homework help

Susfuinnble Development, Vol. 3,109-119 (1995)

METHODS OF DEFINING ’SUSTAINABILITY’

Andrew D. Basiago, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

The notion of ’sustainability’ emerged in The Ecologist’s A Blueprint for Survival, in 1972. The quest to make modern civiliza- tion ’sustainable’ inspired the UN’s Stockholm Conference in 1972 and the ’global trusteeship’ of subsequent inter- national environmental treaties. ’Sustain- ability’ is related to ’futurity’, hence the Brundtland Commission in 1987 defined sustainable development as ’development which meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. ’ Sust ainabilit y’ animates ’the precautionary principle’, affirmed by the European Union (EU) in 1990 in its Bergen Declaration on Sustainable Devel- opment, which requires ecological pre- servation in cases of scientific uncertainty where serious or irreversible damage is threatened. The Earth Summit in 1992 established ’sustainable development’ as the most important policy of the 21st cen- tury. ’Sustainability’ is at the heart of The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21, accords signed at the Earth Summit that herald a new paradigm of society, economics and

CCC 0968-0802/95/030109-11 0 1995 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. and ERP Environment

the environment. The E U s Fifth Environ- mental Action Programme (1993) pursues ’sustainability’ in industry, energy, transport, agriculture and tourism. ’Sustainability’ has also been endorsed by the Clinton Administration (1994). In the light of these events, ’sustainability’ is now used widely in biology, economics, sociology, urban planning, ethics and other domains. It is regarded as tanta- mount to a new philosophy, in which principles of futurity, equity, global environmentalism and biodiversity must guide decision-making. Far from being a mere doctrine of development science, ’sustainability’ has emerged as a universal methodology for evaluating whether human options will yield social and environmental vitality.

INTRODUCTION

he call for ‘sustainability’ has become as commonplace in today’s world as cries of T ‘liberty’ and ‘democracy‘ once were. ‘Sus-

tainability’ is advanced as an alternative to societal and environmental entropy. Speth (1992) contends that acid rain, global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and desertification jeopardize global security. ’[Ilf population growth continues to out- pace the creation of new jobs, if pressures on resources mount and growth proves unsustuinuble, if social and ethnic tensions increase’, he writes, the

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

DEFINING ’SUSTAINABILITY’

effects might include ’civil unrest’, ’regional con- flict’, ’the collapse of governments’, ’adoption of authoritarian measures’ and ’waves of ecological refugees‘. Speth urges the world to choose a course of ’sustainable development’. Other commentators describe ‘sustainability’ as the Rosetta Stone of biodiversity conservation, development economics, environmental justice, urban planning and envir- onmental ethics. It is spoken of with reverence, as if a new emancipating philosophy. In this paper, definitions of ’sustainability’ in biology, cconomics, sociology, planning and ethics are explored, with a view to understanding its emergence as a general- ized methodology of social and environmental vitality.

ORIGINS OF ’SUSTAINABILITY’

The notion that the world’s civilization is not ‘sustainable’, that a ‘sustainable’ paradigm must be designed, had its origins in the international environmental law and policy of the 1970s and 1980s.

In A Blueprint for Survival (The Ecologist, 1972), a distinguished panel wrote that our ‘industrial way of life with its ethos of expansion’ is not ‘sustainable’. The rates of growth in population and consumption are undermining human survival prospects by disrupting ecosystems and depleting resources.’ The panel concluded that a stable society would cause minimum ecological disruption, practice maximum conservation and maintain a constant population. ’Our task is to create a society which is sustainable and which will give the fullest possible satisfaction of its members’, they wrote.

Apprehension in Britain that our global society is not ‘sustainable’ was shared internationally. The UN Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm (1972) brought developed and develop- ing nations together for the first time to debate ’the rights of humanity to a healthy and productive environment’. Participants addressed transbound- ary pollution, co-operative management of shared resources and the global commons and agreed to open their courts to transboundary proceedings. Stockholm set the stage for later treaties protecting the global commons, the World Heritage Conven- tion, the Whaling Convention and the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depletion. These agreements created the doctrine of ’global trusteeship’ on which the doctrine of ‘sustainable development’ would be founded (Boyle, unpublished comments).

’Sustainable development’ first appeared in the World Conservation Strategy drafted by UNEP and IUCN (1980). It should be advanced through ‘conservation’, defined as ‘the management of

human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present genera- tions while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations’ (Eblen and Eblen, 1994).

Cousteau (1980) wrote in his Bill of Rights for Future Generations: ’[Fluture generations have a right to an uncontaminated and undamaged Earth ... Each generation ... has a duty as trustee for future generations to prevent irreversible and irreparable harm to life on Earth...‘. This duty, ’the futurity principle’, is the handmaiden of ’sustainability’.

The U N s World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, renewed the call for ’sustainable development’ to alleviate poverty, feed the world and safeguard the environment. Their report, Our Common Future, defined sustain- able development as ’development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs‘ (Brundtland, 1987).

In the Bergen Declaration on Sustainable Devel- opment, European nations endorsed ’the precau- tionary principle’, a corollary of ’sustainability’. This canon holds that ’where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full, scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation’ (Friends of the Earth, 1994). Under this rule, embedded in the Single European Act as amended by the Maastricht Treaty, a development proponent has the burden of proving that the environment will not be irreparably damaged. Blowers (1993) describes ‘the precautionary princi- ple’ as a means ‘to protect the future against the harmful actions of the present’.

