In the impact matrix, the effects on the sustain- ability indicators are represented by standardized
qualitative values originating from the impact ma- trix; these values can also be used to develop
different CTVs for each sustainability indicator. Within the ‘weak progress’ vision, CTVs are set
less stringently than in other visions on CTVs. Sustainability in this vision is defined as ‘non-neg-
ative’ impacts on the sustainability indicators, and sustainability is thus achieved when the effects of
a development scenario has at least a + − sign, i.e. no further environmental decay. So, this
vision contains the minimum CTVs for the sus- tainability indicators.
Within the other two visions moderate and strong progress the CTVs appeared to become
more stringent; this is useful to identify the most sustainable development scenario. If, for example,
scenario A is sustainable within the ‘strong pro- gress vision’, and if the other two scenario’s B
and C meet only the requirements for sustainabil- ity within the ‘weak progress vision’, one can
conclude that scenario A is the most sustainable one.
For each sustainability indicator the relevant CTV is represented here in a qualitative sense,
although in most cases quantitative information does exist Vreeker, 1997. Therefore, the CTVs in
our assessment procedure have been set as the following values as shown in Table 6.
In Section 6 the results of the sustainability assessment will be given, while also the results of
the comparison of the effects with the visions on CTVs will be analyzed for all sustainability indi-
cators for a brief representation of the values of the 11 sustainability indicators and their corre-
sponding CTVs we refer to Table 5.
5
.
5
. Step
4:
e6aluation of sustainability strategies or scenarios
In the sustainability assessment, by means of the flag model, the outcomes of sustainability
indicators are compared to the CTVs. After the comparison of a sustainability indicator with its
CTV, a coloured flag is assigned to the value of this indicator see Section 2. The set of sustain-
ability indicators is evaluated in a separate model of the flag computer programme. Due to lack of
quantitative information a qualitative approach is necessarily used here. The qualitative approach
only takes into account the colour of the flags see Section 2. Only flag counts and cross-tabulation
when
two scenarios
are compared
are allowed. The outcomes can also be visualized by
means of pie charts and stack bars. The results of the comparisons will now be presented in Section
6.
6. Interpretation of the results of the Thai case study
We will now concisely interpret the results of the above-mentioned three auxiliary visions for
assessing tentative values for the CTVs, viz. the
weak, moderate
and strong
progress vision, respectively. Here we will present in
Tables 7 – 18 the results of the flag model in terms of the frequency of flags for each of the three
scenarios and for the three distinct visions on CTVs.
6
.
1
. Weak progress 6ision It seems plausible that the environmental pro-
tection scenario is the most sustainable, based on CTVs in the weak progress vision. The influence
the environmental protection scenario has on the economic indicators is limited; it is, in fact, sur-
prising that eight yellow flags are counted for these indicators. Thus, the environmental protec-
tion scenario is not in all cases very convincing. Clearly, the environmental protection scenario
Table 6 The CTVs in our assessment procedure
Sustainability vision Indicator
Weak Strong
Moderate \
++ \
+ \
+− Benefit indicator
B −−
B −−
B +−
Cost indicator
Table 7 Frequencies of flags for weak progress vision
a
Economic indicators Social indicators
All flags Environmental
indicators Y
R G
Y G
R G
Y R
G Y
R 10
6 8
Decentralization 1
3 1
3 10
6 8
1 3
1 Regional and sectoral promotion
3 12
4 8
1 3
Environmental protection 3
1
a
G, ‘green’ flag: no reason for specific concern; Y, ‘yellow’ flag, be alert; R, reverse flag: reverse trends.
has more yellow flags counted for environmental indicators; this was, however, expected.
6
.
1
.
1
. Results from the cross tabulation of flag counts
We will now interpret some pairwise results of the scenario comparison Tables 8 – 10. After
comparing the decentralization vision with the sectoral and regional promotion scenario, we can
see that both scenarios have identical scores on the sustainability indicators. There are no indica-
tors for which the decentralization scenario gives a better score than the sectoral and regional pro-
motion scenario.
The results show that there are three indicators for which the environmental protection scenario
gets a better score than the decentralization sce- nario. The decentralization scenario has only one
indicator, for which the score is better than for the environmental protection scenario. We can
conclude that, with the application of the weak progress scenario, the environmental protection
scenario is favoured over the decentralization scenario.
There are three indicators for which the envi- ronmental protection scenario obtains a better
score than the sectoral and regional promotion scenario. We may conclude that the environmen-
tal protection scenario is favoured over the decen- tralization scenario. After the comparison of the
different development scenarios we can conclude that the environmental protection scenario is the
most favoured scenario within the context of the weak progress scenario vision on CTVs, followed
by the decentralization scenario and the sectoral and regional promotion scenario.
6
.
2
. Moderate progress 6ision Next, we will analyse the consequences of the
moderate progress vision Table 11. With the application of this vision on CTVs, the differences
between the development scenarios become more significant. The environmental protection scenario
Table 8 Cross tabulation of flag counts
Sectoral and regional promotion
G Y
R Decentralization scenario
G Y
10 R
6 Table 9
Cross tabulation of flag counts Environmental protection
G Y
R G
Decentralization scenario Y
9 1
R 3
3 Table 10
Cross tabulation of flag counts Environmental
protection G
Y R
G Sectoral and regional promotion
1 9
Y R
3 3
Table 11 Frequencies of flags for moderate progress vision.
