Sustainability and Remediation - Dealing with Contaminated Sites: From Theory Towards Practical Application - page 914

Element Headline (category) Examples of indidual indicators

Ozone depleting substances
Greenhouse gases

Impacts on air

Acid gases

pH
water use

Impacts on water

eutrophication inputs

biological functionality
chemical functionality Impacts on soil

physical functionality

Environmental biodiversity / conservation

Impacts on ecology functionality

productivity

landscape impacts
built environment Intrusiveness

flood risks

material
energy Resource use

waste disposal

Fig. 20.8 Example indicator hierarchy for the environmental element of sustainable development

then individual indicator assessments may need to be made, but presumably only
within those headline categories for which consensus could not be reached.
Double counting is a potentially serious issue that gives undue weight to an issue
if it is represented by more than one criterion. However, in attempting to avoid
double counting, there is a danger of oversimplification, and that key issues that
resonate with stakeholders are lost (Mitchell 2005 ), as discussed in Section 20.2.1.3 .
Grouping indicators under headlines balances the need to avoid double counting
with the need to avoid over-simplification.
The importance of this kind of structured approach to considering indicators
reflects the functionality of project based decision making, where reaching con-
sensus between different stakeholders for a particular site. Sustainability appraisal
is specific to the circumstances of a particular site or project. It depends on the spe-
cific environmental, economic and social context of the site being considered, and
also the people and organisations involved. The reason for carrying out sustainabil-
ity appraisal will be related to gaining some form of agreement from planning or
regulatory authorities or a local community, or some form of reassurance from a
corporate point of view that the site owner can defend their decision as sustainable,
or some combination of similar reasons. Many factors important in sustainability
are likely to be viewed subjectively by different stakeholders, for example impact of
a project on a historic built environment. Hence, the only real decision will be that
the different stakeholders involved agree that for a particular criterion the most sus-
tainable approach is “x” . Therefore, from a pragmatic point of view, sustainability
appraisal only needs to go as far as is necessary to reach this consensus, and the