At the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, the largest gathering of world leaders in history, over 120 nations endorsed ‘sustainable development’ as the most important economic and environmental policy for the 21st century. In addition to treaties on biodiversity, world forests and world climate, the Earth Summit produced The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UNCED, 1992). The numerous references to ’sus- tainable development’ in its 27 principles suggests an integration of economic development and environmental protection. Agenda 21, a fifth accord to come out of the Earth Summit, is ’a blueprint on how to make development socially, economically and environmentally sustainable’ (Keating, 1993).

The EUs Fifth Environmental Action Programme, Towards Sustainability, called for changing ‘the patterns of growth in the Community in such a way as to reach a sustainable development p a t h

110 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

A.D. BASIAGO

(CEC, 1993). ’Sustainability’ has been endorsed by the Clinton Administration, which signed the Rio accords. The American Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Wirth, believes that ’sustainable development can integrate and harmonize the enormously powerful economic and environmental forces at work in today’s world (Wirth, unpub- lished remarks).

THE MANY USES, DEFINITIONS AND DOMAINS OF ’SUSTAINABILITY’

Although the world has agreed on a new paradigm of ‘sustainable development’, few can agree on what ‘sustainable development’ might actually mean. The Brundtland report defined ’sustainable development’ as ’a process in which the exploita- tion of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development and insti- tutional change are all in harmony, and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations’ (Brundtland, 1987). Frequent references to ’sustainable development’ in the 27 principles of the Rio Declaration (UNCED, 1992) suggest a type of development that integrates economic growth and environmental protection. But how is such development to be achieved? Clearly, ‘sustainable development’ is characterized by ‘sustainability’, but what is ‘sustainability’?

Biologists speak of ’sustainability’ when they talk of the interaction between human and natural systems. The biological definition of ’sustainability’ concerns itself with the need to save natural capital on behalf of future generations, particularly the genetic diversity contained in plant and animals species, or ’biodiversity’. The biological definition of ‘sustainability’ touches on the domain where human urbanization meets undisturbed ecosystems and the consequences of that interaction.

Economists speak of ‘sustainability’ when they analyse whether the modern production system will collapse because it will exhaust the natural capital on which it depends. The economists’ definition of ’sustainability’ encompasses instru- ments to internalize the environmental costs of industrial activity in the economy by way of public intervention in private markets. The economists’ definition of ‘sustainability’ examines how markets, as conventionally conceived, fail to protect the environment.

Sociologists speak of the ‘sustainability’ of indi- viduals, families and neighbourhoods when they establish a causal relationship between race and the siting of toxic and hazardous enterprises in America’s inner city ghettos. The sociological definition of ’sustainability’ concerns itself with

the ’sustainability’ of human beings as reflected in problems such as environmental racism. The socio- logical definition of ’sustainability’ addresses the domain in which human interest groups make decisions over the use of natural resources and other humans are affected in their daily lives, and the equity issues that obtain.

Urban planners speak of ‘sustainability’ when they draft creative plans to integrate cities and nature in unprecedented ways. The urban defini- tion of ’sustainability’ seeks to reduce notions of ‘sustainability’ to the practical planning of regions, communities and neighbourhoods. It involves the pursuit of a design science that will integrate urbanization and nature preservation.

Environmental ethicists speak of ‘sustainability’ when they ponder whether nature has ‘rights’ and whether the current rate of species extinction caused by humanity is ethical. The ethical definition of ’sustainability’ asserts that preservationist nat- ural resource principles (also variously called ecocentric, Gaian and precautionary) are superior to those that are conservationist and exploitative. The ethical definition of ’sustainability’ probes the domain where humans ponder whether they are a part of, or apart from, nature, and how this should guide moral choice.

There is no precise definition of ’sustainability’. The term has come to be used to describe a wide variety of social concerns. Let us examine these methods of defining ’sustainability’ further, for they may help us to arrive at a comprehensive definition.

BIOLOGICAL METHODS OF DEFINING ‘SUSTAINABILITY’

Miller (1988) uses a biological method to define ‘sustainability’ when he distinguishes ’sustainable’ natural ecosystems (e.g. marshes, grasslands, forests) from simplified human systems (eg. cornfields, factories, houses). A natural ecosystem ’captures, converts and stores energy from the sun’. A simplified human system ’consumes energy from fossil or nuclear fuels’. A natural ecosystem ’produces oxygen and consumes carbon dioxide’. A simplified human system ‘consumes oxygen and produces carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels’. A natural ecosystem ’creates fertile soil’. A simplified human system ’depletes or covers fertile soil’. A natural ecosystem ’stores, purifies, and releases water gradually’. A simplified human system ’often uses and contaminates water and releases it rapidly’. A natural ecosystem ‘provides wildlife habitats’. A simplified human system ‘destroys some wildlife habitats’. A natural eco- system ‘filters and detoxifies pollutants and waste

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 111

DEFINING ’SUSTAINABILITY‘

products’. A simplified human system ’produces pollutants and waste’. A natural ecosystem is ’usually capable of self-maintenance and self- renewal’. A simplified human system ‘requires continual maintenance and renewal at great cost’.

In the light of this conflict between natural and human systems, the biological method of defining ’sustainability’ cherishes ’biodiversity’. Wilson (1994), the Harvard biologist who has led biodiver- sity conservation efforts, defines biodiversity as ‘the genetic-based variation of living organisms at all levels’, including the variety of genes within a species and among species and the variety of natural ecosystems. He identifies three benefits of biodiversity. Firstly, biodiversity maintains ecosys- tems in a healthy condition. Ecosystems with the greatest variety of plants and animals are the most stable and efficient. Secondly, biodiversity contains largely unstudied and untapped reservoirs of new drugs, crops, fibres and energy sources. Thirdly, biodiversity encompasses those natural environ- ments that humans naturally affiliate with, which are ’psychologically restorative’.

