Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1

  • LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: FROM LCA TO LCSA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definition of a common scientific paradigm in which integration and interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to sustainability assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for sustainability assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive sustainability assessment.

Methods

The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on sustainability assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those life cycle based, supports the discussion on the main challenges for a comprehensive and robust approach to sustainability assessment. Starting from the results of the meta-review, we identified specific features of sustainable development-oriented methods: firstly, highlighting key issues towards robust methods for SS and, secondly, capitalising on the findings of each review’s paper. For each issue, a recommendation towards a robust sustainability assessment method is given. Existing limitations of sectorial academic inquiries and proposal for better integration and mainstreaming of SS are the key points under discussion.

Discussion

In the reviewed papers, LCT and its basic principles are acknowledged as relevant for sustainability assessment. Nevertheless, LCT is not considered as a reference approach in which other methods could also find a place. This aspect has to be further explored, addressing the lack of multi-disciplinary exchange and putting the mainstreaming of LCT as a priority on the agenda of both life cycle assessment and sustainability assessment experts. Crucial issues for further developing sustainability assessment methodologies and methods have been identified and can be summarised as follows: holistic and system wide approaches, shift from multi- towards trans-disciplinarity; multi-scale (temporal and geographical) perspectives; and better involvement and participation of stakeholders.

Conclusions

Those are also the main challenges posed to LCSA in terms of progress of ontology, epistemology and methodology in line with the progress of SS. The life cycle-based methodologies should be broadened from comparing alternatives and avoiding negative impacts, to also proactively enhancing positive impacts, and towards the achievement of sustainability goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term refers to the routine work of scientists experimenting within a paradigm, slowly accumulating detail in accordance with established broad theory, not actually challenging or attempting to test the underlying assumptions of that theory (Kuhn 1970).

  2. The LCSA framework consists of a combination of the three methods mentioned above.

  3. Natural capital is the extension of the economic notion of capital (manufactured means of production) to goods and services relating to the natural environment ( e.g. the stock of natural ecosystems that yields a flow of valuable ecosystem goods or services into the future). In the sustainability assessment of a system, the environmental pillar could be evaluated through the system capability to maintain the natural capital over time both quantitatively and qualitatively.

  4. The scientific paradigm is the set of concepts, values, techniques, shared by a scientific community in order to define problems and solutions (coherent with the scientific discipline).

  5. The social paradigm is the set of concepts, values, perceptions and behaviors, shared by a community, leading to a vision of reality. This vision informs the way the society is organized.

  6. Other synonyms adopted: Triple Bottom Line assessment, 3E Impact Assessment (Environmental, Economic, Equity), Extended Impact Assessment, Sustainability appraisal.

  7. Across the reviewed papers on SA, the terminology is often used not consistently, adopting “methods” (Thabrew et al. 2009; Patterson 2010; Jeswani et al. 2010), “tools” (Ness et al. 2007; Finnveden and Moberg 2005; Kissinger and Rees 2010), “approaches” (Gasparatos et al. 2008; Hacking and Guthrie 2008), “indices” (Mayer 2008) and “methodologies” (Singh et al. 2009) to indicate the same object.

References

  • Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environ Chang 16(3):268–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen MS (2007) An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular economy. Sustain Sci 2:133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balsiger PW (2004) Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale. Futures 36(4):407–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable? Earthscan, London, p 256

  • Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J (2011) The evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:19540–19545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research on sustainability. Ecol Econ 60:726–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond AJ, Dockerty T, Lovett A, Riche AB, Haughton AJ, Bohan DA, Sage RB, Shield IF, Finch JW, Turner MM, Karp A (2011) Learning how to deal with values, frames and governance in sustainability appraisal. Reg Stud 45(8):1157–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger P, Bréchet T (2005) Models for policy-making in sustainable development: the state of the art and perspectives for research. Ecol Econ 55:337–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunet Icart I, Morell Blanch A (2001) Epistemologia y cibernetica. Papers 65:31–45. http://ddd.uab.es/pub/papers/02102862n65p31.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley W (1972) A system approach to epistemology. In: Klir GJ (ed) Trends in general systems theory. Wiley, New York, pp 188–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns A, Weave A (2006) Advancing sustainability science in South Africa. South African J Sci 102(2006):379–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra F (1996) The web of life. Doubleday-Anchor Book, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Gurston DH et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Castellani V, Sala S (2010) Integration of LCA and C-Lean for sustainability assessment of short supply chain related to forest products. SETAC LCA Symposium: From simplified LCA to advanced LCA, Poznan (Poland). http://boa.unimib.it/handle/10281/7755

