Hi
I guess this must be the best site to ask this question ...
There seems to be so many definitions of sustainability around .. different focuses depending on your philosophical bent (economic, green, religious, and so on).
Has anyone found a really good defintion of sustainability - if so I would really like to hear from you.
Eric
Apart from the differences in definition based on philosophical / ideology, there are also variations based on the specific field or sector to which the concept of “sustainability” is being applied – whether financial, business, energy, heavy industry, forestry, agriculture, fisheries, domestic, etc.
Anyway, the definition below attempts to define (and at the same time connect) the three main components of sustainability. This is not necessarily the “best” or most practical definition, but it is pretty straightforward, and probably represents a suitable “starting point” from which adjustments or improvements can be made, in focusing the ideas to apply them to specific circumstances.
Environmental Sustainability: Practices to ensure that the natural resource capital remains intact; i.e., that the “source” and “sink” functions of the environment should not be degraded. Therefore, the extraction of renewable resource should not exceed the rate at which they are renewed, and the absorptive capacity of the environment to assimilate wastes should not be exceeded. Furthermore, the extraction of non-renewable resources should be minimized and should not exceed agreed minimum strategic levels.
Social Sustainability: Practices to ensure that the cohesion of society and its ability to work towards common goals are maintained. Individual needs such as those for health and well-being, nutrition, shelter, education and cultural expression should be met.
Economic Sustainability: Occurs when development, which moves towards social and environmental sustainability, is financially feasible.
Source: Gilbert, R., Stevenson, R., Girardet, H. & Stren, R. 1996. Making Cities Work. Earthscan Publications, United Kingdom
More detailed discussion: Further Definitions of Sustainability Issues in Environmental Management « Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
Addendum:
A few earlier discussions on Sustainability Forum, that are of interest to this topic:
http://www.sustainabilityforum.com/forum/sustainability-discussion/2689-reclaiming-definition-sustainability.html
http://www.sustainabilityforum.com/forum/sustainability-discussion/1656-key-sustainability.html
http://www.sustainabilityforum.com/forum/sustainability-discussion/1544-sustainability-what-does-mean-you.html
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
HI
thanks for these - v. useful.
I was wondering - the env sustainability definition is definitely anthropocentric - i.e environment is a resource for humanity .. and therefore sustainability is important !! - do you know of any definition that is more ecocentric - i.e. the environment has intrinsic worth/value which leads to sustainability??
Here's hoping
eric
Interesting post there Karl.
But as my username suggests. I am a sceptic when it comes to Sustainability. I know that we need to do something but with the discussion like on this definition. What is the purpose? Cant we just stick to one definition and that is it?
And with Sustainability as well. Can we just start to actually change something and then call in a sustainable approach.
Dont get me wrong. I registered with this forum because I really agree with everything here and we need a place to discuss but I would like to see more actions and less talk.
Anyone agree or disagree?
I was wondering - the env sustainability definition is definitely anthropocentric - i.e environment is a resource for humanity .. and therefore sustainability is important !! - do you know of any definition that is more ecocentric - i.e. the environment has intrinsic worth/value which leads to sustainability??
Offhand, I can’t think of too many. The definition quoted above on environmental sustainability…
…is indeed quite “anthropocentric”, while still acknowledging the importance of the environment in the whole idea of sustainability.
In terms of a more“eco-centric” definition, well, there are some authors who instead of using the term “Environmental Sustainability” use “Ecological Sustainability” an example of such a definition (fr. Mohan Munasinghe) being...
This may be somewhat more focussed on intrinsic values of the environmental/natural resources, but even this one, could still possibly be classified as anthropocentric (even if a bit less utilitarian in perspective than the other definition). Definitions of "sustainability" aimed towards resource management from a conservation perspective, such as for biodiversity or nature reserves, would probably be the closest to directly acknowledging those intrinsic values of the environment. I'll look around to see if I can find any of those...
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
To an extent, yes. But the reality is that hundreds of different definitions of “sustainability” have arisen over the past 20 yr since the Brundtland Report which suggested the following for achieving “sustainability” in development:
While that definition may be sufficiently suitable for a general sense, it is not a very practical in designing, implementing and operating systems based on standards or targets that can be used in approaching the goal of “sustainability” in development activities. Regardless of the disadvantages of having a multitude of definitions, the fact remains that we cannot wish them out of existence. This article quoted previously put that in context:
Now, while the profileration of definitions is inevitable, what is probably more significant than their number, is to ensure that they have a common base or fundamental ideas, so that (while catered or customized to different spheres of development sectors) they still have a common purpose or agreement in principle.
