Theory home of different environmental and sustainability assessment methods

Sustainable development and sustainability are developing fields. Crucial is our ability to assess sustainability, or to assess our position in relation to the sustainability goals we want to achieve. For this indicators and indices of sustainable development and sustainability are important, as well as sustainability assessment methods, sometimes called “the toolbox” available to assess sustainability and sustainable development. This paper is an attempt to give an overview of how different assessment methods and a few indices are connected to different theory foundations. A first group of methods has an explicit strong connection to specific theories. In this paper exemplified by Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Position Analysis (PA), explicitly connected to the theories of the two main opposing paradigms in economy: CBA based on neoclassical economy and PA based on institutional economy. A second group do not have an explicit connection to theory, but is still strongly connected to what is often named the “standard theory” in natural science and engineering. Examples from this group are: Index of biotic integrity (IBI), Life cycle assessment (LCA), Material flow analysis or accounting(MFA), Substance flow analysis (SFA), Environmental risk assessment (ERA), Material intensity perservice unit (MIPS), etc. A third group can be considered as almost, but to a small extent not yet fully accepted by the “standard theory”. The closest one among these in this paper is exergy analysis, which is not fully based on the theory of thermodynamic equilibrium, as the previous mentioned second group methods. Eco-exergy analysis, still in a developing phase, is located even further out on this branch. Emergy analysis is also based on the “standard theory” but is also a cross-over with general systems theory, and includes a new novel approach to non-equilibrium thermodynamics. A fourth group issuggested for Ecological footprints where the conversion from kg and joules to hectares (ha) is within the “standard theory”, but not the next step where the hectare is converted to the imaginary unit global hectares (gha). This can be said also about the conversion in emergy analysis from joules to solar equivalent joules (sej), but that conversion has a more strong theoretical underpinning than the conversion leading to the global hectare. Two other footprint methods, Carbon footprints (CF) and Water Footprints (WF) connects more clearly to the second group since they do not take the step to global hectares. A fifth group is made up indices, in this paper represented by the Human development index (HDI) and the Happy planet index (HPI). As a conglomerate of indicators that have no clear theoretical connection, they are considered having a weak connection to theory. The paper concludes the 27nd International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, Mid Sweden University, 13 – 15 July 2021 that sustainable development and sustainability are such a diverse field that any outcome of “data” whether directly measurable or generated by indices or methods are interesting and needed. However, in their interpretation, a level of knowledge about their connection to theory is important to include