Abstract
Human development continues to degrade ecosystems on a global scale. Such challenge calls for more informed decision-making in all fields of human activities so that each of our undertakings can be planned and designed for a more sustainable and equitable future. Sustainability assessment (SA), in its simplest form, is a tool that bridges evidence and decision-making. This study proposes to investigate the wholeness of SA from the perspective of behavioral decision-making theories, which can be classified into quantitative and qualitative approaches. Assessment and predictions in quantitative terms have their own merits; yet, in a world of emerging technologies and changing paradigms, we can no longer rely purely on mathematical representations of the decision to be made. SA currently in place often fails to give fair consideration to qualitative factors of more inherent nature, namely, the ethical issues relevant for sustainability. This study will elaborate the logics and the need of incorporating the ethical dimension into decision-making toward sustainability.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bebbington J, et al. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecol Econ. 2007;61:224–36.
Devuyst D. How green is the city? Sustainability assessment and the management of urban environments. New York: Columbia University Press; 2001.
Sadler B. A framework for environmental sustainability assessment and assurance. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999. p. 12–32.
Colombo AG, Erickson PA. Tools: environmental impact assessment (EIA). 2017. http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/Tools%20EIA.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2017.
Natural Resources Wales. Environmental report: draft Dee River Basin Management Plan. 2014. https://naturalresources.wales/media/3222/environmental-report.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2017.
Hacking T, Guthrie P. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2008;28(2–3):73–89.
Pope J, et al. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 2004;23(4):293–302.
Dewan H. Sustainability index: an economics perspective. 2006. http://economics.ca/2006/papers/0409.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2017.
Warhurst A. Sustainability indicators and sustainability performance management. 2002. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G01026.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2017.
Knowledge Economy Indicators. Workpackage 7: state-of-the-art report on simulation and indicators. 2005. https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/projekte/SurveyStatisticsNet/KEI-WP7-D7.1.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2017.
Santiago-Brown I, et al. Sustainability assessment in wine-grape growing in the new world: economic, environmental, and social indicators for agricultural businesses. Sustainability. 2015;7(7):8178–204.
Meadows D. Indicators and information systems for sustainable development—a report to the Balaton Group. 1998. https://www.iisd.org/pdf/s_ind_2.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.
Cooper S, Pearce G. Climate change performance measurement, control and accountability in English local authority areas. Account Audit Account J. 2011;24:1097–118.
Itanyi O, et al. Evaluation of decision making criteria with special reference to quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Afr J Bus Manag. 2012;6(44):11110–7.
Sadler B. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment final report—environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, EN106-37/1996E, Ottawa. 1996.
Morrison-Saunders A, Fischer TB. What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment. JEAPM. 2006;8(1):19–39.
Verheem RAA. Recommendations for sustainability assessment in the Netherlands. In: Environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands—views from the commission for EIA in 2002. The Netherlands: Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment; 2002. p9–p14.
Böhringer C, Jochem P. Measuring the immeasurable—a survey of sustainability indices. Ecol Econ. 2007;63:1–8.
Economist. Triple bottom line—it consists of three Ps: profit, people and planet. 2009. http://www.economist.com/node/14301663. Accessed 12 June 2017.
United Nations General Assembly. 2005 World summit outcome—resolution A/RES/60/1. 2005. http://data.unaids.org/topics/universalaccess/worldsummitoutcome_resolution_24oct2005_en.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2017.
Ness B, et al. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ. 2007;60(3):498–508.
World Resources Institute. Ecosystems and human-wellbeing: a framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003.
Actionbioscience. What is an ecosystem? 2000. http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/esa.html. Accessed 25 June 2016.
Daily GC, et al. Ecology: the value of nature and the nature of value. Science. 2000;289:395–6.
Armsworth PR, et al. Ecosystem-service science and the way forward for conservation. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:1383–4.
Bryan BA. Development and application of a model for robust, cost-effective investment in natural capital and ecosystem services. Biol Conserv. 2010;143:1737–50.
Newton AC, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of ecological networks assessed through spatial analysis of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol. 2012;49:571–80.
Nelson E, et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7:4–11.
World Bank. Natural capital accounting: helping make better decisions for sustainable development. 2012. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSDNET/Resources/RIO-BRIEF-Nat-Capital.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2013.
Dempsey J, Robertson MM. Ecosystem services: tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism. Prog Hum Geogr. 2012;36:758–79.
Ranganathan J, et al. Sustaining biodiversity in ancient tropical countryside. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105:17852–4.
Plieninger T, et al. The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14:28–33.
Raymond CM, et al. Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. Bioscience. 2013;63(7):536–46.
Ludwig D. Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystems. Ecosystems. 2000;3:31–5.
Leopold A. A sand county almanac: and sketches here and there. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1949.
Darwin CR. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray; 1859.
Atleo ER. Principles of Tsawalk: an indigenous approach to global crisis. British Columbia: University of British Columbia Press; 2011.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Carolina heelsplitters. 2001. https://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/Heelsplitter/carolina%20heelsplitter%20fact%20sheet.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2016.
Quebec Biodiversity. Part 1: impacts on biodiversity. 2016. http://redpath-museum.mcgill.ca/Qbp/3.Conservation/impacts.htm. Accessed 25 June 2016.
Hull R. All about EVE: a report on environmental virtue ethics today. Ethics Environ. 2005;10(1):89–110.
Shaw B. A virtue ethics approach to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic. Environ Ethics. 1997;19(1):53–67.
Hunt CT, et al. Moral education—a handbook, vol. 1: A-L. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger; 2007.
Cafaro P. Thoreau, Leopold, and Carson: toward an environmental virtue ethics. Environ Ethics. 2001;22:3–17.
Carson R. Silent spring. New York: Fawcett World Library; 1962.
Danish Architecture Center. Melbourne principles: respect for people and nature. 2002. http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/historic-milestones/2002–melbourne-principles-respect-for-people-and-nature/. Accessed 6 May 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tang, HT. (2019). Rethinking Sustainability Assessment: Incorporating the Ethical Dimension into Decision-Making. In: Hu, A., Matsumoto, M., Kuo, T., Smith, S. (eds) Technologies and Eco-innovation towards Sustainability II. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1196-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1196-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1195-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1196-3
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)