As an example (i.e., not a diversion), one possible definition of “sustainability” in relation to agriculture may be:
So, the point I am making here, is that while such a “definition” of sustainability may be adequate for focussing on a specific sector, it would not be suitable (in content) for most other sectors – like steel plants, oil refineries, copper-mining, financial institutions, housing, biosphere reserves, etc. However, some other definition (of the goals from which targets are set), would be necessary, but they could (and have) be developed following the same basic fundamental principles of “sustainability” as promoted by the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the (Rio de Janeiro) Conference on Environment & Development of 1992, and all the other subsequent events of relevance…
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
Thanks again ..
So how about the concept that I am trying to get my head around at the moment. I partake of an activity in the outdoors ... I have a profound experience (often telling me about nature just switches me off - especially if it is all about science!!)..... the experience makes me think/ opens up other possibilities .... I 'realise' that humanity is simply part of the natural world .... this makes me reflect on my past experiences of nature as 'other' to humanity .... I come to a realisation that as I am part of nature I can no longer think of nature as 'other' ...... I start to care and begin the learning process of how to best treat 'me' (which is now nature and 'I' combined??? - struggling for a better word here!!).
I usupect that this is a paradigm shift that might result in a longer term and more lasting relationship with the natural world if we can make this happen.
Any thoughts??
This is the one i like to use:
Sustainable development comprises types of economic and social development that protect and enhance the natural environment and social equity.
Diesendorf, Mark (2000) ‘Sustainability and sustainable development’ in Dunphy, D, Benveniste, J, Griffiths, A and Sutton, P (eds) Sustainability: the Corporate Challenge of the 21st Century, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, p.23
It is the responsibility of every government, through education, incentive, and legislation, to ensure that unsustainable activities are phased out of society as quickly as possible, regardless of political system, party, or precedent.
Sustainable development comprises types of economic and social development that protect and enhance the natural environment and social equity.
The "and social equity" negates it. It allows for continued overpopulation which is the root cause of over-sustainability. Technically, "sustainable development" is an oxymoron. We are already over-developed, and no development can be sustained. How about development of sustainability. This goes from the unsustainable state the biosphere is in with human overpopulation and habits, to a state of biospheric sustainability with human population low enough to prevent extinctions caused by human activity, depletion of resources equals regeneration and recharge for things like groundwater and soil. Absorption of pollution rates are equal or greater than the pollution put out by both humans and by natural events such as volcanic eruptions.
Actual sustainable level of humans at various living standards is going down and accelerating as depletion and pollution increase with the human population in extreme overshoot, and pollution causing approach to self-sustaining methane release. Time runs out to reduce population and pollution, enough to prevent both the human population crash(2041 to 2048 for the beginning drop) and the conditions of mass extinctions(2100 to 2300 for Eocene Max -5*F conditions at unadaptable rate).
In all your decisions and actions, think first of the consequences 7 generations from now. Ute Rule of Life
The term 'sustainable development' originates from the Human Rights discourse prevalent within the United Nations (where the Brundtland Report originated) and relates to the personal development of the individual, or group there of, to their greatest sustainable potential (see http://www.unhchr.ch/development/right.html).
Unfortunately this meaning of development is often confused with that which relates to the physical development of the built environment (buildings, infrastructure, etc.). This interpretation of development should only be considered in the context of sustainable development in so far as it contributes to an individual's personal development.
Obviously regional and global population is a significant determining factor in defining the level of personal development that can sustainably occur. As such the issue of overpopulation is not one of overdevelopment; rather it is a Human Rights issue as it impedes the individual’s ‘right to development’ as defined by the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993.
It is not the term 'sustainable development' that is an oxymoron; rather it is the mainstream reductionist interpretation of it. As achieving sustainable physical development involves a much greater understanding of the full life-cycle impacts and interactions of such activities than currently occurs or will occur in the foreseeable future.
It is the responsibility of every government, through education, incentive, and legislation, to ensure that unsustainable activities are phased out of society as quickly as possible, regardless of political system, party, or precedent.
The thread is about the definition of sustainability, obviously with an environmental/ecological perspective. Throwing in human rights smokes up the issue. Overpopulation and pollution from people's perceived "rights" are factors. If you want to look at someone's personal development; it is true overpopulation affects the infrastructure for personal achievement, and a person's own drive and IQ affect education and knowledge of things like biospheric sustainability. Spiritual growth affects morals, with education and intelligence, which affects green (i.e. sustainable) lifestyle and breeding habits. People do not have the intrinsic "right" to over-populate and pollute, or to use up natural resources without regard to their rates of replenishment for future generations.
In all your decisions and actions, think first of the consequences 7 generations from now. Ute Rule of Life
Save the planet and solve world poverty.
