EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 0 ( 2 00 7 ) 4 9 8 –5 08

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

SURVEY

Categorising tools for sustainability assessment

Barry Ness a,b,⁎,1 , Evelin Urbel-Piirsalu a,b,c,1 , Stefan Anderberg d , Lennart Olsson a
a
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), PO Box 170, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
b
Department of Social and Economic Geography, Lund University, Sölvegatan 10, Geocentrum I, 223 62 Lund, Sweden
c
Stockholm Environment Institute Tallinn Centre, Box 160, 10502 Tallinn, Estonia
d
Institute of Geography, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark

AR TIC LE I N FO ABS TR ACT

Article history: The aim of this paper is to provide a categorisation of sustainability assessment tools within
Received 24 January 2006 the broader objective of lifting the understanding of sustainability assessment from the
Accepted 31 July 2006 environmental-focused realm to a wider interpretation of sustainability. The suggested
Available online 18 September 2006 framework is based on three main categories: indicators/indices, product-related
assessment, and integrated assessment tools. There is furthermore the overarching
Keywords: category of monetary valuation tools that can be used as a part of many of the tools listed
Sustainability assessment in the three categories. The tools are also divided by their spatial focus and the level of
Sustainability science nature–society system integration. Discussion focuses on if and how the tools fulfil the
Indicators objectives from the more current understanding of sustainability assessment.
Flow assessments © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Integrated assessment
Impact assessment

1. Introduction nature, life-support systems and community. The group

furthermore brings out the three ideas to be developed: people,
Sustainable development has been incorporated into many society and economy. Lastly, the intergenerational component
levels of society in recent years. The standard definition is critical because specific sustainability goals must explicitly
provided by the Brundtland Commission “to make develop- express the time-horizon for which the goals are to be
ment sustainable — to ensure that it meets the needs of the achieved.2 Emerging from this structural backbone is the field
present without compromising the ability of future genera- of sustainability science. Kasemir et al. (2003) describe this
tions to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987) is a starting point research area as combining work in the area of environmental
for most who set out to define the concept. The U.S. National science with work in economic, social and development
Research Council (1999) argues that there are three important studies to better understand the complex dynamic interac-
components of sustainable development: what is to be sus- tions between environmental, social and economic issues.
tained, what is to be developed, and the intergenerational But for the transition to sustainability, goals must be
component. They identify three areas to be sustained, namely, assessed. This has posed important challenges to the scien-
tific community in providing efficient but reliable tools. As a
response to these challenges, sustainability assessment has
become a rapidly developing area. The numbers of tools that
⁎ Corresponding author. Lund University Centre for Sustainability claim that they can be used for assessing sustainability have
Studies (LUCSUS), PO Box 170, 221 00 Lund, Sweden. Tel.: +46 46
222 0512; fax: +46 46 222 0475.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Ness).
1 2
The senior authorship is shared by both authors. For more detailed discussion see Kates et al. (2005).

0921-8009/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 0 ( 2 0 07 ) 49 8 –5 08 499

grown; simultaneously many of the tools have developed, Neither has there been made any attempt to quantify the
providing better application guidelines, data and case study importance of various tools by the number of studies or
experiences. Sustainability assessment has increasingly be- publications for each tool.
come associated with the family of impact assessment tools The article presents a categorisation of sustainability assess-
consisting of e.g. Environmental Impact Assessment and ment tools with a presentation of each group of tools and its area
Strategic Environmental Assessment (Devuyst, 2000; Pope of applicability. This categorisation is based on their approaches
et al., 2004), or EU Sustainability Impact Assessment. Devuyst and focus areas. First, the general framework is presented. The
et al. (2001) define sustainability assessment as “...a tool that article then delves deeper into each tool category and presents a
can help decision-makers and policy-makers decide which short description of each tool group and application examples.
actions they should or should not take in an attempt to make The article concludes with a short discussion of the categorisa-
society more sustainable.” In an effort to introduce and define tion framework and the findings of the inventory.
sustainability science, Kates et al. (2001) provide seven core
questions for research. Two of them are particularly connected
to the issue of assessing sustainability: 3. Framework for sustainability assessment
tools
• “How can today's operational systems for monitoring and
reporting on environmental and social conditions be Earlier overviews of assessment methods/tools/indicators
integrated or extended to provide more useful guidance for have demonstrated that approaches can be categorised
efforts to navigate a transition toward sustainability? based on numerous factors or dimensions (Baumann and
• How can today's relatively independent activities of re- Cowell, 1999; Moberg, 1999; Wrisberg et al., 2002; Finnveden
search planning, monitoring, assessment, and decision et al., 2003; Finnveden and Moberg, 2005; Kates et al., 2005). We
support be better integrated into systems for adaptive considered the following factors in our inventory:
management and societal learning?”
• Temporal characteristics, i.e. if the tool evaluates past
These two questions stress the need for the extension and development (ex-post or descriptive), or if it is used for
integration of environmental and social assessment, monitor- predicting future outcomes (ex-ante or change-oriented) such
ing and planning that should be particularly stressed in as a policy change or an improvement in a production process.
connection with sustainability assessment. Our suggestion, • The focus (coverage areas), for example, if their focus is at
based on Kates et al. (2001), is that the purpose of sustainability the product level, or on a proposed change in policy.
assessment is to provide decision-makers with an evaluation of • Integration of nature–society systems i.e. to what extent the
global to local integrated nature–society systems in short and long term tool fuses environmental, social and/or economic aspects.
perspectives in order to assist them to determine which actions should
or should not be taken in an attempt to make society sustainable. The sustainability assessment tool framework is developed
But to which degree does the present sustainable assess- on the basis of our inventory (see Fig. 1) It consists of three
ment toolbox fulfil these broader objectives? umbrellas or general categorisation areas; these areas are 1)
How do they manage to integrate nature–society systems, indicators and indices, which are further broken down into
and are they able to sufficiently address local to global non-integrated and integrated, 2) product-related assessment
dimensions and short-term and long-term perspectives? tools with the focus on the material and/or energy flows of a
product or service from a life cycle perspective, and 3) in-
tegrated assessment, which are a collection of tools usually
2. Aims, materials and contents focused on policy change or project implementation. There is
also the overarching category at the bottom of the figure used
Based on an inventory of different tools for assessing when non-market values are needed in the three categories.
sustainability, the aim of this paper is to contribute to the The tools are arranged on a time continuum based on if they
overview and discussion on sustainability assessment tools. look back in time (retrospective) or if they are forward looking
The ambition of the inventory is to provide a general (prospective, forecasting) tools.
understanding of existing approaches and to evaluate to
which degree they are able to incorporate the different 3.1. Indicators and indices
dimensions of sustainability described in the introduction.
The inventory is based on a literature review from a wide- The first umbrella of sustainability assessment tools consists
array of sources. The material used consisted not only of of indicators and indices. Indicators are simple measures, most
literature describing each of the tools, but also material related often quantitative that represent a state of economic, social
to the specific application of each of the assessment and/or environmental development in a defined region—often
approaches. The ambition has been to cover the tools that the national level. When indicators are aggregated in some
most frequently appear in the literature, and as far as possible, manner, the resulting measure is an index. Harger and Meyer
cover the variety of the broad field that can be viewed as (1996) suggest that indicators should contain the following
sustainability assessment. The inventory is not exhaustive; characteristics: simplicity, (a wide) scope, are quantifiable,
the tools covered are by no means all the tools that exist for allow trends to be determined, tools that are sensitive to
sustainability assessment, but we claim that the most change, and allow timely identification of trends. Indicators
significant ones found in the literature today are represented. and indices, which are continuously measured and calculated,
500 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 0 ( 2 00 7 ) 4 9 8 –5 08

