LEARNING FROM THEORIES AND PRACTICE OF SUSTAINABILITY:
IN SEARCH OF COHESION
By
Oscar Gabriel Arreola

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Community Sustainability — Doctor of Philosophy
2015

ABSTRACT
LEARNING FROM THEORIES AND PRACTICE OF SUSTAINABILITY:
IN SEARCH OF COHESION
By
Oscar Gabriel Arreola
This dissertation began from the general question: what is sustainability? This complex question
was addressed in three separate papers. Sustainability, generally, is commonly thought to have
emerged from the conceptualization of sustainable development, especially after the Brundtland
Report thrust the topic into the world political arena and raised research interest in the topic. The
first paper traces the evolution of development theory in the move to sustainable development.
The second paper reviews the construction of sustainability in the fields of agriculture,
development and business and provides an analysis of whether and how these different
constructions have contributed to a common understanding of sustainability. The analysis leads
to conclusions about the role of values in motivations for implementing sustainability practices
and the evidence for a set of minimum standards that such practices should meet. Finally, the
third paper looks at whether efforts to implement sustainability on the ground follow from what
academics are offering. Many communities are working on measuring their progress toward
sustainability using sustainability indicators. An analysis of sustainability indicators reported by
20 communities across the U.S. is conducted using an analytical framework that evaluates
indicators according to type, values-orientation, and the dimension of sustainability addressed.
The results suggest some important differences between communities’ interpretations of
sustainability and theoreticians’ interpretations in the literature.

Copyright by
OSCAR GABRIEL ARREOLA
2015

To my wife Julia and my boy Nico
To my parents

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation to my advisor Dr.
Patricia E. Norris, who has gone beyond her duties as advisor to become a mentor and a friend
for me. Under her guidance and with her continuous support I was able to conduct and conclude
this research successfully. Her words of encouragement were priceless when I found myself
lacking motivation, even at moments of hardship for her. I would also like to thank my
committee members, Dr. Frank Fear, Dr. Robby Richardson and Dr. Paul Thompson for serving
in my committee and for making my defense presentation an enriching experience.

There are no words to express gratitude to my parents Oscar and Elda and my siblings Claudia,
Orlando, and Oscar Alberto for their constant emotional support and for being always there when
I needed help. A special thanks to my in-laws in Germany: Gudrun, Hans, Peter and Christine for
also encouraging me to finish this work, and for taking care of the family while I was away. Last
but not least to my beloved wife Julia, for all the sacrifices she has made on my behalf to make
the conclusion of this work possible, and for being my source of inspiration.

v

PREFACE

Work on this dissertation began from the general question: what is sustainability? The
motivation came from ongoing discussions about sustainability in my academic department
before it became the Department of Community Sustainability, from the experience on
sustainable agriculture I got at EARTH University during my undergraduate education, and
finally from my masters program in which I conducted research in natural resource and
environmental economics. All of these experiences gave me a broad perspective on the multiple
approaches to sustainability. Because the topic is very complex, this dissertation was framed to
answer the question by addressing three research areas.

First, it is known that all across the United States of America there are several communities
organizing community sustainability efforts and reporting community sustainability indicators.
One wonders, what do these groups think sustainability is? And how does what they do compare
to what is in the literature about sustainability?

Second, what is exactly in the literature about sustainability? Many, as I myself did, believe that
sustainability emerged from the field of sustainable development. Therefore I made a deep
exploration of the origins of this concept. I made a survey and synthesis of the literature to
explore how development theory evolved into sustainable development.

Third, even though I started reviewing only the sustainable development literature, during this
process I realized the existence of two other simultaneous constructions of sustainability within

vi

the fields of agriculture and business. However, these three fields differ in their interpretations of
sustainability. In response, I propose to create cohesion of knowledge for the benefit of
implementation.

This dissertation is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 discusses how sustainability is commonly thought to have emerged from the
conceptualization of sustainable development (SD), not only because of the large size of the
literature addressing SD and discussing the meanings of sustainability, but also because of the
greater recognition that sustainability gained after the publication of the Brundtland Report
(WCED 1987). The Brundtland Report helped put the topic in the world political arena and also
raised research interest in the topic. The first paper of this dissertation explores the evolution of
development theory in the move to SD through three questions:
i) How did the foundational development theories contribute to the emergence of SD?
ii) What are the disciplinary contributions to SD and their implications for
implementation of SD?
iii) Have there been theoretical and methodological advances with the focus on SD?
Even though SD has contributed significantly to the body of literature addressing sustainability,
other fields of knowledge have addressed sustainability in their own terms. Chapter 2 of this
dissertation describes the construction of sustainability in the fields of agriculture, development
and business. The chapter analyzes their origins to contrast their fundamental differences or
similarities, in search of contributions to or impediments for implementation. This chapter has
four key objectives:
i) Explore different ways of understanding sustainability,

vii

ii) Offer a critique of making sustainability decisions based upon only one way of
understanding sustainability,
iii) Propose that a value-based criterion is required for a common understanding of
sustainability, and
iv) Recommend a set of minimum standards that could reconcile actions reflecting
diverse perspectives on sustainability.
The third chapter looks at whether efforts to implement sustainability on the ground follow from
what academics are offering. Many communities are working on measuring their movement to
sustainability trends using sustainability indicators; this work may provide insights into whether
sustainability in the literature is translating into sustainability in practice. An analysis of
sustainability indicators reported by 20 communities across U.S. is conducted to address three
questions:
i) What types of community sustainability indicators are found across community
sustainability efforts?
ii) Based on communities’ visions of progress and associated indicators, what constitutes
sustainability for them?
iii) How do communities’ interpretations of sustainability compare to those from
theoreticians’ interpretations in the literature?

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST	
  OF	
  TABLES	
  ..................................................................................................................................	
  xii	
  
	
  
LIST	
  OF	
  FIGURES	
  ................................................................................................................................	
  xiii	
  
	
  
CHAPTER	
  1-­	
  From	
  Modernization	
  to	
  Sustainable	
  Development:	
  Evolution	
  of	
  Theory	
  
and	
  Methods	
  of	
  Development	
  ..........................................................................................................	
  1	
  
A.	
   Introduction	
  ...............................................................................................................................	
  1	
  
B.	
   Foundational	
  Development	
  Theories	
  ...............................................................................	
  2	
  
1.	
   Philosophical	
  premise	
  for	
  development	
  ......................................................................................	
  3	
  
2.	
   Structural	
  Functionalism	
  ....................................................................................................................	
  4	
  
3.	
   Traditional	
  vs.	
  Modern	
  Societies	
  .....................................................................................................	
  6	
  
C.	
   Modernization	
  Theory	
  ............................................................................................................	
  7	
  
1.	
   Stages	
  of	
  Growth	
  .....................................................................................................................................	
  8	
  
2.	
   Critics	
  of	
  Modernization	
  ......................................................................................................................	
  9	
  
D.	
   Alternatives	
  to	
  Modernization	
  ..........................................................................................	
  12	
  
1.	
   Dependency	
  Theory	
  ...........................................................................................................................	
  12	
  
2.	
   World	
  Systems	
  Theory	
  ......................................................................................................................	
  16	
  
E.	
   An	
  Alternative	
  Discourse:	
  Emergence	
  of	
  Sustainable	
  Development	
  ....................	
  19	
  
1.	
   The	
  concept	
  of	
  Needs	
  .........................................................................................................................	
  22	
  
2.	
   Limits	
  of	
  the	
  Environment	
  ..............................................................................................................	
  24	
  
F.	
   Disciplinary	
  Contributions	
  to	
  Development	
  and	
  Implications	
  for	
  Sustainable	
  
Development	
  ...................................................................................................................................	
  26	
  
1.	
   Sociology	
  .................................................................................................................................................	
  26	
  
2.	
   Economics	
  and	
  limitations	
  of	
  economic	
  modernism	
  ...........................................................	
  27	
  
3.	
   Ecological	
  modernization	
  and	
  limitations	
  ................................................................................	
  32	
  
G.	
   Opportunities	
  for	
  Theoretical	
  and	
  Methodological	
  Advancements	
  for	
  
Sustainable	
  Development	
  ...........................................................................................................	
  35	
  
1.	
   From	
  Technocracy	
  to	
  Open	
  Participation	
  .................................................................................	
  35	
  
2.	
   Post-­‐Normal	
  Science	
  and	
  Transdisciplinarity	
  for	
  Sustainable	
  Development	
  ...........	
  38	
  
H.	
   Implications	
  for	
  Implementation	
  .....................................................................................	
  41	
  
1.	
   Results	
  of	
  focus	
  on	
  modernization	
  ..............................................................................................	
  41	
  
2.	
   On	
  the	
  matter	
  of	
  inequality	
  of	
  wealth	
  among	
  nations	
  .........................................................	
  42	
  
3.	
   From	
  modernization	
  to	
  globalization	
  .........................................................................................	
  45	
  
4.	
   New	
  challenges	
  and	
  propositions	
  (trends)	
  after	
  sustainable	
  development	
  ..............	
  46	
  
I.	
   Conclusions	
  ...............................................................................................................................	
  48	
  
	
  
CHAPTER	
  2	
  -­	
  A	
  proposition	
  for	
  Building	
  Common	
  Understanding	
  across	
  Different	
  
Constructions	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  .....................................................................................................	
  51	
  
A.	
   Introduction	
  .............................................................................................................................	
  51	
  
B.	
   Sustainable	
  Agriculture	
  .......................................................................................................	
  53	
  
1.	
   The	
  shift	
  in	
  thinking	
  about	
  agriculture	
  ......................................................................................	
  56	
  
2.	
   Dimensions	
  of	
  sustainable	
  agriculture	
  ......................................................................................	
  59	
  
ix

C.	
   Sustainability	
  in	
  the	
  Business	
  Sector	
  ..............................................................................	
  64	
  
1.	
   Change	
  in	
  foundational	
  ideologies	
  ...............................................................................................	
  68	
  
2.	
   The	
  components	
  of	
  corporate	
  social	
  responsibility	
  .............................................................	
  69	
  
D.	
   Sustainable	
  Development	
  ...................................................................................................	
  78	
  
1.	
   Environmental	
  degradation	
  concerns	
  in	
  development	
  thinking	
  ....................................	
  81	
  
2.	
   Reinforcement	
  of	
  social	
  aspects	
  for	
  development	
  theory	
  .................................................	
  84	
  
3.	
   Dimensions	
  of	
  sustainable	
  development	
  ..................................................................................	
  86	
  
E.	
   Towards	
  a	
  Common	
  Understanding	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  ...............................................	
  89	
  
1.	
   The	
  same	
  heuristic	
  does	
  not	
  imply	
  the	
  same	
  meaning	
  .......................................................	
  90	
  
2.	
   Caution	
  about	
  taking	
  a	
  stance	
  using	
  only	
  one	
  construction	
  of	
  sustainability	
  ...........	
  94	
  
3.	
   Find	
  commonalities	
  at	
  the	
  motivational	
  level	
  .........................................................................	
  95	
  
4.	
   Motivations	
  for	
  sustainability	
  actions	
  are	
  axiological	
  .........................................................	
  97	
  
5.	
   Values	
  as	
  motivation	
  in	
  sustainability	
  policy	
  ..........................................................................	
  98	
  
F.	
   Values	
  differences	
  and	
  a	
  minimum	
  standard	
  for	
  sustainability	
  .........................	
  102	
  
G.	
   Conclusion	
  .............................................................................................................................	
  106	
  

	
  
CHAPTER	
  3	
  -­	
  Interpretation	
  and	
  Implementation	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  with	
  Community	
  
Sustainability	
  Indicators	
  ..............................................................................................................	
  108	
  
A.	
   Introduction	
  ..........................................................................................................................	
  108	
  
B.	
   Communities	
  Implementing	
  Sustainability	
  with	
  Indicators	
  ................................	
  110	
  
C.	
   Assessment	
  of	
  Development	
  and	
  Sustainability	
  with	
  Indicators	
  ........................	
  114	
  
1.	
   The	
  Gross	
  Domestic	
  Product	
  as	
  National	
  Scale	
  Indicator	
  ................................................	
  114	
  
2.	
   The	
  emergence	
  of	
  indicators	
  capturing	
  broader	
  measures	
  of	
  wellbeing	
  .................	
  116	
  
3.	
   Community	
  Indicators	
  ....................................................................................................................	
  119	
  
D.	
   Analytical	
  Framework	
  .......................................................................................................	
  120	
  
1.	
   Dimensions	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  ........................................................................................................	
  121	
  
a)	
   Ecological	
  and	
  Biophysical	
  Dimension	
  ...............................................................................	
  122	
  
b)	
   Economic	
  Dimension	
  ..................................................................................................................	
  123	
  
c)	
   Social	
  and	
  Cultural	
  Dimension	
  ................................................................................................	
  123	
  
d)	
   Psychological	
  Dimension	
  ..........................................................................................................	
  125	
  
2.	
   Resource	
  Sufficiency	
  and	
  Functional	
  Integrity	
  as	
  Sustainability	
  Value	
  Systems	
  ..	
  128	
  
a)	
   Resource	
  Sufficiency	
  ...................................................................................................................	
  128	
  
b)	
   Functional	
  Integrity	
  ....................................................................................................................	
  129	
  
3.	
   Types	
  of	
  Indicators	
  ...........................................................................................................................	
  131	
  
a)	
   Descriptive	
  Indicators	
  ................................................................................................................	
  131	
  
(1)	
   Descriptive-State,	
  .....................................................................................................................	
  131	
  
(2)	
   Descriptive-Pressure.	
  ..............................................................................................................	
  132	
  
b)	
   Diagnostic	
  Indicators	
  ..................................................................................................................	
  132	
  
(1)	
   Diagnostic-Impact	
  ....................................................................................................................	
  132	
  
(2)	
   Diagnostic-Response	
  ...............................................................................................................	
  133	
  
c)	
   Normative	
  Indicators	
  ..................................................................................................................	
  133	
  
E.	
   Methods	
  ..................................................................................................................................	
  133	
  
1.	
   Data	
  Sources	
  ........................................................................................................................................	
  133	
  
2.	
   Data	
  Analysis	
  .......................................................................................................................................	
  136	
  
a)	
   Organization	
  of	
  the	
  Dimensions	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  ..........................................................	
  137	
  
x

b)	
   Identifying	
  Sustainability	
  Value	
  Systems:	
  Resource	
  Sufficiency	
  and	
  Functional	
  
Integrity	
  ....................................................................................................................................................	
  139	
  
c)	
   Categorizing	
  the	
  Types	
  of	
  Indicators	
  ...................................................................................	
  140	
  
F.	
   Results	
  and	
  Discussion	
  ......................................................................................................	
  142	
  
1.	
   General	
  findings	
  .................................................................................................................................	
  142	
  
2.	
   Dimensions	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  ........................................................................................................	
  144	
  
a)	
   Ecological	
  and	
  biophysical	
  dimension	
  ................................................................................	
  146	
  
b)	
   Economic	
  dimension	
  ..................................................................................................................	
  148	
  
c)	
   Social	
  and	
  cultural	
  dimension	
  .................................................................................................	
  149	
  
d)	
   Psychological	
  dimension	
  ..........................................................................................................	
  152	
  
e)	
   Engagement	
  dimension	
  .............................................................................................................	
  153	
  
G.	
   Resource	
  Sufficiency	
  and	
  Functional	
  Integrity	
  .........................................................	
  154	
  
1.	
   The	
  interaction	
  between	
  FI	
  and	
  RS	
  and	
  the	
  dimensions	
  of	
  sustainability	
  ...............	
  157	
  
2.	
   Comparison	
  by	
  region,	
  dimensions	
  of	
  sustainability	
  and	
  by	
  the	
  longevity	
  of	
  CSE161	
  
3.	
   Types	
  of	
  Indicators	
  ...........................................................................................................................	
  164	
  
H.	
   Conclusions	
  and	
  Summary	
  ..............................................................................................	
  167	
  
1.	
   What	
  types	
  of	
  community	
  sustainability	
  indicators	
  are	
  found	
  across	
  community	
  
sustainability	
  efforts?	
  ..............................................................................................................................	
  167	
  
2.	
   What	
  constitutes	
  sustainability	
  for	
  communities?	
  .............................................................	
  169	
  
a)	
   Dimensions	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  ...................................................................................................	
  169	
  
b)	
   The	
  issue	
  of	
  aggregation	
  ...........................................................................................................	
  171	
  
c)	
   Functional	
  Integrity	
  or	
  Resource	
  Sufficiency	
  ...................................................................	
  172	
  
d)	
   How	
  are	
  these	
  community	
  interpretations	
  of	
  sustainability	
  similar	
  to	
  or	
  
different	
  from	
  theoreticians’	
  interpretations	
  in	
  the	
  literature?	
  .......................................	
  173	
  
I.	
   What	
  this	
  Research	
  Cannot	
  Answer	
  ...............................................................................	
  175	
  

	
  
General	
  Conclusions	
  .......................................................................................................................	
  176	
  
	
  
APPENDICES	
  ......................................................................................................................................	
  183	
  
APPENDIX	
  A	
  LIST	
  OF	
  SUSTAINABILITY	
  PRINCIPLES	
  ..............................................	
  184	
  
APPENDIX	
  B	
  LIST	
  OF	
  CITIES	
  ...........................................................................................	
  191	
  
	
  
BIBLIOGRAPHY	
  ................................................................................................................................	
  193	
  

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Contrasting approaches of conventional and sustainable agriculture as characterized by
Hill and MacRae (1988) (Source: Hansen 1996) ........................................................... 59	
  
Table 2. Examples of foundational differences between constructions of sustainability ............. 93	
  
Table 3. Motivational types of values. (Source: Schwartz 1994) ............................................... 100	
  
Table 4. Analytical Framework used to categorize indicators by value system, dimension of
sustainability, and by type of indicator ........................................................................ 121	
  
Table 5. List of cities, year and title of the sustainability indicator reports included in this
analysis......................................................................................................................... 135	
  
Table 6. List of communities by region within the US, the number of indicators contained in their
sustainability reports, initiation date of sustainability effort, year of the report used for
this analysis, and number of previous editions of the report ....................................... 143	
  
Table 7. Count of indicators within the analytical framework ................................................... 144	
  
Table 8. Indicators of sustainability categorized according to resource sufficiency and functional
integrity value system .................................................................................................. 155	
  
Table 9. Proportion of indicators by city, categorized under sustainability value and dimensions
of sustainability ............................................................................................................ 158	
  
Table 10. Distribution of community sustainability efforts across sustainability value system and
longevity ...................................................................................................................... 159	
  
Table 11. Percentage of indicators by dimension of sustainability and region of origin............ 161	
  
Table 12. Principles of sustainable development, sustainable agriculture and corporate social
responsibility ................................................................................................................ 184	
  
Table 13. List of cities and reports with URL location for the reports ....................................... 191	
  

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Development needs articulated by the WCED (1987) report ........................................ 23	
  
Figure 2. The role of agroecology in the satisfaction of social, environmental and economic
goals. Source: (Altieri M.A. 1987) ............................................................................... 61	
  
Figure 3. Pyramid of corporate social responsibility (Source: Carroll 1991) .............................. 73	
  
Figure 4. Elkington’s triple bottom line approach focuses on three factors: economic prosperity,
environmental quality and social justice (Elkington 1998) ........................................... 77	
  
Figure 5. The three circles of sustainable development (Source: ICLEI 1996, cited by Connelly
2007) .............................................................................................................................. 87	
  
Figure 6. The four spheres: framework for sustainability (Source: O'Connor 2006) ................... 88	
  
Figure 7. Comparison of GDP and GPI measures for US. From Anielski and Rowe (1999) .... 118	
  
Figure 8. Maslow hierarchy of needs .......................................................................................... 126	
  
Figure 9. Rationale for the separation of the social/cultural, engagement and psychological
dimensions ................................................................................................................... 139	
  
Figure 10. Proportional distribution of indicators by Sustainability Dimensions ...................... 145	
  
Figure 11. Distribution of indicators across dimensions of sustainability for the 16 smaller sets of
indicators (comprising 638 indicators) ........................................................................ 163	
  
Figure 12. Distribution of indicators across dimensions of sustainability for the four largest sets
of indicators (comprising 591 indicators) .................................................................... 163	
  
Figure 13. Distribution of types of indicators by functional integrity and resource sufficiency 166	
  
Figure 14. Type of indicators by sustainability value system for larger, older vs. smaller, newer
CSEs............................................................................................................................. 167	
  

xiii

CHAPTER 1- From Modernization to Sustainable Development: Evolution of Theory and
Methods of Development
A.

Introduction

The quest to explain and guide social change in the Western tradition can be traced back to the
works of renowned philosopher Max Weber (1864-1920) or Émile Durkheim, the father of
sociology (1858-1917). However, the theory and methods of development are a phenomenon of
the twentieth century, because the urge to understand social change in the context of
development only advanced when it became prominent in world politics during the
reconstruction of European nations after the second world war (Sachs 1992). After this time, the
concept was extended as a strategy for worldwide poverty alleviation and gained greater
recognition. Today the literature covering development topics is extensive, with many diverse
theories branching out from the postwar theoretical strands.

In the last four decades the theory and methods of development have undergone tremendous
change due to intense criticism. On the theoretical side development has been criticized on
philosophical grounds. On the empirical side development is criticized for failing to effectively
guide progress because of its meager record of accomplishments (Frank 1980, Apter 1987). For
some of these critics, the development enterprise in which academics, practitioners and policy
makers have engaged so enthusiastically is viewed as pointless and laying “in ruins” on the
intellectual landscape (Sachs 1992). Others, however, propose a post-development enterprise that
examines alternative types of development to explain human progress and argue that rejecting
theories altogether is not necessarily the best route for the continuation of the discipline (Escobar
1992). Still others argue that we have continuously abandoned useful ideas in favor of new ones,
1

rather than building on past positive and negative experiences, to create continuity and give more
consistency to theory and practice (Chambers 2005).

While development then is, for some, in crisis, this paper sides with those arguing that this is
simply a transitional period for the discipline. Despite some disillusionment and disappointment,
the underlying objectives for development are still as valid and important as they were in the past
(e.g., guidance for change); the ideas and related topics of development are a continuous
intellectual process that embodies the rationality of growth (Apter 1987). The criticism expressed
in the past highlighted theoretical and implementation shortcomings that were resolved in their
own time, particularly in the period when the articulation of sustainable development (SD) took
place. Moreover, the discipline is augmented with new ideas and prioritizations, thus is far from
being an intellectual ruin; rather it has evolved and continues evolving.

Despite a vast development literature, little effort has been made to recast valuable foundations
and evaluate them in the context of current thinking about sustainable development. That is the
purpose of this paper. It will focus on salient works and key moments in the history of
development theory in order to discern changes in the theory’s philosophical foundations and
consequent impacts at the implementation level. If development is in a transition, what should
we expect development to become in the context of SD?
B.

Foundational Development Theories

In this initial section, the concept of development is deconstructed to show how historical
development theories triggered strong criticism and consequently halted implementation. For
this, it is necessary to recast recent history going back to the post World War II (WWII) period,
2

during which reconstruction urgencies were resolved and development was redirected to
poverty1 relief, ending hunger, and creating better living conditions in poor nations around the
world by replicating the experience of the industrialized nations. This emphasis provided the
rationale for an intervention in poor nations and the application of modernization theory. The
source of an impulse to implement such interventions is not necessarily clear. On the one hand, it
was argued that simple morality (do the right thing) provided sufficient reason. However, others
saw these actions as moral pragmatism in response to fears of the negative effects that social
unrest and instability of a nation could bring to an entire region (Peet and Hartwick 1999). The
latter motivation can be understood in the context of the post-WWII period in which the world
was separated by capitalism and communism as dominant economic systems, both seeking to
maintain or expand a hegemonic dominance.
1.

Philosophical premise for development

The origins of development theories can be traced to the need to understand progressive social
change associated with the betterment of societies. Early theories derive from the combination
of naturalism and rationalism that were integrated into the sociological structural-functional
approach proposed by Talcott Parsons (Peet 2009). Descarte’s rationalism states that the capacity
of humans to control the world happens through logic and reason, and that reason, as opposed to
1

During the early period of development, poverty was seen as bad because of religious influences that deemed

poverty the result of a refusal to work, and it was defined as the lack of means for the individual to satisfy basic
needs of food, shelter, clothing and services. This early definition was based on external judgments of traditional
societies and did not reflect later evidence that poverty was also the product of exploitation of non-industrialized
nations by industrialized nations, power inequalities between nations, and the high concentration of wealth in
industrialized nations (Sachs 1992)

3

religious beliefs, is the foundation on which the justification for all cognitive claims should rest
(Dresner 2002). Naturalism is a sociological theory that draws on biology to argue that the world
is ruled by natural laws and thus an understanding of reality should be based on those laws, as
opposed to super-natural or superstitious beliefs. In sociology, use of the term naturalism
validated sociology as a science in the same sense as the natural sciences, and with the methods
of the natural sciences used by sociologists (experiment, inductive generalization, prediction,
statistical analysis). Émile Durkheim advocated a methodology modeled upon that of the natural
sciences (Scott and Marshall 2005).
2.

Structural Functionalism

American Sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) introduced the structural-functional approach
for the analysis of social systems in what is called the positivist project to re-launch sociology
into a more properly scientific status2 (Hughes and Sharrock 2007). The structural-functional
theory postulates that society is a system of interdependent elements in equilibrium, that
elements can and do adjust to each other; and the actions of the actors are oriented towards
meeting the needs of the system. For Parsons, the social system “is a system of social
interactions between reciprocally oriented actors. It consists of roles, collectivities, norms and
values”. Functions are “sets of conditions both within and outside the system which set limits on
the system variations that are compatible with its integrity and effectiveness”. The social
structure is then “a stable social interaction of systems” with an equilibrium that depends on

2

The motivating question was how to put sociology onto a scientific footing and turn it into a properly empirical

discipline (Hughes and Sharrock 2007 p. 29).

4

“reciprocal orientation and consistency of the interests of actors as they are placed within a
system of differentiated roles” (Segre 2012 pp 2-4).

Parson’s structural-functional approach was highly influential in sociological thinking during the
middle of the twentieth century (Harrison 1988, Peet and Hartwick 1999, Segre 2012). His
theories were first stated in the publication of “The Structure of Social Action” (Parsons 1937)
and became a source of debate and criticism all the way through the publication of two other
works by Parson: “The Social System” (Parsons 1951) and “Toward a General Theory of
Action” (Parsons and Shils 1951). Although these later works sparked a greater debate, they also
cemented the dominance of Parson’s theories in sociological studies (Segre 2012). In a more
detailed conceptualization, the structural-functional approach focused on conditions of stability,
integration, and role differentiation within the system, and effectiveness of the system. Society is
viewed as a system of institutions that fulfills natural functions, where social control trumps
individualism. The specialization of modern society’s social and economic roles (e.g., complex
division of labor) creates dependencies that tie people together (Peet and Hartwick 1999).

The structural-functional approach, known in short as functionalism, was a dominant
evolutionary theory supported mainly by functionalists who accepted that social change can
occur in a linear direction and that some societies are more advanced than others (Hughes and
Sharrock 2007). Because the instillation of politics into the debate over evolutionary theories was
inevitable during the 1960s, due to Cold War tensions, the approach was seen as a sociological
response to the conflict theory of change proposed by Karl Marx. Functionalism provided the
ideological fundament to support the validity and superiority of capitalism as opposed to

5

communism. These sociological theories of change presented a sharp divide between
functionalism and Marxism. Functionalism represented a world of stability and consensus;
Marxism represented a world of conflict and change (Demerath III 1996).
3.

Traditional vs. Modern Societies

Between the 1940s and 1950s, while functionalism was debated in the academic arena, interest in
“developing” underdeveloped societies gave rise to new analytical approaches and new
methodological tools of inquiry. These new methods became linked with some major theoretical
developments in sociology and political science, in particular with the structural-functional
approach (Eisenstadt 1974). This combination of methods and sociological theory gave rise to
new approaches in comparative macro-societal analysis and to the analysis of social change,
particularly focusing on a fuller elaboration of the structural characteristics of traditional vs.
modern societies. According to Eisenstadt (1974), traditional societies were seen as very
restricted and limited, “characterized by the predominance of particularistic, ascriptive, and
diffuse (structural) patterns in contrast to the universalistic, specific, and achievement
orientations of modern societies” (p 228). The notion of a traditional society was not developed
further, but was applied generally to all societies deemed backward. Modern societies were seen
as more expansive and able to cope with a wider range of external pressures and problems.

The move from a traditional to modern society was characterized by a high degree of
differentiation of the major cultural elements and value systems. By implication, societies in the
process of becoming modern were creating a system of elements that were relatively stable,
integrated and serving a purpose. Drawing from the work of Eisenstadt (1970), the structural
characteristics of modernization are discussed by Peet and Hartwick (2009 p 122): modern
6

societies’ resources had to be available for free exchange rather than locked by common property
structures; social identification should refer to national levels rather than local or ethnic; social
actors should have highly specialized roles in the social and economic spheres; there should exist
growing markets; and the social configuration should favor urbanization, mobility and the spread
of education. For the political sphere this meant the spread of democracy and the weakening of
traditional elites; in the cultural sphere this meant a differentiation between cultural and value
systems, secularization, and the emergence of a new intellectual elite (artistic, social or political).
These core elements, based on shared beliefs, norms, and values of a society, are the most
resistant to change; thus for functionalists, change occurs in response to external factors
(Popenoe 1983). This justified the efforts of modern nations to press modernization on traditional
societies.
C.

Modernization Theory

During the 1960s nations were labeled as either centers of the modern world or those that were
on the periphery and in a backward state. The type of development represented in modern
countries was seen as the state to which backward countries should aspire. In other words, for a
nation to be modern it must take on the characteristics of the industrial society. The growing
interest of sociologists in practical matters (i.e., developing methods to test theories), the
possibilities of bringing about change, and understanding the process in which societies emerge
or fail to emerge from pre-modern conditions gave way to development of a paradigmatic
framework of assumptions and concepts that served as the initial model of modernization.

7

1.

Stages of Growth

In the early 1960s a mega-scale U.S. foreign policy effort took place in order to bring
modernization to nations considered poor, or those labeled as third world nations3. The work of
Walt W. Rostow, in The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-communist Manifesto (Rostow
1960), was highly influential in shaping this U.S. international policy. This work gave
modernization theory its most concrete and best-known form (Chirot and Hall 1982). In his
work, Rostow argued the existence of five stages of progress through which nations could be
transformed from traditional to modern.
•

Traditional society (structure is developed within limited production opportunities)

•

Preconditions to takeoff

•

The takeoff

•

The drive to maturity

•

The age of high mass consumption

Rostow’s stages of growth illustrated how progress should occur when a society moves from a
lower stage, with limited production opportunities, to become a modern society in which
consumption exceeds basic needs. At the fifth stage, the economy becomes oriented toward the
service sector. “The stage-theory occupied a position of leadership in development thinking in

3

Wolf-Phillips (1987) developed a comprehensive discussion of development and authorship of the term “third

world”, identifying its origins in the writings of French demographer and economic historian Alfred Sauvy in
publications from 1952. Third world was initially used as a label for those countries aligned (using political
language) with neither the West (US and Western Europe), known as first world, nor the East (Soviet block), known
as the second world. Later in development literature, the term was applied generally to poor nations in need of
development aid, or so-called backward nations.

8

the 1960s when the new liberal attitudes toward the Third World were being established” (Peet
and Hartwick 1999 p 129).
From the post WWII era until the late 1970s, development was explicitly a matter of building
capital (in human, natural and technological resources), technological change (industrialization),
and education aligned with ideas of modernization; and development occurred when the right
decisions were made about how to combine these elements. Development was conceived as a
strategy to improve the economic and social life of specific groups of people, the people from
poor countries (Escobar 1992), based on the assumption that modern nations had it figured out.
2.

Critics of Modernization

Modernization was faulted because of several of its assumptions. For instance, the emphasis of
modernization on systemic differences between traditional and modern societies reflected a more
refined definition of modern, whereas the definition of traditional society was less developed and
assumed to be the same across all societies viewed as existing in an early stage. It was assumed,
also, that once societies acquired all conditions for the takeoff stage, the diversity of traditional
societies would disappear, as if traditional societies would become homogeneous in structural
order and composition (i.e., social institutions)4. Further, in contradiction of the assumption that
less traditional societies are more capable of moving up on the scale of modernization, it was
found that traditional societies varied greatly in the degree to which their traditions hindered or

4

Rostow’s third stage is the “takeoff” in which traditional barriers to economic growth are overcome possibly

through adoption of new technologies; investment increases rapidly and new industries expand, as does the
entrepreneurial class. Agriculture is commercialized, with corresponding growth in productivity, a necessary
development to meet the demand of urban centers (Harrison 1988).

9

facilitated the transition to modernity (Eisenstadt 1974). The destruction of traditional societies
did not necessarily translate into better societies; oftentimes the disruption of traditional families,
communities or political settings led to disorganization, delinquency and chaos rather than
modern order.

Eisenstadt (1974) discussed two additional problematic assumptions. The first was the
assumption that those interrelated institutional areas identified as necessary for development
must evolve simultaneously. These covariant elements, in the language of modernization,
included conditions of modern economic, political and cultural systems. The second assumption
was that once the basic system is formed, the society will experience sustained irreversible
growth and enhancement of the organizational structure. Rostow’s stages of economic growth
exemplify the use of these two assumptions.

In denying the importance of traditional elements and history of traditional societies,
modernization was seen as ahistorical; however this is not a property of modernization theory
alone. Pieterse (1991) discusses the work of Robert Nisbet (1969) in reference to theories of
social evolution in which progress is seen as a biological metaphor and thus regarded as natural,
imminent, linear, continuous, necessary, and conducive to an imperial panorama. People from
the non-industrialized nations were dehistorized, and progress would grant them history as long
as they followed the path of evolution towards modernization.

By extension, traditional

knowledge was also dismissed in the process of modernization; thus, the knowledge, technology
and pattern of social institutions required by modernization are those from modern nations.
These ethnocentric attitudes were possibly a reflection of the cultural hegemony of the west over

10

the rest of the world. Considering that this was the time of the cold war, Pieterse (1991) went
even further and argued that modernization was the means by which modern western nations
could operationalize political containment of the proletarian revolution of the dispossessed. Or in
the words of Slater (1993), the occidental deployment of modernization theory for developing
countries reflected a will to amass geopolitical power. It can be understood that for this reason,
across modernization literature of the post WWII period, there is scarce mention of
democratization as a goal of modernization. Rather, modernization was equated with economic
growth.

