Sustainability Assessment Framework for Scenarios - SAFS

Abstract To address current challenges regarding sustainable development and support planning for this form of development, new learning about different possible futures and their potential sustainability implications is needed. One way of facilitating this learning is by combining the futures studies and sustainability assessment (SA) research fields. This paper presents the sustainability assessment framework for scenarios (SAFS), a method developed for assessing the environmental and social risks and opportunities of future scenarios, provides guidelines for its application and demonstrates how the framework can be applied. SAFS suggests assessing environmental and social aspects using a consumption perspective and a life cycle approach, and provides qualitative results. SAFS does not suggest any modelling using precise data, but instead offers guidelines on how to carry out a qualitative assessment, where both the process of assessing and the outcome of the assessment are valuable and can be used as a basis for discussion. The benefits, drawbacks and potential challenges of applying SAFS are also discussed in the paper. SAFS uses systems thinking looking at future societies as a whole, considering both environmental and social consequences. This encourages researchers and decision-makers to consider the whole picture, and not just individual elements, when considering different futures.

[1]  Martijn van der Steen,et al.  Beyond use: Evaluating foresight that fits , 2012 .

[2]  F. Chapin,et al.  Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity , 2009 .

[3]  S. Suh,et al.  The material footprint of nations , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Arnold Tukker,et al.  Global Sustainability Accounting—Developing EXIOBASE for Multi-Regional Footprint Analysis , 2014 .

[5]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1 , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[6]  Åsa Svenfelt.  Two strategies for dealing with uncertainty in social-ecological systems , 2010 .

[7]  Lei Zhang,et al.  Measuring the sustainability of policy scenarios: Emergy-based strategic environmental assessment of the Chinese paper industry , 2010 .

[8]  B. Manos,et al.  European Union agricultural policy scenarios' impacts on social sustainability of agricultural holdings , 2012 .

[9]  Frédérique Bouvart,et al.  Environmental assessment of carbon capture and storage deployment scenarios in France , 2011 .

[10]  Jenny Pope,et al.  The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012 , 2012 .

[11]  W. W. Wagar,et al.  Foundations of Future Studies: Human Science for a New Era , 1998 .

[12]  J. Karlsson,et al.  Truth claims and explanatory claims—An ontological typology of futures studies , 2010 .

[13]  L. Zhen,et al.  Regional impact assessment of land use scenarios in developing countries using the FoPIA approach: findings from five case studies. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[14]  Lorenz M. Hilty,et al.  The relevance of information and communication technologies for environmental sustainability - A prospective simulation study , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[15]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Environmental assessment of electrification of road transport in Norway: Scenarios and impacts , 2013 .

[16]  R. Verheem,et al.  Strategic environmental assessment: one concept, multiple forms , 2000 .

[17]  Kjartan Steen-Olsen,et al.  Carbon, land, and water footprint accounts for the European Union: consumption, production, and displacements through international trade. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[18]  Andrea Colantonio,et al.  Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging themes and assessment methods , 2009 .

[19]  P. Aligica.  Prediction, Explanation and the Epistemology of Future Studies , 2003 .

[20]  Stefan Baumgärtner,et al.  Sustainability Economics – General Versus Specific, and Conceptual Versus Practical , 2010 .

[21]  Daniel K. Jonsson.  Indirekt energi för svenska väg- och järnvägstransporter : Ett nationellt perspektiv samt fallstudier av Botniabanan och Södra Länken , 2005 .

[22]  G. Finnveden,et al.  Policy Instruments towards a sustainable waste management , 2013 .

[23]  E. Hertwich,et al.  Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  C. Patrick Doncaster,et al.  Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems , 2014 .

[25]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Environmental systems analysis tools – an overview , 2005 .

[26]  Wendell Bell,et al.  An epistemology for the futures field: Problems and possibilities of prediction , 1989 .

[27]  G. Finnveden,et al.  Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide , 2006 .

[28]  Valeria Ibáñez-Forés,et al.  A holistic review of applied methodologies for assessing and selecting the optimal technological alternative from a sustainability perspective , 2014 .

[29]  Nicole Rijkens-Klomp,et al.  Barriers and levers to future exploration in practice experiences in policy-making , 2012 .

[30]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities — Part 2: Review of input–output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade , 2007 .

[31]  R. Samson,et al.  Macroanalysis of the economic and environmental impacts of a 2005–2025 European Union bioenergy policy using the GTAP model and life cycle assessment , 2012 .

[32]  Katarina Larsen,et al.  Climate change scenarios and citizen-participation: Mitigation and adaptation perspectives in constructing sustainable futures , 2009 .

[33]  M. Lenzen,et al.  Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities — Part 1: A technical note on combining input–output and ecological footprint analysis , 2007 .

[34]  Kate Raworth,et al.  A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? , 2012 .

[35]  E. Stehfest,et al.  RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C , 2011 .

[36]  Amartya Sen,et al.  Human Development and Economic Sustainability , 2000 .

[37]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions , 2011 .

[38]  Lorenz M. Hilty,et al.  Modeling the Effects of ICT on Environmental Sustainability: Revisiting a System Dynamics Model Developed for the European Commission , 2015, ICT Innovations for Sustainability.

[39]  A. Carlsson-kanyama,et al.  Participative backcasting: A tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning , 2008 .

[40]  P. Gleick,et al.  Systems integration for global sustainability , 2015, Science.

[41]  A. Scolobig,et al.  Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool , 2012 .

[42]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  An Identification Key for Selecting Methods for Sustainability Assessments , 2015 .

[43]  Tim Jackson,et al.  The carbon footprint of UK households 1990–2004: A socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-multi-regional input–output model , 2009 .

[44]  L. Greene.  EHPnet: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 2000, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[45]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Scenarios in selected tools for environmental systems analysis , 2008 .

[46]  Toolseeram Ramjeawon,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius , 2013, Environment, Development and Sustainability.