Fig. 1 – Framework for sustainability assessment tools. The proposed assessment tool framework is based on the temporal
focus of the tool along with the object of focus of the tool. The arrow on the top of the framework shows the temporal focus,
which is either retrospective (indicators/indices), prospective (integrated assessment) or both (product-related assessment).
The object of focus of the tools is either spatial, referring to a proposed change in policy (indicators/indices and integrated
assessment), or at the product level (product-related assessment). The monetary valuation tools on the bottom are used when
monetary valuations are needed in the above tools. Thick lines around the boxes mean that these tools are capable of
integrating nature–society systems into single evaluation.
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 0 ( 2 0 07 ) 49 8 –5 08 501

allow for the tracking of longer-term sustainability trends from societal resources (Kleijn, 2001). MFA studies have been
a retrospective point of view. Understanding these trends performed in many countries and the numbers of regional
allows making short-term projections and relevant decisions MFA studies have increased during the last decades. Over-
for the future. The tools in the category of indicators and views and analysis of various studies up to the 1990s are
indices are either non-integrated, meaning they do not integrate presented by e.g. Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler (1998) and
nature–society parameters, or integrated, meaning the tools Anderberg et al. (2000). Regional flow indicators are also
aggregate the different dimensions. There is also a subcategory non-integrated as they only focus on physical flows, thus
of non-integrated tools that focuses specifically on regional environmental aspects.
flow indicators. Economy-wide MFA developed by Eurostat is the most
standardised tool for MFA for regions. It is mainly used at the
3.1.1. Non-integrated indicators national level with the possibility of being applied at other
An example of non-integrated indicators is Environmental spatial levels. The studies of World Resources Institute on total
Pressure Indicators (EPIs) developed by Statistical Office of the material flows in industrialised economies (Adriaanse et al.,
European Communities (Eurostat). One of Eurostat's missions 1997; Matthews et al., 2000) were important for standardising
is to provide comparable and comprehensible data for EU regional material flow analysis. Eurostat created guidelines for
countries and regions, collected and prepared in close conducting a MFA for an economy (Eurostat, 2001). The results of
collaboration with member state statistical offices. The EPI flow analyses are most often in the form of detailed flow
set consists of 60 indicators, six in each of the ten policy fields diagrams, but there are several indicators that are built on this
under the Fifth Environmental Action Programme (Lammers kind of analysis. The Eurostat guide divides such material flow
and Gilbert, 1999). It is also possible to aggregate the six indicators into three categories—input, output and consump-
indicators in each policy field into an index, which in total tion indicators. Each category includes indicators of different
makes up ten environmental pressure indices. The intention levels depending on whether they cover domestic, foreign and/
with these indicators, which consist of for example forest or hidden flows. Hidden flows are materials that do not enter
damage, fishing pressure, tourism intensity, waste landfilled, into economic systems, for example excavation, non-saleable
is to provide a common and comprehensive set of indicators extraction, soil erosion, etc. (Matthews et al., 2000). Material
for EU member states to evaluate and measure environmental input indicators show the material inflows into the economy
sustainability. These indicators permit a comparison of the through local production and consumption. Material output
environmental situation in different EU member countries, indicators measure all material outflows back to the environ-
and an evaluation of trends in member states and in the EU as ment in terms of wastes and emissions either during or after
a whole. Currently there are EPI reports available from years production and consumption process. Material consumption
1999 and 2001 (European Commission and Eurostat, 1999, indicators measure the total of all materials used in an
2001). economy.
Another example is the set of 58 national indicators used Substance Flow Analysis (SFA) focuses on regional flows of
by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Develop- certain chemical and/or chemical compounds and the related
ment (UNCSD). The UNCSD was created to carry out the losses to the environment. The ultimate goal for SFA is to
priorities of the United Nations Conference on Environment reduce the load of a particular substance. SFA is performed
and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. In order to regionally or nationally to identify problem areas. SFA results
arrive at “a broader, more complete picture of societal can be useful for environmental planning and management at
development” these indicators extend further than just the various levels. Lindqvist and von Malmborg (2004) have
common economic indicators, to include, social, environmen- conducted a study of cadmium flows in Swedish municipal-
tal and institutional monitoring mechanisms (UNCSD, 2001). ities exemplifying how SFA could be used in the decision-
The indicators are not integrated or aggregated in any manner. making process.
Examples of the UNCSD indicators include water quality levels Energy analysis focuses on all the energy flows in an
for the environmental category, national education levels, and economy. It is based on the first law of thermodynamics,
population growth rates as social determinants, GNP per which states that energy is constant and cannot be created nor
capita for the economic sphere, and the number of ratified destroyed, but it can only be converted into different types of
global agreements in the category of institutional sustainabil- energy (Hovelius, 1997). A national or regional energy analysis
ity (UNCSD, 2001). National reports and country profiles using is often carried out using Input–Output Energy Analysis based
these indicators have been submitted by many member on Leontief's economic input–output matrix, which analyses
countries since 1994 (United Nations, 2002). the trade between different industries in the economy. In the
case of energy analysis, trade volumes are replaced with
3.1.2. Regional flow indicators energy flows between industries (Hovelius, 1997; Finnveden
Analysis of material and energy flows allows an overview of and Moberg, 2005).
the structure of resource flows and identification of Energy analysis can also be carried out by using different
inefficiencies within a system. Such studies may be used types of energy measures, such as exergy and emergy. Both
both for reconstructing historical flows and emissions these forms of analyses are more advanced since they
and for forecasting and decision support. Material Flow consider both the quality and the quantity of energy (Rosen
Analysis (MFA) analyses the physical metabolism of society and Dincer, 2001; Herendeen, 2004). The exergy of a system is
in order to support dematerialisation and reduction of the maximal amount of mechanical work that can be
losses to the environment connected to the extensive extracted (Wall, 1977). An exergy analysis gives an overview
502 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 0 ( 2 00 7 ) 4 9 8 –5 08