A key critique of modernism came from the writings of Michel Foucault (1926-1984). Peet and
Hartwick (2009) described how this French philosopher directed attention to the epistemology of
expert knowledge and questioned the validation procedures in which expert information is
accepted as objectively true and therefore deemed serious, important, respectable and supportive
of responsible action. For Foucault, this discourse was an excuse to claim truth to gain power.
Particularly he referred to the community of experts in the social sciences, with western values
that set up the rules for telling the truth as a mode of social control. Foucault saw modernity as a
global theory that was reductionist, universalistic, coercive and even totalitarian (Peet and
Hartwick 1999). Modernism was seen as the procedure to create a simple world by reducing the
cultural, social, and architectural diversity found across nations and hindering humans’ abilities
and imagination to cope with progress (Sachs 1992).

11

This type of post-modern5 criticism created doubt about and a degree of rejection of modern
development. The intent of the criticism was to change attitudes toward the assumption that
development, as a normative stance, was good at the level of intuition. For the critics, what was
assumed to be progressive, beneficial and humane was now seen as a controlling and often
detrimental process (Sachs 1992; Peet and Hartwick 1999). The imposition of western values
became a target of questioning; even good intentions were suspected. Questions were asked:
Who determines what beneficial means? Beneficial for whom?

Peet and Hartwick (2009) described the emergence of critical modernism as an alternative
whereby development theory would be transformed through criticism and a selective retention of
elements of modernism. However, critical modernism remains modern in the sense that it still
favors scientific evidence over beliefs and, even more, external scientific evidence over local
beliefs. Thus, rather than offering a reformation of modernization, critical modernism reflected
resistance to change. Two other alternative theories contributed more significantly to the
evolution of development discourse
D.

Alternatives to Modernization
1.

Dependency Theory

Dependency theory was conceived by Latin American opponents of theories of modernization
and its associated economic strategies for development. Raul Prebisch, the head of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) in the late 1940s and early 1950s, is
5

Simon (1997) explains how theoretical turns are characterized by the prefix post- as a way to signify differences,

either in terms, period or conceptual and methodological approaches.

12

perhaps the father of dependency theory (Chirot and Hall 1982). Dependency theory derives
from the Marxist critique of capitalism, and it focuses on the dichotomous relationship between
the center and periphery, between development and underdevelopment, and between rich and
poor countries. It pays particular attention to the international structure of development and
underdevelopment6, regarding this dichotomy as a direct consequence of Western capitalistic
expansion. The main contention of this theory is that underdevelopment can only be overcome
by capitalism, but contradictorily underdevelopment occurs because as societies are incorporated
into global capitalism, their development is blocked and even reversed (Eisenstadt 1974, Apter
1987, Harrison 1988, Pieterse 1991).

This criticism describes conflicting intentions of

development in the sense that the forces that made development possible in the already
developed nations are, at the same time, hindering development in underdeveloped nations. As
described by Eisenstadt (1974), Andre G. Frank articulated this criticism: “if the now
underdeveloped were really to follow the stages of growth of the now developed ones, they
would have to find still other peoples to exploit into underdevelopment, as the now developed
countries did before them” (Frank, 1970 p 46).

The work of David Slater (cited by Peet and Hartwick 2009) served as an analytical platform on
which the theory of dependency was presented as a rebuttal of modernization’s arguments for
development.

6

The principle argument put forth by Slater is that the western geopolitical

A body of literature describing underdevelopment theories responded to publication of dependency theory. This

literature contains discussions of and debates over the reasons for underdevelopment of nations. Although important
in creating awareness about these topics, it falls outside the main scope of this paper and therefore is not addressed
directly. However, some of the main arguments from that literature are included in the critique of modernization.

13

imagination violated the rights of other societies to bring to bear their own principles of progress.
In the view of this theory, developing nations were portrayed by modernization as passive
recipients of external interventions.
Cardoso’s (1977) discussion of dependency theory helped explain that rather than imposing
external models of development on developing nations, it was necessary to hear what developing
nations under the influence of modernization had to say about their own development ideas. His
intention was to impact mainstream development thinking of those advocating for modernization
in government agencies, international organizations and academic communities.
“The analyses of dependency situations in Latin America done in the second half of the
sixties did not represent new methodological propositions. What happened was that a
current which was already old in Latin American thought managed to make itself heard in
the discussions that were taking place in institutions normally closed to it: Economic
Commission for Latin America (ECLA), the universities, some government planning
agencies, and ‒ last but not least ‒ the North American academic community” (Cardoso
1977 p 9)
Colombian anthropologist and dependency theorist Arturo Escobar (1992) expanded on the
rejection of modernization by arguing that universal models – such as modernization ‒ hindered
people’s capacities to create their own models of development. Escobar favored, instead,
autonomous peasant development strategies that opened spaces for peasants to struggle, that saw
peasants not in terms of limitations but possibilities, and that modified social relations of
production. For Escobar (1992), development was a constructed reality, created by western
views with the intention of dominance, an apparatus that colonized reality and became a

14

hegemonic discourse of imaginary progress in the form of power and intervention7. The result
was the mapping and production of Third World societies. Escobar’s core criticism was not
about alternative development theories or modifications to the dominant regime of development.
Rather, it was about modifications of the development discourse. For Escobar, development was
universally understood “as a particular set of discursive power relations that construct a
representation of the Third World whose critical analysis lays bare the processes by which Latin
America and the rest of the Third World have been produced as underdeveloped” (Escobar 1992
p 47). One alternative he explored was grassroots social movements as an “analytical and
political terrain in which the weakening of development and the displacement of certain
categories of modernity can be defined and explored” (Escobar 1992 p 28) .

According to Arturo Escobar, the desire to alter the discourse of development was shared by a
large body of scholars. These scholars shared the critical stance towards established science; an
interest in local autonomy, culture, and knowledge; and a position defending localized,
pluralistic grassroots movements. This stance became known as post-developmentalism (Peet
and Hartwick 1999). The academic community advocating for modernization received the postdevelopmentalist criticism with skepticism; nevertheless, the introduction of dependency theory
into the United States “destroyed the naïve optimism about development expressed by North
American modernization theorists of the 1950s and 1960s” (Chirot and Hall 1982 p 93).

7

The one sided relationship between rich and poor nations was seen by Escobar (1995) as having similarities with

colonialism. As a result, Escobar thought of development as neocolonialism phenomena.

15

Development, then, could be characterized as a power distribution arrangement, a matter of
sharing the power of deciding what changes and how. The struggle is for the power to influence
change, or for the creation and/or control of drivers of change, who initiates these drivers and
when they take place, and the consequent courses of action that are the intent of development.
2.

World Systems Theory

Dependency theory influenced the creation of world systems theory, which postulates the
existence of a system of relationships that links societies across the world. Development of a
single nation cannot be understood in isolation, nor can a country’s particularities be explained
without acknowledging its relationships to other nations and the history of those relationships.
Some specific elements of any given society are more affected by the global structure and, in
turn, determine a status and a role for that society in the global context. Some societies will be
providers of natural resources, others of manufactured goods; some will be weak and dependent,
and others are economically strong and politically dominant (Popenoe 1983).

The work of Immanuel Wallerstein served as the foundation for this theory. His most recognized
work is Modern World System (Wallerstein 1974). However, it was Andre Gunder Frank who
became the most intellectually influential among world systems theorists (Chirot and Hall 1982).
Addressing the causes of underdevelopment, Frank (1968) argued that the formulation of
adequate development theory and policy required accounting for the effects of each country’s
past economic and social history on its present state of development. The lack of history assumed
by modernization had led to the erroneous presumption that the present state of underdeveloped
nations resembled earlier stages of development of now developed countries, ignoring
relationships between ex-colonies and industrial countries. Wallenstein situated the beginning of
16

the world system some time in the 1600s when mercantilism and capitalism expanded
worldwide. For Frank (1968), the history of these relationships, within the context of expanding
capitalism, defined the different types of development experienced by nations. In response, he
proposed several hypotheses about how and why development does or does not occur:
•

Underdevelopment was and still is generated by the same historical process that
generated economic development. Frank defined an economic world-system in which
existing richer nations (center of western civilization, referred to as metropolises by
Frank) take the surplus of other nations in the interest of their own economic growth.

•

Peripheral (underdeveloped) nations (referred to as satellites by Frank) would experience
their most flourishing development when their ties to the metropolises are weakest. In
times of isolation after World War I, during the depression of the 1930s, and during
WWII, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Chile experienced their most significant industrial
development. This hypothesis also helps explain why Japan, who was not a satellite of
any metropolis, experienced quick industrialization at the end of the twentieth century.

•

Regions with the closest ties to metropolises in the past remain the most underdeveloped
and feudal-like. These regions have become the largest exporters of primary products.

•

The development of latifundium 8 results in a commercial structure that allows
underdeveloped nations to respond to increasing demand in world markets by expanding
the amount of land, capital and labor used in production.

8

A great landed estate with primitive agriculture and labor often in a state of partial servitude (Merriam-Webster

Dictionary). In Latin America the latifundium (Spanish: latifundio) was introduced as a semi-feudal institution by
Iberian settlers and was widely perpetuated in the hacienda (Encyclopedia Britannica).

17

•

The latifundium, semi-feudal and facing an economic decline, are found in nations in
former agricultural and mining export regions.

Frank did test these hypotheses, but he did not present confirmatory evidence to support his
arguments. In general, the hypotheses refer to international trade and its intended or unintended
consequences. At different times in history, a different set of factors shaped the way in which
international trade occurred. During the modernization period, the central idea was to foster
capitalism and favor urbanism. The overlap between modernization and Frank’s criticism is that
major cities within satellite countries used the rural communities as their own satellites. Thus,
capital was extracted to serve urban growth and to serve the growth of the metropolis to which
the satellite country exported its capital. Whether this interdependence of societies was
overlooked by modernization theorists or not, the whole idea of inflicting change in poor nations
by major infusions of capital and appropriate technologies (a major part of modernization) was
described by dependency theorists and world system theorists as the center serving its own
purposes by manipulating the peripheries.

World system theorists challenged another underlying assumption of modernization: that free
trade (based on competitive advantages) would resolve trade inequalities among developed and
developing countries. In fact, free trade was observed to benefit industrial economies and slow
the development of poorer economies (Frank 1968). The more industrialized countries are
advantaged in the structural dominance they can impose by setting the rules of trade. For the
least industrialized and poorer countries, adaptation to external demands and influences causes a
type of development that is not congruent with better conditions. Discussions of both world
system and dependency theories posit that studying individual societies in isolation – or as

18

separate entities ‒ is both misleading and dangerous because it hides powerful transnational
driving forces of change, and it may yield incomplete and often wrong conclusions about the
nature of social problems (Chirot and Hall 1982).
E.

An Alternative Discourse: Emergence of Sustainable Development

Strong criticism of modernization and disillusionment with the conventional discourse 9 of
development created an impasse in development work in the mid-1980s (Simon 1997). Criticism
of modernist development efforts was broad and general, despite acknowledgement that there are
many variants of modernism. Responses to this criticism noted that development thinking was
not reflective of a single paradigm. Rather, it encompassed a heterogeneous set of approaches
that were not only variable over time but also highly diverse at any given time (Pieterse 1996,
Simon 1997, Eisenstadt 2002).

Efforts to design sustainable development (SD) could be understood as a well-intentioned
political action to reconcile the divergent perspectives on development. That is, whether
foundations were in modernity, dependency, and/or world system theory, the broader objectives
of SD created space for a common purpose. Critics of modernization saw the pairing of the
terms sustainable and development as a response to observed shortcomings of development. But
the view that SD represents a significant change in development thinking is not universal. Critics

9

In the tradition of Michael Foucault, discourse is the set of interdependent ideas that convey the underlying

intentions of development. Also: a mode of organizing knowledge, ideas, or experience that is rooted in language
and its concrete context (Merriam Webster Dictionary).

19

who perceived SD as a continuation of traditional discourse saw the new terminology as merely
a rehabilitation of old concepts (Peet and Hartwick 1999).

Nevertheless, the emergence of SD marked more than a change in vocabulary because it
emerged at roughly the time when environmentalism merged with development studies, long
after concerns about environmental degradation caused by economic growth and exploitation
were expressed. Historically, environmental concerns were framed within either the morality
perspective proposed by John Muir (1838-1914) the utilitarian perspective of Gifford Pinchot
(1865-1946). Both arguments served as a way to raise awareness about management of natural
resources that are critical inputs to production and to support human existence (Pigou 1951,
Krutilla 1967, Nash 1976). However, these environmental concerns were not taken seriously in a
global sense until the period between 1966 and 1972 when environmentalism became prominent
in global discussions (Dresner 2002). These changes occurred during a period characterized by
support for social movements, acceptance of the critical thinking from dependency theorists and
the proclamation of a new international economic order (Rist 1997).

In 1962, Rachel Carson drew public attention to the unobserved connections between human
actions and ecosystem negative effects (Carson 1962); a few years later Paul Ehrlich wrote about
the effects of overpopulation 10 and the need to bring population growth under control so
humanity would not exceed the food production capacity of the earth (Ehrlich 1968). In 1972

10

Ehrlich’s predictions can be seen as neo-Malthusian because they recast and follow the same argument of

population collapse due to famine proposed by T.R. Malthus (1798) over 170 years before the publication of the
Population Bomb (Ehrlich 1968).

20

the Club of Rome published Limits to Growth, a report drawing attention to the interaction
between population growth and increasing consumption of resources in a finite world (Meadows
and Club of Rome 1972). Attention to the issues in this report may have caused a discussion
about the need to address environmental concerns in order to secure the long-term survival of
humanity. The environmental movement triggered a change in the way society thinks about
human impacts on the natural world and reached the international stage during the United
Nations 1972 Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm. The conference led to
the formation of the United Nations Environment Programme, clearly putting environmental
issues on the international agenda (Sachs 1992).

After the Stockholm conference, the relationship between environment and development was
understood as important because environmental protection was seen as necessary for economic
growth. Tolba (1987) listed some of the most pressing matters of the time that became the focus
of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED):
•

Mismanagement of the natural resource base

•

Poverty and its impact on human beings and their environment

•

Overconsumption and the impact of the demands of the privileged on the environment

•

Population growth, especially in areas where it undermines the carrying capacity of the
environment

•

Squandering of natural and human resources on the manufacture of armaments

•

Widespread lack of understanding on the part of decision-makers and the public at large
of the implications of environmental destruction for social, economic and political
stability.

21

The publication of “Our Common Good” 11 (UN World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987) brought the concept of sustainability to the international debate about
development (Holmberg and Sandbrook 1992, Pezzey and Toman 2002, Atkinson, Dietz et al.
2007). The work of the WCED highlighted not only economic and global environmental
concerns, but also social considerations that evoked strong moral norms.
The succinct WECD definition of SD is broadly known:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (UN World
Commission on Environment and Development 1987)
Even though it is short, the definition warrants closer attention to its two key ideas:
•

The definition focuses on 'needs', as opposed to rights or obligations;

•

The definition focuses on the needs of future generations, framed in terms of limits to growth
imposed by the environmental carrying capacity.

These two key ideas imbedded in the definition of SD influenced traditional development
practice.
1.

The concept of Needs

The overview section of the WCED report (1987 pp. 11-19) listed a diverse set of needs that
should guide development practice (see figure 1). The term “need” is used throughout the
document in reference to both means and ends affecting different dimensions of individuals and
societies. In all cases, however, the discussion of needs reflected an understanding of wellbeing

11

Also known as the Brundtland report, making reference to Gro Harlem Brundtland, Chair of the World

Commission on the Environment and Development.

22

broader than the narrow idea of economic growth and industrialization. While both the
conference and its report arose from concerns about environmental degradation, the list
demonstrates recognition that individual freedoms, as well as social and political institutions,
play a key role in development.
Figure 1. Development needs articulated by the WCED (1987) report
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−

Attend essential needs for food, clothing, shelter, jobs and beyond basic needs, aspirations to improve
quality of life
The need to have access to a level of income that allow for more than basic subsistence
The need to have access to their local resources, particularly important for tribal and native populations
The need for an adequate human life in urban center: clean water, sanitation, schools and
transportation
Access to food and to right to produce food in a fair international competition setting
The need to live in peace (particularly as prevention to a nuclear war that would damage health and the
environment)
The basic right to self-determination
The need to protect their own environment
The need to address demographic goals
The need to have access to energy sources and to produce energy
The need to increase industrial production of consumable goods (produce more with less)
The need to receive assistance and information from industrialized nations to make best use of
technology
The need to have greater control over the export of hazardous chemicals and over waste dumping
Governments need to have urban plans
The need to reinforce institutions working on the protection and management of natural resources
The need to assess and report global risks

The needs expressed in the WCED report are organized according to their associations with: i)
population and human resources, ii) food security, iii) species and ecosystems, iv) energy
alternatives, v) industry, and vi) urban challenges. Not surprisingly, this scheme corresponds
with problems produced by the modernization process and the concomitant results of rich
countries affecting poor nations’ social, political, economic and environmental sovereignty.
Moreover, the report claims that the needs of the individual and of communities are to be paid
special attention; however, there is little explanation of how individuals and communities (or
nations for that matter) are to become owners of their own development process. One can still
23

interpret from the report that they are on the receiving end of a process directed by a greater
power. Given all of the criticism of hegemonic dominance, the failure of the report to mention
the need to level the playing field or to have a more equitable distribution of power across
nations is a glaring omission.
2.

Limits of the Environment

For some critics, the concept of SD was contradictory in its terms, because it seemed the
“sustainable” portion of the term was counter to the type of development that meant constant
economic growth (Lele 1991).

However, for SD, development meant the enhancement of

society, which includes economic growth; what was not clear was how to resolve the issue of
constant economic growth in a finite world, a world with limited resources12.
Implicitly, SD rejects the assumption that environmental damages would be repaired after a
country became wealthy enough to take care of the problems. SD made it clear that
environmental problems were a global matter that needed attention from both rich and poor
nations. The WCED warned of the conflicts arising from multiple competing needs and the
urgency of transforming economic growth in a way that would account for environmental
degradation and resource depletion. Specifically, recognition of conflict among identified needs

12

Before the emergence of SD, and a few months before the publication of the Limits to Growth (Meadows 1972), a

post-development, post-modern movement known as degrowth emerged from Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen’s ideas of
a “declining-state” (Georgescu-Roegen 1979 cited by Muraca 2013). This movement stresses the need for a
paradigm shift from constant economic growth to a process of “right-sizing” the global and national economies in
acknowledgement of the carrying capacity of the Earth. The concept is well developed but is seen by some as a
“political slogan with theoretical implications” (Latouche 2010 p 519).

24

makes explicit that ecological limitations could foreclose options for continued progress if they
are not part of planning for development (Meadowcroft 1997). The recommendations from the
WCED represented in practice critical trade-offs between preservation of the resource base,
transformation of the type of growth, and economic growth as usual. How these trade-offs
should be made (i.e., criteria for decision-making) was not addressed13. Nevertheless, this change
in the discourse that removed economic growth as the core of development made a significant
difference for development theorists and practitioners.
Including the environmental dimension in development work was a significant shift in
development thinking, attitudes toward the environment, and decisions that affect it. Important
reforms of development included, in particular, acknowledgement that concerns about growth
and development arise from different paradigms14 and that social well being is affected not just
by economic welfare but also by environmental health.

13

The diplomatic vagueness is intentional because “The concept was deliberately ill-defined to prevent unnecessary

and destructive objections” (Middleton and O’Keefe 2001).
14

In 1912, Joseph Schumpeter made a clear distinction between growth and development. Schumpeter argued that

while growth could simply mean increasing production, development occurs when production factors are used in
new ways (Martinussen 1997). However, for this analysis, development entails a broader understanding that
elements, other than economic changes, affect wellbeing.

25

F.

Disciplinary Contributions to Development and Implications for Sustainable

Development
1.

Sociology

The contributions of sociology serve as the core for development theories; most of these
contributions are discussed in the previous section on foundational theories. It is worth
highlighting, however, that among the most important contributions are the theory and methods
for studying social change and the observations from structural-functionalism, from which is
derived the systemic understanding of society and the differentiation of roles in different sectors
of society.
Although sociology provided the foundations of modernization and thus of further development
theories, influence of the discipline faded as the implementation of modernization expanded and
economics took a more prominent role. Sociology became less influential in development
studies for two main reasons. First, emphasis in sociology moved from grand theories to more
grounded inquiries, specifically in advancement of methods and applications. Second, the
discipline experienced fragmentation into sub-disciplinary fields, each with theories of its own,
which greatly diminished the global impact of the discipline on development policy (Demerath
III 1996).

Subsequently, economics became the leading theoretical paradigm informing development
policy. A third reason for the displacement of sociology in development is that the shortcomings
of modernization as a guide for development became clear for sociologists. Sociologists’
subsequent focus on dependency and world systems theories was antagonistic to the ongoing
process of modernization. Modernization was better served by economics, a discipline that
26

developed a series of sub-fields to provide methods of inquiry and applications to implement
modernization.
2.

Economics and limitations of economic modernism

The period between the 1960s and well into the 1990s is characterized by the strong dominance
of economics in informing development theory and policy, a consequence of a pivotal
assumption of modernization: capitalism. Although modernization originated in sociological
theories, its goal of industrialization was largely supported by economic theory and methods. As
discussed previously, under modernization pure economic growth was a desirable trend for
progress (Pieterse 1991); in turn, progress was measured by growth in gross domestic product
(GDP), which to some extent was used to reflect wellbeing.
Middleton and O’Keefe (2001) argue that economic concerns were reduced to external costs,
resource exhaustion, discounted cash-flows, common property, valuation, regulation, and costbenefit analysis, understanding environmental problems as a market problem, rather than
analysis of the market as an environmental problem. Economics, through its focus on economic
modernization and development, influenced the formulation of development policy more than
any other discipline. However important, though, the discipline faced strong criticism due to
conflicts between theoretical assumptions and the challenges of real world problems.
The principal economic tools for policy analysis are founded on the concept of economic
efficiency, but this focus has been the subject of strong criticism. For example, Bromley (1990)
argued that basing social goals on economic efficiency was a misapplication of economics.
Instead, economic efficiency should remain a normative, not positive, criterion. The difficulty in
defining individual utility functions outside of theoretical models and the persistent but
27

erroneous contention that the aggregate of individual utilities may equal social welfare are
evidence of how the economic efficiency construct falls short of providing comprehensive ways
to identify socially desirable conditions. Bromley (1997) also objected to Arrow's description of
how choices are made in a capitalist democracy: that “in a capitalist democracy there are
essentially two methods by which social choices can be made: voting typically used to make
political decisions, and the market mechanism, typically used to make economic decisions”
(Arrow 1963). In turn, Bromley argued, “The market is not a mechanism for making social
choices. Markets, which are socially constructed means whereby the ownership of future value
changes hands, simply reflect many individual choices that, once aggregated, hold social
implications. But that is very different from the idea that markets are a means for making social
choices” (Bromley 1997 p 1). Furthermore, because of rent seeking behavior, self-interest, and
markets prices that do not recognize other values attached to resources or their potential value in
future uses, the efficiency criterion is not sufficient to guarantee protection of ecosystems
(Perman et al. 2003).
As a variant of the efficiency criterion, Hicksian compensation measures address inequalities in
the determination of efficiency. Hicksian compensation arises from the premise that, to the
extent there are winners and losers in seeking economic efficiency, those who benefit should
compensate those who lose such that all are better off (Perman, Ma et al. 2003). But in practice
this compensation falls outside of the domain of economic analysis, being left, ill-defined, for
policy-makers to address (Gowdy 2004).
Matters of equity are even more challenging for inter-temporal efficiency criteria applied to
environmental goods, particularly because of uncertainty surrounding our current notions of what
future choices and preferences will be. This makes operationalizing SD an even greater
28

challenge, since discounting, a principle central to economic analysis, views environmental
resources as more valuable today than in the future.
Another weakness of economic modernization resides in the methods used to estimate economic
values for those goods and services that fall outside of markets (Panayotou 1992; 1993). In
general, resources that have some commodity value such as timber, fisheries and minerals would
change hands in a market where prices capture their importance (or scarcity). More complex
environmental services are not valued in market transactions, so non-market valuation methods
are used (Mitchel and Carson 1989; Haab and McConnell 2002). These methods render a
monetary value for environmental amenities such as clean air, quality of water, conservation of
biodiversity, and scenic beauty for which no markets exist. These nonmarket values are then
used to support economic decisions. For example, the use of benefit-cost analysis as a way to
apply the efficiency criterion to development decisions involving the use or damage of natural
resources relies upon non-market valuation methods. Serious doubts arise when questions of
economic efficiency in development projects are addressed using these methods because of
intrinsic biases and large margins of error (Costanza et al. 1997).
Economics has also relied on the assumption that modern societies could benefit from
technological advancement. Solow (1992) argued that the contribution of economics to SD was
in determining the optimal rate of reinvesting rents in order to substitute man-made capital for
natural capital. However, this kind of substitution has serious limitations. Important
environmental services such as life support have no known substitute in any near future (Ayres
2007).

29

According to views of economic modernization, the sustainability portion of SD is used as a term
to signal the continuity of economic growth 15 .

With this understanding of the term

sustainability, the debate about the limits of substitution created poles of weak and strong
sustainability. On one hand strong sustainability implies that substitution should be limited, and
that future generations have the right to enjoy the same benefits from natural capital available for
the current generation. On the other hand, weak sustainability allows substitution for natural
capital with other types of capital, assuming continuous technological progress and presupposing
that technological change will catch up with the rate of resource consumption and depletion in
order to provide the means for substitutes to be created in time (Freeman 2003, Neumayer 2003).
One economic tool arising under the weak sustainability approach is the ‘Hartwick rule’, stating
that an economy depending on non-renewable resources as inputs of production could have
constant consumption over time (the sustainability portion of SD) if all rents from exploitation of
resources are reinvested in man-made capital. Two concerns arise from this rule; one is that
utility (wellbeing) is assumed to depend on consumption only and the second is the (erroneous)
assumption that natural and man-made capital are perfect substitutes for each other (Hanley,
Shogren et al. 2001).

Finally, at the core of economic development resides the idea of growth measured by GDP, an
indicator that in many cases is understood as a measure of social welfare and, by extension,
quality of life. However, strong evidence exists that growth in GDP does not translate directly
into higher levels of quality of life (Daly, Cobb et al. 1994). For example, Max-Neef (1995)
15

For this type of framing of SD, some saw the concept as an oxymoron because it suggested that it was possible to

maintain constant economic growth in a world with finite resources (for instance see Lele 1991).

30

compared GDP and a broader measure of quality of life, the Index of Sustainable Economic
Welfare (ISEW) developed by Herman Daly (1990, 1994), and demonstrated cases where GDP
continued growing while ISEW began to decline. Max-Neef’s work became known as the
Threshold Hypothesis, showing how narrow measures of growth can be misleading for policy
decisions.
The disparity between ISEW and GDP occurs because GDP does not account for natural capital
erosion; for instance the cutting of timber only accounts for the generation of income produced
by the sale of timber (if it is sold), while the accounting hides the fact that the resource stock is
affected and other benefits from the forests (for current and future generations) are forgone. This
type of accounting generates gains in income that hide permanent losses in wellbeing from the
deterioration of natural capital serving as a source of materials and / or as a sink for waste
emissions (Ahmad, El Serafy et al. 1989).

Based on the conceptualization of Hicksian income, stating that utility (wellbeing) does not
depend on consumption only (Hartwick and Olewiler 1998), Daly (1994) argued that in order to
estimate income correctly natural capital must remain intact. In practice this meant “greening”
the national accounts that are used to estimate GDP by applying economic depreciation (decline
in value from use) to render a residual net income that would reflect the decline in value of
natural capital stocks (Hartwick and Olewiler 1998). In the case of national accounts for the
U.S., this procedure would transform GDP into Net Domestic Product (NDP). NDP as a
sustainability indicator is criticized for the underlying assumption of substitution and because of
difficulties related to its calculation. El Serafy (1991) argued against attempting to adjust GDP to

31

account for depreciation of natural capital and suggested, instead, partial corrections using
satellite accounts.
3.

Ecological modernization and limitations

Ecology was left with the burden of proof that growth had a negative impact on the environment
and wellbeing. Proponents of economic modernization (EM) assumed and argued that
environmental impacts are an inevitable part of economic growth and that technological
advancements will provide solutions to solve those negative impacts in an undetermined future
(York and Rosa 2003). A parallel assumption is that high environmental quality is a luxury good
affordable only to societies that have reached a higher level of affluence (Arrow, Bolin et al.
1995), a property of modern countries. In a similar vein, it was suggested that the relationship
between economic development and environmental impacts could be characterized by an
inverted U-shaped curve. Known as the Environmental Kuznets Curve, this relationship explains
the relationship between affluence and environmental degradation. At early stages of economic
growth (as in Rostow’s stages for growth), societies are more dependent on natural resources
with more extractive industries and higher production of waste, thus the upward shape of the
curve indicating growing affluence and environmental degradation. As societies move from
manufacturing economies to service economies, they become more affluent and less dependent
on natural resources than industrial economies. This movement upward, results in fewer negative
impacts to the environment due to less extractive activities and because of investments in
pollution abatement (Perman, Ma et al. 2003, York, Rosa et al. 2003). The assumption is that
richer countries would have less environmental impacts than poor countries.

32

Ecological Modernization Theory (EMT) seeks to explain the dynamics and effects of
modernization on the environment. Its proponents admit that even when modern societies have
caused substantial environmental problems, further modernization can solve those problems.
This argument is based on the reasoning that, in modern nations, industrial firms come to
recognize the importance of environmental preservation (as the resource base) for their own long
term survival, and that they will take measures to reduce environmental impacts by restructuring
production systems along ecological lines. The drivers of this process are – goes the argument –
social institutional restructuring, technological innovation, market forces, pressure from social
movements, and governmental regulation (York, Rosa et al. 2003). In general, economic
modernization was more influential in decisions made about development implementation, while
ecological modernization served to validate the methods of economic growth.

Another important assumption of EMT is that technological advancement will provide the means
to overcome strong dependence on natural resources through substitution of alternative
manufactured resources and cleaner technologies that minimize pollution (Solow 1986, Norgaard
1994). The expectations of the combined effects of technological advancement and capital
substitution have been used to support arguments in favor of natural resource depletion and the
acceptance of high levels of pollution in the name of progress.

After the publication of the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987), ecology became a more
prominent contributor to development work16, but principally only those engaged with ecological

16

The contributions of ecology to natural resource management associated with development are older than the

concept of SD. Take for instance the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield, drawn from population ecology

33

modernization theory. Ecology as a general discipline tended to set itself apart from development
work; there is very little integration of the discipline as a whole into development work if the
development literature is an accurate indicator.

The argument that further modernization is needed to reduce environmental impacts of human
activity is questioned by York and Rosa (2003) because of their concern that positive effects of
modernization on environmental problems have been demonstrated in only a small number of
case. In particular, the premise of EMT that institutional structures protective of the environment
are developed in late stages of modernization is questioned. York and Rosa (2003) also question
the premise that as economies become more efficient in using resources, both their dependence
on natural resources and the incidence of environmental damage are reduced. Again, they raise
concern about the problem of small numbers, specifically of drawing such conclusions from
studies of only one or two sectors of an economy. Their point is that efficiency in one sector of
the economy translated into profits may be invested elsewhere and therefore contribute
substantially to expanding production and concomitant resource use and pollution in the
economy as a whole. A better course is to look at changes in resource use and environmental
damage associated with more developed economies at a greater level of aggregation. There is
still the matter of assuming that national environmental impacts are contained within national
borders. York and Rosa (2003) argue that even if environmental conditions are improving

applied to fisheries. MSY is the largest average yield that can theoretically be taken from a species’ stock over an
indefinite period under constant environmental conditions. This concept was extended to other resources such as
forests and has been an environmental and resource economics tool since the 1950s (Tietenberg 2004).

34

within one country that is not sufficient evidence that the country is moving towards
conservation of natural resources. In fact, the economic activity could be resulting in negative
impacts because of its resource exploitation in other countries.

The limitations of economics and ecology under modernization are not a matter that can be
attributed exclusively to the disciplines, which are simply the means to implement the discourse
of modernization. Since the late 1960s, the western-oriented approach and claims that it is
universally generalizable have been viewed as inadequate in a broader sense. Becker et al. (1997)
pointed out that social sciences are challenged to make theoretical and methodological advances
that are up to the task of addressing problems related to the natural environment, gender relations
and inequalities, and technological risks. No social science has shown itself uniquely capable of
dealing with this array of problems. As such, a major difficulty is the excessive disciplinary as
well as paradigmatic fragmentation both within the social sciences and between social and
natural sciences (Becker et al. 1997).
G.

Opportunities for Theoretical and Methodological Advancements for

Sustainable Development
1.

From Technocracy to Open Participation

Social transformation in developing nations in the era of modernization was not necessarily
steering towards democratization. This is because modernization was not designed to create
social institutions that would strengthen democracy. In fact economic development tended to
underemphasize political and institutional considerations (Harris 2000). Modernization focused
instead on increasing a nation’s industrial capacity, trade, investment, and agricultural
35

productivity, thus creating political drivers that in some cases hindered countries’ abilities to
build a functional democratic structure. As a result, social choices arose not from political arenas
but rather were influenced by markets and evaluated in terms of economic efficiency. For
instance, in some cases poor countries experienced free trade as foreign capital dominating their
economies and/or political systems, thus imposing foreign interests into local decision-making17.
The lack of attention to political and social institutions basically excluded locals from the
decision-making process and, as a result, negatively affected development progress.

If for Foucault the development discourse was an excuse to claim truth to gain power, the
technocracy observed during modernization was an example of how western and expert values
set up the rules for development. The top down approach of knowledge and authority moving
from experts to non-experts in development decision-making and disciplinary reductionism lead
to difficulty in allowing for collaboration across social sectors and limited sharing of knowledge
among citizens and experts involved in development planning.

