4.7 Article

Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement

Journal

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Volume 17, Issue -, Pages 20-28

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.001

Keywords

Measurement; Assessment; Indicators; Evaluation; Sustainability; Principles; Progress

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Revisiting the way society defines and measures progress has been identified as one of the key levers in tackling the root causes of unsustainable development. The recent economic and food crises exposed a critical weakness in the ability of currently mainstream indicators of progress to provide early warning and take adequate preventive action. Since the early 1990s a growing number of organizations have been involved in the development of indicator systems around the key socio-economic and environmental concerns of sustainable development within their own context. In order to provide guidance and promote best practice, in 1997 a global group of leading measurement and assessment experts developed the Bellagio Principles. The Bellagio Principles have become a widely quoted reference point for measuring sustainable development, but new developments in policy, science, civil society and technology have made their update necessary. The Bellagio Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles (BellagioSTAMP) have been developed through a similar expert group process, using the original Principles as a starting point. Intended to be used as a complete set, the new BellagioSTAMP includes eight principles: (1) Guiding vision; (2) Essential considerations; (3) Adequate scope; (4) Framework and indicators; (5) Transparency; (6) Effective communications; (7) Broad participation; and (8) Continuity and capacity. The paper provides the rationale for the revision of the principles, their detailed description and guidance for their application. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available