of the effectiveness of resource utilisation and show where ments in education. A positive indicator value reflects a
losses occur, and where technological improvements can be positive transition toward sustainability, whereas a negative
made to increase energy efficiency. There are examples of indicator value represents the opposite. It thus has the
Regional Exergy Analyses for Sweden (Wall, 1997), Japan (Wall, advantage of giving a country a clear signal in terms of its
1990), and the United States (Ayres et al., 2003). Odum (1996) direction of development (Everett and Wilks, 1999).
has created a methodology for Regional Emergy Analysis The Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996) is an
where all resources and goods are expressed in common units accounting tool that estimates the resource consumption and
(solar emjoules) measuring the solar energy that was needed waste assimilation requirements of a given population or
for producing them (Doherty et al., 2002). economy in terms of a corresponding land area. Calculating
the Ecological Footprint is a multi-stage process. The average
3.1.3. Integrated indicators and indices person's annual consumption level of food, housing, trans-
There are numerous attempts to move beyond the non- port, consumer goods and services is estimated. Next, the land
integrated and combine different nature–society dimensions area needed for the production and environmental impact of
in one indicator or index. The first four indices in the framework each of the consumption items is calculated, and finally all the
are attempts to develop alternatives to the national accounting areas needed are summed. The result is a per capita land area
indices such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Net National for the annual consumption of goods and services (Wack-
Product (NNP), which are frequently used as measures of overall ernagel and Rees, 1996). The Ecological Footprint has been
human welfare. GDP and NNP often provide decision-makers applied to numerous countries and regions. It has mainly been
with the erroneous signals as to true sustainability—leaving out used for gauging sustainability at the national level, but
critical factors like income distribution, public safety, resource changes at city or urban-region level, and aggregated indices
over-utilisation and other negative externalities that are not have also been evaluated (Venetoulis et al., 2004).
incorporated into these common measures (Gerlagh et al., 2002). The Wellbeing Index (Prescott-Allen, 2001) was used in an
Due to the shortcomings of GDP not taking environmental evaluation for the World Summit for Sustainable Development in
considerations into account, or as an adequate quality of life Johannesburg 2002 and included 180 countries. The Wellbeing
indicator, a variety of alternative measurement tools have been Index consists of two indices, the Human Wellbeing Index (HWI)
devised. Each provides a somewhat different measurement of and Ecosystem Wellbeing Index (EWI), which are aggregated
sustainable development. A detailed description of many of from more than 60 different indicators. HWI includes population
these indicators along with assessment results can also be and health parameters, wealth indicators, indicators on knowl-
found in Hanley et al. (1999). edge, culture, community and equity issues, while EWI aggre-
Sustainable National Income (SNI) is an index developed gates land, water and air dimensions, biodiversity issues and
for the Netherlands (Hueting et al., 1993). The tool attempts to resource use indicators. The two indices are given equal strength
move beyond strict economic output parameters to determine when they are combined into an illustrative tool called the
well-being by incorporating sustainable resource utilisation Barometer of Sustainability.
measurements into national income accounting. SNI does not The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) is developed to
directly include social factors in calculations. The index is a measure “overall progress toward environmental sustainability”
comparison of national income that is estimated to be (Centre for International Earth Science Information Network,
sustainable to that of conventional national income account- 2002). It consists of 68 indicators of five different categories: the
ing practices. The gap between the two numbers describes the state of environmental systems (air, water, soil, ecosystems, etc.),
dependence of the country on natural resource use that reducing stresses on environmental systems, reducing human
exceeds sustainable utilisation (Gerlagh et al., 2002). vulnerability to environmental change, social and institutional
The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) (Daly capacity to cope with environmental challenges, and the ability
and Cobb, 1989) and the General Progress Indicator (GPI), to comply with international standards and agreements (Centre
developed by the non-profit organisation Redefining Progress for International Earth Science Information Network, 2002). Even
in the mid-1990s (Cobb et al., 1995), span the economic, social though this index focuses mainly on environmental sustainabil-
and environmental dimensions. Both these tools, which are ity, it also includes some social and institutional issues. The aim
closely related, adjust national accounting practices to en- of ESI is to make comparisons between countries possible and to
compass a broader set of welfare determinants, which include assist environmental decision-making.
deductions for military spending, environmental degradation The Human Development Index (HDI) is used by the United
and depreciation in natural capital. Calculations have been Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for evaluating social
performed for a number of countries. and economic progress in different countries. It consists of three
Adjusted Net Savings, also called Genuine Savings (Hamil- general parameters: longevity, knowledge, and standard of
ton et al., 1997), is another alternative measurement mecha- living (UNDP, 2004). Longevity is measured by life expectancy at
nism to determine sustainability at the national level. This birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult
indicator is associated most with the World Bank. The literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary
Adjusted Net Saving rate encompasses resource depletion gross enrolment ratio. Finally the standard of living is measured
and environmental degradation, and has also been extended by GDP per capita. The HDI has been calculated for UN member
to include technological change, human resources, exhaust- countries with sufficient data and a handful of other non-
ible resource exports, resource discoveries and critical natural member countries since 1975. Since the index underwent a
capital. Most emphasis is placed on the economic and significant reform in 1999, historical comparisons have become
environmental components, but the tool also includes invest- difficult (Lind, 2004).
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 0 ( 2 0 07 ) 49 8 –5 08 503