Wilson has developed the ‘species-area curve’ to estimate the impact of habitat destruction on biodiversity. This method holds that when a habitat is reduced to one-tenth of its original size, the number of species eventually drops in half. Apply- ing this method to the tropical rain forests, where more than half of the plant and animal species live, Wilson estimates that a quarter of a per cent of species (one in 400) is made extinct each year. He finds this rate of current extinction not ’sustainable’ because it is between 1000 and 10,000 times faster than before humans emerged on Earth and ’far in excess of the rate at which new species are being created (Wilson, 1994).

The loss of biodiversity at rapid rates in modern times has implications for economic strength and the quality of life. In California, one of the worlds most biologically diverse areas and its eighth wealthiest economy, natural resource management methods have been introduced that define ‘sustain- ability’ in terms of both ‘biological diversity’ and ‘social and economic viability’. THE Agreement on Biological Diversity (California Department of Fish and Game, 1991) recognizes the state’s rich natural heritage as fundamental to its economy. ‘Sustain- ing’ natural ecosystems is deemed essential to maintaining the state’s prosperity.

California will use regional methods to conserve the diversity of its air, water, plant communities, fishes, wildlife habitat, recreation and aesthetic values. Where past natural resource policies con- served individual sites, species and resources, it is now widely recognized that the full variety of life forms in the state, the genetic diversity among them

and the communities and ecosystems they inhabit occur across a variety of jurisdictions and owner- ship. In a new ‘bioregional’ approach, California will manage and protect entire ecosystems, biolo- gical communities and landscapes (California Department of Fish and Game, 1991).

An Executive Council will guide California’s programme to protect biodiversity and maintain economic vitality on a ‘bioregional’ basis. The council may: acquire land; establish restoration projects, mitigation and development banks, plan- ning and zoning authorities and alternative land management practices; assist private landowners; direct education, monitoring and research pro- grammes; and impose fees, incentives and regula- tions. Measurable baselines and standards of diversity will be crafted to direct its efforts to conserve biological resources over time at the landscape, ecosystem, species and genetic level (California Department of Fish and Game, 1991).

The Clinton Administration also takes the view that the fate of the economy and the environment are interlinked. According to Wirth (1994), ’the economy is inextricably tied to the environment and totally dependent upon it’. Several major biological systems underpin the world economy. Croplands provide food, feed, fibre and vegetable oils. Forests supply fuel, lumber, paper and other products. Grasslands are the source of meat, milk, leather and wool. The oceans and freshwater streams and lakes produce food and industrial resources. These biological systems ’provide all our food and, along with fossil fuels and minerals, ’supply all the new materials for industry’.

The implication of biologcal methods of defining ‘sustainability’ is that biological systems form the foundation of all economic activity. If these systems fail, so does the economy.

ECONOMIC METHODS OF DEFINING ‘ SUSTAINABILITY’

Economic methods of defining ‘sustainability’ make a similar connection between biology and econom- ics. Milbrath (1989) writes that modern economies inexorably expand. To create jobs for workers displaced by productivity, they must grow. Even- tually, they choke on abundant wastes or deplete the natural resource systems on which they rely. This dilemma will worsen in severity over the next 50 years as the population doubles and people strive for higher living standards. Resources used to sustain growth, especially fossil fuels, will become scarce. Many wastes cast into the environment based on unnatural compounds will not be absorbed by the biosphere. ‘We have built an

112 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

economic system that cannot sustain its trajectory’, he fears.

The effect of failed economic methods on biolo- gical systems, of creating a false dichotomy between the economy and the environment, is most evident in the plight of many developing nations. Repetto (1992) observes that deforestation in Costa Rica has damaged its earning potential, despite the fact that the value of some tree species has quadrupled in recent decades. In the Philippines, soil erosion from deforestation has reduced hydroelectric output and thwarted the irrigation of lowland rice paddies.

Repetto (1992) contends that present accounting methods are inadequate to inform the policy choices that developing nations must make to deal with the crisis of environment and development because they assign no economic value to changes in natural resource stocks. Nations ’fell forests, degrade soils, pollute groundwater, and hunt their fish and wildlife to extinction’, but ‘these losses are not factored into measured income’. They must be if policy-makers are to be able to plan for ‘sustain- ability’ or ’be held accountable for the wholesale disruption of natural systems now underway’ (Repetto, 1992).

Repetto (1992) thinks that a method that accounts for environmental assets is needed. Under the U N s System of National Accounts (SNA), adopted after the Second World War to chart global economic development, a false dichotomy between the economy and the environment misguides policy. The asset value of natural resources is not recog- nized. This departs from classical economics, in which natural resources, human resources and invested capital are accounted for. The SNA concentrates on labour and invested capital only. Development is deemed the product of savings and gains in physical capital, such as plant and equipment. These are valued as ‘income-producing capital and their depreciation is written off as a charge against the value of production’, but the loss of natural resources ‘entails no such charge against current income’. Low income countries, for whom natural resources are ‘principal assets’, are encour- aged to view natural resources as ’abundant’ and ’free gifts of nature’ rather than as forms of capital. Consequently, some are achieving current yields at the cost of future production, mistaking impover- ishment for progress. National economic growth is overstated when the loss of natural capital is not accounted for. A superior method would measure the depreciation of natural resource assets as the capitalized present value of reductions in future income from their use (Repetto, 1992).

