Sustainability
Sustainability is a normative concept that stresses intergenerational equity and is commonly considered to have three dimensions (also called pillars): the environmental, economic and social dimension. The concept can be used to guide decisions at all scales: globally, nationally and and at the individual consumer level. A closely related and overlapping concept is that of sustainable development. Both terms are often used synonymously. 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." 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. The public is concerned about human impacts on the environment. 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). These issues are also included in the concept of planetary boundaries. The economic dimension of sustainability is as controversial as the concept of sustainability  itself. This is partly because of the inherent contradictions between "welfare for all" and environmental conservation. 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. Usually, externalities are left to be addressed by government policy. 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). The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension of sustainability. Some academics have proposed additional dimensions of sustainability such as institutional, cultural, and technical dimensions. · 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, and think of "sustainability" as a buzzword. Another criticism is that sustainability can be described as an "exhausted roadmap" given that our consumer-oriented societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive . Overview. Previous use of the term. Originally, "sustainability" meant making only such use of natural, renewable resources that people could continue to rely on their yields in the long term. 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). He used this term in the sense of a long-term responsible use of a natural resource in 1713 in his work "Silvicultura oeconomica".   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, the peoples of coastal British Columbia, Indonesia, Oceania, India and Mali. Etymology. The term sustainability is derived from the Latin "sustinere" ("tenere", to hold; "sub", under). "To sustain" can mean to maintain, support, uphold or endure. 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. 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." The report helped bring "sustainability" into the mainstream policy discourse and popularize the concept of "sustainable development". 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: Sustainability is regarded as a "normative concept". This can be illustrated as follows: "The quest for sustainability involves connecting what is known through scientific study to applications in pursuit of what people want for the future". Important considerations that are linked to the application of the sustainability concept include: Choices matter (i.e. "It is not possible to sustain everything, everywhere, forever."); sustainability is a normative concept (this means sustainability is connected to "what we see as desirable"); sustainability is a fuzzy or vague concept; scale matters, in both space and time; place matters; systems  thinking is an organizing concept; limits exist (see planetary boundaries); sustainability is interconnected with other essential concepts (e.g. resilience, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability); change is an essential consideration and challenge for sustainability. Relationship with the concept of 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. 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." 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. Three main dimensions of sustainability. Development of three pillars. Three different areas (also called dimensions or pillars) 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. They are used interchangeably. For example, the 2005 World Summit Outcome document used the term "aspects". 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. 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: 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." Environmental sustainability. The increasing environmental pollution in the 1960s and 1970s led to growing environmental concern, e.g. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962; 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. 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. The harmful effect and global spread of pesticides like DDT was first discussed in the 1960s. 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. 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). 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. Furthermore, the report emphasized the need  to protect wildlife and its habitat and to prevent pollution: 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. 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). The public is concerned about human impacts  on the environment, such as impacts on the atmosphere, land and water resources. These issues are also included in the concept of planetary boundaries. 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. Measuring human impacts on the environment. 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. 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. 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. Healthy ecosystems are important because they provide vital goods and services to humans and other organisms. Economic sustainability. To some, the economic dimension of sustainability is as controversial as the concept of sustainability itself. 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. This is because of the inherent contradictions between "welfare for all" and environmental conservation. 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". 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. Decoupling economic growth from environmental deterioration. 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" Pressure on the environment 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. 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 emissions. 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". 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. 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. 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 action. Some examples are: taxing the activity (the polluter pays principle); subsidizing activities that have a positive environmental or social effect (rewarding stewardship); or outlawing the practice (legal limits on pollution). Government action. Without government action, natural resources are often over-exploited and destroyed in the long-term. See for example this statement in a textbook on natural resources and environmental economics in its 4th edition: "Nobody who has seriously studied the issues believes that  the economy's relationship to the natural environment can be left entirely to market forces." Related to this aspect, Elinor Ostrom (winner of the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) stated that the choice should not be limited to either the market or the national government, and that local governance (or self-governance) can in fact be a suitable third option. Her empirical work involved field studies on how people in small, local communities manage shared natural resources. She showed that over time, communities using natural resources such as pastures, fishing waters and forests can establish rules for use  and maintenance that can lead to both economic and ecological sustainability. An important requirement for success of self-governance is to have groups in which participants are frequently communicating. In this case groups can manage the usage of common goods without overexploitation. Based on Ostrom's work, it has been pointed out that: "Common-pool resources today are overcultivated because the different agents do not know each other and cannot directly communicate with one another." Tools. 