  • CEC (2004) Stimulating technologies for sustainable development: an environmental technologies action plan for the European Union. Communication from the Commission. COM(2004) 38 final

  • CEC (2005) Thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources. Communication from the Commission COM(2005)670

  • CEC (2008) Sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan. Communication from the Commission COM(2008) 397/3

  • CEC (2009) Mainstreaming sustainable development into EU policies: 2009. Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development. Communication from the Commission COM(2009) 400 final

  • CEC (2010) Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission COM (2010) 2020 final

  • CEC (2011) A resource-efficient Europe—flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy. Communication from the Commission COM(2011) 21 final

  • CEC (2012) Environmental product footprint. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/product_footprint.htm. Accessed 21 Mar 2012

  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2001) A sustainable Europe for a better world: a European strategy for sustainable development. COM(2001) 264 final

  • Ciuffo B, Miola A, Punzo V, Sala S, (2012) Dealing with uncertainty in sustainability assessment . Report on the application of different sensitivity analysis techniques to field specific simulation models. EUR 25166 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

  • Clark WC (2007) Sustainability Science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:173

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8059–8061

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R (1991) Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, Columbia

  • Cutter S (2001) American hazardscapes. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, p 211

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lange HJ, Sala S, Vighi M, Faber JH (2010) Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment—a review and perspectives. Sci Total Environ 408(18):3871–3879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC-JRC (2010a) ILCD handbook. Analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p 115. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu. Accessed 21 Mar 2012

  • EC-JRC (2010b) ILCD handbook. General guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. EUR 24708 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu. Accessed 21 Mar 2012

  • Ekins P (1992) A four-capital model of wealth creation. In: Ekins P, Max-Neef M (eds) Real-Life Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation. Routledge, London, pp 147–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Moberg A (2005) Environmental systems analysis tools—an overview. J Cleaner Prod 13:1165–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallopin G (2001) Science and technology, sustainability and sustainable development. ECLAC, LC/R.2081. p 30

  • Gasparatos A (2010) Embedded values systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. J Environ Manage 91:1613–1622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparatos A, El-Haram M, Horner M (2008) A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess 28:286–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges M, Nowotny C, Schwartzman H, Scott S, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, 1st edn. Sage, London, p 179

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (eds) (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 692

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking T, Guthrie P (2008) A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(2–3):73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasna AM (2010) Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach. Int J Sustain Eng 3(4):258–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée JB (2010) Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Towards a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stabil 95(3):422–428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60:119–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Berlin, pp 89–102

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn T (2008) Transdisciplinarity in the practice of research. In: Bergmann M, Schramm E (eds) Transdisziplinare Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, pp 21–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeswani HK, Azapagic A, Schepelmann P, Ritthoff M (2010) Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches. J Cleaner Prod 18:120–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kajikawa Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain Sci 3:215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kajikawa Y, Ohno J, Takeda Y, Matsushima K, Komiyama H (2007) Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an analysis of the citation network. Sustain Sci 2:221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasemir B, Jager J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (2003) Public participation in sustainability science—a handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW (2011) What kind of science is sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(49):19449–19450

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jager J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Environment and development: sustainability science. Science 292:641–642

