Jump to content

Sustainability: Difference between revisions

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Proposed additional dimensions: added some content to the lead (copied directly from main text, this can be refined later)
→Proposed additional dimensions: copied sentences about economic dimensions to the lead (I chose those that I regarded as key statements). Further work needed.
Line 7: Line 7:


For many people, sustainability is closely associated with environmental issues, in which case it is referred to as "environmental sustainability". In fact, the modern [[environmental movement]] gave rise to a higher prominence of the concept of environmental sustainability.<ref name=":2" /> The public is concerned about [[Human impact on the environment|human impacts on the environment]].<ref name=":32" />{{rp|21}} The most dominant issues since about the year 2000 have been [[climate change]], [[Biodiversity loss|loss of biodiversity]] and [[Pollution|environmental pollution]] and [[land degradation]] (such as [[deforestation]] and general degradation of [[Ecosystem|ecosystems]]).<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":17" /> These issues are also included in the concept of [[planetary boundaries]].<ref name=":11" />
For many people, sustainability is closely associated with environmental issues, in which case it is referred to as "environmental sustainability". In fact, the modern [[environmental movement]] gave rise to a higher prominence of the concept of environmental sustainability.<ref name=":2" /> The public is concerned about [[Human impact on the environment|human impacts on the environment]].<ref name=":32" />{{rp|21}} The most dominant issues since about the year 2000 have been [[climate change]], [[Biodiversity loss|loss of biodiversity]] and [[Pollution|environmental pollution]] and [[land degradation]] (such as [[deforestation]] and general degradation of [[Ecosystem|ecosystems]]).<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":17" /> These issues are also included in the concept of [[planetary boundaries]].<ref name=":11" />

The economic dimension of sustainability is as controversial as the concept of sustainability itself.<ref name=":8" /> This is partly because of the inherent contradictions between "welfare for all" and [[Environmental protection|environmental conservation]].<ref name=":19" /> In order to resolve this dilemma, the concept of [[eco-economic decoupling]] comes into play. The decoupling of economic growth from environmental deterioration is particularly difficult because environmental and social costs are not generally borne by the entity that causes them, and are therefore not expressed in the market price.<ref name="Jaeger" /> Usually, [[Externality|externalities]] are left to be addressed by government intervention. Some examples are: taxing the activity (the [[Polluter pays principle|polluter pays]]); subsidizing activities that have a positive environmental or social effect (rewarding [[stewardship]]); or outlawing the practice (legal limits on pollution).<ref name="Jaeger" />


The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension of sustainability.<ref name="Peterson" /><ref name=":18" /> Some academics have proposed additional dimensions of sustainability such as institutional, cultural, and technical dimensions.<ref name=":8" />
The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension of sustainability.<ref name="Peterson" /><ref name=":18" /> Some academics have proposed additional dimensions of sustainability such as institutional, cultural, and technical dimensions.<ref name=":8" />
Line 109: Line 111:
===Economic dimension===
===Economic dimension===


To some, the economic dimension of sustainability is as controversial as the concept of sustainability itself.<ref name=":8" /> If the term "development" in sustainable development is understood in economic terms ("economic development") or even identified with economic growth, the notion of a sustainable development can become a way of whitewashing an ecologically destructive economic system.<ref name=":12">{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52639118|title=Zukunftsstreit|publisher=Velbrück Wissenschaft|others=Wilhelm Krull, Volkswagenstiftung|year=2000|isbn=3-934730-17-5|edition=1st|location=Weilerwist|language=German|oclc=52639118}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Redclift|first=Michael|date=2005|title=Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.281|journal=Sustainable Development|language=en|volume=13|issue=4|pages=212–227|doi=10.1002/sd.281|issn=0968-0802}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Daly|first=Herman E.|url=http://pinguet.free.fr/daly1996.pdf|title=Beyond growth : the economics of sustainable development|date=1996|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=0-8070-4708-2|location=Boston|oclc=33946953}}</ref> This is because of the inherent contradictions between "welfare for all" and [[Environmental protection|environmental conservation]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kuhlman|first1=Tom|last2=Farrington|first2=John|date=2010|title=What is Sustainability?|journal=Sustainability|language=en|volume=2|issue=11|pages=3436–3448|doi=10.3390/su2113436|issn=2071-1050|doi-access=free}}</ref>
To some, the economic dimension of sustainability is as controversial as the concept of sustainability itself.<ref name=":8" /> If the term "development" in sustainable development is understood in economic terms ("economic development") or even identified with economic growth, the notion of a sustainable development can become a way of whitewashing an ecologically destructive economic system.<ref name=":12">{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52639118|title=Zukunftsstreit|publisher=Velbrück Wissenschaft|others=Wilhelm Krull, Volkswagenstiftung|year=2000|isbn=3-934730-17-5|edition=1st|location=Weilerwist|language=German|oclc=52639118}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Redclift|first=Michael|date=2005|title=Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.281|journal=Sustainable Development|language=en|volume=13|issue=4|pages=212–227|doi=10.1002/sd.281|issn=0968-0802}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Daly|first=Herman E.|url=http://pinguet.free.fr/daly1996.pdf|title=Beyond growth : the economics of sustainable development|date=1996|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=0-8070-4708-2|location=Boston|oclc=33946953}}</ref> This is because of the inherent contradictions between "welfare for all" and [[Environmental protection|environmental conservation]].<ref name=":19">{{Cite journal|last1=Kuhlman|first1=Tom|last2=Farrington|first2=John|date=2010|title=What is Sustainability?|journal=Sustainability|language=en|volume=2|issue=11|pages=3436–3448|doi=10.3390/su2113436|issn=2071-1050|doi-access=free}}</ref>