3.2. Product-related assessment Service (MIPS) index (expressed in weight) (Spangenberg et al.,
1999). This analysis considers all the material flows connected
The second umbrella consists of product-related tools that to a particular product or a service including the so called
focus on flows in connection with production and consump- ecological rucksack. The ecological rucksack consists of all the
tion of goods and services. Built on a similar flow perspective, materials required for the complete production process minus
they are closely related to the regional flow indicators of the the actual weight of the product and represents the actual
previous category (Anderberg et al., 2000). But the tools in this material intensity of a given product. The MIPS concept has
category focus on evaluating different flows in relation to been the starting point for the strategic discussions on the
various products or services instead of regions. They evaluate Factor 4 and Factor 10 goals.
resource use and environmental impacts along the production Substance Flow Analysis (SFA) is performed through life
chain or through the life cycle of a product (from cradle to cycle stages in order to discover where the inflows and out-
grave). The aims of identifying particular risks and inefficien- flows of substances occur. The analysis enables the identifi-
cies to support decision-making are similar to the regional cation of the source of the environmental impact, and thusly
flow indicators, but in this case in connection with design of where corresponding reduction of the environmental burden
products and production systems. These tools do not integrate can be directed. SFA could be used for analysing a product life
nature–society systems as they are mainly focusing on cycle but it is often used for analysing industries (Antikainen
environmental aspects. However, life cycle costing tools may et al., 2004).
integrate environmental and economic dimensions. Product-
related tools allow both retrospective and prospective assess- 3.2.4. Product energy analysis
ments that support decision-making. Product energy analysis measures the energy that is required
to manufacture a product or a service (Herendeen, 2004). It
3.2.1. Life cycle assessment includes both direct and indirect energy flows. Indirect energy
The most established and well-developed tool in this category is the energy that is used for producing inputs, for example,
is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA has been used in varying energy that is used to produce metal for the car industry. An
forms over the past 35 years to evaluate the environmental example of tools for analysing product or service energy
impacts of a product or a service throughout its life cycle. It is requirements is Process Energy Analysis (Hovelius, 1997). It
an approach that analyses real and potential pressure that a focuses on different processes and levels in the product life
product has on the environment during raw material acqui- cycle and sums up the flows of energy use through each of the
sition, production process, use, and disposal of the product production process stages. Life cycle-based Exergy and Emergy
(Lindfors, 1995). The International Standards Organisation Analysis also occur. Emergy Analysis has been used for
(ISO) has established guidelines and principles for LCA that analysing production processes of a single product (Hovelius,
have been further interpreted and developed by many 1997) as well as whole industries (Doherty et al., 2002), while
(Ciambrone, 1997; Hauschild and Wenzel, 2000; Ross and Exergy Analysis has been used for analysing energy systems
Evans, 2002; Jolliet et al., 2004). LCA results provide informa- such as heating or electricity production (Nilsson, 1997; Brown
tion for decisions regarding product development and ecode- and Ulgiati, 2002).
sign, production system improvements, and product choice at
the consumer level. Life Cycle Assessment has been per- 3.3. Integrated assessment
formed for the pulp and paper industry (Ekvall, 1999; Ross and
Evans, 2002; Lopes et al., 2003), the waste and energy field Tools under the third umbrella are integrated assessment
(Lunghi et al., 2004; Finnveden et al., 2005; Moberg et al., 2005), tools; they are used for supporting decisions related to a policy
as well as a multitude of other product and service areas. or a project in a specific region. Project related tools are used
for local scale assessments, whereas the policy related focus
3.2.2. Life cycle costing on local to global scale assessments. In the context of
Life cycle costing (LCC) is an economic approach that sums up sustainability assessment, integrated assessment tools have
“total costs of a product, process or activity discounted over its an ex-ante focus and often are carried out in the form of
lifetime” (Gluch and Baumann, 2004). In principle LCC is not scenarios. Many of these integrated assessment tools are
associated with environmental costs, but costs in general. A based on systems analysis approaches and integrate nature
traditional LCC is an investment calculation that is used to and society aspects. Integrated assessment consists of the
rank different investment alternatives to help decide on the wide-array of tools for managing complex issues (Gough et al.,
best alternative. There are many different tools for life cycle 1998). There are many examples of integrated assessments of
costing analysis, but only two of them include environmental major environmental problems, but also established tools
costs — Life Cycle Cost Assessment and Full Cost Environ- such as Multi-Criteria Analysis, Risk Analysis, Vulnerability
mental Accounting. For additional information on life cycle Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis that do not necessarily
costing tools, see Gluch and Baumann (2004). pertain directly to only sustainability issues, but can be
extended to a variety of other problem areas across disciplin-
3.2.3. Product material flow analysis ary thresholds.
Analysis of material and substance flows is also used for
product systems. The Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Envi- 3.3.1. Conceptual modelling and systems dynamics
ronment and Energy has developed a product Material Although the terms may have slightly different connotations,
Intensity Analysis based on the Material Input per unit of Conceptual Modelling is often referred to as conceptual
504 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 0 ( 2 00 7 ) 4 9 8 –5 08

