A PRINCIPLE-BASED APPROACH FOR THE EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

September 20, 2006 14:23 WSPC/154-JEAPM 00253

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and ManagementVol. 8, No. 3 (September 2006) pp. 299–319© Imperial College Press

A PRINCIPLE-BASED APPROACH FOR THE EVALUATIONOF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

FRANS HERMANS∗ and LUUK KNIPPENBERG

Telos, Brabant Centre for Sustainable DevelopmentTilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

∗[email protected]

Received 15 February 2006Revised 15 July 2006

Accepted 15 July 2006

In order for sustainability assessments to realise their full potential, there is a need for crite-ria against which sustainable development might be evaluated. In this article, we employ aprinciple-based theoretical approach to develop a framework of sustainable development cri-teria. From an analysis of the different views of the concept of sustainable development,we arrive at two main principles that might guide assessments for sustainable development:resilience and justice. These two principles are explored using the John Rawls’s justicetheory, and the ideas of C.S. Holling in relation to resilience. We also consider the value tothe framework of the concept of efficiency. Finally, the paper concludes with a proposal forthe application of this framework within sustainability assessment processes based uponParticipatory Integrated Assessment.

Keywords: Principles; theory of justice; resilience; efficiency; sustainable development;sustainability assessment.

Introduction

Is it possible to construct a framework for the evaluation of sustainable devel-opment? Such a framework should be based upon a conceptualisation of whatsustainable development is, and include criteria against which the sustainabil-ity of developments might be judged. It is also important to consider how thecompeting goals of sustainable development can be evaluated against each other

∗Corresponding author.

299


300 F. Hermans & L. Knippenberg

and to formulate some generic rules that limit the choice between certain trade-offs.This paper applies a principle-based approach to the development of such aframework.

There are (at least) two opposing views on the concept of sustainable develop-ment, views that are not unique to the sustainability debate, but reflect a deeperdivision in social sciences regarding the role and place of science and knowledge inmodern society: it is the debate between a deterministic and a more constructivistapproach towards science. In the deterministic view, science tells us somethingabout the true nature of the real world. According to this view, questions of sustain-ability deal with our biophysical reality and the limits it poses to human activities(Meadows et al., 1972; Meadows, 1992; Hueting and Reijnders, 2004). The otherview is a more constructivist approach: scientific understanding is to a large degreesocially constructed. Especially when it comes to complex sustainability problemsas global warming it is difficult, if not impossible, to completely separate scientificknowledge from value judgements and political choices, (Latour, 1993). Accordingto this perspective, sustainability problems are socially constructed, and as a resultof that, they are intrinsically subjective. Both views, taken to their extreme, havetheir own drawbacks, but Robinson concludes that:

without engaging with this general debate here, I want tosuggest that the tension between these two views must beaddressed in any attempt to develop a viable sustainabilitystrategy (Robinson, 2004, p. 379).

As a starting point for our discussion, we will take a position somewhere in betweenthese two views. While the inherent subjectivity of the sustainability concept mustbe acknowledged, a degree of realism is also required, since not all developmentscan be called sustainable, and not all choices between different options are there-fore permitted if sustainability is to be achieved. We will commence our inves-tigation with a short literature review of other attempts to derive sustainabilitycriteria through a principle-based approach. Then we will analyse the conceptof sustainable development to determine which core principles might form thebasis of our framework. These principles will be explored further from a theoret-ical perspective to develop criteria for sustainable development. We will attemptto balance these principles and criteria against each other, to construct a heuris-tic framework for the evaluation of the sustainability of (regional) developments.Finally, we will review the contribution that this framework might make to sus-tainability assessment processes based upon the concept of Participatory IntegratedAssessment.


A Principle-Based Approach for the Evaluation of Sustainable Development 301

Principle-Based Approaches for Evaluation ofSustainable Development

Principle-based approaches are found commonly in literature on sustainabilityassessment. We distinguish two types of approaches. The first type interprets “sus-tainability” as just one of several other criteria to be used in an evaluation process andtends to emphasise the ecological dimension of sustainable development. For exam-ple, Neil Thin distinguishes four core elements of sustainable development objec-tives: “progress”, “justice”, “durability” and “stability/resilience” (Thin, 2002). Thefirst two core elements are related to anthropological development and the next twoare about what he calls sustainability. This approach is somewhat similar to thatof Langhelle, who distinguishes between two elements of sustainability: “socialjustice” and “physical sustainability”. These two core elements are used to evaluateglobal climate change and the loss of biodiversity on a global scale (Langhelle,2000). Costanza makes a case for (ecological) economists to broaden their valua-tion techniques for ecosystem services to more than just the goal of efficiency, butalso to include “fairness” and “sustainability” (Costanza and Folke, 1997). Hacking(2006) describes the results of a Final Environmental Impact Report on a GamsbergZinc project in terms of criteria for “equity”, “efficiency” and “sustainability”.

Other approaches in the literature are closely related to the “three pillar”approach, or triple bottom line (TBL). The three pillar model distinguishes threedomains (also called capitals) within sustainable development: the social domain,the economic domain and the ecological domain (Serageldin, 1996). This model hasbecome common since its adoption by the World Bank, although a more dualisticapproach, emphasising the relationship between humanity and nature, is sometimespreferred (Gibson, 2001; Prescott-Allen, 2001).

The Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO) identifies three target dimen-sions for sustainable development based on this three pillar approach (SFSO,2002):

(i) Social Solidarity (includes living conditions, equal opportunities, social cohe-sion, international solidarity and maintenance of human capital).

(ii) Economic Efficiency (includes economic system, efficiency/competitiveness,flexibility/stability, production consumption, employment and internationaltrade).

(iii) Ecological Responsibility (includes consumption of resources, materials andwastes, risks, rate of change, natural and cultural landscape).

The International Centre for Integrative Studies in Maastricht (ICIS) has a some-what similar approach. They see “efficiency” taking a leading role in economic



development, “justice” in social sustainable development and “resilience” for sus-tainable ecological development (Rotmans et al., 2001).

The three pillar approach is often criticised for being too simplistic and reduc-tionistic in nature and in order to give better assessments for sustainability, there isa need for more integration of the three pillars.

The term integration in this sense implies that integratedassessment should be more than the sum of separate envi-ronmental, social and economic assessments (Pope et al.,2004, p. 601).

For a proper sustainability assessment, the main challenge lies more in the interac-tions between the pillars, than within the pillars. Or to use the words of Lehtonen:

It can be argued that the essence of sustainable devel-opment lays precisely at the interfaces and trade-offsbetween the often-conflicting objectives of economicand social development, and environmental protection(Lehtonen, 2004, p. 200; Gibson, 2006).

This means that starting out from the three pillar framework to derive principlesapplicable within each one of the pillars is not sufficient. Instead, we need to operateon a higher “meta-level” to be able to derive principles that can be used to evaluatetrade-offs. To do this we will use a top-down approach starting with an analysis ofthe concept of sustainable development.

A Typology of Sustainable Development

The Brundtland definition of sustainable development as:

development that meets the needs of the current genera-tion without compromising the ability of future genera-tions to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987),

has been called intrinsically ambiguous, subjective and normative (Rotmans et al.,2001). It is therefore unsurprising that the number of definitions and views on thesubject has mushroomed (Mebratu, 1998; Robinson, 2004). Dobson attempted todetermine whether it was possible to reach agreement on a definitive meaning forsustainable development, and found over 300 definitions (Dobson, 1996). Dobsonsubsequently followed another path and developed a typology based not on defini-tions or descriptions of sustainable development, but on a classification of all thequestions for which theories of sustainable development should provide answers.



Dobson distinguishes four explicit and two implicit questions. The explicit ques-tions are: (a) What to sustain? (b) Why? (c) What are the objects of concern? and (d)What is the substitutability between man-made and natural capital? Implicit ques-tions are: (1) What is to be distributed? and (2) Amongst whom (Dobson, 1996)?These questions, as well as their answers, are depicted in Table 1. It underlines hownormative the concept of sustainable development actually is.

The first question in Table 1, “What to sustain?”, has been debated extensivelyby economists in their concern with the preservation and maintenance of natural andhuman-made capital (see for instance the debate between Beckerman, 1994, 1995and Daly, 1995). The answer given to this question in Column A of Table 1 reflects

Table 1. Typology of the concept of sustainable development.

A B C D

What tosustain?

Aggregated totalcapital (man-made andnatural)

Critical naturalcapital:‘ecologicalprocesses’

Irreversiblenaturalcapital

‘Units ofsignificance’

Why? Human welfare(material)

Human welfare(material andaesthetic)

Humanwelfare(material andaesthetic) andobligations tonature

Obligations tonature

Substitutabilitybetweenman-made andnatural capital

Considerable Not betweenman-madecapital andcritical naturalcapital

Not betweenman-madecapital andirreversiblenaturalcapital

Eschews thesubstitutabilitydebate

Objects ofprimary concern

1,3,2,4 1,2,3,4 (1,5) (2,6) (5,1) (6,2)

Objects ofsecondaryconcern

— 5,6 3,4 3,4

1 = present generation human 2 = future generation human needs3 = present generation human wants 4 = future generation human wants5 = present generation non-human needs 6 = future generation non-human needs

Implicit questions of justice: (a) What is to be distributed? (b) Among whom?

Source: Dobson (1996, p. 407).



the assumption of (near) perfect substitutability of natural capital for man-made cap-ital, which neo-classical economic theory usually makes. According to this view,which has been named “weak or very weak sustainability” (Pearce, 1993), devel-opment can be called sustainable as long as total capital grows, or stays at thesame level. The assumption of infinite substitutability between different types ofcapital is challenged in the other three columns of Table 1. In column B, naturalcapital that is critical for human survival and human well-being is to be exceptedfrom substitution for other types of capital. The biochemical cycles, the ozonelayer, ocean phytoplankton for regulating climate and watershed protection fortropical rainforest are examples of this type of ecological services. This is stillan anthropological view of nature and its services: only those services need pro-tection which are essential for human well-being (both material and aesthetic). Incolumn C, protection of the natural environment is broadened to all irreversibleprocesses, not only those valued by humans. Motivation for nature protection isrooted in the concern for all of the environment and the intrinsic value of nature,and therefore more and more exceptions are being made on the substitutability ofnatural capital. Finally in column D, the whole notion of substitutability of the dif-ferent types of capital is rejected completely. Herman Daly has called this type ofsustainability “absurdly strong sustainability” (Daly, 1996, cited by Dobson, 1996),but defenders of this type of sustainability argue that

what is handed down and maintained does need to retainin the process something of its original form and some-thing of its identity: there need to be continuities of form,which may be called “units of significance” for us, aswell as continuities of matter (Holland, 1996, as quotedby Dobson, 1996, p. 416).