Gilman (1994a) ascribes the failure of conven- tional development accounting methods to depreci- ate natural resources to the ’dangerously

A.D. BASIAGO

outmoded nature of economic thinking in general. A ’sustainable economics’ is emerging that might better serve as a guide for the 21st century.

According to Gilman, conventional economic concepts ‘provide the basis on which those in power all over the world ... justify the destruction of the Earth. Their ’continued dominant use’ has ‘become seriously outdated and destructive’. Conventional economics recognizes only three ’factors of production’: land, labour and manufac- tured capital. ‘Land encompasses ‘raw materials, such as minerals and timber’. ‘Labour’ includes ‘all direct human inputs into economic activity’. ‘Manufactured capital’ consists of ’buildings, tools and equipment’. In ’economic activity’, ’labour’ uses ‘manufactured capital’ to convert ‘land into ’goods and services‘, which are either ’consumed to produce ’utility’ and ’welfare’ or ‘invested in production (Gilman, 1994a).

An ‘Earth-friendly approach would embrace five forms of ’capital’ : environmental, human, socio- organizational, manufactured and credit capital. Environmental capital includes not just ’land, but ‘all natural systems, including the atmosphere, biological systems and even the sun’. Human capital includes not just ’labour’, but the ’health, knowledge, skills and motivations’ of individuals. Socio-organizational capital encompasses the meta- physical dimension of culture: all ’habits, norms, roles, traditions, regulations [and] policies’; all ‘law, government, the feeling of community, the dynamics within families.. . art and knowledge’. Manufactured capital includes all ’buildings, tools and equipment’, all household durable goods and anything made but not yet returned to the environ- ment. Finally, credit capital includes all ‘money and debt’ (Gilman, 1994a).

These forms of capital interact in complex ways. Firstly, how environmental capital is used affects environmental, human and manufactured capital. Acid rain from sulphur dioxide negatively affects environmental capital (lakes and forests), human capital (respiratory health) and manufactured capital (buildings). Secondly, some environmental capital, such as solar energy, is ’self-maintaining’ and ’self- building’. This could be ‘of enormous human benefit’. Thirdly, important forms of environmental capital (e.g. the tropical rain forests) cannot be replaced with other forms. Fourthly, human and socio-organizational capital tend to be enhanced or multiplied with use. Sharing of knowledge and skills is socially optimum. Fifthly, although the value of manufactured capital lies in use, its least adverse impact occurs during use. Thus everything that can be done, such as ’long-life designs, easy repair and good recycling’, to prolong product life span (from the initial extraction of raw materials to

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 113

DEFINING ’SUSTAINABILITY’

their ultimate disposal, when most damage to other forms of capital occurs) maximizes the net value of manufactured capital. Lastly, although credit can effectively allocate productivity, it can also burden the future with today’s extravagance and usually concentrates wealth. A rational framework adapted to these interactions may be the path to a ’sustain- able’ economy (Gilman, 1994a).

A major restructuring of the economy is implied by economic methods of defining ‘sustainability’. To be implemented, society would have to account for the biological ramifications of economic activity in unprecedented ways.

SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS OF DEFINING ’SUSTAINABILITY’

The failure to integrate economics and the environ- ment has had profound social consequences. In the USA, decisions to sacrifice environmental quality for economic development have sparked charges of racism and cast into doubt whether practices that burden poor, minority communities with environ- mental costs for the benefit of the majority are ’sustainable’.

The evidence establishing a linkage between racial discrimination and environmental injury is convincing. Black and Hispanic neighbourhoods in Los Angeles have high concentrations of air toxins from polluting industries and high rates of cancer, emphysema and respiratory problems (Mann, 1991). Chicago’s Southside is /a minefield of toxic hazards‘, including ‘abandoned factories, toxic waste dumps, industrial air pollution, and tainted water’ (Nelson, 1987). Chavis (1987) found that three out of five of the largest commercial hazar- dous waste landfills in the USA are located in predominantly black or Hispanic communities. He concluded that ’race proved to be the most significant among variables tested in association with the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities’. A 1990 study by Greenpeace discovered that hazardous waste incinerators are 89% more common in America’s minority communities than nationally (Reynoso, 1994).

Hamilton (1991) believes this correlation between race, toxins and land use results from ‘a conscious political strategy’. With ‘the environmental crisis escalating and space for waste decreasing’,hazar- dous waste companies, ’fearing organized opposi- tion from more privileged constituencies’, target communities with residents not ‘likely to oppose waste sites’ - ’the elderly, those without advanced education, poor people on fixed incomes, and working people of moderate wages’. These are communities of colour. ’Sustainability’ involves not

merely ’growth management’ and ‘conservation’, but addressing the economic inequality that contaminates ’lands and populations’.

Braile (1994) avers that the disproportionate share of environmental hazards that fall on poor and minority communities cannot be blamed on intentional racism. There is no proof that commu- nities hosting ’locally undesirable land uses’ are predominantly poor or minority when the facilities are sited. After a facility is sited, property values decline. The poor (who tend to be minorities) move in, and the wealthy (who tend to be white) move out. Anderton repeated Chavis’ 1987 study and found hazardous waste facilities correlated not with race, but with areas where many industrial workers live (Braile, 1994). The implication of these findings is that rather than focus narrowly on race, society should address how ‘market dynamics’ spread environmental risks and the failed tech- nologies that create such risks in the first place.

Whichever interpretation prevails, established in American publications is a method of defining ‘sustainability’ as the socially equitable sharing of environmental harm. This method does not merely work social equity. It addresses the general envir- onmental degradation that comes first at the expense of underprivileged populations.