modelling, mental modelling or soft-systems modelling (see to be vulnerable then a risk analysis can be performed.
Checkland, 1981). Conceptual Modelling analyses qualitative Vulnerability Analysis has recently often been carried out in
(causal) relationships and often makes use of stock and flow the context of climate change (Kelly, 2000; Dixon et al., 2003;
diagrams, flow charts, or causal loop diagrams. Conceptual O'Brien et al., 2004) and shown that some societies and
Modelling can be used for visualising and detecting where ecosystems are definitely more vulnerable to climate change
changes in a given system can be made for increasing effects than others.
sustainability or as the initial conceptualisation mechanism
in a larger computer modelling approach. Systems Dynamics 3.3.5. Cost benefit analysis
refers to “the building of computer models of complex Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is an applied welfare economics
problem situations and then experimenting with and studying tool with roots reaching back to the early 20th century
the behaviour of these models over time” (Caulfield and Maj, (Johansson, 1996). It is used for evaluating public or private
2001). Examples of models related to sustainability assess- investment proposals by weighing the costs of the project
ment include IIASA's air pollution model (RAINS), the IMAGE against the expected benefits. In the realm of sustainability
model created to analyse social, biosphere, and climate assessment, CBA can be an effective tool for weighing the
system dynamics, and the Wonderland model designed to social costs and benefits of different alternatives in connec-
illustrate economic–environmental interactions. tion with e.g. energy and transports (Wrisberg et al., 2002). It is
this aspect of measuring expected benefits, or placing
3.3.2. Multi-criteria analysis monetary units on the benefits that is often problematic
Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) is used for assessments in with CBA (Moberg, 1999).
situations when there are competing evaluation criteria.
MCA identifies, in general, goals or objectives and then seeks 3.3.6. Impact assessment
to spot the trade-offs between them; the ultimate goal is to Impact assessment is a small group of forecasting tools used
identify the optimal policy. This approach has the advantage for improving the basis for policymaking and project approval
of incorporating both qualitative and quantitative data into process. They are all based on methodologies that attempt to
the process (Wrisberg et al., 2002). MCA has been used for incorporate concerns from diverse stakeholder groups into the
example for choosing the best alternative for flood control assessment process.
policies for the Netherlands (Brouwer and van Ek, 2004), and in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been used
the design energy and environmental policy (Greening and since 1960s for evaluating potential environmental impacts of
Bernow, 2004). large development projects with the aim to reduce the
negative effects (Sadler, 1999). In the EU, a directive that
3.3.3. Risk analysis and uncertainty analysis made EIA compulsory for proposed public and private projects
Risk is defined as “the possibility that certain losses or (e.g. construction projects) that are likely to have environ-
damages occur as the result of a particular event or series of mental impacts was introduced in 1985 (EU Commission, 1985;
events” (Rotmans, 1998). Risk Analysis is the assessment of 1997). EIA has also been introduced in the legislation in many
these potential damages. The process begins with identifica- other countries (Petts, 1999). Due to such legal requirements,
tion of the risk, and moves on to a qualitative and/or there are strict guidelines for the EIA process in the EU and
quantitative assessment of the risk—leading to certain other countries (Walker and Johnston, 1999).
management decisions regarding the minimisation of that Evolving from EIA in the 1990s, Strategic Environmental
risk. The final stage of the Risk Analysis includes communi- Assessment (SEA) is a tool for evaluating potential environ-
cation with stakeholders concerning the assessment and the mental impacts of strategic decisions (Partidario, 1999). There
corresponding decisions involved with minimising the risk are two major differences between SEA and EIA. SEA has to be
(Vose, 2000). Since risk is closely related to uncertainty, risk carried out earlier than EIA, and it is performed for conditions
analysis cannot be separated from uncertainty analysis (Rot- that involve less information, higher uncertainty and less
mans, 1998). There are two types of uncertainties: stochastic concreteness, which is often the case with political decisions;
uncertainty refers to natural variability of the system, whereas EIA is performed in concrete conditions of a
fundamental uncertainty is the inability to predict due to particular project. Despite these differences many of the
lack of knowledge about the system (Kann and Weyant, 2000; principles and procedures are similar in both processes
Vose, 2000). Uncertainty and Risk Analysis involve both types (Partidario, 1999). In both EIA and SEA, involvement of the
of uncertainty. They estimate the probability of events and public is part of the process, and diverse interests should be
predicting the events using the knowledge that is available. able to have a voice in connection with the recommendations.
These aspects of natural variability and lack of knowledge are More recently, the EU has introduced the more compre-
also the reason why societal and environmental risk analyses hensive tool of Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA). The
are forms of sustainability assessments. intention is to move from the sectoral and often fragmented
assessments to an integrated assessment covering environ-
3.3.4. Vulnerability analysis mental, economic and social parameters. The goal of this new
Vulnerability Analysis evaluates the vulnerability of coupled tool is to better be able to identify “the likely positive and
human–environment systems with the aim to determine how negative impacts of proposed policy actions, enabling in-
sensitive and resilient systems are to changes, and how formed political judgments to be made about the proposal and
capable systems are to cope with changes (Turner et al., 2003). identify trade-offs in achieving competing objectives” (see EU
If the analysis determines a human or environmental system Commission, 2002). Sustainability Impact Assessment was
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 0 ( 2 0 07 ) 49 8 –5 08 505

