Tools for Integrated Sustainability Assessment: A two-track approach

Sustainable development has become an overarching policy target for the global policy arena. However, the international policy-making process and that of the individual countries remains largely sectoral in nature: a wide spectrum of international policies pursue narrow sectoral concerns and do not contribute fully enough to the achievement of broader sustainability targets. New policy tools such as Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) have therefore been adopted by the European Union to ensure that sectoral policies can be evaluated in relation to their wider sustainability impacts. However, what is really needed is a cross-sectoral approach to assessing sustainable development at an even higher, much more strategic level: Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA). ISA involves a longterm, comprehensive assessment of international and national policy programmes against sustainability targets and criteria. In order to perform ISA at the international level, new assessment tools and methods are needed which are rooted in a new paradigm. Sustainable development is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon, with a breadth and depth that cannot be fully covered by the current portfolio of ISA tools. We therefore need a new generation of ISA tools, in particular modelling tools that can (semi-)quantitatively assess the multiple dimensions of sustainable development, in terms of multiple scales, multiple domains and multiple generations. Although a new paradigm is on the horizon and its contours are gradually becoming clearer, it will take a while before it can be used to develop practical ISA tools. Within the context of the European MATISSE project we therefore propose a two-track strategy: find new ways to use the current portfolio of ISA tools as efficiently and effectively as possible, while at the same time developing building blocks to support the next generation of ISA tools.

[1]  Dale S. Rothman,et al.  Scenario Innovation: Experiences from a European Experimental Garden , 2005 .

[2]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Managing the Transition to Sustainable Mobility , 2004 .

[3]  Ferenc L. Toth,et al.  Integrated environmental assessment methods: Evolution and applications , 1998 .

[4]  C. Gersick REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE THEORIES: A MULTILEVEL EXPLORATION OF THE PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM PARADIGM , 1991 .

[5]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Image: An Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect , 1990 .

[6]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Dutch Perspectives on “Agents, Regions and Land Use Change” , 2001 .

[7]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modelling , 2002 .

[8]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Decision Analysis and Rational Action , 1998 .

[9]  J. Rotmans Societal Innovation: Between Dream and Reality Lies Complexity , 2005 .

[10]  Arnold Tukker,et al.  Imagining sustainability: the added value of transition scenarios in transition management , 2006 .

[11]  M.B.A. van Asselt,et al.  Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk: The PRIMA Approach to Decision Support , 2000 .

[12]  C. Lindblom Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. , 1979 .

[13]  John H. Holland,et al.  Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity , 1995 .

[14]  R. Silverstone,et al.  Consuming technologies : media and information in domestic spaces , 1993 .

[15]  J. Bergh,et al.  Dynamic models for sustainable development , 1991 .

[16]  K. Kok Scaling issues in integrated assessment: theoretical issues and practical implementations in land use analysis , 2006 .

[17]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  The Scene Model: Getting A Grip On Sustainable Development In Policy Making , 2005 .

[18]  M. V. Asselt,et al.  More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy , 2001 .

[19]  Henricus Bernardus Maria Hilderink,et al.  World Population in Transition: An Integrated Regional Modelling Framework , 2000 .

[20]  M. F. van de Kerkhof Debating Climate Change. A study of stakeholder participation in an integrated assessment of long-term climate policy in the Netherlands , 2004 .

[21]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  At Home in the Universe , 1995 .

[22]  Arjen Ysbert Hoekstra,et al.  Perspectives on Global Change: The TARGETS model , 1997 .

[23]  P. Verburg,et al.  Exploring the spatial and temporal dynamics of land use with special reference to China , 2000 .

[24]  Jonathan Köhler,et al.  Costs of greenhouse gas abatement: meta-analysis of post-SRES mitigation scenarios , 2002 .

[25]  Anne van der Veen,et al.  Simulating Stakeholder Support in a Policy Process: An Application to River Management , 2005, Simul..

[26]  R. Kemp,et al.  Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development , 2007 .

[27]  P. C. Mohan Munasinghe,et al.  Environmental economics and sustainable development , 1991 .

[28]  Ferenc L. Toth,et al.  State of the Art and Future Challenges for Integrated Environmental Assessment , 2004 .

[29]  J. B. Quinn,et al.  Strategic Change: "Logical Incrementalism.". , 1978 .

[30]  J. Rotmans Methods for IA: The challenges and opportunities ahead , 1998 .

[31]  Martin Greenberger,et al.  Models in the policy process , 1976 .

[32]  J. Alcamo IMAGE 2.0 : integrated modeling of global climate change , 1994 .

[33]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[34]  William C. Clark,et al.  Public Participation in Sustainability Science: Frontmatter , 2003 .