At this point we have a complete eco- or biocentric view of sustainability.The lower part of the table deals with the two implicit questions Dobson has iden-

tified: what is to be distributed and amongst whom? Dobson makes a distinctionbetween the present and the future generations’ wants and needs. In this respects“wants” are things we would like to have, but “needs” are things we cannot do with-out. The table also makes clear that the importance given to intergenerational andintragenerational equity varies between the different views of sustainable develop-ment. In the weak sustainability view of Column A, the present generation’s wantsand needs clearly outweigh the wants and needs of future generations. In ColumnB, this balance is starting to shift towards the prioritising the needs of future genera-tions, while the “absurdly strong” view in Column D is characterised by the demandson present generations to make sacrifices for the good of future generations.



Dobson’s matrix demonstrates that we must abandon the idea of a universallyagreed meaning of sustainable development, applicable in all contexts, irrespectiveof issues concerning time and place.

Sustainable development is a normative and political con-cept and to a high degree its value has to be soughtprecisely in the fact that it is contestable (Jacobs, 1999,p. 25–26).

In this respect it is similar to concepts like democracy and health since it refers tosomething which is broadly accepted as important, and for which no other termsare available. Even if we disagree about the exact definition, “the core ideas arefixed”, and we mostly “can agree on the evaluation of situations in which they arenot present” (Jacobs, 1999, p. 25–26).

From Dobson’s typology, two of those core ideas of sustainable development canbe derived: firstly man’s relationship with the natural environment, and secondly the(relative) importance of future generation’s needs, compared to the present genera-tion’s needs. Or, formulated differently, the question of inter- and intra-generationaljustice. These two core issues will be explored further in the following sectionsusing the principles of justice and resilience.

Justice

In modern societies, the idea of justice is based on the notion of equity: the beliefthat everybody has the right at a good life and the belief that this is possible(see for instance Gellner, 1988). These notions are remarkably well summed upin the famous catchword inherited from the French Revolution: Liberté, Egalité,Fraternité. As Langhelle points out, the idea of sustainable development is basedon these notions, taking them one step further by broadening the range to includeeverybody on earth and future generations. That being said, we need to define moreprecisely what justice and fairness mean. To do this, we will refer to the ideas ofJohn Rawls about justice.

The most widely discussed theory of distributive justice in the past three decadeshas been proposed by John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice, first published in1971. The Theory of Justice is concerned primarily with the justice of institutions,or the “basic structure” of society; justice as an individual virtue is derivative fromjustice as a social virtue. Rawls argues that the correct principles of justice arethose that would be agreed to by free and rational persons, placed behind a “veil ofignorance” where they do not know their own place in society: their class, race orsex; their abilities, intelligence or strengths or even their conception of good. Rawlsargues that in these conditions of fundamental uncertainty, the most logical choice



for each individual is to agree on certain fundamental principles with respect to thebasic structure of each society.

Rawls formulates these fundamental principles as follows:1

(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equalbasic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

(a) Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equalityof opportunity, and

(b) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the justsavings principle (Rawls, 1999, p. 266).

Principle 1 is known as the “liberty principle” and principle 2 as the “difference prin-ciple”. Summarising, Rawls argues that the most important agreement is that all pri-mary goods should be distributed equally, unless an unequal distribution favours —in the absolute sense — the least favoured members of society. Those primary goodsare: liberty, opportunity, material welfare, income and the basis of self-respect. Dis-tribution of inequalities is undertaken on the basis of two principles, with principle1 having priority over principle 2, and 2.a over 2.b (Vandenbroucke, 2002, p. 40).These principles work very well for operationalising the concept of intragenera-tional equity.

Rawls also has defined a “just savings principle” that can help operationaliseintergenerational equity. Rawls assumes that generations are mutually disinterestedbut that behind “the veil of ignorance” individuals would not know to which gen-eration they belong. From this perspective he derives the savings principle:

Each generation must not only preserve the gains of cul-ture and civilization, and maintain in fact those just insti-tutions that have been established, but it must also putaside in each period of time a suitable amount of realcapital accumulation (Rawls, 1999, p. 252).

Langhelle identifies two ways in which the Theory of Justice can be related tosustainable development: either the just savings must include the passing on ofclean air, water and land, or critical natural capital must be added to the list of

1Rawls worked on his theory basically his whole lifetime, changing the formulation of his mainprinciples to accommodate his own changing views and incorporating the remarks of some of hiscritics (Raes, 2002). The formulation therefore slightly differs from source to source.



primary goods. Following this argument, Rawlsian justice can accommodate theconcept of sustainable development; one could even say that sustainability is apre-condition for justice, as Langhelle does (Langhelle, 2000). However, Beitzraises doubts as to the ability of the just savings principle to prevent one generationfrom using up natural resources at the expense of future generations (Beitz, 1979;Langhelle, 2000).

Based on our previous analysis of the concept of sustainable development wewill argue that justice is part of the concept of sustainable development and not theother way around. The Rawlsian framework of justice is properly suited to evaluatematters of intragenerational equity, but although Rawls’ principle of just savings alsopays attention to intergenerational justice, we will argue that for practical purposesthis is better served with another principle, that of resilience.