This technocratic model resulted in development interventions that were disengaged from public
interest isolated and with short life spans. For some, this was deemed an imposition that only
hindered people’s ability to overcome their own social limitations. Usually large international aid
organizations following the modernization model were responsible for these types of
interventions. Even if planners that followed this model had good intentions, the full motivation
to carry out their plan was absent as was formal accountability holding anyone responsible for
getting results. Commonly, implementation of development by these organizations involved,

17

See, for instance, the role of United Fruit Company in Guatemala during the 1950s (Schlesinger and Kinzer 1982)

36

first, finding out what the poor needed and, second, trying to meet those needs (Easterly 2006).
This potentially led to actions that were detached from community planning (if community
planning existed) or resulted in multiple uncoordinated interventions.

Adopting a broader inclusive approach in development practices demanded transformations in
the way development was conducted, in both paying attention to local institutions and capacities;
and in making sure that local interests and knowledge were included in the process. A product of
these transformations was the emergence of endogenous development and participatory rural
development approaches (Peet and Hartwick 1999), which turned attention towards working with
local groups to define development goals and actions. Progress under this approach results from
participatory process, in which the process itself is appreciated as the construction of human
capital and local capacities.

German sociologist Ulrich Beck, discussed by Fischer (2002), posited that humanity has entered
into a new era of late modernity in which most social scientists have specialized in even
narrower domains of social and political inquiry. The complexity of the environmental crisis
challenges this technocracy, to the point of questioning what constitutes expertise, as well as who
has it and who does not. SD brought the environmental crisis to development discussions, and it
should be noted that one of the more significant conflicts between citizens and experts is related
to environmental politics (Fischer 2002).

With the move to SD it is generally accepted that clear answers to complex social problems are
just not found in science; nor is their solution purely a technical matter. The complexity arises

37

from work in plural settings to allow for collaboration and recognition that there are multiple
approaches for planning processes. In this transition, development as an enterprise has become
less focused on outcomes and more focused on processes that value the formation of different
types of social institutions and capacities. Perhaps one of the most critical changes is the
realization that responses to social problems are no longer exclusive to a single discipline. Rather
interaction among disciplines allows for a more systemic exploration of social, economic and
environmental dimensions of SD.
2.

Post-Normal

Science

and

Transdisciplinarity

for

Sustainable

Development
Sustainable development discourse emphasizes potentially conflicting needs. Also, connections
between social (economic) and natural systems are explicitly recognized and, as a result, the
need for trade-offs is understood. The challenges associated with pursuing theoretical and
methodological advances in the interest of SD, given the traditional approaches taken by
modernist economists and ecologists, are well known. However, for SD, the challenges for
aiding decisions that require difficult trade-offs stem from more than just the shortcomings of
these disciplinary paradigms.

As theory and practice of SD evolve, it is increasingly evident that normal science is not an
adequate source of needed innovations. Normal science was defined by Kuhn (1962) as the
knowledge accepted by a scientific community, created through inquiry that builds upon past
scientific achievements. In normal science, theories are not questioned, and researchers are
committed to a common set of rules and standards for scientific practice. These conditions are
prerequisites for the continuation of a particular research tradition.
38

Post-modern attitudes towards science portray unreserved criticism and skepticism about the
conduct of normal science. Critics argue that the reductionist perspective of normal science
prevents applied sciences from getting a grasp on complex problems. In normal science,
complexity is divided into parts, and that fragmentation of the system increases uncertainty for
policy decisions. In the “normal state of science, uncertainties are managed, values are unspoken,
and foundational problems unheard of” (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993 p 740). What is required is
an approach that takes into consideration the non-normal state, in which unpredictability;
incomplete control and a plurality of legitimate perspectives (including values) are accounted
for. Post-normal science is required when normal science assumptions and approaches are
inadequate for addressing the complex scenarios posed by social problems (Batie 2008) in which
ethical uncertainties and conflicting purposes are found (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993).

Wicked problems are problems that require in part a post-normal science approach, problems
that are dynamically complex and ill-structured, problems of social policy (Batie 2008). In their
seminal work on wicked problems of social policy, Rittel and Weber (1973) argued that
traditional scientific approaches are inadequate for dealing with such problems. Problems of
social policy are different from problems in natural sciences, and relying strictly upon scientific
methods will not help to resolve them. As opposed to problems in science that are “definable and
separable, and may have solutions that are findable”, policy problems are “ill-defined; and they
rely upon elusive political judgment for resolution”. Rittel and Webber argue that there are no
solutions for wicked problems. “Social problems are never solved. At best they are only resolved, over and over again” (Rittel and Webber 1973 p 160).

39

The problems posed by SD present the characteristics of wicked problems. This is particularly
the case for several reasons. The first is because of the multiple factors contributing to locally
designed notions of progress; the second is the dynamism and interaction of these factors. Third,
there are multiple ways in which progress can be designed, which in turn depends not only on the
availability of knowledge but also on the value system in place.

However a post-normal approach is not sufficient to address wicked problems, and although
science continues to be an important informant in the development of policies (Batie 2008), the
condition of broadening participation calls for other stakeholders to become part of the process
of identification and solution of problems related to development in such a way that different
types of knowledge and interests are accounted for. And for this, transdisciplinarity provides the
methods to facilitate such a process.

Lawrence (2010) defines transdisciplinarity as an ambiguous term that has been interpreted in
various ways but which focuses on the organization of knowledge around complex,
heterogeneous domains, rather than the disciplines and subjects into which knowledge is
commonly organized. Ramadier (2004) provides a description of how transdisciplinarity seeks to
provide unity of knowledge. Considering, though, that knowledge comes from different
paradigms, and that at some point these differences create contradictions, Lawrence (2010)
focuses on coherence rather than unity. Lawrence (2010) describes the outcome of
transdisciplinarity as knowledge representing more than the sum of its disciplinary components;
the knowledge that is created is arises from acceptance that not only are there multiple

40

constructions of knowledge, but also that these are developed within multiple worldviews.
Again, Ramadier (2004) points out that the knowledge created is not new; the innovation is in
the articulation (coherence) of the existing knowledge.

The formation of a group to address wicked problems with transdisciplinarity is not a non-trivial
matter. Given that problems of development are linked to policy, or at least are action-oriented,
public participation in transdisciplinary development groups is a must. In this sense,
transdisciplinary inquiry becomes integrative in the sense that researchers work jointly with nontraditional research partners, working with a collaborative process of knowledge production that
involves multiple disciplines plus stakeholders from other sectors of society (Pohl 2008).

Perhaps one of the most relevant realizations after the definition of SD is the cognitive patterns
related to the emergence of social institutions around fundamental elements of community
development. Moreover, a post-normal perspective and transdisciplinarity enable the formation
of these institutions.
H.

Implications for Implementation
1.

Results of focus on modernization

Important contributions from dependency and world systems theories did not overcome the
heavy emphasis on modernization in development work. Yet, the promises of modernity, of
control over nature, of peace and justice, and the acceleration of progress through planned
development have deceived humanity in the sense that its result has been quite different. Rather
than accomplishing such goals, modernity has fostered heavy reliance on material consumption,
41

accentuated inequality, accelerated the depletion of stocks of natural resources and produced
degradation of the environment (Norgaard 1994). According to Norgaard, modernity, and its
manifestation as development have “betrayed progress by leading us into, preventing us from
seeing, and keeping us from addressing interwoven environmental, organizational, and cultural
problems” (Norgaard 1994 p. 2).

From the beginning, this paper has indiscriminately used different labels for all of those nations
that were not part of the industrialized-western rich countries and, thus, were the targets of
development. This use was intentional, intended to reflect the diversity of terms found in the
literature. Third world, developing nations, less developed countries, poor nations, the south – all
of them have been used to generalize a condition other than industrialized. This diversity of
terms is also a reflection of the diversity of ideas about what the objectives of development work
should be. But with the definition of SD, a list of specific policy matters focused attention on the
inappropriateness of promoting economic development as a general strategy, rather than
attending to specific problems. The problems are not exclusive of either rich or poor nations.
This observation suggests that SD does not pertain only to the (so-called) “third world” but,
rather, to all nations.
2.

On the matter of inequality of wealth among nations

Even with the effort to leave behind emphasis of certain aspects modernity, skeptics have
questioned whether SD could make any change in the distribution of wealth across nations
(Sachs 1992). The skepticism was, in part, a result of wealth distribution before and after
modernization efforts were undertaken. During the 1960s, western nations were 20 times richer
than the rest of the world; during the 1980s they were 46 times richer (Sachs 1992).
42

Given global structural relationships between poor and rich nations, in which poor nations are
mostly exporters of natural resources rather than adding value to them through industrial
development18, poor countries have been unable to catch up with the levels of wealth of the
richer countries. In fact, even as poor nations experienced some growth, rich nations experienced
even more (Frank 1980). In the “third world”, the growing rich-poor divide proved development
under modernization unsuccessful. Recognizing this, former World Bank President Robert
McNamara bemoaned this lack of success in a 1977 address to the Board of Governors of the
World Bank.
“Development, despite all efforts of the past 25 years, has failed to close the gap in per
capita incomes between developed and developing countries…. The proposition is true.
But the conclusion to be drawn from it is not that development effort have failed, but
rather that “closing the gap” was never a realistic objective in the first place…. It was
simply not a feasible goal. Nor is it one today…. Even if developing countries manage to
double their per capita growth rate, while the industrial world maintains its historical
growth, it will take nearly a century to close the absolute income gap between them.
Among the fastest growing developing countries, only 7 would be able to close the gap
within 100 years, and only another 9 within 1,000 years” (McNamara, 1977 cited by
Frank 1980 p 9).

18

At the time of the publication of the WCED report (1987), agriculture, forestry, energy production, and mining

generated at least half the gross national product of many developing countries and accounted for even larger shares
of livelihoods and employment. Most of these countries faced enormous economic pressures, both international and
domestic, to overexploit their environmental resource base (WCED 1987).

43

Despite the disappointment, there were some positive outcomes of the process. Only 13 years
later the first United Nations Human Development Report provided a different picture:
“The developing countries have made significant progress towards human development
in the last three decades. Life expectancy in the South rose from 46 years in 1960 to 62
years in 1987. The adult literacy rate increased from 43% to 60%. The under-five
mortality rate was halved. Primary health care was extended to 61% of the population,
and safe drinking water to 55%. And despite the addition of 2 billion people in
developing countries, the rise in food production exceeded the rise in population by about
20%. Never before have so many people seen such significant improvement in their
lives.” (UNDP 1990 p 2)
The language in the United Nations report shows the effects of development from a different
perspective than that of McNamara. Even though the disparity between rich and poor countries
was still very large at the time of the UN publication, the UNDP focuses on improvements in the
quality of life rather than income. More importantly, the results reported by the UN report are
not a matter of relative welfare, comparing situations across nations; rather, the focus is on
changes over time in important indicators of local welfare.

Focusing on results that are not exclusively monetary can be discussed from two perspectives.
First, this focus aligns with trending notions to measure wellbeing by considering elements other
than monetary wealth, which may include educational attainment, health access, security and
even self-reported happiness. With this comes the acceptance that nations can have different
understandings of wellbeing and, therefore, different expectations of progress.

On the other

hand, this argument masks a quasi-acceptance of the real poverty in those nations experiencing

44

less growth, the recognition of a need to solve poverty as a worldwide problem, and the
admission that there is an inevitable continuation of growth in rich nations, despite the warnings
about heeding the carrying capacity of the planet.
3.

From modernization to globalization

Sachs (1992) makes a compelling argument that the events (the end of the Cold War and its
consequences) of 1989 opened a door for transnational market forces to reach the remotest
corners of the world. Globalization, understood as the direct descendant of modernization,
superseded the age of development. In a fast changing world, with faster flow of information
and migration, countries are no longer able to contain their cultural individualities or economic
forces. Development thinking that used to focus on nations (and the divide between industrial
and traditional) is less relevant given this trans-nationalization effect. Sachs (1992) argued that
development became denationalized. Hindsight provides evidence that development theories
became less important for providing solutions to developing nations and globalization became a
stronger driving force of change, ultimately becoming an accepted development world-view.
Criticisms from dependency and world system theories emphasized that Western-driven
development left an imprint not only on the economies and politics of the developing world, but
also in the minds of its people. Sachs (1992) observed that because countries were not able to
move toward what they perceived development should be, it seemed that countries were lacking
the imagination to plan their own future. Despite the retreat of hegemonic forces that, in the past,
imposed a model of growth, the decolonization of the imagination did not occur because visions
of development still involved patterns of large production and consumption. According to
Escobar (2012), these visions reflected the intention of developing nations to replicate the type of
development experienced by industrialized nations. One can also see that Sachs (1992) was
45

unjust in blaming nations for the lack of imagination; clearly, despite rejection of grand theories,
the inertia of modernization was still a strong driver of development. Modernization was a
worldwide effort that was implemented using vast financial and human resources that shaped
minds, institutions and models of governments in many countries. Thus, expecting the change to
occur rapidly was unfair.

The new geopolitical order, however, has created openings for more actors (besides just rich
nations) to become drivers of change, bringing different views of what constitutes positive
change. This has meant a break away from a dominant hegemonic discourse to be adopted and
the exporting of social institutions (from rich to poor nations). SD has provided policy directions
that highlighted pressing matters in countries around the world. In addition, agreements on
international cooperation have helped to bring together divergent meanings of development to
convey on the solution of pressing matters. Rather than a grand theory supporting the practice of
development, implementation was supported by a diverse array of non-consolidated methods
with each method fueled by its own purpose.
4.

New

challenges

and

propositions

(trends)

after

sustainable

development
The description of development in the context of an east-west division evolved to a rich-poor
division (Sachs 1992). In the process, a more complex development theory became necessary to
frame the multiple realities associated with the rich-poor division. In capturing these multiple
dimensions, the United Nations Millennium Development Goals have become particularly
important in official development discourse (Chambers 2005 p 199). Under this discourse, local
development approaches become more accepted, not only for developing nations but also for
46

developed nations that find within their own territories social ills and claims for attention to
needs of justice, equity in the distribution of wealth, and needs related to poverty.

The implementation of development seems fragmented and lacks unity. However, concepts and
methods from the United Nations remain influential. The UN Report on Human Development
(1990) switched the focus of development from human needs to freedom of choice. This change
draws from the works of Amartya Sen (1999) who argued that the “expansion of freedom is
viewed, in (his approach), both as the primary end and as the principal means of development”
(Sen 1999 p xii). Under this approach, choice refers to a range of articulated alternatives
available to individuals and collectives, operationalized through networks of roles and
institutions (Apter 1987). The change of focus is key; implicitly it acknowledges the sovereignty
of nations or societies and that change shall no longer be a consequence of external influence;
rather development should be a local process.

With acceptance that development actions are highly dependent on the context of the region or
country in which they take place, and with replacement of grand theories, development now is
guided by a set of principles, important transformative elements that emerged during the postmodern period. One could argue that the concept of SD emerged along with these elements. The
elements continue to evolve in their own spaces, and their combination gives a picture of what
development is becoming.
− Paradigmatic advances, such as pluralism, encourage opening participation in decision
making to multiple stakeholders to take ownership of development planning. Planning for
the future is no longer understood only as a matter of experts.

47

− Embracing complexity, a paradigmatic change is occurring within both disciplinary fields
and the policy-making domain. These changes involve taking a broader view of the
definition of systems under observation and paying attention to the interrelatedness of
elements that portend wicked problems. At the time of when SD was defined, this was
proposed as broadening worldviews to take a holistic perspective.
− Science is recognized as having limitations for addressing pressing issues; special
attention is given to the combination of experts and political and public knowledge. The
political dimension gains attention.
− Disciplinary fields begin to break away from the rigidity of their own theoretical
assumptions creating knowledge across disciplines and seeking coherence in their
approaches to common social problems. It is acknowledged that the complexity of the
development problems cannot be solved using single cognitive paradigms.
− The value system upholding development theories is also transformed, showing
acceptance (at least in theory) of the moral obligation to nature and future generations
and commitment to fairness and justice as part of development.
− Interdisciplinary methodological advances focus on sustainability, which begins to
emerge as a field in itself.
I.

Conclusions

Single grand theories of development went through an experimental phase in history; however,
the appropriateness of a single model of development was a technocratic illusion. It is evident
now that each society or country cherishes its own differences that would impress particularities
on the progression of development that each would like to experience.

48

The cognitive processes that resulted in the emergence of SD also fostered the advancement of
disciplines and methods for development. In this transition, important transformations were
experienced:
•

Modernity masked the diversity of “traditional” communities (nations) and considered them
a singular figure. This assumption of homogenous backwardness was rejected in favor of
recognition of diversity across nations and cultures. Modernity also masked the inequalities
and the power relations among nations. dependencists and world-system theorists made clear
that interrelations among nations are important factors to determine the type of development
that each nation can experience.

•

The creation of greater environmental awareness supported the advancement of development
theory and methods by making explicit the role of the environment in economic planning and
policymaking.

•

Post-modern criticism to modernity allowed for expansion of the understanding that
development is not only a function of industrialization but also of differences in power, class,
gender, and ethnicity. These factors remained obscured during modernization.

•

The premise that economic growth is necessary for development remains even after the
decline of modernization as a doctrine for development. This occurs despite
acknowledgement that a different type of growth is necessary, one that would satisfy
concerns about environmental degradation caused by current trends in consumption and
constant economic growth.

•

Elements of modernity that were clearly rejected include:
− the assumption that there is a known path for development, specifically replication of the
western model of progress in developing nations.

49

− the argument that the catalyzer of development is external to the country or society in
need. Rather, locals should take ownership and define their own vision and plans for
development while seeking cooperation with external partners.
− that social institutions generated through an experience in one country can be replicated
in another. Rather, fostering the formation of local institutions and capacities is
emphasized.
Methodological advances that are setting trends in development theory and practice include:
•

Rejection of expert knowledge as deterministic. SD requires constant questioning of the
epistemology of disciplines and acknowledgement that there are limits to current knowledge.

•

Involvement of open participation in the process of planning for development in response to
the recognition that social decisions cannot be made in technocratic isolation.

•

The importance of transdisciplinary inquiry to address wicked problems.

All theories and methods that can be viewed as part of the field of development are moving this
field in the direction of becoming a non-traditional discipline in the sense that development
draws from broader fields that involve different disciplines and sectors of society that are highly
adaptable to different territorial scales and to different contexts.

50

CHAPTER 2 - A proposition for Building Common Understanding across Different
Constructions of Sustainability
A.

Introduction

The preceding chapter of this dissertation provided a discussion of theory and methods for
international development and the impact on development planning. That discussion serves at the
starting point for this paper, which focuses on more recent history and the evolution of
sustainability, which has become an area of study on its own.

Sustainability encompasses the more recent knowledge intended to address global concerns, or,
as Orr (2002) states: a “keystone of the global dialogue about the human future”. However,
multiple interpretations of sustainability complicate efforts to implement it. These multiple
interpretations are the product of different disciplinary fields in which academics have
constructed sustainability with the intent to offer solutions to pressing issues. In general, these
constructions appear similar because they connect around similar pressing matters.
As a result, decision-makers interested in implementation often interpret information about
sustainability as an aggregated set of actions derived from diverse disciplinary fields as though
they fully complement each other. However, there are fundamental differences.

Close

observation of these actions reveals significant inconsistencies, particularly in terms of
motivations behind recommended practices.

The sustainability literature fails to offer a way to analyze and explain the values associated with
the concept of sustainability. The fast move from concept to practice of sustainability has largely
neglected attention to values. Broader interpretation of sustainability based on an expanded
understanding of underlying ethics may be useful because it appears that the source of conflict
51

across different interpretations and practices originates at the level of values held within each
field of knowledge. Rather than looking at ways to reconcile competing actions targeting
sustainability, it may be logical to look at the values invoked by sustainability practices and use
them as criteria to facilitate deliberation.

This paper seeks to contribute to the advancement of sustainability by addressing four key
objectives.
•

Explore different ways of understanding sustainability,

•

Offer a critique of making sustainability decisions based upon only one way of understanding
sustainability,

•

Propose that a value-based criteria is required for common understanding of sustainability,
and

•

Recommend a set of minimum standards that could reconcile actions reflecting diverse
perspectives on sustainability.

To accomplish these objectives, the origins and evolution of sustainability from the fields of
sustainable agriculture, corporate social responsibility (sustainability in the business sector), and
SD are examined. This process describes how each field has constructed sustainability and
created claims of what their conceptualization entails. A discussion of why values can bridge
understanding across interpretations of sustainability is presented, and a case is made for a set of
minimum standards appropriate for actions in the interest of sustainability.

52

B.

Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable agriculture, a relatively recent concept, was proposed in the late 1970s as a set of
strategies to guarantee the continuity of agriculture. The recommendations of these strategies
were, for the most part, triggered by concerns about the negative and unintended impacts of
industrial agriculture that threatened environmental quality, human health and the agricultural
economy (Douglass 1984, Bird and Ikerd 1993, U.S. National Research Council and Committee
on Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics 1993, Gold and U.S.
National Agricultural Library 1999, Pretty 2008). There is no doubt that the industrialization of
agriculture was an important step towards alleviation of poverty and hunger around the world. It
made possible productivity gains that lifted millions out of poverty and provided a platform for
rural and urban economic growth in many parts of the world (Pretty 2008)19. International
development efforts relied on intensification of agriculture as the base for initiating other
industries; it was viewed as an effective first step because industrial agriculture lowered the price
of food and increased the income of the poor while freeing resources for improvements of
households’ living standards (Grove and Edwards 1993).

Industrialized farming systems varied broadly from country to country, according to cultural
context and soil and climatic conditions. However, the industrialized systems were commonly
characterized by rapid technological innovation, large capital investments, large-scale farms,

19

Since the beginnings of the 1960s aggregate world food production has grown by 145% ([FAO 2005 FAOSTAT

database. Rome, Italy: FAO] cited by Petty 2008). Gold and U.S. National Agricultural Library (1999), citing data
from the World Bank, note that 70% to 90% of increases in food production over this period are the result of
industrial agriculture rather than greater acreage under cultivation.

53

continuous monoculture or bi-culture cropping systems; use of high-yield hybrid crops;
extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers; high dependency on external inputs; high labor
efficiency and confined livestock systems (Gold and U.S. National Agricultural Library 1999).
For Strange (1988) and Bird and Ikerd (1993), the attributes of industrialized agriculture
included: i) centralized management; ii) emphasis on specialization (competitive advantages); iii)
the number of hired-worker days exceeding the number of on-farm work-days by owners; iv)
separation of management and labor; v) use of technology to minimize labor inputs; vi) heavy
reliance on purchased inputs; vii) technology designed to minimize real-time, in-field decision
making; and, viii) emphasis on standardized farming practices.

As industrial agriculture advanced on a global scale, the impacts on the landscape and the
environment became widely recognized as sources of unintended negative impacts threatening
the wellbeing of both human and ecological systems (Carson 1962). Concerns were also raised
about threats to the productivity of agriculture for needed food, fodder, and raw materials
(Douglas 1984).

According to Bird and Ikerd (1993), industrial agriculture in the US caused:
•

A decrease in the number of farms, which in turn meant an increase in farm size;

•

Major purchases of off-farm inputs (great dependency on chemicals);

•

An increase in risks associated with environmental quality and human health;

•

Relatively little reliance on local rural communities;

•

Limited direct contact between rural people and people in urban and sub-urban
environments; and,

54

•

Important long-term detrimental impacts to the natural resource base upon which agriculture
depends.

Schaller (1993) listed problems associated with conventional farming and portrayed them as
hidden costs of modern industrialized farming, costs that were justified by the gains in food
production during the last century
•

Contamination of ground and surface water by agricultural chemicals and sediment;

•

Hazards to human and animal health from pesticides and feed additives;

•

Adverse effects of agricultural chemicals on food safety and quality;

•

Loss of the genetic diversity in plants and animals;

•

Destruction of wildlife, bees, and beneficial insects by pesticides;

•

Growing resistance of pests to pesticides (exacerbating the effects noted above);

•

Reduced soil productivity due to soil erosion, compaction, and loss of soil organic matter;

•

Over-reliance on non-renewable resources; and

•

Health and safety risks incurred by farm workers who apply potentially harmful chemicals.

Hansen (1996) added other problems to this list: increasing inequity, declining rural
communities, loss of traditional agrarian values, decreasing food quality, reduction of farm
worker safety, and decline in self-sufficiency. In developing countries, most problems
aforementioned were exacerbated by the pressures arising from poverty and the demand for low
cost food, the rapid expansion of population, extensive deforestation, inappropriate use of fragile
soils, soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, water management problems, and the consequent rapid

55

reduction in production potential (U.S. National Research Council and Committee on
Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics 1993).

Sustainable agriculture became a point of convergence in response to this large range of concerns
about the human and environmental impacts of industrialized agriculture. The response took the
form of multiple models of agriculture proposed as alternatives to modern industrialized or
“conventional” agriculture. All of these models were intended to assure sustainability of
agriculture. Consequently the term sustainable agriculture became a label for an array of farming
approaches, including: organic, bio-dynamic, agro-ecological, permaculture, reduced-input, lowinput, regenerative and alternative agriculture (Neher 1995, Hansen 1996).
1.

The shift in thinking about agriculture

Ikerd (1993) argued that differences between conventional and sustainable agriculture are much
more a matter of differences in farming philosophy than in farming practices or methods. Gold
(1999), drawing from Stauber et al. (1995), described the philosophy of industrialized
agriculture, arguing that this type of agricultural system interpreted nature as a competitor to be
overcome; understood that progress required unending evolution of larger farms and
depopulation of farming communities; measured progress primarily by increased material
consumption; measured efficiency in terms of productivity20 and income; and had strong reliance
upon science as an unbiased enterprise producing wellbeing. In short, the conventional

20

The goal of industrial agriculture is to serve industrial development to “increase human wellbeing by

increasing production of material goods and services, and simultaneously increasing aggregate
employment and incomes” (Ikerd 1993 p 147).

56

agriculture philosophy understood farms as factories and plants and fields and animals as
productive units (Ikerd 1993).

In contrast, earlier contributors to discussions of alternative agricultural models, such as Robert
Rodale, proposed an evolution of agriculture in three phases: i) discover the natural resources
upon which agriculture is based; ii) use these resources for high production initiatives; and, iii)
development a partnership with nature for sustainable food, feed, and fiber production in an
environmentally sound and socially acceptable manner (Rodale, 1981, cited by Bird and Ikerd,
1993).

Pretty (2008 p 451) lists four key principles for sustainable agriculture:
•

Integrating biological and ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation,
soil regeneration, allelopathy, competition, predation and parasitism into food production
processes,

•

Minimizing the use of those non-renewable inputs that cause harm to the environment or to
the health of farmers and consumers,

•

Making productive use of the knowledge and skills of farmers, thus improving their selfreliance and substituting human capital for costly external inputs, and

•

Making productive use of people’s collective capacities to work together to solve common
agricultural and natural resource problems, such as for pest, watershed, irrigation, forest, and
credit management.

Ikerd (1993) argued that a new paradigm of sustainable agriculture must:

57

•

Use farming systems that conserve resources, including soil and water.

•

Protect the environment, (e.g., water quality);

•

Produce efficiently (e.g., maintain profitability of farms),

•

Compete commercially, and

•

Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society overall

The pragmatic nature of the propositions for sustainable agriculture led some to think of
sustainable agriculture as a goal. For instance, the U.S. National Research Council (1991)
defined it as a system of food and fiber production that holds productivity goals. This was
perhaps due to the implementation-oriented nature of agriculture. However, at a broader
conceptual level, it represented a change in philosophies and in the value system underlying
human actions and resulted in fundamental changes to agricultural practices. The values invoked
by sustainable agriculture reflected a higher degree of awareness of the function of agriculture
within society and its interactions with nature. They also reflected a higher degree of civic
empowerment in the short term and a statement of a long-term moral obligation to future
generations. Framing sustainable agriculture in terms of the short and long run interrelations
among people, ecosystems, land, plants and animals reflected a understanding of agriculture as a
sub-system of a larger system. This holistic, systems perspective satisfies Thompson’s (2007)
condition that no human practice can be deemed sustainable or unsustainable in isolation.
Similarly, Norgaard (1994) described the errors of focusing on agricultural production in
isolation without regard for its connection to farmers, the social system and the surrounding
agro-ecosystem.

58

Table 1. Contrasting approaches of conventional and sustainable agriculture as
characterized by Hill and MacRae (1988) (Source: Hansen 1996)
Conventional
Symptoms
Reductionist
Eliminate ‘enemies’
Narrow focus (neglects side-effects; health
and environmental costs ignored)
Instant
Single, simple (magic bullet, single discipline)
Temporary solutions
Unexpected damages (to person and planet)
High power (risk of overkill and errors/
accidents)
Direct ‘attack’
Imported
Focused on products
Mechanical-chemical
(often
unnatural,
synthetic)
Technology-intensive
Centralized
Values are secondary
Expert, paternalistic (arrogant)
Dependent
Inflexible
Ignores freedom of choice (unjust)
Disempowering
Competitive
Authored

2.

Sustainable
Causes, prevention
Holistic
Respond to indicators
Broad focus (sub-cellular to all life, all costs
internalized)
Long time frame (future generations)
Multifaceted, complex (multi- and transdisciplinary)
Permanent solutions
Unexpected benefits
Low power (minimal risk)
Indirect,
benign
approaches
multiplier, synergistic effects)
Local solutions and materials
Focused on processes, services
Bio-ecological (natural)

(catalytic,

Knowledge/skill intensive
Decentralized (human scale)
Compatible with higher values
Individual/community responsibility (humble)
Self-maintaining/regulating
Flexible
Respects freedom of choice (just)
Empowering
Co-operative
Anonymous (seeking neither reward nor fame

Dimensions of sustainable agriculture

A framing of sustainable agriculture as more a philosophy than a set of farming practices or
methods is evident in the way Douglas (1984) described three general ways that sustainable
agriculture is pursued. Douglas summarized perspectives represented by those writing for his
edited volume as falling generally into three schools of thought that differ principally by what is
deemed important. They are:
59

•

Sustainability as food sufficiency is embraced by those concerned with the permanent
availability of resources (soil, water, crops and technological advances) to produce
food and meet increasing demands. The central concern of this school of thought is to
know what the future demands for food will be. The production of food is pursued
with technological determinism that fails to acknowledge the environmental costs of
the expansion of agriculture.

•

Sustainability as stewardship is embraced by those who think of agricultural
sustainability in terms of ecological concepts rather than only economic. In this line
of thought environmental resources are also seen as both the basis and the limits of
production. The sustainability of agriculture depends upon the availability of
renewable resources and the capacity to control the demands for agricultural outputs,
meaning controlling per capita consumption or the size of the population.

•

Sustainability as community is embraced by those concerned with the values of
community. This group focuses on alternative agricultural methods that also draw
insights from ecologists but emphasizes changes to agricultural communities due to
modern farming techniques. This group pays particular attention to the quality of the
relationships among human and non-human members of the communities and
observes the willingness of participants to mutually cooperate for the wellbeing of the
community. Under this view the prosperity of agriculture is tied to the prosperity of
rural communities.

60

The three perspectives on sustainable agriculture described by Douglas compare to some extent
to previous work of Altieri (1987), in which he originally described agroecology as an alternative
model of agriculture. Altieri used a Venn diagram (see figure 2) with which he proposed
agroecology as the way to meet a series of goals consistent with securing the sustainability of
agriculture. He presented the goals in terms of social, economic and environmental dimensions
of agriculture. Given the breadth and long-term impact in which Altieri presents these goals one
can also understand them as a transitional process that is suggested as a progression from a
culture of traditional agriculture to agroecology. Agroecology for Altieri means stabilization, a
harmonious state of balance among economic growth, social equity and environmental
preservation (Altieri 1987).

Figure 2. The role of agroecology in the satisfaction of social, environmental and economic
goals. Source: (Altieri M.A. 1987)

61

Altieri contrasts the breadth of scope of agroecology with that of conventional agriculture. From
an agroecological perspective, the productivity of an agricultural system is understood as
integrating those socio-economic factors that influence decisions about production with the
political agenda of development, the technological limiting factors, and the environmental
conditions (Altieri 1989). In contrast, for conventional agriculture, agricultural productivity is
understood as a technological problem only, without consideration of farmers and their way of
living (agriculture as culture), understanding the system as mechanistic and atomizing its parts
for their separate study (Norgaard and Sikor 1987).

Both Altieri and Douglas view sustainable agriculture in broader terms than just a technical
matter concerning only agricultural systems. The expansion to broader dimensions makes a
strong statement that agricultural sustainability should both reorient methods and practices and
address socio-economic complexities and ecological constraints. The major distinction between
Douglas and Altieri, however, is that Douglas proposed that the three dominant visions of
sustainability be integrated into a single conception. The definitional compromise that Douglas
proposed is based on close observation and desirability of agricultural cost reductions.
Specifically he discussed the extent of the social, environmental and economic costs of
agriculture that, in his view, should be reduced to secure the sustainability of agriculture. He also
suggested the incorporation of notions of justice or equity into the integrated definition of
sustainable agriculture. With this, he defined agricultural sustainability as ways “to meet future
demands for foodstuffs without imposing on society real increases in the social costs of
production and without causing the distribution of opportunities or incomes to worsen” (Douglas
1984 p25).

62

From a broader perspective, Thompson (1992) described two different conceptualizations of
sustainability to be found within sustainable agriculture debates. First, as a system-describing
concept, sustainability is interpreted as either an ability to fulfill a diverse set of goals or as an
ability to continue. This concept would capture the use of sustainability as criterion for guiding
agriculture as it responds to rapid changes in its environmental, social and economic dimensions.
According to this perspective, when there are multiple goals, the competing priorities should be
pondered according to some criteria to help decisions about with tradeoffs. The second
conceptualization is goal-prescribing, in which sustainability is interpreted in terms of ideology
or management. Those understanding sustainable agriculture as a goal seek to resolve problems
by proposing alternative methods of agriculture. With this interpretation, with an ideological or
management goal, sustainability becomes the single higher order priority that overrides other
competing priorities.

In a further elaboration of the two conceptualizations, Thompson (2007) considered how people
define and use the concept of sustainability in problem solving and policy contexts. He suggested
that people view sustainability from two main perspectives: functional integrity and resource
sufficiency. Concerns about functional integrity are about resilience of human and ecological
systems and the capacity and continuity of the systems. Not only is ecosystem integrity critical
but also integrity of social institutions (formal and informal) upon which a functional society
rests. That the system has functional integrity means that the system establishes a range for the
reproduction of crucial elements allowing them neither to increase without limit nor to disappear
from the system altogether (Thompson 1995).