Personally I think all the more complex definitions hide this stark reality - the way the 'social' part of sustainability has been interpreted in many quarters is basically local community development, not 'think global'.
Gareth Kane
Terra Infirma
www.terrainfirma.co.uk
Join me on Twitter, LinkedIn & Facebook
Sustainable development comprises types of economic and social development that protect and enhance the natural environment and social equity.
The "and social equity" negates it. It allows for continued overpopulation which is the root cause of over-sustainability. Technically, "sustainable development" is an oxymoron. We are already over-developed, and no development can be sustained. How about development of sustainability. This goes from the unsustainable state the biosphere is in with human overpopulation and habits, to a state of biospheric sustainability with human population low enough to prevent extinctions caused by human activity, depletion of resources equals regeneration and recharge for things like groundwater and soil. Absorption of pollution rates are equal or greater than the pollution put out by both humans and by natural events such as volcanic eruptions.
Actual sustainable level of humans at various living standards is going down and accelerating as depletion and pollution increase with the human population in extreme overshoot, and pollution causing approach to self-sustaining methane release. Time runs out to reduce population and pollution, enough to prevent both the human population crash(2041 to 2048 for the beginning drop) and the conditions of mass extinctions(2100 to 2300 for Eocene Max -5*F conditions at unadaptable rate).
I have a big problem with "sustainable development" as I think it is being used to disguise a real problem with any development, i.e. that at the current rate or resource usage it is impossible for most development to be truely sustainable. I therefore prefer the idealised view of sustainablity expressed here already; sustainable actions should reduce not increase our dependency upon natural resources and reduce not increase the consequences to our societies and environment of taking that action.
I like the term development of sustainability. It acknowledges that humans are in an unsustainable state, on average. While sheer numbers are the root cause of the huge demands on the biosphere, a large part is also changing habits to those which are sustainable with a global and local point of view combined. In any sustainable state, use is less than recharge and regeneration rates, and pollution is less than absorption rates. Knowledge of those rates is very important, and unfortunately not in the general knowledge base of more than a small percentage of humans intelligent enough to have learned it, and with that knowledge, live sustainably and work toward that sustainability goal, with what power we do have.:top:
In all your decisions and actions, think first of the consequences 7 generations from now. Ute Rule of Life
In parallel to the discussion of this thread, it appears that a “dialogue” on the definition of sustainability has started on another website. The focus of that discussion is on the personal impressions of two bloggers, so it is somewhat different to this one here (which is generally on the definition of sustainability as it pertains to the linkages with the natural environment); if anybody is interested: Towards a (Re)Definition of Sustainability: Justin Van Kleeck and Caroline Savery. 1-Justin : Sustainablog
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
Why does everything always relate to economics.....
Money was invented by man ... some bloody ass who wanted to show others he is rich !!!!
I think sustainability is a holistic view of looking at everything in a different perspective than the way we are looking currently. Do we need nation ??? or religion ??? these r one more way which takes us away from sustainability ..... u may feel is this guy drunk talking like this .... but think ..... to prove that one nation is better than other there is tremendous unsustainable investment in stuff we dont even need..... y do we need fighter planes ???? or tanks ?? or missiles ??? this is jus on way to prove I am better than other !!!!! this shitty race of domination has caused all the harm to surrounding dependent systems.
There are things that we do which really dont need to ....... and this is one cause thats creating trouble .....
Most will fell this guy is nuts... i am feeling the same currently... whatever.....
Why does everything always relate to economics.....
It does not entirely relate to economics -- further to which, one of the fundamental principles of the idea of sustainability is that there is no absolute distinction between the "economic" and "environmental" aspects. This is extremely important to consider, since all materials used in human activities / developments are extracted from the environment of the Earth, and as such, all economic activity (no matter how far removed from nature it may seem) is dependent on the environment and its natural resources.
To "borrow" from Mohan Munasinghe
Detailed discussion: Further Definitions of Sustainability Issues in Environmental Management
I: Economic Objective
The economic approach to sustainability is based on the Hicks–Lindahl concept of the maximum flow of income that could be generated while at least maintaining a stock of assets (or capital) which can yield these benefits. There is an underlying concept of optimality and economic efficiency applied to the use of scarce resources. Problems of interpretation arise in identifying the kinds of capital that need to be maintained (e.g., manufactured, natural and human capital) and their substitutability, as well as in valuing these assets, particularly ecological resources. The issues of uncertainty, irreversibility and catastrophic collapse pose additional difficulties.
