Search

Currently, foundation piles for inhabited areas are often constructed using a continuous flight auger, which is a cost- and time-efficient technology that does not require stabilization of the borehole wall; the steel bar reinforcement is embedded after the concrete has been poured. However, this reinforcement operation can lead to severe construction and structural issues. Thus, several improvements to this technology have been proposed since its first application in the 20th century, such as the use of more fluid concretes. Nevertheless, steel and polymers are emerging as a potential replacement for steel bars in concrete reinforcement for several types of structures and building components, with identified and quantified benefits from a sustainability perspective. Accordingly, this paper proposes and validates a multicriteria decision-making approach designed with multidisciplinary experts within the construction field to assess the sustainability index of concrete pile foundations. The results of a case study enable us to conclude that polymeric fiber-reinforced concrete piles are the most sustainable due to their cost–structural efficiency ratio, high durability, and minimal risks during construction. Steel fiber-reinforced concrete alternatives were also found to be more sustainable than traditional reinforced concrete. Nonetheless, these results are unrepresentative of the current practice as direct costs were found to be the main driver in the decision-making processes, while other costs and both environmental and social indicators are disregarded. This justifies the urgency to provide sustainability-driven decision-making approaches capable of objectively quantifying the satisfaction degree of economic, environmental, and social indicators involved in the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of sustainability measurement is to move environmental decision making toward more rigorous, quantitative and empirical foundations. One of the most comprehensive attempts to lay out the foundations for sustainability measurement has been offered by the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). This paper aims to advance the science of sustainability measurement by assessing the validity and reliability of this composite index in order to provide new insights for future indicator development. The architecture of the ESI is validated against the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model, after which an exploratory factor analysis is conducted to reveal the latent structure of the index. Further, the performance of the ESI is tested in cross-national regression models. The results indicate a lack of consistency with the well established PSR model and a potential bias towards economically developed countries grounded in the architecture and weighting mechanism of the index. A re-weighted index (Equivalised ESI) is constructed, resulting in a new ranking of countries' sustainability. The Equivalised ESI improves the measurement qualities of the index, and in so doing actually reinforces the rich-country bias of the ESI. Put differently, the Equivalised ESI brings the deficiencies of the original ESI to the fore. This paper illustrates that there are serious conceptual problems and validity concerns with defining the ESI as a sustainability measure. Taken together, the findings reinforce the need to reconsider future foundations of sustainability measurement in order to ensure that it is clear both what is being measured and how well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food waste is a significant contemporary issue in the UK, with substantial environmental, social and economic costs to the nation. Whilst efforts to reduce food waste are laudable, a significant proportion of food and drink manufacturer waste is unavoidable. On the one hand, there is a drive from industry to reclaim as much value from this waste as possible, for example, by conversion to valuable products in what is known as "valorisation". At the same time, growing social and legislative pressures mean that any attempts to valorise food waste must be performed in a sustainable manner. However, for every company and its specific food wastes, there will be multiple valorisation possibilities and few tools exist that allow food and drink manufacturers to identify which is most profitable and sustainable for them. Such a decision would need to not only consider environmental, social and economic performance, but also how ready the technology is and how well it aligns with that company's strategy. In response, this paper develops and presents a hybrid framework that guides a company in modelling the volumes/seasonality of its wastes, identifying potential valorisation options and selecting appropriate indicators for environmental, social and economic performance as well as technological maturity and alignment with company goals. The framework guides users in analyzing economic and environmental performance using Cost-Benefit Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment respectively. The results can then be ranked alongside those for social performance, technological maturity and alignment with company goals using a weighted sum model variant of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to facilitate easy visual comparison. This framework is demonstrated in the form of a case study with a major UK fruit consolidator to identify the optimal strategy for managing their citrus waste. Possibilities identified included sale of imperfect but still edible waste via wholesale at a significantly reduced profit and the investment in facilities to extract higher value