On the other hand, especially for [[least developed countries|less developed countries]], economic development is an imperative. Target 1 of [[Sustainable Development Goal 8]] calls for economic growth, which is a driving force for societal progress and well-being. Target 8.1 is: "Sustain [[Per capita income|per capita]] economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent [[gross domestic product]] growth [[per annum]] in the [[least developed countries]]".<ref name=":172">United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, [[:File:A RES 71 313 E.pdf|Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development]] ([https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313 A/RES/71/313])</ref> Regardless of differences in the understanding of the concept of sustainability, it is clear that humanity will have to resolve the issue of how societal progress (potentially by economic development) can be reached without additional strain on the environment. Accordingly, in 2011 [[United Nations Environment Programme|UNEP]] cited the big challenge to society to "expand economic activities" while at the same time reducing the use of natural resources and reducing the environmental impacts of economic activities.<ref name="UNEP2011" />{{rp|8}}[[File:High life expectancy can be achieved with low CO2 emissions.jpg|thumb|High life expectancy can be achieved with low {{CO2}} emissions, for example in [[Costa Rica]], a country which also ranks high on the [[Happy Planet Index]].]]In order to resolve this dilemma, the concept of [[eco-economic decoupling]] comes into play. This means "using less resources per unit of economic output and reducing the environmental impact of any resources that are used or economic activities that are undertaken" <ref name="UNEP2011">[https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/decoupling-natural-resource-use-and-environmental-impacts-economic-growth Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel]. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P., Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S.</ref>{{rp|8}} Pressure on the environmental can be measured by the intensity of [[pollutant]]s. emitted. Decoupling can then be measured by following changes in the [[emission intensity]] associated with economic output.<ref name="UNEP2011" /> Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled [[Gross domestic product|GDP]] growth from both production and, to a lesser extent, consumption-based {{CO2}} emissions.<ref name="Wiedenhofer">{{Cite journal|last1=Haberl|first1=Helmut|last2=Wiedenhofer|first2=Dominik|last3=Virág|first3=Doris|last4=Kalt|first4=Gerald|last5=Plank|first5=Barbara|last6=Brockway|first6=Paul|last7=Fishman|first7=Tomer|last8=Hausknost|first8=Daniel|last9=Krausmann|first9=Fridolin|last10=Leon-Gruchalski|first10=Bartholomäus|last11=Mayer|first11=Andreas|date=2020|title=A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights|url=https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a|journal=Environmental Research Letters|volume=15|issue=6|pages=065003|doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a|bibcode=2020ERL....15f5003H|s2cid=216453887|issn=1748-9326}}</ref> But even in this example decoupling alone is not sufficient and needs to be complemented by "sufficiency-oriented strategies and strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets".<ref name="Wiedenhofer"/> {{rp|1}}
On the other hand, especially for [[least developed countries|less developed countries]], economic development is an imperative. Target 1 of [[Sustainable Development Goal 8]] calls for economic growth, which is a driving force for societal progress and well-being. Target 8.1 is: "Sustain [[Per capita income|per capita]] economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent [[gross domestic product]] growth [[per annum]] in the [[least developed countries]]".<ref name=":172">United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, [[:File:A RES 71 313 E.pdf|Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development]] ([https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313 A/RES/71/313])</ref> Regardless of differences in the understanding of the concept of sustainability, it is clear that humanity will have to resolve the issue of how societal progress (potentially by economic development) can be reached without additional strain on the environment. Accordingly, in 2011 [[United Nations Environment Programme|UNEP]] cited the big challenge to society to "expand economic activities" while at the same time reducing the use of natural resources and reducing the environmental impacts of economic activities.<ref name="UNEP2011" />{{rp|8}}[[File:High life expectancy can be achieved with low CO2 emissions.jpg|thumb|High life expectancy can be achieved with low {{CO2}} emissions, for example in [[Costa Rica]], a country which also ranks high on the [[Happy Planet Index]].]]In order to resolve this dilemma, the concept of [[eco-economic decoupling]] comes into play. This means "using less resources per unit of economic output and reducing the environmental impact of any resources that are used or economic activities that are undertaken" <ref name="UNEP2011">[https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/decoupling-natural-resource-use-and-environmental-impacts-economic-growth Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel]. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P., Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S.</ref>{{rp|8}} Pressure on the environmental can be measured by the intensity of [[pollutant]]s. emitted. Decoupling can then be measured by following changes in the [[emission intensity]] associated with economic output.<ref name="UNEP2011" /> Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled [[Gross domestic product|GDP]] growth from both production and, to a lesser extent, consumption-based {{CO2}} emissions.<ref name="Wiedenhofer">{{Cite journal|last1=Haberl|first1=Helmut|last2=Wiedenhofer|first2=Dominik|last3=Virág|first3=Doris|last4=Kalt|first4=Gerald|last5=Plank|first5=Barbara|last6=Brockway|first6=Paul|last7=Fishman|first7=Tomer|last8=Hausknost|first8=Daniel|last9=Krausmann|first9=Fridolin|last10=Leon-Gruchalski|first10=Bartholomäus|last11=Mayer|first11=Andreas|date=2020|title=A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights|url=https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a|journal=Environmental Research Letters|volume=15|issue=6|pages=065003|doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a|bibcode=2020ERL....15f5003H|s2cid=216453887|issn=1748-9326}}</ref> But even in this example decoupling alone is not sufficient and needs to be complemented by "sufficiency-oriented strategies and strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets".<ref name="Wiedenhofer"/> {{rp|1}}

Revision as of 08:49, 1 April 2022

Commonly used schematics of the tripartite description of sustainability: Left, typical representation of sustainability as three intersecting circles. Right, alternative depictions: literal 'pillars' and a concentric circles approach.[1]

Sustainability is a broad policy and ethical concept that is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension.[1] It stresses intergenerational equity. The concept can be used to guide decisions at all scales: at the global, national and individual consumer level scale. A closely related and overlapping concept is that of sustainable development. Both terms are often used synonymously.[2] UNESCO formulated a distinction as follows: "Sustainability is often thought of as a long-term goal (i.e. a more sustainable world), while sustainable development refers to the many processes and pathways to achieve it."[3]

For many people, sustainability is closely associated with environmental issues, in which case it is referred to as "environmental sustainability". In fact, the modern environmental movement gave rise to a higher prominence of the concept of environmental sustainability.[2] The public is concerned about human impacts on the environment.[4]: 21  The most dominant issues since about the year 2000 have been climate change, loss of biodiversity and environmental pollution and land degradation (such as deforestation and general degradation of ecosystems).[5][6] These issues are also included in the concept of planetary boundaries.[7]

The economic dimension of sustainability is as controversial as the concept of sustainability itself.[1] This is partly because of the inherent contradictions between "welfare for all" and environmental conservation.[8] In order to resolve this dilemma, the concept of eco-economic decoupling comes into play. The decoupling of economic growth from environmental deterioration is particularly difficult because environmental and social costs are not generally borne by the entity that causes them, and are therefore not expressed in the market price.[9] Usually, externalities are left to be addressed by government intervention. Some examples are: taxing the activity (the polluter pays); subsidizing activities that have a positive environmental or social effect (rewarding stewardship); or outlawing the practice (legal limits on pollution).[9]

The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension of sustainability.[10][11] Some academics have proposed additional dimensions of sustainability such as institutional, cultural, and technical dimensions.[1]

The concept of sustainability has been criticized from different angles. Some see it as paradoxical in that they see development as inherently unsustainable. Others are sobered by the lack of progress achieved so far,[12][13][14] and think of "sustainability" as a buzzword.[1] Another criticism is that sustainability can be described as an "exhausted roadmap" given that our consumer-oriented societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.[15][16]

Definitions and common use

Sustainability Venn diagram where "sustainability" is thought of as the area where the three dimensions overlap.

