توسعه پایدار مبتنی بر چارچوب های ساخت سیاست انرژی، بررسی انتقادی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29425||2012||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8364 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Energy Policy, Volume 43, April 2012, Pages 351–361
This paper, in the first step, presents an overview of the origination and formulation of sustainable development (SD) concept and the related policy making frameworks. The frameworks include Pressure–State–Response (PSR), Driving Force–State–Response (DSR), Driving Force–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR), Driving Force–Pressure–State–Effect–Action (DPSEA) and Driving Force-Pressure-State-Exposure-Effect-Action (DPSEEA). In this regard, 40 case studies using the reviewed frameworks reported during 1994–2011 are surveyed. Then, their application area and application intensity are investigated. It is concluded that PSR, and DPSEA & DPSEEA have the higher and lower application intensities, respectively. Moreover, using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with a set of criteria, it is shown that PSR and DPSIR have the highest and lowest priorities. Finally, the shortcomings of frameworks applications are discussed. The paper is helpful in selecting appropriate policy making frameworks and presents some hints for future research in the area for developing more comprehensive models especially for sustainable electric energy policy making.
United Nations organization initially used the concept of Sustainable Development (SD), in 1972 for the conservation of nature (UN-DSD, 2005). World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) brought the SD into public policy making procedures in 1987 by a report entitled as “Our Common Future”. Brundtland commission described the SD as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Waheed et al., 2009). SD is a dynamic pattern of social, economical, technological and environmental indicators that makes the countries to move toward a better life. Because future generations, with greater knowledge, more technology and different needs, will define SD's goals in their own points of view, cultures and values, there is no final fixed sustainable condition or state for a system (OECD Environment Directorate, 2004). Some authors argue that SD is about achieving a balance among the dimensions of each system like environmental, economic and social dimensions over temporal and spatial horizons which require multidisciplinary actions in a decision making process (Waheed et al., 2009 and Meyar-Naimi and Vaez-Zadeh,). SD is also extended to sustainable pattern of production and consumption, especially in the industrialized countries as a major preventive measure of the deterioration of global environment (Veleva and Ellenbecker, 2001). Providing rational and logical structures, policy frameworks present a platform in which indicators can be identified and classified, for every purpose (OECD Environment Directorate, 2004). Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines indicators as the values that give information about the situation of a system, and simplify the communications of its components (Kemmler and Spreng, 2007). Many studies try to use indicators to track systems progress towards the SD goals and refer them as Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs) (Afgan et al., 2000, IISD, 1995, IISD, 1997, IISD, 1999, IISD, 2004, IISD, 2005 and World Bank, 2002). Using SDIs, the spatial and temporal trends of a system states can be evaluated and its future conditions are predicted and a set of warning signals are provided. Review papers have been published to present integrated accounts of the SD methodologies, frameworks and indicators. The drawbacks of Pressure–State–Response (PSR) framework in modeling complex and causal relationships of system behavior are presented (Kelly, 1998). A review of the methodologies is given and an operational framework is proposed to support policy makers and analysts towards a sustainable energy policy (Patlitzianas et al., 2007). The SD based frameworks are also studied and an enhanced Driving Force–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework is proposed (Niemeijer and Groot, 2008). Another study focuses on DPSEEA framework and discusses different approaches. It also identifies challenges and selects a framework for delivering effective sustainability assessments (Waheed et al., 2009). Various sustainability indices and frameworks applied in policy practices are reviewed (Singh et al., 2009). This paper, in the first step, presents an overview of the origination and formulation of SD concept and the related policy making frameworks. The frameworks include PSR, DSR, DPSIR, DPSEA and DPSEEA. In this regard, 40 case studies using the reviewed frameworks reported during 1994–2011 are surveyed. Then, their application area and application intensity are investigated. Moreover, using AHP with a set of criteria, the frameworks are prioritized. Finally, the shortcomings of frameworks applications including single trajectory, linear and static modeling; neglecting historical constrains; ignoring carrying capacity constraints; lack of social modeling; dealing with assessment instead of policy making; ignoring the balance of the dimensions; ignoring national visions; lack of time scale policies and lack of policy evaluation are discussed. The paper is helpful in selecting appropriate policy making frameworks and presents some hints for future research in the area for developing more comprehensive models especially for sustainable electric energy policy making.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper reviews and evaluates the application area and the application intensity of policy making frameworks in energy related affairs including PSR, DSR, DPSIR, DPSEA and DPSEEA. They are presented by WHO, UN/IAEA and EEA and Eurostat based on the PSR which has been developed by OECD in 1970. In this regard, a survey of 40 case studies considering the reviewed frameworks reported during 1994–2011 is provided. It is concluded that PSR and DPSEA & DPSEEA have the higher and lower application intensities, respectively. Moreover, using AHP with a set of criteria, it is shown that PSR and DPSIR have the highest and lowest priorities. Considering the shortcomings of the frameworks commonly used in the SD policy making especially in the field of energy, new energy policy making frameworks should take into account complex, multi trajectory, non-linear and dynamic interrelations of energy system components and carrying capacity limits of the indicators. Also, energy policy frameworks are required to consider the overall national visions as an input to their policy making procedures. Thirdly, they should improve the balance of the energy system dimensions. Finally, the effects of new policies on the energy systems should be estimated before a final policy decision is made.