Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment

Abstract

One of the defining characteristics of sustainability assessment as a form of impact assessment is that it provides a forum for the explicit consideration of the trade-offs that are inherent in complex decision-making processes. Few sustainability assessments have achieved this goal though, and none have considered trade-offs in a holistic fashion throughout the process. Recent contributions such as the Gibson trade-off rules have significantly progressed thinking in this area by suggesting appropriate acceptability criteria for evaluating substantive trade-offs arising from proposed development, as well as process rules for how evaluations of acceptability should occur. However, there has been negligible uptake of these rules in practice. Overall, we argue that there is inadequate consideration of trade-offs, both process and substantive, throughout the sustainability assessment process, and insufficient considerations of how process decisions and compromises influence substantive outcomes. This paper presents a framework for understanding and managing both process and substantive trade-offs within each step of a typical sustainability assessment process. The framework draws together previously published literature and offers case studies that illustrate aspects of the practical application of the framework. The framing and design of sustainability assessment is vitally important, as process compromises or trade-offs can have substantive consequences in terms of sustainability outcomes delivered, with the choice of alternatives considered being a particularly significant determinant of substantive outcomes. The demarcation of acceptable from unacceptable impacts is a key aspect of managing trade-offs. Offsets can be considered as a form of trade-off within a category of sustainability that are utilised to enhance preferred alternatives once conditions of impact acceptability have been met. In this way they may enable net gains to be delivered; another imperative for progress to sustainability. Understanding the nature and implications of tradeoffs within sustainability assessment is essential to improving practice.

Managing Capabilities for Supply Chain Resilience Through it Integration

“…The majority of the research amplifies the necessity to make trade-offs in supply chain management (Esfahbodi, Zhang & Watson, 2016;Morrison-Saunders & Pope, 2013;Beckmann, Hielscher & Pies, 2014;Seuring, 2013;Studies, 2012). However, only a few researches analyse how the combination of supply chain capabilities can influence resilience.…”

Towards sustainability assessment follow-up

“…We have argued previously that the evaluation and management of trade-offs is an essential and defining characteristic of sustainability assessment (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a). We therefore argue here that monitoring and managing trade-offs should be an essential element of sustainability assessment follow-up.…”

“…For example, whether people uphold weak or strong conceptualisations of sustainability (e.g. Williams and Millington, 2004) will directly determine the kinds of trade-offs they are prepared to accept (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a). Using the MacKenzie Gas Project from Box 3 as an example, understanding matters of equity with respect to the distribution of project benefits and costs or the legacy and bridging outcomes during a follow-up study would require social research involving individuals and groups.…”

Ecological compensation in spatial planning in Italy

“…The main methodological and practical issues concerning the design, implementation and enforcement of compensation measures include their scope (which components of biodiversity are considered), location (on-site or off-site), timing (pre-or post-impact), duration of offsets, metric and methods to calculate ecological equivalence, and geographic scale (BBOP, 2009;Wissel and Wätzold 2010;Underwood 2011;Quétier and Lavorel, 2011). Offsets can also be considered a form of trade-off, as they involve substitutions of resources in time, place and kind: they should thus explicitly be considered throughout any decision-making process from the very earliest stages (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013).…”