Previous use of the term

Further information: Sustainable development § Origins

Originally, "sustainability" meant making only such use of natural, renewable resources that people could continue to rely on their yields in the long term.[17][18] The concept of sustainability, or Nachhaltigkeit in German, can be traced back to Hans Carl von Carlowitz (1645–1714), and was applied to forestry (now: sustainable forest management).[19] He used this term in the sense of a long-term responsible use of a natural resource in 1713 in his work Silvicultura oeconomica.[20]  

However, the idea itself goes back to times immemorial, as communities have always worried about the capacity of their environment to sustain them in the long term. Many ancient cultures had traditions restricting the use of natural resources, e.g. the Māori of New Zealand,[21] the peoples of coastal British Columbia, Indonesia, Oceania, India and Mali.[22]

Entymology

The term sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sub, under). "To sustain" can mean to maintain, support, uphold or endure.[23][24] The original semantic meaning of sustainability and of "to sustain" refers to the ability to continue over a long period of time.

Modern use of the term as a policy concept

Modern use of the term "sustainability" was strongly influenced by the 1983 UN Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission. In the commission's 1987 report titled Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report), sustainable development is defined as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[25][26] The report helped bring "sustainability" into the mainstream policy discourse and popularize the concept of "sustainable development".[1]

The report states that environment and development are inseparable, when working for sustainability. Further, sustainable development is a global concept that links environmental and social issues and is equally important for developing countries and industrialized countries:

The 'environment' is where we all live; and 'development' is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable. [...] We came to see that a new development path was required, one that sustained human progress not just in a few pieces for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future. Thus 'sustainable development' becomes a goal not just for the 'developing' nations, but for industrial ones as well.

— Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report), [25]: Foreword and Section I.1.10 

Relationship with the concept of sustainable development

Further information: Sustainable development

The terms "sustainability" and "sustainable development" are closely related and are often used synonymously. Both terms are intrinsically linked with the "three dimensions of sustainability" concept.[1] One distinction that can be made is that sustainability is a general concept, whereas sustainable development is a policy.

UNESCO formulates the relationship between sustainability and sustainable development as follows: "Sustainability is often thought of as a long-term goal (i.e. a more sustainable world), while sustainable development refers to the many processes and pathways to achieve it."[3]

Sustainable development was first institutionalized with the Rio Process initiated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In 2015 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and explained how the goals are integrated and indivisible to achieve sustainable development at the global level.[1]

Three main dimensions of sustainability

Development of three dimensions (or pillars)

A diagram indicating the relationship between the "three pillars of sustainability", in which both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits.[27] This concentric circle diagram also emphasizes a hierarchy.

Three different dimensions (also called pillars or aspects) of sustainability are normally distinguished: the environmental, the social, and the economic. Most concepts of sustainability share this understanding, even though they might differ in the details. Several terms are in use for this concept in the literature: authors speak of three interconnected pillars, dimensions, components, stool legs, aspects, perspectives, factors or goals.[1] They are used interchangeably.[1] For example, the 2005 World Summit Outcome document used the term "aspects".[28] Nevertheless, the distinction itself is rarely being questioned. The emergence of the three-pillar paradigm has little theoretical foundation nor a theoretically rigorous description: It gradually emerged without a single point of origin.[1][29]

The Brundtland report from 1987 emphasized that environment and development should be regarded inseparable. Furthermore, the Agenda 21 from 1992 explicitly talks about economic, social and environmental dimensions as follows:[30]: 8.6 

Countries could develop systems for monitoring and evaluation of progress towards achieving sustainable development by adopting indicators that measure changes across economic, social and environmental dimensions.

— United Nations Conference on Environment & Development - Earth Summit (1992), [30]: 8.6 

The "Agenda 2030" conceived the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with their 169 targets as balancing "the three dimensions of sustainable development, the economic, social and environmental."[31]

Environmental dimension

Further information: Human impact on the environment
The principle of sustainability (with a focus on the environmental dimension and forestry) was first formulated in writing in 1713 by Hans Carl von Carlowitz (commemorative plaque with quote).

The increasing environmental pollution in the 1960s and 1970s led to growing environmental concern, e.g. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962;[32] establishment of the Club of Rome in 1968; establishment of Greenpeace in 1971. Awareness of pollution provided the basis for what was later discussed as sustainable development. This process began with concern for environmental issues (natural resources and human environment) in the 1970s, and was later extended to all the systems that support life on Earth.[4]: 31 

While environmental pollution is not a new phenomenon it remained a local or regional concern for most of human history. This changed in the 20th century when the awareness of the global character of environmental issues increased.[4]: 5  The harmful effect and global spread of pesticides like DDT was first discussed in the 1960s.[32] In the 1970s it was determined that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) deplete the Earth's ozone layer. This led to the de facto-ban of CFCs with the Montreal Protocol in 1987.[33]: 146 

The effect of greenhouse gases on the global climate was discussed by Arrhenius in the early 20th century (see also history of climate change science).[34] However, climate change became a hot topic in the academic and political discourse only after the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 and the UNFCCC in 1992.

In 1972, the UN held its first conference on environmental issues. The UN Conference on the Human Environment stated the importance of the protection and improvement of the human environment.[35]: 3  Furthermore, the report emphasized the need to protect wildlife and its habitat and to prevent pollution:[35]: 4 

The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and [...] natural ecosystems must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.

