The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conceptualizing sustainable development
Open accessAbstract
Sustainability science poses severe challenges to classical disciplinary science. To bring the perspectives of diverse disciplines together in a meaningful way, we describe a novel methodology for sustainability assessment of a particular social-ecological system, or country. Starting point is that a sustainability assessment should investigate the ability to continue and develop a desirable way of living vis-à-vis later generations and life elsewhere on the planet. Evidently, people hold different values and beliefs about the way societies sustain quality of life for their members. The first step, therefore, is to analyze people's value orientations and the way in which they interpret sustainability problems i.e. their beliefs. The next step is to translate the resulting worldviews into model-based narratives, i.e. scenarios. The qualitative and quantitative outcomes are then investigated in terms of associated risks and opportunities and robustness of policy options. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) has followed this methodology, using extensive surveys among the Dutch population. In its First Sustainability Outlook (2004), the resulting archetypical worldviews became the basis for four different scenarios for policy analysis, with emphases on the domains of transport, energy and food. The goal of the agency's Sustainability Outlooks is to show that choices are inevitable in policy making for sustainable development, to indicate which positive and negative impacts one can expect of these choices (trade-offs), and to identify options that may be robust under several worldviews. The conceptualization proposed here is both clear and applicable in practical sustainability assessments for policy making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 · Cited by 8,550
Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration
Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga, C. (2014) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2014.01.003 · Cited by 622
Digitisation and the Circular Economy: A Review of Current Research and Future Trends
Okorie, O., Salonitis, K., Charnley, F., Moreno, M., Turner, C., & Tiwari, A. (2018) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en11113009 · Cited by 283
Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3037579 · Cited by 267
Religion and climate change: varieties in viewpoints and practices
Haluza‐DeLay, R. (2014) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.268 · Cited by 207
Metadata
- Authors
- de Vries, B. J. M., & Petersen, A. C.
- Venue
- Ecological Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1006-1019
- ISSN
- 0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2139400567
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 57.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptualizing sustainable development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.015
- The paper
- de Vries, B. J. M., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable development. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.