Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 91, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1613-1622

  Gasparatos, Alexandros ^a,b  

^a UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

Human values; Participation; Sustainability evaluation; Value articulating institutions

Indexed keywords

EMBEDDED SYSTEMS;

ANALYTICAL TOOL; ASSESSMENT TOOL; EVALUATION TOOL; HUMAN VALUES; PARTICIPATION; SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT; SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATIONS; TOOL SELECTION; VALUE ARTICULATING INSTITUTION; VALUE SYSTEMS;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ANALYTICAL METHOD; ASSESSMENT METHOD; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABILITY;

ANALYTIC METHOD; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; PHYSICAL MODEL; REVIEW; RISK REDUCTION;

EID: 77953285127     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.014     Document Type: Review

References (113)

1. Arnstein S. A ladder of citizen participation. J.A.I. Planners 1967, 35:216-224.
2. Atkins J.P., Burdon D. An initial economic evaluation of water quality improvements in the Randers Fjord, Denmark. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2005, 53:195-204.
3. Ayres R.U., van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Gowdy J.M. Viewpoint: Weak Versus Strong Sustainability 1998, Discussion Paper #98-103/3, Tinbergen Institute, Rotterdam, Available at:. http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/98103.pdf.
4. Bateman I.J., Turner R.K. Valuation of environment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation method. Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice 1993, 120-191. Belhaven Press, London. K. Turner (Ed.).
5. Becu N., Neef A., Schreinemachers P., Sangkapitux C. Participatory computer simulation to support collective decision-making: potential and limits of stakeholder involvement. Land Use Pol. 2008, 25:498-509.
6. Bell S., Morse S. Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholder participation: a case study relating to a 'Blue Plan' project in Malta. Sustain. Dev. 2004, 12:1-14.
7. Bostrom A., Barke R., Turaga R.M.R., O'Connor R.E. Environmental concerns and the new environmental paradigm in Bulgaria. J. Environ. Educ. 2006, 37:25-40.
8. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 58:304-317.
9. Chung S.S., Poon C.S. A comparison of waste-reduction practices and new environmental paradigm of urban and rural Chinese citizens. J. Environ. Manage. 2001, 62:3-19.
10. Cleveland C.J., Kaufmann R.K., Stern D.I. Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32:301-317.
11. Sustainable urban development. The Environmental Assessment Methods 2007, vol. 2. Routledge, Oxon. M. Deakin, G. Mitchell, P. Nijkamp, R. Vreeker (Eds.).
12. DEFRA Securing the Future: UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy 2005, Sustainable Development Unit, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, Available at:. http://www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk/publications/pdf/strategy/SecFut_complete.pdf.
13. De Marchi B., Funtowicz S.O., Lo Cascio S., Munda G. Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 34:267-282.
14. Dietz T., Ostrom E., Stern P. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 2003, 302:1907-1912.
15. Dunlap R.E., van Liere K.D. The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9:10-19.
16. Dunlap R.E., van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. Measuring Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP Scale - statistical data included. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56:425-442.
17. Dutta M., Banerjee B., Husain Z. Untapped demand for heritage: a contingent valuation study of Prinsep Ghat, Calcutta. Tour Manage. 2007, 28:83-95.
18. EC Indicative Guidance on ESF Evaluation Quality Standards (Draft) 2008, Evaluation Unit, DG EMPL, Brussels, Available at:. http://www.ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet%3FdocId%3D2301&langId%3Den.
19. EC Consolidated versions of the treaty on European Union and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Offic. J. Eur. Union 2008, C115:1-388. Available at:. http://eurlex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do%3Furi%3DOJ:C:2008:115:SOM:en:HTML.
20. EC Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks. Offic J Eur Union 2007, L288:27-34. Available at:. http://eur703lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l_288/l_28820071106en00270034.pdf.
21. EC Directive 2003/35/EC providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union 2003, L156:17-25. Available at:. http://eur708lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi%3DCELEX:32003L0035:EN:HTML.
22. EC Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Off. J. Eur. Union 2001, L197:30-37. Available at:. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi%3DOJ:L:2001:197:0030:0037:EN:PDF.
23. EC Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Union 2000, L327:1-73. Available at:. http://eur714lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi%3DCELEX:32000L0060:EN:HTML.
24. EC Council Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EE 715 C on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Off. J. Eur Union 1997, L073:5-15. Available at:. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi%3DCELEX:31997L0011:EN:HTML.
25. Ecological Economics The dynamics and value of ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological perspectives. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41:367-567. (Special issue).
26. Farber C.S., Costanza R., Wilson M.A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41:375-392.
27. Folke C., Hahn T., Olsson P., Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social- ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30:441-473.
28. Fosgerau M., Bjorner T.B. Joint models for noise annoyance and willingness to pay for road noise reduction. Transport Res. B Meth. 2006, 40:164-178.
29. Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 1993, 25:739-755.
30. Gamboa G., Munda G. The problem of windfarm location: a social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Pol. 2007, 35:1564-1583.