first applied in early 2003 and is now used for all major Some tools may be integrated within their specific assess-
Commission initiatives. An analysis of the first SIAs carried ment dimensions, but according to our view only seventeen
out by Wilkinson et al. (2004) concluded among other things tools (marked with the dark, thick border in Fig. 1) are capable
that none of the assessments had followed the Commission of integrating nature–society facets, representing only a
guidelines completely. This study also revealed that the range minority of approaches that exist today.3 There is still a strong
of assessed impacts was limited, and that most attention was focus on environmental parameters, particularly among the
still placed on economic aspects and not on environmental or product-related assessment tools, where, with the exception
social. Further guideline development and revisions are of LCC, the tools largely disregard social and/or economic
expected in the near future. aspects. Even though tools in some categories have made a
transition to more integrated approaches (see Section 3.1.3),
3.4. Monetary valuation these are not commonly used.
Efforts have been made through combining two or more
Monetary valuation is also often referred to as shadow pricing different tools to extend the focus of analysis (Wrisberg et al.,
or non-market valuation. This group consists of tools that are 2002). Examples of this tendency are the simultaneous
not sustainability assessment techniques themselves, but analysis of a product or service function using Life Cycle
rather an important set of tools that can be used to assist Assessment (environmental impact tool), Life Cycle Costing
other tools when monetary values are needed for goods and (economic tool) and/or the Social Life Cycle Assessment
services not found in the marketplace. Tools, for example, (Klöpffer, 2003; Dreyer et al., 2005). A shortcoming of such an
Cost–Benefit Analysis, Genuine Savings, and Life Cycle Cost approach is that the overall results of the study are not
Assessment require such values to be used. With monetary presently integrated in any manner.
valuation there are different ways to assign values. There is for The spatial coverage is more flexible in connection with
example the Contingent Valuation method (previously called various tools. Although the national level is the most common
the Survey Method), which uses surveys to estimate people's focus, the tools in the first umbrella can be used at a variety of
willingness-to-pay for certain nature's goods and services. spatial levels. This means that specific environmental impacts
The Travel Cost method uses the price paid for travelling as a can be calculated for a region within a country, or national
basis of its monetary value (Johansson, 1996), and the Hedonic level indicators can be aggregated to detect international or
Pricing method that focuses mainly on property markets global impacts. Integrated sustainability assessments can be
through analysing prices influenced by its surrounding, which performed on human impacts on local ecosystems all the way
can be either positive (near beach or park) or negative (close to up to dynamic global climate models. The category of impact
highway, airport or industrial area) (Pearce et al., 1994). There assessment can also be modified to reflect the spatial focus
also are additional techniques for monetary valuation includ- required. Impact assessments focus on a proposed change in
ing Factor Income, Avoided Cost and Replacement Cost that policy or expected impacts from a project. The first two tools,
can be used (see Pearce et al., 1994). EIA and SEA, are tools that are used most from local or regional
impacts from the project proposal; global impacts are often
not part of the scope of the assessment. The tool of EU
4. Discussion and conclusions Sustainability Impact Assessment though has the intentions
to move beyond impacts at the EU's spatial boundaries and
This paper has presented a framework for the classification of assess impacts of EU policy decisions on other nations as well
common sustainability assessment tools with the objective of as more localised impacts. It may, for example, address how a
contributing to the overview and discussion of sustainability decrease in EU economic agricultural support will affect not
assessment tools. The suggested framework is primarily only producers in member countries, but also farmers in other
based on a combination of the temporal dimensions of the countries? However, the overall effectiveness of the tool has
tool and the object of focus for the tool and consists of three not been determined and is not the issue here.
major categories: indicators/indices, product-related assess- A group of tools that is different concerning spatial aspects
ment, and integrated assessment tools. Monetary valuation are the product-related assessment tools. This group generally
tools can be used as a part of numerous tools listed in the three does not focus on the spatial attributes of a particular product.
categories. In the case of life cycle assessment, the tool is considered a
global tool giving it the weakness of low spatial resolution
4.1. Do the tools fulfil the objectives? (Udo de Haes et al., 2004). In other words, the impacts are tied
only to the product function and not specifically to where the
To what degree does the assessment tools presented fulfil the impacts occur, making it site-independent. Work is underway
expanded objectives for sustainability assessment? The sug- though to make the tool more site-specific through the
gested redefinition of sustainability assessment was based on development of site-dependent characterisation factors (c.f.
three important elements. The first element is the integration of Finnveden and Nilsson, 2005).
nature and society, or if the tools are capable of integrating
nature–society systems? The second element in the definition 3
The number of tools with thick borders in our framework (Fig.
focuses on the spatial aspects of an assessment: is the tool
1) represents a minority of tools, but it does not appear that way
capable of assessing different scales or spatial levels? The final in the framework. This is due to some of the individual non-
element concerns the temporal aspects: are the tools able to integrated boxes actually containing up to 60 indicators each (e.g.
address both the short- to long-term perspectives? Environmental Pressure Indicators and UNCSD 58).
506 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 0 ( 2 00 7 ) 4 9 8 –5 08

The temporal aspect stressed in connection with the tool for more standardised tools that give more transparent results.
framework was if the tools look forward or backward. We Can future assessment tool development meet the challenges
do not argue that retrospective tools cannot be used for of allowing for better assessment tool guidelines and data
assessing future sustainability patterns, but they may not be availability and for succinct analyses on a more diverse range
optimal for gauging longer-term sustainability since they have of assessment situations? Like the many facets of the concept
been developed for analysing the past. Forecasting tools are of sustainability itself, proper tool development can only
more favourable to our interpretation of sustainability as- happen when all parameters are considered simultaneously.
sessment. These tools were designed to for example to help
reveal impacts, benefits, risks, vulnerabilities, etc. resulting
from some system change at a variety of temporal scales.
REFERENCES
Unlike the more verifiable retrospective tools though, fore-
casting tools have the disadvantage that they are more Adriaanse, A., Bringezu, S., Hamond, A., Moriguchi, Y., Rodenburg,
subjective in nature—often making it more difficult for E., Rogich, D., Schütz, H., 1997. Resource Flows: The Material
decision-makers to accept their credibility. Base of Industrial Economies. World Resources Institute,
Washington.
Anderberg, S., Prieler, S., Olendrzynski, K., de Bruyn, S., 2000. Old
4.2. Other differences among the tools
Sins — Industrial Metabolism, Heavy Metal Pollution and
Environmental Transition in Central Europe. UN University
There are important differences among the tools concerning Press, Tokyo.
their establishment and frequency of use. For many of the Antikainen, R., Haapanen, R., Rekolainen, S., 2004. Flows of
tools, e.g. LCA, CBA, EIA and MFA, there are relatively well nitrogen and phosphorus in Finland — the forest industry and
established guidelines available for tool practitioners, whereas use of wood fuels. Journal of Cleaner Production 12, 919–934.
newer tools such as the EU Sustainability Impact Assessment Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W., Warr, B., 2003. Exergy, power and work in
the US economy, 1900–1998. Energy 28 (3), 219–273.
represent an area where guideline establishment is still in
Baumann, H., Cowell, S.J., 1999. An evaluative framework for
early developmental stages. The same can be said for data conceptual and analytical approaches used in environmental
availability for use with many of the tools. Although it can be management. Greener Management International 26, 109–123.
argued that input data is generally a weak link with all of the Brouwer, R., van Ek, R., 2004. Integrated ecological, economic and
assessment mechanisms, tools like LCA have developed data social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies
sets in a number of areas. As the area of sustainability in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics 50 (1–2), 1–21.
assessment matures, it is expected that some of the tools Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2002. Emergy evaluations and environ-
mental loading of electricity production systems. Journal of
presented in the framework will be utilised significantly less
Cleaner Production 10, 321–334.
or disappear; other tools will experience an increased stan- Caulfield, C.W., Maj, S.P., 2001. A case for Systems Thinking and
dardisation and usage, while other completely new tools will System Dynamics. Systems, Man and Cybernetics.
emerge. Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (2002).
Interpretations of sustainability are also important in 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index, Global Leaders for
which assessment approach will be used. In some cases Tomorrow World Economic Forum Yale Center for Environ-
mental Law and Policy. Main report.
assessment tool practitioners and decision-makers have a
Checkland, P., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John
choice to use a tool, or specific assessment results that most
Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
closely reflect their political viewpoint and their broader Ciambrone, D.F., 1997. Environmental Life Cycle Analysis. Lewis
interpretation of sustainability. Simply speaking, how one Publishers, Boca Raton.
defines sustainability largely determines how one goes about Cobb, C., Halstead, E., Rowe, J., 1995. The Genuine Progress
assessing it. For example, is an assessment done from a weak Indicator — Summary of Data and Methodology. Redefining
sustainability perspective, implying that manufactured capi- Progress, Washington DC.
Daly, H.E., Cobb, J.B., 1989. For the Common Good. Beacon Press,
tal can be substituted for natural capital, or from a strong
Boston.
sustainability perspective, where the stock of natural capital Devuyst, D., 2000. Linking impact assessment and sustainable
must be preserved and is not substitutable? Examples of a development at the local level: the introduction of sustain-
weak sustainability assessment tools under the rubric of ability assessment systems. Sustainable Development 8, 67–78.
integrated indicators are ISEW and Adjusted Net Savings, with Devuyst, D., Hens, L., Lannoy, W.d., 2001. How Green is the City?
the Ecological Footprint as an example of a stronger measure Sustainability Assessment and the Management of Urban
of sustainability (Hanley et al., 1999). The differing interpreta- Environments. Columbia University Press, New York.
Dixon, R., Smith, J., Guill, S., 2003. Life on the edge: vulnerability
tions can have implications for decision-making processes.
and adaptation of African ecosystems to global climate change.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 8 (2),
4.3. Final remarks 93–113.
Doherty, S.J., Nilsson, P.O., Odum, H.T., 2002. Emergy Evaluation of
There is a contradiction with the future development of Forest Production and Industries in Sweden. Department of
sustainability assessment tools. On the one hand there is the Bioenergy, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Dreyer, L.C., Hauschild, M., Schierbeck, J., 2005. A framework for
demand for approaches that have more specific assessment
social life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of
performance, meaning among other things are more case- and
Life Cycle Assessment 11 (2), 88–97.
site-specific. At the same time there exists the demand for Ekvall, T., 1999. Key methodological issues for life cycle inventory
tools that are broader in order to be accessible to a wide user analysis of paper recycling. Journal of Cleaner Production 7,
group for differing case circumstances. There is also the need 281–294.
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 0 ( 2 0 07 ) 49 8 –5 08 507

