Search

Abstract Bangladesh has developed a power generation expansion plan up to 2041. However, the plan did not fully consider the importance of sustainable development. This paper addresses this limitation and assesses both historical and future sustainability trends of Bangladesh's power generation system, as well as the sustainability of the Power System Master Plan (PSMP-2016) through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) with respect to social, environmental, and economic dimensions of the sustainability framework. Out of a total of 19 sustainability indicators, there were 10 social, 4 environmental, and 5 economic indicators taken into account. It was found that Bangladesh's future power generation sector's sustainability is going to deteriorate from its present situation. Results of the analysis show that the sustainability index of 0.3769 in 2016 is going to degrade to 0.3249 in 2041. Most importantly, economic indicators dominate the sustainability measures, compared with social and environmental indicators. Thus, improvements in the economic indicators will result in a substantial increase in the sustainability index of the country's power generation sector. This indicates that energy policies need to be designed in such a way that a balance is achieved between all three dimensions to ensure a sustainable future electricity generation system. A similar analysis can also be applied to other countries where future power generation expansion planning is underway. Highlights • Sustainability assessment of power generation sector of Bangladesh. • Demonstrates sustainability indices for different power generation technologies. • Assesses sustainability trends of the future electricity generation system. • Supports sustainable power generation related policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When assessing the sustainability of a particular technology, a number of environmental, economic, and social indicators need to be taken into account. The aim of this paper is to analyze the underlying rationales for the prioritization of all these indicators i.e. the rationale for an integrated sustainability assessment. For this purpose, different alternative paradigms of sustainability are briefly discussed, with the focus on the concepts of weak and strong sustainability , which define a spectrum of views on the possibility to replace environmental capital with human-made capital. We conclude that there is a sound case for the strong sustainability paradigm and we argue that this conclusion has deep implications for the decision-making processes. Firstly, because it implies that a set of thresholds for a number of environmental indicators would need to be agreed upon. Secondly, because it implies that environmental impacts would no longer be ‘tradable’ for socio-economic benefits, when they are expected to go beyond the agreed threshold. We suggest that non-compensatory decision-making tools will need to be considered at some point in the process in order to account for the non-substitutability of critical environmental services. Using the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’ proposed by Rockström et al. we discuss how such information could be put into practice in decision-making. We suggest that the concept of planetary boundaries can provide both a preliminary basis for the prioritization of environmental impacts and a preliminary supporting argument for the definition of environmental thresholds that enable the use of non-compensatory decision-making approaches. Further work in this area is urgently required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sustainability impact assessment (SIA) can enlighten the decision-making process for major public investment projects. This paper addresses the use of SIA on projects, and suggests that since policies constrain plans which constrain projects, it is necessary to assign SIA indicators to the strategic, tactical and operational levels. We have examined (1) what indicators are actually chosen as being the most significant and (2) how assessors should choose their indicators. We let 538 of our students – assembled in 121 groups – identify indicators for an SIA of a major road project, and analysed the propensities of an exemplar SIA. We observed a lack of predictability in the students' choice of indicators, and that the exemplar SIA bore similar characteristics. Predictability in a tool designed to assure enlightened decision-making is essential, since lack of it can entail challenges concerning – just to mention some – transparency issues, governance, stakeholder participation and effectiveness. Discussions related to choice of indicators for SIA concern their commensurability and whether it is possible to price them or not. We point out that first step should be to make sure all relevant indicators are considered. Afterwards we propose a framework with nine different categories that will help assessors to identify an exhaustive indicator list. Our main argument is that indicators should be assigned to the strategic, tactical or operational level, as well as to one of the economic, social or environmental dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Cities and regions are increasingly accounting for the diverse economic, social, and environmental contributions to sustainability and quality of life. However, most commonly used socioeconomic and environmental indicators are either difficult to use in policy or fail to comprehensively reflect social well-being and environmental sustainability. This paper articulates the limitations of urban and regional indicator sets and macroeconomic measures like the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), presents an alternative indicator, the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and develops, improves and applies it for Northeast Ohio. We calculate the GPI for the State of Ohio, cities of Akron and Cleveland, and 17 Northeast Ohio counties for the years 1990–2005. We evaluate temporal and spatial GPI trends, including inter- (Ohio versus other comparable U.S. local GPI studies) and intra-regional (urban–suburban–rural) comparisons. From 1990 to 2005, we found that per capita GPI grew in 11 counties and the State of Ohio (growth ranging from 0.8% to 19.7%) but declined for six counties and the cities of Akron and Cleveland (declines ranging from 0.6% to 22%). Per capita GPI was greatest in suburban counties and lowest in urban areas, and was greater in Maryland and Vermont than Ohio. These trends are largely driven by gains in personal consumption versus other environmental, social, and economic costs. Important costs include income inequality, climate change, nonrenewable resource depletion, and consumer durables. The GPI is increasingly being estimated at local scales to complement existing urban indicators by providing a common monetary basis for measuring diverse costs and benefits. Finally, we report the effect of renewable portfolio standards and conversion of vacant lots for urban agriculture on the GPI through a series of scenario analyses at the county and city scales. These scenarios demonstrate how GPI can be used as a decision tool for local and regional development. In addition, local GPI measures offer opportunities to better engage the public and decision makers in discussions about economic, social, and environmental goals and policies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]