31. Gasparatos A., El-Haram M., Horner M. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. 2008, 28:286-311.
32. Gasparatos A., El-Haram M., Horner M. The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism. Account. Forum 2009, 33:245-256.
33. Gibson R., Hassan S., Holtz S., Tansey J., Whitelaw G. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes 2005, Earthscan, London.
34. Glasson J., Therivel R., Chadwi A. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment 2005, Routldege, Oxon. third ed.
35. Gooch G.D. Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic states. Environ. Behav. 1995, 30:520-534.
36. Habbani K., Groot W., Jelovac I. Household health-seeking behaviour in Khartoum, Sudan: the willingness to pay for public health services if these services are of good quality. Health Pol. 2006, 75:140-158.
37. Heinzerling L., Ackerman F. Pricing the Priceless: Cost-benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection 2002, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Georgetown University, Washington D.C., Available at:. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/research_archive/cost_benefit_analysis/PricingThePriceless.pdf.
38. Hitlin S., Piliavin J.A. Values: reviving a dormant concept. Ann. Rev. Soc. 2004, 30:359-393.
39. HMSO The Report of the Commission on the Third London Airport 1971, HMSO, London.
40. Holden E., Hoyer K.G. The ecological footprint of fuels. Transp. Res. D Trans. E 2005, 10:395-403.
41. Howarth R.B., Wilson M.A. A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: aggregation by mutual consent. Land Econ. 2006, 82:1-16.
42. van den Hove S. Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Pol. 2006, 23:10-17.
43. Jacobs M. Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment 1997, 211-231. Routledge, London. J. Foster (Ed.).
44. Janssen M.A., Ostrom E. Empirically based agent-based models. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11(37). Available at:. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37/.
45. Jim C.Y., Chen W.Y. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75:81-96.
46. Johannesson M., Johansson P.O., O'Connor R. The value of private safety versus the value of public safety. J. Risk Uncertain 1996, 13:263-275.
47. Kallis G., Videira N., Antunes P., Guimaraes Pereira A., Spash C.L., CoccossisCorral Quintana S., del Moral L., Hatzilacou D., Lobo L., Mexa A., Paneque P., Pedregal Mateos B., Santos R. Participatory methods for water resources planning. Environ. Plann. C 2006, 24:215-234.
48. Karp D.G. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28:111-133.
49. Layard R. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science 2005, Penguin Books, London.
50. Leung C., Jenni R. Comparison of Chinese-Australian and Anglo-Australian environmental attitudes and behaviour. Soc. Behav. Person. 2002, 30:251-262.
51. Lee N. Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. 2006, 26:57-78.
52. Lefroy E., Rydberg T. Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in Southwestern Australia. Ecol. Model. 2003, 161:195-211.
53. Lockwood M. Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 25:73-87.
54. Mackay K. How to Build M&E Systems to Support Better Government 2007, World Bank, Washington DC, Available at:. http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/ecd/docs/How_to_build_ME_gov.pdf.
55. Madlener R., Stagl S. Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 53:147-167.
56. Mataria A., Giacaman R., Khatib R., Moatti J.P. Impoverishment and patients' " willingness" and " ability" to pay for improving the quality of health care in Palestine: an assessment using the contingent valuation method. Health Pol. 2006, 75:312-328.
57. Messner F., Zwirner O., Karkuschke M. Participation in multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a water allocation problem in the Spree River basin. Land Use Pol. 2006, 23:63-75.
58. Milfont T.L., Duckitt J., Cameron L.D. A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implication for pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38:745-767.
59. Munda G. Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Pol. 2006, 23:86-94.
60. Munda G. Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 19:157-168.
61. Munda G., Nardo M. Constructing Consistent Composite Indicators: The Issue of Weights (EUR 21834 EN) 2005, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Ispra, Available at:. http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Well-being/papers/Munda%2520Nardo%2520euroreport1.pdf.
62. Ness B., Urbel-Piirsalu E., Anderberg S., Olsson L. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60:498-508.
63. Neumayer E. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms 2004, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. second ed.
64. Niemeyer S. Deliberation in the Wilderness: The North Queensland Citizen Jury 2005, Land & Water Australia, Canberra, Available at:. http://downloads.lwa2.com/downloads/publications_pdf/PR040804.pdf.
65. Niemeyer S., Spash C. Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environ. Plann. C. 2001, 19:567-585.
66. OECD Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide 2008, OECD publication Code: 302008251E1, Available at:. http://compositeindicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Handbook.htm.
67. OECD DAC Evaluation Quality Standards (for Test Phase Application) 2007, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, Available at:. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/38686856.pdf.
68. OECD Composite Indicators of Country Performance: a Critical Assessment 2003, STI Working Paper 2003/16, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, Available at:. http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/wsisbridges/linked_docs/Background_papers/otherdocs/OECD_WP_2003_16.pdf.
69. OECD Review of the DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance 1998, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, Available at:. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/50/2065863.pdf.
70. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63:807-814.
