Search

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: Evidence on the role of information and knowledge for policy making shows that policy actors seldom use information as a direct input to their decisions. Similar patterns of (non)use have been identified in the case of indicators in the environmental and sustainable development policy domains. The objective of the paper is to elucidate the patterns of environmental indicator use and to argue for the introduction of a ‘politics of policy indicators’. With a limited set of characteristics (e.g. legitimacy, credibility and salience) of indicators, which help to apprehend the usability of indicators, we argue that the usability profile of indicators can be analysed as a matter of construction and deliberation by indicator creators and policy actors. The performance of indicators as policy tools – as rendered with their usability profile – is co-dependent of the institutional embeddedness of the indicators. Our conclusion makes the case that if environmental improvements towards more sustainability are partly relying on the quality and uptake of information into policy processes in order to steer decisions, then the ‘usability profile’ of indicators itself should be subject to collective and conscious steering. This call to ‘steer the steering’ is supported by the wider calls to initiate patterns of ‘reflexive governance’ within the sustainability policy domain. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]