63

The resource sufficiency view involves the measurement and availability of resources with
respect to the amount of time a human practice or process can be continued. Thompson (2007)
notes that the availability of resources over some period of time must be established, as well as
the notion that growth will be hampered by resource scarcity. The resource sufficiency approach
prescribes that a decreased rate of consumption or the substitution of man-made resources for
natural resources is necessary to enable continued consumption.

Categorizations of sustainable agriculture are for the most part made under the assumption that
science is responsible for the organization of knowledge around sustainability. However, the
concerns, responses and alternative methods of agriculture are highly diverse and rely heavily on
the normative idea of social transformation. As Thompson (2007) notes, this will not come from
technical recommendations alone; rather it falls to public policy and local decision makers to
better define the desired course of action.
C.

Sustainability in the Business Sector

The evolution of the meaning of sustainability in the business sector has certain similarities with
that of agricultural sustainability. In each case, values have been re-stated due to observed
problems with undesirable results; subsequently new theories and practices have formed around
new goals. The systemic perspective for a multidimensional understanding of sustainability has
also evolved. However, the conceptualization of sustainability within the field of business,
particularly its economic and social dimensions, varies greatly in terms of scale and scope. This
contrast begins within the origins of the doctrine of corporate social responsibility.

64

The 1950s marked the modern era of what was referred as the social responsibility of business,
rather than corporate social responsibility (CSR); during this period discussions of modern
corporations were less common (Carroll 1999). Nevertheless, Carroll (1999), citing the work of
Howard Bowen (1953), described the largest businesses in the U.S. as powerful centers of
decision-making whose decisions affected the lives of many and impacted society at large. Thus,
the initial definition of social responsibility in a business context referred to “the obligations of
businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action
which are desirable in terms of objectives and values of our society” (Bowen 1953 as quoted by
Carroll 1999 p 270).

During the early 1970s, Dow Votaw (1972) argued that the phenomenon of “social
responsibility” was the response to transitory social pressures. At that time, Votaw argued that
social responsibility should be understood as a deeper transformation of society, with profound
implications for the organization and structure of the business sector. He listed three reasons for
this:
•

Social responsibility is a condition rather than a policy or temporary corporate
response. The condition meant for the private sector a change in standards in response
to unjust racial conditions and concerns over degradation of the environment.

•

The social problems addressed by social responsibility were neither isolated nor
transitory and were “connected in substantive ways”, many of them arising from deep
social currents.

•

Many businessmen overlooked the long-range character of the pressures to which the
business sector was responding.

65

Votaw (1972) also argued that the obligation of the business sector to act was not only due to
social pressures, but also to higher obligations within society. The traditional obligation of the
business sector was production, and as such “production was the overriding social, as well as
economic, goal” (Votaw 1972 p 31). However, as Votaw (1972) noted, social values and goals
lose their meaning and become inconsistent with current events. Thus, in the post-industrial
society, production was no longer the primary goal because it had already been achieved. “In a
land of scarcity economics is King; in a land of plenty, economics is just another member of the
court” (Votaw 1972 p 30). Votaw (1972) observed that society at large was experiencing a
cultural transformation in terms of how the role of capitalism was viewed. The new social
responsibility of business then, was to adjust its role within society, with clear understanding that
the business system operates as a sub-system of a larger system. Thus, Votaw (972) argued, the
responsibility of the business sector extends far beyond the firm and the stockholders.

Over the decade of the 1970s, the language of corporate social responsibility began to replace
social responsibility (Carroll 1999). Votaw (1973) revisited his ideas, this time referring to
corporate social responsibility, and provided more reasons for the importance and convenience
of this doctrine for the business sector. In both 1972 and 1973, Votaw described what he called
“social pressures” only very generally.

However, in 1973 he was more specific about

environmental degradation concerns and social concerns such as racial injustices that should be
addressed by businessmen in order to prevent unpopularity and failure. He reiterated the
importance of recognition by businessmen of the impacts of corporate conduct on society; he
also encouraged corporate responsibility for environmental impacts, noting that the “DDTs” of

66

the future cannot be handled as in the past (i.e., responding only after discovering catastrophic
environmental events). His idea of CSR was basically to see “social needs as business
opportunities and business as a revolutionary force” (Votaw 1973 p 7).

While Votaw’s ideas were expansive and visionary, his language was understandably reserved.
During the period of his writing, concerns about social pressures could easily be interpreted as
attacks on capitalism and, thus, viewed as communism (see, for instance, Milton Friedman
1970). Similarly environmental awareness arguments could easily have been understood as a
costly imposition on the business sector and thus dismissed. In fact, when Votaw (1972)
addressed the economic implications of CSR, he distinguished between those who do business as
usual and those “doomsayers” who think that the greed of capitalism prevents society from
achieving a state of economic and environmental bliss. It appears his intention was to prove that
he was on the side of businessmen and arguing as an inside voice. Perhaps one of his more
important contributions was to restate the social accountability of the business sector.

“After the business leader becomes amenable to the new perception of social
responsibility, he must still examine the implications of doing so. The goal of social
responsibility is not responsibility but responsible social action, and society is the
ultimate judge of whether social action has been responsible. The businessmen cannot
take lightly even the expedient view of social responsibility, because there are
implications for him, and for everyone, in how he conducts himself” (Votaw 1973 p 17)

67

CSR became a way to persuade individuals in the business sector to incorporate social concerns
into the process of conducting business. The principle argument for CSR is that, in a world
concerned about social and environmental issues, firms may help themselves to succeed by
transparently operating in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. Rather than a
detailed chronology CSR, the focus here is on the conclusive aspects of the evolution that led to
definition of the elements to be considered for sustainability in business. Carroll (1999)
identified the early version of the four components of CSR: economic, legal, ethical and
discretionary. In this account, economic referred not to the economic prosperity of a region but
rather to something that firms do for themselves, in other words, financial profitability. The
legal, ethical and discretionary components were more understood as concerns for the interests of
society.
1.

Change in foundational ideologies

Before the 1960s, social activism pushed for changes in the business mentality that the sole
responsibility of corporations was to provide maximum financial return to stakeholders. Social
activism along with subsequent 1970s federal legislation21 made business accountable for social
and environmental responsibilities; the new national policies of that time officially recognized
the environment, employees, and consumers to be legitimate stakeholders of business (Carroll
1991). Thus, generation of profits plus cost effective solutions to social and environmental
concerns became the trifecta for CSR.

21

Creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC).

68

During the period of modernization’s dominance in the discourse of development, achieving
economic growth and advancements in areas such as markets, trade, investment, agricultural
productivity and industrialization were sufficient to define progress (Harris 2000). From that
perspective, business profitability occupied the top priority over any other environmental or
social concerns. An important driver of change in this business mentality came with the change
in development discourse rejecting the notion that economic growth equals human progress
(Magis and Shinn 2009). The move from the one-dimensional measure of gross domestic product
as an indicator of economic growth to multi-dimensional measures intended to capture wellbeing
in a broader sense marked this change. To some degree, this paradigmatic change diminished the
political leverage of the business sector. This also enabled a context for environmental and social
policies to be enacted.
2.

The components of corporate social responsibility

Based on multiple contributions to the definition of CSR, Carroll (1991, 1999) constructed the
pyramid of social responsibility (see figure 3). His purpose was to encompass the entire range of
responsibilities that should be accepted as part of CSR by any responsible business. Although he
acknowledges that, to some extent, the legal and economic components have always existed, it is
the ethical and philanthropic functions that have taken particular predominance in recent years.

Economic Component
Businesses want to produce goods and services that consumers need and want while making an
acceptable profit. This component entails the following responsibilities:

•

To perform in a manner consistent with maximizing earnings per share.
69

•

To be committed to being as profitable as possible.

•

To maintain a strong competitive position.

•

To maintain a high level of operating efficiency.

•

It is important that a successful firm be defined as one that is consistently profitable.

Legal Component
Firms are expected to operate and pursue their profit missions within the framework of the law.
The responsibilities of this component coexist with the economic ones as foundations of free
enterprise. Legal responsibilities include:

•

To perform in a manner consistent with expectations of government and law.

•

To comply with various federal, state, and local regulations.

•

To be a law-abiding corporate citizen.

•

It is important that a successful firm be defined as one that fulfills its legal obligations.

•

It is important to provide goods and services that at least meet minimal legal requirements.

Ethical Component
This is the most normative stance in CSR because it embraces all business standards and norms,
either expected or prohibited, by business stakeholders. In this case, it is assumed to be a
responsibility for all concerns raised by consumers, employees, shareholders and the community
at large. Responsibilities of ethics include

•

To perform in a manner consistent with expectations of societal mores and ethical norms.
70

•

To recognize and respect new or evolving ethical/moral norms adopted by society.

•

To prevent ethical norms from being compromised in order to achieve corporate goals.

•

It is important that good corporate citizenship be defined as doing what is expected morally
or ethically.

•

To recognize that corporate integrity and ethical behavior go beyond mere compliance with
laws and regulations.

Philanthropic Component

Similar to the ethical component, this component encompasses business actions expected by the
community for a business to be considered a “good” corporate citizen.

Carroll (1991)

distinguishes ethical from philanthropic actions by stating that the latter are not expected in a
moral sense. The philanthropic component refers to business actions that transcend
responsibilities and are, instead, voluntary actions of businesses to contribute to the wellbeing of
a community. These actions included:

•

To perform in a manner consistent with the philanthropic and charitable expectations of
society.

•

To assist the fine and performing arts.

•

It is important that managers and employees participate in voluntary and charitable activities
within their local communities.

•

To provide assistance to private and public educational institutions.

•

To assist voluntarily those projects enhancing a community's "quality of life."
71

Carroll’s pyramid of CSR depicts the four components as layered and suggests that the
fulfillment of all components is necessary for comprehensive engagement in CSR. A firm would
reach higher degrees of CSR as it undertook greater efforts on the higher levels of the pyramid.
However, because of the hierarchical positioning of the components, the pyramid can also be
misunderstood. It was not Carroll’s intention to suggest that a lower component is necessary
before moving onto the next higher (one as in the Maslow pyramid of human needs). In fact, he
asserts that economic and legal responsibilities are unavoidable, while the more ethical and more
philanthropic a firm is, the higher degree of CSR it exhibits.

From a classical microeconomic perspective, profit maximization is a firm’s goal, The CSR
framework breaks with classical economics by expressing that profit (economic responsibilities)
should not occur without attending to legal and ethical responsibilities. Yet, making businesses
socially accountable for ethical or unethical actions is consistent with classical economic
arguments for market-based responses (with less governmental intervention) to problems. This
argument implicitly acknowledges a level of power that consumers and citizens can have as
stakeholders of a firm. However, it also assumes the existence of an arena where this power can
be exercised and a level of organization with very low transaction costs.

72

Figure 3. Pyramid of corporate social responsibility (Source: Carroll 1991)

Philantrophic	
  	
  

• Be	
  a	
  good	
  corporate	
  citizen	
  
• Contribute	
  resources	
  to	
  the	
  community;	
  
improve	
  quality	
  of	
  life.	
  
• Be	
  ethical	
  
• Obligation	
  to	
  do	
  what	
  is	
  right,	
  just	
  
and	
  fair.	
  Avoid	
  harm.	
  

Ethical	
  

• Obey	
  the	
  law	
  
• Law	
  is	
  society's	
  
codidication	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  right	
  
and	
  wrong.	
  	
  

Legal	
  

• Be	
  proditable	
  
• The	
  foundation	
  
upon	
  which	
  all	
  
others	
  rest.	
  	
  

Economic	
  

Strong opposition to these ideas can be found in the business literature (see, for instance,
Buchholz 1991, Klonoski 1991). Milton Friedman is frequently cited for his arguments, in the
article “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (Friedman 1970) that profit
maximization is an acceptable (and sufficient) social behavior and that the current legal
framework already dictated the responsibilities of a firm. Friedman, like other critics, questioned
the practical exercise of CSR.

“What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a "social responsibility" in
his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is
to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to
refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social
objective of preventing inflation, even though a price increase would be in the best
73

interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution
beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by
law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that,
at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" unemployed instead of better
qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.”
(Friedman 1970)

What could not have been anticipated in making this argument is the role of the informed
consumer and growing awareness of corporate malpractice in the age of information. As it is
observed today, consumers have the power to choose from among firms based on the perceived
level of engagement in matters related to CSR. Firms may view this consumer behavior as an
incentive to do more than merely what is required by law and for the sake of competitiveness.
This latter argument is how CSR is to influence firms to view business sustainability in a
comprehensive manner, one that considers profits, the environment and people as a way of
business. Another point missed by Friedman was that, as Votaw (1972) noted, the social and
environmental pressures raising concerns were also creating profound cultural changes that
would affect business structure and organization in multiple ways for the long term. Contrary to
the static position of Friedman (1970), Votaw (1972) tried to encourage the business sector to be
more responsive and learn by being observant of cycles of changes in the values system that
preceded the creation of new laws; he stated that further changes in values would be the driving
force behind additional regulations dictating additional responsibilities for the firms.

74

With the legal and market drivers pushing firms to engage in CSR, it follows that the reason for
respecting regulations is to avoid fees and regulatory enforcement actions. But firms expressed
concern about how best to engage in CSR while remaining competitive and profitable in the
midst of with fundamental changes in markets. John Elkington’s (1998) book, Cannibals with
Forks, addressed this question. Elkington depicts the sustainability challenge as an
unprecedented source of commercial opportunity for competitive companies. He portrays a new
paradigm for seven drivers of change in the business mentality.
•

changes in markets through competition; consumers will be observant of firm’s TBL
commitments and performance;

•

observation of changes in social and ethical values, with less focus on economic values;

•

transparency for social accountability in a world of hyper communications;

•

life cycle technology, with emphasis on firm’s product performance from cradle to grave;

•

partnerships between companies and organizations from civil society;

•

a different perception of time by the firms, suggesting longer planning and visioning
horizons; and

•

changing corporate governance, a more inclusive process in which non-traditional
stakeholders help set companies’ goals.

Elkington’s paradigm seems to capture both the previous work on CSR and ideas from the
Brundtland Report (WCED 1987). He re-states the need for firms to include social and
environmental agendas in their planning, but he also recaptures the idea of attending to the needs
of future generations through his focus on long-term planning. Also, the idea of pluralism
proposed by WCED is reflected in the corporate governance driver. Elkington also reflects the

75

ideas of the U.N. World Commission on the Environment and Development when he uses the
heuristic of three dimensions of sustainability. Elkington’s ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL) refers to
economic and financial prosperity (profits), environmental quality (planet), and social justice
(people). In figure 4, from Elkington’s book, the third leg is labeled Economy. However, he
describes it as prosperity. Also, he holds that communities will have to understand that the TBL
goals are to be met by working with business, rather than against it. This perspective places
businesses as independent entities at the center of decisions, which implies a perpetuation of the
old business model in which business and industry maintain an upper hand in relationships with
communities. The other point missed by Elkington is the asymmetrical power relationship
between large influential businesses and consumers involved in community organizations.
Because the TBL involves a voluntary commitment from the firm, the level of accountability
towards the surrounding community is likely to be very low. Absent benefits in terms of
competitiveness, there is very little incentive for firms to implement the TBL without external
enforcement or accountability.

76

Figure 4. Elkington’s triple bottom line approach focuses on three factors: economic
prosperity, environmental quality and social justice (Elkington 1998)

Nevertheless, Elkington’s integration of business literature and SD literature expands the context
of the contributions of (corporate) socially responsible businesses to society at large. However,
the TBL has been openly criticized for the lack of measurements of its social and environmental
components and the impossibility of aggregating across the three components (Norman and
MacDonald 2004, MacDonald and Norman 2007). Norman and McDonald (2004) argue:
•

Net income cannot be compared properly with the social or environmental bottom
lines. The impossibility resides in the “open-ended nature of any attempt to make
global assessment of a firm’s social impact given the kind of data that would go
into such an evaluation” (Norman and McDonald 2004 p 252).

•

The social and environmental bottom lines seem vague commitments to social
and environmental concerns and, because there is no way to calculate comparable

77

units of measure of the three lines, companies are worry free about comparisons
across firms.
Indeed, the literature on the TBL offers no specifics about contributions to the social and
environmental dimensions. But Pava (2007) suggests that the TBL cannot be blamed for the
limitation of the business ethics movement for advancing ways to measure and track social and
environmental performance in a meaningful, consistent and comparable way. Pava sees value in
the TBL as a metaphor that reminds business academics and business people that corporate
performance is multi-dimensional, as opposed to single bottom-lined (concerned only with profit
maximization). While there is speculation that adoption of CSR and the TBL by large
corporations may simply conceal old problems, growing awareness of corporate malpractice and
the large impact that corporations have worldwide makes CSR, as business sustainability, an
important part of discussions about sustainability.
D.

Sustainable Development

The literature discussing the evolution and implementation of sustainable development (SD) is
the largest body of knowledge in the field of sustainability 22. Also, and more importantly, SD
comes from a worldwide perspective to guide more recent notions of progress embodied in the
work of international development organizations. In fact, SD provided a reorientation for
development ideas that were previously dominated by modernization theory. This dominance
faded during the early 1980s in response to strong criticism of its underlying discourse – the

22

See for instance the analysis of the exponential growth of the field in terms of publications and the number of

contributing authors from different disciplines to the field of Sustainability and Sustainable Development made by
Bettencourt and Kaur (2011).

78

value system in place reflected by the theory and methods of international development. The
criticism was directed at international development broadly, regardless of widespread
acknowledgment that development thinking was not a single paradigm as portrayed by some
critics but, rather, a heterogeneous set of approaches both variable over time and highly diverse
at any given time (Pieterse 1996, Simon 1997, Eisenstadt 2002). Recasting a discussion from the
previous paper, some of the specific points of criticism included the following:
•

Rostow’s stages for growth (Rostow 1971) were rejected as a justification for
implementing modernization.

Especially problematic was the assumption that once

societies acquired all conditions for the takeoff stage (stage 1), traditional societies would
become homogeneous in their structural order.
•

It became clear that the destruction of traditional societies did not necessarily translate
into better societies; oftentimes it was shown that the disruption of traditional families,
communities or political systems led to disorganization, delinquency and chaos rather
than modern order (Eisenstadt 1974).

•

Modernization was seen as ahistorical because it denied the importance of traditional
elements and the history of “backward” societies. In this sense, non-western people were
denied their own history. By extension, traditional knowledge was also dismissed in the
process of modernization; the knowledge, technology and pattern of social institutions
required by modernization are those from modern nations (Pieterse 1991).

•

The attitudes of modernization were seen as a reflection of intentions to sustain the
cultural hegemony of the West over the rest of the world (Pieterse 1991), also seen as a
strategy to amass geopolitical power (Slater 1993).

79

•

Michel Foucault (1926-1984) argued that the community of experts in the social sciences,
with western values, set up the rules for telling the truth, which for him was another mode
of social control. Foucault saw modernity as a global theory that was reductionist,
universalistic, coercive and even totalitarian (Peet and Hartwick 1999).

•

Modernism was seen as a way to create a simple world by reducing the cultural, social,
and architectural diversity found across nations and hindering humans’ abilities and
imagination to cope with progress (Sachs 1992).

In summary, these traditional approaches to development promoted a type of progress that, for
the most part, was designed from outside, ignoring local culture, social institutions, and the
visions of progress of local people (Peet and Hartwick 1999). The aforementioned criticisms also
combined with a wide spread discontent and disillusionment with the unfulfilled promises of
development, in particular the loss of trust in economic growth as the state of the art answer to
development. Modernization centered attention on economic growth (Eisenstadt 1974), which in
turn was measured as gross domestic product (Neumayer 2000); oftentimes this metric, or
income alone, was misused as a proxy indicator of wellbeing (Max-Neef 1995). Evidence that
GDP was a poor proxy of wellbeing came from observations that, while economic growth
around the world had been consistently rising, poverty was and is still rampant (Max-Neef 1995),
and the inequality between rich and poor nations increasing dramatically since the post WWII
period (Sachs 1992). Perhaps the most important focus of public concerns was the environmental
problems associated with industrialization.

For these reasons, it was argued that modernity and its manifestation as development betrayed
progress “by leading us into, preventing us from seeing, and keeping us from addressing
80

interwoven environmental, organizational, and cultural problems” (Norgaard 1994 p. 2). Booth
(1985) and Simon (1997) described an impasse in development practice in the mid-1980s.
1.

Environmental degradation concerns in development thinking

In his history of conservation and environmentalism, Nash (1976) described the rise in
environmental awareness in the U.S., tracing it back to the works of John Muir (1838-1914),
Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946) and Aldo Leopold (1887-1948), among others. A more recent work
influencing the environmental movement was Rachel Carson’s (1962) message about the scale of
negative impacts of pollution on the complex interactions of ecosystems. Easton (2007)
recounted the effects of social pressures on the formation of national and international
agreements to protect the environment from negative, unintended impacts of industrialization. In
particular, the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment “marked the
movement of environmental concerns into the world arena” (Nash 1976 p 307). As a result of
this conference, a set of environmental principles was published as the “Declaration of the
Human Environment” (United Nations 1972). These principles were intended to convince
development decision-makers that environmental considerations should also be taken into
account. Point six of the declaration summarizes its core message: “A point has been reached in
history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their
environmental consequences” (Nash 1976 p 309). This United Nations conference issued
recommendations for governmental actions and led to formation of the U.N. Environmental
Programme (Easton 2007).

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s a series of international conferences was held with the purpose
of restating and expanding on the topic of environmental protection. A key conference was the
81

1982 Second U.N. Conference on the Human Environment because it led to the formation of the
World Commission on Environment and Development. In 1987, this commission published the
report “Our Common Future” (UN World Commission on Environment and Development 1987)
in which SD was defined. The objectives for this commission were:
•

To propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving SD by the year 2000 and
beyond;

•

To recommend ways concern for the environment may be translated into greater cooperation among developing countries and between countries at different stages of
economic and social development and lead to the achievement of common and mutually
supportive objectives that take account of the interrelationships between people,
resources, environment, and development;

•

To consider ways and means by which the international community can deal more
effectively with environmental concerns; and

•

To help define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and the appropriate
efforts needed to deal successfully with the problems of protecting and enhancing the
environment, a long term agenda for action during the coming decades, and aspirational
goals for the world community (UN World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987)

Thus, the birth of SD was marked by publication of “Our Common Future”, better known as the
Brundtland Report.

Sustainable development was defined as “development which meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN World

82

Commission on Environment and Development 1987). The report and the concept created a
geopolitical-turning point about development stressed by the WCED23 (Costanza and Daly 1992,
Daly 1994, Baland and Platteau 1996). Despite a brief (and arguably imprecise) definition, SD
became a convincing cause because of its appeal to reorientation of the greatly criticized
traditions of progress. It called for actions to reduce the negative impacts of economic growth on
the environment and for thinking in terms of finite resources and long-term survival.
Nevertheless, the brief definition of SD offered little direction for implementation. Thus,
subsequent debates focused on the search for more advanced interpretations to guide
implementing SD.

Considering the initial objectives for the World Commission on Environment and Development,
it is not surprising that the SD of this period was for the most part defined largely as
development complemented by sound actions to protect and preserve natural resources and the
environment. Traditionally, development meant economic development. Therefore, the linkage
made between economy and environment in the understanding of SD could be expected. It seems
simplistic to point out such a linkage in light of greater understanding and acceptance of human
dependence on environmental quality; however, only 30 years ago this linkage represented a
major reorientation of development thinking. The discussion of SD expanded the understanding
of progress by drawing attention to the contributions of the environment to the satisfaction of

23

The WCED listed as common challenges: population growth and improvement of the human resource base;

maintaining the potential of food security for every nation; protection of species and ecosystems; creation of
environmentally safe and sustainable energy sources; industrial transformation to produce more with less; and
addressing the adequate management of urban growth.

83

basic human needs. Therefore a major part of the reorientation was the focus on reparation of
environmental damages caused by industrialization, without losing focus on reduction of poverty
and increases in education, access to health services, and the guarantee of basic human freedoms
(Pearce et al. 1990). The notion of SD was not without its critics. SD was seen by some as an
oxymoron in the sense that development, understood as constant economic growth, was
impossible to sustain indefinitely with a finite resource base 24 . Assimilation of the ideas
proposed by WCED and changes to traditional perceptions of development were not immediate.
2.

Reinforcement of social aspects for development theory

The significant focus on ecological and economic matters in discussion of sustainability during
the 1980s seemed to leave unattended the social dimension of SD. Yet, the central thesis from
WCED (1987) for social sustainability is that social systems are interdependent with ecological
systems. The Brundtland Report highlighted the importance of matters of social equity and
justice, arguing that because of greater human interdependence it was best for society’s common
interest that development decisions be made in a way that empowered vulnerable groups. In
addition, it was observed that development should enhance people’s choices and should develop
human

capabilities

such

as

knowledge.

However,

this

discussion

and

associated

recommendations in the report initially received less attention than the idea of integrating
economic growth and environmental concerns and were directed at people in developing nations.
Eventually the recommendations about social equity and social justice became a more prominent
focus of SD, and subsequent publications of United Nations Development Programme reinforced

24

See for instance Lelé (1991)

84

the social dimension, especially in the first Human Development Report (United Nations
Development Programme 1990).

The Earth Summit Conference (United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development 1992)
examined the relationship between human rights, population, social development, women and
human settlements and restated the need for environmentally SD. The result of the conference
was Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992: paragraph 23.2), a document which explicitly argues that one of
the fundamental prerequisites for the transition into SD is broadening public participation in
decision-making. The document recommends new forms of participation that should involve
individuals, groups and organizations in decisions, particularly those decisions that potentially
may affect the communities in which they live and work.

This statement from the United Nations challenged traditional ideas that, because SD is a highly
technical matter, implementation should be left to scientists who should define priorities, the
necessary metrics, and the required actions (Portney 2003). The Agenda 21 report suggested
pluralistic and inclusive approaches for these tasks. These recommendations are consistent with
recent theories suggesting that the formation and maintenance of social institutions is of utmost
importance for community development because the process of public engagement enhances the
social capital upon which civil society, governance and government rest (Fukuyama 2001). From
a practical standpoint, many of the elements of SD contained within the social and environmental
dimensions fall into the public domain because they pertain to common interests. Thus, for SD
policies to become effective, public approval and support would be required. Otherwise, SD
policies designed in technocratic isolation risks a lack of public support (Randall 2002). In

85

addition, matters of social justice (equity) became key for sustainability; for this more expansive
and inclusive policy-making approaches were needed; Furthermore, these policy decisions ought
to take into account the judgments, and therefore values, of local citizens. If sustainability issues
were only of technical or scientific concern, then society would not still face persistent
problems25 that were said to be well understood by the scientific community, but nevertheless
remain unresolved (Portney 2003).
3.

Dimensions of sustainable development

SD was framed as multidimensional, in contrast to the linear thinking of modernization’s
economic growth. It was understood to have at least three dimensions that should be attended to
for human development: the economic dimension, with elements such as the traditionally
dominant GDP indicators; the environmental or ecological dimension; and the social dimension.
A diagram of three overlapping circles was used to illustrate the three dimensions. The origin of
the three-circle diagram is unclear. Connelly (2007) traces its origins to International Centre for
Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) published in the early 1990s. However, earlier versions
of this representation are found in the sustainable agriculture literature (see Figure 5).

Whatever its origin, the three circle diagram captures a powerful metaphor in the way it
communicates the interrelated concerns of development policy, suggesting a holistic scope and
integration across the three areas (Connelly 2007). It also helped to explain the systemic nature

25

Pollution levels, overconsumption of natural resources, strong inequality in the distribution of income and services

(within countries and across rich and poor nations); poverty levels, and social conflicts.

86

of SD (O’Connor 2006). However, the dimensions defined by the WCED lacked specificity, and
the idea of overlapping dimensions was merely a heuristic to explain what “ought to be”.

Figure 5. The three circles of sustainable development (Source: ICLEI 1996, cited by
Connelly 2007)

Environment

SD
Society

Economy

In furthering the theory of these dimensions, O’Connor (2006) included an additional sphere to
the schematic diagram representing political organizations (Figure 6). In this political dimension,
O’Connor suggests the inclusion of conventions, rules and institutional frameworks for the
regulation of the other dimensions. These organizations provide the regulation required for
resolution of conflicts arising from tradeoffs, due to conflicting or incompatible choices, among
the economic, environmental and social dimensions.

87

Figure 6. The four spheres: framework for sustainability (Source: O'Connor 2006)

The actual number of elements (dimensions) of SD has been the subject of considerable attention
by different authors. Bettencourt and Kaur (2011) analyzed the evolution of the field of
sustainability and SD (they used the terms interchangeably) and showed exponential growth in
the number of publications and contributing authors from different disciplines, dominated,
however, by contributions from social sciences, biology, and chemical, mechanical, and civil
engineering.

Despite the attention, there is not a unifying theory for SD. In an effort to identify the critical
elements of SD, Alkire (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of the dimensions of human
development, intended to clarify what it means to say that development is multi-dimensional.
More than just finding meaning, she intended to give epistemological footing to these
dimensions. Working toward a synthesis of different sets of dimensions from different authors,
however, Alkire recognized how these dimensions were biased towards western notions of
progress and too general to apply to a specific context and timeframe. Ultimately, Alkire
88

abandoned the idea of coming up with a list of “universal” dimensions in favor of suggesting a
larger appreciation of how dimensions of development should be specified; for her, the
appropriate process for specification of these dimensions should not be a traditional expertdriven process but rather should be collaborative, visible, defensible and revisable.
E.

Towards a Common Understanding of Sustainability

The way that three separate fields of study constructed the concept of sustainability raised the
question of whether finding common ground across them will help the advancement of
implementation. The point of this section (and this paper) is that the advancement of
sustainability requires a common understanding to translate knowledge into coherent actions. As
noted above, considerable work has been done looking at the general concept of sustainability
beyond a specific focus on agriculture, business and development (Bettencourt and Kaur 2011),
adding even more assumptions about elements of importance.

As for motivation to make the changes in the human trajectory that are required for
sustainability, Prugh, Constanza and Daly (2000) raise concern that most books about
sustainability are written with emphasis on crisis, revealing the ills of society and providing
scenarios of impending disaster. This is especially true when discussions of sustainability focus
principally on the environmental dimension, which makes direct reference to transforming the
dominant model of growth and associated high levels of consumption and waste. Social and
economic motivations may better align with Frederick’s view (2013) that social transformation
is justified based on notions of linear progress over time (e.g., from poverty to riches), which in
turn stimulates normative visions of a better future in which social instability, inequality and
poverty are overcome.
89

Although sustainability is portrayed as a set of technical and methodological solutions to
pressing matters, a deeper look indicates that it is a lot more about the expression of certain
social motivations that can be ethically defensible (Bawden 2010) or ethically justifiable (Blatz
1992) in the current context of the world. Orr (2002) took a broad look at the issue and
concluded that “the dialogue about sustainability is about a change in the human trajectory that
will require us to rethink old assumptions and engage the large questions of the human condition
that some presume to have been answered once and for all”. The assumptions that ought to come
into question are not only disciplinary or methodological, but also about the values sustaining
motivations. Bawden (2010) discusses the point made by Vickers (1983) in which he argues that
defining what is wrong or right will require the integration of value judgments into the
appreciation of our systems. An old idea perhaps, but it is not clear in the process of
implementing sustainability.
1.

The same heuristic does not imply the same meaning

Each area of work discussed in this paper, structured sustainability with more or less the same
dimensions: the environment, society and the economy. The use of these heuristics has proven
useful, but it has also resulted in a high degree of abstraction. As a result, there is a tendency to
understand sustainability by drawing from all fields regardless of fundamental differences among
them. This phenomenon is an example of “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness” (Daly, Cobb et
al. 1994). Within each area of focus and associated fields of study, and within each of the three
dimensions, there are ethical principles of sustainability and associated recommended actions.
These principles and actions, however, vary widely across the fields; as a result there is great

90

variability in views about how sustainability ought to be implemented, depending on which
frame of reference is applied.

Benefiting from the knowledge about sustainability gained in each of the three areas does not
mean assuming that they are the same. Despite some similarities, sustainability means different
things for SD, corporate social responsibility and sustainable agriculture. Consider one example
of efforts to combine work under the assumption that the intentions of each are the same.

“The concept of sustainable development was launched by the WCED as a ‘global
objective’ to guide policies orientated to balance ‘economic and social systems and
ecological conditions’. It is often represented with the ‘triple bottom line’ of economy,
environment, and society (Elkington et al. 2007, p. 1). A sustainable development
‘triangle’ formed by People, Planet, and Profit (the three Ps), with Profit sometimes
replaced by the more moderate ‘Prosperity’, is common use in business and governments
(European Commission 2002). The term ‘sustainability’ is considered a synonym of
sustainable development although, as pointed out by Dresner (2002), some distinctions
between these two concepts can be identified.” (Seghezzo 2009)

Combining knowledge about sustainability at the level of heuristics cannot be accepted as a
shared understanding of sustainability. Beyond the obvious focus on three dimensions, there are
significant differences between the triple bottom line and the framing of SD, not only in terms of
the scope of analysis and the reach of sustainability, but also at the foundational level. The triple
bottom line is based on the doctrine of corporate social responsibility. At the core of CSR there

91

are reservations about the extent to which businesses are duty-bounded to norms outside the
business realm. Consider, for example, Milton Friedman’s 1962 argument that given clear “rules
of the game”, the only social responsibility of business is to use its resources and focus on
activities to generate profits (Friedman 2007). This type of thinking weakens the moral
obligation that CSR proponents try to instill into business. But it also reveals that, in reality,
businesses face no clearly articulated obligation to care for the improvement of quality of life for
society at large; this is optional. In contrast, SD is about the need to create policies that would
increase per capita income as a poverty relief strategy. The goal is not only a growing economy
but also a more egalitarian economy, an obligation that every nation has towards its own
population.

The contrast between the three constructs of sustainability is summarized in Table 2. It is
understandable that, for some, moving the concept of sustainability forward by reconciling
differences and combining meanings across fields of study is desirable. Yet, these efforts may in
fact ignore or conceal key differences. Seeking commonalities in shallow layers of the different
focuses on sustainability may hinder implementation if actions with divergent intentions pose
challenging trade-offs that would ensue long standing debates. The advancement of sustainability
would be better served if understanding across fields were reached through the use of criteria that
allow for combination of different meanings at deeper levels of motivation. Independently of the
type of sustainability, the scale applied to the system under observation illustrates another
inconsistency of the different framings, specifically the incongruences among local, regional,
national and worldwide initiatives.