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. 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. 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. 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. Social sustainability. The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension of sustainability. A possible definition is that a socially sustainable society should ensure that people are not hindered by structural obstacles in the areas of health, influence, competence, impartiality and meaning-making. 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. 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. It is not just relevant to the focused intersection of economics, the environment and the social. 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. Social sustainability is thought to lead to liveable communities which would be "equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life". Poverty. 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." 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. 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. Such initiatives might be seen as a measure to mitigate the trade-off between high ecological footprint and high status of economic development. Relationship between the three dimensions. 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". 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. 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". 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. Also, with regards to the economic dimension of sustainability, this can be understood by making a distinction between weak versus strong sustainability. 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. 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. 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. Proposed additional dimensions. Some sustainability experts and practitioners have proposed additional dimensions of sustainability, such as institutional, cultural, and technical dimensions. Other frameworks bypass the compartmentalization of sustainability completely. 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. 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. Financial sustainability. There is also an opinion that considers resource use and financial sustainability as two additional pillars of sustainability. In infrastructure  projects, for instance, one must ask whether sufficient financing capability for maintenance exists. 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. 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. 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. Another criticism is that the paradigm of sustainability is no longer suitable as a guide (or "road map") for transformation due to the fact that our societies are "socially and ecologically self-destructive consumer societies". 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). Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced  with these complex, radical and dynamic issues. 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. Buzzword. "Sustainability" has a reputation as a buzzword. On the other hand it has been pointed out that "sustainability will be vague and contested but not meaningless". As sustainability is a concept that provides a  normative structure (describing what human society regards as good or desirable), a specific definition may never be possible. Barriers. The political goal of sustainability is one of the most comprehensive and most ambitious global goals in human history, the 2030 Agenda is “of unprecedented scope and significance”. Due to the high complexity of this goal, there are many reasons why sustainability is so difficult to achieve – this is the idea for the study of "sustainability barriers". Some sustainability barriers are rooted in nature and its complexity (everything is related) or in the human condition called "value-action gap", meaning we  often do not act according to our convictions. These barriers have been called "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. A number of extrinsic sustainability barriers are related to the dominant institutional frameworks: market mechanisms fail for public goods, legal frameworks rarely consider questions of intergenerational justice. Furthermore, there are several barriers related to the difficulties of implementing sustainability policies. There are trade-offs to be made between objectives of  environmental policies (such as nature conservation) and those focused on economic development (such as poverty reduction). There are also trade-offs between short-term profit and long-term viability. For example the question might arise: "Is it more sustainable to invest in protecting the rainforest or to alleviate the hunger of people in need?". Barriers working against sustainability can also be rooted in the Zeitgeist, such as consumerism and short-termism. Lack of effective governance for global issues. Questions of global concern are difficult to tackle because global issues call for global solutions for which the existing global organizations (e.g.  UN, WTO) are not sufficiently equipped: they have hardly any sanctioning mechanisms to enforce existing global regulation, they are not always accepted by all nations (e.g. International Criminal Court), their agendas are not aligned (e.g. UNEP, UNDP and WTO), or they are being accused of nepotism and mismanagement (e.g. UN). Further challenges that multilateral international agreements, treaties and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are confronted with and which result in barriers to sustainability include: Dependence on voluntary commitments (for example Nationally Determined Contributions for climate action), existing (national or international) regulation not effectively enforced, regulatory white spaces – control deficits for international actors  (e.g. multi-national enterprises), international public organizations lacking legitimacy and democracy.  Approaches by different stakeholders. Action principles. A framework has been proposed to explain how actors need to behave in order to facilitate more sustainable societies, following four groups of principles: Government policies. One attempt to express human impact on the environment mathematically was developed in the 1970s and is called the "I = PAT formula". 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. 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): Businesses. Sustainable business practices integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones (i.e., the triple bottom line). 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, the Sustainable Business Institute, and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 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: 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. Further prominent warning letters or reports rom the scientific community include: Religious  communities. 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. 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". 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 could include sustainable transport and zero emission housing as well as sustainable architecture and circular flow land use management.