Methodological Approach for the Sustainability Assessment of Development Cooperation Projects for Built Innovations Based on the SDGs and Life Cycle Thinking

Abstract

This paper describes a methodological approach for a sustainability assessment of development cooperation projects. Between the scientific disciplines there is no agreement on the term of "sustainability". Whereas the definition of sustainability within the context of development cooperation frequently highlights the long-term success of an intervention, the United Nations herald the inclusion of social, economic and environmental aspects. This paper proposes to bridge this gap by providing an analytical framework that uses nine impact category groups based on thematic priorities of sustainable development derived from the Sustainable Development Goals. Additionally, the long-term effectiveness of a project is taken into consideration. These impact category groups comprise the analytical framework, which is investigated by the Life Cycle Assessment and an indicator-based analysis. These data are obtained through empirical social research and the LCA inventory. The underlying concept is based on life cycle thinking. Taking up a multi-cycle model this study establishes two life cycles: first, the project management life cycle; and, second, the life cycle of a project's innovation. The innovation's life cycle is identified to have the greatest impact on the target region and the local people and is consequently of primary interest. This methodological approach enables an ex-post sustainability assessment of a built innovation of a development cooperation project and is tested on a case study on Improved Cooking Stoves in Bangladesh.

Development of an Ex-Ante Sustainability Assessment Methodology for Municipal Solid Waste Management Innovations

“…Wulf et al [29] adopted a bottom-up approach by attributing the indicators of existing LCSA tools at product-level to the SDGs, only to find that not all the SDGs could not be reflected. A top-down approach is deployed by Maier et al [30] in an ex-post sustainability assessment of development projects. Considering the interlinkages between the 17 SDGs, Maier et al clustered them into nine impact categories and selected indicators from different sources for each impact category [30].…”

“…A top-down approach is deployed by Maier et al [30] in an ex-post sustainability assessment of development projects. Considering the interlinkages between the 17 SDGs, Maier et al clustered them into nine impact categories and selected indicators from different sources for each impact category [30]. As this paper is a city-scale LCSA and intends to keep a holistic view of sustainability, the top-down approach by Maier et al [30] is adopted and adapted to the MSWM system.…”

Exploring the Linkages Between the Environmental Sustainable Development Goals and Planetary Boundaries Using the DPSIR Impact Pathway Framework

“…The SDGs aim to cover a wide range of sustainable development problems [12][13][14]. Overall, the SDGs are intended to be universal with a shared common vision of progressing towards a safe, just and sustainable operating space for human societies [12,16]. However, the SDGs have been criticised as being difficult to implement due to having too many goals and targets, lacking clarity, and having overlapping objectives [16].…”

“…Overall, the SDGs are intended to be universal with a shared common vision of progressing towards a safe, just and sustainable operating space for human societies [12,16]. However, the SDGs have been criticised as being difficult to implement due to having too many goals and targets, lacking clarity, and having overlapping objectives [16]. Additionally, the SDG proposed for safeguarding the Earth system have been criticised as being neither sufficiently comprehensive nor ambitious [13,14].…”

“…Regarding lack of infrastructure for water quality and resources management by communities, SDG Indicators 6.1.1, 6.2.1 and 6.a.1 concentrate on developing infrastructure for effective water resources management [e.g. 12,16].…”