Methodological Approach for the Sustainability Assessment of Development Cooperation Projects for Built Innovations Based on the SDGs and Life Cycle Thinking
Abstract
:1. Introduction: Why Sustainability Is Important in the Development Sector
2. State-of-the-Art and Challenges
3. Methodological Framework
3.1. Goal and Scope, Reference System and Data Collection
3.2. Assessment of the Impacts
3.2.1. The Social Dimension—Impact Category Groups and Impact Categories
3.2.2. The Economic Dimension—Impact Category Groups and Impact Categories
3.2.3. The Environmental Dimension—Impact Category Groups and Impact Categories
3.2.4. The Temporal Dimension—Impact Category Group and Impact Categories
3.3. Optional Weighting
3.4. Evaluation and Interpretation
4. Case Study Improved Cooking Stove Project in Bangladesh
4.1. Results of the Case Study—Health
4.2. Results
4.3. Recommendations Case Study
- Health: It is recommended to provide information and awareness-raising about risks for human health if the broken stoves are dumped at a landfill area.
- Education and skill development: (Regular) user knowledge refreshment could help make the ICS more effective and efficient.
- Egalitarian society: ICS shop owners could be made aware of the advantages of equal salaries for their female employees to reduce the gender wage gap. The ICS shop owners could be encouraged to employ more women or disabled people to increase the labor participation rate of socially disadvantaged groups. Despite potential socio-cultural barriers more female ICS entrepreneurs could be trained for the ICS production.
- Poverty: An intensified promotion of the ICS within areas of Bangladesh where more than half of the population is living below the poverty line can be considered. Stimuli, such as subsidies for the (extreme) poor for buying and maintaining the ICS can help incentivize people that otherwise do not have direct monetary savings.
- Growth and employment: Jobs and economic growth could be achieved by refurbishing old ICS into a reusable form or by recycling old ICS parts and components and reusing them as useful parts or raw material. A win-win opportunity for the ICS owners and producers could be created by offering a return system for broken stoves.
- Aquatic ecosystems: Recycling and reusing of broken ICS parts can reduce the negative impact on aquatic ecosystems.
- Local acceptance: The design of smaller types or portable versions of ICS might attract households that do not have enough space for the existing model. Alternatively, a service for the households to fill up the unused holes of the traditional stoves and to install the ICS within this unused area could be provided. Awareness-raising about health issues related to indoor air pollution could be given, since only the minority of the users reported health improvements to be the reason for potentially buying an ICS.
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Dimension | Impact Category Group | Impact Category | Possible Indicator | Sources | Measurement Unit | Reference System |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Social | 1. Health | Accidents | Number/ratio of accidents (including occupational health incidences and accidents) | [15,78,79] | Number/ratio of accidents per time period or number of DALYs | Control group or traditional technology, statistical data of similar sectors in target country |
Specific type of disease | Number of health incidences | [15,78,79] | Number/ratio of incidences per time period or change in DALYs | Comparison with the situation of people prior to the introduction of the innovation, statistical data of similar sectors in target country | ||
Tears while cooking (for respiratory diseases) | [80] | Tears while cooking (TWC) per time period | control group or the situation of the people before the implementation of the project | |||
Particulate matter formation (for respiratory diseases) | [65] | kg PM 10 eq./functional unit | Traditional technology | |||
Human toxicity | Human toxicity potential | [65] | (kg DCB eq.) | Traditional technology | ||
2. Education & Skill Development | Training/education | (Tertiary) enrollment rates disaggregated by sex | [13] | Number/ratio | control group or the situation of the people before the implementation of the project | |
Quality of education/training | Satisfaction of the people with their training | Grading system | No reference system needed, proxy for quality of training | |||
School or training completion rates | [13] | Number/ratio | Total number of people taking part in the training/school | |||
Effectiveness of education/training | No of people applying knowledge | Number/ratio | Compared to total number of people taking part in the training | |||
3. Egalitarian society | Health equity Income equity Gender equity Inclusion | Disaggregating the indicators of the other impact categories such as health, education, poverty, (paid/unpaid) employment according to the above mentioned socially disadvantaged groups | [13] [81,82] [15,79,80] | Number, ratio, share | Total number of people with benefits/detriments due to health, education, income, employment; situation of disadvantaged people or groups before the implementation of the project; situation within a control group. national and/or international databases about minimum wage, vulnerable employments, education, income of socially disadvantaged groups, etc. | |
