Abstract
To address sustainability issues, a spectrum of human/industrial and nature-based solutions exists, and solutions are often a mix of both, e.g., agriculture uses human/industrial products/services but is based on natural biomass growth. More relevant than defining to what extent a solution is nature-based, is to assess its sustainability, which is argued to align with an increase in human well-being (Schaubroeck and Rugani in J Ind Ecol 21:1464–1477, 2017). Approaches exist to assess the sustainability of nature-based solutions (through ecosystem service assessment) and human/industrial solutions (through life cycle sustainability assessment), but there is a lack of a general sustainability assessment approach that assesses the impact of both natural and human/industrial elements. Such an approach would be applicable to any type of solution, including mixed solutions, such as agriculture. Given the interconnectedness of mankind and the earth (including the industry/economy) and the need to cover future human well-being, this general approach should ideally encompass the integrated modelling of the earth and its support of human well-being. The conventional methodologies of tools (e.g., ecosystem service assessment) would then be embedded into such a modelling approach to provide a general sustainability assessment tool.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Beichler SA, Bastian O, Haase D, Heiland S, Kabisch N, Müller F (2017) Does the ecosystem service concept reach its limits in urban environments? Landsc Online. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201751
Bellassen V, Luyssaert S (2014) Carbon sequestration: managing forests in uncertain times. Nature 506:153–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/506153a
Boumans R, Roman J, Altman I, Kaufman L (2015) The multiscale integrated model of ecosystem services (MIMES): simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems. Ecosyst Serv 12:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.004
Brazier J, Tsuchiya A (2015) Improving cross-sector comparisons: going beyond the health-related QALY. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 13:557–565
Callesen I (2016) Biodiversity and ecosystem services in life cycle impact assessment—Inventory objects or impact categories? Ecosyst Serv 22:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.021
Cambridge English Dictionary (2017). http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/well-being. Accessed 13 Jul 2017
Chaplin-Kramer R, Sim S, Hamel P, Bryant B, Noe R, Mueller C, Rigarlsford G, Kulak M, Kowal V, Sharp R, Clavreul J, Price E, Polasky S, Ruckelshaus M, Daily G (2017) Life cycle assessment needs predictive spatial modelling for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat Commun 8:15065. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15065
Cucurachi S, Suh S (2017) Cause-effect analysis for sustainable development policy. Environ Rev. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2016-0109
Cullen JM (2017) Circular economy: theoretical benchmark or perpetual motion machine? J Ind Ecol 21:483–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12599
de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie M, Crossman N, Ghermandi A, Hein L, Hussain S, Kumar P, McVittie A, Portela R, Rodriguez LC, ten Brink P, van Beukering P (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005
Dyllick T, Rost Z (2017) Towards true product sustainability. J Clean Prod 162:346–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.189
Editorial (2017) ‘Nature-based solutions’ is the latest green jargon that means more than you might think. Nat News 541:133. https://doi.org/10.1038/541133b
European Commission (2017). https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs. Accessed 24 Jul 2017
Flint CG, Kunze I, Muhar A, Yoshida Y, Penker M (2013) Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landsc Urban Plan 120:208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002
Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007 (Towards post fossil carbon societies: regenerative and preventative eco-industrial development)
Guinée J (2016) Life cycle sustainability assessment: what is it and what are its challenges? In: Clift R, Druckman A (eds) Taking stock of industrial ecology. Springer International Publishing, New York, pp 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_3
Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, McGrath FL, Vierikko K, Geneletti D, Sevecke KJ, Pipart N, Primmer E, Mederly P, Schmidt S, Aragão A, Baral H, Bark RH, Briceno T, Brogna D, Cabral P, De Vreese R, Liquete C, Mueller H, Peh KS-H, Phelan A, Rincón AR, Rogers SH, Turkelboom F, Van Reeth W, van Zanten BT, Wam HK, Washbourn C-L (2016) A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv Part B 22:213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007 (Integrated valuation of ecosystem services: challenges and solutions)
Johnson R, Jenkinson D, Stinton C, Taylor-Phillips S, Madan J, Stewart-Brown S, Clarke A (2016) Where’s WALY?: a proof of concept study of the ‘wellbeing adjusted life year’ using secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data. Health Qual Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0532-5
Liu J, Mooney H, Hull V, Davis SJ, Gaskell J, Hertel T, Lubchenco J, Seto KC, Gleick P, Kremen C, Li S (2015) Systems integration for global sustainability. Science 347:1258832. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258832
