Risk and sustainability: trade-offs and synergies for robust decision making

IF 5.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 Environmental Science Environmental Sciences Europe Pub Date : 2022-01-20 DOI:10.1186/s12302-021-00587-8
Michael Z. Hauschild, Thomas E. McKone, Karsten Arnbjerg-Nielsen, Tine Hald, Bo F. Nielsen, Stefan E. Mabit, Peter Fantke
{"title":"Risk and sustainability: trade-offs and synergies for robust decision making","authors":"Michael Z. Hauschild,&nbsp;Thomas E. McKone,&nbsp;Karsten Arnbjerg-Nielsen,&nbsp;Tine Hald,&nbsp;Bo F. Nielsen,&nbsp;Stefan E. Mabit,&nbsp;Peter Fantke","doi":"10.1186/s12302-021-00587-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Decisions about the development of new marketed technologies or products invariably come with consequences for economy, society and the environment. Environmental and health risk assessment on the one hand and sustainability assessment on the other hand are tools that offer different but complementary information about such consequences. Conflicts or synergies between the two tools may arise when there are trade-offs between considerations of specific risks and safety versus long-term sustainability. There is a compelling case for a combined assessment of both sustainability and risks, also in support of a successful safe and sustainable-by-design (SSbD) approach, but this is not straightforward. We offer a roadmap showing when the two assessment tools should be applied together and how to combine them in a consistent way, to support more robust decision-making. Four alternative approaches are evaluated against six performance criteria to recommend an approach that makes use of the broader and more generic sustainability assessment as a baseline and includes iterative applications of risk and sustainability assessment elements to increase specificity, reliability and relevance of the assessment results. The recommended approach provides a basis for better-informed decisions about technology choices for policy and societal stakeholders.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54293,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sciences Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://enveurope.springeropen.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12302-021-00587-8","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sciences Europe","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-021-00587-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Decisions about the development of new marketed technologies or products invariably come with consequences for economy, society and the environment. Environmental and health risk assessment on the one hand and sustainability assessment on the other hand are tools that offer different but complementary information about such consequences. Conflicts or synergies between the two tools may arise when there are trade-offs between considerations of specific risks and safety versus long-term sustainability. There is a compelling case for a combined assessment of both sustainability and risks, also in support of a successful safe and sustainable-by-design (SSbD) approach, but this is not straightforward. We offer a roadmap showing when the two assessment tools should be applied together and how to combine them in a consistent way, to support more robust decision-making. Four alternative approaches are evaluated against six performance criteria to recommend an approach that makes use of the broader and more generic sustainability assessment as a baseline and includes iterative applications of risk and sustainability assessment elements to increase specificity, reliability and relevance of the assessment results. The recommended approach provides a basis for better-informed decisions about technology choices for policy and societal stakeholders.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
风险和可持续性:稳健决策的权衡和协同作用
关于开发新的市场技术或产品的决定总是会对经济、社会和环境产生影响。环境和健康风险评估与可持续性评估是提供关于此类后果的不同但互补信息的工具。当在考虑特定风险和安全性与长期可持续性之间进行权衡时,两种工具之间可能会产生冲突或协同作用。对于可持续性和风险的综合评估有一个令人信服的案例,也支持一个成功的安全和可持续性设计(SSbD)方法,但这并不简单。我们提供了一个路线图,显示何时应该同时应用这两种评估工具,以及如何以一致的方式将它们结合起来,以支持更稳健的决策。根据六项业绩标准对四种备选办法进行了评价,以建议一种利用更广泛和更一般的可持续性评价作为基线的办法,并包括对风险和可持续性评价要素的反复应用,以增加评价结果的特异性、可靠性和相关性。建议的方法为政策和社会利益攸关方就技术选择做出更明智的决策提供了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Sciences Europe
Environmental Sciences Europe Environmental Science-Pollution
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
1.70%
发文量
110
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: ESEU is an international journal, focusing primarily on Europe, with a broad scope covering all aspects of environmental sciences, including the main topic regulation. ESEU will discuss the entanglement between environmental sciences and regulation because, in recent years, there have been misunderstandings and even disagreement between stakeholders in these two areas. ESEU will help to improve the comprehension of issues between environmental sciences and regulation. ESEU will be an outlet from the German-speaking (DACH) countries to Europe and an inlet from Europe to the DACH countries regarding environmental sciences and regulation. Moreover, ESEU will facilitate the exchange of ideas and interaction between Europe and the DACH countries regarding environmental regulatory issues. Although Europe is at the center of ESEU, the journal will not exclude the rest of the world, because regulatory issues pertaining to environmental sciences can be fully seen only from a global perspective.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Impact of soil moisture regimes on greenhouse gas emissions, soil microbial biomass, and enzymatic activity in long-term fertilized paddy soil Identifying the skills requirements related to industrial symbiosis and energy efficiency for the European process industry Sex difference in the association between pyrethroids exposure and sleep problems among adolescents: NHANES 2007–2014 Operational blue water footprint and water deficit assessment of coal-fired power plants: case study in Malaysia Terrestrial ecotoxicity of glyphosate, its formulations, and co-formulants: evidence from 2010–2023
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1