— UN Conference on the Human Environment, [35]: p.4., Principle 2 

In 2000, the UN launched 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), to be achieved by the global community by 2015. Goal 7 was to "ensure environmental sustainability", however without mentioning the concepts of social or economic sustainability.[1]

The public discussion of the environmental dimension of sustainability often revolves around prevailing issues of the time. The most dominant issues since about the year 2000 have been climate change, loss of biodiversity and environmental pollution and land degradation (such as deforestation and general degradation of ecosystems).[5][6] The public is concerned about human impacts on the environment, such as impacts on the atmosphere, land and water resources.[4]: 21  These issues are also included in the concept of planetary boundaries.[7]

The overall impact of humans' activities not only on the biosphere but even on the geological formation of the Earth led Paul Crutzen to speak of the current geological epoch as the Anthropocene.[36]

Measuring human impacts on the environment

Further information: Planetary boundaries and Ecological footprint

Different ways have been suggested to measure humans' impact, e.g. ecological footprint, ecological debt, carrying capacity, sustainable yield, I = PAT. The impact of human activity on the global ecosystems can reach tipping points beyond which irreversible harmful developments will be triggered (see e.g. tipping points in the climate system). This is the idea behind the concept of planetary boundaries, a concept which was introduced by a group of scientists led by Johan Rockström from the Stockholm Resilience Centre in 2009.[37]

The planetary boundary concept holds that humanity must not allow critical thresholds in the earth system to be exceeded because that will sharply increase the likelihood of irreversible harmful effects for the earth's ecosystems. The planetary boundaries include: climate change, biodiversity loss (changed in 2015 to "change in biosphere integrity"), biogeochemical (nitrogen and phosphorus), ocean acidification, land use, freshwater, ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosols, chemical pollution (changed in 2015 to "Introduction of novel entities", for which control variables have been suggested in 2022.[7][38]

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment from 2005 measured 24 ecosystem services and concluded that only four have shown improvement over the last 50 years, while 15 are in serious decline and five are in a precarious condition.[39]: 6–19  Healthy ecosystems are important because they provide vital goods and services to humans and other organisms.

Economic dimension

To some, the economic dimension of sustainability is as controversial as the concept of sustainability itself.[1] If the term "development" in sustainable development is understood in economic terms ("economic development") or even identified with economic growth, the notion of a sustainable development can become a way of whitewashing an ecologically destructive economic system.[40][41][42] This is because of the inherent contradictions between "welfare for all" and environmental conservation.[8]

On the other hand, especially for less developed countries, economic development is an imperative. Target 1 of Sustainable Development Goal 8 calls for economic growth, which is a driving force for societal progress and well-being. Target 8.1 is: "Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries".[43] Regardless of differences in the understanding of the concept of sustainability, it is clear that humanity will have to resolve the issue of how societal progress (potentially by economic development) can be reached without additional strain on the environment. Accordingly, in 2011 UNEP cited the big challenge to society to "expand economic activities" while at the same time reducing the use of natural resources and reducing the environmental impacts of economic activities.[44]: 8 

High life expectancy can be achieved with low CO2 emissions, for example in Costa Rica, a country which also ranks high on the Happy Planet Index.

In order to resolve this dilemma, the concept of eco-economic decoupling comes into play. This means "using less resources per unit of economic output and reducing the environmental impact of any resources that are used or economic activities that are undertaken" [44]: 8  Pressure on the environmental can be measured by the intensity of pollutants. emitted. Decoupling can then be measured by following changes in the emission intensity associated with economic output.[44] Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled GDP growth from both production and, to a lesser extent, consumption-based CO2 emissions.[45] But even in this example decoupling alone is not sufficient and needs to be complemented by "sufficiency-oriented strategies and strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets".[45] : 1 

The decoupling of economic growth from environmental deterioration is particularly difficult because environmental and social costs are not generally borne by the entity that causes them, and are therefore not expressed in the market price.[9] For example, the cost of packaging is factored into the price of a product, but the cost of disposing of that packaging is not factored in. In economics, such factors are considered externalities, in this case a negative externality.[46] Companies do not have an incentive to reduce packaging or to choose recyclable materials because they aren't required to pay for disposal. Usually, externalities are left to be addressed by government intervention. Some examples are: taxing the activity (the polluter pays); subsidizing activities that have a positive environmental or social effect (rewarding stewardship); or outlawing the practice (legal limits on pollution).[9] A textbook on environmental economics summarizes the perceived need for government participation by saying:

Nobody who has seriously studied the issues believes that the economy's relationship to the natural environment can be left entirely to market forces.

— Natural resource and environmental economics, [47]: 15 

Many continue to believe natural resources will be over-exploited and destroyed in the long-term without government intervention. However, Elinor Ostrom (winner of the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) disproved this with field studies on how people in small, local communities manage shared natural resources.[48] She showed that over time, communities using natural resources such as pastures, fishing waters and forests establish rules for use and maintenance that lead to both economic and ecological sustainability.[49]

Environmental economics

The field of environmental economics has proposed different methods for calculating the cost (or price) associated with the use of public natural resources. For example, the damage to ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity has been calculated in the project The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) from 2007 to 2011.[50]

Sustainability economics means taking a long-term view of human welfare. One way of doing this is by considering the social discount rate, i.e. the rate by which future costs and benefits should be discounted when making decisions about the future. The more one is concerned about future generations, the lower the social discount rate should be.[51] Another method is to quantify the services that ecosystems provide to humankind and put an economic value on them, so that environmental damage may be assessed against perceived short-term welfare benefits. For instance, according to the World Economic Forum, half of the global GDP is strongly or moderately dependent on nature. Also, for every dollar spent on nature restoration there is a profit of at least 9 dollars.[52]

UNEP and UNDP launched the Poverty-Environment Initiative in 2005, which aims at the triple vision of having neither any extreme poverty, nor greenhouse gas emissions nor net natural asset loss which is proposed to guide the structural reform that will enable poor groups and countries to achieve the SDGs at scale.[53][54]: 11  Such initiatives might be seen as a measure to mitigate the trade-off between high ecological footprint and high status of economic development.[33]: 82 

The doughnut model, with indicators to what extent the ecological ceilings are overshot and social foundations are not met yet

In recent years, the concept of doughnut economics has been developed by the British economist Kate Raworth to integrate social and environmental sustainability into economic thinking. The social dimension is here portrayed as a minimum standard to which a society should aspire, whereas an outer limit is imposed by the carrying capacity of the planet.[55]

Social dimension

The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension of sustainability.[10][11] A generic definition is "maintaining or improving the well-being of people in this and future generations".[56]: 224–225  Others have pointed out that a "common agreement on the definition and operationalization of this concept is still missing".[57]