A s an alternative to such inequality, Farmer (1995) has developed a model of ’sustainable‘ economies. She writes that ’sustainable’ economies are ’holistic’, ‘diverse’, ‘fractal’ and ‘evolutionary’. These economies account for the sociological ramifications of economic activity.

’Sustainable’ economies are ’holistic’ in the sense that they are based on both supply- and demand- side capital flows, promote independence and a diversified capital base, encourage subsistence farming for domestic production and reindustria- lize for diversity. They are based on inclusionary models. “on-sustainable’ economies embrace supply-side economics, promote overdependence on export production and foreign capital and encourage rapacious resource use such as defor- estation. They are based on exclusionary models (Farmer, 1995).

A ’sustainable’ economy is ‘diverse’ if it ’strives for a diversified economic base at every scale’. ’Sustainable’ economies diversify work and tasks, foster biodiversity through such practices as refor- estation and habitat reclamation, farm to meet diverse agricultural needs, conserve fertile soil, encourage domestic agricultural production and seek to democratize ownership. ”on-sustainable’ economies specialize work and tasks in a manner that creates an alienated labour force and rote work, favour single-crop exports that reduce land fertility, practice overgrazing and desertification and seek to

114 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

A.D. BASIAGO

concentrate corporate ownership of capital (Farmer, 1995).

A ‘sustainable’ economy is ‘fractal’ if ’non- hierarchical organizational structures occur at all scales of economics’. ’Sustainable‘ economies have policies of labour-intensive, appropriate technology based production for full employment, whereas ’non-sustainable’ economies seek ’surplus’ labour and environmental resources because they are viewed as essential for ever-expanding markets in a ‘zero sum’ society (Farmer, 1995).

A ‘sustainable’ economy is ‘evolutionary’ if it grows towards ’diversity, equity and democracy, conservation of resources and the greatest potential quality of life’. ’Sustainable’ economies are founded on the equitable distribution of wealth and resources, proportional benefits and burdens, the democratization of decisions regarding production, distribution and consumption and direct or parti- cipatory democracy. The hierarchy of such an economy is ‘flat’. “on-sustainable’ economies tend towards conformity, inequality, autocracy, depletion of resources and declining quality of life. They are founded on the concentration of wealth, a rising gap between the rich and poor, downward pressure on wages and unemployment. The hierarchy of such an economy is autocratic, with key decisions concentrated in few ‘hands - the ‘pyramid of corporate capitalism (Farmer, 1995).

Farmer’s thinking tracks a growing body of publications that attempts to frame an ethos of the ’sustainable’ society. Under this view, it is shallow to speak only of the ’sustainability’ of plants and animals and of ecological processes. Economic patterns that have deleterious biological effects also affect human beings in negative ways. The goal must be a world in which both humans and nature thrive. Thus ‘sustainability’ encompasses the condition of humans within the economy.

PLANNING METHODS OF DEFINING ’SUSTAINABILITY’

Millichap (1993) identifies the temporal dimension of ‘sustainable development’ (a concern for future generations) and its spatial dimension (a concern for the global environment) as long-established concerns of city and regional planning. Futurity emerged in planning in the public health legislation of the Victorian era. Environmentalism was evident first as a regard for neighbourhood amenity, but has been widened to encompass the Earth under the influence of urban planning policies concerned with such phenomena as pollution and habitat destruc- tion.

Millichap contends that what relevance

’sustainability’ has to land use planning is found in the interplay of its future and spatial dimensions. Policies aimed at the spatial dimension can help to protect the future dimension. For example, compact city forms that allow for efficient transport reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus serve to protect future generations from global warming (Millichap, 1993).

This dynamic is found in the work of Calthorpe. Calthorpe (1993), a prominent urban designer whose ideas have become associated with ’sustain- ability’, is a critic of the modern metropolis in the USA. The USA continues to build ’post-World War I1 suburbs’, he writes, ’as if families were large and had only one breadwinner, as if the jobs were all downtown, as if land and energy were endless, and as if another lane on the freeway would end traffic congestion’. The result is ’suburban sprawl’.

Calthorpe (1993) blames sprawl for serious urban ills. Environmental stress, traffic congestion, unaf- fordable housing, loss of open space, burdensome lifestyles for working families, isolation of the elderly and family breakdown are by-products of fractured settlement patterns. Zoning laws segre- gate social groups and isolate people from activities in inefficient networks of congestion and pollution. Sprawl has brought congestion, high housing and transportation costs, lost productivity associated with long commuting times and declining air quality. Inner city ills linked to sprawl include ‘decay, job flight, racial isolation, disinvestment, and isolation of services, as capital moves to cheap, clean, suburban l a n d . Sprawl ‘increases pollution, saps inner-city development, and generates enor- mous costs’ (Calthorpe, 1993).

As an alternative to sprawl, ’the next American metropolis’ would place housing, parks, and schools within walking distance of jobs, shops, transit and civic services. In a modern version of the traditional American town, cities would have ’walkable streets’ and town centres with integrated commercial, recreational and civic uses. Commu- nities would be designed to re-emphasize the public domain. Town commons, with shops, parks, civic buildings and a village green, would return. Americans would again enjoy ‘diverse and human-scaled communities’ (Calthorpe, 1993).

At the heart of Calthorpe’s vision is the ’pedes- trian pocket’ or ‘transit-oriented development’. Pedestrians, Calthorpe believes, are the catalyst of a sense of community. Neighbourhoods of mixed commercial and residential uses would be built around transit stops as ’armatures for controlling growth. Land use patterns would put riders and jobs within an easy walk of stations. This strategy would promote open space and public transit. Reduced car use would benefit working families.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 115

DEFINING ’SUSTAINABILITY’

Less land would be consumed, less traffic gener- ated, less pollution produced (Calthorpe, 1993).