Resilience

The application of Rawls’s Theory of Justice to the intergenerational aspects ofsustainable development leads to a very anthropological interpretation of sustainabledevelopment, since humans are the central focus of the just savings principle, evenif it is to include elements of critical natural capital. In order to include the moreeco- or biocentric views identified by Dobson, we will use a different principle toregulate man’s interaction with his natural environment, that of resilience.

The principle of resilience was originally developed by C.S. Holling to describethe non-linear dynamics of ecosystems (Holling, 1973; Holling, 1996). The ideahas been extended and is now also applied in interdisciplinary research on socio-ecological systems (Carpenter et al., 2001; Muradian, 2001; Folke et al., 2002;Deutsch et al., 2003; Walker and Meycrs, 2004). It therefore goes beyond the ecolog-ical pillar of the three pillar approach and can be applied on various dynamic systems.Systems are not defined as closed identities or models, but as open accommodatingor creative systems (Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Norgaard, 1994; Capra, 1996;Clayton and Radcliffe, 1996; Schütz, 2000).

The assumption behind the idea of resilience is that dynamic systems, likeecosystems, societies and economies do not necessarily move towards one sta-ble equilibrium but can have several more or less stable equilibriums. Change indynamic systems is not continuous and gradual; rather it is episodic, with slow accu-mulation and conservation of structure, punctuated by sudden releases of energy andreorganisation of that structure. This has been called the “adaptive cycle” (Carpenteret al., 2001). Resilience therefore, cannot be defined by focussing entirely on con-servation of existing structures. It should also leave some room for renewal andadaptation. Resilience applied to integrated systems of people and nature has totake into account these different phases. Carpenter gives the following definition of



resilience (Carpenter et al., 2001). Resilience is:

(a) The amount of disturbance a system can absorb and still maintain within thesame state or domain of attraction,

(b) The degree to which the system is capable of self-organisation (versus lack oforganisation, or organisation forced by external factors),

(c) The degree to which the system can build and increase the capacity for learningand adaptation.

In a vulnerable system, even a small disturbance may shift the (eco)system into anundesirable state, a shift which may cause severe social and economic consequences.In a resilient system, external stresses or shocks will not cause harm to the socialand ecological structures. Disturbance can have the potential to create opportunitiesfor development by triggering reorganisation and renewal.

This leads to two main goals or criteria when applying the principle of resilience(Walker et al., 2002):

I. Prevent the system from moving to undesired system configurations in the faceof external stresses and disturbances.

II. Nurture and preserve the elements that enable the system to renew and reorgan-ise itself following a massive change. This adaptive capacity resides in aspectsof memory, creativity, innovation, flexibility and diversity of ecological compo-nents and human capabilities.

These rules are closely linked to the two different characteristics in the adaptivecycle. Within the slow, stable phases of the adaptive cycle, resilience managementcan focus on the first goal, while in the turbulent phases resilience managementshould focus on maintaining adaptive capacity (Walker et al., 2002).

Resilience refers to system peculiarities and therefore a high resilience is notnecessarily a good thing. For example, eutrofied lakes or social systems like dic-tatorships can have a very high resilience and yet be undesirable. This meansthat resilience alone is not adequate for sustainability, and resilience must besupplemented with normative information about the desirability of certain sys-tem configurations. The concept of sustainability is an overarching concept thatincludes assumptions or preferences about which system configurations are desir-able together with the resilience of these systems (Walker, 2002). As we have seenearlier in Table 1, preferences on the desirability of certain system characterisationscan differ significantly for different world views. This begs the question, where isthis normative information to come from? We will address this question in the lastpart of this article.



Efficiency

First however, we will look at the concept of efficiency as a potential core principleof sustainable development. Efficiency does not originate as core element fromDobson’s general typology of the concept of sustainable development, but thereview of principle-based approaches in the introduction showed that the notionof efficiency is used by almost all the authors for evaluation purposes (Costanzaand Folke, 1997; Rotmans et al., 2001; SFSO, 2002; Hacking, 2006). Jollands evenstates that:

Efficiency forms the bedrock of policy, planning and busi-ness approaches to sustainable development (Jollands,2006, p. 359).

This warrants an investigation into the nature of efficiency to see what contributionsit can make to our framework.

The consideration of efficiency in discussions about sustainable developmentarises from the notion that trade-offs between competing goals are inevitable sincethe availability of money, time, energy and people is more often than not con-strained. As Stein points out, the modern idea of efficiency embodies two concepts:“fitness or success” and “the purpose intended”. (Stein, 2001). The specific meaningdepends on the context in which it is used, and these contexts can vary widely: fromthermodynamic efficiency applied by engineers, to Pareto efficiency (a term used byeconomists to describe a situation where optimal allocation has been reached andthere is no better way to divide the resources). Jollands has reviewed the differentdefinitions of efficiency in their original disciplinary contexts and he distinguishesbetween three types of efficiency (Jollands, 2006):

(1) Thermodynamic concepts of efficiency;(2) Ecological concepts of efficiency; and(3) Economic definitions of efficiency.