According to the Brundtland report, "poverty is a major cause and also effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality."[25]: Section I.1.8  The report demands a new development path for sustained human progress and highlights that this is a goal for both the developing and the industrialized nations.[25]: Section I.1.10  Despite this anchoring of the social dimension (of sustainability) in the Brundtland report, "social sustainability" can be addressed in different ways. Some scholars place social issues at the very center of sustainability discussions.[58]

Some scholars suggest that all of the domains of sustainability are social: including ecological, economic, political and cultural sustainability. These domains of social sustainability are all dependent upon the relationship between the social and the natural, with the "ecological domain" defined as human embeddedness in the environment. In these terms, social sustainability encompasses all human activities.[59] It is not just relevant to the focused intersection of economics, the environment and the social.[60]

Broad-based strategies for more sustainable social systems include: improved education and the political empowerment of women, especially in developing countries; greater regard for social justice, notably equity between rich and poor both within and between countries; and, perhaps most of all, intergenerational equity.[61]

Social sustainability is thought to lead to liveable communities which would be "equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life".[62]

Relationship between the three dimensions

Further information: Weak and strong sustainability

It has long been discussed what the relation between these three dimensions should be: Proponents of a concept of "weak" sustainability assume that "natural capital" (or environmental resources) can be replaced or substituted with "man-made capital".[63] This is because technological progress can in certain cases solve environmental problems. This applies for example to capturing emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, recycling minerals, reforresting forests and filtering polluted air.[64] The concept of "strong sustainability" on the other hand states that nature (or "natural capital") provides some functions that are not replaceable by technology or "man-made capital".[65] Strong sustainability refers to resources that once lost cannot be recovered or repaired within a reasonable timescale, such as biodiversity or loss of certain species, pollination, fertile soils, assimilation capacity, clean air, clean water, climate regulation.

However, the concept of planetary boundaries which was first proposed in 2009, identifies limits and emphasizes that there are absolute thresholds of the carrying capacity of the planet which must not be exceeded in order to prevent irreversible harmful developments of the Earth system.[7]

Also, with regards to the economic dimension of sustainability, this can be understood by making a distinction between weak versus strong sustainability.[66] In the former, loss of natural resources is compensated by an increase in human capital. Strong sustainability applies where human and natural capital are complementary, but not interchangeable. Thus, the problem of deforestation in England due to demand for wood in shipbuilding and for charcoal in iron-making was solved when ships came to be built of steel and coke replaced charcoal in iron-making – an example of weak sustainability. Prevention of biodiversity loss, which is an existential threat, is an example of the strong type. What is weak and what is strong depends partially on technology and partially on one's convictions.[66] Different policies and strategies are needed for the two types.

The notion of "trade-offs" between different dimensions, for example environmental management and economic growth is frequently discussed in the literature.[1] This may include discussions of the relative importance of the three dimensions or objectives. The language involved frequently invokes the need to "integrate", "balance", and "reconcile" the pillars without necessarily articulating what this means in practice.[1]

Proposed additional dimensions

Urban sustainability analysis of the greater urban area of the city of São Paulo using the 'Circles of Sustainability' method of the UN and Metropolis Association.[67]

Some sustainability experts and practitioners have proposed additional dimensions of sustainability, such as institutional, cultural, and technical dimensions.[1] Other frameworks bypass the compartmentalization of sustainability completely.[1]

Cultural dimension

Further information: Cultural sustainability

Some academics and institutions (for example Agenda 21 for culture and the United Cities and Local Governments) have pointed out that a fourth dimension should be added to the dimensions of sustainability since the triple-bottom-line dimensions of economic, environmental and social do not seem to be enough to reflect the complexity of contemporary society.[68] This discussion points to the relation between culture and sustainable development through developing a solid cultural policy and advocating a cultural dimension in all public policies.

Another example of this four-dimensional view was the Circles of Sustainability approach, which included cultural sustainability.[69]

Financial dimension

There is also an opinion that considers resource use and financial sustainability as two additional pillars of sustainability.[70] In infrastructure projects, for instance, one must ask whether sufficient financing capability for maintenance exists.[70]

Critique

Impossible goal

The concepts of sustainability and sustainable development have been criticized from different angles. While some see it as paradoxical and regard development as inherently unsustainable, others are sobered by the lack of progress which has been achieved so far.[12][13][14]

According to Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth", many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability.[40] This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today, and the economic activities to meet present needs will substantially diminish the options of future generations.[71][33]: 27  Sustainability has also been described as an "exhausted roadmap" due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.[15]

Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to the realities of the Anthropocene (unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and climate change).[72] Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced with these complex, radical and dynamic issues.[72]

Unclear goals and operational targets

The Rio Protocol was a huge leap forward: for the first time, the world agreed on a sustainability agenda. However, a global consensus was facilitated by neglecting concrete goals and operational details. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now have concrete targets (unlike the results from the Rio Process) but no methods for sanctions.[73][33]: 137 

Buzzword

"Sustainability" has a reputation as a buzzword.[1][74]

Measurement

This section is an excerpt from Sustainability measurement.[edit]
Sustainability measurement is a set of frameworks or indicators used to measure how sustainable something is. This includes processes, products, services and businesses. Sustainability is difficult to quantify.[75] It may even be impossible to measure as there is no fixed definition.[76] To measure sustainability, frameworks and indicators consider environmental, social and economic domains. The metrics vary by use case and are still evolving. They include indicators, benchmarks and audits. They include sustainability standards and certification systems like Fairtrade and Organic. They also involve indices and accounting. They can include assessment, appraisal[77] and other reporting systems. The metrics are used over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales.[78][76] For organizations, sustainability measures include corporate sustainability reporting and Triple Bottom Line accounting.[75] For countries, they include estimates of the quality of sustainability governance or quality of life measures, or environmental assessments like the Environmental Sustainability Index and Environmental Performance Index. Some methods let us track sustainable development.[79][80] These include the UN Human Development Index and ecological footprints.

