IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-242233.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reconceptualising sustainability assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Jenny Pope
  • Alan A.M. Bond
  • Jean Huge
  • Angus Morrison-Saunders

Abstract

Sustainability assessment as an ex ante tool for directing decision-making towards sustainability has emerged in a diverse range of forms across the world over the past decade or so. This broad practice of sustainability assessment embraces a wide and continually evolving range of processes, making the field potentially conceptually confusing and difficult to navigate. In recognition of this, there have been numerous attempts to develop conceptual frameworks to make sense of the diversity of practice. Through a process of literature review and reflection upon practice, this paper builds on earlier work, including our own, to develop a new descriptive conceptual framework for sustainability assessment. The conceptual framework distinguishes two dimensions of sustainability assessment, each with several sub-dimensions: sustainability concept (with sub-dimensions of underpinning sustainability discourse and representation of sustainability) and decision-making context (with sub-dimensions of subject of assessment, decision-question and responsible party). Drawing upon further literature, several examples of different approaches are then identified for each sub-dimension, demonstrating the range of approaches evident within current and emerging global practice. Within the ‘sustainability concept’ dimension, the first sub-dimension calls for critical reflection upon what the normative goal of the sustainability assessment is, while the second refers to how the concept of sustainability is represented in the decision-making process through the use of indicators. Although these two sub-dimensions are closely related their distinction is a key feature of the conceptual framework. The second dimension describes the practical context of a sustainability assessment. The proposed new conceptual framework enables a particular body of practice to be located within the broader field, as we demonstrate by categorising five examples of sustainability assessment according to the framework. We believe this framework has value to both researchers and practitioners, as a structure to guide sustainability assessment research and analysis and as the basis for comparing bodies of sustainability assessment practice within the range of possibilities defined by the contours of the framework. The framework encourages reflective practice, particularly in relation to how the concept of sustainability is understood and embedded within the process, and what the practice might deliver. This new conceptual framework is presented as a relatively simple road map and guide as sustainability assessment theorising and practice enters its second decade.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenny Pope & Alan A.M. Bond & Jean Huge & Angus Morrison-Saunders, 2017. "Reconceptualising sustainability assessment," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/242233, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/242233
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Huaiyun Kou & Jian Zhou & Jie Chen & Sichu Zhang, 2018. "Conservation for Sustainable Development: The Sustainability Evaluation of the Xijie Historic District, Dujiangyan City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Purvis, Ben & Genovese, Andrea, 2023. "Better or different? A reflection on the suitability of indicator methods for a just transition to a circular economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    4. Lhermie, Guillaume & Wernli, Didier & Jørgensen, Peter Søgaard & Kenkel, Donald & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia & Tauer, Loren William & Gröhn, Yrjo Tapio, 2019. "Tradeoffs between resistance to antimicrobials in public health and their use in agriculture: Moving towards sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Tomás B. Ramos, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment: Exploring the Frontiers and Paradigms of Indicator Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2019. "Sustainability and social justice dimension indicators for applied renewable energy research: A responsible approach proposal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Jürgen Kopfmüller & Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle & Tobias Naegler & Jens Buchgeister & Klaus-Rainer Bräutigam & Volker Stelzer, 2021. "Integrative Scenario Assessment as a Tool to Support Decisions in Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-34, March.
    9. Wei Ren & Feng Han, 2018. "Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Built Heritage Attractions: An Anglo-Chinese Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-28, July.
    10. Sean Geobey, 2022. "Reckoning with Reality: Reflections on a Place-Based Social Innovation Lab," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Xiaofang Wu & Hsi-Chi Yang, 2021. "An Ecological Sustainability Assessment Approach for Strategic Decision Making in International Shipping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Pekka Halla & Albert Merino‐Saum, 2022. "Conceptual frameworks in indicator‐based assessments of urban sustainability—An analysis based on 67 initiatives," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1056-1071, October.
    13. Johan Du Plessis & Wouter Bam, 2018. "Comparing the Sustainable Development Potential of Industries: A Role for Sustainability Disclosures?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, March.
    14. Lopion, Peter & Markewitz, Peter & Robinius, Martin & Stolten, Detlef, 2018. "A review of current challenges and trends in energy systems modeling," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 156-166.
    15. Paolo Esposito & Gianluca Antonucci, 2022. "NGOs, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development trajectories in a new reformative spectrum: ‘New wine in old bottles or old wine in new bottles?’," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 609-619, May.
    16. Jing, Rui & Wang, Meng & Brandon, Nigel & Zhao, Yingru, 2017. "Multi-criteria evaluation of solid oxide fuel cell based combined cooling heating and power (SOFC-CCHP) applications for public buildings in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 273-289.
    17. Zikopoulos, Christos, 2022. "On the effect of upgradable products design on circular economy," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 254(C).
    18. Halla, Pekka & Merino-Saum, Albert, 2021. "Conceptual frameworks for urban sustainability indicators - an empirical analysis," SocArXiv vayq7, Center for Open Science.
    19. Vanesa Zorrilla-Muñoz & Marc Petz & María Silveria Agulló-Tomás, 2021. "GARCH model to estimate the impact of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions per sociodemographic factors and CAP in Spain," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 4675-4697, March.
    20. Vikas Swarnakar & Amit Raj Singh & Jiju Antony & Raja Jayaraman & Anil Kr Tiwari & Rajeev Rathi & Elizabeth Cudney, 2022. "Prioritizing Indicators for Sustainability Assessment in Manufacturing Process: An Integrated Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-24, March.
    21. Ringkjøb, Hans-Kristian & Haugan, Peter M. & Solbrekke, Ida Marie, 2018. "A review of modelling tools for energy and electricity systems with large shares of variable renewables," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 440-459.
    22. 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.

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/242233. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.html .

    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.