Systems Thinking and Gauging Sustainable Development
There has been a great deal of interest in how system sustainability can be measured. Assuming that sustainabililty reflects a consistency or improvement in some notion of system ‘quality’, then an ability to determine how the system ‘quality’ varies with time should give a handle on the sustainability of the system. System ‘quality’ can be gauged by the use of indicators such as soil fertility, forest cover and crop yields along with other indicators which reflect Socio-Economic ‘quality’ (income, employment rates, provision of services etc.). However, although this approach has been commonly applied to a variety of systems (e.g. the AMOEBA), the problem lies in what indicators to use and how to measure them. Clearly the choice of indicators is critical, and one can find any answer one chooses by selecting a particular group of indicators. Different interest groups will have very different views as to the indicators that need to be included and how these indicators are to be gauged. In short, in studies assessing indicators of sustainability objectivity is a major problem and subjectivity on the part of the researcher should be assumed. In this paper we will review the use of sustainability indicators (SI) in a SI Measurement Tool (SIMT) and provide a theoretical critique of their applicability. The amoeba approach will be discussed and developed, and it will be demonstrated that the problem is essentially one of locating a ‘credibility boundary’ which any given group of major stakeholders with multiple viewpoints would accept as a key set of Sl’s for the system. However, the attainability of the ‘credibility boundary’ may be very low and it may be impossible, and hence the question becomes what level of SI integration is acceptable and yet be achievable. The problems associated with attempting to determine an acceptable and achievable level of SI integration are discussed.
KeywordsEurope Income Hull Milton
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Chambers, R. 1992, Rural Appraisal: rapid, relaxed and participatory. Institute of Development Studies. Brighton.Google Scholar
- Cook, J. 1995, Empowering People for Sustainable Development. In “Managing Sustainable Development in South Africa”. (P. Fitzgerald, A. McLennan and B. Munslow. eds.). Oxford University Press, Cape Town.Google Scholar
- Gibbon, D., Lake A and Stocking. M. 1995, Sustainable Development: a challenge for agriculture. In “People and Environment”. (S. Morse and M. Stocking, eds.). UCL Press: 31-68. London.Google Scholar
- O’Riordan, T. 1988, The Politics of Sustainability. In “Sustainable Environmental Management: principles and practice”. (K. Turner, ed.) Pinter. Belhaven.Google Scholar
- Senge, P., Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C., et al. 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organisation. Nicholas Brealey. London.Google Scholar
- Slocum, R. and Thomas-Slayter B. 1995, Participation, Empowerment and Sustainable Development. In “Power, Process and Participation: tools for change”. (R. Slocum, L. Wichhart, D. Rocheleau and B. Thomas-Slayter, eds.). Intermediate Technology Publications. London.Google Scholar
- Thompson, J. 1995, User Involvement in mental Health Services: the limits of consumerism, the risks of marginalisation and the need for a critical approach. Research Memorandum No. 8. Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull. HullGoogle Scholar
- Thompson, M. (no date), A TeamUp Case Study: agriculture project design., Team Technologies Inc. Report. Chantilly.Google Scholar
- Thompson, M. and Chudoba R. 1994, Case Study Municipal and regional Planning in Northern Bohemia, Czech Republic: a participatory approach. World Bank Report. Washington DC.Google Scholar
- Verbruggen, H. and Kuik O. 1991, Indicators of Sustainable Development: an overview. In “In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development”. (O. Kuik and H. Verbruggen, eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers: 1-6. Dordrecht.Google Scholar