92

Table 2. Examples of foundational differences between constructions of sustainability
Sustainable Agriculture

Triple Bottom Line
(as more advanced version of CSR)

Sustainable Development

Social dimension refers to
the rural life linked to
agriculture. In some
instances this notion of rural
life style extends to the
preservation of desirable
family, work and community
life values.

People refers to matters of justice in
labor and markets (e.g. fair trade); in
expanding the corporate stakeholders
to include not only investors but also
all employees, and customers at
large. Also, in promoting fairness,
safety and harmony at the working
place. In approaching markets with
more considerations to consumers
concerns for others and the
environment.

Social dimension refers to efforts
to exercise justice at the
community level in matters or
race, labor, gender; in seeking
equity in the distribution of
resources; in raising the
community’s culture, knowledge,
education and living standards.

Economic dimension
touches on the profitability
of farmers, and the role of
agriculture production in the
national economy.

Profit refers to a matter of making
profit while taking advantage of the
social awareness of corporate
malpractices to differentiate the firm
by showing compliance and
conformity with new value system.

Economic dimension refers to
macro-economic strategies that
would positively impact the
interaction between the private
sector and people, and also the
one between business and the
environment.

Environmental dimension
refers to the surrounding
environment of the
agricultural system. Water
quality, soil fertility /
conservation, air quality, are
both suppliers of inputs for
agricultural production and
receivers of negative or
positive impacts.

Planet refers to consideration for the
negative impacts that the actions of
the firm may have and a willingness
of the stakeholders to comply with
environmental regulation and
compliance with social norms.

Environmental dimension,
protecting natural resources base
and the environment for human
health, biodiversity conservation
and productivity.

Involves altruistic,
biospheric, intrinsic,
utilitarian and instrumental
values.

Involves mostly utilitarian and
instrumental values.

Involves altruistic, biospheric,
instrumental and utilitarian
values.

The scale used covers the
defined agricultural system
which can be very large but
the elements involved are
only those related to
agriculture (e.g. urban
matters may be left outside
the analysis)

The applied scale encloses a firm or
a sector of the economy. However,
there are some innovative uses of
TBL applied to community level but
these uses overstretch the concept to
include elements pertaining to SD

The scale of the system under
observation is national or
regional

93

2.

Caution about taking a stance using only one construction of

sustainability
The challenges of shallowly interpreting the multiple understandings of sustainability to be the
same create conflict at the level of practice. Even in closely related fields there is not broad
agreement in terms of practices. For instance, Knauf (2014) analyzes two current lines of
discourse in Germany on sustainability, both with high relevance for the forest-based sector:
strong sustainability26 and sustainable building (environmental standardization in the German
building sector). The analysis shows that each discourse has developed and established
diametrically different meanings of sustainability.

It would be a mistake to assert that there is one correct understanding of sustainability. The
challenge resides in how to combine the multiple contributions. There are many reasons why
finding commonalities is important, for example finding synergies among fields participating in
a process that is consistent and commonly understood across disciplines. These synergies are
properties of the systems. Thompson (2007) refers to Richard Bawden’s statement that for the
most part systems are heuristics and they are unreal. One way to interpret this statement is that
systems are constructed by actors and bounded by the reach of their strategic plans or availability
of resources. In this case, it does matter greatly whether the actors have a common understanding
of principles because the system construction depends on the capacity of actors to combine their

26

As understood in environmental and natural resource economics theory, strong sustainability implies that, in a

context of constant benefits generated by capital, substitution of man-made capital for natural capital should be
limited and that future generations have the right to enjoy the same benefits from natural capital available for the
current generation (Tietenberg 2000).

94

knowledge over a set of commonly understood principles 27 .

Without this common

understanding there is a risk of oversight of some systemic properties and synergies.
3.

Find commonalities at the motivational level

If members from sectors across society or a community gather to define plans for progress, how
can they understand each other if each brings an understanding of sustainability that comes from
a different theoretical paradigm? When practices recommended by a particular discipline are
accepted and their virtues praised without questioning basic assumptions, then the original valueladen assumptions are also taken as given. This suggests that pursuing sustainability by focusing
on which practices from different fields qualify as sustainable is problematic because at their
origin the fields arise from potentially divergent values. Thus, rather than comparing practices
and debating over which constitute sustainability, a closer look at basic value motivations may
contribute to advancing the implementation of sustainability.

A more general framework for analysis is found in Norton (2005) formulation of sustainability in
which he gives a definition of sustainable activities, characterized as those “that can be carried
on in the present without negatively impacting the range of important choices that should be left
open to the next generation” (Norton 2005 p 432). This provides a general understanding that
27

As an example one can think of the interaction of elements and synergies that can emerge in a scenario where a

local initiative promotes the use of genetically modified crops for nutritionally complete cereal to benefit the world’s
poorest people, such as the case of transgenic corn (Naqvi, S., et al. 2009). This initiative may be acceptable from an
altruistic perspective; it may not be so for those with biospheric values interested in the preservation of traditional
genetic diversity, nor for those concerned about the uncertain effects of transgenic crops on human health and the
environment.

95

actions for sustainability should aim for the indefinite continuity of a system. But it also
expresses the idea of choices, rather than needs or wants as in the definition of SD. Choices
imply individual and social preferences that entail value judgments; this is a more advanced
stance than thinking about needs, which implies basic necessities for which sometimes there is
no choice (e.g., food). When thinking about preferences, values are key because they serve as
standards or criteria for the evaluation or selection of actions, policies, and events (Schwartz
1994). Kennedy (2007) defines sustainability as the technical management of resources in such
a way that their contributions to human welfare are conserved or improved for succeeding
generations. Like Norton, Kennedy considers future generations. Even though Kennedy refers to
technical matters, the idea of preferences prevails in the sense that technical advances may be
offered as solutions when environmental amenities are depleted by human actions.

Rather than a choice from among a set of actions, focusing on the proposition that sustainability
encompasses principles that in turn depend upon preconceived value judgments (Bawden 2010,
Raffaelle et al. 2010) offers a less conflicting scenario for agreement. More reasons to think of
values as the departure point for any sustainability initiative are given by Prugh, Costanza et al.
(2000). These authors argue that the most important dimensions of sustainability are cultural and
political. One of the reasons for this is that society has entered a phase of “post normal science”
(Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993) which implies a different relationship between experts and all
other stakeholders. As a result, the politics to address sustainability problems are more important
than any technical expertise (Prugh et al. 2000). Similarly, Orr (2002) argues that the barriers to
the transition to sustainability are social, political and psychological rather than technological. If
decision-making about the trade-offs posed by multiple understandings is brought to a level of

96

values, the field of decision may become less convoluted. This may sound like a simplification
because the same actions may invoke different values. But values can be considered according to
their motivations.
4.

Motivations for sustainability actions are axiological

As reviewed in previous sections, different framings define and construct sustainability with
different elements that lead to inconsistent implementation. The key to overcoming these
inconsistencies is to find a significant overlap among understandings of sustainability based on
the values invoked by each framing, or at least, to take a closer look at the process that enables
the expression of those values. Based on the epistemologies that define sustainability, it is
observed that the similarities of the heuristics used hide different underlying values. Given this
fundamental disagreement among fields of sustainability study, it may be that axiology can
contribute to the development of a broader framework that would generate consistent
understanding prior to implementation.

Norton (2003) expressed concern about whether using a set of basic principles to guide moral
decisions is an integration or a reduction of options for decision-makers. Narrowing from a set
of principles to a set of values could be viewed as a step backward for those observing that
sustainability actions may invoke multiple conflicting values. However, history shows that a
larger focus on values provides for an expansion of the basic foundations that previously guided
ideas of progress. In the past, a great number of decisions related to development were made
based on a reductionist value-laden criterion. For instance, Berkes and Folke (1998) described
that much of the poor management of ecosystems and the failure of resource management were
the result of the laissez-faire ideology promoted by mainstream economic theory and its primary
97

focus on utilitarian values. Topics such as environmental valuation and discounting are examples
of the application of utilitarian values alone. This dominance of an extreme simplification of
values was seen by Norton (2003) as a moral monism pervading social and environmental
policy. On the other hand, Norton also warns that monism is also embraced by environmental
ethicists that focus too much on the intrinsic values of the environment, while somehow negating
the importance of anthropocentric values in the great order of things. He concluded that an
integration of pluralistic principles using an expanded underlying value theory is necessary,
while integrating pluralistic environmental principles across different dynamics. This argument
is a point of reference that may well be used as the base to expand attention to value systems in
developmental decisions.
5.

Values as motivation in sustainability policy

Sustainability has an inherent ethical dimension that has been neglected (Easton 2007, Becker
2012). The practices suggested as sustainability, indeed any practice, can be motivated by one or
more values. The dominant social paradigm prior to the emergence of sustainability emphasized
individualism, materialism, limited government, economic growth, and the importance of
modernization at the core of progress (Oskamp and Schultz 2005). Sustainability invokes
through its principles an extension of those values and includes values like those emphasized by
the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP). This new paradigm “emphasizes beliefs about the
delicate balance of nature, the limits of growth, and humanity’s need to live in balance with
nature rather than to rule it” (Oskamp and Schultz 2005 p 451).

Though sustainability challenges the established value system, it remains highly normative;
therefore any recommended action requires deliberation and prioritization in the process of
98

implementation. But, because multiple values are invoked, this type of discussion at the level of
action might create decision gridlocks or endless debates, or even worse, implementation of
policies that are believed to serve one purpose but end up serving others. In other words,
decisions on policy actions may take different routes depending on the values that come into
play. One can see how difficulties in decision-making would be exacerbated when similar
sustainability actions from different interpretations of sustainability are debated. The alternative
is to carefully examine the values that underlie the actions. By definition, a value “is an
important life goal or societal condition desired by a person” (Oskamp and Schultz 2005).
Considering that values are usually broad abstract concepts (e.g. beauty, happiness, justice,
freedom), and because values influence the views people hold over contested matters such as
religion, democracy, freedom, justice, equality and others, it is worth exploring how values
influence decisions.

Using the classification of values made by Schwartz (1994) (see table 3) is one way to explore
the association of values with principles of sustainability in order to exemplify the type of values
that influence sustainability actions. Schwartz’s categorization has been used by Dietz,
Fitzgerald et al. (2005) and Oskamp and Schultz (2004) to explain environmental values or
environmental attitudes. Most environmental attitudes fall into a category of values that is also
associated with social justice, equity or care for others, thus this categorization is also applicable
to the social and economic dimensions of sustainability.

99

Table 3. Motivational types of values. (Source: Schwartz 1994) 28
Openness to Change: Self-direction, Stimulation and Hedonism
Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous
gratification for oneself.
Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and
challenge in life.
Self-direction: Independent thought and
action-choosing, creating, exploring.

Pleasure, enjoying life
Daring, varied life,
exciting life
Creativity, curious
Freedom

Self-Transcendence: Universalism, Benevolence
Universalism: Understanding,
appreciation, tolerance, and protection for
the welfare of all people and for nature.

Broad-minded, social
Justice, equality
Protecting the
environment
Helpful
Honest
Forgiving

Benevolence: Preservation and
enhancement of the welfare of people with
whom one is in frequent personal contact.

Conservation: Security, Conformity, Tradition
Tradition: Respect, commitment, and
acceptance of the customs and ideas that
traditional culture or religion provide.

Humble, devout
Accepting my portion
in life

Conformity: Restraint of actions,
inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or
harm others and violate social expectations
or norms.
Security: Safety, harmony, and stability of
society, of relationships, and of self.

Politeness, obedient
Honoring parents and
elders
National security
Social order, clean

Self-Enhancement: Power, Achievement and Hedonism
Power: Social status and prestige, control
or dominance over people and resources
Achievement: Personal success through
demonstrating competence according to
social standards.
Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous
gratification for oneself.

28

Social power
Authority
Wealth
Successful
Capable
Ambitious
Pleasure, enjoying life

Schwartz (1994) tested this theory on 64 countries include two African, two North American, four Latin

American, eight Asian, two South Asian, eight European, one Middle Eastern, 14 European, two Mediterranean,
Australia and New Zealand.

100

One can argue that important principles of sustainability such as intergenerational equity, care
for others, care for the environment, appreciation of the intrinsic value of nature, and social
justice fall into the categories of universalism and benevolence. If this is the case, then those
values are to be prioritized in the decision making process. However, a closer examination of the
principles of sustainability shows multiple associated values and not necessarily all would serve
humanistic (altruistic) purposes that sustainability is expected to satisfy.

In other words,

embracing these principles may suggest embracing different values.

Take for instance the SD principle stating that “industrial production: higher productivity,
increased efficiency and decreased pollution” shall be conducted. This principle involves highly
contested matters related to models of production and consumption, as well as the relation of
business with society at large. WCED suggested that without economic growth there is no SD;
how might this principle become actionable under different values? Values associated with
power for self-enhancement motivate firms to become efficient. Yet, highly efficient businesses
would find little incentive to incur costs by providing additional benefits to employees (for better
distribution of wealth) or to incur high costs of pollution abatement. On the other hand, when
motivation comes from security values, bad employment conditions and pollution problems may
generate social instability and damages to regional natural resources, outcomes viewed as hurting
the ability of the firm to operate. If, however, universalism values motivate policy design to
protect workers or environmental quality, firms may find incentives in the form of regulations.
In other words, the rules of the game for the industry would be changed.

101

The list of principles of sustainability can be extensive (see the appendix for a complete list of
principles), so the types of values invoked will be as well. However, for stakeholders facing
multiple possible actions, coming to an agreement on the types of value(s) that should underlie
each particular policy clarifies and provides a context in which actions can be combined more
coherently. Even if stakeholders have to work hard in collectively sorting through multiple
values invoked and then deciding on priorities, this process should be less conflict-laden than
debating over actions while motivational values remain obscured.

Working at the level of values is not expected to be conflict free; even at the level of values,
issues can be presented as trade-offs. Schwartz (1994) discusses how the pursuit of certain
actions in response to one motivational value may conflict with other values. For instance, the
pursuit of achievement values conflicts with actions related to the enhancement of other’s lives
or to notions of equity, in other words, having to give up individual interests for the good of
community interests. By the same token, actions related to values of tradition conflict with
actions related to stimulation values; “accepting cultural and religious customs and ideas handed
down from the past is likely to inhibit seeking novelty, challenge, and excitement” (Schwartz
1994 p 23).
F.

Values differences and a minimum standard for sustainability

Clearly, different groups have their own visions of what sustainability entails. In the process of
articulating those visions, and the motivating values, sustainability loses its technocratic
character and becomes a matter of the people. There is of course a part of identifying and
implementing actions that would continue being technical, but the selections of “things” that any
group or community wishes to transform is more an ethical consideration. But the fact that
102

different groups exhibit different values and different visions should not mean that sustainability
is whatever anyone wants it to be. After almost thirty years of debates and discussions about the
meaning of sustainability, involving academics and stakeholders from multiple sectors, there
should be a degree of consensus about a set of minimum criteria that should be met to define
sustainable actions. These criteria should be used to evaluate whether a group is moving towards
sustainability or not. If any group implements anything and calls it sustainability, then
sustainability becomes all and nothing.

Therefore, despite the absence of generally accepted value-laden criteria to determine whether a
practice can be deemed sustainable or not, the acceptance of sustainability also implies the
acceptance of some general norms that are more or less recurrent in most propositions of
sustainability practices. These norms suggest standards of sustainability or core conditions for
sustainability.

•

Seeing how different fields of knowledge construct sustainability and that different
understandings of sustainability invoke different values, the importance of combining
different sources of knowledge in sustainability planning and implementation is clear,
because greater participation and representation adds to the understanding of the system
under observation. Conversely, it should not be accepted that a community implementing
sustainability would commit only to one type of sustainability because this shortens the
breadth and depth of the effort. There are communities developing sustainability
initiatives based solely on the triple bottom line literature. This restricts their ability to
benefit from other knowledge that would help in crafting their sustainability vision,

103

broaden their scope of analysis, and expand the variety of principles they could decide to
implement. Similarly, a community basing its work solely on principles of sustainable
agriculture could overlook principles related to urban-rural interactions; considering SD
principles could help the community realize opportunities from better integration into the
large system of which they are a part.

•

All sustainabilities discussed in this document embrace, to some degree, a systems
perspective. It follows, then, that communities working on sustainability benefit from
recognizing that they are not islands. Every community interacts with others in some
way, depending upon other communities and upon the nation as a whole. Therefore,
consideration of the interactions among communities and with the region should be part
of sustainability visioning and planning. Communities focused only on their wellbeing
are working on an incomplete system. Absence of this systems perspective risks the
“tyranny of small decisions”.

•

Different authors use different words to express ideas similar to Bawden’s (2010 p 24)
description of sustainability as the “capacity of any system-of-systems to maintain itself
(or to be maintained) into the future”. Another minimum standard involves long term
planning and attention to intergenerational impacts.

•

Finally, communities or stakeholders engaged in sustainability initiatives should be clear
about the values that they want to serve with any given action and about the diversity of
values they ascribe to sustainability. In particular, universalism and benevolence (see

104

Table 3) are core value because they underlie actions to benefit the community at large
and the surrounding environment.

One additional point remains. Sustainability is about the big questions of progress and the
exercise of values such as fairness, social and environmental justice, and equity, with the purpose
of enhancing quality of life and the indefinite perpetuation of society. Since these are macro
issues that fall into the domain of non-totalitarian types of government that allow for the
expression of freedoms, sustainability is strongly associated with democracy. However,
democracy is not seen as a necessary condition for sustainability because the indefinite
perpetuation of society and the wellbeing of society could be achieved by means other than
democracy (e.g. the benevolent dictator).

105

G.

Conclusion

This paper explored the contributions from three dominant fields of sustainability studies and
how this knowledge contributes to a broader understanding of sustainability. Additionally, the
argument is made that implementation of sustainability is complicated when it devolves to a
selection from among a set of practices associated with different fields of sustainability. The key
points made are:
•

Regardless of apparent similarities, heuristics used to explain sustainability across fields of
study and the principles generated from these heuristics reflect underlying values that can be
incompatible, which causes inconsistencies that affect implementation. Therefore caution is
warranted for efforts to combine knowledge about sustainability at the shallow level of
heuristics. This is more critical when combining sustainability practices from different fields
of study.

•

Combining knowledge is desirable, but debating at the level of practices that stem from
principles (across and within fields of study) may create gridlock in decision-making.
Bringing the debate one level deeper from practices to values helps to shed clarity on the
purpose of the practice and may facilitate deliberation.

•

As hard as it is to agree on values, being explicit about what values a group or community
wishes to serve with every action within sustainability plans (part of the rationale for each
action) could reduce conflict.

•

A set of principles, drawn from these fields of study, is sufficiently universal that they can be
deemed minimum standards for labeling an initiative sustainable. The standards are born of
the three fields of sustainability studies and emerge as characteristics of sustainability.

106

How communities actually implement sustainability is part of a larger question that emerges
from this discussion. However, evaluating sustainability in terms of value judgments involves
highly contested methods, long-term studies and large samples. Such evaluations will be rare.
Meanwhile, many communities are already engaged in taking steps towards sustainability. But
how do they understand sustainability? And how is that reflected in their plans? These are among
the questions addressed in the next paper.

107

CHAPTER 3 - Interpretation and Implementation of Sustainability with Community
Sustainability Indicators
A.

Introduction

An increasing number of communities using sustainability indicators are setting national trends
for community development planning. Advocates of these indicators argue that community
sustainability indicators (CSI) are clearly different from national-level indicators (such as GDP)
in that they are constructed from the grassroots upwards in a deliberative process and capture
broader measurements of the elements that generate social welfare (Reed, et al. 2006, Smolko
and Redefining Progress 2006). These indicators are regarded as sustainability indicators because
of their use by communities to track progress along locally identified sustainability trajectories.

However, there are still questions about the extent to which community efforts are guided by
theories of sustainability. Sustainability has been debated for over three decades, and from these
debates several constructions of sustainability have emerged. From these, different heuristics are
used to reflect the dimensions of sustainability, and in almost all constructions economic,
environmental, and social dimensions are found (Altieri 1987, UN World Commission on
Environment and Development 1987, Carroll 1991). From these dimensions principles are
suggested for implementation; these may include attention to moral obligations to future
generations, social justice, broader understanding of social wellbeing, the enhancement of
society, time and geographical scales, systemic-approaches, environmental justice, and attention
to nature’s carrying capacity (Norgaard 1994, Arrow, et al. 1995, Folke, et al. 1996, Costanza, et
al. 1997, Berkes, et al. 1998, Dresner 2002, Lawn 2006) . These principles invoke a value
system that both contests and complements the dominant utilitarian value-system that has been
highly influential in community development works. However, regardless of how compelling
108

theoretical recommendations for implementation may be, communities may or may not
incorporate them in their community sustainability plans.

Consistency between theoretical

constructions of sustainability and empirical applications has not been thoroughly assessed.
Given the breadth of treatments of sustainability in the literature, studying communities’ use of
sustainability indicators represents a unique opportunity to learn how communities interpret and
implement sustainability in their own development plans. Better understanding of communitylevel efforts may inform refinements in theory and provide insights about limitations and
advantages for implementing sustainability.

This research addresses three questions about communities’ development and use of
sustainability indicators: 1) What types of community sustainability indicators are found across
community sustainability efforts? 2) Based on communities’ visions of progress, what constitutes
sustainability for them? 3) How do their interpretations of sustainability compare to those from
theoreticians’ interpretations in the literature?

For this research, 20 sets of indicators from Community Sustainability Efforts in the U.S. were
collected from electronic databases. An analytical framework developed by the author is used to
contrast broad categorizations of sustainability to evaluate the level of attention to dimensions of
sustainability. At the same time, critical characteristics of these indicators are evaluated.
Characteristics include, whether the indicators are isolated measures or combined measures that
reflect dynamics of the system. This research seeks to make a contribution to the body of
literature for indicators through a general analysis of community sustainability indicators and
comparison of the fundamentals of the practices with global theories of sustainability.

109

B.

Communities Implementing Sustainability with Indicators

An approach to observe changes conducive to sustainability is the creation of metrics for the
principles associated with the concept. Where metrics exist, indicators may serve as the means to
analyze information that can be indicative of movement towards sustainable trends (Victor 1991,
Segnestam 2002, Phillips 2005, Lawn 2006, Bell and Morse 2008). The proliferation of
Community Sustainability Efforts (CSEs) using community sustainability indicators (CSI)
across the United States of America reflects the actions of several groups participating in
alternative ways to measure progress under the overarching concept of sustainability.

Communities implementing sustainability are at the cutting edge of the advancement of this
concept. Their work contradicts traditional notions of community development that would view
sustainability as a highly technical matter and its implementation best left to scientists (or
experts) who would define priorities, the necessary metrics, and the required courses of action
(Portney 2003). Under the reasoning that sustainability should be left in the hands of experts,
sustainability indicators such as the genuine progress indicator have been suggested (Cobb, Cobb
et al. 1994, Daly, Cobb et al. 1994, Neumayer 2000). However, Portney (2003) argues that if
sustainability issues were only of technical or scientific concern, then society would not still face
persistent problems that are well understood by the scientific community but nevertheless remain
unresolved. Regardless of how influential national-level indicators have been in policy decisions,
they are not widely accepted nor frequently used as decision-making tools at local levels. This is
because national level indicators are constructed through a top-down approach and do not
respond directly to local needs. Also in many cases local decision-makers do not understand the
purpose of these indicators or how they are created (Innes and Booher 2000).
110

Much of the appeal of CSEs is that they seem to fulfill the pluralistic requirement for
sustainability. As the argument goes, sustainability requires a pluralistic and inclusive approach
because in the process of planning for sustainability, the formation of these groups fosters the
creation and maintenance of new social institutions (UN World Commission on Environment
and Development 1987, Randall 2002, Norton 2005, Bell and Morse 2008). Social institutions
are of utmost importance for sustainability to enhance the social capital upon which civil society,
governance and government rest (Fukuyama 2001). Social capital in this case is not only
important for representativeness but also to create an egalitarian decision-making process. Thus
community efforts that implement sustainability are expected to work in a pluralistic context that
allows for public participation. Community-led efforts may be conducive to more effective
policies because they would receive public approval and support from conception; the creation of
sustainability policies in technocratic isolation risks a lack of public support (Randall 2002).
Another interesting feature of CSEs is the creation of a space for the exercise of values other
than the utilitarian values exercised in a market economy. Examples of other values expected to
be expressed in these settings are environmental and social justice, in the form of more expansive
and inclusive policy-making methods that take into account local citizens’ concerns for others
and for the environment.

In constructing Community Sustainability Indicators (CSIs), local stakeholders express their own
understanding of social welfare through the identification of key elements that will be monitored
with the indicators. Local actors work together with local governmental agencies to fill in
technical gaps that may occur when there is information that local actors do not have (Phillips
2005, Smolko and Redefining Progress 2006). The method of constructing community indicators

111

is said to be highly participative, producing indicators that measure what is of interest for local
community members. Because of this, community indicators are oriented toward the
measurement of broader elements that generate wellbeing29, departing from only observing
standard economic measures that emphasize the generation of welfare in monetary terms and
disregard (by design) other elements that contribute to the wellbeing of society (Hecht 2005).

When implementing sustainability in a pluralistic context, the meaning of sustainability goes
beyond the pure technical understanding of endurance of a system to also become a space for
social enhancement given by the exercise of values that society renders as important for higher
quality of life. Examples of those values are: justice, fairness, freedom and ennobling (Thompson
2010). The moral stance for sustainability derives from a “general obligation we have to respect
and secure the rights of future generations” (Burkhardt 1989 p 114) and because we ought to
promote “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs” (WECD 1987). The adoption of the underlying
ethics for sustainability assumes that suggested principles are incorporated into social
institutions, and that society will be able to enact norms that will modify behaviors (Thompson
2010).

29

Wellbeing or social welfare is understood as a desired condition of quality of life yet to be determined by

communities, as its determination requires details of the tractable elements that affect social welfare. Social welfare
may have different meanings at different places; ideally these understandings should have some commonalities that
allow knitting together local understandings with regional and worldwide visions of social welfare.

112

Another feature of sustainability attributed to CSEs is the ability of these groups to recognize the
need to adapt to changes in the surrounding environment. Richard Norgaard (1984) argued that
the current condition of the environment and availability of natural resources has induced
changes in culture and technological advancements, a process of change labeled “co-evolution”.
This coevolution is already observed at a worldwide scale, in which concerns about
environmental conditions triggered responses in the form of governmental actions or
international dialogue (e.g. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development 1992). At
the level of communities, the coevolution principle suggests community members understand
their role as part of a system that is comprised of closely interacting and interdependent subsystems, which is a deep understanding of their social and ecological system. The systemic
approach shall allow for a comprehensive appreciation of the multiple sources of human and
environmental problems. Appreciation of the interdependence of human and ecological systems
allows communities to observe complexity and not to think about their problems in a
deterministic way by dividing and solving for parts (Norton 2005); (Thompson 2007). Norgaard
(1994) argues that problems reduced to their minimal parts cannot be called problems anymore
because they have lost their systemic properties. In a systemic approach, multiple views and
alternative views of reality are identified through a participatory process. This diversity also
allows for the recognition of alternative ways of learning because local people often have clear
ideas from their own perspective and in their own terms without the expert’s influence (Bell and
Morse 2008). Addressing problems in a pluralistic setting suggests a transdisciplinary30 approach

30

Transdisciplinarity tackles complexity in science and challenges knowledge fragmentation. This type of research

accepts contexts and uncertainty; it is a context specific negotiation of knowledge; and it implies
intercommunicative action. As a research process, it includes the practical reasoning of individuals with the

113

for identifying and deciding upon needed actions (Lawrence 2010). Bringing together decision
makers in a transdisciplinary context also creates an arena for expression of different values in
the planning process.

Because of the process through which community indicators are created, they presumably can
incorporate many dimensions and principles of sustainability. However, whether community
indicators are consistent with theoretical conceptualizations of sustainability is unclear. In
addition, CSIs may offer insights into values that area associated community-level understanding
sustainability. Whether implementation of global sustainability can be informed by a closer look
at how sustainability is understood at the community level is also unclear.
C.

Assessment of Development and Sustainability with Indicators
1.

The Gross Domestic Product as National Scale Indicator

Indicators have historically played an important role in tracking progress and in informing,
supporting and improving policy and decision-making at different levels (Gallopin 2005). The
national gross domestic product (GDP), an indicator of the performance of the economic system
(Nordhaus, Kokkelenberg et al. 1999) is measured as the sum of expenditures by consumers,
businesses, government and foreigners on final goods and services or as the sum of payments to
the factors of production (Weimer and Vining 2004). Although influential, the GDP was not
designed to be an indicator of a nation’s wellbeing. Yet, in many cases it has been used in this

constraining and complex nature of social, organizational and material context. It also seeks to close the gap
between knowledge derived from research and decision-making processes in society. Transdisciplinary research is
often action oriented (Lawrence 2010)

114

way (Hecht 2005). For multiple reasons, the GDP is an inadequate indicator of general
wellbeing. By design this indicator only adds the transactions in an economy without accounting
for all the benefits and costs related to wellbeing. Anielski and Rowe (1999) described some of
the most important shortcomings of GDP as indicator of welfare. :
•

GDP does not account for inequality of income, wealth and spending power.

•

GDP treats crime, imprisonment, divorce and other forms of family and social breakdown
as economic gain, yet the values of housework, parenting and volunteering count for
nothing.

•

GDP does not account for the depletion or degradation of natural resources and the
environment.

•

GDP increases by expenditures caused by climatic disasters, war, and polluting activities
both during the pollution activity and the abatement phase.

•

GDP does not account for the liabilities of living on debt and foreign borrowing.

GDP also fails to reflect that one kind of asset is being traded or exchanged for another expected
to generate a higher return (Repetto and World Resources Institute. 1989). Repetto’s example is
the farmer who cuts timber to build a barn. The barn is worth more for him than the trees. The
national system of accounts (the base for the calculation of the GDP) will credit the timber and
the construction of the barn (income and investment) but the loss of ecological benefits from the
cut down forest is not reflected. In addition, if the farmer had used the money from the timber for
a vacation, he would be poorer on his return and not able to build the barn, but national income
would register a gain, neither a loss in wealth nor a loss of forest benefits. Taken to a country
level, the results can be illusory gains in income and permanent losses in wellbeing. These

115

balance sheet asymmetries are particularly dangerous for economies depending heavily on their
natural resource base for employment and exports.
2.

The emergence of indicators capturing broader measures of wellbeing

Criticisms of using direct measures of material welfare such as GDP (Hecht 2005) as indicators
of wellbeing motivated the creation of alternative measures of progress that better captured
broader understandings of wellbeing. International forums such as the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil,
addressed the need for alternative measures of wellbeing. Agenda 21, one of the concluding
documents from this conference, noted the following:
“Commonly used indicators such as the gross national product (GNP) and
measurements of individual resource or pollution flows do not provide
adequate indications of sustainability. Methods for assessing interactions
between different sectorial environmental, demographic, social and
developmental parameters are not sufficiently developed or applied.
Indicators of sustainable development need to be developed to provide
solid bases for decision-making at all levels and to contribute to a selfregulating sustainability of integrated environment and development
systems.” (United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development 1992
paragraph 40.4)
One example of an influential indicator that was constructed to broaden the measures of
wellbeing is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). GPI has its foundations in the Index of
Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) proposed by Daly and Cobb (1994), initially known as
the Green GDP. ISEW underwent significant improvements in terms of data sources and
116

calculations, which resulted in the GPI. For estimation of the GPI, 26 components based on
economic, social and environmental criteria are included to create an indicator that better reflects
how material welfare and social welfare are related Clearly the dimensions recommended follow
those discussed under different understandings of sustainability.

Most criticisms of GPI revolve around the choice of the components, data availability to
construct the components, and methods of calculation (Talberth, Cobb et al. 2007).

A very

important critique is that GPI falls short in reflecting intergenerational equity in the distribution
of natural capital, given that standard discounting methods result in very low or even excluded
present values of costs to future generations for depletion of natural capital. Additionally by
design, GPI measures a type of sustainability that allows for perfect substitution between natural
and human-built capital (Talberth, Cobb et al. 2007). For critics, such substitution is a matter of
concern because it validates actions to deplete resources that provide services for which
humanity still does not know any substitutes (e.g. climate regulation done by forests).

Regardless of criticism, GPI still provides a better understanding of natural and human capital
exhaustion than GDP. Anielski and Rowe (1999) calculated the U.S. GPI for the 50-year period
ending in 1999 and compared it to GDP. Their results show what they called an accelerated
erosion of natural, human and social capital, as measured by GPI, whereas GDP indicates almost
continual economic improvement for the period. As shown in figure 7, while U.S. GDP per
capita (adjusted for inflation) showed growth from 1950 to 1999, the U.S. GPI per capita began
to decrease during the mid-1970s. In fact, the 1990s saw the largest reduction of the real GPI,
which declined at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent, compared with per capita GDP growth

117

of 1.4 percent (Anielski and Rowe 1999). The inflection point differentiating the trends between
GPI and GDP was previously identified using the ISEW method and resulted in the “threshold
hypothesis” (Max-Neef 1995). The threshold hypothesis supports the theory of limits to grow
and nature’s carrying capacity and emphasizes the error of framing human progress in pure
economic terms.
Figure 7. Comparison of GDP and GPI measures for US. From Anielski and Rowe (1999)

Although the GPI seems promising for the task of generating broader measures of wellbeing, it is
not widely used at the community-level because of problems with data availability and the
national scale at which many variables are measured (Bagstad and Ceroni 2008). A compelling
message in the literature about indicators is that the national level approach for creating
indicators used over the last 50 years has not made a dramatic impact in driving or informing
118

policy at local levels. Additionally many of those indicators are not used by policymakers
regardless of the tremendous investment of time and money put into developing them (Innes and
Booher 2000). Others have seen the use of national indicators as a misguiding tool for progress
(Max-Neef 1995).

Discussions surrounding the emergence of ISEW and GPI were highly influential in the
rethinking of metrics for wellbeing. Further development of this thinking has suggested that, for
sustainability implementation, a change in discourse and methods for the appreciation of wellbeing is needed. In response to this need for change, community-level Indicators provide an
alternative that seeks both to capture the concept of sustainability and to correct some of
practical shortcomings of national level indicators.
3.

