Jump to content

Talk:Sustainability/Definition/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Copy with two diagrams

Although the definition of sustainable development (above) given by the Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted[1], it is not universally accepted[2] and has undergone various interpretations. Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination."[3] This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition.[4] As an appeal for action it is also open to many interpretations as to how it can be achieved. Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice"[5][6] and as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance.[7][8][9] As a call to action, sustainability is open to various political perspectives as to how it can be achieved.[10]on ways to achieve particular sustainability goals.

The idea of sustainable development is sometimes viewed as an oxymoron because development inevitably depletes and degrades the environment.[11] Consequently some definitions either avoid the word development and use the term sustainability exclusively, or emphasise the environmental component, as in "environmentally sustainable development"[12]

Scheme of interaction of the three "pillars" of sustainable development[13]
Another representation showing economy and society bounded by the environment.[14]

The term "sustainability" is defined in many ways according to the context in which it is applied. As all human activity entails sustainability the word may be used to refer to any aspect of human behaviour.The fundamental integrated dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: environmental, social and economic, known as the "three pillars"[15] These can be are depicted as three overlapping circles (or ellipses), to show that they are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing.[16]

While this model was intended to increase the standing of ecological concernsinitially improved the standing of environmental concerns[17], it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world:

The economy is, in the first instance, a subsystem of human society ... which is itself, in the second instance, a subsystem of the totality of life on Earth (the biosphere). And no subsystem can expand beyond the capacity of the total system of which it is a part [18]

For this reason a second diagram shows economy as a component of society, both bounded by, and dependent upon, the environment. As Herman Daly famously asked "what use is a sawmill without a forest?"[19]

The Earth Charter sets out to establish values and direction in this way:

We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

A simpler definition is given by the IUCN, UNEP and WWF:

Sustainabilty is: improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems.[20]

Sustainability can also be presented as a call to action, as:

... a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term.[21]

The evolution of thinking about sustainability has paralleled historical events that have had a direct impact on human global sustainability.


  1. ^ International Institute for Sustainable Development (2009). "What is Sustainable Development?". Retrieved 18 Feb 2009.
  2. ^ EurActiv (17 August 2004). Sustainable Development: Introduction. Retrieved on: 2009-02-24
  3. ^ Commonwealth of Australia (2007). "Defining Sustainability." House Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, Inquiry into a Sustainability Charter. Chapter 2. Retrieved on 2009-02-16.
  4. ^ Ratner, B.D. (2004). "Sustainability as a dialogue of values: Challenges to the sociology of development." Sociological Inquiry 74(1): 50-69.
  5. ^ Pearce, D., Barbier, E.. & Markandya, A. (2000). Sustainable development economics and environment in the third world. Earthscan, London. ISBN 1853830887, 9781853830884
  6. ^ Blewitt, J. (2008). Understanding Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London. ISBN 9781844074549
  7. ^ Dunning, B. (November 01, 2006). "Sustainable Sustainability." Skeptoid. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.
  8. ^ Marshall, J.D. & Toffel, M.W. (2005). "Framing the Elusive Concept of Sustainability: A Sustainability Hierarchy." Environmental & Scientific Technology 39 (3): 673–682.
  9. ^ Huddelson, B. (2008). "Sustainability. The overtly ambiguous buzzword." Mustangdaily 5/23/08. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.
  10. ^ Holling, C. S. (2000) Theories for sustainable futures Conservation Ecology 4(2): 7.Retrieved on: 2009-02-24.
  11. ^ Redclift, M. (2005). "Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age." Sustainable Development 13(4): 212-27.
  12. ^ World Bank (1994) Valuing the environment : proceedings of the First Annual International Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development Serageldin, Ismail ; Steer, Andrew [editors] World Bank Report Number:13520 Retrieved on: 2009-02-24
  13. ^ Adams, W.M. (22 May 2006). "The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century." Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29-31 January, 2006. Retrieved on 2009-02-16.
  14. ^ Ott, K. (2003). "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: K. Ott & P.P. Thapa (eds.). Greifswald’s environmental ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3-931483-32-0. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.
  15. ^ United Nations General Assembly (24 October, 2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome, Resolution A/60/1, adopted by the General Assembly on 15 September 2005. Retrieved on: 2009-02-17.
  16. ^ "UK Forestry Commission". Retrieved 12/19/08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  17. ^ Ott, K. and Thapa, P.P. (2003)Greifswald's Environmental Ethics Steinbeckerverlag Rose ISBN: 3-931483-32-0 Retrieved on: 2009-02-24.
  18. ^ Porritt, J. 2006. Capitalism as if the world mattered. Earthscan, London. p.46.
  19. ^ Daly, H.E. & Cobb, J.B. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon, Boston.
  20. ^ IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991). Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland.|IUCN - The World Conservation Union, UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme, WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature.
  21. ^ CSR and International Political Economy. Allacademic.com.