II: Social Objective
The social (or socio-cultural) concept of sustainability seeks to maintain the stability of social and cultural systems, including the reduction of destructive conflicts. Both intragenerational equity (especially elimination of poverty) and intergenerational equity (involving the rights of future generations) are important aspects of this approach. This approach attempts the preservation of cultural diversity across the globe, and better use of knowledge concerning sustainable practices embedded in less dominant cultures. Modern society would need to encourage and harness pluralism and grass-roots participation into a more effective decision-making framework for sustainable development.
III: Ecological Objective
The ecological view of sustainable development focuses on the stability of biological and physical systems. Of particular importance is the viability of biological and physical systems that are critical to the overall ecosystem. Protection of biodiversity is a key aspect. Furthermore, “natural” ecosystems may be interpreted to include all aspects of the biosphere including man-made environments like cities and industrial estates. The emphasis is on preserving the resilience and dynamic ability of such systems to adapt to change, rather than conservation of some “ideal” static state of the environment.
Further discussions:
> Characteristics, Role & Functions of Sustainable Development in Environmental Management
> Environmental Context – Sustainability, Biophysics & Ecological Character
> Environmental Economics
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
Has anyone found a really good definition of sustainability?
Eric,
If you’re trying to understand the sustainability problem, this is a good place to start. I wrestled with the same question you’re asking for quite awhile. Here’s my definition.
So now when I encounter yet another definition of sustainability, I first return to my own: Sustainability is the ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely. Then I try to see what type of behavior the definition in question is attempting to describe. Usually the attempt will be incomplete in a rigorous sense, so one must fathom what the intent is.
For me the most important aspect of a “catchall” definition is that it take into account the fact that when types are mixed, such as environmental, social, and economic, one of the types may have a higher priority than the others. If the definition does not consider that, then it is operationally unsound. It will lead you and/or society astray.
How does this definition feel? Does it help you achieve what you’re trying to do?
Jack
I know I have to recycle etc. but I can't remember how I began to think that way. Constant media attention must have gently brainwashed me, instilling a sense of guilt in me if I refuse to act in a 'correct' manner. In truth I am a willing participant. And yet it's odd that I do all this based on a short phrase that nobody can clearly define. In keeping the idea of 'sustainable development' vague, the Brundtland Commission has ensured (intentionally or otherwise) that the subject will be eternally discussed and thereby kept at the forefront of our minds.
And that is just the start of the debate. What should we conserve and will it even be appreciated by future generations. In Karl's extract, Dave Ewoldt suggests that our natural inheritence should be passed to future generations undiminished in its ability to meet their needs. But this surely cannot hold in all respects. If I remove oil from the ground to run my car for a year, that's a year's less car use for somebody in the future. If they all happen to prefer nuclear cars, trying to save the oil was a waste of time anyway.
Another contributor (matthewtrigg) pointed out some of the previous work which led up to the Brundtland report. So there was life before Brundtland!
I recently read a book of essays about sustainable development. One essay was of particular interest to me and concerned the work of the forester and presidential adviser Gifford Pinchot who died in 1946. His ideas of conservation were far less doom and gloom than Brundtland's (as pointed out by the essayist). He felt that we must adequately serve the current generation with resources so that they can live fulfilled lives, but that the use of the resources must be as efficient as possible to eke out those resources as far into the future as possible. To this end, government (through taxes etc) would ensure businesses operated efficiently, much like the carbon allowances we see today.
So my question is; If we must adopt any idea of sustainable development why have we got the doom and gloom one? Why can't we have an alternative upbeat one that we can all get enthusiastic about including any sceptic amongst us?
There has been much reference so far, to the “Brundtland Report” which laid the foundation for the discussions of “sustainability” and “sustainable development” over the past 21 years. As such, it may be useful to look at (the preamble of) the 1987 report itself, to revisit the context of its origin:
>United Nations. 1987: A/RES/42/187 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. 11 December 1987
Related 'knol': Sustainability - a knol by Rob Howe
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
Another definition relating "sustainability" to "environment" ...> Definition of Sustainability
Transforming society and the world's economy to a sustainable basis presents the most significant challenge to the 21st century. This challenge is unprecedented in scope. Its context is the planet as a whole. It requires a fundamental shift in consciousness as well as in action. It calls for a fresh vision, a new dream and new approaches for shaping an evolving new reality.
Earth is exquisitely configured to accommodate life abundantly. We have consistently compromised, however, every vital component of its intricate fabric. This trend must be reversed and a lasting balance restored.
The ultimate objective of establishing the concept of sustainability as an organizing principle is to foster a well-functioning alignment between individuals, society, the economy and the regenerative capacity of the planet's life-supporting ecosystems.