Community Indicators

The Agenda 21 report (United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development 1992) argued
that one of the fundamental prerequisites for the transition to SD is broader public participation
in decision-making involving individuals, groups and organizations, particularly for those
decisions which may affect the communities in which participants live and work (Agenda 21:
paragraph 23.2). Given the international community’s strong interest in engaging communities in
sustainability-oriented policy making and the limitations posed by the use of national level
indicators, community indicator projects have taken some prominence in participatory
development planning initiatives. This is because sustainability indicators can serve as a vehicle
to enhance the overall understanding of environmental and social problems at local levels and
facilitate community capacity building, while helping guide policy and community development
projects (Reed, Fraser et al. 2006).
119

In principle, community-indicators are constructed through a deliberative process and provide
not only measures of the status quo but also indicate movement toward local visions of
sustainability (Smolko and Redefining Progress 2006). The process of community engagement
is perceived to be as important as the product. It is assumed that the process will have a
working group that understands the depth and breadth of the linkages between human and
ecological systems (Berkes, Folke et al. 1998) and capture in metrics all welfare elements that
are important for the community in a way that can be technically acceptable (Portney 2003).
D.

Analytical Framework

To address the research questions, an analytical framework was developed to capture those
characteristics of indicators that can be associated with sustainability (as a theoretical concept)
and other characteristics related to the functionality of the indicators. The analytical framework
(shown as table 4 and explained in the methods section) characterizes the indicators according to
the dimension of sustainability to which the indicator refers (ecological and biophysical;
economic; social and cultural; and psychological). The framework also separates the indicators
according to the type of value system that they may refer to; in this case the typology applied is
Thompson (2007) distinction between resource sufficiency and functional integrity. In this case,
it was applied by scaling up the categorization to general community measures. The third way in
which the framework characterizes the indicators refers to the indicator’s function, that is,
whether it is descriptive, diagnostic or normative.

120

Table 4. Analytical Framework used to categorize indicators by value system, dimension of
sustainability, and by type of indicator
Resource Sufficiency
Static
Type of Indicator

Functional Integrity
Dynamic Static

Descriptive

Diagnostic

State Pressure Impact Response

Normative

Descriptive

Dynamic
Diagnostic

Drivers State Pressure Impact Response

Normative
Drivers

Dimensions of
Sustainability
Ecological and
Biophysical
Economic
Social and
Cultural
Psychological

1.

Dimensions of Sustainability

For this research the dimensions of sustainability are fundamental to understand how members of
the CSEs understand the human-ecological system of their community. With this analytical
framework, four dimensions of sustainability that are associated with the application of the
concept in development work are identified. Frequently the concept of sustainability is
mistakenly associated exclusively with environmental conditions. However, the literature on
sustainability suggests that implementation of sustainability should consider at least the social,
environmental and economic dimensions (Altieri 1987, UN World Commission on Environment
and Development 1987, Carroll 1991, Holdren, Daily et al. 1995, Munasinghe and McNeely
1995, Lawn 2006, O’Connor 2006, Connelly 2007).

Lawn (2006) expands these three

dimensions by adding a psychological dimension as a way to separate individual needs from

121

social needs, which may be very different. For this research, the dimensions are described as
follows:
a)

Ecological	
  and	
  Biophysical	
  Dimension	
  

This dimension is the basis for understandings of sustainability suggesting that basic and
irreplaceable resources that sustain human life are to be maintained indefinitely in order to
satisfy the intergenerational equity criteria (UN World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987, Norton 2005). The dimension encompasses all biological components from
the biosphere that support and give continuity to ecosystems. This dimension captures those
elements that constitute the world’s resource base and provide raw materials for human
activities. Stewardship of these ecological elements differs from past theories of resource
management in that regardless of whether society is trying to preserve integrity of ecosystems or
to secure the provision of raw materials, sustainability calls attention to ecological resilience,
maintenance of biodiversity, ecological thresholds, carrying capacity of ecosystems, and the
systemic interdependence of these factors with human systems.

The interaction of this dimension with the social and economic dimensions represents human
relationship to nature; the aiming of highlighting this interaction is to focus attention on the
actions that cause negative (intended or unintended) impacts on the environment and to allow for
a space to decide over actions aimed at reducing environmental pollution and increasing the
quality of environmental conditions. The quality of the environment is related to the other
dimensions because it is the source of benefits for society. For this research, this dimension
combines anthropocentric and biocentric values, in the sense that some of the actions included
under this dimension may be aimed towards the preservation of the environment for either the
122

benefits provided to humanity or for the intrinsic values of the environment. For instance, the
preservation of natural areas is in many cases for the sake of the existence of those species and
the ecosystems within it, and not necessarily for any foreseen economic benefits.
b)

Economic	
  Dimension	
  

This dimension refers to all actions of the human system oriented towards the generation of
material welfare and income (Lawn 2006, Connelly 2007). Economic progress is measured as
increases in goods and services consumed. Thus, economic policies typically seek to increase
conventional gross national product (GNP) and induce more efficient production and
consumption of (mainly marketed) goods and services (Hecht 2005). Mainstream (neoclassical)
economics provides the concepts underlying this framework. However, under this dimension are
also listed all those actions aimed at fostering change in the dependence on scarce resources and
traditional production and consumption habits. It extends to include the nature of the
technological changes aimed to maintain economic productivity within the limits of the Earth’s
carrying capacity. Examples include alternative sources of energy and actions aimed towards the
rational use of natural resources. It also includes economic models that allow for the growth of
markets that address social concerns in the sense that these markets allow for social justice (fairtrade) and the inclusion of different types of ethics other than simply utilitarian (farm markets,
organic markets, healthy food choices).
c)

Social	
  and	
  Cultural	
  Dimension	
  

The definition of SD highlights the importance of matters of social equity and justice as core
elements for social development (WCED 1987). The reinforcement of the social dimension is
emphasized in the first publication of the United Nations Human Development Report (UNDP
1990) stating that development should enhance people’s choices and should develop human
123

capabilities such as knowledge. Thus dimension includes the social and cultural institutions
found in every community. Institutions are understood as:
“[T]he rules of the game in a society, or more formally, are the humanly devised
constraints that shape human interaction. In consequence, they structure incentives in
human exchange, whether political, social, or economic. Institutional change shapes the
way societies evolve through time and hence is the key to understand historical
change.”(North 1990 p 3).
Institutions serve as the means to achieve social development. Fukuyama defines social capital as
“an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals”
(Fukuyama 2001 p 7). Thus the increase in social development usually refers to increases in
social capital or institutions in the interest of improvements in overall social welfare. Social
capital can be expanded and understood as the resource that people draw upon to achieve
collective objectives through networks and the connectedness provided by social institutions
(formal and informal), membership in more formalized groups, and relationships of trust,
reciprocity, and exchange. Also, institutions safeguard and serve as the vehicle for communities
to express local values. For instance, existing institutions may adopt changes in practices to
increase fairness in the provision of services to the community.

This dimension captures all those formal and informal institutions in the form or organizations,
groups, NGOs, and any other organization from the civil society that serves a purpose within the
community.

124

d)

Psychological	
  Dimension	
  

This dimension is suggested by Lawn (2006) as a way to group all actions that allow for the
advancement of the human condition at the individual level. For this research, the psychological
dimension captures the benefits that society can provide to individuals in order to build their
willingness and preparedness to participate in the organization of the community. The
assumption here is that once individuals satisfy their basic needs they may better identify with
their respective communities and be willing to work on common goals. Lawn (2006) uses
Maslow’s hierarchy theory to explain this dimension, although some have questioned the theory
of needs (Wahba and Bridwell 1976). Maslow’s pyramid (Figure 8) is applied in this discussion
as a heuristic to reflect that actions oriented to the satisfaction of individual needs are expected to
increase the readiness of the individual to engage in collective action. This dimension can be
viewed as the pre-condition for the social and cultural dimension.

125

Figure 8. Maslow hierarchy of needs

	
  
Tran-­‐
scendence	
  
Self-­‐
actualization	
  

Human	
  
Progression

Aesthetic	
  needs	
  
Need	
  to	
  know	
  and	
  
understand	
  
Esteem	
  needs	
  
Belongingness	
  and	
  love	
  needs	
  
Safety	
  Needs	
  
Physiological	
  needs	
  

Traditionally, basic order needs such as the provision of food, clothing, shelter and safety, are
more obvious needs in community development plans than higher order needs such as selfactualization. Self-actualization needs refer to the individual’s desire to fulfill what he or she is
capable of becoming. These needs are emerging higher order psychological needs that contribute
to human development in what is expected to become a more balanced society. Lawn’s
arguments for these factors suggests that the human condition at the higher order level of needs
may allow for individuals to develop awareness and predisposition for a break from path

126

dependence, in other words for the modification in habits and customs that are not congruent
with current desired social values. This predisposition becomes key when modified principles for
human behavior, coming from sustainability discussions, are calling for the adoption of practices
to reverse conditions such as social inequities (gender, racial, income), environmental injustices
and the misleading notion of constant economic growth.

Another rationale for this dimension comes from the post-materialist values perspective, which
suggests that concern for quality of life issues occurs only after individuals have met their more
basic needs for food, shelter, and safety. The post-materialist perspective focuses on broader
social values like freedom, self-expression and quality of life. Some proponents suggest that the
shift to post-materialistic values also gave way to the emergence of environmental values
(Oskamp 2004).

Actions oriented to the satisfaction of individual needs are expected to increase the readiness of
the individual to engage in collective action. This dimension can be viewed as the pre-condition
for the social and cultural dimension.

127

2.

Resource Sufficiency and Functional Integrity as Sustainability Value

Systems
Two broad approaches encompass how people define and use the concept of sustainability in
problem solving and policy contexts: resource sufficiency and functional integrity31 (Thompson
2007).

Resource sufficiency involves the quantification and availability of resources in

reference to a rate of consumption by human practices and how long the practice can be
continued given the availability of resources.

Functional integrity refers to the system’s

resilience after being threatened by human practices. Therefore in the practice of constructing
sustainability indicators, communities may demonstrate one of these two perspectives, and
sustainability alternatively will mean:
•

Planned actions to secure the provision of resources to support a thriving human
existence; or

•

Strategies to secure the capacity and resilience of social and ecological systems.
a)

Resource	
  Sufficiency	
  

When understood as resource sufficiency (RS), sustainability refers to the maintenance of
resources given a timeframe during which consumption occurs. Thompson (2007) argues two
caveats are important to this conception. First, the availability of resources over some period of

31

Aside from these two approaches, Thompson (2007) identifies the non-substantive use of the word sustainability,

in which sustainability is a “useful conceptualization in structuring popular discussion and debate while linking
environmental impacts with social justice” (p. 9). Non-substantive use of sustainability involves moral labeling of
human practices. However, as Thompson stresses, deeming practices bad or unjust is virtually meaningless unless
there are specific criteria with which to determine what bad or unjust means.

128

time frame must be established. Second, implicit is the notion that human actions will find
limitations and growth will be hampered by resource scarcity; therefore, the resource sufficiency
approach prescribes that a decreased rate of consumption or the substitution of man-made
resources for natural resources is necessary to enable continued consumption. Substitution, as
Thompson (2007) and others (citations) have argued, is a highly contested option, but it is a key
part of RS.

Critical pre-conditions for RS include that the moral obligation to future generations is accepted
and constitutes part of current social decisions. Also, a full accounting of resources is necessary,
a rather difficult task but necessary to determine the capacity of resources to sustain
consumption. Consequently, and as the basis for substitution, society is expected to actively
pursue technological improvement to provide substitutes for scarce or depleted resources. A
critical underlying assumption is that society has full understanding of ecosystem dynamics and
the interrelatedness of those dynamics with the maintenance of human well-being. This
understanding is critical to support decisions about the extent to which consumption and
substitution can be exercised.
b)

Functional	
  Integrity	
  

Functional integrity (FI), “presupposes a system having crucial elements that are reproduced
over time in a manner or at a rate that depends upon previous system states” (Thompson 2007).
This includes both ecological and social systems. In this sense, not only is the ecosystem’s
integrity critical but also the integrity of social institutions (formal and informal) upon which a
functional society rests. That the system has functional integrity means that the system

129

establishes a range for the reproduction of crucial elements allowing them neither to increase
without limit nor to disappear from the system altogether (Thompson 1995).

FI also presupposes a balanced state of the ecological-human system, a dynamic ever-changing
condition, in which the functionality of the system’s processes allows for the enjoyment of the
benefits provided by the system. The system itself can range from a local productive activity
such as livestock farming to biodiversity at the global scale. For this research, preconditions for
FI are also understood. For instance decision-makers should have knowledge of the
interrelatedness of the elements within the human-ecological system, while having the objective
ability to define the system’s boundaries. Also, decision-makers embrace biocentric values
because in some cases the system’s boundaries will not be limited by political or regional
jurisdictions but rather by some larger scale considerations.

Goals of RS and FI can exist in combination. In the implementation of sustainability, and in the
context of planning for community development, expression of one value or the other may
depend on the institutional or technical solutions at hand or the intentions leading the practice of
community development. However, it may be difficult to separate RS and FI intentions in a
comprehensive community development plan. One way to distinguish the dominant perspective
may reside in understanding the different practices included in the development plan. For this
research, choices of indicators are viewed as proxies for those practices. Therefore, by evaluating
the objectives of indicators and the associated policies, it is possible to distinguish actions
oriented towards either RS or FI.

130

3.

Types of Indicators

Indicators help community planners to bring into operation their vision of sustainability. This is
possible because indicators transform abstract notions of community well-being into specific
measures of intended outcomes or trends. These outcome measures serve as the base on which
specific strategies can be constructed; in combination, all indicators and intended outcomes serve
as the guide for strategies to achieve a desired state of well-being.

Indicators can serve to explain what is happening right now, what is going to happen or what
communities would like to happen. Thus, indicators can be categorized as descriptive,
diagnostic, and normative. Descriptive indicators are usually a more static type of measure; they
provide a snapshot of the community. Diagnostic and normative indicators are related to actions
intended to promote a desired change in conditions; therefore they are considered dynamic
observations.
a)

Descriptive	
  Indicators	
  

Generally Indicators that are descriptive do not show a trend (a comparative measure taken for a
number of years). If they do show a trend it is usually not in response to an intended
action/policy. Rather, these indicators basically function to show the condition of a resource or
service within the community, a snapshot of the state of that resource/service. They can be
categorized as having either one of the following functions:
(1)

Descriptive-State,

This type indicates the condition or state of a resource or service without showing a trend or
without being related to consumption pressures. For instance, indicators about land area or water
131

sources can be descriptive-state if the land or water is not subject to current consumption
pressures. The indicator is simply providing information of availability.
(2)

Descriptive-Pressure.

This type of indicator shows the condition of a resource/service under pressure from the use or
overuse of the services/benefits it provides to the community. It can be that a resource is under
stress caused by some human action or the result of excessive demand. Examples include
indicators for groundwater sources subject to heavy consumption or the number of shelters for
homeless in areas where a large number of people demand this service.
b)

Diagnostic	
  Indicators	
  

Diagnostic indicators are built on models that specify causal relationships, and they can provide
accurate predictions about the consequences of policies (Phillips 2005).

For instance the

indicator of reading proficiency at the third grade is a diagnostic indicator in the sense that it
serves to predict the degree of success of a student in successfully completing high school. Also,
as a diagnostic indicator, it is linked to an action or policy for change and to other descriptive
indicators in a framework that helps community decision-makers observe the interrelatedness
among indicators.
(1)

Diagnostic-Impact

In this case, the indicator signals the effect of a policy / action on an actual trend or behavior. For
instance, the percentage of obese people in the community can be a diagnostic indicator of
current undesirable trends in low access to healthy food, low educational levels, and inequity in
distribution of income.

132

(2)

Diagnostic-Response

This type of indicator signals the effect of a policy that creates a new action, behavior or trend.
Again, overweight people can be a diagnostic-response indicator if it is linked to actions
intended to reduce obesity, such as initiatives that increase recreational areas, walkability in
communities, and access to healthier foods.
c)

Normative	
  Indicators	
  

Indicators of this type include measures related to alternative initiatives to produce meaningful
change of the status quo. This category captures actions that foster radical changes within the
community. For instance, if the community has been predominantly dependent on fossil fuels for
a long time (and there are high costs related to the production of energy and concerns about
pollution) an example of a normative indicator would be the measure of energy produced by
alternative sources. Of course, for the indicator to be considered as normative, it means that the
community wishes to observe a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and associated pollution.
E.

Methods
1.

Data Sources

Data for community sustainability indicators were gathered using a non-probabilistic, purposeful
chain sample method (Patton 2002) from listings of sustainable communities’ networks, listings
published in literature (Portney 2003, Smolko and Redefining Progress 2006) and white papers
published online. Each community studied was selected by applying a sample framework that
considered the following:
•

Community efforts are any efforts organized around a neighborhood, a town, a city or a
region (e.g., watershed, coastal area)
133

•

Community efforts should explicitly work toward indicators of quality of life, and must
explicitly have sustainability as part of their stated goals

•

Community efforts reporting indicators

In preliminary screenings many CSEs were found at different levels of progress. Stages of
progress observed include:
•

Stage 1. Local initiatives and interests expressed and shared publicly. At this level, it was
found that the effort was promoted by either a grassroots organization fostering
alternative means for governmental decisions, or a government initiative inviting local
organizations to share the burden of decisions made under the umbrella of sustainability
objectives.

•

Stage 2. Completion of assessment and compilation of local interests and identification of
some initial data/indicators. Some CSEs at this stage report intentions of moving the
effort forward in order to gather indicators for already defined visions of sustainability.

•

Stage 3. A defined list of indicators in major areas of interest (e.g. health, economy, etc.)
and/or a combination of indicators and a small number of initiatives (community
objectives) without indicators.

•

Stage 4. A regular reporting process exists for a larger list of indicators and more
developed categories that address local information needs for policy decision-making.

Only those initiatives that were at or beyond stage three were selected for this research. In the
end, 20 CSEs were selected. The communities selected and the reports used for this analysis are
listed in table 5.

134

Table 5. List of cities, year and title of the sustainability indicator reports included in this
analysis
City

Year

Document

1

Atlanta, Georgia

2009

2008-2009 Sustainability Report for Atlanta: Sustainable Atlanta

2

Baltimore, Maryland

2010

Baltimore Sustainability Plan

3

Boston, Massachusetts

2009

Summary of Boston Indicators Report

4

Boulder, Colorado

2009

Boulder County Trends: The community Foundation's Report on
Key Indicators

5

Central Texas, Texas (Austin)

2009

2009 Data Report: Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Project

6

Chattanooga, Tennessee

2009

Climate Action Plan

7

Cincinnati, Ohio

2005

Sustainable Cincinnati: Regional Indicators, Measuring the
Economic, Environmental and Social Health of the Tri-state
Metropolitan Area

8
9

Durham, North Carolina

2011

Community Indicators Progress Report

Grand Rapids, Michigan

2008

Community Triple Bottom Line Indicator Report

10

Jacksonville, Florida

2010

Quality of life progress report for Jacksonville and Northeast
Florida

11

Lansing, Michigan

2007

The Power of We

12

Olympia, Washington

2006

An Indicator Research Paper for the Sustainable Community
Roundtable

13

Oregon

2009

Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision: Highlights, 2009 Benchmark
Report to the People of Oregon

14

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2010

Progress Report Green Works Philadelphia

15

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

2004

Sustainable Pittsburgh: Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional
Indicator Report 2004

16

Santa Monica, California

2006

Sustainable City Plan: City of Santa Monica

17

Seattle, Washington

2006

Indicators of Sustainable Community

18

Tucson, Arizona

2000

The Livable Tucson vision program

19

Washington, District Central

2010

Washington DC Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators Project:
Pilot Project Overview Report

20

Minneapolis, Minnesota

2011

Minneapolis Living Well: Sustainability Report

135

2.

Data Analysis

The secondary data gathered was processed as qualitative data using the method of framework
analysis (Ritchie and Spencer 1994) to sift, chart and sort indicators according to dimensions of
sustainability, the value system for sustainability, and their type. Application of five
recommended steps for framework analysis (Ritchie and Spencer 1994) for this research was
conducted as follows:

Familiarization: During this stage, all possible reports containing sustainability indicators were
examined, and a subset was selected using the sample framework previously discussed.
Reviewing reports also involved reviewing databases listing cities with sustainability reports to
understand their purpose and working procedures.
Identifying the thematic framework: This stage involved the conceptualization of key salient
themes, particularly because of specific questions related to how to organize indicators according
to dimensions of sustainability and value systems. The theme of ‘types of indicators’ was chosen
to be part of the framework after observing the different uses of indicators by communities. Each
one of these themes was defined based on theory.
Indexing: Each indicator report was individually studied to identify indicators, and each
indicator was systematically evaluated against the themes. For this, it was important to
understand the meaning and objective of each indicator. This additional information was also
recorded. Emergent new themes were added in this process, for instance the dimension of
engagement as a sustainability dimension.
Charting: Once each of the 1229 indicators was indexed, they were organized according to the
framework (table 4) built for this purpose using the key themes.
136

Mapping and interpretation: In this phase, patterns of indicators across frame themes were
identified. Although the analysis is qualitative, measures of aggregation (counting of indicators
per cell) were helpful in facilitating the process.

The following section provides a more detailed explanation of the judgments made as to the
meaning and significance of each indicator for its respective indexing and charting.
a)

Organization	
  of	
  the	
  Dimensions	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  

Organization of indicators according to dimensions of sustainability was conducted based on
whether the communities have followed suggested theoretical dimensions. During the initial
review of materials it was found that most communities strictly followed the three most common
dimensions of environment, economy and society. None of the communities used the
psychological dimension specifically. However a group of indicators that did not fall into any of
the traditional categories were found to better fit the definition of the psychological dimension in
17 of the cases. These indicators were categorized as such in order to clearly differentiate them
from the social and cultural dimension. The basic criteria to differentiate psychological
indicators from social and cultural indicators were that indicators were aimed towards providing
benefits to the individual citizen (as opposed to the community at large) and that they pertained
to the provision of basic human needs.

After reviewing the indicators from the 20 communities, a fifth dimension was identified. Two
communities established a new dimension encompassing all indicators related to civic
engagement, civic participation and giving (as in monetary donations to community projects).
This dimension was labeled engagement for the purpose of this research, and it was applied to
137

all other communities. This new dimension is different from Social and Cultural dimension in
the sense that under the engagement dimension, indicators reflect all efforts aimed to provided
the resources and material conditions to foster human interactions. For social capital to grow, it
is not only people’s capacity that matters (as seen within social-cultural dimension), it is also
necessary to provide the physical conditions (places for meetings, arrange the meetings, foster
local organizations) and the resources necessary for this to occur (in the form of donations and
participation of citizens in these actions).

Figure 9 shows the sequence in which this research identifies the relationship between the
social/cultural, engagement and psychological dimensions. The psychological dimension
captures all indicators related to actions aimed towards the advancement of human condition at
the individual level; the engagement dimension then provides the resources for collective action
to happen; and the social/cultural dimension captures all collective actions carried out via social
institutions. This cycle shows a suggested interdependence among needs and actions. The cycle
draws from the previous discussion about the role of psychological factors making individuals
more prone to participate in collective actions within their communities. Once individuals, needs
are satisfied, it may be expected that individuals will express transcendence values and be
interested in quality of life matters.

138

Figure 9. Rationale for the separation of the social/cultural, engagement and psychological
dimensions

Psychological	
  dimension

Collective	
  goals	
  

Individual	
  
needs	
  

Collective	
  
action	
  

Collective	
  
needs	
  

Social	
  and	
  
cultural	
  

Engagement	
  dimension

	
  

	
  
b)

Identifying	
   Sustainability	
   Value	
   Systems:	
   Resource	
   Sufficiency	
  

and	
  Functional	
  Integrity	
  
Examples facilitate an explanation of how indicators were categorized under the two
perspectives of RS and FI. In general, all indicators related to the provision of raw materials and
those related to securing public services (e.g. water, electricity) were categorized under RS.
However, and depending on the level of management implicit in the initiatives associated with
the indicator, some resource indicators could be categorized as FI. For instance demographic

139

indicators when used to plan the provision of services were categorized as RS, but when
indicators were used to signal changes in strategies for community structure (zoning, walkability, accessibility to markets, etc.), these indicators were categorized as FI. The contrast
resides in the objective of the indicator, whether it is used as a tool for the provision of goods and
services or as a signal for the perpetuity of a component within the system.

In another example, if indicators about education are linked to strategies to enhance culture, they
will fall within the tradition of functional integrity. However, if the same indicators are linked to
strategies to secure higher paying jobs for the population, and if the planning group is heavily
engaged in managerial actions, these indicators will fall on the side of resource sufficiency
because it is related to the capacity of society to generate welfare.

In cases when the indicators suggested dual purposes, the goal receiving higher priority
determines the category for the indicator. Priority can be given by the primary goal, or the
context in which the indicator is used. If education is used in a framework involving other
indicators related to productivity, then it is easier to establish the distinction. In all cases there
was always a contextual element or goal that would help define the categorization of the
indicator within the tradition of sustainability.

c)

Categorizing	
  the	
  Types	
  of	
  Indicators	
  

One objective of this analysis was to capture how static or dynamic communities are in pursuing
changes of the elements captured by their indicators; this is reflected in the type of indicators
they report and how often they report them. This means that if a community has too many

140

descriptive indicators, it is more likely to have a very static approach to the interpretation of
indicators because descriptive indicators provide only a snapshot of the elements they measure
and are not linked to actions to provoke changes in those elements. Alternatively a community
with a large number of diagnostic indicators is more likely to have a dynamic approach because
diagnostic indicators are linked to initiatives and monitoring changes in the elements they
measure. If the community is expecting to observe changes, then its indicators need to be
updated frequently. The frequency with which indicator reports are updated varies across the
cases.
The categorization of indicators according to whether they are diagnostic or descriptive was done
following the previously described definitions; however, it was also very important to understand
the way in which communities interpret the information provided by the indicators. For instance,
a set of indicators providing information to support a single indicator can be understood as
descriptive indicators; the supported indicator becomes diagnostic. Therefore, the same indicator
(e.g., crime per 100 thousand inhabitants) could be used in one city as either descriptive or
diagnostic, depending on interpretation.

The interpretation of the indicators depends largely on the framework used by the community.
The most common procedure is to have groups of indicators organized to respond to a specific
initiative; groups of initiatives will respond to a goal. To illustrate, consider the example of
landfill waste reduction. The group of descriptive indicators includes: tons of waste entering the
landfill, annual cost of landfill operations, city’s coverage for waste collection, types of waste
collected, and types of recycled materials. The diagnostic indicator in this case is pounds of
waste per household per month. The objective is the reduction of waste in general to prevent

141

pollution (e.g., plastic bottles going into waterways). The initiatives associated with it are
increased efficiency in the use of materials (less waste, more efficiency in the use of resources)
and the reduction of landfill operating costs to alleviate financial pressures.

One additional variable that comes into play in the definition of how static or dynamic
communities are is the number of times they have updated their reports. The number of editions
for the report was used for this, and this information was gathered from the reports themselves.
In most cases the information was easily available, except for a couple of cases (e.g., Central
Texas) in which individual communities initiatives have merged making it hard to detect if there
were reports done prior to the merging. Those updated most frequently are indicators available
on a web database (e.g., Boston, Oregon and Sustainable Seattle [b-sustainable]).
F.

Results and Discussion
1.

General findings

From the 20 communities included in this work a total of 1229 indicators were collected. The
number of indicators per community ranges from 9 to 190 indicators. Six communities reported
fewer than 30 indicators, seven between 31 and 60 indicators, three between 61 and 100, and
four communities had more than 100 indicators (highlighted in Table 3 in bold print). The
relation between the age of the efforts and the number of indicators reported is evident by the
data presented in Table 6. The CSEs with more than 10 years of reporting indicators are
Jacksonville/Northeast Florida, Sustainable Seattle, Boston, Central Texas, Boulder and
Minneapolis. With the exception of Boulder and Minneapolis, communities with more than 10
years reporting have more indicators than those that have less than 10 years of reporting.
142

Table 6. List of communities by region within the US, the number of indicators contained
in their sustainability reports, initiation date of sustainability effort, year of the report used
for this analysis, and number of previous editions of the report
Region / City

Total # of
Indicators

Year work
Initiated

Year of
Report Used

# Of Editions

North Central
Cincinnati

14

1999

2005

2

Grand Rapids

38

2005

2008

1

Lansing

43

2000

2007

3

Minneapolis

26

2000

2010

5

32

2008

2010

2

186

2000

2009

5*

Philadelphia

15

2008

2010

1^

Southwestern PA

28

1998

2004

2

35

2009

2010

1

59

1995

2009

6

190

1999

2009

7

62

1997

2011

2*

9

2007

2009

1

Chattanooga

46

2007

2009

1

Durham

39

2002

2011

4

110

1975

2010

26

Olympia

13

1990

2006

1**

Oregon

91

1990

2009

9*

88

1994

2010

4

105

1991

2011

5*

Northeast
Baltimore
Boston

Washington DC (pilot project)
South Central
Boulder
Central Texas
Tucson
Southeast
Atlanta

Jacksonville and Northeast FL
West

Santa Monica
Sustainable Seattle

Grand Total
1229
* These communities regularly update and report on in a database on the web
^

Green-works Philadelphia incorporated the work of the 2007 Local Action Plan for Climate Change that was

produced by the city’s Sustainability Working Group, a task force of more than 50 municipal employees
** No reports earlier than 2006 were found online, nor information about the frequency of updates.

143

The count of indicators falling within the categorizations of interest defined by the analytical
framework are shown in Table 7, in which indicators are separated by dimension of
sustainability (including the fifth dimension of engagement), value system they pertain to, and
the type of indicator according to use.

Table 7. Count of indicators within the analytical framework
Resource Sufficiency
Descriptive
State Pre.

Diagnostic
Impact Res.

Functional Integrity
Norm.
Drivers

Descriptive
State Pres.

Diagnostic
Impact Res.

Norm.
Drivers

Count
Row

Ecological
and
Biophysical

24

26

24

3

9

45

36

43

11

13

234

Economic

46

13

71

6

19

27

0

29

3

4

218

Social and
Cultural

64

31

25

5

5

119

31

107

19

9

415

Psychological

6

7

10

1

1

78

48

72

20

5

248

Engagement

1

0

0

0

0

68

6

30

4

5

114

141

77

130

15

34

337

121

281

57

36

145

34

338

36

Total Resource Sufficiency

397

Total Functional
Integrity

832

1229

67.70%

100.00%

Subtotal

218

32.30%

2.

458

Dimensions of Sustainability

In terms of the dimensions of sustainability defined by communities to characterize their
indicators, communities are very consistent in following the social, economic and environmental
dimensions suggested by the literature (UN World Commission on Environment and
144

Development 1987, Holdren, Daily et al. 1995). Some followed these dimensions strictly; others
had variants in which they renamed the dimensions under similar names such as human
environment, built environment, and natural environment to encompass essentially the same
meanings. For the purpose of this analysis, the psychological and engagement dimensions were
used to separate those indicators meeting the criteria for either one of these dimensions.

Figure 10. Proportional distribution of indicators by Sustainability Dimensions
Engagement	
  
9%	
  
Ecological	
  and	
  
Biophysical	
  	
  
19%	
  
Psychological	
  	
  
21%	
  
Economic	
  
18%	
  
Social	
  and	
  
Cultural	
  	
  
33%	
  

From all cases, 63.5 percent of indicators are contained within the social/cultural, psychological,
and engagement dimensions. This provides evidence of a strong inclination of the communities
to create indicators related to human actions, as opposed to a more balanced distribution of the
indicators among the economic and environmental dimensions. Economic indicators comprise
only 17 percent of the total and biophysical/ecological indicators are 19 percent of the 1229
indicators.

145

a)

	
  Ecological	
  and	
  biophysical	
  dimension	
  

When addressing ecological and biophysical factors, communities most commonly use indicators
related to air quality and water quality/quantity. It is possible that climate change perceptions are
the motivation behind air quality indicators; evidence of this is that all communities in the study
have indicators related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions as part of strategies to
improve or maintain air quality.

In terms of water, 18 communities reported indicators of water quality; their indicators are tied to
strategies to preserve the resource for future availability for human consumption. For most
communities however, indicators of water quality serve multiple objectives. Aside from human
consumption, indicators of water quality address the preservation of aquatic ecosystems and
biodiversity contained in those areas. This is evidence of how communities express broader
understanding of the interrelatedness of healthy ecosystems, biodiversity, water quality, water
availability and other related activities (such as recreation). Indicators of toxics released into
water bodies reflect additional evidence of this understanding; 18 communities reported this type
of indicator tied to initiatives to either remediate pollution or reduce it.

One limitation in the analysis of indicators under this dimension is that, because of the specific
case study sites, most indicators refer only to ecological and biophysical factors within the urban
setting. The rural setting is brought up in a few cases only. For instance for forest indicators,
communities such as Washington DC, Chattanooga, Minneapolis, and Olympia report indicators
related to forest coverage within the cities, open spaces and recreational areas such as parks.
Only Oregon reported indicators that accounted for forests as timber resources, fresh water

146

species and marine species. The Oregon effort stretches over several counties and has a larger
area under monitoring.

Land, as a resource, is also monitored with several indicators by 14 communities. In most cases
the indicators denoted the percentage of types of land uses within their jurisdictions. The most
common categorizations are areas under development (as construction of new homes),
farmlands, preservation areas, and industrial zones. This categorization was made with the
intention of signaling and guiding growth strategies. However, no community addressed land use
(in rural areas) from the perspective of food production capacity (e.g. categorization of their land
according to production capability). Half of the sample, however, had indicators related to
habitat protection, health of water streams or indicators related to areas under some type of
preservation.

Waste reduction is another common indicator in this dimension. Such indicators are linked to
strategies to make communities more efficient in the use of resources and to reduce pollution that
affects ecosystem health and other resources such as fresh water and (in the case of coastal
communities) marine fisheries. Because waste reduction is mostly oriented towards pollution
prevention strategies and maintenance of healthy ecosystems, indicators of solid waste
management were categorized under this dimension rather than under the economic dimension as
a strategy to reduce waste collection and disposal costs.

Interestingly none of the communities addressed physical quantities of other resources, aside
from fisheries and timber (as in the case of Oregon), which may be critical for productivity. That

147

is, none took full account of the reserves of available resources for the provision of raw
materials. For instance, none of the communities reported indicators related to mining or oil
extraction; this circumstance is likely due to the number of urban communities in the sample
communities.