Barriers

Barriers working against sustainability can be rooted in nature, in the human condition, in society, in the institutions or in Zeitgeist.[33]: 205  Some barriers are inevitably tied to the concept of sustainability due to trade-offs, complexity and conflicting interests. These barriers are intrinsic to the concept of sustainability as such. Other barriers are extrinsic to the concept of sustainability which means they could in principle be overcome, e.g. by putting a price tag on the consumption of public goods.[33]: 35 

Approaches by different stakeholders

Further information: Sustainable development § Pathways

Government policies

Modifying population numbers, affluence and technology

One attempt to express human impact on the environment mathematically was developed in the 1970s and is called the "I = PAT formula".[81] This formulation attempts to explain human consumption in terms of three components: population numbers, levels of consumption (which it terms "affluence", although the usage is different), and impact per unit of resource use (which is termed "technology", because this impact depends on the technology used). The equation is expressed to say that environmental impact is proportional to population, affluence and technology.[81]

Strategies for reaching sustainability can generally be divided into the following three categories (most governments and international organizations that aim to achieve sustainability use all three approaches, though they may disagree on which deserves priority):

  1. Affluence: Many believe that sustainability cannot be achieved without reducing consumption. This theory is represented most clearly in the idea of a steady-state economy, meaning an economy without growth. Methods in this category include for example increasing energy efficiency. In 2020, scientific research published by the World Economic Forum determined that affluence is the biggest threat to sustainability.[82]
  2. Population: Others think that the most effective means of achieving sustainability is population control, for example by improving access to birth control and education (particularly education for girls).[83]
  3. Technology: Still others hold that the most promising path to sustainability is new technology. This theory may be seen as a form of technological optimism. One popular tactic in this category is transitioning to renewable energy.[84] Other methods to achieve sustainability that are associated with this theory include climate engineering or genetic engineering (GMO, Genetically modified organism).

Businesses

Today, the public primarily associates sustainable production with special seals of quality (here the FSC seal for wood products).

Sustainable business practices integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones (i.e., the triple bottom line).[85][86] The idea of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Sustainability Consortium of the Society for Organizational Learning,[87] the Sustainable Business Institute,[88] and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.[89] Supply chain sustainability refers to companies' efforts to consider the environmental and human impact of their products' journey through the supply chain, from raw materials sourcing to production, storage, delivery and every transportation link in between.

Problematic aspects of "sustainable business" initiatives include:

  • Greenwashing is the practice of deceptive marketing by a company or organization so they appear more environmentally friendly or more ecological (more natural, healthier, free of chemicals, recyclable, less wasteful of natural resources...) when in practice its activities pollute the environment.[90] This practice is increasingly being called into question by investors as it exposes them to risk.[91]
  • Ecolabelling is a voluntary method of environmental performance certification and labelling that is attached to food and consumer products. Eco-label reliability is increasingly being questioned.[92] The most credible eco-labels are the ones that are developed with close participation from all relevant stakeholders.[93]

Scientific community

There are many warning publications or letters from the scientific community about the growing threat to sustainability, in particular with regards to environmental sustainability and - more recently - climate change. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity in 1992 begins with: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." About 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including most Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, signed it. The letter mentions severe damage to atmosphere, oceans, ecosystems, soil productivity, and more. It warned humanity that life on earth as we know it can become impossible, and if humanity wants to prevent the damage, some steps need to be taken: better use of resources, abandon of fossil fuels, stabilization of human population, elimination of poverty and more.[94]

Further prominent warning letters or reports rom the scientific community include:

  • In 2017, scientists wrote a second warning to humanity. In this warning, the scientists mention some positive trends like slowing deforestation, but despite this, they claim that except ozone depletion, none of the problems mentioned in the first warning received an adequate response. The scientists called to reduce the use of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources and to stabilize the population. It was signed by 15,364 scientists from 184 countries, making it the letter with the most scientist signatures in history.[95]
  • In 2019, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries published a letter in which they warn about serious threats to sustainability from climate change unless big changes in policies happen. The scientists declared "climate emergency" and called to stop overconsumption, move away from fossil fuels, eat less meat, stabilize the population, and more.[96]

Religious communities

Further information: Religion and environmentalism

Religious leaders and teachings have stressed the importance of caring for nature and the sustainability of the environment

For example, in 2015 over 150 leaders from various faiths issued a joint statement to the UN Climate Summit in Paris 2015.[97] In it they reiterated a statement made in the interfaith summit in New York made in September 2014: We as religious leaders: "stand together to express deep concern for the consequences of climate change on the earth and its people, all entrusted, as our faiths reveal, to our common care. Climate change is indeed a threat to life. Life is a precious gift we have received and that we need to care for".[98]

Individuals

Moving towards sustainability can involve social challenges that require individuals to change their lifestyles and practice ethical consumerism. Sustainable living approaches can reduce environmental impacts by altering the built environment to make cities more sustainable. That would include sustainable transport and zero emission housing as well as sustainable architecture and circular flow land use management.[citation needed]