This alignment represents a particular type of dynamic, balanced interaction between a population and the carrying capacity of its environment. It is this specific balance which must be the focus of a meaningful definition of sustainability.
The currently prevailing definition of sustainability emphasizes cross generational equity, clearly an important concept but one which poses difficulties since it is not always easy to determine future generations' needs.
Anchoring an alternative definition to the relationship between a population and the carrying capacity of its environment offers superior operational leverage since it contains a number of key variables, all potentially measurable. For example: population numbers, a measure of well-being, rate of consumption of resources, impacts on absorption capacity of sinks, and the like.
Hence, the following: Definition:
Sustainability pertains to a balanced interaction between a population and the carrying capacity of an environment such that the population develops to express its full potential without adversely and irreversibly affecting the carrying capacity of the environment upon which it depends.
> Further: Sustainability Principles Online Dialogue
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
.
The above is just one of many discrepencies for me in trying to find a definition of sustainable development which I can link to a tangible image of a personal lifestyle.
This week is my first at University in 20 years - to study sustainable development. I can tell you that some people on the course have already got a bit of a problem getting their heads around the fact were studying something that's difficult to define. But, of course, it leads to interesting discussions.
Thanks for the link to the 'knol' by Rob Howe - it fits very nicely with my Business and Sustainability module.
Adrian
A somewhat different perspective but still an "environmental" approach to defining sustainability...
> Entropy and Energy: Toward a Definition of Physical Sustainability
Link to full paper (pdf) --> http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=wrca
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
As I mentioned in a different thread, I think there are two concepts getting mixed up.
There is a movement towards sustainable behaviour which includes responsible use of resources, treatment of waste etc. and respect and support for the needs and wishes of other communities. This is sustainability.
There is a separate 'saving the planet' job to be done fixing the problems we already have so that we can get to that suatainable goal.
For example, emitting zero CO2 is sustainable behaviour but to 'save the planet' we probably need to actively sequester it.
Think of 'sustainability' as the fire prevention officer teaching us how to be safe with matches and 'saving the planet' as the firemen, putting out the fires when we screw up.
Here is a sample from a discussion on the “definition of sustainability”, which attempts an environmental–ecological context:
Link to article: What does sustainability really mean? | relocalize.net
Much of it is similar in perspective to what has already been discussed in the earlier posts of this thread, but it adds some interesting dimensions (especially in the context of “growth”).
:computer:
* XING Profile
* Sustainable Land Use & Impact Assessment
I favour a literal meaning - something is sustainable if it can be continued indefinitely.
It follows that internal behaviour or susceptibilty to outside influences which threaten this is unsustainable. You can also if you wish be more inclusive and count anything which threatens the sustainability of others although I think this is a moral stand rather than a logical conclusion. Sometimes hard choices need to be made and you may have to balance a win with someone else's loss.
Under this definition, various actions immediately qualify as sustainable:
1/ Reducing reliance on and consumption of finite resources.
2/ Reducing atmospheric emissions which increase the severity of climate impact on your business and waste which reduces productivity of land and sea.
3/ Supporting your employees and local communities to improve their contribution to your business
4/ Geographical diversification to reduce rsusceptibility to climate change
and so on.
I think the really important point is to acknowledge that it's not just what you are doing to the world, but what the world can do to you. If you only focus on your own failings then you're not helping others who through their inability or inaction may harm you in the future.
One size does not fit all as they say.
Ratners "Sustainability as a Dialogue of Values" is interesting in that he feels the concept is useful not because it provides an encompassing solution but because it allows differences to be talked about and eventual collective concensus for action, the most likely kind of action to succeed.
It therefore can include social and cultural perspectives and values, that any "serious pursuit of sustainability must be based upon social processes that provide mechanisms for mediating diversity and conflict".
It has to viewed therefore as an ongoing concept being revised as we find new meanings and knowledge of value to us.
Ratner , B.D. (2004) “Sustainability” as a Dialogue of Values: Challenges to the Sociology of Development. Sociological Inquiry Vol 74 no 1 p 59-69
It is sad that this is such a slow process though.
DeeR
I guess this must be the best site to ask this question ...
There seems to be so many definitions of sustainability around .. different focuses depending on your philosophical bent (economic, green, religious, and so on).
Has anyone found a really good defintion of sustainability - if so I would really like to hear from you.
Eric
My definitions:
Practical:
Sustainability is making economic growth mean ecoloigcal improvement, not ecological destruction.
General:
Sustainability is the ecosphere maintaining conditions favorable for life in response to all influences including human actions.
For humanity, sustainability is an emergent process that equilibrates human conduct toward maintaining the health of the all encompassing ecosphere.