An urban plan based on a network of such neighbourhoods would limit sprawl and channel development back to the city or around suburban transit stations. This would create order in the ‘balkanized metropolis’. Major natural features would form a system of parks, trails and cycle ways throughout the metropolis and greenbelts would preserve open space at the edge of the repon. Nature preserves in the form of ‘leftover land, small and large parks, preserved river banks, open shorelines, and meadow ridges’ would dot the city. Urban growth boundaries would be set to preserve major natural resources at the edge of the metropolis. These boundaries would be large enough to accommodate growth for the next generation, but small enough to encourage in-fill, redevelopment and density, hallmarks of ‘sustain- ability’ (Calthorpe, 1993).

Berkebile, a leading American proponent of ’sustainability’, believes that contemporary cities are not ’sustainable’ because of the world view on which they are based. The dominant design philosophy seeks to bend nature to its will and break everything into its smallest components. In transport, for example, the pursuit of speed and convenience have led to wasted resources, poor air quality, ozone depletion and isolated communities (Gilman, 1994b).

Berkebile conceives of ’sustainability’ in terms of ‘restorative design’. This ethic ’seeks to imitate the efficiency and diversity of nature’. In ’restorative design’, biodiversity would be improved by return- ing land to natural habitat. Wherever possible, paved surfaces would be replaced with urban forestry and wildlife corridors. Solar aquatic and other decentralized wastewater treatment systems would be used. Old buildings, with ‘embodied energy’, would be restored rather than destroyed. New buildings would use daylight, solar and waste energy as well as natural ventilation and cooling from adjacent forests. City edges would be softened and integrated with the surrounding reaches. Urban centres would be made more efficient, accessible and friendly (Gilman, 1994b).

‘Restorative design’ is a WAY of designing. Restorative designers would consider how to restore the environment with each design. They would ask questions such as ‘How can we improve the quality of life without diminishing the oppor- tunities of future generations?’ and ’How can we design to operate on current solar income?’ They would create buildings and neighbourhoods that embrace the climate, the sun, the earth, water and landscape and that combine the best of new energy technologies. They would include in the design

process representatives of unrepresented ‘stake- holders’: the air, water, soil, flora and fauna; the ecosystems on which they depend; and the human communities affected by development (Gilman, 1 994b).

In The Hunnover Principles, ’a guide to the search for sustainability’, McDonough (1992) urges designers to ‘insist on the rights of humanity and nature to coexist in a healthy, supportive, diverse, and sustainable condition’. They must recognize that ’the elements of human design interact with and depend upon the natural world. All aspects of human settlement are to be considered ‘in terms of existing and evolving connections between spiritual and material consciousness’. For ‘sustainability’ to emerge, designers must ’accept responsibility for the consequences of design decisions upon human well-being, the viability of natural systems, and their right to co-exist’. Upholding the futurity principle must involve creating ’safe objects of long- term value’. Future generations are not to be burdened ’with requirements for maintenance or vigdant administration of potential danger due to the careless creation of products, processes, or standards‘. We must eliminate ‘the concept of waste’ from industry, for in nature, ’there is no waste’. ’Human designs should, like the living world, derive their creative forces from perpetual solar income’, the principles state.

An advisor to President Clinton on ’sustainable development’, McDonough envisions a new indus- trial order. Consumer items would be designed for total compost. Goods would be designed to return to the soil. Offices and warehouses would be generic. Consumables such as televisions would be brought back to distributors for composting. All carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic or radioactive pro- ducts would be unmarketable. Shoes would not be tanned with chromium. Nickel would be taken out of coinage. Soaps would be designed for suitability with local water conditions and manufactured in the inner city to foster employment. Fossil fuel use, which consumes capital reserves to meet current operating costs, would be eliminated. Solar energy would be the primary energy of civilization (McDonough, unpublished remarks).

Planners define ‘sustainability’ in terms of settle- ment patterns that will allow civilization to survive and even thrive. In their work, ‘sustainability’ is reduced to a theory of urbanization.

ETHICAL METHODS OF DEFINING ‘SUSTAINABILITY’

Scherp (1994) shows that when notions of ‘sustain- able development‘ are adapted to national

116 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

accounting systems, three ethical models of ‘sus- tainability’ emerge. In these models, ‘sustainability’ constitutes nature preservation, conservation (or stewardship) of natural resources, or merely eco- nomic development that plans for resource sub- stitution.

Under the first model, the ‘conservation of natural capital’ approach, caution is taken to prevent the total stock of natural capital from declining over time on the grounds that many non-renewable natural resources do not have human-made substitutes (Scherp, 1994). Ozone holes cannot be plugged. The three species that are lost every hour to tropical deforestation cannot be brought back into existence by genetic engineering. This model har- monizes with the precautionary principle, invoked to protect all irreplaceable natural capital from development in the face of scientific uncertainty.

In the second model, ‘the total stock of all forms of wealth must not diminish. In this model, human and natural capital can be used as substitutes for one another. The environment can be degraded and its wealth depleted so long as human capital exists to clean up the damage or substitute for exhausted natural capital, and so long as prices accurately express the trade-off (Scherp, 1994). A wetland is drained to prevent disease and its natural filtration properties lost, but affordable sewage technology is implemented. Elephants are removed from their tropical dry savannah habitat and placed in zoos so that land can be developed for housing. In other words, ’sustainability’ will be achieved if human capital replaces all natural capital lost to develop- ment.