Awards

Since 2008, the National German Sustainability Award Foundation has been awarding the German Sustainability Award every year in a high-profile gala.[99] In 2022 this award scheme celebrated its 15th year. This award honors "sustainability pioneers" in the categories of companies, architecture, start-ups (NEA), packaging and design.[100]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Purvis, Ben; Mao, Yong; Robinson, Darren (2019). "Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins". Sustainability Science. 14 (3): 681–695. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. ISSN 1862-4065. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  2. ^ a b "Sustainability". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
  3. ^ a b "Sustainable Development". UNESCO. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ a b c d Great transition : the promise and lure of the times ahead. Paul Raskin, Global Scenario Group. Boston: Stockholm Environment Institute. 2002. ISBN 0-9712418-1-3. OCLC 49987854.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  5. ^ a b Diamond, Jared M. (2011). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York. ISBN 978-1-101-50196-2. OCLC 748370928.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  6. ^ a b UNEP (2021). "Making Peace With Nature". UNEP - UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
  7. ^ a b c d Steffen, Will; Rockström, Johan; Cornell, Sarah; Fetzer, Ingo; Biggs, Oonsie; Folke, Carl; Reyers, Belinda. "Planetary Boundaries - an update". Stockholm Resilience Centre. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  8. ^ a b Kuhlman, Tom; Farrington, John (2010). "What is Sustainability?". Sustainability. 2 (11): 3436–3448. doi:10.3390/su2113436. ISSN 2071-1050.
  9. ^ a b c d Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
  10. ^ a b Boyer, Robert H. W.; Peterson, Nicole D.; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). "Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward". Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878.
  11. ^ a b Doğu, Feriha Urfalı; Aras, Lerzan (2019). "Measuring Social Sustainability with the Developed MCSA Model: Güzelyurt Case". Sustainability. 11 (9): 2503. doi:10.3390/su11092503. ISSN 2071-1050.
  12. ^ a b Brown, James H. (1 October 2015). "The Oxymoron of Sustainable Development". BioScience. 65 (10): 1027–1029. doi:10.1093/biosci/biv117.
  13. ^ a b "Sustainability and Sustainable Development". Circular Ecology. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
  14. ^ a b Williams, Colin C; Millington, Andrew C (June 2004). "The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable development". The Geographical Journal. 170 (2): 99–104. doi:10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00111.x. S2CID 143181802.
  15. ^ a b Blühdorn (2017). "Post-capitalism, post-growth, post-consumerism? Eco-political hopes beyond sustainability". Global Discourse. 7 (1): 42–61. doi:10.1080/23269995.2017.1300415. ISSN 2043-7897.
  16. ^ Kevlar (2014). "Eco-Economics On The Horizon". A whitepaper that examines the mindset required by civilization if humanity is to achieve sustainability with the biosphere
  17. ^ "Sustainability Theories". World Ocean Review. Retrieved 20 June 2019. The concept of 'sustainability' comes from forestry and originally meant something like: using natural resources mindfully so that the supply never runs out.
  18. ^ Compare: "sustainability". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) The English-language word had a legal technical sense from 1835 and a resource-management connotation from 1953.
  19. ^ "Hans Carl von Carlowitz and Sustainability". Environment and Society Portal. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
  20. ^ Dresden, SLUB. "Sylvicultura Oeconomica, Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung Zur Wilden Baum-Zucht". digital.slub-dresden.de (in German). Retrieved 28 March 2022.
  21. ^ UNEP (26 April 2017). "Indigenous people and nature: a tradition of conservation". Retrieved 30 August 2021.
  22. ^ Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. (1991). "Traditional Resource Management Systems". Resource Management and Optimization. 8: 127–141.
  23. ^ Harper, Douglas. "sustain". Online Etymology Dictionary.
  24. ^ Onions, Charles, T. (ed) (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 2095.
  25. ^ a b c d United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment.
  26. ^ United Nations General Assembly (20 March 1987). "Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment; Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development; Paragraph 1". United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved 1 March 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  27. ^ Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-84407-571-3.
  28. ^ "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005, 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome" (PDF). United Nations General Assembly. 2005. Retrieved 17 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  29. ^ Aachener Stiftung Kathy Beys, 2005-2022 (13 November 2015). "Lexikon der Nachhaltigkeit | Definitionen | Nachhaltigkeit Definition". Lexikon der Nachhaltigkeit (in German). Retrieved 19 January 2022. {{cite web}}: |first= has numeric name (help)
  30. ^ a b "Agenda 21" (PDF). United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. 1992. Retrieved 17 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  31. ^ United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1 Archived 28 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine)
  32. ^ a b Carson, Rachel (2002) [1st. Pub. Houghton Mifflin, 1962]. Silent Spring. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-24906-0.
  33. ^ a b c d e f Berg, Christian (2020). Sustainable action : overcoming the barriers. Abingdon, Oxon. ISBN 978-0-429-57873-1. OCLC 1124780147.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  34. ^ Arrhenius, Svante (1896). "XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground". The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 41 (251): 237–276. doi:10.1080/14786449608620846. ISSN 1941-5982.
  35. ^ a b c UN (1973) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972
  36. ^ Crutzen, Paul J. (2002). "Geology of mankind". Nature. 415 (6867): 23. Bibcode:2002Natur.415...23C. doi:10.1038/415023a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 11780095. S2CID 9743349.
  37. ^ "Ten years of nine planetary boundaries". Stockholm Resilience Centre. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  38. ^ Persson, Linn; Carney Almroth, Bethanie M.; Collins, Christopher D.; Cornell, Sarah; de Wit, Cynthia A.; Diamond, Miriam L.; Fantke, Peter; Hassellöv, Martin; MacLeod, Matthew; Ryberg, Morten W.; Søgaard Jørgensen, Peter (1 February 2022). "Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities". Environmental Science & Technology. 56 (3): 1510–1521. Bibcode:2022EnST...56.1510P. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04158. ISSN 0013-936X. PMC 8811958. PMID 35038861.
  39. ^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
  40. ^ a b Zukunftsstreit (in German). Wilhelm Krull, Volkswagenstiftung (1st ed.). Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. 2000. ISBN 3-934730-17-5. OCLC 52639118.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  41. ^ Redclift, Michael (2005). "Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age". Sustainable Development. 13 (4): 212–227. doi:10.1002/sd.281. ISSN 0968-0802.
  42. ^ Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond growth : the economics of sustainable development (PDF). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. OCLC 33946953.
  43. ^ United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313)
  44. ^ a b c Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P., Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S.
  45. ^ a b Haberl, Helmut; Wiedenhofer, Dominik; Virág, Doris; Kalt, Gerald; Plank, Barbara; Brockway, Paul; Fishman, Tomer; Hausknost, Daniel; Krausmann, Fridolin; Leon-Gruchalski, Bartholomäus; Mayer, Andreas (2020). "A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights". Environmental Research Letters. 15 (6): 065003. Bibcode:2020ERL....15f5003H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a. ISSN 1748-9326. S2CID 216453887.
  46. ^ Arthur Cecil Pigou (1932) The Economics of Welfare (4th ed.) London: Macmillan
  47. ^ Natural resource and environmental economics. Roger Perman, Roger Perman (4th ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Addison Wesley. 2011. ISBN 978-0-321-41753-4. OCLC 704557307.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  48. ^ "The Nobel Prize: Women Who Changed the World". thenobelprize.org. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
  49. ^ Anderies, John M.; Janssen, Marco A. (16 October 2012). "Elinor Ostrom (1933–2012): Pioneer in the Interdisciplinary Science of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems". PLoS Biology. 10 (10): e1001405. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001405. ISSN 1544-9173. PMC 3473022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  50. ^ TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