Maes J, Jacobs S (2017) Nature-based solutions for Europe’s sustainable development. Conserv Lett 10:121–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12216
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Nabavi E, Daniell KA (2017) Rediscovering social–ecological systems: taking inspiration from actor-networks. Sustain Sci 12:621–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0386-0
Nesshöver C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN, Rusch GM, Waylen KA, Delbaere B, Haase D, Jones-Walters L, Keune H, Kovacs E, Krauze K, Külvik M, Rey F, van Dijk J, Vistad OI, Wilkinson ME, Wittmer H (2017) The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sci Total Environ 579:1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106
Oosterbroek B, de Kraker J, Huynen MMTE., Martens P (2016) Assessing ecosystem impacts on health: a tool review. Ecosyst Serv 17:237–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.008
Othoniel B, Rugani B, Heijungs R, Benetto E, Withagen C (2016) Assessment of life cycle impacts on ecosystem services: promise, problems, and prospects. Environ Sci Technol 50:1077–1092. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03706
Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Pacala SW, McGuire AD, Piao S, Rautiainen A, Sitch S, Hayes D (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609
Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017
Rugani B, Schaubroeck T, Benetto E (2017) Substantiating the cross-fertilization among LCA and ecosystem services and biodiversity assessment. Ecosyst Serv 23:156–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.013
Schaubroeck T (2017a) Nature-based solutions sustainable? Nature 543:315–315. https://doi.org/10.1038/543315c
Schaubroeck T (2017b) A need for equal consideration of ecosystem disservices and services when valuing nature; countering arguments against disservices. Ecosyst Serv Part A 26:95–97
Schaubroeck T, Rugani B (2017) A revision of what life cycle sustainability assessment should entail: towards modeling the net impact on human well-being. J Ind Ecol 21:1464–1477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12653
Schaubroeck T, Alvarenga RAF, Verheyen K, Muys B, Dewulf J (2013) Quantifying the environmental impact of an integrated human/industrial–natural system using life cycle assessment; a case study on a forest and wood processing chain. Environ Sci Technol 47:13578–13586. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4046633
Schaubroeck T, Deckmyn G, Giot O, Campioli M, Vanpoucke C, Verheyen K, Rugani B, Achten W, Verbeeck H, Dewulf J, Muys B (2016) Environmental impact assessment and monetary ecosystem service valuation of an ecosystem under different future environmental change and management scenarios; a case study of a Scots pine forest. J Environ Manag 173:79–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.005
Seager TP, Trump BD, Poinsatte-Jones K, Linkov I (2017) Why life cycle assessment does not work for synthetic biology. Environ Sci Technol 51:5861–5862. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01604
Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S, Sanni GKS, Bennett S, De Lacy P, Modipa R, Mtati N, Sachikonye M, Thondhlana G (2016) Unpacking Pandora’s box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems 19:587–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z
Skene KR, 2017. Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: why the circular economy cannot work. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0443-3
Taelman SE, Schaubroeck T, De Meester S, Boone L, Dewulf J (2016) Accounting for land use in life cycle assessment: the value of NPP as a proxy indicator to assess land use impacts on ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 550:143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.055
Turner KG, Anderson S, Gonzales-Chang M, Costanza R, Courville S, Dalgaard T, Dominati E, Kubiszewski I, Ogilvy S, Porfirio L, Ratna N, Sandhu H, Sutton PC, Svenning J-C, Turner GM, Varennes Y-D, Voinov A, Wratten S (2016) A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol Model 40th Anniv Ecol Model J 319:190–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.017
WCED (1987) Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford
Weidema BP (2005) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.016
Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.019 (Eco-efficiency: from technical optimisation to reflective sustainability analysis)
Winter S (2012) Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. For Int J For Res 85:293–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cps004
Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12545
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Benedetto Rugani, Kris Verheyen, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Hans Verbeeck, Enrico Benetto, Javier Babi Almenar, Benoit Othoniel, Jo Dewulf and Alya Bolowich for insightful comments. I am also grateful for the proofread of the manuscript by Alya.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handled by Alexander Gonzalez Flor, University of the Philippines Open University, Philippines.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schaubroeck, T. Towards a general sustainability assessment of human/industrial and nature-based solutions. Sustain Sci 13, 1185–1191 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0559-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0559-0