Each different concept of efficiency relates differently to the concept of sustainabledevelopment. Thermodynamic efficiency is based on the ratio of useful energy orlabour output divided by (total) energy input and as such it can be used to optimiseindustrial processes with respect to natural resource use and emissions of waste. Theecological use of the term efficiency can be applied to ecosystems. Lindeman definesecological efficiency as the quotient of primary producers (or consumers) dividedby primary consumers (or producers) in ecosystems. In this definition, efficiencytells us something about the functioning of an ecosystem. It focuses firmly on theenergy flows through an ecosystem, but omits any qualitative information of theecosystem it describes.



Within economic efficiency concepts, a division can be made between two maintypes of efficiency: efficiency relating to production theory (including technicalefficiency and production efficiency, which resemble thermodynamic definitionsof the concept) and the efficiency concept used welfare economics, allocative andintertemporal efficiency.

According to welfare economics:

An (economic) process is efficient when on the one handwelfare is generated with the least means possible andat the same time the biggest welfare for all is generated(Hennipman, 1977, p. 21).

In this definition, welfare goes beyond a narrow monetary definition and refersmore to quality of life. Thus, it can include elements of justice, solidarity andenvironmental concerns. Such a broad definition of welfare makes it possible thatwelfare theory can even encompass the concept of sustainable development as DenButter and Dietz argue (Den Butter and Dietz, 2004). Although economic theorycannot define the content of welfare, it can provide sufficient means to evaluatetrade-offs against each other, provided that the nature of the competing goals andtheir mutual relations are known.

However, we think there are several difficulties with this view. First of all, theassumption that there is a neat functional relationship between trade-offs is prob-lematic. Often these trade-offs are shrouded in uncertainties or can only be describedin a tentative fashion. Secondly, and more importantly, substituting the concept wel-fare, or quality of life, for sustainable development only shifts the discussion fromwhat sustainable development entails towards a discussion on what welfare in itsbroadest sense entails, without solving anything.

Efficiency, much like resilience, has no moral or ethical content. A certain allo-cation is not desirable only because it is optimal, or efficient. Therefore it is alwaysimportant to incorporate the relevant context for application of the efficiency con-cept. Jollands argues that when it comes to sustainability there is not one conceptof efficiency, but that it is important to use multiple variations of the concept.

Because of the context-dependent interlinked natureof efficiency, the efficiency sphere is not tied to oneefficiency concept (Jollands, 2006, p. 371).

Each situation requires a different concept of efficiency to evaluate it, though the useof multiple definitions can significantly increase the level of information and qualityof decision-making. This means that depending on the situation a thermodynamic,ecological or economic definition of efficiency is more appropriate for the evaluationof sustainable development.



For the moment we will reject efficiency as a central element of sustainabledevelopment. It did not follow logically from Table 1 as a core idea about sustainabledevelopment in the first place, but more importantly the different efficiency conceptsidentified by Jollands are in fact already incorporated in the concepts of justiceand resilience. Thermodynamic and ecological efficiency are closely related to theidea of resilience, while the definition of efficiency used in welfare economics isan integral part of justice. It is therefore not necessary to add efficiency as a thirdseparate element. This is not to say that efficiency cannot play a role in sustainabilityassessments, because in practical situations where there is a limited availability oftime and means, efficiency in its different forms will still be an indispensable wayto operationalise justice and/or resilience.

Relating the Principles to Each Other

Based upon an analysis of the concept of sustainable development, and drawing uponthe principles of justice as formulated by John Rawls and the resilience principle fordynamic adaptive systems as defined by Holling, we have proposed a framework toguide the evaluation of the sustainability. We argue that such an evaluation shouldbe based upon the following criteria:

Justice:

(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equalbasic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

(a) Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equalityof opportunity, and

(b) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savingsprinciple (Rawls, 1999, p. 266).

Resilience:

(3) The system should be prevented from moving to undesired system configura-tions in the face of external stresses and disturbances.

(4) The elements that enable the system to renew and reorganise itself following amassive change are nurtured and preserved. This adaptive capacity resides inaspects of memory, creativity, innovation, flexibility and diversity of ecologicalcomponents and human capabilities (Walker et al., 2002).

The concepts of justice and resilience are inter-related and even imply each other upto a large extent, at least in the context of sustainable development. Talking aboutjustice in the setting of sustainable development not only means thinking in terms of



the duties and rights and opportunities of present day generations, but also thinkingabout justice for future generations and thus about resilience. The opposite is alsotrue, however. Thinking about resilience as a system characteristic in the contextof sustainable development is not possible in a value-free way. Resilience tells usnothing about the desirability of a certain system, we need to incorporate ideasabout justice to do that.

This makes a specification of a theoretical relationship between the two conceptsdifficult. We set out to construct a framework to enable the evaluation of the sustain-able development implications of proposed actions, and therefore we need some sortof hierarchy, or a functional relationship between these principles so that trade-offsbetween competing sustainable development goals can be evaluated. Three optionsfor such a hierarchy are possible:

(i) Justice is the most important principle:Resilience does not necessarily lead to increased human well-being since itdoes not say anything about the desirability of certain states or policies. Forexample, efficient dictatorships or resilient polluted lakes would generally beconsidered unsustainable, whatever worldview a person has, and yet they maybe highly resilient. As a consequence only the principles of justice can help usmake normative choices.