71. Patterson M. Commensuration and theories of values in ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 25:105-125.
72. Pearce D. Blueprint 3. Measuring Sustainable Development 1993, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.
73. Pope J., Annandale D., Morrison-Saunders A. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. 2004, 24:595-616.
74. Rauwald K.S., Moore C.F. Environmental attitudes as predictors of policy support across three countries. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34:709-739.
75. Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 24:213-230.
76. Salgado P.P., Quintana C.S., Guimarães Pereira A., del Moral Ituarte L., Pedregal Mateos B. Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga). Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:990-1005.
77. Schultz W.P., Zelezny L.C. Values and pro-environmental behavior: a five country survey. J. Cross Cul. Psychol. 1998, 29:540-558.
78. Schultz W.P., Zelezny L.C. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19:255-265.
79. Schwartz S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25:1-65.
80. Sciubba E. Extended exergy accounting applied to energy recovery from waste: the concept of total recycling. Energy 2003, 28:1315-1334.
81. Stagl S. Emerging Methods for Sustainability Valuation 813 and Appraisal 2007, Sustainable Development Research Network, London, Available at:. http://www.sd-research.org.uk/post.php%3Fp%3D129.
82. Stern P.C. Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56:407-424.
83. Stern P.C., Dietz T. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50:65-84.
84. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Kalof L. Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25:322-348.
85. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Kalof L., Guagnano G.A. Values, beliefs and proenvironmental action: attitude formation towards emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25:1611-1636.
86. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Abel T., Guagnano G.A., Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for environmental movements: the case of environmental concern. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6:81-97.
87. Spash C. Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland recreation. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 34:195-215.
88. Spash C. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Econ. 2006, 82:602-622.
89. Spash C. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63:690-699.
90. Spash C. Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Practice. Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion 2007, CSIRO Working Paper Series 2007-04, CSIRO, Canberra, Available at:. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pewk.pdf.
91. Spash Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Econ. 2008, 84:469-488.
92. Spash C., Hanley N. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 12:191-208.
93. Spash C., Urama K., Burton R., Kenyon W., Shannon P., Hill G. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in water ecosystems: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:955-964.
94. Stair A., Rephann T.J., Heberling M. Demand for public education: evidence from a rural school district. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2005, 25:521-531.
95. Thompson E., Berger M., Blomquist G., Allen S. Valuing the arts: a contingent valuation approach. J. Cult. Econ. 2002, 26:87-113.
96. Ton S., Odum H.T., Delfino J.J. Ecological-economic evaluation of wetland management alternatives. Ecol. Eng. 1998, 11:291-302.
97. Tyrvainen L. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 62:75-92.
98. UN Agenda 21 1992, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, New York, Available at:. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm.
99. UNECE Resource Manual to Support Application of the Protocol on SEA 2007, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, Available at:. http://www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_manual/welcome.html.
100. Vatn An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:2207-2215.
101. Vatn A. Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55:203-217.
102. Vatn A. Institutions and the Environment 2005, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
103. Wallis A.M. Sustainability indicators: is there consensus among stakeholders?. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 5:287-296.
104. Wallis A.M., Richards A., O'Toole K., Mitchell B. Measuring regional sustainability: lessons to be learned. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 6:193-207.
105. WCED Our Common Future 1987, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Available at:. http://www.worldinbalance.net/agreements/1987-brundtland.html.
106. Widmer T. The development and status of evaluation standards in western Europe. New Persp. Eval. 2005, 104:31-42.
107. Wilson M.A., Howarth R.B. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41:431-443.
108. Winkler R. Valuation of ecosystem goods and services. Part 1: an integrated dynamic approach. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59:82-93.
109. World Bank The World Bank Participation Sourcebook 1996, World Bank, Washington DC, Available at:. http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm.
110. World Bank Sleeping On Our Own Mats: An Introductory Guide to Community-based Monitoring and Evaluation 2002, World Bank, Washington DC, Available at:. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPCENG/2145741116505633693/20509339/communitybased.pdf.
111. World Bank Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods and Approaches 2004, World Bank, Washington DC, Available at:. http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/ecd/tools/.
112. Yang H., Li Y., Shen J., Hu S. Evaluating waste treatment, recycle and reuse in industrial system: an application of the emergy approach. Ecol. Model. 2003, 160:13-21.
113. Zmeureanu R., Wu X.Y. Energy and exergy performance of residential heating systems with separate mechanical ventilation. Energy 2007, 32:187-195.