pectin from the same waste stream using a microwave assisted pectin extraction process. Results suggest that continued sale of waste to wholesale markets is currently the most beneficial in terms of economic viability and environmental performance, but that in the medium to long term, the projected growth in the market for pectin suggests this could become the most viable strategy. • When food waste cannot be avoided, valorisation can increase company resilience. • Valorisation strategies must try to avoid negative supply chain ramifications. • The SWaVI pragmatic framework allows companies to identify their optimal valorisation route. • The SWaVI pragmatic framework facilitates initial selection, not implementation of valorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Many businesses are pursuing sustainability for a variety of reasons, ranging from increased financial competitiveness to meeting upcoming regulatory initiatives. Choosing the appropriate indicators to measure environmental progress, however, is a critical challenge. Using data from the automotive industry, this paper illustrates how indicators can be incorrectly selected, misused, or misinterpreted, resulting in misleading conclusions. Such issues are especially critical when using indicators in emerging tools, such as life cycle analysis, to assess the impacts posed by alternative designs. Furthermore, incorporating the impacts represented by the indicators into the decision-making process can be problematic, since these indicators will be used to assess the success or failure of design changes. The automotive sector is an ideal example because it has implemented a variety of measures to meet its environmental challenges: numerous indicators and decision approaches have been developed for or adapted to the industry and it has had to address important issues, such as the use of normalized metrics and appropriate weighting schemes. Key words: indicators, automotive industry, sustainability, environment, life cycle assessment, decision making.Plusieurs compagnies visent la durabilité pour diverses raisons, allant de l'amélioration de la compétitivité financière à la rencontre de futures initiatives réglementaires. Le choix des indicateurs appropriés pour mesurer le progrès environnemental est cependant un défi important. En utilisant les données de l'industrie automobile, cet article illustre comment les indicateurs peuvent être mal choisis, mal utilisés ou mal interprétés, donnant lieu à des conclusions trompeuses. De telles questions sont particulièrement importantes lors de l'utilisation d'indicateurs dans les nouveaux outils, tels que l'analyse du cycle de vie, afin d'évaluer les impacts posés par d'autres conceptions. De plus, l'incorporation, dans le procédé de prise de décision, des impacts représentés par les indicateurs peut représenter un problème puisque ces indicateurs seront utilisés pour évaluer le succès ou l'échec des changements apportés à la conception. Le secteur automobile est un exemple idéal puisqu'il a implanté diverses mesures pour rencontrer ses défis environnementaux : de nombreux indicateurs et des approches décisionnelles ont été développés ou adaptés à l'industrie automobile et celle-ci a eu à régler des questions importantes, telles que l'utilisation de paramètres normalisés et des barèmes de pondérations appropriés. Mots clés : indicateurs, industrie automobile, durabilité, environnement, évaluation du cycle de vie, prise de décision.[Traduit par la Rédaction] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The remediation industry has grown exponentially in recent decades. International organizations of practitioners and remediation experts have developed several frameworks for integrating sustainability into remediation projects; however, there has been limited attention to how sustainability is approached and operationalized in sustainable remediation frameworks and practices – or whether sustainability plays any meaningful role at all in sustainable remediation. This paper examines how sustainability is represented in remediation frameworks and the guidance provided for practical application. Seven broad sustainability principles and review criteria are proposed and applied to a sample of six international remediation frameworks. Not all review criteria were equally satisfied and none of the frameworks fully met all criteria; however, the best performing frameworks were those identified as sustainability remediation frameworks. Intra-generational equity was addressed by all frameworks. Integrating social, economic and biophysical components beyond triple-bottom-line indicators was explicitly addressed only by the sustainable remediation frameworks. No frameworks provided principle- or rule-based guidance for dealing with trade-offs in sustainability decisions. [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]