The third model is ‘the concept of environmental functions or services’. This model holds that natural resources offer rival functions and ’sustainability’ is merely a matter of preserving possible uses or functions of the environment for future generations. The underlying premise of this model is that not all natural functions are necessary to support human life (Scherp, 1994). The river is polluted to dredge gravel for roads. The wolf is slain to save the flock. ’Sustainability’ will be achieved if the wise or ’sustainable use’ of resources leads to appropriate choices between economic development and the environment, because not all natural capital is necessary for human survival.

These methods of defining ‘sustainability’ have profound implications for how natural resource use is to be governed. Pierce and Turner (1990) describe the first model, which seeks to prevent the total stock of natural capital from declining over time, as ’preservationist’. It implies that environmental standards protecting ‘entire eco- systems and geographical zones’ must be imposed on economic activity in a ’pre-emptive’ manner.

A.D. BASIAGO

Precautionary standards protecting biodiversity and ecological processes must be met before the economic feasibility of projects can be analysed. According to Rees (1990), this model is the view advanced by Pearce in Blueprint for a Green Economy. Present generations, who should leave future generations a stock of environmental assets no less than they inherited, are instead shifting ‘the burden of environmental risks to future generations’. ’Sustainable development’ requires that humans learn to keep the stock of natural capital constant and live on the interest that natural capital generates.

The second model, which has as its goal that the total stock of afl wealth - natural and human - should not diminish over time, Pierce and Turner (1990) describe as ‘conservationist’. It is concerned not with the preservation of nature, but with the ’sustainability‘ of ’resources productivity’. The emphasis here is on conserving and expanding the productivity of the economy and doing so in a manner that can be sustained indefinitely.

According to Millichap (1993), Britain’s environ- mental strategy This Common Inheritance embraces this model by equating ’sustainable development’ with ’stewardship’, our ‘moral duty’ to serve as ’custodians’ of natural resources. Stewardship is exemplified, he suggests, in the policies which allow development in green belts only if a national or regional need is met or important environmental benefit gained and no alternative site exists.

The third model, which contemplates preserving possible uses or functions of the environment, is seen by Pierce and Turner (1990) as essentially ‘exploitative’. It involves merely a promise by living generations to future generations that the produc- tive capacity of the economy has been expanded.

Shiva (1992) distinguishes the first model from the second and third by posing two interpretations of ’sustainability’. The first meaning of ’sustain- ability’, that of nature, involves ’a recovery of the recognition that nature supports our lives’ and is ‘the primary source of sustenance’. This meaning implies ’maintaining the integrity of nature’s pro- cesses, cycles and rhythms’. The second meaning of ‘sustainability’, that of markets, implies only ‘main- taining supplies of raw materials for industrial production’. This is conventional ‘conservation’, or ‘making available sustained yields of raw materials for development...’.

Hence the ethical methods of defining ’sustain- ability’ imply a choice between a philosophical revolution and the status qua. The revolution would require giving the environment unprecedented standing. In the status quo of capitalism, ’sustain- ability’ concerns the mere substitutability of resources.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 117

DEFINING ‘SUSTAINABILITY’

’SUSTAINABILITY’ AS A METHODOLOGY

When we examine ’sustainability’ in these different realms, we find that it is used to describe a constellation of ideas. In biology, ‘sustainability’ has come to be associated with the protection of bio- diversity. In economics, ‘sustainability’ is advanced by those who favour accounting for natural resources. In sociology, ‘sustainability’ involves the defence of environmental justice. In planning, ’sustainability’ is the process of urban revitalization. In environ- mental ethics, ’sustainability’ means, alternatively, preservation, conservation or ’sustainable use’ of natural resources.

These ideas do not describe a particular social end-state. Rather, they all relate in some way to the vitality of natural and human systems. It is as if ‘sustainability’ is not a tangible goal, but an organ- izing principle governing activity at all levels of a system, a quality that characterizes social alterna- tives that will yield vitality.

‘Sustainability’ therefore seems less a doctrine enshrined in the rarefied reaches of political philosophy and more a research methodology belonging to the workaday world of applied social science. Perhaps, as a method, ‘sustainability’ is like the empirical method in the physical and natural sciences, which sets up a schema for asking important questions, but does not provide, a priori, an answer. Rather, ’sustainability’ acts as a kind of selection pressure identifymg which social options are valid, but not necessarily which are optimum.

This becomes even more evident when we break ‘sustainability’ down into its essential components. Broadly speaking, ’sustainability’ is embodied in four principles: futurity (a concern for the welfare of future generations), equity (the fair sharing of economic benefits and burdens within and between generations), global environmentalism (a recogni- tion of the global dimension of ecological problems associated with use or depletion of natural capital by one or some at the cost of others) and biodiversity (the maintenance of the integrity of ecological processes and systems).

These principles of ‘sustainability’ only have meaning as criteria in a process of inquiry asked at the initial stages of development. Will the development leave on behalf of future generations an undiminished stock of natural capital? Is it equitable, now and for the future? What will be its impact on the global environment? Will biodiver- sity be lost? ‘Sustainability’ channels economic development towards outcomes advantageous to life.

The operation of ‘sustainability’ as a research methodology might best be demonstrated by the following scenario. Imagine that a hospital is

needed in a remote location of a national park to prevent deaths that have occurred there and that will continue if the hospital is not built. Imagine also that destroying a meadow to build the hospital will cause the extinction of an endangered plant species, the medicinal properties of which are unknown. The ’sustainability analysis’ might pro- ceed as described in the following list.