Economic | 4. Poverty | Absolute poverty | Proportion of people benefiting from innovation with an income below $1.90 (PPP) per day (MDG Indicator) | Modified after [13] | Number, share; Local currency and then converted into international dollars (PPP) | Income of total of number of people |
Proportion of people benefiting from innovation living below national poverty line, by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator) | Modified after [13] | Number, share; Local currency and then converted into international dollars (PPP) | Total number of people | |||
Inequality | GINI coefficient | [13] | From 0 to 1 | Baseline data | ||
Income/savings | Change in income/savings above national and/or international poverty lines | Modified after [13] | Local currency and then converted into international dollars (PPP) | average previous income; national and the international poverty lines | ||
Change in income/savings for people living below national and/or international poverty lines | modified after [13] | Number, share | average previous income; national and the international poverty lines | |||
5. Energy supply and efficiency | Energy intensity | Change in energy intensity of different life cycle phases | [65] | (MJ) | Traditional technology, product, situation before | |
Energy usage | Net energy balance throughout the life cycle | [65] | (MJ) | Traditional technology, product, situation before | ||
Primary energy, renewable and fossil energy sources (on the input side) | [65] | (MJ) | Traditional technology, product, situation before | |||
6. Growth and employment | Job creation Quality of jobs | Net job creation total and disaggregated (if possible): -skilled/unskilled, -temporary/indefinite | [79] | Number, ratio | Situation before, total number of people involved in project | |
Job creation Working conditions | Total number of jobs (percentage adhering to nationally recognized labor standards, e.g., ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at work) | [83] | Number, ratio | Situation before, total number of people involved in project, ILO labour standards, international and national standards | ||
Working conditions | Reduction in vulnerable employment | [84] | Hours, ratio | Situation before | ||
7. Terrestrial ecosystems | Terrestrial acidification | Terrestrial acidification threatening species per time period | [65] | (species.yr.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | |
Terrestrial Ecotoxicty Potential | Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential in Dichlorobenzene Equivalents | [65] | (kg DCB eq.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | ||
Land transformation | Natural land transformation threatening species per time period | [85] | (species.yr.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | ||
Area of natural land transformation | [85] | (m2) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | |||
Ozone layer depletion | Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP, steady state) in R11-equivalents | [65] | (kg R11 eq.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | ||
8. Aquatic ecosystems | Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity | Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity pot. as DCB–Equivalents | [65] | (kg DCB eq.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | |
Marine aquatic ecotoxicty | Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity pot. as DCB-Equivalents | [65] | (kg DCB eq.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | ||
Freshwater eutrophication | Freshwater eutrophication as phosphor equivalents | [85] | (kg P eq.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | ||
Water depletion | Quantity of water depletion | [85] | (m3) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | ||
Marine eutrophication | Marine eutrophication as nitrogen equivalents | [85] | (kg N eq.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | ||
9. Climate | Global warming | Greenhouse gas emissions | [65] | (kg CO2 eq.) | Results for traditional technology or alternative product | |
Temporal | 10. Long-term effectiveness | Local acceptance | penetration rate/sales rate of innovation | [23] | (percentage) | If applicable traditional product |
usage and maintenance rate of innovation | [23] | (percentage) | If applicable traditional product | |||
disposal and replacement rate of innovation | [23] | (percentage) | If applicable traditional product | |||
Willingness to pay | (monetary values) | If applicable traditional product |
References
- Crutzen, P.J.; Stoermer, E.F. The Anthropocene. Glob. Chang. Newsl. 2000, 41, 17–18. [Google Scholar]
- Waters, C.N.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Summerhayes, C.; Barnosky, A.D.; Poirier, C.; Gałuszka, A.; Cearreta, A.; Edgeworth, M.; Ellis, E.C.; Ellis, M.; et al. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 2016, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United Nations—Headquarters (UN). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. United Nations Millennium Declaration; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations—Headquarters (UN). Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Pope, J.; Annandale, D.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 595–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holtz, U. Nachhaltigkeit in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. In Grenzenlos—Kommunikation, Kooperation, Entwicklung; Fahrenhorst, B., Musto, S.A., Eds.; Gesellschaft f. Internationale Entwicklung Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2000; Volume 13, pp. 54–60. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2015).
- Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; New Society Publishers: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Martinuzzi, A.; Gareis, R.; Huemann, M.; Sedlacko, M.; Weninger, C. Für eine breitere Perspektive auf Projekte. Ökol. Wirtsch. 2011, 3, 30–34. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Mebratu, D. Sustainability and sustainable development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1998, 18, 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gladwin, T.N.; Kennelly, J.J.; Krause, T.-S. Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2009, 20, 874–907. [Google Scholar]
- Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals: Launching A Data Revolution for the SDGs; SDSN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Svizzero, S.; Tisdell, C. The Post-2015 Global Development Agenda: A Critical Analysis. J. Self-Gov. Manag. Econ. 2016, 4, 72–94. [Google Scholar]
- ICSU/ISSC. Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective; International Council for Science (ICSU): Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- WorldBank. What Is Development? 2004. Available online: http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_01.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2015).
- Alonso, J.A.; Glennie, J. What Is Development Cooperation? United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC): New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Riddell, R.C. Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford Policy Management: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Green Paper on Relations between the European Union and the ACP Countries on the Eve of the 21st Century: Challenges and Options for a New Partnership: Challenges and Options for a New Partnership; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD): Paris, France, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Agency for International Development (USAID). Agency Performance Report 1998. U.S.; Agency for International Development (USAID): Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
- Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). Ergebnisse der Finanziellen Zusammenarbeit: Fünfter Auswertungsbericht über geförderte Vorhaben in Entwicklungsländern; Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW): Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1999. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Sustainability Assessment of Improved Household Cookstove Dissemination. 2014. Available online: https://energypedia.info/wiki/Sustainability_Assessment_of_Improved_Household_Cookstove_Dissemination (accessed on 2 October 2016).
- Austrian Development Agency, Evaluation Unit. Guidelines for Project and Programme Evaluations; Austrian Development Agency: Vienna, Austria, 2009.
- McConville, J.R.; Mihelcic, J.R. Adapting Life-Cycle Thinking Tools to Evaluate Project Sustainability in International Water and Sanitation Development Work. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2007, 24, 937–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance: Development Assistance Committee; OECD: Paris, France, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Ebrahim, A. Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Dev. 2003, 31, 813–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.L. Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Dalal-Clayton, D.B.; Bass, S. Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book; Earthscan: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bhola, H.S. Evaluating “Literacy for Development” Projects, Programs and Campaigns: Evaluation Planning, Design and Implementation, and Utilization of Evaluation Results; Unesco Institute for Education and German Foundation for International Development: Hamburg, Germany, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Caspari, A. Evaluation der Nachhaltigkeit von Entwicklungszusammenarbeit: Zur Notwendigkeit Angemessener Konzepte und Methoden, 1st ed.; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2004. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- McConville, J.R. Applying Life Cycle Thinking to International Water and Sanitation. Master’s Thesis, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.T. Land Reform and Farm Production in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam. Asian Econ. J. 2012, 26, 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gertler, P.J.; Martinez, S.; Premand, P.; Rawlings, L.B.; Christel, M.J. Vermeersch. Impact Evaluation in Practice; Word Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Duflo, E. Field Experiments in Development Economics. 2006. Available online: http://economics.mit.edu/files/800 (accessed on 2 October 2016).
- Nguyen, T.T. The Impact of Land Reform on Farm Households in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam, 1st ed.; Margraf: Weikersheim, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management Assessment-Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standard (ISO): Geneve, Switzerland, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Blok, K.; Huijbregts, M.; Roes, L.; van Haaster, B.; Patel, M.; Hertwich, E.; Wood, R.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Sellke, P.; Antunes, P.; et al. A Novel Methodology for the Sustainability Impact Assessment of New Technologies 2013. Available online: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiN9pCb97vPAhWNOsAKHZQRCUEQFggsMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.library.uu.nl%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F1874%2F303231%2F26.pdf%3Bsequence%3D1&usg=AFQjCNHlg4eCdn_up2YwFLkj_ldyYMSR2w&sig2=lEGmyrUYaq7ox7zzNF4SIw (accessed on 2 October 2016).