• Sustainability assessment of deep-sea mining transport plans. • Both qualitative and quantitative indicators exist in the evaluation process. • A proposed integrated multi-criteria decision-making method and its application to evaluate sustainable DSM transport plans. • Environmental impact indicators and technical feasibility indicators coupling. Deep-sea mining (DSM) is an emerging interdisciplinary and cross-domain research topic. So far, there is no an effective, viable approach to evaluate the comprehensive performance, i.e., sustainability, of DSM transport plans integrating the technological feasibility, economic profitability, and environmental and social impacts. Considering the following characteristics and complexities of this problem: (i) both qualitative and quantitative criteria exist in the evaluation process, and (ii) some of the evaluation criteria might be dependent upon each other, the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method is selected to address this typical multiple attribute decision-making problem. The objective of this paper is to propose a suitable MCDM method for evaluating sustainable DSM transport plans based on a systematic literature review. This research compares the existing MCDM methods, describes the characteristics of DSM transport plans, and discusses a proposed integrated MCDM approach and its application to evaluate sustainable DSM transport plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Since the Rio Declaration in 1992, international institutions, governments and NGOs have promoted sustainability indicators as a tool for providing policy mechanisms that dictate development decision-making. The expert approach, also known as reductionist, has been the most used in the processes of sustainability evaluation; this approach has been criticized for its lack of holistic vision to evaluate a system. A participatory approach has been promoted in order to counteract this type of limitation. This paper presents a case study of a participatory assessment of sustainability in a local community inside a natural protected area; its objective is to attempt to answer if, from local knowledge, is it possible to generate a sustainability local assessment system. The process included the active participation of the inhabitants of Agua Blanca community, located within the Nevado de Toluca National Park (NTNP) in Mexico''s central highlands. A framework was used to identify and select sustainability indicators, which was divided into four phases: the description of the system, the identification of the sustainability objectives, the selection of indicators, and the measurement of the progress toward the sustainability objectives. As a result, 64 indicators were identified, which were classified into three pillars of sustainability and its interactions. The participatory approach aided in the evaluation of diverse elements within the system, without limiting itself to one element or dimension of sustainability in particular. Most of the indicators corresponded to the environmental dimension of sustainability, which reflects the level of interaction the community has with its environment. The indicators proposed by villagers, as a whole, were not considered technically appropriate; therefore the need for a selection indicator process was reaffirmed. The process described here is an opportunity to strengthen the self-organization of the communities, reinforce local management, and contribute to the generation of mechanisms of cooperation and processes of co-management of the natural protected areas. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

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]

Abstract: Multi-objective optimization has recently emerged as a useful technique in sustainability analysis, as it can assist in the study of optimal trade-off solutions that balance several criteria. The main limitation of multi-objective optimization is that its computational burden grows in size with the number of objectives. This computational barrier is critical in environmental applications in which decision-makers seek to minimize simultaneously several environmental indicators of concern. With the aim to overcome this limitation, this paper introduces a systematic method for reducing the number of objectives in multi-objective optimization with emphasis on environmental problems. The approach presented relies on a novel mixed-integer linear programming formulation that minimizes the error of omitting objectives. We test the capabilities of this technique through two environmental problems of different nature in which we attempt to minimize a set of life cycle assessment impacts. Numerical examples demonstrate that certain environmental metrics tend to behave in a non-conflicting manner, which makes it possible to reduce the dimension of the problem without losing information. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In a recent paper, “A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting.” [Giannetti BF, Barrella FA, Almeida CMVB. A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting. J Clean Prod, in press] Ternary diagrams were proposed as a graphical tool to assist emergy analysis. The graphical representation of the emergy accounting data makes it possible to compare processes and systems with and without ecosystem services, to evaluate improvements and to follow the system performance over time. The graphic tool is versatile and adaptable to represent products, processes, systems, countries, and different periods of time. The use and the versatility of ternary diagrams for assisting in performing emergy analyses are illustrated by means of five examples taken from the literature, which are presented and discussed. It is shown that emergetic ternary diagram''s properties assist the assessment of the system efficiency, its dependence upon renewable and non-renewable inputs and the environmental support for dilution and abatement of process emissions. With the aid of ternary diagrams, details such as the interaction between systems and between systems and the environment are recognized and evaluated. Such a tool for graphical analysis allows a transparent presentation of the results and can serve as an interface between emergy scientists and decision makers, provided the meaning of each line in the diagram is carefully explained and understood. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]