Clean version 2009-02-24

Although the definition of sustainable development (above), given by the Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted,[1] it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations.[2] Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination."[3] This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition.[4] Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice"[5][6] and as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance.[7][8][9] As a call to action, sustainability is open to various perspectives as to how it can be achieved.[10]

Scheme of interaction of the three "pillars" of sustainable development[11]

The idea of sustainable development is sometimes viewed as an oxymoron because development inevitably depletes and degrades the environment.[12] Consequently some definitions either avoid the word development and use the term sustainability exclusively, or emphasise the environmental component, as in "environmentally sustainable development."[13]

Another representation showing economy and society bounded by the environment.[14]

The dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: environmental, social and economic, known as the "three pillars"[15] These can be depicted as three overlapping circles (or ellipses), to show that they are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing.[16]

While this model initially improved the standing of environmental concerns,[17] it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world:

The economy is, in the first instance, a subsystem of human society ... which is itself, in the second instance, a subsystem of the totality of life on Earth (the biosphere). And no subsystem can expand beyond the capacity of the total system of which it is a part [18]

For this reason a second diagram shows economy as a component of society, both bounded by, and dependent upon, the environment. As Herman Daly famously asked "what use is a sawmill without a forest?"[19]

The Earth Charter sets out to establish values and direction in this way:

We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

A simpler definition is given by the IUCN, UNEP and WWF:

Sustainabilty is: improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems.[20]

The evolution of thinking about sustainability has paralleled historical events that have had a direct impact on human global sustainability.