- Finkbeiner, M.; Schau, E.M.; Lehmann, A.; Traverso, M. Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3309–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrecht, S.; Brandstetter, P.; Beck, T.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Grönman, K.; Baitz, M.; Deimling, S.; Sandilands, J.; Fischer, M. An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1549–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Economic and Social Council. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators; United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC): New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.T.; Bauer, S.; Grote, U. Does land tenure security promote manure use by farm households in Vietnam? Sustainability 2016, 8, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McConville, J.R. Assessing Sustainable Approaches to Sanitation Planning and Implementation in West Africa; Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ostrom, T.K. Considering Sustainability Factors in the Development Project Life-Cycle: A Framework for Increaseing Successful Adoption of Improved Stoves. Master’s Thesis, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Olsen, K.H.; Fenhann, J. Sustainable development benefits of clean development mechanism projects. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 2819–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kloepffer, W. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klöpffer, W.; Grahl, B. Ökobilanz (LCA): Ein Leitfaden für Ausbildung und Beruf; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2009. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Environment Programme. Why Take a Life Cycle Approach? 1st ed.; United Nations Publication: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Khang, D.B.; Moe, T.L. Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A life-cycle-based framework. Proj. Manag. J. 2008, 39, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brent, A.; Labuschagne, C. Social Indicators for Sustainable Project and Technology Life Cycle Management in the Process Industry (13 pp + 4). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C. Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: The Need to Integrate Life Cycles in the Manufacturing Sector. 2007. Available online: http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/4323/Labuschagne_Sustainable(2005).pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 20 April 2015).
- Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C.; Claasen, S.J. Environmental and social impact considerations for sustainable project life cycle management in the process industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The United Nations Children’s Fund. Monitoring Progress toward the Goals of the World Summit for Children, End-decade Multiple Indicator Survey Manual. Chapter 6: Conducting the Field Work; The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF): New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Education and Skills for Inclusive and Sustainable Development beyond 2015: Thematic Think Piece; The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- International Labour Office. Safety, Health and Working Conditions in the Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries; International Labour Office (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Sachs, J. The Age of Sustainable Development; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Reduce Inequality within and among Countries—United Nations Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bellù, L.G.; Liberati, P. Impacts of Policies on Poverty: Absolute Poverty Lines. FAO EASYPol. 2005. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/316/abslt_pov_lines_005en.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2015).
- Poschen, P. Decent Work, Green Jobs and the Sustainable Economy: Solutions for Climate Change and Sustainable Development; International Labour Office (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Vedeld, P.; Angelsen, A.; Sjaastad, E.; Berg, G.K. Counting on the Environment: Forest Incomes and the Rural Poor; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Why a Healthy Environment Is Essential to Reducing Poverty. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/dac/environment-development/36348154.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2016).
- World Bank Group. Ensuring Environmental Sustainability: Measuring Progress toward the 7th Millennium Development Goal; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Guinée, J.B. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Guinée, J.B., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kummu, M.; Ward, P.J.; de Moel, H.; Varis, O. Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon?: Global assessment of water shortage over the last two millennia. Environ. Res. Lett. 2010, 5, 34006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, M. Water Footprinting: How to Address Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment? Sustainability 2010, 2, 919–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swart, R.; Robinsonb, J.; Cohenc, S. Climate change and sustainable development: Expanding the options. Clim. Policy 2003, 351, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osterhammel, J. Transferanalyse und Vergleich im Fernverhältnis. In Vergleich und Transfer—Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften; Kaelble, H., Schriewer, J., Eds.; Campus: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2003; pp. 439–468. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Eisenberg, C. Kulturtransfer als historischer Prozess. Ein Beitrag zur Komparatistik. In Vergleich und Transfer—Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften; Kaelble, H., Schriewer, J., Eds.; Campus Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, Germay, 2003; pp. 399–418. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Hyvärinen, A.; Keskinen, M.; Varis, O. Potential and Pitfalls of Frugal Innovation in the Water Sector: Insights from Tanzania to Global Value Chains. Sustainability 2016, 8, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levänen, J.; Hossain, M.; Lyytinen, T.; Hyvärinen, A.; Numminen, S.; Halme, M. Implications of Frugal Innovations on Sustainable Development: Evaluating Water and Energy Innovations. Sustainability 2016, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pansera, M.; Sarkar, S. Crafting Sustainable Development Solutions: Frugal Innovations of Grassroots Entrepreneurs. Sustainability 2016, 8, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shan, J.; Khan, M. Implications of Reverse Innovation for Socio-Economic Sustainability: A Case Study of Philips China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. Progress Report 2014: Energising Development—Phase 2; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ): Eschborn, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. Improved Cooking Stoves Saves Lives; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ): Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Rema, H.; Duflo, E.; Greenstone, M. Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy Am. Econ. Assoc. 2016, 8, 80–114. [Google Scholar]
- The World Bank. World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Global Bioenergy Partnership Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy, 1st ed.; GBEP Secretariat FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ellegard, A. Tears while Cooking: An Indicator of Indoor Air Pollution and Related Health Effects in Developing Countries. Environ. Res. 1996, 75, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- International Labour Organization. Convention C138—Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138); International Labour Organization (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- International Labour Organization. Convention C182—Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182); International Labour Organization (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- International Labour Organization. Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work: From Commitment to Action, 1st ed.; International Labour Organization (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- The World Bank. Development Goals in an Era of Demographic Change; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; Schryver, A.D.; Struijs, J.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe 2008: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. 2009. Available online: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/recipe_characterisation.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2016).