EU Commission, 1985. Council directive of 27 June 1985 on the Accounting. A review of the current debate. A. Markandya and
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects R. Costanza, United Nations Environment Programme.
on the environment. Official Journal L 175, 40–48. Johansson, P.-O., 1996. Cost-benefit Analysis of Environmental
EU Commission, 1997. Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the Jolliet, O., Müller-Wenk, R., Bare, J., Brent, A., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs,
effects of certain public and private projects on the environ- R., Itsubo, N., Pena, C., Pennington, D.W., Potting, J., et al., 2004.
ment. Official Journal L073, 5. The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life
EU Commission, 2002. Communication from the commission on cycle initiative. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9
impact assessment. Brussels, Commission of the European (6), 394–404.
Communities. COM(2002) 276 final. Kann, A., Weyant, J.P., 2000. Approaches for performing uncer-
European Commission and Eurostat, 1999. Towards environmen- tainty analysis in large-scale energy/economic policy models.
tal pressure indicators for the EU. Brussels. First edition 1999. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 5, 29–46.
European Commission and Eurostat, 2001. Towards environmen- Kasemir, B., Jaeger, C.C., Jäger, J., 2003. Citizen participation in
tal pressure indicators for the EU. Brussels. Second edition sustainability assessment. In: Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C.C.,
2001. Gardner, M.T. (Eds.), Public Participation in Sustainability
Eurostat, 2001. Economy-wide Material Flow Accounts and Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–36.
Derived Indicators. A Methodological Guide. Statistical Office Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, M.J., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I.,
of the European Union, Luxembourg. McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., et al.,
Everett, G., Wilks, A., 1999. The World Bank's Genuine Savings 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292, 641–642.
Indicator: A Useful Measure of Sustainability? Bretton Wood Kates, R.W., Parris, T., Leiserowitz, A., 2005. What is sustainable
Project, London. development? Goals, indicators, values and practice. Environ-
Finnveden, G., Moberg, Å., 2005. Environmental systems ment 47, 8–21.
analysis — an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 Kelly, P.M., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to
(12), 1165–1173. climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change 47
Finnveden, G., Nilsson, M., 2005. Site-dependent life-cycle impact (4), 325–352.
assessment in Sweden. International Journal of Life Cycle Kleijn, R., 2001. Adding it all up. The sense and non-sense of bulk-
Assessment 10 (4), 235–239. MFA. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4 (2), 7–8.
Finnveden, G., Nilsson, M., Johansson, J., Persson, Å., Moberg, Å., Klöpffer, W., 2003. Life-cycle based methods for sustainable
Carlsson, T., 2003. Strategic environmental assessment meth- development (editorial). International Journal of Life Cycle
odologies — applications within the energy sector. Environ- Assessment 8 (3), 157–159.
mental Impact Assessment Review 23, 91–123. Lammers, P.E.M., Gilbert, A.J., 1999. Towards Environmental
Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., Moberg, Å., 2005. Life cycle Pressure Indicators for the EU: Indicator Definition. EUROSTAT,
assessment of energy from solid waste—part 1: general Brussels.
methodology and results. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (3), Lind, N., 2004. Values reflected in the human development index.
213–229. Social Indicators Research 66, 283–293.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Hüttler, W., 1998. Society's metabolism. The Lindfors, L.-G., 1995. Nordic Guideline on Life-Cycle Assessment.
intellectual history of material flow analysis, part II, 1970–1998. Nord 20.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 2 (4), 107–136. Lindqvist, A., von Malmborg, F., 2004. What can we learn from
Gerlagh, R., Dellink, R., Hofkes, M., Verbruggen, H., 2002. A local flow analyses? The review of cadmium flows in Swedish
measure of sustainable national income for the Netherlands. municipalities. Journal of Cleaner Production 12, 909–918.
Ecological Economics 41, 157–174. Lopes, E., Dias, A., Arroja, L., Capela, I., Pereira, F., 2003. Application
Gluch, P., Baumann, H., 2004. The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: of life cycle assessment to the Portuguese pulp and paper
a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 51–53.
decision-making. Building and Environment 39, 571–580. Lunghi, P., Bove, R., Desideri, U., 2004. Life-cycle-assessment of
Gough, C., Castells, N., Funtowicz, S., 1998. Integrated assessment: fuel-cells-based landfill gas energy conversion technologies.
an emerging methodology for complex issues. Environmental Journal of Power Sources 131 (1–2), 120–126.
Modeling and Assessment 3, 19–29. Matthews, E., Bringezu, S., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Huetller, W.,
Greening, L.A., Bernow, S., 2004. Design of coordinated energy and Kleijn, R., Moriguchi, Y., Ottke, C., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D.,
environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Schandl, H., et al., 2000. The Weight of Nations. Material
Energy Policy 32 (6), 721–735. outflows from industrial economies. World Resource Institute,
Hamilton, K., Atkinson, G., Pearce, D., 1997. Genuine Savings as an Washington.
Indicator of Sustainability. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 97-03. Moberg, Å., 1999. Environmental Systems Analysis Tools: Differ-
Hanley, N., Moffatt, I., Faichney, R., Wilson, M., 1999. Measuring ences and Similarities. Institution for Systems Ecology. Stock-
sustainability: a time series of alternative indicators for Scot- holm University, Stockholm, p. 83.
land. Ecological Economics 28, 55–73. Moberg, Å., Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., 2005. Life cycle
Harger, J.R.E., Meyer, F.M., 1996. Definition of indicators for assessment of energy from solid waste—part 2: landfilling
environmentally sustainable development. Chemosphere 33 compared to other treatment methods. Journal of Cleaner
(9), 1749–1775. Production 13 (3), 231–240.
Hauschild, M., Wenzel, H., 2000. Life cycle assessment – environ- Nilsson, D., 1997. Energy, exergy and emergy analysis of using
mental assessment of products. In: Jorgensen, S.E. (Ed.), A straw as fuel in district heating plants. Biomass and Bioenergy
Systems Approach to the Environmental Analysis of Pollution 13 (1/2), 63–73.
Minimization. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 155–189. O'Brien, K., Sygna, L., Haugen, J.E., 2004. Vulnerable or resilient? A
Herendeen, R., 2004. Energy analysis and emergy analysis — a multi-scale assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in
comparison. Ecological Modelling 178, 227–237. Norway. Climatic Change 64 (1–2), 193–225.
Hovelius, K., 1997. Energy-, Exergy- and Emergy Analysis of Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting. EMERGY and
Biomass Production. Report, vol. 222. Swedish University of Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto.
Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. Partidario, M.R., 1999. Strategic environmental assessment —
Hueting, R., Bosch, P., de Boer, B., 1993. Methodology for the principles and potential. In: Petts, J. (Ed.), Handbook of
calculation of sustainable national income. Environmental Environmental Impact Assessment. Vol 1 Environmental
508 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 0 ( 2 00 7 ) 4 9 8 –5 08

