Sustainability assessment tools

Sustainability assessmentAn applicable tools and modeling in sustainability assessment

Shahram SadeghiMaster student of Sustainable Urban Technology Center of Logistics and Traffic, institute of city planning and designUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, [email protected]

1

Shahram Sadeghi, July 2015, ZLV, Uni DUE

The origin of the “Sustainability” term

´ The concept of sustainability, or sustainable development, is clearly the basis of sustainability assessment(Pope, Annandale et al. 2004).

´ sustainability assessment thinking has been substantially developed by EIA and SEA practitioners(Sadler, 1999) .

´ In the literature, sustainability assessment is generally viewed as a tool in the ‘family’ of impact assessment processes, closely related to EIA applied to projects and SEA applied to policies, plans and programs (PPPs) (Devuyst, 2001, p. 9)

´ sustainability assessment is often considered to be the ‘next generation’ of environmental assessment(Sadler, 1999).

2


Available definitions of sustainability assessment includes(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´ ‘‘Sustainability assessment is. . . a tool that can help decision-makers andpolicy-makers decide what actions they should take and should not take inan attempt to make society more sustainable’’ (Devuyst, 2001 , p. 9)

´ The aim of sustainability assessment is to ensure that ‘‘plans and activitiesmake an optimal contribution to sustainable development’’ (Verheem, 2002) .

´ the purpose of sustainability assessment is to provide decision-makers withan evaluation of global to local integrated nature–society systems in short-and long-term perspectives in order to assist them to determine whichactions should or should not be taken in an attempt to make societysustainable (Kates et al. (2001))

3


Before any sustainability assessment, these items should be observed (Browne, O'Regan et al. 2012)

´ Identifying key variables to describe systems;

´ Assessing their inter-relationships;

´ Defining measurable objectives and criteria;

´ Highlighting feedback mechanisms at both the

individual and institutional levels

4


Classification and evaluation of sustainability assessment methodologies

There are two distinct methodologies can be found for sustainability assessment (Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´Monetary aggregation method´Physical indicators

5

**Regarding the goal of this presentation that is introduce the environmental tools, it focuses just on the Physical indicators**


A holistic framework developed by Ness et al (2007) for sustainability assessment tools which covers issues in three umbrella(Singh, Murtyet al. 2009)

´1. Indicators and indices

´2. Product related tools

´3. Integrated assessment tools

6


Framework of Sustainability Assessment Tools(Ness et al 2007)

7


Indicators and indices

´ Indicators are simple measures, most often

quantitative that represent a state of economic,

social and/or environmental development in a

defined region, often the national level. When

indicators are aggregated in some manner, the

resulting measure is an index (Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007).

8


Characteristics of indicator (Harger and Meyer(1996), (Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007))

´ simplicity,

´ Should have scope in a wide range

´ Quantifiable

´ Allow trends to be determined

´ Tools that are sensitive to change

´ Allow timely identification of trends.

9


Classification of Indicator and indices(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´1. Non-integrated´2. Regional flows indices´3. Integrated

10


Non-integrated indicators example(Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007)

´ Environmental Pressure Indicators (EPIs) developed by Eurosat.

(The EPI set consists of 60 indicators, six in each of the ten policy fields under the Fifth Environmental Action Program)

´ Set of 58 national indicators used by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD)

11


Regional flows analysis indicators

´ Material Flow Analysis (MFA)

´ Substance flow analysis

´ Energy flow analysis

12


Integrated indicator/ indices examples

´ Ecological footprint

´ Human development Index

´ Wellbeing index

´ Sustainable national income

´ Environment sustainability index

13


Environment sustainability indices categories(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´ environmental sustainability index (ESI) is a measure of the overall progress

towards environmental sustainability.

´ The ESI is based upon a set of 68 basic indicators. These are then aggregated to

construct 21 core indicators. The Environmental Sustainability Index value for

each economy is simply the average value for the 21 factors. For every variable

in our data set we created a normalized range and scaled values from 0 (low

sustainability) to 100 (high sustainability) (WEF, 2002).

14


Environment Quality Index(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´The main environmental factors are selected and defined on the basis ofthe multi attribute utility theory and a numerical evaluation carried outby applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology (Saaty,1980). A weighted sum of all environmental factors forms the so-calledenvironmental quality index (EQI), which gives an estimate of the overallenvironmental impact of each alternative (Bisset, 1988). Eachenvironmental factor is interpreted as a linear utility function, whichassumes values in the range 0–10. The utility functions are given theweights according to the importance of each environmental factor, andthe weighted sum is the environmental quality index for which amaximum is sought.

15


Concern about environmental problems(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´The index proposed by Parker aims to measure the concern of

the public on certain environmental problems (Parker, 1991).

Eleven indicators are considered, four related to air problems

(nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide and

particulates), two indicators associated with water problems

(bathing and fertilisers) and five landscape-related indicators

(population change, new dwellings, tourism, traffic and waste).

16


Index of Environmental Friendliness(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´The model for the Index of Environmental Friendliness is a general

model for the aggregation of direct and indirect pressure data to

problem indices and further to an overall Index of Environmental

Friendliness. The scope of the model is designed to cover the key

environmental problems of greenhouse effect, ozone depletion,

acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicological effect, resource

depletion, photo-oxidation, biodiversity, radiation and noise

(Puolamaa et al., 1996).

17


Environmental Policy Performance Indicator(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´The composite indicator aims to monitor the trend in the total

environmental pressure in the Netherlands and indicate whether the

environmental policy is heading in the right direction or not (Adriaanse,

1993). Six theme indicators (composed of several simple indicators) are

combined, including: (a) change of climate, (b) acidification, (c)

eutrophication, (d) dispersion of toxic substances, (e) disposal of solid

waste, and (f) odour and noise disturbance.

18


Environmental Performance Index(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´ Complementary to the ESI which focuses on the environmental dimension of

sustainability, ‘‘the EPI addresses the need for a gauge of policy performance in

reducing environmental stresses on human health and promoting ecosystem vitality

and sound natural resource management. The EPI focuses on current on-the-ground

outcomes across a core set of environmental issues tracked through six policy

categories for which all governments are being held accountable’’ (Esty et al., 2006).

All variables are normalised in a scale from 0 to 100. The maximum value of 100 is

linked to the target, the minimum value of 0 characterises the worst competitor in the

field. Weights are drawn from statistical mechanisms or by consulting experts. Finally,

the six policy categories are aggregated to the ESI taking the weighted sum.

19


Environmental Vulnerability Index(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´The environmental vulnerability index (EVI) compromises 32 indicators of

hazards, 8 indicators of resistance, and 10 indicators that measure

damage (SOPAC, 2005). The EVI scale for normalization ranges between

a value of 1 (indicating high resilience/low vulnerability) and 7

(indicating low resilience/ high vulnerability). The 50 indicators are given

equal weights and then aggregated by an arithmetic mean (EVI, 2005).

20


Two ‘‘synthetic environmental indices’’(Singh, Murty et al. 2009)

´In the review paper of Isla M., two composite indicators (one

structural and one functional) are developed aiming to assist

the local municipalities of Barcelona to monitor and evaluate

their environmental performance (Isla, 1997). Twenty-two sub-

indicators for environment are combined into two synthetic

indices, a structural and a functional one.

21


Product related assessment(Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007)

´ Life cycle assessment

´ life cycle costing

´ product material flow

´ product energy analysis

22


Life cycle assessment

´ The most established and well-developed tool in this category is Life Cycle Assessment(LCA). It is an approach that analyses real and potential pressure that a product has onthe environment during raw material acquisition, production process, use, and disposal of

the product (Lindfors, 1995). The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has establishedguidelines and principles for LCA. LCA results provide information for decisions regardingproduct development and eco-design, production system improvements, and productchoice at the consumer level. Life Cycle Assessment has been performed for the pulp andpaper industry (Ekvall, 1999; Ross and Evans, 2002; Lopes et al., 2003), the waste and

energy field (Lunghi et al., 2004; Finnveden et al., 2005; Moberg et al., 2005), as well as amultitude of other product and service areas.

23


Life cycle costing(Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007)

´ Life cycle costing (LCC) is an economic approach that sums up “total

costs of a product, process or activity discounted over its lifetime”

(Gluch and Baumann, 2004). In principle LCC is not associated with

environmental costs, but costs in general. There are many different tools

for life cycle costing analysis, but only two of them include

environmental costs — Life Cycle Cost Assessment and Full Cost

Environmental Accounting.

24


Product material flow(Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007)

´ Analysis of material and substance flows is also used for product systems. TheWuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy has developed aproduct Material Intensity Analysis based on the Material Input per unit ofService (MIPS) index (expressed in weight) (Spangenberg et al., 1999). Thisanalysis considers all the material flows connected to a particular product or aservice including the so called ecological rucksack. The ecological rucksackconsists of all the materials required for the complete production process minusthe actual weight of the product and represents the actual material intensity ofa given product. The MIPS concept has been the starting point for the strategicdiscussions on the Factor 4 and Factor 10 goals.

25


Product energy analysis(Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007)

´ Product energy analysis measures the energy that is required to manufacture a product or a

service (Herendeen, 2004). It includes both direct and indirect energy flows. Indirect energy is the

energy that is used for producing inputs, for example, energy that is used to produce metal for

the car industry. An example of tools for analysing product or service energy requirements is

Process Energy Analysis (Hovelius, 1997). It focuses on different processes and levels in the product

life cycle and sums up the flows of energy use through each of the production process stages.

Life cycle-based Exergy and Emergy Analysis also occur. Emergy Analysis has been used for

analysing production processes of a single product (Hovelius, 1997) as well as whole industries

(Doherty et al., 2002), while Exergy Analysis has been used for analysing energy systems such as

heating or electricity production (Nilsson, 1997; Brown and Ulgiati, 2002).

26


integrated assessment tools(Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007)

´ they are used for supporting decisions related to a policy or a project in a

specific region. Project related tools are used for local scale assessments,

whereas the policy related focus on local to global scale assessments. In the

context of sustainability assessment, integrated assessment tools have an ex-

ante focus and often are carried out in the form of scenarios. Many of these

integrated assessment tools are based on systems analysis approaches and

integrate nature and society aspects. Integrated assessment consists of the

wide-array of tools for managing complex issues (Gough et al., 1998).

27


Integrated assessment methods(Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu et al. 2007)

´ Conceptual model and system dynamic´ Multi criteria analysis´ Risk and uncertainty analysis´ Cost benefit analysis´ Vulnerability analysis´ Impact assessment

28


Biophysical frameworks(Browne, O'Regan et al. 2012)

´Biophysical framework focuses on both the

economic and ecological perspectives and are

capable of more accurately reflecting the

sustainability implications of production and

consumption.

29


The main biophysical approaches to measuring national, regional or urban sustainability(Browne, O'Regan et al. 2012)

´ Material and energy flow accounting (MEFA)

´ Urban metabolism and Socio-accounting

´ Ecological foot-printing (EF)

30


Combination of bio-physical sustainable methods and accounting (Browne, O'Regan et al. 2012)

´ Energy flow accounting,

´ Energy flow metabolism ratio analysis

´ Ecological foot-printing

31


Applying combination methods in order to :

´ Identify whether using different methods achieves the same results in an

urban sustainability evaluation;

´ Identify what the impacts are of using more than one method when

measuring sustainability;

´ Apply these methods at the city-region level to show whether they can be

used at such a spatial boundary level;

´ Identify the strengths and drawbacks of applying these methods at the

city-region level.

32


Energy Flow Accounting

´ The Laws of Thermodynamics offer a basis for the physical quantification of the interactions between natural systems and their surroundings, including natural capital stocks and flows (Weston and Ruth, 1997).

´ The mass balance principle, based on the First Law of Thermodynamics, states that mass inputs must equal mass outputs plus net accumulation of materials for every process step (Giljum and Hubacek, 2001).

´ Though, the aggregation of all input and output bounds of the subcomponents of a system, should not always necessarily equal the whole input and output of the overall system, due to double-calculation, intra-economy fluxes and material interdependencies of components and sectors (Schandl et al., 2002).

33


Material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) uses the mass balance approach to measure

´ Inputs such as raw materials, solid fuel and electricity

´ Intermediate and final manufactured goods and products

´ Outputs, including wastes, emissions and exports

´ Accumulation of stock within the economy (Sheerin, 2002).

´ It applies a systems approach to establish the fate of materials or

energy flows from the point of extraction to their ultimate disposal(Chambers et al., 2004; Kovanda and Hak, 2006).

34


Strength of MEFA Weakness of MEFAAllows for complete accounting of the biophysical dimensions of economic activities o and provides insights into the structure and change over time of

the physical o metabolism of economies

It is based on a single accounting unit so is not value-neutral

Provides a framework for integrated environmental–economic accounting as it shares o system

boundaries and aggregates data according to economic sectors

It is difficult to measure hidden flows

Provides indicators for material inputs, outputs and intensity of consumption at all levels of aggregation It is possible to double-count trade flows

Focuses on persistent, scale-related environmental problems

The link to the actors responsible for the activation of material flows is not established and, therefore, it

is not clear which groups in society should contribute to a strategy of dematerialisation, should

such a policy goal be adopted nationally or on a

local or regional basis

Can be used to indicate dematerialization of study area and to illustrate decoupling if

used with economic or service function indicators

Comparative analysis of energy flow accounts may be difficult as statistical data are incomplete or

inconsistent

Data are available at national level in a time series, thus allowing for comparison

Weight-based indicators do not reveal anything about qualitative aspects such as scarcities

Strengths and weaknesses of MEFA (Giljum and Hinterberger, 2004; Haberl et al., 2004; Hinterbergeret al., 2003; Krausmann et al., 2004; Sheerin, 2002; Van der Voet et al., 2005).

35


Urban metabolism framework

´ Urban metabolism, is a framework to monitor and tracking material and

energy fluxes within cities. it concept empirically applied by Wolman (1965)

by applying national data on water, food and fuel use, along with

production rates of sewage, waste and air pollutants to determine per

capita inflow and outflow rates for a hypothetical American city of one

million people (White, 2002). Urban metabolism analysis framework

conducted to Tokyo (Hanya, 1976), Brussels (Duvigneaud, 1977), Hong kong

(Boyaden, 1981), and some others.

36


Ecological Footprint

´ The EF is presented as a simple operational indicator to aid in monitoring progress towards (un)sustainability, i.e. maintenance (loss) of natural capital. It accounts for the flows of energy and matter to and from a specific economy or activity, converted into

corresponding land and water area needed to support these flows. Six land categories are included in the procedure, namely consumed/degraded land (built environment), gardens, crop land, pasture land and grasslands, productive forest, and energy land. EF analysis is suggested to be useful in determining the human appropriation of ecological production, measured in area units. The power of the method is the fact that all human

exploitation of resources and environment is reduced to a single dimension, namely land, and water area needed for its support (Jeroen C.J.M van den Bergh, Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an

evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’, April 1999) .

37


Methodology of EF

Ecological Footprint accounting framework (Alessandro Galli M. W., 2014)

38


Input-Output analysis

´ Input–output analysis is the name given to an analytical frameworkdeveloped by Professor Wassily Leontief in the late 1930s, in recognition ofwhich he received the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 1973 (Leontief,1936, 1941). The term “inter-industry analysis” is also used, since the

fundamental purpose of the input–output framework is to analyze theinterdependence of industries in an economy. Today the basic conceptsset forth by Leontief are critical components of many types of economicanalysis and, indeed, input– output analysis is one of the most widely

applied methods in economics (Baumol, 2000). (Ronald E. Miller, July 2009)

39


Environmental Input–Output Analysis

´ Since the late 1960s the input–output framework has been extended by

many researchers to account for environmental pollution generation and

abatement associated with interindustry activity. Leontief (1970) himself

provided one of the key methodological extensions that has since been

applied widely and extended further. In the environmental extensions we

must include some additional conditions in order to enforce consistency

among interindustry production, pollution generation, and pollution

abatement activities (Ronald E. Miller, July 2009).

40


Bibliography

´ Browned, D., et al. (2012). "Comparison of energy flow accounting, energy flowmetabolism ratio analysis and ecological footprinting as tools for measuringurban sustainability: A case-study of an Irish city-region." Ecological Economics 83: 97-107

´ Ness, B., et al. (2007). "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment." EcologicalEconomics 60(3): 498-508.

´ Pope, J., et al. (2004). "Conceptualising sustainability assessment." EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Review 24(6): 595-616.

´ Singh, R. K., et al. (2009). "An overview of sustainability assessmentmethodologies." Ecological indicators 9(2): 189-212.

´ Ronald E. Miller, P. D. (July 2009). Input-Output Analysis-Foundations andExtensions (2nd ed.). Cambridge publication.

41


Bibliography

´ Alessandro Galli, M. W. (2014). Ecological Footprint: Implications for biodiversity.Biological Conservation .

´ Jeroen C.J.M van den Bergh, H. V. (April 1999). Spatial sustainability, trade andindicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics ,61-72.

´ White, R. (2002). Building the Ecological City.Woodhead: Cambridge.

´ Sadler B. A framework for environmental sustainability assessment andassurance. In: Petts J, editor, Handbook of environmental impact assessment,vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999. pp. 12–32.

´ Devuyst D. Introduction to sustainability assessment at the local level. In: DevuystD, editor. How green is the city? Sustainability assessment and the managementof urban environments. New York: Columbia University Press; 2001. pp. 1– 41.

42


Sustainability assessment tools

Documents

Transcript of Sustainability assessment tools