Society | Environment | Economy |
---|---|---|
Education/Skill development | Climate | Poverty |
Egalitarian society | Terrestrial ecosystem | Growth/Employment |
Health | Aquatic ecosystem | Energy supply/consumption |
Temporal dimension | ||
Long-term effectiveness |
Social Dimension | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impact category group: health | Final score: +0.33 | |||||
Life cycle phase: | Use and maintenance | |||||
n°/Indicator | Measurement unit | Reference | Result of the reference | Result of the innovation | Resulting difference (%) | Score (+, –, 0) |
Impact category: human toxicity | Final score: +1 | |||||
1.1/Dichlorobenzene equivalents | kg DCB eq./functional unit | … | … | … | … | + |
1.2/… | … | … | … | … | … | + |
Impact category: respiratory diseases | Final score: +1 | |||||
1.3/coughing | % | … | … | … | … | + |
1.4/… | … | … | … | … | … | + |
Impact category: accidents | Final score: –1 | |||||
1.5/N° of burns | n°/functional unit | … | … | … | … | – |
1.6/… | … | … | … | … | … | 0 |
Social Dimension | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impact category group: health | Final score: +1 | |||||
Life cycle phase: | Use and maintenance | |||||
n°/Indicator | Measurement unit | Reference | Result of the reference | Result of the innovation | Resulting difference (%) | Score (+, –, 0) |
Impact category: human toxicity | Final score: +1 | |||||
1.1/Dichlorobenzene equivalents | kg DCB eq./functional unit | Trad. stove | 0.011/pot rice | 0.006/pot rice | 45 | + |
Impact category: respiratory diseases | Final score: +1 | |||||
1.2/occurrence of symptoms: coughing, headache, … | % | Trad. User | 90 | 0 | 90 | + |
1.3/smoke while cooking | % | Trad. User | 100 | 0 | 100 | + |
1.4/tears while cooking | % | Trad. User | 90 | 0 | 90 | + |
1.5/Particulate matter formation | kg PM 10 eq./functional unit | Trad. stove | 0.062/pot rice | 0.058/pot rice | 15 | + |
Impact category: accidents | Final score: +1 | |||||
1.6/N° of burns | n°/functional unit | Trad. stove | 20/last 3 weeks | 0/last 3 weeks | 80 | + |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Maier, S.D.; Beck, T.; Francisco Vallejo, J.; Horn, R.; Söhlemann, J.-H.; Nguyen, T.T. Methodological Approach for the Sustainability Assessment of Development Cooperation Projects for Built Innovations Based on the SDGs and Life Cycle Thinking. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101006
Maier SD, Beck T, Francisco Vallejo J, Horn R, Söhlemann J-H, Nguyen TT. Methodological Approach for the Sustainability Assessment of Development Cooperation Projects for Built Innovations Based on the SDGs and Life Cycle Thinking. Sustainability. 2016; 8(10):1006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101006
Chicago/Turabian StyleMaier, Stephanie D., Tabea Beck, Javier Francisco Vallejo, Rafael Horn, Jan-Hendrik Söhlemann, and Trung Thanh Nguyen. 2016. "Methodological Approach for the Sustainability Assessment of Development Cooperation Projects for Built Innovations Based on the SDGs and Life Cycle Thinking" Sustainability 8, no. 10: 1006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101006
APA StyleMaier, S. D., Beck, T., Francisco Vallejo, J., Horn, R., Söhlemann, J.-H., & Nguyen, T. T. (2016). Methodological Approach for the Sustainability Assessment of Development Cooperation Projects for Built Innovations Based on the SDGs and Life Cycle Thinking. Sustainability, 8(10), 1006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101006