(ii) Resilience is the most important principle:Societies and economies are in a constant motion, they do not have one singleequilibrium they always return to, but can have several different equilibriums.They are in a constant dynamic interaction with the environment and nega-tive states, after a threshold has been crossed, should be avoided. Neglectingresilience will likely lead to undesirable situations. It is no use discussing“justice” when there are no natural resources left to divide by this principle.

(iii) There is no hierarchy in the two principles:The importance of one or the other principle is highly dependent on localcircumstances and there are no generic rules to guide us. When one of them isnot present we speak of unsustainability.

It is difficult, if not impossible to make a choice between these options on theoreticalgrounds alone. After an analysis of the global scale problems of loss of biodiversityand climate change, Langhelle concludes:

There is no neat functionality, let alone a fixed hierar-chical distinction, between social justice and physicalsustainability, when it comes to the issues of biologicaldiversity and climate change (Langhelle, 2000, p. 317).



A choice between the first two options bring us back to a discussion on the differentviews of sustainability in Table 1 and the relative importance of the needs of presentand future generations. A definitive answer on this question cannot be given from atheoretical perspective. This leaves us with only the last option for the developmentof criteria to evaluate sustainability in sustainability assessments, whereby there isno fixed, theoretically underpinned, hierarchy between the principles of justice andresilience. If the two principles are equal, then this implies that notions or aspectsthat refer to justice cannot be traded-off against notions or aspects of resilience. This,however, does not imply that trade-offs between competing goals are never allowed.That would also be an untenable position. In real life, trade-offs are inevitable. Sohow might we deal with these all too real dilemmas?

Application of the Framework to Sustainability Assessment

This brings us to the question of how our framework could be applied in real-lifesituations such as sustainability assessments where trade-offs might be unavoidable,even between issues that refer to resilience and issues that refer to distributive justice.Theoretical considerations alone are no longer sufficient and we enter the politicalor ideological arena.

An approach is needed that can deal with the complexity of many sustainabil-ity issues in a more comprehensive way. Sustainability assessments cannot rely onexpert knowledge alone, since different people have different views on what sustain-able development is and since there is no hierarchy between the principles of justiceand resilience. In recent decades there has been an evolution of new approaches toaddress the intricacies of complex environments. These methodologies seek bothto improve the scope of vision of the investigators as well as their ability to com-municate both science and policy (Duke and Geurts, 2004).

Most authors agree that the involvement of stakeholders is crucial to tacklingthe complexities inherent to sustainability. Research into public participation hasfound an overwhelming variety of participatory methods and techniques, includ-ing: referenda, public hearings, public opinion survey, negotiated rule making,consensus conference, citizens panel, citizens jury/panel, citizens advisory com-mittee (electronic) focus group, repertory grid technique, back casting, decisionsupport systems to inform debates, dialogues en deliberations and policy games(Geurts, 1996; Mayer, 1997; Van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002; Turnhout et al.,2004). It goes beyond the scope of this paper to discuss these different participatoryapproaches in depth, but for a good overview of participation in assessments, seeVan Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp (2002). We will limit the discussion to the applica-tion of our framework, based on the principles of justice and resilience, to processes



of Integrated Assessment, of which sustainability assessment is often consideredone form (Eggenberger and Partidário, 2000 and Lee, 2002).

Rotmans defines Integrated Assessment as:

a structured process of dealing with complex issues,using knowledge from various scientific disciplines and/or stakeholders, such that integrated insights are madeavailable to decision makers (Rotmans, 1998, p. 155).

Participatory Integrated Assessments (PIA) use the ideas and knowledge of stake-holders explicitly in the assessment process (e.g. Pahl-Wostl, 2002; Pahl-Wostland Hare, 2004; Turnpenny et al., 2004). These processes are characterised by astrong focus on “social learning” and a combination of “subjective mental models”and the analysis of “objective facts” in modelling exercises. Both quantitative andmore qualitative models, such as system dynamic models (group model building)and agent based models, have been used for these types of assessments (Mead-ows, 1999; Vennix, 1999; Grosskurth and Rotmans, 2004; Hare and Deadman,2004).

However, stakeholder participation is not without its challenges. Some problemsassociated with stakeholder participation in sustainability assessments have beenidentified by Hacking (Hacking, 2006):

(i) There is a need to reach consensus (which is not always possible).(ii) There is the problem that tendencies towards self-interest are difficult to

counter.(iii) People do not necessarily understand the long-term consequences of their

choices, let alone always make rational decisions.

In addition, a participatory approach alone does not necessarily contribute to sus-tainable development. However, by combining a PIA process with a sustainabilityframework based upon the principles of justice and resilience, these problems andlimitations can for a large degree be circumvented. The application of the frameworkcan occur at three different points in the PIA process. First of all, the principles can beused in the first stages of the assessment, where the different views of the stakehold-ers are being elicited. By confronting these individual mental models with the prin-ciples of justice and resilience, these mental models can be adapted, and individuallearning can take place. In the second phase of the PIA process, these different mentalmodels are combined to develop a shared understanding of the different causal rela-tionships of the problem at hand. This phase promotes social learning and the build-ing of the model should help stakeholders to understand better the situation at handand its long-term implications. The majority of the discussions between stakeholders



take place in this phase, and the introduction of the framework can structure thedebate and limit its outcomes. Finally, in the last phase of the PIA process, theresults of the modelling exercise become visible. In this phase, the framework canhelp to interpret the results of the models and facilitate the debate about the observedtrade-offs.