Economic indicators Social indicators
Environmental All Flags
indicators Y
R G
Y R
G Y
R G
Y R
G 8
8 6
2 Decentralization
1 3
1 3
Regional and sectoral promotion 9
7 6
2 4
1 3
Environmental protection 4
12 1
7 1
3 2
2
especially becomes less sustainable. Twelve red flags were counted for this scenario; most of them
were assigned to the economic indicators. Rela- tively positive scores were found on the social and
environmental indicators three yellow flags in total. It seems that economic development is
sacrificed
in order
to achieve
ecological sustainability.
Although the decentralization and sectoral and regional promotion scenario displays a large num-
ber of red flags 8 and 7, they are more sustain- able than the environmental protection scenario.
The relative positive scores yellow flags are mainly seen for the economic indicators. The ob-
jectives of these scenarios, viz. redistribution of income and the strengthening of regional-eco-
nomic sectors, seem to be well achieved with the use of the policy measures. But these scenarios
compromise economic growth for social and envi- ronmental sustainability.
The comparison the decentralization scenario with the sectoral and regional promotion scenario
makes clear that the decentralization scenario is slightly more sustainable than the sectoral and
regional promotion scenario Tables 12 – 14. There are two indicators for which the decentral-
ization scenario obtains a better score than the sectoral and regional promotion scenario. The
sectoral and regional promotion scenario scores better on indicator better than the decentraliza-
tion scenario.
There are six indicators for which the decentral- ization scenario obtains a better score than the
environmental protection scenario. The environ- mental protection scenario has two indicators for
which the score is better than for the decentraliza- tion scenario. We can thus conclude that the
decentralization scenario is more favoured than the environmental protection scenario.
There are also seven indicators for which the sectoral and regional promotion scenario obtains
a better score than the environmental protection scenario, while there are four indicators for which
the environmental protection scenario obtains better results than the sectoral and regional pro-
Table 12 Cross tabulation of flag counts
Sectoral and regional promotion
G Y
R Decentralization scenario
G Y
6 2
R 1
7 Table 13
Cross tabulation of flag counts Environmental protection
G Y
R G
Decentralization scenario Y
2 6
R 2
6 Table 14
Cross tabulation of flag counts Environmental
protection G
Y R
G Sectoral and regional promotion
7 Y
5 4
R
Table 15 Frequencies of flags for strong progress vision
Economic indicators Social indicators
All flags Environmental
indicators Y
R G
Y G
R G
Y R
G Y
R 3
13 3
5 Decentralization
4 4
3 13
3 5
4 4
Sectoral and regional promotion 16
8 4
4 Environmental protection
motion scenario. We may thus conclude that the sectoral and regional promotion scenario is fa-
voured over
the environmental
protection scenario.
The conclusion is that with the application of the moderate progress vision on CTVs, the decen-
tralization scenario is the most favourable sce- nario, followed by the sectoral and regional
promotion.
6
.
3
. Strong progress 6ision Finally, we will analyse the results of the strong
progress vision on CTVs. Under these conditions, none of the scenarios can meet the sustainability
conditions in all respects. Although the decentral- ization scenario and sectoral and regional promo-
tion scenario have some yellow flag scores for the economic indicators, reverse trends occur for the
social and environmental indicators. The environ- mental protection scenario is unsustainable with
respect to the economic variables; there are no yellow flags scored for the social and environmen-
tal indicators. This scenario is with respect to all types of indicators, clearly unsustainable.
6
.
3
.
1
. Results of the cross tabulation of flag counts
The cross tabulation of flag counts shows no differences in sustainability between the decentral-
ization scenario and sectoral and regional promo- tion scenario Tables 16 – 18. Both scenarios have
the same scores on the sustainability indicators. The environmental protection scenario has the
most unsustainable scores on the indicators. This is caused by the severe negative effects on the
economic indicators, such as total income, income distribution and employment. The other two sce-
narios show some ‘yellow’ scores on these indica- tors and therefore their overall sustainability is
slightly better. All three scenarios have the same negative effects on the environmental indicators.
In conclusion, the assessment of sustainability of the SongkhlaHat Yai area shows that sustain-
ability is only achieved at the lowest defined levels
Table 16 Cross tabulation of flag counts
Sectoral and regional promotion
G Y
R G
Decentralization scenario Y
3 R
13 Table 17
Cross tabulation of flag counts Environmental protection
G Y
R G
Decentralization scenario Y
3 R
13 Table 18
Cross tabulation of flag counts Environmental
protection G
Y R
G Sectoral and regional promotion
3 Y
R 13
of the CTVs ‘weak progress development’. If CTVs are set more stringently, none of the devel-
opment scenarios is able to achieve sustainability scores on the social and environmental indicators.
Some relatively positive scores on the economic indicators are shown by the decentralization and
sectoral promotion scenarios. The influence of the environmental protection scenario on the eco-
nomic indicators is neither positive nor negative, and therefore this scenario becomes less sustain-
able when strict CTVs are applied. It can be concluded that the decentralization scenario is the
most favourable development scenario; this sce- nario is followed by the sectoral and regional
promotion scenario. According to our assessment the environmental protection scenario is the least
favourable scenario, mainly because its positive effect on the economic indicators is marginal.
7. Summary and conclusion
