“Sustainability” is a term so over-used that it has almost lost any meaning. Here we use the term to refer to the relative capacity of an activity to continue while maintaining options for future generations. Thus, other things being equal, activities that conserve non-renewable resources for future use are inherently more sustainable than those which do not. Sustainability is an aspirational goal in that no human endeavor is truly sustainable indefinitely. Therefore, our aim is to help assess options and identify those that offer the highest degree of sustainability as measured by the provision to society of specific economic, environmental and social services with the least costs. Costs are defined broadly in terms of current and future physical, social, and financial conditions.
While there is nearly unanimous agreement about the need for sustainability, there is no agreement on how to measure it. Our team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed an approach to assess progress toward sustainability. The approach is meant to help address questions such as
• What are the costs and benefits of this activity?
• Are there ways the activity can be deployed to reduce costs or enhance benefits?
• Where are the best places to locate this activity?
• Are there any indirect costs or benefits of this activity?
ORNL’s approach for assessing progress toward sustainability involves six steps with decisions made at each step. First the scope of the assessment is established based on the particular context and options. Next indicators are selected and prioritized that pertain to the objective. Then, baselines and targets are determined for each indicator. Fourth, the indicator values are collected and evaluated. Once the values are in hand, trends and tradeoffs in the indicator set are analyzed. The final step involves development, application and evaluation of good practices for the activity.
Overarching themes cut across all of these steps. The approach must be transparent in how it occurs, who is involved, what kind of information is collected, and how it is processed and communicated. Stakeholders should be involved in every step. The intermediate and final information should be communicated in a clear and timely manner. The approach should be supported by monitoring and continual improvement that supports adaptation to changing conditions and needs. The approach is described using bioenergy systems in the United States as an example.
Buchholz T, Prisley S, Marland G, Canham C, Sampson N. 2014. Uncertainty in projecting GHG emissions from bioenergy. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), pp.1045-1047
Cairns J, McCormick PV, Niederlehner BR. 1993. A proposed framework for developing indicators of ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 263(1):1-44.
Dale, V.H and Beyeler, S.C. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1(1): 3-10.
Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014
Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, M Davitt. 2015. A framework for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 9(4):435-446. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1562
Dale VH, KL Kline, MA Buford, TA Volk, CT Smith, I Stupak. 2016. Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171. http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1364032115014215
Efroymson, RA, VH Dale, KL Kline, AC McBride, JM Bielicki, RL Smith, ES Parish, PE Schweizer, DM Shaw. 2013. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environmental Management 51(2): 291-306. DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9907-5.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Burgess, N.D., Swetnam, R.D., Green, J., Green, R.E., Kajembe, G., Kulindwa, K., Lewis, S.L., Marchant, R., Marshall, A.R., 2011. Measuring, modeling and mapping ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), pp.595-611.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2012. <Update to more recent FAO report > Good Environmental Practices in Bioenergy Feedstock Production: Making Bioenergy Work for Climate and Food Security. FAO Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper Np. 49, Rome, Italy.
Ghiossi R. 2005. LESSON - Data Aggregation—Seven Key Criteria to an Effective Aggregation Solution. Transforming data with Intelligence TM. https://tdwi.org/articles/2005/04/26/data-aggregationseven-key-criteria-...
Ice GG. 2011 Assessing best management practices effectiveness at the watershed scale. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 27, 925-931.
Ice GG, Schilling EB, Vowell JL. 2010. Trends for forestry best management practices implementation. Journal of Forestry, 108, 267-271.
Kanter DR, Musumba M, Wood SLR, Palm C, Antle J, Balvanera P, Dale VH, Havlik P, Kline KL, Scholes RJ, Thornton P, Tittonell P, Andelman S. 2017. Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agricultural Systems.
Landres PB, Verner J and Thomas JW (1988) Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species - a critique. Conserv Biol 2:316–328.
McBride, A, VH Dale, L Baskaran, M Downing, L Eaton, RA Efroymson, C Garten, KL Kline, H Jager, P Mulholland, E Parish, P Schweizer, and J Storey. 2011. Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.
Parish ES, VH Dale, BC English, SW Jackson, DD Tyler. 2016. Assessing multimetric aspects of sustainability: Application to a bioenergy crop production system in East Tennessee. Ecosphere 7(2):e01206. 10.1002/ecs2.1206.
Parish, ES, M Hilliard, LM Baskaran, VH Dale, NA Griffiths, PJ Mulholland, A Sorokine, NA Thomas, ME Downing, R Middleton. 2012. Multimetric spatial optimization of switchgrass plantings across a watershed. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 6(1):58-72. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.342
Pollesch N, VH Dale (2015) Applications of aggregation theory to sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 114: 117-127.
Pollesch N, VH Dale. 2016. Normalization in sustainability assessment: Methods and implications, Ecological Economics 130:195-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.018
Pollesch N. 2016. Mathematical Approaches to Sustainability Assessment and Protocol Development for the Sustainability Target Assessment Resource for Bioenergy (Bio-STAR). PhD Dissertation, Department of Mathematics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Seuring S, Muller M 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Domestic Production 16:1699-1710.
Villa, F., Bagstad, K.J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G.W., Portela, R., Honzák, M. Batker, D., 2014. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PloS one, 9(3), p.e91001.
Youngs H, Somerville C. 2014. Best practices for biofuels. Science 344:1095-1096.
- Log in to post comments