Especially in situations dominated by what Roelofs calls “normative and socio-political complexity” (Roelofs, 2000), a framework based upon the principlesof justice and resilience can therefore help to structure meaningful discussionsabout sustainable development. Within a PIA process, it can help stakeholdersand experts formulate and fine-tune their perspectives, discourses, and actions;structure the debate about trade-offs; and set some clear limits to what is(un)sustainable.

Conclusions

In this paper, we have developed a principle-based framework for sustainable devel-opment that could be used as the basis for sustainability assessment processes. Ananalysis of the different views of sustainable development identified justice andresilience as two core principles of sustainable development. These notions wereoperationalised by referring to the work on justice by John Rawls and resilience byC.S. Holling. Efficiency is often mentioned as a third central element to evaluatesustainable development; however, we showed that the different definitions of effi-ciency in fact refer back to notions of justice or resilience. Efficiency was thereforenot included in the framework.

The concept of a framework implies that the relationships between the differentconcepts within framework should be defined. However, it proved impossible toevaluate the principles of justice and resilience against each other and to developuniversal trade-off rules. In that sense our efforts with this paper failed. We found thatsustainable development cannot be evaluated on theoretical considerations alone.It seems that the question what sustainable development is, and how it should beevaluated cannot be separated from a normative process that incorporates differentviews on sustainability.

PIA has been identified as a promising approach to combine the principles ofsustainable development with normative discussions on trade-offs in an assessmentcontext. The framework presented in this paper can help stakeholders and expertsinvolved in such processes to formulate and fine-tune their perspectives. It can alsostructure the debate about trade-offs, facilitate the identification of priorities foraction, and establish some limits to what is (un)sustainable in the context of theissue at hand.



References

Beckerman, W (1994). Sustainable development: Is it a useful concept? EnvironmentalValues, 3(3), 191–209.

Beckerman, W (1995). How would you like your “sustainability”, Sir? weak or strong?Environmental Values, 4(2), 169–179.

Beitz, C (1979). Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press.

Capra, F (1996). Lebensnetz. Bern: Scherz.Carpenter, S, B Walker, JM Anderies and N Abel (2001). From metaphor to measurement:

resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4, 765–781.Checkland, P and J Scholes (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester:

John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Clayton, AMH and NJ Radcliffe (1996). Sustainability, A Systems Approach. London:

Earthscan Publication Limited.Costanza, R and C Folke (1997). Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness,

and sustainability as goals. In Nature’s Services, Societal Dependence on NaturalEcosystems, GC Daily (ed.), pp. 49–68. Washington D.C., Covelo California: IslandPress.

Daly, HE (1995). On Wilfred Beckermans’ critique of sustainable development. Environ-mental Values, 4(1), 49–55.

Daly, HE (1996). Beyond Growth. Boston: Beacon Press.Den Butter, FAG and FJ Dietz (2004). Duurzame ontwikkeling en overheidsbeleid.

Economisch Statistische Berichten, 89, 218–221.Deutsch, L, C Folke and K Skanberg (2003). The critical natural capital of ecosys-

tem performance as insurance for human well being. Ecological Economics, 44,205–217.

Dobson, A (1996). Environmental sustainabilities: An analysis and a typology. Environ-mental Politics, 5(3), 401–428.

Duke, RD and JLA Geurts (2004). Policy Games for Strategic Management: Pathways intothe Unknown. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.

Eggenberger, M and M Partidário (2000). Development of a framework to assist the integra-tion of environmental social and economic issues in spatial planning. Impact Assess-ment and Project Appraisals, 18(1), 201–207.

Folke, C, S Carpenter, T Elmqvist, L Gunderson, CS Holling, B Walker, J Bengtsson,F Berkes, J Colding, K Danell, M Falkenmark, L Gordon, R Kasperson, N Kautsky,A Kinzig, S Levin, KG Maler, F Moberg, L Ohlsson, P Olsson, E Ostrom, W Eid,J Rockstrom, H Savenije and U Svedin (2002). Resilience and Sustainable Develop-ment, building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations, Scientific backgroundpaper on resilience for the process of the World Summit on Sustainable Developmenton behalf of the Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government.

Gellner, E (1988). Plough, Sword and Book: The Structure of Human History. London:Paladin.



Geurts, JLA and IS Mayer (1996). Methods for participatory policy analysis, towardsa conceptual model for research and development. Working Paper, University ofTilburg.

Gibson, RB (2001). Specification of sustainability-based environmental assessment decisioncriteria and implications for determining “significance” in environmental assessments.Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Gibson, RB (2006). Beyond the Pillars: Sustainability assessment as a framework foreffective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in signifi-cant decision-making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,8(3), 259–280.

Grosskurth, J and J Rotmans (2004). The scene model: getting a grip on sustainable devel-opment in policy making. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 135–151.

Hacking, T (2006). Sustainable development objectives in impact assessment: Why are theyneeded and where do they come from? Journal of Environmental Assessment, Policyand Management, 8(3), 341–371.

Hare, M and P Deadman (2004). Further towards a taxonomy of agent-based simulationmodels in environmental management. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation,64, 25–60.