Alternatively, this finding can be understood as evidence of the limitations

communities face in acquiring data, making them choose indicators for which data is more
readily available.
b)

	
  Economic	
  dimension	
  

That only 18% of indicators address the economic dimension may be evidence that communities
give less attention to traditional standard economic indicators that are already influential in the
national context. For instance, only Sustainable Seattle (B-Sustainable) uses the GDP as
economic indicator. All the other communities have indicators of median income, poverty levels,
and unemployment that can also be seen as traditional economic indicators. However, what is
unique is that communities frame these indicators in the context of race and disadvantaged
neighborhoods to describe the condition of the local economy in the light of inequities and
shortfalls of the economy in providing high standards of quality of life to all. Generally the
objective of the indicators is framed under initiatives for poverty alleviation. Other commonly
found indicators are number of new jobs created, the quality of the jobs in terms of salary, the
number of green businesses, and educational attainment as the vehicle to create a competitive
workforce for the future.

Indicators for technology as a measure of any type of innovation, levels of competitiveness and
as a solution to environmental pollution, are absent in most communities. Only Boston,
Massachusetts reports 28 indicators related to universal access to technology and technological
148

innovation in the form of number of new patents per year and the number of graduates with
science and technology degrees. The Cincinnati, Ohio and the B-Sustainable Seattle initiatives
address technology with indicators related the extent of workforce employment in technology
jobs as a way to measure their ability to be competitive as “the economy shifts towards
technology, research and development, the internet and related fields” (Seattle B-Sustainable
indicators report). In some cases, without necessarily being deemed strictly as innovation in
technology, a link to technological change is observed in indicators related to use of alternative
sources of energy.

Seven communities listed indicators related to renewable energy

consumption. Sometimes, this indicator can either be ecological or economic, depending on its
primary goal, which can be the health of the environment/people (by reducing the burning of
fossil fuels) or the reduction of energy costs (by reducing expenditures on fossil fuels).
c)

	
  Social	
  and	
  cultural	
  dimension	
  

Thirty-three percent of all indicators are categorized this dimension. The most difference
between traditional national indicators and local indicators is observed within this dimension.
Communities express a rich diversity in the choice of elements to monitor with indicators and
innovation in the construction of indicators. Some common indicators found under this
dimension may be similar to those found at the national level, for instance, access to health,
education, racial disparities, and diversity in government representativeness (gender and racial).
But for the most part, indicators are innovative because communities generate their own data
through citizen surveys or work with consultants to construct new indicators. Some examples of
these new indicators include:
•

Healthy People Index (Cincinnati): This indicator is a compilation of more than 40 health
indicators that capture multiple and diverse aspects of health and wellness, including, for

149

example, overweight and obesity, suicide rate, infant mortality rate, adults who smoke,
percentage of uninsured, and health service availability (percent satisfied).

•

Social Capital Index (Southwestern Pennsylvania): This indicator is created from a
combination of 14 different measures having to do with volunteerism, non-profit and
organizational activity, and survey responses to questions like “Do you think most people can be
trusted?” and other variables that comprise the region’s “social capital”.

•

Creativity Vitality Index 2008 (Durham, North Carolina): This indicator shows the
community´s creative edge by measuring the annual changes in economic health of an area by
integrating economic data streams from both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors of highly
creative occupations.

Examples of recurrent social-cultural indicators across communities are:
•

For education, reading and mathematics proficiency at the third grade (used as a predictor
of successful completion of high school); high school graduation (or drop-out rates).

•

For racial disparities, the diversity of elected officials and the measure of racial
disparities in home-ownership or business ownership.

•

For health, infant mortality, prenatal care, percentage of people with access to health
care, percentage of people with health insurance, and percentage of overweight
population.

Ten communities have indicators related to food security. Some frame it as part of strategies to
strengthen local food systems and the local economy (e.g. Chattanooga). Others link it to
strategies to promote health. For instance B-Sustainable Seattle reports an indicator for access to
fresh foods. Among the multiple objectives that these indicators have, the most salient is the use
150

of these indicators as guidance for strategies to abate hunger and make sure that citizens have
sufficient access to food and enough income to buy food. For instance, the city of Grand Rapids
frames the indicator as part of an initiative to guarantee basic needs (emergency food, rent,
shelter). Santa Monica (CA) addresses food security more comprehensively than the rest, trying
to capture aspects of healthy food, strengthening the local economy, and support for local
farmers. Examples of the indicators reported by Santa Monica include:

•

Fresh, Local, Organic Produce: Percent of fresh, locally-produced, organic produce that
is served at city facilities and other Santa Monica institutions (including hospitals,
schools, Santa Monica College, and City-sponsored food programs)

•

Organic Produce – Farmers Markets: Total annual organic produce sales at Santa Monica
farmers’ markets

•

Percent of Santa Monica restaurants that purchase ingredients at Santa Monica farmers’
markets

•

Percent of Santa Monica residents who report that vegetable-based protein is the primary
protein source for at least half of their meals

Racial disparities are of particular interest to communities; all communities have indicators that
show a picture of racial disparities in terms of income, health access, infant mortality, education
attainment, crime rates and safety. Racial diversity and equity is such an important element that
in some cases there is a separate report with indicators created around that topic (e.g.
Jacksonville and Northeast Florida, and Boston).

151

d)

	
  Psychological	
  dimension	
  

This is the most complicated dimension for categorizing indicators. The complication resides in
the fact that actions to benefit individuals are sometimes strongly linked to or embedded into
actions to achieve collective goals. This makes separating the psychological and social
dimensions very difficult. However, 17 communities have clearly differentiable indicators for
initiatives to help individuals to satisfy their basic needs within the community. For instance, the
need of feeling safe within the community is expressed by these indicators from the City of
Boston:

•

Impact of terrorism on local public safety resources, Metro Boston

•

Collaboration for preventive strategies and emergency preparedness, Metro Boston

•

Trends in local public safety in Boston vs. Northeast, US other large cities

Despite the difficulty in differentiating the psychological dimension, 21 percent of indicators are
categorized as such. Common indicators across communities are the measures of perceptions of
residential safety and trust in neighbors. Also indicators of the percentage of people taking
additional training, and number of opportunities for training (different than formal academic
education) are included in this category.

In a few cases psychological indicators, such as number of training programs for employees,
were linked with broader initiatives and indicators for the capacity of the workforce. In these
cases, the separation of two different dimensions would not make sense because they are tightly
knitted within the same goal or interpretation framework.

152

e)

	
  Engagement	
  dimension	
  

This dimension was incorporated into the evaluation process after finding two communities that
made the differentiation of indicators to show the degree in which their community is engaged in
providing resources for civic participation. Along with indicators of the resources provided,
these communities also created indicators with survey data to capture local perceptions and
values related to sense of community. After categorizing engagement indicators for all possible
cases, 15 communities were found to have these types of indicators. The dimension captures nine
percent of all indicators, with Central Texas, Jacksonville and Northeast Florida, and Boston
with the largest number of engagement indicators.

Most common indicators observed under this dimension are self-reported volunteering hours,
membership to neighborhood associations, number of civic associations within the community,
self-reported pledges for local activities, number of organizations donating funds for civic
associations, and government funding for local organizations. This dimension comprises all
elements that cause, foster and nurture social cohesiveness.

•

Sense of community (Cincinnati): The Cincinnati region is one of several metropolitan
areas involved in the Social Capital Benchmark Survey. The Greater Cincinnati
Foundation sponsored the survey locally. The survey measures various aspects of civic
ties and community connections, including social trust, political participation, civic
leadership and associational involvement, giving and volunteering, faith based
engagement, and informal social ties. This indicator also reports the percentage of
eligible voters that actually vote.

153

•

Trust in respondent's neighborhood (Lansing): A survey is conducted to collect data
and build an indicator to show how much citizens trust people in their neighborhood
(Lansing, Power of We)

•

Trust in respondent's neighborhood (Boston): According to the Boston Public Health
Commission, 81% of Bostonians surveyed in 2008 felt that residents are willing to help
their neighbors and at least 70 % of residents felt this level of trust in their own
neighbors.

Other common indicators under this dimension are: the count of organizations giving to the
community to support vulnerable populations in the community, self-reported volunteer
participation of citizens in local initiatives, self-reported perceptions of how citizens can
influence local government, voter turnout, and the count of neighborhood associations.
Communities group of engagement indicators to work together for goals such as social
cohesiveness in the community (e.g. number of associations), this goal can be thought of being
part of the social and cultural dimension.
G.

Resource Sufficiency and Functional Integrity

Using the criteria created to categorize the indicators according to the perspective of
sustainability they invoke showed that 67.7% of all indicators in the sample characterize a FI
value system (table 8). These indicators reflect strategies aimed at securing the capacity and
resilience of social and ecological systems. However, it may also be the case that most indicators
suggest FI because communities have so many indicators that related to the human condition.
Since communities have been able to develop the social-cultural, psychological and engagement

154

dimensions more completely, these indicators reflect a deeper understanding of the
interrelatedness of the factors associated with those dimensions.

Table 8. Indicators of sustainability categorized according to resource sufficiency and
functional integrity value system
RS
North Central
Cincinnati
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Minneapolis
Northeast
Baltimore
Boston
Philadelphia
Southwestern PA
Washington DC
South Central
Boulder
Central Texas
Tucson
Southeast
Atlanta
Chattanooga
Durham
Jacksonville and Northeast FL
West
Olympia
Oregon
Sta Monica
Sustainable Seattle
Grand Total

%

%

FI

Total

5
22
14
5

35.7
57.9
32.6
19.2

9
16
29
21

64.3
42.1
67.4
80.8

14
38
43
26

8
63
10
4
20

25.0
33.9
66.7
14.3
57.1

24
123
5
24
15

75.0
66.1
33.3
85.7
42.9

32
186
15
28
35

20
82
16

33.9
43.2
25.4

39
108
46

66.1
56.8
74.6

59
190
62

6
24
11
15

66.7
52.2
28.2
13.6

3
22
28
95

33.3
47.8
71.8
86.4

9
46
39
110

7
24
23
18
397

53.8
26.4
26.1
17.1
32.3

6
67
65
87

46.2
73.6
73.9
82.9
67.7

13
91
88
105
1229

833

Fewer indicators address planned actions to secure the provision of resources; 32.3 percent of
indicators were categorized as RS. In six cases (Grand Rapids, Philadelphia, Washington D.C.,
155

Atlanta, Chattanooga and Olympia WA), a larger proportion of indicators reflect the RS view of
sustainability. With the exception of Olympia WA, these communities are among the newer
CSEs working with indicators. Possibly, newer efforts follow more strictly the theoretical
recommendations of giving equal attention to the three basic dimensions of sustainability, which
implies that they possibly have to account for resources included in economic and ecological and
biophysical dimensions. In fact, this was the case for Grand Rapids; this community accounted
for water and pollution to water bodies from the perspective of the provision of the resource to
the community, whereas other communities are more likely to account for the provision of safe
water resources as much for the health of consumers as for the health of ecosystems.

Having more than ten years of reporting and more than five editions of their reports define more
experienced CSEs, these communities are deemed older efforts despite that there are cases (e.g.
Olympia) in which the community is older than 10 years and could also be deemed older.
However, longevity was determined here according to time and the level of activity in the
frequency of report editions (>5).

Older and more experienced communities have built

customized indicators by collecting data through local surveys. The new indicators are less
traditional in the sense that they link economy, the environment and social matters with more
weight on social matters. For instance, the factors within the ecological and biophysical
dimension are commonly linked to human health; economic factors are linked to the necessary
income for all sectors of society to have a just level of wellbeing. This type of indicator tilted
analysis of indicators towards the FI perspective because the indicators are seen as reflecting
measures within a systemic appreciation of the community, with communities focusing on the
functionality of the elements making up the system. For instance B-Sustainable from Sustainable

156

Seattle reports an indicator for happiness that is constructed with data collected by annual
surveys. Their survey includes questions that elicit respondents’ self-reported perceptions of
safety, access to recreation and health levels, as well as their perceptions of environmental
protection and environmental quality. For this analysis, this indicator fits within the
psychological dimension within the FI approach.

Other less sophisticated examples of these less traditional indicators, are used by the Cities of
Tucson, Santa Monica, Boston, Oregon, Cincinnati, and Sustainable Seattle; they have indicators
of neighborhoods’ perception of safety and trust that are constructed using data collected by the
cities. The key factor in the level of sophistication of CSEs and the type of indicators they
construct is their longevity and the revisions they make in their work through time.
1.

The interaction between FI and RS and the dimensions of

sustainability
When observing the indicators separated by dimensions and by sustainability values, the data
shows further evidence that newer organizations are more concerned with resource sufficiency
strategies and focus more on ‘Ecological and Biophysical’ and ‘Economic metrics’. Table 9
shows the distribution of indicators across the dimensions and values of sustainability as a
percentage of total indicators by city. The same dominant tendencies previously discussed are
observed; a higher percentage of indicators of FI emphasize the ‘Social and Cultural’ dimension.

157

Table 9. Proportion of indicators by city, categorized under sustainability value and
dimensions of sustainability

Economic

Social and Cultural

Psychological

Engagement

% RS

Ecological and
Biophysical

Economic

Social and Cultural

Psychological

Engagement

% FI

Functional Integrity

Ecological and
Biophysical

Resource Sufficiency

7.1

21.4

7.1

0.0

0.0

35.7

21.4

7.1

21.4

14.3

0.0

64.3

36.8

10.5

7.9

2.6

0.0

57.9

2.6

0.0

2.6

36.8

0.0

42.1

Lansing

4.7

14.0

7.0

7.0

0.0

32.6

7.0

0.0

34.9

18.6

7.0

67.4

Minneapolis

3.8

7.7

7.7

0.0

0.0

19.2

23.1

0.0

50.0

0.0

7.7

80.8

Baltimore

9.4

12.5

3.1

0.0

0.0

25.0

6.3

3.1

31.3

34.4

0.0

75.0

Boston

3.8

10.8

17.7

1.6

0.0

33.9

9.7

6.5

29.6

8.1

12.4

66.1

20.0

46.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

66.7

0.0

0.0

26.7

0.0

6.7

33.3

Southwestern PA

0.0

14.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

14.3

28.6

7.1

42.9

3.6

3.6

85.7

Washington DC

20.0

11.4

17.1

5.7

2.9

57.1

34.3

2.9

5.7

0.0

0.0

42.9

Boulder

1.7

5.1

27.1

0.0

0.0

33.9

10.2

5.1

20.3

20.3

10.2

66.1

Central Texas

8.9

12.6

15.8

5.8

0.0

43.2

6.3

1.1

5.3

33.7

10.5

56.8

Tucson

4.8

14.3

3.2

3.2

0.0

25.4

12.7

0.0

36.5

19.0

6.3

74.6

Atlanta

44.4

11.1

11.1

0.0

0.0

66.7

0.0

0.0

22.2

11.1

0.0

33.3

Chattanooga

23.9

28.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

52.2

28.3

6.5

6.5

0.0

6.5

47.8

5.1

15.4

5.1

2.6

0.0

28.2

10.3

0.0

10.3

51.3

0.0

71.8

0.9

4.5

8.2

0.0

0.0

13.6

6.4

8.2

23.6

25.5

22.7

86.4

West
Olympia

23.1

23.1

7.7

0.0

0.0

53.8

7.7

0.0

23.1

7.7

7.7

46.2

Oregon

0.0

20.9

3.3

2.2

0.0

26.4

18.7

0.0

36.3

8.8

9.9

73.6

Santa Monica
SustainableSeattle

6.8

10.2

9.1

0.0

0.0

26.1

9.1

10.2

27.3

18.2

9.1

73.9

0.0

8.6

8.6

0.0

0.0

17.1

18.1

19.0

29.5

11.4

4.8

82.9

Region / City
North Central
Cincinnati
Grand Rapids

Northeast

Philadelphia

South Central

Southeast

Durham
Jacksonville NE
FL

Of the 13 newer efforts (fewer than five editions of their reports), six cases show a greater
number of RS indicators: Grand Rapids (57.9%), Philadelphia (66.7%), Washington DC
158

(57.1%), Atlanta (66.7%), Chattanooga (52.2%) and Olympia (53.8%). Not only do these efforts
focus more on resource sufficiency, they also have more indicators related to biophysical and
economic measures. Conversely older efforts show more indicators associated with social–
cultural measures that reflect Functional Integrity. One could argue that younger efforts tend to
focus more on estimates of their economic and biophysical resources in the interest of RS.
However, eight of the newer efforts actually show greater concentration of FI indicators. Table
10 shows the distribution of communities across categories of sustainability perspective and
longevity of the effort.

Table 10. Distribution of community sustainability efforts across sustainability value
system and longevity

New Efforts

Resource Sufficiency

Functional Integrity

Grand Rapids
Philadelphia
Washington DC
Atlanta
Chattanooga
Olympia WA

Cincinnati
Lansing
Baltimore
Southwestern PA
Tucson
Durham
Sta. Monica
Minneapolis
Boston
Boulder CO
Central Texas
Jacksonville FL
Oregon
Seattle (Sustainable Seattle)

Older Efforts

Total: 6

Total: 14

In total, 14 communities use Functional Integrity indicators. All of the older efforts focus on FI.
Generally speaking, for communities pursuing FI, the largest concentration of indicators falls

159

under two dimensions: psychological and social and cultural. The exception is Boulder CO;
despite its principle focus on FI, its largest concentration of indicators within in any
classification are social and cultural indicators categorized as RS because they account for status
of the population specifically as a work force (i.e., how availability of workforce is affected by
Boulder county population by race/ethnicity, age distribution, median age, and speaks a language
other than English at home).

For all FI communities, the fewer indicators fall under the economic dimension. Perhaps
communities choose not to work with economic indicators because there are governmental
organizations already providing this information, or perhaps they lack funding to create such
regional indicators. Yet older communities that have worked with indicators for more than 10
years do not show larger numbers of economic indicators. In fact the older they are, the fewer
economic indicators they reported (see, for example, Boulder, Jacksonville and Sustainable
Seattle). This could reflect that they have found that social-cultural, psychological, and
engagement indicators to be more important. If that is the case, then communities reflect
agreement with Orr’s (2002) observation that the barriers to a graceful transition to
sustainability, whatever forms it may take, are not so much technological as they are social,
political, and psychological.

Based on the relative importance they assign to different type of indicators, communities are
redefining a hierarchical order of factors that should be observed when implementing
sustainability; evidence suggests that economic, and to some extent ecological and biophysical,

160

dimensions are less important than indicators that inform policies addressing individual and
social needs.
2.

Comparison by region, dimensions of sustainability and by the

longevity of CSE
Because one of the more observable tendencies is the concentration of indicators under the social
and cultural dimension, indicators for each dimension are divided by region to explore potential
associations of a region with attention to a particular dimension of sustainability. Table 11 shows
this distribution.

Table 11. Percentage of indicators by dimension of sustainability and region of origin
Regions
Dimension

North Central

Northeast South Central

Southeast

West

Ecol. and Biophysical

26%

20%

15%

21%

18%

Economic

13%

19%

13%

18%

23%

Social and Cultural

34%

42%

27%

23%

38%

Psychological

23%

11%

35%

25%

13%

4%

8%

10%

14%

7%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Engagement
Total

The Northeast region shows a greater concentration of social-cultural indicators (42%) than other
regions; three out of the five cities in this region have more indicators for FI, which involves a
higher concentration of social-cultural indicators. The same applies for the West and North

161

Central regions, where 38% and 34% of all indicators are for the social and cultural dimension,
respectively.

Another relevant comparison is made using the number of indicators that every city reports in
relationship to dimensions of sustainability. All communities with more than five editions and
with more than 100 indicators in their reports are considered large. As previously shown in Table
6, the cities of Boston, Central Texas, Jacksonville, and Seattle (B-Sustainable) report the largest
sets of indicators. Figures 11 and 12 show how large efforts differ slightly in the way they
determine priorities of work for the community. The smaller CSEs are comprised almost entirely
of newer efforts, and because of this a relatively larger concentration of indicators of ecologicalbiophysical and economic dimensions is observed (Figure 11). The larger (and generally longer)
efforts (Figure 12) seem to have shifted more attention to social-cultural, psychological and
engagement matters. The biggest difference is in attention to ecological and biophysical matters.
One explanation may be that most CSEs go through a similar learning process, and as they get
more experienced they shift attention from RS indicators to FI indicators and a concomitant
larger number of social and cultural indicators relative to the other dimensions.

The criteria used to distinguish between large and small efforts was both having over 5 editions
of their reports and over 100 indicators. If CSEs were classified based on longevity (number of
reports) alone, Minneapolis and Boulder would have been classified as large. All of the
conclusions drawn from this analysis were re-explored including Minneapolis and Boulder in the
group of large CSEs, and the results changed little from what is reported here.

162

Figure 11. Distribution of indicators across dimensions of sustainability for the 16 smaller
sets of indicators (comprising 638 indicators)
Engagement	
  
6%	
  
Ecological	
  and	
  
Biophysical	
  	
  
24%	
  

Psychological	
  	
  
19%	
  

Social	
  and	
  
Cultural	
  	
  
32%	
  

Economic	
  
19%	
  

Figure 12. Distribution of indicators across dimensions of sustainability for the four largest
sets of indicators (comprising 591 indicators)

Ecological	
  
Engagement	
  
and	
  
13%	
  
Biophysical	
  	
  
14%	
  
Economic	
  
17%	
  

Psychological	
  	
  
22%	
  
Social	
  and	
  
Cultural	
  	
  
34%	
  

163

3.

Types of Indicators

The categorization of indicators according to the typology developed for this research required
learning about the objectives linked to the indicators and the frameworks in which they were
interpreted. Thinking of indicators as signals of change and observing whether indicators are
descriptive (more static) or diagnostic (more complex and therefore more dynamic), one can
make inferences about how dynamic communities are in terms of observing and fostering
community development. During the course of this research it became evident that, depending on
the analytical framework applied by the community, a descriptive indicator serving as a goal
may become diagnostic (according to the interpretation given in this research). Subsequently,
this diagnostic indicator is supported by several other descriptive indicators that are assumed to
have a multiple cause-effect relationship.

When a framework of analysis was not provided by a CSE, most indicators where categorized as
descriptive (unless the report was explicit and indicated that a particular single indicator was
used as diagnostic). In some cases single indicators were deemed as diagnostic in isolation, and
this was most frequently observed when communities included an indicator created by another
entity, such as the clean air index created by the US EPA. Given this mix of criteria in how
communities use either descriptive or diagnostic indicators, using this distinction between
descriptive and diagnostic to evaluate how dynamic communities are could not be done. Instead,
the number of indicators of each type for each community is used to make inferences about how
communities understand and delimit their own systems. The number of reports produced by each
CSE since its initiation could potentially be used to help understand how dynamically
communities are pursuing community development; however, reports are released either
164

annually or biannually and do not generally reflect actions taken between reports. Also, old
reports were not available to compare with current ones, which could have shown how indicators
evolved within a given community.

For all the cases, 39.3 percent of indicators are considered diagnostic and 55 percent are
descriptive. As shown in figure 13, the diagnostic and descriptive indicators are distributed
relatively evenly across sustainability perspectives. The expectation that communities working
toward FI might have more diagnostic indicators, reflecting a better understanding of the
interrelatedness among the factors depicted by the indicators, is not supported.

The third category of indicators for this typology is normative indicators. This category includes
all indicators associated with some desirable change described by a community. Since the
judgment of the researcher may cause bias in categorizing these indicators, a way to reduce
subjective choices is to learn from the background information provided by the community for
each indicator. Therefore, the basic criterion was if the indicator was related to an
innovative/changing action within that community. For instance, in the context of reducing
carbon emissions, some communities have indicators for the number of people using alternative
means of transportation (bicycles). However, if a general carbon emissions community goal was
not stated in the report, the count of bike users would simply be a descriptive indicator, rather
than normative. As seen in Figure 13, the percentage of normative indictors in the sample was
not high. However, normative indicators represented almost twice the proportion of indicators
associated with RS as compared to FI. A larger number of normative indicators associated with
FI was expected based on the presumption that the FI requires a more systemic understanding of

165

the community and, as a result, a clear idea of where change is needed. There were more
normative indicators within the RS perspective because of how communities accounted for the
provision of resources, especially alternative energy sources and emissions reduction strategies.
For the most part, normative indicators are generically descriptive because they serve a single
point of observation.

Figure 13. Distribution of types of indicators by functional integrity and resource
sufficiency

Functional	
  Integrity	
  

55.0%	
  

Resource	
  Suf^iciency	
  

54.9%	
  

40.6%	
  

36.5%	
  

4.3%	
  

8.6%	
  

0%	
   10%	
   20%	
   30%	
   40%	
   50%	
   60%	
   70%	
   80%	
   90%	
   100%	
  
Descriptive	
  

Diagnostic	
  

Normative	
  

A comparison of the use of descriptive, diagnostic and normative indicators by older (≥10 years
of work, ≥5 report editions, >100 indicators) and newer (all those not characterized as older)
communities is shown in figure 14. The purpose of the comparison is to identify whether time
and experience make a difference in the mix of types of indicators. The expectation is that
because communities that have been using indicators longer have also made more revisions to
the indicators they use, these communities should be moving toward using indicators that better
serve their intentions of observing and fostering change.

166

Figure 14. Type of indicators by sustainability value system for larger, older vs. smaller,
newer CSEs

FI	
  (Large)	
  

55.7%	
  

RS	
  
(Large)	
  

55.6%	
  

FI	
  (Small)	
  

54.4%	
  

RS	
  (Small)	
  

54.3%	
  
Descriptive	
  

42.1%	
  
39.9%	
  
39.1%	
  
33.8%	
  
Diagnostic	
  

2.2%	
  
4.5%	
  
6.4%	
  
11.9%	
  

Normative	
  

As shown in figure 14, the largest difference is observed for normative indicators for the newer
communities with a RS perspective. That is, indicators related to initiatives seeking change are
more common among the newer CSEs.
H.

Conclusions and Summary
1.

What types of community sustainability indicators are found across

community sustainability efforts?
For the 20 CSEs included in this study, communities generally focus on less traditional measures
of progress. There are fewer indicators for standard economic measures of growth. Instead, the
indicators they use capture metrics for elements that make cities more enjoyable, for example
indicators for recreation, community structure (e.g., walking distances to services), cultural
enhancement, social equity in access to services (e.g., health, education, safety) and civic
167

engagement. The large number of non-traditional indicators may be evidence of communities’
desires for transformation; that most indicators are within the social and cultural dimension may
suggest a desire for cultural transformation.

The number of years that the cities had been working on building indicators is correlated with the
number of indicators reported. Older organizations report more indicators and older
organizations with at least five editions of their report show: i) a more elaborate framework for
analyzing the indicators, and ii) a higher number of customized indicators. Younger CSEs report
traditional standard measures, focusing more on covering the ecological and biophysical
dimensions – as if sustainability is understood as preservation of the environment or pollution
abatement. The analysis shows that older communities have expanded sets of indicators to
capture not only traditional measures of well-being but also less traditional measures (e.g.,
cultural enhancement, access to healthy food, and levels of trust among neighbors).

One

conclusion is that older CSEs appear to take a broader approach to capture observable effects of
the interrelatedness among sustainability dimensions.

However, in all reports, indicators related to the provision of basic needs seem to be the default
(e.g., number of people living under the line of poverty, access to health, and access to
education). Some organizations address structural factors within the community (e.g., diversity
of gender and race in leadership positions). Older efforts address factors related to the
engagement of citizens in the improvement of their living conditions and other measures related
to the conditions needed for civic action to happen (e.g., amount of philanthropic donations made
to civic organizations, number of civic organizations, and measures of volunteerism).

168

The creation of new indicators by the CSEs breaks away from the technocratic tradition of using
regional indicators, in the sense that the local knowledge counts as much as experts’
contributions to the choice of indicators. The case of Philadelphia is particularly pertinent to this
observation. Philadelphia, like other communities, designed a set of indicators that responded to
the city’s need to observe social change to create a culture of sustainability. What makes this
case unique is the way in which this CSE is measuring change; they regularly ask those
individuals in charge of each initiative and elicit information about the actual rate of progress
(measured in percentage of goal achieved) for each of the actions. These self-reported
percentages are averaged by each of the dimensions of sustainability and are interpreted by the
CSE as a measure of change.
2.

What constitutes sustainability for communities?

This research tries to understand how communities interpret sustainability using two approaches.
The first is by organizing indicators according to the dimension of sustainability they can be
ascribed to. The second is by categorizing the indicators according to whether they correspond
with the criteria for either Resource Sufficiency or Functional Integrity.
a)

	
  Dimensions	
  of	
  Sustainability	
  	
  

For the dimensions that indicators address, some guidance seems to be taken from the
dimensions of sustainability suggested by theory, as most communities address economic,
environmental and social dimensions. However, the communities’ choices of indicators are not
distributed evenly across these different dimensions. Most indicators in this study are related to
the aspects of sustainability related to people and their conditions: engagement dimension 9%,
psychological dimension 21%, and social and cultural dimension 33%. That these dimension
169

together contain 63% of the indicators from among the 20 CSEs is strong evidence that
communities understand sustainability in terms of cultural transformation and working with
people’s behaviors and attitudes. The work of these communities places people at the center of
sustainability, implying attempts to transform society through the enhancement of desirable
community aspects (recreation, culture, healthy lifestyles, safety, trust) rather than focusing on
individuals as consumers and macroeconomic policies to modify consumers’ behavior.

Not only do the CSEs interpret sustainability in terms of people and communities, they seem to
be able to gather information to reflect their understanding of sustainability. Younger efforts tend
to be simpler and cover basic dimensions (economic, environmental and social). But older efforts
have built more complex sets of indicators and are inclined to use more indicators of the socialcultural dimension. Two possible reasons for this include: 1) that the people in the groups
choosing the indicators become more informed and experienced about how to implement
sustainability and therefore their indicators become more complex, and 2) as the CSEs mature,
the communities are perhaps able to obtain more funding to build customized indicators.

As communities develop a deeper understanding of the actions and goals they list under each
dimension, they begin developing their own sub-divisions within each dimension. These subdivisions represent deeper interpretations of principles that then become strategies or actions.
The engagement dimension used in this study was developed as a result of this. In broader terms,
other communities may implicitly consider the engagement-dimension as a sub-dimension of the
social and cultural dimension. The expectation, then, is that these CSEs develop more expertise;
they will be better able to do identify additional sub-dimensions for their understanding of

170

sustainability. The case of B-Sustainable (Sustainable Seattle) gives a hint about how it is
beginning to group indicators under goals that are like sub-dimensions. For instance, under the
economic dimension (what they labeled the built dimension), they have stipulated goals for
sustainable transportation and responsible land use, isolating critical elements believed to require
special public attention. In terms of sustainability, this collective analysis and deliberation is an
enrichment of the process.
b)

	
  The	
  issue	
  of	
  aggregation	
  

All communities in this study are ethnically and economically diverse and experience problems
common to most cities/communities in the country. However, this does not necessarily imply
that they represent the goals and initiative of most cities across the country. This is particularly
important when thinking about scaling up these community efforts. The local emphasis of these
indicators may be challenged if evaluated in terms of larger regions’ goals. Simon Dresner
argues that sustainability is a “global problem, requiring global coordination of action” and that
leaving all decisions to local communities is “not very different than the neoliberal solution of
leaving everything to the market to decide” (Dresner 2002 p 139). The disadvantage of multiple
communities acting in their own interests is could be likened to the tyranny of small decisions
(Kahn 1966). In other words, will an aggregation of community sustainability planning decisions
equal sustainability at a regional scale? While that question falls outside the boundaries of this
study, the fact that the older and more experienced organizations are providing advice and
coaching younger organizations could result in some objectives being shared across different
communities. The case of Jacksonville and North East Florida is an example. This CSE is
helping launch community sustainability and indicator projects in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Clay
County, Florida; and Roanoke, Virginia. Also, the CSEs and indicators analyzed here show
171

strong similarities when the goals driving the efforts are considered. In a way, this combining of
efforts tests whether local value systems can be observed in larger regions.

The issue of small versus large-scale efforts is also being addressed through the combination of
many county efforts into larger-regional efforts. For instance, Central Texas started as a local
effort in Austin that later grew to include surrounding counties.

Similarly, the Southern

Pennsylvania CSE includes several counties, and the B-Sustainable initiative providing
indicators for Sustainable Seattle is today a nationally recognized organization that provides
guidance in the use of community sustainability indicators.
c)

	
  Functional	
  Integrity	
  or	
  Resource	
  Sufficiency	
  	
  

This research evaluated whether indicators responded to either a resource sufficiency (RS) or
functional integrity (FI) value system for sustainability. For RS, indicators were analyzed to
determine whether serve a purpose related to planned actions to secure the provision of resources
to support human existence. For FI, this research evaluated the indicators in light of actions that
secured capacity and resilience of social and ecological systems. FI dominated; 14 communities
out of 20 have a larger percentage of indicators related to FI (67% of the total count of
indicators). That most indicators fell on the FI side of the evaluation suggests several things: i)
that CSEs are indeed developing a systemic appreciation of their communities; ii) that more
weight is placed on developing diagnostic indicators that capture the interrelatedness of factors
within the community, increasing understanding of relationships among factors; and iii) that,
when the FI result is combined with the result that utilitarian values are not dominating the work
of CSEs (based on how the dimensions of sustainability are reflected), communities are focusing

172

on factors that capture the general wellbeing of the community, as well as of individual
community members, and the ability of community members to work together.
d)

	
  How	
  are	
  these	
  community	
  interpretations	
  of	
  sustainability	
  

similar	
  to	
  or	
  different	
  from	
  theoreticians’	
  interpretations	
  in	
  the	
  
literature?	
  
Communities embrace principles of sustainability selectively and apply them according to their
own understanding and to solve their own problems. Also, they do not necessarily adopt
principles wholesale; rather they seem to make interpretations in response to their needs and
work towards satisfying the interests of local community members, local organizations and local
visions for a better life. Thus, the approach taken by many communities in developing indicators
seems to embrace a less comprehensive set of principles when compared with the breadth of
recommended principles for sustainability suggested by the literature. Nevertheless, these
communities are taking on the challenge of moving from theory to practice; no report of
indicators analyzed for this research shows actions that might be considered counter to the
theoretical principles of sustainability.

