudolf Groot, 2008. "Framing environmental indicators: moving from causal chains to causal networks," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 89-106, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christina Wulf & Jasmin Werker & Christopher Ball & Petra Zapp & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs, 2019. "Review of Sustainability Assessment Approaches Based on Life Cycles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-43, October.
    2. Fabricio Baron Mussi & Aline Alvares Melo & Ubiratã Tortato, 2018. "Contributions for the use of qualitative indicators: an analysis of Itaipu Power Plant’s Sustainability Program," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 109-128, December.
    3. Isabel Domínguez & Edgar Ricardo Oviedo-Ocaña & Karen Hurtado & Andrés Barón & Ralph P. Hall, 2019. "Assessing Sustainability in Rural Water Supply Systems in Developing Countries Using a Novel Tool Based on Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Iván Franchi-Arzola & Javier Martin-Vide & Cristián Henríquez, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment in Development Planning in Sub-National Territories: Regional Development Strategies in Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-30, May.
    5. Yang Li & Xiaotong Zhang & Xiuxiu Gao, 2022. "An Evaluation of the Coupling Coordination Degree of an Urban Economy–Society–Environment System Based on a Multi-Scenario Analysis: The Case of Chengde City in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Jincheng Li & Xinyue Zhang & Xuexiu Chang & Wei Gao, 2018. "Revising Yield and Equivalence Factors of Ecological Footprints Based on Land-Use Conversion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Susana Martín-Fernández & Adrián Gómez-Serrano & Eugenio Martínez-Falero & Cristina Pascual, 2018. "Comparison of AHP and a Utility-Based Theory Method for Selected Vertical and Horizontal Forest Structure Indicators in the Sustainability Assessment of Forest Management in the Sierra de Guadarrama N," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    8. Abdulkarim Hasan Rashed & Afzal Shah, 2021. "The role of private sector in the implementation of sustainable development goals," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 2931-2948, March.
    9. Olga Pilipczuk, 2021. "A Conceptual Framework for Large-Scale Event Perception Evaluation with Spatial-Temporal Scales in Sustainable Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, May.
    10. Corinna Salzer & Holger Wallbaum & Luis Felipe Lopez & Jean Luc Kouyoumji, 2016. "Sustainability of Social Housing in Asia: A Holistic Multi-Perspective Development Process for Bamboo-Based Construction in the Philippines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, February.
    11. Moreira, João M.L. & Cesaretti, Marcos A. & Carajilescov, Pedro & Maiorino, José R., 2015. "Sustainability deterioration of electricity generation in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 334-346.
    12. N. P. Hariram & K. B. Mekha & Vipinraj Suganthan & K. Sudhakar, 2023. "Sustainalism: An Integrated Socio-Economic-Environmental Model to Address Sustainable Development and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-37, July.
    13. Yunjae Bae & Kyungsuk Lee & Taewoo Roh, 2020. "Acquirer’s Absorptive Capacity and Firm Performance: The Perspectives of Strategic Behavior and Knowledge Assets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-28, October.
    14. Ilaria Barletta & Jon Larborn & Mahesh Mani & Björn Johannson, 2016. "Towards an Assessment Methodology to Support Decision Making for Sustainable Electronic Waste Management Systems: Automatic Sorting Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, January.
    15. Liudan Jiao & Liyin Shen & Chenyang Shuai & Bei He, 2016. "A Novel Approach for Assessing the Performance of Sustainable Urbanization Based on Structural Equation Modeling: A China Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.

    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. Kajsa Borgnäs, 2017. "Indicators as ‘circular argumentation constructs’? An input–output analysis of the variable structure of five environmental sustainability country rankings," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 769-790, June.
    2. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Svatava Janoušková & Tomáš Hák & Bedřich Moldan, 2018. "Global SDGs Assessments: Helping or Confusing Indicators?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Jean Hugé & Nibedita Mukherjee & Camille Fertel & Jean-Philippe Waaub & Thomas Block & Tom Waas & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2015. "Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Tobias Engelmann & Daniel Fischer & Marianne Lörchner & Jaya Bowry & Holger Rohn, 2019. "“Doing” Sustainability Assessment in Different Consumption and Production Contexts—Lessons from Case Study Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-25, December.
    6. Brian G. Fitzgerald & Travis O'Doherty & Richard Moles & Bernadette O'Regan, 2015. "Quantitative Evaluation of Settlement Sustainability Policy (QESSP); Forward Planning for 26 Irish Settlements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Andrea Emma Pravitasari & Rista Ardy Priatama & Setyardi Pratika Mulya & Ernan Rustiadi & Alfin Murtadho & Adib Ahmad Kurnia & Izuru Saizen & Candraningratri Ekaputri Widodo, 2022. "Local Sustainability Performance and Its Spatial Interdependency in Urbanizing Java Island: The Case of Jakarta-Bandung Mega Urban Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Anastasiia Moldavska & Torgeir Welo, 2018. "Testing and Verification of a New Corporate Sustainability Assessment Method for Manufacturing: A Multiple Case Research Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-40, November.
    9. Etheldreder Trecia Koppa & Innocent Musonda & Sambo Lyson Zulu, 2023. "A Systematic Literature Review on Local Sustainability Assessment Processes for Infrastructure Development Projects in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-37, January.
    10. Shamraiz Ahmad & Kuan Yew Wong & Babar Zaman, 2019. "A Comprehensive and Integrated Stochastic-Fuzzy Method for Sustainability Assessment in the Malaysian Food Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-23, February.
    11. Philipp Kranabitl & Clemens Faustmann & Hannes Hick, 2021. "Decision Making for Sustainable Technical Applications with the SMH Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    12. Liselotte Schebek & Thomas Lützkendorf, 2022. "Assessing Resource Efficiency of City Neighbourhoods: A Methodological Framework for Structuring and Practical Application of Indicators in Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Azad Hassan & Zeenat Kotval-K, 2019. "A Framework for Measuring Urban Sustainability in an Emerging Region: The City of Duhok as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Jonas Ammenberg & Sofia Dahlgren, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part I—A Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Campos-Guzmán, Verónica & García-Cáscales, M. Socorro & Espinosa, Nieves & Urbina, Antonio, 2019. "Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 343-366.
    16. Karel Doubravský & Alena Kocmanová & Mirko Dohnal, 2018. "Analysis of Sustainability Decision Trees Generated by Qualitative Models Based on Equationless Heuristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Anastasiia Moldavska, 2017. "Defining Organizational Context for Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Cross-Disciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
    18. Boggia, Antonio & Massei, Gianluca & Pace, Elaine & Rocchi, Lucia & Paolotti, Luisa & Attard, Maria, 2018. "Spatial multicriteria analysis for sustainability assessment: A new model for decision making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 281-292.
    19. Jose Manuel Diaz‐Sarachaga, 2021. "Shortcomings in reporting contributions towards the sustainable development goals," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1299-1312, July.
    20. Carole Brunet & Oumarou Savadogo & Pierre Baptiste & Michel A Bouchard & Jean Chrysostome Rakotoary & Andry Ravoninjatovo & Céline Cholez & Corinne Gendron & Nicolas Merveille, 2020. "Impacts Generated by a Large-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant Can Lead to Conflicts between Sustainable Development Goals: A Review of Key Lessons Learned in Madagascar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-33, 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:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:3:p:2490-2512:d:46269. 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.