Hennipman (1977). Welvaartstheorie en economische politiek. Alphen a/d Rijn: Samson.Holling, CS (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecol-

ogy and Systematic, 4, 1–23.Holling, CS (1996). Engineering resilience vs. ecological resilience. In Engineering Within

Ecological Constraints, P Schulze (ed.), pp. 31–44. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy.

Hueting, R and L Reijnders (2004). Broad sustainability contra sustainability: the properconstruction of sustainability indicators. Ecological Economics, 50, 249–260.

Jacobs, M (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In Fairness and Futurity:Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice, A Dobson (ed.). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Jollands, N (2006). Concepts of efficiency in ecological economics: Sisyphus and thedecision maker. Ecological Economics, 56, 359–372.

Langhelle, O (2000). Sustainable development and social justice: Expanding the RawlsianFramework of Global Justice. Environmental Values, 9, 295–323.

Latour, B (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.

Lee, N (2002). Integrated approaches to impact assessment: substance or make-believe.In Environmental Assessment Yearbook 2002; The EA Agenda for Johannesburg andBeyond. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA Centre).Manchester: University of Manchester.

Lehtonen, M (2004). The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: Capa-bilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics, 49, 199–214.

Mayer, IS (1997). Debating Technologies: A Methodological Contribution to the Designand Evaluation of Participatory Policy Analysis. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.



Meadows, D, DH Meadows, J Randers and WW Behrens III (1972). The Limits to Growth:A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. WashingtonD.C.: Potomac Associates.

Meadows, DH (1992). Beyond the Limits. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.Meadows, DH (1999). Leverage Points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland, Vermont:

The Sustainability Institute.Mebratu, D (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual

review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 493–520.Muradian, R (2001). Ecological thresholds: A survey. Ecological Economics, 38, 7–24.Norgaard, RB (1994). Development Betrayed. London: Routledge.Pahl-Wostl, C (2002). Towards sustainability in the water sector — The importance of

human actors and processes of social learning. Aquatic Sciences, 64, 394–411.Pahl-Wostl, C and M Hare (2004). Processes of social learning in integrated resources

management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14(4), 193–206.Pearce, D (1993). Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan.Pope, J, D Annandale and A Morrison-Saunders (2004). Conceptualising sustainability

assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 595–616.Prescott-Allen, R (2001). The Wellbeing of Nations, a Country by Country Index of Quality

of Life and the Environment. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.Raes, K (2002). John Rawls: een halve eeuw knutselen aan een theorie. In Rawls een

inleiding in zijn werk, R Tinneveld and G Verschraegen (eds.), pp. 11–31. Kapellen:Uitgeverij Pelckmans.

Rawls, J (1999). A Theory of Justice, revised edition, 1st edn. London: Oxford UniversityPress.

Robinson, J (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable devel-opment. Ecological economics, 48, 369–384.

Roelofs, AME (2000). Structuring Policy Issues, Testing and Mapping Techniques withGaming-Simulation. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Rotmans, J (1998). Methods for IA: the challenges and opportunities ahead. Environmentalmodeling and assessment, 3, 155–179.

Rotmans, J, J Grosskurth, MBA Van Asselt, D Loorbach (2001). Duurzame ontwikkeling,van concept naar uitvoering. Maastricht: International Centre for Integrative Studies(ICIS), Universiteit van Maastricht.

Schütz, J (2000). Sustainability, Systems and Meaning. Environmental Values, 9,372–382.

Serageldin, I (1996). Sustainability and the Wealth of Nations, first steps in an ongoingjourney. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

SFSO (2002). Measuring Sustainable Development, Insights into MONET — The Swissmonitoring system. Neufchatel: Swiss Federal Statistical Office.

Stein, JG (2001). The Cult of Efficiency. Toronto: House of Anasi Press Ltd.Thin, N (2002). Social Progress and Sustainable Development. London: ITDG Publishing.Turnhout, E, P Leroy and AC Petersen (2004). Participating in Uncertainty: A Literature

Review of Applying Participation in the Delivery of Scientific Policy Advice. De Bilt:RIVM.



Turnpenny, J, A Haxeltine and T O’Riordan (2004). A scoping study of user needs forintegrated assessment of climate change in the UK context: Part 1 of the develop-ment of an interactive integrated assessment process. Integrated Assessment, 4(4),283–300.

Van Asselt, MBA and N Rijkens-Klomp (2002). A look in the mirror: reflection on partic-ipation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environ-mental Change, 12(3), 167–184.

Vandenbroucke, F (2002). Een theorie over sociale rechtvaardigheid. In Rawls een inleidingin zijn werk, R. Tinneveld and G Verschraegen (eds.), pp. 32–52. Kapellen: UitgeverijPelckmans.

Vennix, JAM (1999). Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System DynamicsReview, 15(4), 379–401.

Walker, B and JA Meyers (2004). Thresholds in ecological and socio-ecological systems: adeveloping database. Ecology and Society, 9(2). Available at: http://www. ecologyand-socity.org/vol19/iss2/art3.

Walker, B, S Carpenter, J Anderies, N Abel, GS Cumming, M Janssen, L Lebel, JNorberg, GD Peterson and R Pritchard (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. ConservationEcology, 6(1). Available at: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

A PRINCIPLE-BASED APPROACH FOR THE EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Documents

Transcript of A PRINCIPLE-BASED APPROACH FOR THE EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT