Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:57:16.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Sustainability Solution Spaces

from Part II - Integrative Approaches for Sustainability Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2020

By
Claudia R. Binder ,
Marta G. Baldi ,
Baptiste Gex  and
Emanuele Massaro
Edited by
Claudia R. Binder ,
Romano Wyss  and
Emanuele Massaro
Claudia R. Binder
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Romano Wyss
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Emanuele Massaro
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents Sustainability Solution Spaces for Decision-Making (SSP) as an integrative method for assessing sustainability. The SSP represents the room to manoeuvre in the system at hand so that it can develop sustainably. The approach fulfils (1) systemic criteria; (2) normative criteria; and (3) procedural criteria. It provides a consistent set of targets and considers the systemic relations among the indicators representing the city-region. This gives the decision-makers concise guidelines for sustainable decisions and makes them aware of the associated trade-offs. SSP can be pursued following a participatory and an expert approach. Whereas the expert approach requires high quality of data, preferably either over time or over a large number of cities, the participatory approach is more flexible and can deal with qualitative data. That is, the expert approach is appropriate for comparing large sets of cities with each other, clustering and providing benchmarks for specific city types, and delivering general indications where policy development is required. The participatory approach might be particularly useful for assessing the impact of a specific project or analysing a specific sector, such as mobility or housing, in depth.

Keywords

Sustainability Solution Spaceurban sustainabilityindicatorsustainability assessmentparticipatoryexperttrade-offssystemicnormative
Type
Chapter
Information
Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems , pp. 181 - 208
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakshi, B. R., Gutowski, T., & Sekulic, D. (Eds.). (2011). Thermodynamics and the Destruction of Resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berardi, U. (2012). Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: Rating systems and rated buildings. Sustainable Development, 20(6), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.532.Google Scholar
Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016.Google Scholar
Binder, C. R., Feola, G., & Steinberger, J. K. (2010). Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.06.002.Google Scholar
Binder, C. R., Hutter, M., Pang, M., & Webb, B. (2020a). System science and sustainability assessment. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–64.Google Scholar
Binder, C. R., Schmid, A., & Steinberger, J. K. (2012). Sustainability solution space of the Swiss milk value added chain. Ecological Economics, 83, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.022.Google Scholar
Binder, C. R., & Wiek, A. (2007). The role of transdisciplinary processes in sustainability assessment of agricultural systems. In Binder, C. R. & Wiek, A, From Common Principles to Common Practice: Proceedings and Outputs of the First Symposium of the International Forum on Assessing Sustainability in Agriculture (INFASA). Bern: International Institute of Sustainable Development and Swiss College of Agriculture, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar
Boesch, A., & de Montmollin, A. (2020). Indicators for assessing the sustainability of cities. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications: A Report to the Balaton group. Winnipeg: IISD.Google Scholar
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future.” United Nations.Google Scholar
European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, Intrasoft International, University of the West of England (UWE), & Science Communication Unit. (2017). Indicators for Sustainable Cities.Google Scholar
Fritz, L. & Meinherz, F. (2020). The politics of participatory sustainability assessments: An analysis of power. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halla, P., & Binder, C. R. (2020). Sustainability Assessment: Introduction and Framework. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–29.Google Scholar
Hashemian, B., Massaro, E., Bojic, I., Arias, J. M., Sobolevsky, S., & Ratti, C. (2017). Socioeconomic characterization of regions through the lens of individual financial transactions. PloS one, 12(11), e0187031.Google Scholar
Holden, E., Linnerud, K., & Banister, D. (2014). Sustainable development: Our Common Future revisited. Global Environmental Change, 26, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kangas, P. C. (2002). Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Center for Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
Klopp, J. M., & Petretta, D. L. (2017). The urban sustainable development goal: Indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities. Cities, 63, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.019.Google Scholar
Massaro, E., Athanassiadis, A., Psyllidis, A., & Binder, C. R. (2020). Ontology-based integration of urban sustainability indicators. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 332–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinherz, F., Fritz, L., & Schneider, F. (2020). The value-loadedness of sustainability: Implications for the transformative potential of sustainability assessments. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
Merino-Saum, A. (2020). Assessing sustainability through participatory multi-criteria approaches (PMCAs): An updated comparative analysis. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 209–238.Google Scholar
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023.Google Scholar
Nijkamp, P., & Vreeker, R. (2000). Sustainability assessment of development scenarios: Methodology and application to Thailand. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00135-4.Google Scholar
Pagani, A., Laurenti, R., & Binder, C. R. (2020). Sustainability assessment of the housing system: Exploring the interplay between the material system and the social structure. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 384–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, W., & Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable – And why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4–6), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(96)00022-4.Google Scholar
Schilling, T., Mühlemeier, S., Wyss, R., & Binder, C. R. (2020). A Concept for Sustainability Transition Assessment (STA): A Dynamic Systems Perspective Informed by Resilience Thinking. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–138.Google Scholar
Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sciubba, E. (2008). Exergy destruction as an ecological indicator. In Encyclopedia of Ecology. pp. 1510–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00107-5.Google Scholar
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.007.Google Scholar
Stelzer, V., & Kopfmüller, J. (2020). How Values Play into Sustainability Assessments: Challenges and a Possible Way Forward. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–180.Google Scholar
UN-Habitat. (2012). The State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities. http://unhabitat.org/books/prosperity-of-cities-state-of-the-worlds-cities-20122013/.Google Scholar
Waheed, B., Khan, F., & Veitch, B. (2009). Linkage-based frameworks for sustainability assessment: Making a case for Driving Force-Pressure-State-Exposure-Effect-Action (DPSEEA) frameworks. Sustainability, 1(3), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1030441.Google Scholar
Wiek, A., & Binder, C. (2005). Solution spaces for decision-making: A sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(6), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.09.009.Google Scholar
Williams, B., & Hummelbrunner, R. (2011). Systems Concepts In Action: A Practitioner’s Toolkit. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univesity Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10459535.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×