Futurity. The hospital should be built, because a hospital enhances the welfare of future generations, or not built, because future generations have a right to any benefits the plant might possess. Equity. The hospital should be built, so as not to burden the present generation with preventable deaths, or not built, so as not to burden future generations with the depri- vation of any benefits the plant might possess. Global environmen talism. The hospital should be built, because its impact on the global environment will be negligible, or not built, because the meadow to be lost is a small but essential component of the global environ- ment. Biodiversity. The hospital should be built, because human genetic diversity is part of overall biodiversity and the hospital will save many patients who will go on to reproduce, or not built, because plant species diversity is a more critical form of biodiversity.

The implications of ’sustainability’ as an analy- tical tool are profound when applied to reality. Consider the outcome if Western nations had performed a ’sustainability analysis’ before decid- ing to rush food aid to famine victims in the Sahel.

(i) Futurity. The humanitarian effort is defen- sible, because future generations benefit by inheriting a world in which starving people are fed.

(ii) Equity. The humanitarian effort is defensi- ble, because it is not fair for human beings to starve to death in a world of agricultural surplus.

(iii) Global environmentalism. Food aid to the Sahel is not defensible, because it will sustain communities engaged in ecologi- cally destructive practices with global rami- fications.

(iv) Biodiversity. Food aid to the Sahel is not defensible, because these practices involve a net loss of biodiversity.

In this manner, ’sustainability ‘ may come to be applied to a wide variety of human activities.

118 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

A.D. BASIAGO

’Sustainability analysis’ may amount to a new decisional paradigm in which only those options are supported that increase social and environ- mental vitality.

CONCLUSIONS

The advent of ‘sustainability’ represents something substantial. Our planetary civilization has grown to the point where it is beginning to jeopardize its natural life support systems. A protocol, ’sustain- ability’, has been crafted to guarantee the main- tenance of the earths resources. ‘SustainabiIity’ is a methodology designed to maximize the vitality of social and environmental systems. ’Sustainability’ requires applying four criteria - futurity, equity, global environmentalism and biodiversity - to the development process. These ’sustainability’ criteria act as constraints on untoward forms of develop- ment. They are premised on the belief that humanity will only succeed in a cosmic sense if it finds a way to meet human needs, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of biological systems, accounting for the loss of natural resources from the economy, working social equity, regenerating human settlements and conserving natural capital. The very breadth of objectives to which ’sustain- ability’ is put - in realms biological, economic, social, urban and ethical - suggests that in ‘sustainability‘, humanity has found a method to govern universal functioning aboard the Earth ‘island.

REFERENCES

Blowers, A. (1993) Environmental policy: the quest for sustainable development, Urban Studies, 30, 775-796.

Braile, R. (1994) Is racism a factor in siting undesirable facilities? Garbage, Summer, 13-18.

Brundtland, G.H. (1987) Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development, Brus- sels.

California Department of Fish and Game (1991) The Agreement on Biological Diversity.

Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis, Prince- ton Architectural Press, New York, 15-38.

Chavis, 8. (1987) Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States, United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, New York, xiii.

Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1993) Towards Sustainability, CEC, Brussels.

Cousteau, J.Y. (1980) The Cousteau Almanac, Dolphin Books, Garden City, xix-xx.

Eblen, R. and Eblen, W. (1994) The Encyclopuedia’>f the Environment, Houghton Mifflin, Boston and New York, 680, 752.

The Ecologist (1972) A Blueprint for Survival, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 15-29.

Farmer, M. (1995) Sustainable Economics, Farmer, San Luis Obispo (self-published).

Friends of the Earth (1994) Planningfor the Planet, Friends of the Earth, London, 9-32.

Gilman, R. (1994a) Design for a sustainable economics, In Context, 32,52-59.

Gilman, R. (1994b) Restorative design, In Context, 35,9-11. Hamilton, C. (1991) Race, environment and land, Archi-

tecture California, Aug, 5 5 5 8 . Keating, M. (1993) The Earth Summit’s Agenda for Change,

Centre for Our Common Future, Geneva, viii. Mann, E. (1991) L.A.’s Lethal Air, Labor/Community

Strategy Center, Los Angeles. McDonough, W. (1992) The Hannover Principles,

McDonough, New York (Self Published). Milbrath, L.W. (1989) Envisioning a Sustainable Society,

State University Press, Albany, 1-38. Millichap, D. (1993) Sustainability: a long-established

concern of planning, Journal ofPlanning Law, 1111-1119. Miller, G.T. (1988) Comparison of a natural ecosystem

and a simplified human system, Environmental Science, 92.

Nelson, D. (1987) Our toxic trap, Chicago Sun-Times, May 31.

Pierce, D. and Turner, R. (1990) Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 226-238.

Rees, W.E. (1990) Sustainable development as capitalism with a green face, Town Planning Review, 61, 91-94.

Repetto, R. (1992) Accounting for environmental assets, Scientific American, Jun, 94-100.

Reynoso, R. (1994) Communities must take control of land use, Sun Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 9 Sep, B-1.

Scherp, J. (1994) What does an economist need to know about the environment? Economic Papers, 107,643.

Shiva, V. (1992) Recovering the real meaning of sustain- ability. In: The Environment in Question (Eds D.E. Cooper and J.A. Palmer), Routledge, London, 187-191.

Speth, J.G. (1992) A post-Rio compact, Foreign Policy, 88, 145161.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel- opment (UNCED) (1992) U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 252/5, 13 June.

Wilson, E.O. (1994) An interview with the father of biodiversity, Nature Conservancy, Jul/ Aug, 24-29.

BIOGRAPHY

Andrew D. Basiago Department of Land Economy University of Cambridge 19 Silver Street Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK

~~ ~ ~

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 119