Impact Assessment: Process, Methods and Potential. Blackwell UNCSD, 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines
Science, Oxford, pp. 60–73. and Methodologies. United Nations, New York.
Pearce, D., Turner, K.R., Bateman, I., 1994. Environmental Eco- UNDP, 2004. Human Development Report. Cultural Liberty in
nomics. Harvester Weatsheaf, London. Today's Diverse World. United Nations Development
Petts, J., 1999. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Programme, New York.
Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and United Nations, 2002. National Implementation of Agenda 21: A
Limitations. Blackwell Science, Oxford. report. New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Pope, J., Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2004. Conceptua- Division for Sustainable Development, National Information
lising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact As- Analysis Unit, United Nations.
sessment Review 24, 595–616. Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint.
Prescott-Allen, R., 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations. A Country-by- Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers,
Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment. Island Gabriola Island.
Press, Washington. Walker, J., Johnston, J., 1999. Guidelines for the Assessment of
Rosen, M., Dincer, I., 2001. Exergy as the confluence of energy, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interac-
environment and sustainable development. Exergy Interna- tions. Office for Official Publications of the European Commu-
tional Journal 1 (1), 3–13. nities, Luxembourg.
Ross, S., Evans, D., 2002. Use of life cycle assessment in Wall, G., 1977. Exergy — A resource concept within resource
environmental management. Environmental Management 29 accounting. Report, vol .77-42. Göteborg, Institute of Theoret-
(1), 132–142. ical Physics, p. 58.
Rotmans, J., 1998. Methods for IA: the challenges and opportuni- Wall, G., 1990. Exergy conversion in Japanese society. Energy 15 (5),
ties ahead. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3, 435–444.
155–179. Wall, G., 1997. Exergy Use in the Swedish Society 1994. Interna-
Sadler, B., 1999. Framework for environmental sustainability tional Conference on Thermodynamic Analysis and Improve-
assessment and assurance. In: Petts, J. (Ed.), Handbook of ment of Energy Systems, TAIES'97, Beijing, China, Jun 10–13,
Environmental Impact Assessment. Vol 1 Environmental 1997 Beijing World.
Impact Assessment: Process, Methods and Potential. Blackwell WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,
Science, Oxford, pp. 12–32. Oxford.
Spangenberg, J. H., Femia, A., Hinterberger, F. Schütz, H., 1999. Material Venetoulis, J., Chazan, D., Gaudet, C., 2004. Ecological Footprint of
Flow-based Indicators in Environmental Reporting. Environmen- Nations. Redefining Progress.
tal Issues Series, European Environment Agency. No 14: 58. Wilkinson, D., Fergusson, M., Bowyer, C., Brown, J., Ladefoged, A.,
Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., 2003. A Monkhouse, C. Zdanowicz, A., 2004. Sustainable Development
framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. in the European Commission's Integrated Impact Assess-
Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of ments for 2003. London, Institute for European Environmental
America (PNAS) 100 (14), 8074–8079. Policy.
U.S. National Research Council, 1999. Our Common Journey: a Vose, D., 2000. Risk Analysis. A quantitative guide. John Wiley &
transition toward sustainability. National Academy Press, Sons, Chichester.
Washington DC. Wrisberg, N., Udo de Haes, H.A., Triebswetter, U., Eder, P., Clift, R.,
Udo de Haes, H.A., Heijungs, R., Suh, S., Huppes, G., 2004. Three 2002. Analytical tools for a environmental design and man-
strategies to overcome the limitations of life-cycle assessment. agement in a systems perspective. Eco-efficiency in Industry
Journal of Industrial Ecology 8 (3), 19–32. and Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.