Copyedit

Question

Why is the Daly quote struck out (again)? I think it works there. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dont know - lets put it back. Granitethighs (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That was me (it was also me that added it in). If you like it, it stays.--Travelplanner (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I know this is an old chestnut but I'm running across "concentric circle" diagrams here and there again. Although there is the danger of clutter I think the three concentric circles diagram is quite well established in the literature and well expressed through the Porritt quote we give. Could we include a third diagram (concentric circles - economy centre, society outside economy, environment outside society?) The wording (and possibly content) could be simplified on the diagrams and the three could be displayed across the page like the geocycles diagrams, each being about the same size? we could have SD first, concentric second, composite third. They would challenge the reader to think about different ways of fitting sustainability into their conceptual worlds? What do you think? Granitethighs (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I guess if you edit with someone long enough, you begin to think along parallel tracks. I was looking at the IUCN report yesterday and thinking that we needed to include the economy/society /environment diagram. You've taken that thought one step further and I like your proposal. Sunray (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I haven't forgotten that we agreed to revise the four concentric circles diagram. We can add the new one at the same time. Sunray (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
New diagram uploaded. Sunray (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What I think is, the Porritt quote clearly describes the "three concentric circles" diagram, but three diagrams are overload. The text also call(rightly) for the "overlapping circles" diagram to be included. I guess, against all my human insticts about this, and cognisant of how often we've gone over this and how much work others have done on it, I'm suggesting we delete the overlapping-circles-in-a-circle diagram (sometimes it's impossible to be a nice person and a good copyeditor at the same time).--Travelplanner (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we go with the three interlocked circles diagram and the economy / society / environment concentric circles diagram (whether yours or the IUCN version)? As I recall, this whole discussion started from the premise that the three circles diagram, though interesting, was flawed because of the portrayal of environment as being coequal with economy and society, which, inevitably, allows the rape and pillage to continue. The article's conclusion is that the human sphere is bounded within the environment and that humans need to get clear on that. As long as we are civil, nice is optional, IMO. Forthright is good. Sunray (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Whatever we decide could we make the concentric circles have the same simple colours as the other one/two? Granitethighs (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we need a summary of the various options and, perhaps, even a poll? We've had so much discussion and so many versions of the diagrams that we now need to bite the bullet. Who wants to take the lead on this? Sunray (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
We can't agree on everything and I'm more than happy to let a vote decide. My vote - I suggest all three diagrams across the page but using a similar colour scheme for all three and a phrase clarifying why we are showing three (they can be smaller than above and the captions can be further reduced beneath each (or reduced in the text and extended in the captions)).Granitethighs (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
My vote is for two diagrams (overlapping and concentric), agree about using the same (muted) colour scheme for both. But GT's idea works also, so that's sort of my second vote if I'm allowed two votes...--Travelplanner (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of having the same colours in the diagrams. So we three agree on that. As to two or three, I too can see it either way and right now I'm not sure what my preference is in that regard. I've asked Andrew if he would be willing to do a concentric circles diagram in the lighter colours. He has agreed on the proviso that I bring him a pie when I see him tomorrow. When we get that revised diagram, how about we put up the two versions (gallery with three diagrams / two diagrams vertically to the right of the text) for a final look? Sunray (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestion Granitethighs (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the Cornell / IUCN diagram (in the colours we have used for the other diagrams) to the gallery. Sunray (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the three, I'm tending towards TP's view that three diagrams are overload. Two suffice to make the point that economy and society are bounded by, and dependent upon, the environment. And the two that make the point most economically and simply, IMO are #'s 1 and 3. Sunray (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - seeing the three together brings this point out - thanks to Andrew for doing the IUCN diagram, two it is. Granitethighs (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Lots more citations now! (in the 2-diagram version). I found what I think is straight repetition in the first paragraph hence the strikeout. The text highlighted in purple and bold I'm not so comfortable with either; it reiterates an idea from the lead, this may not be necessary in context? Then a slight rewording of the fourth paragraph in order to stick more closely to the reference I found for this.

I'm not sure who to cite for the "not universally accepted" statement re: Brundtland definition. There's an embarassment of choices here and I can't decide...the more readable they are online the less credible??

I'd love to have a citation for the "three concentric circles" diagram, especially one that links this to the term "strong sustainability" but have wasted too much time looking for one. I also struggle to see how to cite the last line.

In my "less is more" role I am a bit worried about the number of definitions quoted - the one that adds least in my mind is "... a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term.[36]" which really reads to me as a much wordier version of the Brundtland definition. The best example of a "call to action" definition is actually the Earth Charter one, I suggest shifting this and deleting the wordy one.

Does that improve things??--Travelplanner (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The additional citations and your re-working of the section work well. In response to your queries:
  1. Agree with your strikeouts. I agree that the sentences you've bolded pick up a theme from the lead. It may have to go in the final edit, but within this section it works.
  2. The EurActiv.com site you reference would do fine as a source. It covers the range of criticism of SD.
  3. We should be fine for the three "concentric" ellipses diagram. The last line was added to provide a transition to the history section. We can modify it, or toss it out (though linking sentences do help the reader grasp the flow of the article).
  4. Agree with deleting the "configuring civilization." It does seem to be overkill.
I have struck out the "configuring civ" quote and added the EurActiv citation. Sunray (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think that the first two sentences of the third paragraph are overkill. They not only repeat the theme of the lead (not in itself a bad thing as the article needs to elaborate on themes put forward in the lead), but they are repetitive of material said in other ways within this section. I've tentatively struck it. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've produced a clean copy for review. With a last look by GT and Nick, we can put it up. Sunray (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Its a difficult section but I reckon we've done it justice - I'd defy anyone to do better in that many words. One thing - and its my doing - we sometimes use quotes to emphasise a word (as in "journey") at other times italics as in justice. We probably need to be consistent. I am happy to defer to whatever is regarded as appropriate WP protocol. Oh - and very last - are all the citations in this section with standard format now?Granitethighs (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as the use of italics or quotes goes: The Chicago Manual of Style (a style guide recommended by the Wikipedia MoS) suggests the main uses of italics as: a) for emphasis, b) for non-English words, and c) for titles of books and journals. in addition to dialogue, quotation marks are used for: a) articles, musical works and poetry; b) to show irony, and c) special usage and technical terms. I believe that it is "c" that we will encounter frequently in the body text of the article. So, I think from what GT has said, we need to watch for use "a" in italics (i.e., for emphasis), and use "c" in quotes (special usage and technical terms). I believe that the first paragraph of the section shows the distinction, with examples of both types of usage. Does that make sense? Sunray (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded the current clean copy to the article. If there are more issues, we can alert fellow team members on the main talk page. I think this process has worked well. We probably won't need to do this for every section (in fact, I think it is easier to work on citations in articlespace, because of grouped citations). But when there are substantive issues to discuss, it is good to go back to the talk page/subpage to thrash them out. Sunray (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ International Institute for Sustainable Development (2009). "What is Sustainable Development?". Retrieved 18 Feb 2009.
  2. ^ EurActiv (17 August 2004). Sustainable Development: Introduction. Retrieved on: 2009-02-24
  3. ^ Commonwealth of Australia (2007). "Defining Sustainability." House Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, Inquiry into a Sustainability Charter. Chapter 2. Retrieved on 2009-02-16.
  4. ^ Ratner, B.D. (2004). "Sustainability as a dialogue of values: Challenges to the sociology of development." Sociological Inquiry 74(1): 50-69.
  5. ^ Pearce, D., Barbier, E.. & Markandya, A. (2000). Sustainable development economics and environment in the third world. Earthscan, London. ISBN 1853830887, 9781853830884
  6. ^ Blewitt, J. (2008). Understanding Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London. ISBN 9781844074549
  7. ^ Dunning, B. (November 01, 2006). "Sustainable Sustainability." Skeptoid. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.
  8. ^ Marshall, J.D. & Toffel, M.W. (2005). "Framing the Elusive Concept of Sustainability: A Sustainability Hierarchy." Environmental & Scientific Technology 39 (3): 673–682.
  9. ^ Huddelson, B. (2008). "Sustainability. The overtly ambiguous buzzword." Mustangdaily 5/23/08. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.
  10. ^ Holling, C. S. (2000) Theories for sustainable futures Conservation Ecology 4(2): 7.Retrieved on: 2009-02-24.
  11. ^ Adams, W.M. (22 May 2006). "The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century." Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29-31 January, 2006. Retrieved on 2009-02-16.
  12. ^ Redclift, M. (2005). "Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age." Sustainable Development 13(4): 212-27.
  13. ^ World Bank (1994) Valuing the environment : proceedings of the First Annual International Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development Serageldin, Ismail ; Steer, Andrew [editors] World Bank Report Number:13520 Retrieved on: 2009-02-24
  14. ^ Ott, K. (2003). "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: K. Ott & P.P. Thapa (eds.). Greifswald’s environmental ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3-931483-32-0. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.
  15. ^ United Nations General Assembly (24 October, 2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome, Resolution A/60/1, adopted by the General Assembly on 15 September 2005. Retrieved on: 2009-02-17.
  16. ^ "UK Forestry Commission". Retrieved 12/19/08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  17. ^ Ott, K. and Thapa, P.P. (2003)Greifswald's Environmental Ethics Steinbeckerverlag Rose ISBN: 3-931483-32-0 Retrieved on: 2009-02-24.
  18. ^ Porritt, J. 2006. Capitalism as if the world mattered. Earthscan, London. p.46.
  19. ^ Daly, H.E. & Cobb, J.B. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon, Boston.
  20. ^ IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991). Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland.|IUCN - The World Conservation Union, UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme, WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability/Definition/Archive_5&oldid=1137213240"