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Rotmans J (2004) Managing the transition to sustainable mobility. In: Elzen B, Geels F, Green K (eds) System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar, Northammpton, pp 137–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger M, Rees WE (2010) An interregional ecological approach for modeling sustainability in a globalizing world - Reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions. Ecol Modelling 221(21):2615–2623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger M, Rees WE, Timmer V (2011) Interregional sustainability: governance and policy in an ecologically interdependent world. Environ Sci Policy 14(8):965–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T (1970) The structure of scientific revolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 212

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumazawa T, Saito O, Kozaki K, Matsui T, Mizoguchi R (2009) Toward knowledge structuring of sustainability science based on ontology engineering. Sustain Sci 4(1):99–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Christopher J, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sust Sci 7(1):25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee N (2002) Integrated approaches to Impact Assessment: substance or make-believe? Environmental Assessment Yearbook. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment/EIA Centre. Lincoln/ Manchester: University of Manchester

  • Lenk H (1988) Entre la epistemologıa y la ciencia social. Ed Alfa, Madrid, p 204

  • Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Samson R (2012) Biogenic carbon and temporary storage addressed with dynamic life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00503.x

  • Levin SA, Clark WC (eds) (2010) Report from Toward a Science of Sustainability Conference. Center for Biocomplexity, Princeton University, Princeton, and Sustainability Science Program, Harvard University, Cambridge. http://www.nsf.gov/mps/dms/documents/SustainabilityWorkshopReport.pdf

  • Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 2, 1 (1). http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol2iss1/communityessay.martens.html

  • Martinez-Allier J, Munda G, O’Neill J (1998) Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol Economics 26(3):277–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer AL (2008) Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environ Int 34:277–291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nakano K, Hirao M (2011) Collaborative activity with business partners for improvement of product environmental performance using LCA. J Cleaner Prod 19(11):1189–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1999) Our common journey: a transition towards sustainability. National Academy Press, Washington

  • Ness E, Piirsalu U, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Economics 60:498–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolescu B (2000) Transdisciplinarity and complexity: levels of reality as source of indeterminacy. CIRET Bulletin 15. http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b15/b15c4.htm. Accessed Mar 2012

  • Noble BF (2000) Strategic environmental assessment: what is it? and what makes it strategic? J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2(2):203–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurse K (2006) Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. In: Small states: economic review and basic statistics, vol 11. Commonwealth secretariat, London, pp 28–40

  • O’Connor M (2006) The "Four Spheres" framework for sustainability Ecol. Complexity 3(4):285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001) The DAC guidelines strategies for sustainable development. OECD, Paris

  • OECD (2003) OECD environmental indicators – development, measurement and use. Reference paper. OECD, Paris

  • OECD (2007) DAC evaluation quality standards (for test phase application). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/38686856.pdf

  • Osorio LAR, Lobato MO, Del Castillo XÁ (2009) An epistemology for sustainability science: a proposal for the study of the health/disease phenomenon. Int J Sust Dev World 16(1):48–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson M (2010) Is there more in common than we think? Convergence of ecological footprinting, emergy analysis, life cycle assessment and other methods of sustainability assessment. In: Proceedings of ISEE 2010 conference “Advancing sustainability in time of crisis”. http://www.isee2010.org/full_papers.php?level=0&cat=speaker&subcat=p. Accessed Feb 2012

  • Pearce DW, Atkinson GD, Dubourg WR (1994) The economics of sustainable development. Annu Rev Energ Env 19:457–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings C, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A, Mooney H (2011) The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 331:1139–1140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pintér L, Hardi P, Bartelmus P (2005) Sustainable development indicators: proposals for a way forward. Discussion Paper Prepared Under a Consulting Agreement on Behalf of the UN Division for Sustainable Development. IlSD, Winnipeg, Canada, pp 1–11

  • Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Pol 11:46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porritt J (2007) Capitalism as if the world matters. Earthscan, London, p 360

  • Potting J, Hauschild MZ (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008a) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment—part I goals and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):209–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008b) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment—part II impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(5):374–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rios LA, Ortiz M, Alvarez X (2005) Debates on sustainable development: towards a holistic view of reality. Environ Dev Sustain 7:501–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J, Tansey J (2006) Co-Production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: The Georgia Basin Futures Project. Sci Public Pol 33:151–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber H, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than devolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3(1):15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Castellani V (2010) Significato e prospettive della sostenibilità. Tangram Edizioni Scientifiche, Trento, Italy, p 153

