Determining sustainability impact assessment indicators

References

• AdamsWM. 2006. The future of sustainability: re-thinking environment and development in the twenty-first century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29–31 January 2006, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
   Google Scholar
• BellS, MorseS. 2008. Sustainability indicators – measuring the immeasurable? 2nd ed. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• BondA, DockertyT, LovettA, RicheAB, HaughtonAJ, BohanDA, SageRB, ShieldIF, FinchJW, TurnerMM, KarpA. 2011. Learning how to deal with values, frames and governance in sustainability appraisal. Regional Stud.45:1157–1170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BondA, Morrison-SaundersA. 2011. Re-evaluating sustainability assessment: aligning the vision and the practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev.31:1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, PopeJ. 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.30:53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BosselH. 1999. Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method, applications. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
   Google Scholar
• Canton of Bern. 2008. Sustainability compass – guide. Bern: Office for Environmental Coordination and Energy, Centre of Competence for Sustainable Development.
   Google Scholar
• CashmoreM, BondA, SadlerB. 2009. Introduction: the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.27:91–93.
   Google Scholar
• CherpA. 2001. EA legislation and practice in Central and Eastern Europe and the former USSR: a comparative analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev.21:335–361.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke-DaviesT. 2002. The ‘real’ success factors on projects. Int J Project Manag.20:185–190.
   Google Scholar
• CorbinJ, StraussA. 2008. Basics of qualitative research – techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Los Angeles (CA): Sage.
   Google Scholar
• de WitA. 1988. Measurement of project success. Int J Project Manag.6:164–170.
   Google Scholar
• DonnellyA, JonesM, O'MahonyT, ByrneG. 2006. Decision-support framework for establishing objectives, targets and indicators for use in strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.24:151–157.
   Google Scholar
• Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2013. Operations research. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., Web. 25 November 2013. Available from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/682073/operations-research/68199/strategic-problems.
   Google Scholar
• European Environment Agency. 2005. EEA core set of indicators: guide. EEA Technical Report No. 1/2005. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency (EEA).
   Google Scholar
• European Environment Agency. 2013. Environmental indicator report 2013 – natural resources and human well-being in a green economy. Luxembourg: European Environment Agency.
   Google Scholar
• GadamerHG. 1960. Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• GomisAJB, ParraMG, HoffmannWM, McNultyRE. 2011. Rethinking the concept of sustainability. Business Soc Rev.116:171–191.
   Google Scholar
• HaavaldsenT, LædreO, VoldenGH, LohneJ. 2013. On the concept of sustainability – assessing the sustainability of large public infrastructure investment projects. Int J Sustainable Eng.7:2–12.
   Google Scholar
• HackingT, GuthrieP. 2008. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev.28:73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HasnaAM. 2010. Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach. Int J Sustainable Eng.3:258–276.
   Google Scholar
• HeinzerlingL, AckermanF. 2002. Pricing the priceless – cost benefit analysis of environmental protection. Washington (DC): Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Georgetown University Law Centre.
   Google Scholar
• HelmingK, Pérez-SobaM, TabbushP. 2008. Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• HjelmbrekkeH, LædreO, LohneJ. 2014. On the need for a project governance body. Int J Manag Projects Business.7:661–677.
   Google Scholar
• HofstetterP. 2002. The value debate: ecodesign in a global context - are there differences in global values and do they matter?Int J Life Cycle Anal.7:62–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LawrenceG. 1997. Indicators for sustainable development. In: DoddsF, editor. The way forward: beyond agenda 21. London: Earthscan; p. 179–189.
   Google Scholar
• LeleSM. 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev.19:607–621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacraeD. 2008. Using assessment tools in the policy context. In: OECD, OECD sustainable development studies: conducting sustainability assessments. Paris: OECD; p. 83–93.
   Google Scholar
• MarshallJD, ToffelMW. 2005. Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: a sustainability hierarchy. Environ Sci Technol.39:673–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MayerAL. 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environ Int.34:277–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MeadowsD. 1998. Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. A report to the Balaton Group. Hartland (VT): International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, PopeJ. 2013. Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev.38:54–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, PopeJ, GunnJAE, BondA, RetiefF. 2014. Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.32:2–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 1991. Principles for evaluation of development assistance. Paris: Development Assistance Committee (DAC), OECD.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 1993. OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews: a synthesis report by the group on the state of the environment. Environment Monographs No. 83. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2002. Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. Paris: OECD Sustainable Development Studies.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2008. Conducting sustainability assessments. Paris: OECD Sustainable Development Studies.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2010. Guidance on sustainability impact assessment. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• RahimifardS, CleggAJ. 2008. The role of the engineering community in sustainable development. Int J Sustainable Eng.1:1–2.
   Google Scholar
• SamsetK. 2010. Early project appraisal – making the initial choices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• SchmidtW-P, SullivanJ. 2002a. Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global context. Int J Life Cycle Anal.7:5–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchmidtW-P, SullivanJ. 2002b. The value debate: weighting of life cycle assessments in a global context: global diversity exists and has to be valued. Int J Life Cycle Anal.7:250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SegnestamL. 2002. Indicators of environment and sustainable development: theories and practical experience. Environmental Economics Series, paper no. 89. Washington (DC): The World Bank Environment Department.
   Google Scholar
• ShenharA, DvirD. 2007. Reinventing project management – the Diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• SmeetsE, WeteringsR. 1999. Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical Report No. 25. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency (EEA).
   Google Scholar
• TaylorC. 2004. Modern social imaginaries. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• TennøyA, KværnerJ, GjerstadKI. 2006. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess Project Appraisal.24:45–56.
   Google Scholar
• WaldronJ. 2012. Rights. In: GoodinRE, PettitP, PoggeT, editors. A companion to contemporary political philosophy. 2nd ed. Victoria: Blackwell; p. 745–754.
   Google Scholar