  51. ^ Groth, Christian (2014). Lecture notes in Economic Growth, (mimeo), Chapter 8: Choice of social discount rate. Copenhagen University.
  52. ^ UNEP, FAO (2020). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. 48p. https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/31813/ERDStrat.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  53. ^ "UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative". UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  54. ^ PEP (2016) Poverty-Environment Partnership Joint Paper | June 2016 Getting to Zero - A Poverty, Environment and Climate Call to Action for the Sustainable Development Goals
  55. ^ Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut economics : seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. London. ISBN 978-1-84794-138-1. OCLC 974194745.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  56. ^ Chiu, R.L. Chapter 12 Social Sustainability, Sustainable Development and Housing Development. In: Housing and social change. East-West perspective. Ray Forrest, James Lee. London: Routledge. 2003. ISBN 0-203-40263-4. OCLC 56741461.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  57. ^ Davidson, Mark (2010). "Social Sustainability and the City: Social sustainability and city". Geography Compass. 4 (7): 872–880. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00339.x.
  58. ^ Boyer, Robert; Peterson, Nicole; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). "Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward". Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878. ISSN 2071-1050.
  59. ^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
  60. ^ Liam Magee; Andy Scerri; Paul James; James A. Thom; Lin Padgham; Sarah Hickmott; Hepu Deng; Felicity Cahill (2013). "Reframing social sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 15 (1): 225–243. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9384-2. S2CID 153452740.
  61. ^ Cohen, J.E. (2006). "Human Population: The Next Half Century." In Kennedy D. (Ed.) Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2006-7. London: Island Press, pp. 13–21. ISBN 9781597266246.
  62. ^ "The Regional Institute - WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project". www.regional.org.au. 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
  63. ^ Pearce, David W.; Atkinson, Giles D. (1993). "Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of "weak" sustainability". Ecological Economics. 8 (2): 103–108. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(93)90039-9.
  64. ^ Ayres, Robert; van den Berrgh, Jeroen; Gowdy, John (2001). "Strong versus Weak Sustainability". Environmental Ethics. 23 (2): 155–168. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200123225. ISSN 0163-4275.
  65. ^ Cabeza Gutés, Maite (1996). "The concept of weak sustainability". Ecological Economics. 17 (3): 147–156. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)80003-6.
  66. ^ a b Robert U. Ayres & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & John M. Gowdy, 1998. "Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-103/3, Tinbergen Institute.
  67. ^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
  68. ^ United Cities and Local Governments, "Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development".
  69. ^ James, Paul; Magee, Liam (2016), "Domains of Sustainability", in Farazmand, Ali (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–17, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2760-1, ISBN 978-3-319-31816-5, retrieved 28 March 2022
  70. ^ a b Dhakal, Krishna P.; Oh, Jun S. (2011). "Integrating Sustainability into Highway Projects: Sustainability Indicators and Assessment Tool for Michigan Roads". Transportation and Development Institute Congress 2011. Chicago, Illinois, United States: American Society of Civil Engineers: 987–996. doi:10.1061/41167(398)94. ISBN 978-0-7844-1167-4.
  71. ^ Gambino, Megan (15 March 2012). "Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 12 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  72. ^ a b Benson, Melinda Harm; Craig, Robin Kundis (2014). "The End of Sustainability". Society & Natural Resources. 27 (7): 777–782. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.901467. ISSN 0894-1920. S2CID 67783261.
  73. ^ "Why Rio failed in the past and how it can succeed this time". The Guardian. 12 June 2012.
  74. ^ Apetrei, Cristina I.; Caniglia, Guido; von Wehrden, Henrik; Lang, Daniel J. (2021). "Just another buzzword? A systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science". Global Environmental Change. 68: 102222. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102222.
  75. ^ a b Hardyment, Richard (2 February 2024). Measuring Good Business. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003457732. ISBN 978-1-003-45773-2.
  76. ^ a b Bell, Simon and Morse, Stephen 2008. Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasurable? 2nd edn. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
  77. ^ Dalal-Clayton, Barry and Sadler, Barry 2009. Sustainability Appraisal: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-357-3.[page needed]
  78. ^ Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. [1] Archived 2011-12-18 at the Wayback Machine
  79. ^ Wackernagel, Mathis; Lin, David; Evans, Mikel; Hanscom, Laurel; Raven, Peter (2019). "Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends". Sustainability. 11 (7): 2164. doi:10.3390/su11072164.
  80. ^ "Sustainable Development visualized". Sustainability concepts. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
  81. ^ a b Ehrlich, P.R.; Holden, J.P. (1974). "Human Population and the global environment". American Scientist. Vol. 62, no. 3. pp. 282–292.
  82. ^ Fleming, Sean. "This is now the world's greatest threat – and it's not coronavirus". World Economic Forum. World Economic forum. Retrieved 5 August 2020.
  83. ^ Perkins, Sid. "The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about". Science. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
  84. ^ M. Parris, Thomas; W. Kates, Robert (8 July 2003). "Characterizing a sustainability transition: Goals, targets, trends, and driving forces". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 100 (14): 8068–8073. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231336100. PMC 166183. PMID 12819346.
  85. ^ Kinsley, M. and Lovins, L.H. (September 1997). "Paying for Growth, Prospering from Development." Archived 17 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 15 June 2009.
  86. ^ Sustainable Shrinkage: Envisioning a Smaller, Stronger Economy. Thesolutionsjournal.com. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  87. ^ Zhexembayeva, N. (May 2007). "Becoming Sustainable: Tools and Resources for Successful Organizational Transformation". Center for Business as an Agent of World Benefit. Case Western University. Archived from the original on 13 June 2010.
  88. ^ "About Us". Sustainable Business Institute. Archived from the original on 17 May 2009.
  89. ^ "About the WBCSD". World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Archived from the original on 9 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
  90. ^ "The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing". The Guardian. 18 August 2018.
  91. ^ "The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing". www.bloomberg.ca. BNN Bloomberg. 18 August 2018.
  92. ^ "The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing". www.theconversation.com. The Conversation. 18 August 2011.
  93. ^ "What's in a label? Separating credible eco-labels from greenwashing". www.corporateknights.com. Corporate Knights. 3 May 2019.
  94. ^ "World Scientist's Warning to Humanity" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
  95. ^ Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Galetti, Mauro; Alamgir, Mohammed; Crist, Eileen; Mahmoud, Mahmoud I.; Laurance, William F. (December 2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125.
  96. ^ J Ripple, William; Wolf, Christopher; M Newsome, Thomas; Barnard, Phoebe; R Moomaw, William (5 November 2019). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency". BioScience. biz088. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088.
  97. ^ "Statement of Faith and Spiritual Leaders on the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 in Paris in December 2015"
  98. ^ Statement from the Interfaith Summit in New York, 21-22September2014, by the World Council of Churches Geneva and Religions for Peace, New York: http://interfaithclimate.org/the-statement
  99. ^ "Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis: Startseite". Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis (in German). Retrieved 28 March 2022.
  100. ^ "Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis: Overview | DE". Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis. Retrieved 28 March 2022.
Library resources about
Sustainability
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&oldid=1080439458"