Indicators for sustainable development — a systems analysis approach

The Application of Multiple Criteria Assessment of Production Sectors on Increasing Quality of Life

“…Others assess life satisfaction using the following domains: education, employment, material standard of living, housing, health and social life. In a report for the Balaton Group, Bossel (1999) used seven basic 'orientors' to define a system of sustainable indicators: existence, effectiveness, freedom of action, security, adaptability, co-existence, psychological needs. Layard (2006) defines seven factors with the greatest influence on happiness: family relationships, financial situation, work, community and friends, health, personal freedom and personal values.…”

Using a systems viability approach to evaluate integrated conservation and development projects: assessing the impact of the North Rupununi Adaptive Management Process, Guyana

“…Thus, the outcomes ‘feed back’ to reinforce and sustain the components, that is, the system maintains viability. Bossel (1999) clarifies the meaning of system viability: ‘when we talk about a viable system, we mean that this system is able to survive, be healthy and develop in its particular system environment. In other words, system viability has something to do with both the system and its properties, and with the system environment and its properties’ (p. 24).…”

“…In other words, system viability has something to do with both the system and its properties, and with the system environment and its properties’ (p. 24). Bossel (1999) proposes that system viability is determined and directed by a set of core system properties or what he defines as system ‘orientor’. For practical use in integrated conservation and development projects with a range of stakeholders, these core properties have been simplified and adapted:…”

“…This particular systems viability approach thus establishes a straightforward, interdisciplinary, multi‐scale and integrated framework that allows us to investigate a project, such as an ICDP, as it intervenes within a nested set of complex adaptive systems. The ICDP intervenes within a disparate range of social and ecological boundaries determined by the worldviews underpinning the thoughts and actions of a range of stakeholders, and is set within a dynamic social‐ecological context (the socio‐ecological system and its ‘environment’) which changes over time, space and organisational scale (Bossel 1999, 2001). For monitoring and evaluation purposes, an ICDP intervention can be considered as directly engaged with a particular SES and its associated ‘environment’, that is, a combination of human and ecological components acting in concert to maintain viability.…”

“…In this paper, we present an alternative approach for the monitoring and evaluation of ICDPs which is based on a systems viability analysis developed by Bossel (1999). Here we show how the system viability approach can help assess the sustainability and impact of projects, and in particular, its usefulness in identifying the key constraints for the success of such projects.…”