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress. Part II. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue). doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0509-5

  • Savan B, Sider D (2003) Contrasting approaches to community-based research and a case study of community sustainability in Toronto, Canada. Local Environ 8:303–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 631

  • Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter A, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain High Educ 7:226–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz J, Brand FS, Kopfmueller J, Ott K (2008) Building a ‘Theory of Sustainable Development’: two salient conceptions within the German discourse. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 7:465–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager TP, Melton J, Eighmy TT (2004) Working towards sustainable science and engineering: introduction to the special issue on highway infrastructure. Resour Conserv Recy 42(3):205–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2009) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Indicators 9(2):89–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conser 38:275–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2012) Sustaining sustainability: creating a systems science in a fragmented academy and polarized world. In: Weinstein M, Turner RE (eds) Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and the urban environment. Springer, Tokyo, p 452

  • Stokes DE (1997) Pasteur's quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, p 180

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabone MD, Cregg JJ, Beckman EJ, Landis AE (2010) Sustainability metrics: Life cycle assessment and green design in polymers. Environ Sci Technol 44:8264–8269

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38:379–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thabrew L, Wiek A, Ries R (2009) Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. J Cleaner Prod 17(1):67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todorov V, Marinova D (2011) Modelling sustainability. Math Comput Simulat 81(7):1397–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner BL II, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8074–8079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • UN (1992) Agenda 21. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml. Accessed Mar 2012

  • UN (2000) Millennium development goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. Accessed Mar 2012

  • UN (2012) United Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability. Resilient People, Resilient Planet: a future worth choosing. United Nations, New York

  • UNEP (2004) Why take a life cycle approach? UNEP, Paris, p 28

  • UNEP (2012) UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/. Accessed Mar 2012

  • van der Leeuw S, Wiek A, Harlow J, Buizer J (2012) How much time do we have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 7(s1):115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos RO (2007) Perspective defining sustainability: a conceptual orientation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 82:334–339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plann 30:325–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener Sleeswijk A (2011) Regional LCA in a global perspective. A basis for spatially differentiated environmental life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(2):106–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • White G F (1974) Natural hazards: local, national, global. Oxford, New York, p 288

  • Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW (2006) Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38:1046–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation—experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. Gaia 16:52–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, Brand F, Farioli F (2012a) From complex systems thinking to transformational change: A comparative study on the epistemological and methodological challenges in sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(s1):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Farioli F, Fukushi K, Yarime M (2012b) Sustainability science: bridging the gap between science and society. Sustain Sci 7(s1):1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper benefitted from the discussion during the workshop on ‘Scienza della Sostenibilità Italia 2011’, which took place in Valmontone (Rome) on 13–14 October, 2011, and the cross-fertilisation derived from the participation to a broader learning community within the International Network on Sustainability Science (www.infss.org). The contribution of all participants is gratefully acknowledged. We are also grateful to the three anonymous reviewers that contributed to the development of the current version of the paper with their precious and detailed comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sustainability Assessment Unit, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, T.P. 270, 21027, Ispra, VA, Italy

    Serenella Sala

  2. Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development (CIRPS), Sapienza Università di Roma, Piazza San Pietro in Vincoli 10, 00184, Rome, Italy

    Francesca Farioli

  3. Department Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza Università di Roma, Via Eudossiana 18, 00184, Rome, Italy

    Francesca Farioli

  4. LCA and Ecodesign Laboratory, Italian National Agency for new Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), via Martiri di Monte Sole 4, 40129, Bologna, Italy

    Alessandra Zamagni

Authors
  1. Serenella Sala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Farioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandra Zamagni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serenella Sala.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sala, S., Farioli, F. & Zamagni, A. Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 1653–1672 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0508-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0508-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation