Sustainable urban development in practice:the SAVE concept

The need for sustainable development of the urban environment presents the research community with a number of challenges and opportunities. A considerable volume of research has been undertaken into the constituent parts of this complex problem and a number of tool kits and methodologies have been developed to enable and encourage the application of specific aspects of research in practice. However, there is limited evidence of the holistic integration of the body of knowledge arising from the research within real-life decision-making practices. In this paper we present an overview of the existing body of knowledge relating to sustainable development of the urban environment and propose a generic framework for its integration within current practices. This framework recognises the need to: understand social, economic, and environmental issues; understand the decision-making processes; provide a means of measurement, assessment, or valuation of the issues; provide analytical methods for the comparative assessment of complex data to enable an evaluation of strategies and design options and to communicate effectively throughout the process with a wide range of stakeholders. The components of a novel sustainability assessment, visualisation and enhancement (SAVE) framework, developed by the authors to ‘operationalise’ the body of knowledge are presented and justified. These include: decision-mapping methods to identify points of intervention; indicator identification and measurement approaches; appropriate mathematical and analytical tools and an interactive simulation and visualisation platform which integrates and communicates complex multivariate information to diverse stakeholder groups. We report on the application of the SAVE framework to a major urban development project and reflect on its current and potential impact on the development. Conclusions are also drawn about its general applicability

Identifying robust response options to manage environmental change using an ecosystem approach:a stress-testing case study for the UK

A diverse range of response options was evaluated in terms of their utility for sustaining ecosystem services in the UK. Robustness of response options was investigated by applying a ‘stress-testing’ method which evaluated expected performance against combined scenarios of socioeconomic and climate change. Based upon stakeholder feedback, a reference scenario representing current trends in climate and socioeconomic drivers (‘business-as-usual’) was used as a dynamic baseline against which to compare results of other scenarios. The robustness of response options was evaluated by their utility in different environmental and social contexts as represented by the scenarios, and linked to their adaptability to adjust to changing conditions. Key findings demonstrate that adaptability becomes increasingly valuable as the magnitude and rate of future change diverges from current trends. Stress-testing also revealed that individual responses in isolation are unlikely to be robust meaning there are advantages from integrating cohesive combinations (bundles) of response options to maximise their individual strengths and compensate for weaknesses. This identifies a role for both top-down and bottom-up responses, including regulation, spatial targeting, incentives and partnership initiatives, and their use in combination through integrated assessment and planning consistent with the adoption of an Ecosystem Approach. Stress-testing approaches can have an important role in future-proofing policy appraisals but important knowledge gaps remain, especially for cultural and supporting ecosystem services. Finally, barriers and enablers to the implementation of more integrated long-term adaptive responses were identified drawing on the ‘4 Is’ (Institutions, Information, Incentives, Identity) conceptual framework. This highlighted the crucial but usually understated role of identity in promoting ownership and uptake of responses

Evaluating megaprojects: from the “iron triangle” to network mapping

Evaluation literature has paid relatively little attention to the specific needs of evaluating large, complex industrial and infrastructure projects, often called ‘megaprojects’. The abundant megaproject governance literature, in turn, has largely focused on the so-called ‘megaproject pathologies’, i.e. the chronic budget overruns, and failure of such projects to keep to timetables and deliver the expected social and economic benefits. This article draws on these two strands of literature, identifies shortcomings, and suggests potential pathways towards an improved evaluation of megaprojects. To counterbalance the current overemphasis on relatively narrowly defined accountability as the main function of megaproject evaluation, and the narrow definition of project success in megaproject evaluation, the article argues that conceptualizing megaprojects as dynamic and evolving networks would provide a useful basis for the design of an evaluation approach better able to promote learning and to address the socio economic aspects of megaprojects. A modified version of ‘network mapping’ is suggested as a possible framework for megaproject evaluation, with the exploration of the multiple accountability relationships as a central evaluation task, designed to reconcile learning and accountability as the central evaluation functions. The article highlights the role of evaluation as an ‘emergent’ property of spontaneous megaproject ‘governing’, and explores the challenges that this poses to the role of the evaluator

Integrating invasion and disease in the risk assessment of live bird trade.

AimInternational trade in plants and animals generates significant economic benefits. It also leads to substantial unintended impacts when introduced species become invasive, causing environmental disturbance or transmitting diseases that affect people, livestock, other wildlife or the environment. Policy responses are usually only implemented after these species become established and damages are already incurred. International agreements to control trade are likewise usually based on selection of species with known impacts. We aim to further develop quantitative invasive species risk assessment for bird imports and extend the tool to explicitly address disease threats.LocationUnited States of America.MethodsWe use a two-step approach for rapid risk assessment based on the expected biological risks due to both the environmental and health impact of a potentially invasive wildlife species in trade. We assess establishment probability based on a model informed by historical observations and then construct a model of emerging infectious disease threat based on economic and ecological characteristics of the exporting country.ResultsWe illustrate how our rapid assessment tool can be used to identify high-priority species for regulation based on a combination of the threat they pose for becoming established and vectoring emerging infectious diseases.Main conclusionsOur approach can be executed for a species in a matter of days and is nested in an economic decision-making framework for determining whether the biological risk is justified by trade benefits

Evaluating LEADER: canonical, endogenous and systemic learning

In this paper, we touch on a key theme in rural overnance 'the reconciliation of centralised procedures and the embedded institutions of rural society – through the lens of the evaluation procedures embedded in the European LEADER programme. LEADER is in many ways a highly devolved European initiative, true to its origins as a progressive rural laboratory in terms of innovation, stakeholder engagement, social learning and systemic methodology for addressing rural needs. The design and operationalisation of national and local LEADER programmes and projects is tailored to local circumstances, and aims to direct LEADER funding to local needs while building the institutional and social capital that underpins successful rural development. Yet while the delivery of LEADER embraces heterogeneity, programmatic evaluation is centralised and learning at the national and local level is subservient to the need to defend the LEADER approach in Brussels. This requires evaluation to be held at arms length from delivery organisations, even though there is evidence that where local evaluative capacity is robust, centralised evaluation is enhanced. This paper reviews progress to date on improving the canonical forms of evaluation employed in LEADER, based on cumulative feedback from previous iterations of the programme. We then consider alternative evaluation traditions that engage with endogenous capacity for sense making,and the extent to which they might be taken up within LEADER. We conclude by proposing that more attention needs to be paid to institutionalisation of systemic evaluation within LEADER,which could engage with a much wider range of perspectives in rural development, across different scales of governance and national and regional contexts. This would require the reconciliation canonical and endogenous forms of evaluation, but would align LEADER evaluation with the values and methods embodied in the rest of the programme

Sustainability Assessment of indicators for integrated water resources management

The scientific community strongly recommends the adoption of indicators for the evaluation and monitoring of progress towards sustainable development. Furthermore, international organizations consider that indicators are powerful decision-making tools. Nevertheless, the quality and reliability of the indicators depends on the application of adequate and appropriate criteria to assess them. The general objective of this study was to evaluate how indicators related to water use and management perform against a set of sustainability criteria. Our research identified 170 indicators related to water use and management. These indicators were assessed by an international panel of experts that evaluated whether they fulfil the four sustainability criteria: social, economic, environmental, and institutional. We employed an evaluation matrix that classified all indicators according to the DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, States, Impacts and Responses) framework. A pilot study served to test and approve the research methodology before carrying out the full implementation. The findings of the study show that 24 indicators comply with the majority of the sustainability criteria; 59 indicators are bi-dimensional (meaning that they comply with two sustainability criteria); 86 are one-dimensional indicators (fulfilling just one of the four sustainability criteria) and one indicator do not fulfil any of the sustainability criteria.Postprint (author's final draft

Private experiments in global governance : primary commodity roundtables and the politics of deliberation

Emerging scholarship on global governance offers ever-more detailed analyses of private regulatory regimes. These regimes aim to regulate some area of social activity without a mandate from, or participation of, states or international organizations. While there are numerous empirical studies of these regimes, the normative theoretical literature has arguably struggled to keep pace with such developments. This is unfortunate, as the proliferation of private regulatory regimes raises important issues about legitimacy in global governance. The aim of this paper is to address some of these issues by elaborating a theoretical framework that can orientate normative investigation of these schemes. It does this through turning to the idea of experimentalist governance. It is argued that experimentalism can provide an important and provocative set of insights about the processes and logics of emerging governance schemes. The critical purchase of this theory is illustrated through an application to the case of primary commodities roundtables, part of ongoing attempts by NGOs, producers, and buyers to set sustainability criteria for commodity production across a range of sectors. The idea of experimentalist governance, we argue, can lend much needed theoretical structure to debates about the normative legitimacy of private regulatory regimes

SRI analysis and asset management : independent or convergent ? : A field study on the French market

This article analyzes how the actual and expected future activities of French Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) analysts may reveal a convergence process between SRI decisions and traditional financial investment decisions, that is a form of "mainstreaming" of SRI processes, by asking the SRI analysts themselves how their work has evolved and how they perceive their positioning in the asset management sector. We present the results of a field survey on the composition and activities of French SRI analysts' teams of large institutional investors and asset managers in France in 2009. We show that the convergence towards the mainstream financial analysts seems to be clearly engaged. However, the SRI domain is still emerging and remains very fragmented leading to a wide heterogeneity of practices and positioning in the respective organizations. This is interpreted as a clear sign of a transition phase.Field survey ; French Asset Management industry ; Mainstreaming ; Socially Responsible Investments (SRI)

Analysis for biotechnology innovations using Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA):

" Meeting the food needs of the world's growing population while reducing poverty and protecting the environment is a major global challenge. Genetically modified crops appear to provide a promising option to deal with this challenge. However there is a need to make strategic decisions on how to spend limited agricultural research funds in order to achieve a maximum impact with regard to finding sustainable solutions to end hunger and poverty. In international development institutions, there is growing interest in the potential use of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as part of a research based Environmental Management System (EMS) to promote mainstreaming of environmental considerations in policy development. SEA was developed as an approach to integrate environmental considerations at a policy level, where alternatives environmental policies can be evaluated. In this paper, we propose using SEA in a policy research and priority setting process regarding new technologies, taking the development of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as an example. We propose that this method would be a useful tool for the international agricultural research centers of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), streamlining business processes, strengthening accountability, sharpening the research agenda it supports, fostering broader partnerships, and increasing the relevance and impact of CGIAR research in achieving international development goals. Currently international law requires only Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of specific biotechnology projects. The incorporation of environmental considerations only at the level of specific projects precludes the adoption of alternative environmental policies. In this review, we outline an SEA approach currently being considered at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for use in evaluating biotechnology policies. SEA may be a useful tool to inform the evaluation of biotechnology policies and priorities by taking account of information on the economic, social, and environmental benefits, cost and risks of adopting those policies." Authors' AbstractRisk, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Genetically modified organisms, Living modified organisms,