A. Bosshard Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 29–41 31
of land-use systems; and iii to improve the essential communication between experts and society, practice
and theory regarding the sustainability paradigm. Section 2 of the study presents a general value as-
sessment methodology on behalf of the example of sustainability. In Section 3, a methodology of identi-
fication and assessing sustainability of land-use sys- tems is proposed, and in Section 4, the practical use
and benefit are discussed on behalf of a Swiss land-use planning project.
The paper presents the main results of a study Bosshard et al., 1997 carried out for the Swiss
government, in close connection to an EU-concerted action, described by van Mansvelt in this issue. The
concept itself is based mainly on the personal experi- ence and experimentation in a number of sustainabil-
ity planning projects in Switzerland and abroad.
2. Methodological fundamentals of assessment procedures
2.1. Definition, purpose and systematic of assessment procedures
Ideas, concepts, paradigms, or Leitbilder, in Ger- man, are translated into concrete actions by value
judgements Werturteile, in German. If value judge- ments are systematised, they are called assessment
procedures. Such procedures may consist of implicit and explicit elements. Predominantly implicit proce-
dures are provided by the regular consultancy-based judgements or the widespread positivistic judgements.
The latter type of judgements regards facts as values, without giving reasons for the assumption that the par-
ticular fact as such is good or bad ‘naturalistic false conclusion’, see, e.g., Jessel, 1996, or why this and
not other facts, objects or aspects of reality are se- lected for valuation. For example, most often a high
bio-diversity is a priori and implicitly equated with high natural value, whilst a reflection and discussion
of this value judgement and why this aspect of reality is regarded so important is not reported on nor con-
sidered see Bosshard, 1996, 1997; Mühlenberg and Slowik, 1997.
In contrast, for assessment procedures suitable for science as well as for democratic discourse and de-
velopment, only explicit procedures can be taken into account Wiegleb, 1997. An assessment procedure
may be called an explicit one when all value-related and thus subjective or, better, view point depending,
steps are indicated as such and open for discussion c.f. Bockemühl, 1997.
Despite the endeavours for scientific approaches, for objectivity and comprehensibility, even today most
assessment procedures contain essential implicit ele- ments. One reason might be seen in the disregard-
ing of epistemological aspects during scientific edu- cation. With the following methodological outline of
assessment procedures, the stimulation of the discus- sion about the reliability, task, potential and limits of
science in valuation is intended.
2.2. Prerequisites for comprehensibility A comprehensible and lucid assessment procedure,
in a first approach, is based on the following three elements: i clear goals see also Jessel, 1994, ii
a good knowledge of the facts underlying the goals, and iii an appropriate set of measurements for a
sound determination of differences between the goals and the facts. This concept, at first glance, seems to
allow a simple, linear, logical assessment procedure in the way it is described in a good part of the as-
sessment literature e.g., Plachter, 1994; Bastian and Schreiber, 1994. However, the established approach
neglects several important aspects Bosshard, 1997. For example, it does not consider that neither a clear
and suitable formulation of a goal, nor what might be considered as an ‘object’ or ‘fact’, is given at the be-
ginning of a valuation research. Goals gradually evolve and become clarified as a result of an intensive cogni-
tive process during the valuation procedure Plachter and Werner, 1998.Thus, facts and goals, analysis and
synthesis are not independent entities; rather, they are characterised by a dialectic or complementary rela-
tionship. In other words, the assessing problem ap- pears as a typical chicken-and-egg paradox, which
cannot be solved by simple linear concepts Bosshard, 1997.
A scientific method to deal with this paradox is called ‘heuristics’, based on contributions mainly
by Popper 1934 and Fleck 1935. Transposed to our task of an assessment methodology, the same
32 A. Bosshard Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 29–41
approach can be called discursive paradigm devel- opment Wiegleb, 1997. According to this concept,
sustainability cannot be regarded as a finished, ever- lasting concept or definition, but will stay in a perma-
nent cultural evolution driven also by the valuation process itself. Consequently, any concept of sustain-
ability has to respect this dynamic feature, including the socio-cultural dependence of leading moral ideas
in general Bosshard, 1997; Bockemühl, 1998. A methodology for a heuristic assessment approach is
presented in the Section 3.
3. Elements and steps of an assessment procedure
