CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 489Environmental and Social Impact AssessmentsSustainable Development and Environmental PolicySustainable Building Design and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

BEYOND THE PILLARS: SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AS A FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN SIGNIFICANT DECISION-MAKING

GIBSON, ROBERT B.·2006·Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management
DOI 10.1142/s1464333206002517
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Sustainability is an essentially integrative concept. It seems reasonable, then, to design sustainability assessment as an essentially integrative process and framework for decision-making on undertakings that may have lasting effects. The realm of sustainability has often been depicted as the intersection of social, economic and ecological interests and initiatives. Accordingly, many approaches to sustainability oriented assessments — at the project as well as strategic level — have begun by addressing the social, economic and ecological considerations separately and have then struggled with how to integrate the separate findings. The problem is exacerbated by the generally separate training of experts in the three fields, the habitual collection of data separately under the three categories and the common division of government mandates into separate social, economic and ecological bodies. The combined effect is not merely an absence of integrative expertise, data and authority but an entrenched tendency to neglect the interdependence of these factors. The three pillars or triple bottom line approach also appears to encourage an emphasis on balancing and making trade-offs, which may often be necessary but which should always be the last resort, not the assumed task, in sustainability assessment. There are, however, important concerns underlying advocacy and application of some three pillar, limited integration approaches. Most significant are well-grounded fears that integrated, sustainability-based assessments may facilitate continued or even renewed neglect of traditionally under valued considerations, especially the protection of ecological systems and functions. This problem needs to be addressed thoughtfully in judgements about how integration is to be done. One possible solution is to take sustainability as an essentially integrative concept and to design sustainability assessment more aggressively as an integrative process. This would entail a package of regime and process design features, centred on ones that. • build sustainability assessment into a larger overall governance regime that is designed to respect interconnections among issues, objectives, actions and effects, though the full interrelated set of activities from broad agenda setting to results monitoring and response;. • design assessment processes with an iterative conception-to-resurrection agenda, aiming to maximise multiple, reinforcing net benefits through selection, design and adaptive implementation of the most desirable option for every significant strategic or project level undertaking;. • redefine the driving objectives and consequent evaluation and decision criteria to avoid the three conventional categories, to ensure attention to usually neglected sustainability requirements and to focus attention on the achievement of multiple, mutually reinforcing gains;. • establish explicit basic rules that discourage trade-offs to the extent possible while guiding the decision-making on those that are unavoidable;. • provide means of combining, specifying and complementing these generic criteria and trade-off rules with attention to case- and context-specific concerns, objectives, priorities and possibilities;. • provide integrative, sustainability-centred guidance, methods and tools to help meet the key practical demands of assessment work, including identifying key cross-cutting issues and linkages among factors, judging the significance of predicted effects, and weighing overall options and implications; and. • ensure that the decision-making process facilitates public scrutiny and encourages effective public participation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1142/s1464333206002517

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. 1979, Ecodevelopment and Third World Urban Regions: a prospective for international development cooperation policy
  2. Cizek P., 2002, Fort Liard Cumulative Impacts Mapping Project: technical report
  3. Dovers S., Journal of Research Practice, 1
  4. 2003, Hope for the future: The Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy
  5. Guijt I., 2001, IUCN Resource Kit for Sustainability Assessment
  6. 1980, The World Conservation Strategy: Living resource conservation for sustainable development
  7. Jenkins B., Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 20, 56
  8. Lydon M., Alternatives Journal, 26, 26
  9. 2005, Living Beyond Our Means: natural assets and human well-being, Statement from the Board
  10. W. Sachs, Planet Dialectics: Explorations in Environment and Development (Fernwood, Halifax, 1999) pp. 71–89.
  11. Swaigen J., 1993, Environment on Trial: A Citizen's Guide to Ontario Environmental Law and Policy
  12. 1987, Our Common Future

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 489

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
GIBSON, R. B.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
GIBSON, ROBERT B.
ORCID
GIBSON, ROBERT B.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management
Publisher
World Scientific Pub Co Pte Lt
Published
2006-09
Volume
08
Issue
03
Pages
259-280
ISSN
  • 1464-3332 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-5605
DOI
10.1142/s1464333206002517
OpenAlex
W2171546978
Cited by
486
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 25
FWCI
35.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
Keywords
sustainability assessment, triple bottom line, decision-making, trade-offs, ecological protection, decision criteria, adaptive implementation, net benefit

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