Likely, asking CSEs to approach sustainability as comprehensively as does academic literature is
unreasonable given the complexity of community issues and the costs of generating indicators
and then implementing actions to bring to practice each one of the multiple theoretical
recommendations. What seems to be happening is that different entities generating indicators
within and across communities are beginning to consolidate their work and to compare results
under the networks of different CSEs. This might result in integration for the interpretation of
Sustainability at larger scales or at least more homogeneity in the selection and application of
173

principles. The case of B-Sustainable Seattle is an example of this expansion. Over time, this
CSE has incorporated a larger geographic area, expanded its set of indicators, and developed a
more sophisticated framework of analysis that can be accessed by others on a web based
platform.

Although it is argued that a critical shortcoming of CSIs is the absence of needed data at the local
scale and the perceived inconsistency of some components with long term sustainability
(Talberth, Cobb et al. 2007), this criticism comes from a tradition that sees the development of
indicators as a technocratic process. Communities are developing their own data, for their own
indicators. Whether the data is consistent across communities is a legitimate question. However,
consistency is irrelevant to community members if the purpose of the indicators and data is to
signal an intended change or improvement responding to local plans. Nevertheless, local value
systems that result in local indicators may be spreading as indicators are shared and compared
among communities.

When looking at the longevity of these efforts, it is important to acknowledge that communities
are showing a level of engagement in this process that may or may not last and building social
institutions that may or may not remain functional over the long term (e.g., a hundred years). It is
evident by the continuity of their reports that there are some long-term intentions and there is a
learning process involved that requires the members of these organizations to adapt information
and adjust to changes. This adaptation is consistent with the co-evolution argument developed by
Norgaard (1984) in the sense that as social and ecological conditions change as a result of human
actions, human actions eventually change to adapt to new conditions. As an example of the long

174

term commitment of these organizations, Jacksonville and North East Florida has been
publishing an indicators report for over 26 years; this effort is one of the most comprehensive in
the sense that it covers broadly the five dimensions of sustainability evaluated by this research.
The Jacksonville and North East Florida initiative may not have started as a sustainability effort
26 years ago, but it now evidences the adaptation of the organization behind the effort,
incorporating newer knowledge and responding to social changes with sustainability as a goal.
I.

What this Research Cannot Answer

The results of this research show what types of sustainability indicators are most frequently
constructed by communities and describes them in terms of dimensions of sustainability and two
value systems proposed by Thompson (2007). The results also provide increased understanding
of differences and similarities between theory and practice. The ground is set for future research
to explore the extent to which these local interpretations of sustainability affect policy-making.
Also, future research might be conducted to understand the multiple factors that may have
influenced the formation of these organizations. Little is known about the motivators of these
collective efforts and how these motivators relate to issues of representativeness, democracy,
governance, and long term planning.

175

General Conclusions
From the first chapter in this dissertation three main lessons are drawn. First, elements of
modernization that remain are the system’s approach, a direct contribution of structural
functionalism. Also, globalization is identified as a direct effect of modernization and as a
driving force of development that is void of any influence of the SD principles of justice and
equity.

Second, the foundations of development were generated within sociology; however its influence
faded as the implementation of modernization expanded, and economics took a more prominent
role in informing development theory and policy. After environmental concerns made
compulsory the incorporation of the environment in development decisions, contributions from
ecology merged with economic theory. The methodological assumptions of this interdisciplinary
approach were challenged by critics, and this promoted theoretical and methodological advances
that gave way to the emergence of post-normal approaches to the complex problems posed by
SD in which open participation and transdisciplinarity became prominent. In this new context
disciplines are expected to contribute in the advancement of methods of inquiry and research that
incorporate those approaches.

Third, SD became a field of knowledge with rapid transformations and taking new directions.
These transformations occurred at the discourse level, with elements that included: rejection of
the hegemonic dominance of the east-west divide, rejection of the determinism of expert
knowledge, a more open questioning of the epistemology of disciplines, acknowledgement that
there are limits to current knowledge, appreciation for diversity in culture and knowledge,

176

embracing of complexity, open participation in the process of planning for development, a
recognition that social decisions cannot be made in technocratic isolation, and the realization of
the need of transdisciplinary inquiry to address wicked problems of SD.

The effort, in chapter 2 to build a common understanding between three constructions of
sustainability, offers four essential messages. First, regardless of apparent similarities, heuristics
used to explain sustainability across fields of study and the principles generated from these
heuristics reflect underlying values that can be incompatible, which causes inconsistencies that
affect implementation. Therefore caution is warranted for efforts to combine knowledge about
sustainability at the shallow level of heuristics. This is especially critical when combining
practices from different constructions of sustainability.

Second, combining knowledge on sustainability is desirable, but debating at the level of practices
that stem from principles (across and within fields of study) may create gridlock in decisionmaking. Bringing the debate one level deeper from practices to values helps to clarify the
purpose of the practices and may facilitate deliberation.

Third, as hard as it is to agree on values, being explicit about what values a group or community
wishes to serve with every action within sustainability plans (part of the rationale for each
action) could reduce conflict. Finally, a set of principles drawn from across the work on
sustainable agriculture, business and development are sufficiently universal that they can be
deemed minimum standards for labeling an initiative sustainable. The standards emerge as
characteristics of sustainability.

177

§

A community implementing sustainability should not commit only to one type of
sustainability because this restricts the breadth and depth of the effort.

§

Consideration of the interactions among communities and with the region should be part
of sustainability visioning and planning.

§

Long term planning and attention to intergenerational impacts is a central part of
sustainability.

§

Communities or stakeholders engaged in sustainability initiatives should be clear about
the values that they want to serve with any given action and about the diversity of values
they ascribe to sustainability.

The analysis of the work of CSEs provides a set of findings that shed light on the differences
between the theory and practice of sustainability. For instance, younger CSEs report simpler
indicators (less interrelation among elements measured); of all communities, some of these
younger efforts have more indicators related to a resource sufficiency value system. Conversely,
older efforts report more complex and customized indicators. All older (more expert) efforts
report indicators that focus on the functional integrity value system. In reference to indicators
according to dimension of sustainability, the least common are those that can be deemed
traditional economic indicators, but the number of these indicators is similar to the number of
biophysical-ecological indicators. Finding that communities pay much less attention to economic
and environmental indicators than the literature is crucial because the literature stresses the
importance of the environment for improvements in the quality of life. However, these
communities actually focus more on reporting a larger number of indicators related to the social,
cultural, psychological and engagement dimensions. All are related to the human condition.

178

Of the trending methodological advances found in the literature, the need to incorporate
environmental concerns in development decisions is among the most salient ones. Surprisingly
more experienced communities express an understanding of sustainability that treats the
economics and environmental dimensions with relatively less importance than is the case in
academic literature. That some communities fall back on economic indicators measured at the
national level may reflect a view that these are sufficient; alternatively data at the community
level may be difficult to obtain. The limited focus on environmental indicators may very well
result from the urban focus of the CSEs; however, the proportion of indicators in the biophysical
and ecological dimensions may reflect lack of understanding of the scientific information stating
the importance of the contributions of the quality of the environment to social-wellbeing.
Alternatively, this may show that attention to environment is seen as important but communities
find it more important to expand the focus on the social-cultural dimension. At the end,
environmental problems are also social problems that require change in attitudes and behavior of
society. The social and cultural indicators deal with a number of efforts that seek gradual cultural
transformations, for instance, increasing the level of trust among citizens or trust towards
governmental agencies; increasing the level of artistic events; increasing perceived levels of
safety; and increasing levels of equity in gender and race.

Because sustainability is a global matter and not a localized one, questions about whether
addressing sustainability at the community level will meet needs that arise at a larger scale are
reasonable. It appears that communities are addressing this issue and reaching some resolution.
Some communities have decided, after some years of work, to merge their efforts. Some older

179

efforts function as mentors for newer efforts in a process that results in the sharing of policies
and indicators associated with sustainability.

Because of the high variability of the types of indicators reported, no dominant understanding of
sustainability appears to be informing these efforts. The older efforts are more comprehensive in
the incorporation of a variety of indicators that relate to a broader number of dimensions and
some identifiable principles of sustainability. This gives the signal that there is a learning
process ongoing, from early efforts in which indicators tend to be simpler to more experienced
efforts with more complex use of indicators.

There is evidence that the reports of indicators may reflect values other than just utilitarian. The
dominant value system in the understanding of sustainability is functional integrity (67% of the
total count of indicators). That most indicators fell on the FI side of the evaluation suggests
several things: i) that CSEs are indeed developing a systemic appreciation of their communities;
and ii) that more weight is placed on developing diagnostic indicators capturing the
interrelatedness of factors within the community and increasing the understanding of
relationships among factors.

Seeing that most communities report indicators that fall within the FI value system, and that
economic indicators are among the least reported, it appears that utilitarian values are not
dominating the work of CSEs. Also, the fact that the largest concentration of indicators is under
the social-cultural, engagement and psychological dimensions (all related to the human

180

condition) signals that it is possible that these communities are expressing universal and
benevolent types of values.

Sustainability for these communities is not fully based in any theoretical paradigm. It is an
eclectic combination of sustainability actions that render a wide array of sustainability
interpretations. The newer efforts do incorporate more theoretical recommendations into their
programs than older efforts, but more experienced efforts have abandoned the theoretical
structure (of dimensions at least) in favor of crafting their own visions of desired change relative
to what they think is important for their urban settings, a greater focus on people.

While this research looked at how sustainability is understood and demonstrated in CSEs, a
deeper look into these efforts could help answer several other questions that arose in the process
of conducting this work. For instance, it would be important to learn:
§

What motivates the formation of these groups and how representative are they of their
communities? Are there special conditions that can be replicated to stimulate the
formation of these groups somewhere else?

§

How do community groups make difficult decisions about indicators? Do they apply
transdisciplinarity? What are the criteria that guide these decisions?

§

What types of values do community initiatives believe sustain each one of their actions?

§

How do community efforts define “long-term” and guarantee their long-term continuity,
and how do they incorporate moral obligations to future generations (if any) in this
process?

181

§

This research shows a static analysis of the work of CSEs; it would also be interesting to
observe the progression of these efforts through time in order to understand determinants
of change, the learning process they go through, and the potential changes to underlying
values.

182

APPENDICES

183

APPENDIX A LIST OF SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES

Table 12. Principles of sustainable development, sustainable agriculture and corporate
social responsibility
Sustainable Development Principles
Principle: an idea that forms the basis of something
(Merriam-Webster)
World Commission on Environment
and Development (1987)
Challenges

Limit extreme rates of population growth
Sustain the potential of food security
Protection of Species and Ecosystems: resources for
development
Energy efficiency and low energy paths based on renewable
resources
Industrial production: Higher productivity (meet increasing
demands), increased efficiency and decreased pollution
Increasing urbanization requires attention and resources to
provide land, services, and facilities needed for adequate
human life (clean water, sanitation, school and transport)

Strategic Imperatives

Revive economic growth: increasing per capita income in
developing nations as poverty relief strategy
Change the quality of growth: make it less-material and
energy-intensive, and more equitable in its impact
Meet the needs and aspirations of an expanding developingworld population
Ensuring a sustainable level population in both developed
and developing countries
Conserve and enhance the Earth's natural resource base
Reorient technology (key link between humans and nature)
towards environment and managing risk (safety of systems
and environmental risks of new technologies)
Merge environment and economics in decision making

Role of International Economy

Enhancing the flow of resources (financial and SD expertise)
to developing nations
Linking trade with development and environment

184

Table 12 (Cont’d)
Trans nationals have impact on both environment and
resources of other countries and the global commons. Both
host and home countries of Trans nationals should
strengthen policies
Broadening the technological base for developing nations
(diffusion and building capacities)
World Economy

Rapid economic growth in both industrial and developing
countries
Freer market access for the products of developing countries
Lower interest rates
Greater Technology transfer
Larger capital flows (concessional and commercial)
Increase multi-lateral dialogue

H. Daly (1990)
Economic

Environmental

Social

Harvest rates of renewable resources should equal
regeneration
Waste emission should equal nature’s assimilative capacity
Regenerative and assimilative capacities should be treated as
natural capital
Substitutability of man made capital for natural resources
shall be understood as very limited
The rate of exploitation of non-renewable resources shall be
limited to the rate of creation of renewable substitutes
Emphasize on technologies that increase resource
productivity (development) rather than resource throughput
itself
The scale of the economy must be within the carrying
capacity of the region
Growth is limited to an optimal scale relative to the
biosphere, after that it is anti-economic growth
Economic growth is desirable but redistribution aimed to
reduce wealth inequality
Limits on population size and per capita resource usage
Trade off between population size and per capita resource
usage

Holmberg and Intl. Institute for
Environment and Development (1992)
Economic

Increase productivity of goods and services
Satisfying basic needs or reducing poverty

185

Table 12 (Cont’d)

Environmental

Social

Improving equity
Biological productivity
Genetic diversity
Ecological Resilience
Cultural Diversity
Social Justice
Gender Equality
Participation

National Research Council (1999)
To be Sustained
Nature

Life Support

Community

To be Developed
People

Economy

Society

Middleton and O’Keefe
(2001)
Economic
Environmental

Earth
Biodiversity
Ecosystems
Ecosystem Services
Resources
Environment
Cultures
Groups
Place
Child Survival
Life Expectancy
Education
Equity
Equal Opportunity
Wealth
Productive Sectors
Consumption
Institutions
Social Capital
States
Regions

Market prices for environmental goods (because markets do
not reflect values)
Biodiversity, avoidance of system collapse (because nature
is not pristine but constructed)

186

Table 12 (Cont’d)
Social

Stability and equity (because communities are destroyed and
built by market forces)

O’Connor (2006)
Political

Capacity of community, citizens participation
Coordination, power and governance
Shaping the rules and limits to markets
Regulation of what counts as environmental value

National Research Council (2013)
Sustainability for the Nation: Resource
Connection and Governance Linkages
[Priority Domain and Issue Areas]

Connections among energy, food, and water: The
availability and abundance of affordable supplies of
energy, food, and water are vital to sustaining healthy
populations and economic prosperity.
Diverse and healthy ecosystems: Ecosystems and their
components and functions provide “services” to
human communities—for example, in terms of water
supplies and quality, coastal storm buffers, productive
fisheries, pollination, air pollution absorption, and soil
quality along with many extractive and other uses of
resources.
Enhancing resilience of communities to extreme
events: There is a significant need to assess
infrastructure and community vulnerabilities to natural
and human-caused disasters and to develop more
coordinated strategies for addressing them.
Human health and well being: Clean air and water,
nutritious food, regular physical activity, and
protection from toxic exposures and injuries are among
the requirements for human health and well-being;
each of these is affected by sustainability initiatives.
Sustainable Agriculture Principles

Douglas (1984)

Agriculture as food sufficiency,
concerned with the permanent
availability of resources (soil, water
and crops) to produce food and their
respective demands.

Estimating future demand for food
Estimate the supply of economically useful
agricultural resources, and their productivities or yields
per unit of resource
Pursue technological advancements to increase
productivity
Observe environmental costs arising from expansion
of food supplies

187

Table 12 (Cont’d)
Agriculture as stewardship, which Honor biophysical constraints of nature on capacity to
translates as the ecological view. produce food
Reduce depletion (pollution or overuse) of renewable
and non-renewable resources
Limits on consumption / limits on population levels

Agriculture as community, in A community is made up of individual living things,
which is included those concerned including human beings, whose lives most deeply
with the values of community. affect one another

Richness of relationships within some communities
produces a richness of experiences for individuals even
more than conventional measures of success such as
wealth and power
Social relations within human community should be
cooperative rather than competitive
Humans must establish a sense of duty to the Earth
showing respect for the complexity of natural
processes and relations rather than seeing nature as
something to be tamed and brought under control
Justice refers to the norms of equalized opportunities
for all members of a community
Resist the centralized forces of technology and
organization, rather seek popular participation for
greater economic, racial, and sexual equality
Reject Green Revolution practices with ecological
effects: intensive cropping practices, the use of
pesticides, or introduction of mechanical innovations

National Research Council (1991)
Sustainable Agriculture

Improve the underlying productivity of natural
resources and cropping systems so that farmers can
meet increasing levels of demand in concert with
population and economic growth.
Produce food that is safe, wholesome, and nutritious
and that promotes human well-being
Ensure an adequate net farm income to support an
acceptable standard of living for farmers while also
underwriting the annual investment needed to improve
progressively the productivity of soil, water and other
resources
Comply with community norms and meet social
expectations

188

Table 12 (Cont’d)
National Research Council (1993)
Sustainable Agriculture in the Humid
Tropics

Maintain the long term biological and ecological
integrity of natural resources
Provide economic return to individual farmers and
farm related industries
Contribute to the quality of life of rural populations,
and
Strengthen the economic development strategies of
countries in the humid tropics

National Research Council (2010)
Towards Sustainable Agricultural
Systems in the 21st Century

Satisfy human food, feed, and fiber needs, and
contribute to biofuel needs.
Enhance environmental quality and the resource base.
Sustain the economic viability of agriculture.
Enhance the quality of life for farmers, farm workers,
and society as a whole

Corporate Social Responsibility Principles
Carroll (1991)
Economic Components

Perform in a manner consistent with maximizing
earnings per share.
Be committed to being as profitable as possible.
Maintain a strong competitive position.
Maintain a high level of operating efficiency.
A successful firm is defined as one that is consistently
profitable.

Legal Components

Perform in a manner consistent with expectations of
government and law.
Comply with various federal, state, and local
regulations.
Be a law-abiding corporate citizen.
A successful firm is defined as one that fulfills its legal
obligations.
Provide goods and services that at least meet minimal
legal requirements.

189

Table 12 (Cont’d)

Ethical Components

Philanthropic Components

Perform in a manner consistent with expectations of
societal mores and ethical norms.
Recognize and respect new or evolving ethical/moral
norms adopted by society.
Prevent ethical norms from being compromised in
order to achieve corporate goals.
Good corporate citizenship is defined as doing what is
expected morally or ethically.
Recognize that corporate integrity and ethical behavior
go beyond mere compliance with laws and regulations.
Perform in a manner consistent with the philanthropic
and charitable expectations of society.
Assist the fine and performing arts.
Managers and employees participate in voluntary and
charitable activities within their local communities.
Provide assistance to private and public educational
institutions.
Assist voluntarily those projects that enhance a
community's "quality of life."

190

APPENDIX B LIST OF CITIES

Table 13. List of cities and reports with URL location for the reports
	
  	
  

Report	
  
Document	
  and	
  URL	
  Link	
  of	
  the	
  Report’s	
  location	
  
Year	
  
1	
   Atlanta	
  
2009	
  
2008-­‐2009	
  Sustainability	
  Report	
  for	
  Atlanta:	
  Sustainable	
  Atlanta	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://www.sustainableatlanta.org/report/Sustainability%20Report.p
df	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
2	
   Baltimore	
  
2010	
  
Baltimore	
  Sustainability	
  Plan	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/sites/baltimoresustainability.
org/files/Baltimore%20Sustainability%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
3	
   Boston	
  	
  
2009	
  
Summary	
  of	
  Boston	
  Indicators	
  Report	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://www.bostonindicators.org/~/media/Files/IndicatorsReports/R
eports/Indicator%20Reports/Indicators2009.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
4	
   Boulder	
  
2009	
  
Boulder	
  County	
  Trends:	
  The	
  community	
  Foundation’s	
  Report	
  on	
  Key	
  
Indicators	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://www.commfound.org/files/TRENDS-­‐2013-­‐LoRes_0.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
5	
   Central	
  Texas	
   2009	
  
2009	
  Data	
  Report:	
  Central	
  Texas	
  Sustainability	
  Indicators	
  Project	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://www.canatx.org/CAN-­‐Research/Reports/2010/ar2009.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
6	
   Chattanooga	
   2009	
  
Climate	
  Action	
  Plan	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://media.timesfreepress.com/docs/2010/04/Chattanooga_Clima
te_Action_Plan.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
7	
   Cincinnati	
  
2005	
  
Sustainable	
  Cincinnati:	
  Regional	
  Indicators,	
  Measuring	
  the	
  Economic,	
  
Environmental	
  and	
  Social	
  Health	
  of	
  the	
  Tri-­‐state	
  Metropolitan	
  Area	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://sustainablecincinnati.org/sc_2005.pdf	
  	
  	
  (*)	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
8	
   Durham	
  
2011	
  
Community	
  Indicators	
  Progress	
  Report	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.durhamnc.gov/Con
tentPages/2508920432.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
9	
   Grand	
  Rapids	
   2008	
  
Community	
  Triple	
  Bottom	
  Line	
  Indicator	
  Report	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://grcity.us/enterprise-­‐services/Documents/11686_TBLFinal.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
10	
   Jacksonville	
  
2010	
  
Quality	
  of	
  life	
  progress	
  report	
  for	
  Jacksonville	
  and	
  Northeast	
  Florida	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
http://www.otsego.org/qol/Research/10%20QOL%20Summary%20Ja
cksonville.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
City	
  

191

Table 13 (Cont’d)
11	
  
	
  
	
  
12	
  

Lansing	
  
	
  
	
  
Olympia	
  

2007	
  
	
  
	
  
2006	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  
13	
  

	
  
Oregon	
  

	
  
2009	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  
14	
  
	
  
	
  
15	
  

	
  
Philadelphia	
  
	
  
	
  
Pittsburgh	
  

	
  
2010	
  
	
  
	
  
2004	
  

	
  
	
  
16	
  

	
  
	
  
2006	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
Santa	
  
Monica	
  
	
  

	
  
17	
  
	
  

	
  
Seattle	
  
	
  

	
  
2006	
  
	
  

	
  
18	
  
	
  
	
  
19	
  

	
  
Tucson	
  
	
  
	
  
Washington	
  

	
  
2000	
  
	
  
	
  
2010	
  

	
  
	
  
20	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Minneapolis	
   2011	
  

	
  	
  

	
  	
  

	
  

	
  	
  

The	
  Power	
  of	
  We	
  
http://powerofwe.org/	
  	
  (*)	
  
	
  
An	
  Indicator	
  Research	
  Paper	
  for	
  the	
  Sustainable	
  Community	
  
Roundtable	
  
http://www.sustainablesouthsound.org/wp-­‐
content/uploads/2011/05/Report2006.pdf	
  
	
  
Achieving	
  the	
  Oregon	
  Shines	
  Vision:	
  Highlights,	
  2009	
  Benchmark	
  
Report	
  to	
  the	
  People	
  of	
  Oregon	
  
http://www.unitedwayblc.org/sites/unitedwayblc.org/files/2009_Ben
chmark_Highlights.pdf	
  
	
  
Progress	
  Report	
  Green	
  works	
  Philadelphia	
  
http://www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/pdf/MOS_AnnlRprt2010.pdf	
  
	
  
Sustainable	
  Pittsburgh:	
  Southwestern	
  Pennsylvania	
  Regional	
  Indicator	
  
Report	
  2004	
  
http://www.sustainablepittsburgh.org/pdf/2004Indicators.pdf	
  
	
  
Sustainable	
  City	
  Plan:	
  City	
  of	
  Santa	
  Monica	
  
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/
Sustainability/Sustainable-­‐City-­‐Plan.pdf	
  
	
  
Indicators	
  of	
  Sustainable	
  Community	
  
http://www.zipcon.net/~laura/SustainableSeattleSustainabilityReport
2006.pdf	
  
	
  
The	
  livable	
  Tucson	
  vision	
  program	
  
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/livable.html	
  (*)	
  
	
  
Washington	
  DC	
  Neighborhood	
  Sustainability	
  Indicators	
  Project:	
  Pilot	
  
Project	
  Overview	
  Report	
  
http://greenlivingdc.org/files/101130_NSIP_Overview_Final.pdf	
  
	
  
Minneapolis	
  Living	
  Well:	
  Sustainability	
  Report	
  
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@citycoordina
tor/documents/webcontent/convert_271457.pdf	
  
(*)	
  The	
  reports	
  are	
  no	
  longer	
  available	
  in	
  the	
  original	
  URL	
  three	
  years	
  
after	
  this	
  analysis	
  was	
  made.	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

192

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmad, Y. J., S. El Serafy, E. Lutz and World Bank. (1989). Environmental accounting for
sustainable development. Washington, D.C., World Bank.
Alkire, S. (2002). "Dimensions of Human Development." World Development 30(2): 181-205.
Altieri, M. A. (1987). Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative agriculture. Boulder, CO,
Westview Press.
Altieri, M. A. (1989). "Agroecology: A new research and development paradigm for world
agriculture." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 27(1–4): 37-46.
Anielski, M. and J. Rowe (1999). The Genuine Progress Indicator - 1998 Update Redefining
Progress. San Francisco, CA.
Apter, D. E. (1987). Rethinking development: modernization, dependency, and postmodern
politics. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.
Arrow, K., B. Bolin, R. Costanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C. S. Holling, B.-O. Jansson, S. Levin,
K.-G. Mäler, C. Perrings and D. Pimentel (1995). "Economic growth, carrying capacity,
and the environment." Ecological Economics 15(2): 91-95.
Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values. New York, Wiley.
Atkinson, G., S. Dietz and E. Neumayer (2007). Handbook of sustainable development.
Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar.
Ayres, R. U. (2007). "On the practical limits to substitution." Ecological Economics 61(1): 115128.
Bagstad, K. J. and M. Ceroni (2008). "Opportunities and challenges in applying the Genuine
Progress Indicator: Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare at local scales." International
Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment 3: 132-153.
Baland, J. M. and J. P. Platteau (1996). Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role
for rural communities? Rome; Oxford; New York, Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations; Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
Batie, S. S. (2008). "Wicked Problems and Applied Economics." American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 90(5): 1176-1191.
194

Bawden, R. (2010). Question 2. In: Sustainability Ethics: 5 Questions. R. Raffaelle, W. Robinson
and E. Selinger, Automatic Press Publishing.
Becker, C. U. (2012). Sustainability ethics and sustainability research. Dordrecht; New York,
Springer.
Bell, S. and S. Morse (2008). Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable? London;
Sterling, VA, Earthscan.
Berkes, F., C. Folke and J. Colding (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: management
practices and social mechanisms. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.
Bird, G. W. and J. Ikerd (1993). "Sustainable Agriculture: A Twenty-First-Century System."
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 529: 92-102.
Blatz, C. (1992). "The very idea of sustainability." Agriculture and Human Values 9(4): 12-28.
Booth, D. (1985). "Marxism and development sociology: Interpreting the impasse." World
Development 13(7): 761-787.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY, Harper.
Bromley, D. W. (1997). "Rethinking Markets." American Journal of Agricultural Economics
79(5): 1383-1393.
Buchholz, R. A. (1991). "Corporate responsibility and the good society: From economics to
ecology." Business Horizons 34(4): 19-31.
Burkhardt, J. (1989). "The morality behind sustainability." Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 2(2): 113-128.
Cardoso, F. H. (1977). "The Consumption of Dependency Theory in the United States." Latin
American Research Review 12(3): 7-24.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). "The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders." Business Horizons 34(4): 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). "Corporate social responsibility." Business and Society 38(3): 268-295.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.
Chambers, R. (2005). Ideas for development. London ; Sterling, VA, Earthscan.
195

Chirot, D. and T. D. Hall (1982). "World-System Theory." Annual Review of Sociology
8(ArticleType: research-article / Full publication date: 1982 / Copyright © 1982 Annual
Reviews): 81-106.
Cobb, C. W., J. B. Cobb and Human Economy Center (1994). The green national product: a
proposed index of sustainable economic welfare. Mankato, MN, University Press of
America; Human Economy Center.
Connelly, S. (2007). "Mapping Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept." Local
Environment 12(3): 259-278.
Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem,
R. V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt (1997). "The value
of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital." Nature v387(n6630): p253(258).
Costanza, R. and H. E. Daly (1992). "Natural Capital and Sustainable Development."
Conservation Biology 6(1): 37-46.
Daly, H. E. (1990). "Toward some operational principles of sustainable development."
Ecological Economics 2(1): 1-6.
Daly, H. E. (1994). Operationalizing Sustainable Development by Investing in Natural Capital.
In. Investing in natural capital : the ecological economics approach to sustainability. A.
M. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke and R. Costanza. Washington, D.C., Island Press: xvi,
504 p.
Daly, H. E., J. B. Cobb and C. W. Cobb (1994). For the common good : redirecting the economy
toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston, Beacon Press.
Demerath III, N. J. (1996). "Who Now Debates Functionalism? From "System, Change and
Conflict" to "Culture, Choice, and Praxis"." Sociological Forum 11(2): 333-345.
Dietz, T., A. Fitzgerald and R. Shwom (2005). Environmental Values. Annual Review of
Environment & Resources, Annual Reviews Inc. 30: 335-372.
Douglass, G. K. (1984). Agricultural sustainability in a changing world order. Boulder, CO,
Westview Press.
Dresner, S. (2002). The principles of sustainability. London; Sterling, VA, Earthscan
Publications Ltd.
Easton, T. A. (2007). Taking sides. Clashing views on environmental issues. Dubuque, Iowa,
McGraw-Hill Contemporary Learning Series.
196

Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The population bomb. New York, NY, Ballantine Books.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1970). Readings in social evolution and development. Oxford, New York,
Pergamon Press.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1974). "Studies of Modernization and Sociological Theory." History and
Theory 13(3): 225-252.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (2002). Multiple modernities. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers.
El Serafy, S. (1991). The Environment as Capital. In: Ecological economics: the science and
management of sustainability. R. Costanza. New York, Columbia University Press.
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Gabriola Island, BC; Stony Creek, CT, New Society Publishers.
Escobar, A. (1992). "Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical Thought, Development and
Social Movements." Social Text(31/32): 20-56.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Escobar, A. (2012). Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the third world.
Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Folke, C., C. S. Holling and C. Perrings (1996). "Biological Diversity, Ecosystems, and the
Human Scale." Ecological Applications 6(4): 1018-1024.
Frank, A. G. (1968). "Le développement du sous-développement." Cahiers Vilfredo Pareto
6(16/17): 69-81.
Frank, A. G. (1980). "World System in Crisis." Contemporary Marxism(2): 8-18.
Fredericks, S. E. (2013). Measuring and evaluating sustainability: ethics in sustainability
indexes. London; New York, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Freeman, A. M. (2003). The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and
methods. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future.
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New
York Times Magazine. New York: 122-126.

197

Friedman, M. (2007). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. Corporate
Ethics and Corporate Governance. W. Zimmerli, M. Holzinger and K. Richter, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg: 173-178.
Fukuyama, F. (2001). "Social capital, civil society and development." Third World Quarterly
22(1): 7 - 20.
Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz (1993). "Science for the post-normal age." Futures 25(7): 739755.
Gallopin, G. C. (2005). Indicators and Their Use: Information for Decision-making. In:
Sustainability: critical concepts in the social sciences. M. R. Redclift. London ; New
York, Routledge. 3.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1979). Demain la décroissance: entropie-écologie-économie. Paris,
Éditions Sang de la terre.
Gold, M. V. and U.S. National Agricultural Library (1999). Sustainable agriculture: definitions
and terms. Beltsville, MD, USDA, ARS, National Agricultural Library.
Gowdy, J. M. (2004). "The Revolution in Welfare Economics and Its Implications for
Environmental Valuation and Policy." Land Economics 80(2): 239-257.
Grove, T. L. and C. A. Edwards (1993). "Do we need a new developmental paradigm?"
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 46(1–4): 135-145.
Hanley, N., J. F. Shogren and B. White (2001). Introduction to environmental economics.
Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press.
Hansen, J. W. (1996). "Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept?" Agricultural Systems
50(2): 117-143.
Harris, J. M. (2000). Rethinking sustainability: power, knowledge, and institutions. Ann Arbor,
University of Michigan Press.
Harrison, D. (1988). The sociology of modernization and development. London; Boston, Unwin
Hyman.
Hartwick, J. M. and N. D. Olewiler (1998). The economics of natural resource use. Reading,
MA, Addison-Wesley.
Hecht, J. E. (2005). National environmental accounting : bridging the gap between ecology and
economy. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future.
198

Hill, S. and R. MacRae (1988). "Developing sustainable agriculture education in Canada."
Agriculture and Human Values 5(4): 92-95.
Holdren, J. P., G. C. Daily and P. R. Ehrlich (1995). The Meaning of Sustainability:
Biogeophysical Aspects. Defining and measuring sustainability : the biogeophysical
foundations. M. Munasinghe and W. Shearer. Washington, D.C., Distributed for the
United Nations University by the World Bank: xxxiii, 440 p.
Holmberg, J. and R. Sandbrook (1992). Sustainable Development: What is to be done? Making
development sustainable : redefining institutions, policy, and economics
. J. Holmberg and International Institute for Environment and Development. Washington, D.C.,
Island Press: 362 p.
Hughes, J. A. and W. W. Sharrock (2007). Theory and methods in sociology : an introduction to
sociological thinking and practice. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Innes, J. E. and D. E. Booher (2000). "Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A Strategy
Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence." Planning Theory &
Practice 1(2): 173-186.
Kahn, A. E. (1966). "The Tyranny of Small Decisions: Market Failures, Imperfections, and the
Limits of Economics." Kyklos 19(1): 23-47.
Kennedy, D. (2007). "Editorial: Sustainability." Science 315(5812): 573.
Klonoski, R. J. (1991). "Foundational considerations in the corporate social responsibility
debate." Business Horizons 34(4): 9-18.
Knauf, M. (2014). "Is the Sustainability Revolution Devouring Its Own Children? Understanding
Sustainability as a Travelling Concept and the Role Played by Two German Discourses
on Sustainability." Forests 5(11): 2647-2657.
Krutilla, J. V. (1967). "Conservation Reconsidered." The American Economic Review 57(4):
777-786.
Latouche, S. (2010). "Degrowth." Journal of Cleaner Production 18(6): 519-522.
Lawn, P. A. (2006). Sustainable development indicators in ecological economics. Cheltenham,
UK; Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Pub.
Lawrence, R. (2010). "Beyond Disciplinary Confinement to Imaginative Transdisciplinarity." In:
Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination: xx, 312 p.

199

Lélé, S. M. (1991). "Sustainable development: A critical review." World Development 19(6):
607-621.
MacDonald, C. and W. Norman (2007). "Rescuing the Baby from the Triple-Bottom-Line
Bathwater: A Reply to Pava." Business Ethics Quarterly 17(1): 111-114.
Magis, K. and C. Shinn (2009). Emergent Principles of Social Sustainability. Understanding the
Social Dimension of Sustainability. J. Dillard, V. Dujon and M. C. King. London,
Routledge. 17: 1-300.
Malthus, T. R. (1798). An essay on the principle of population. London, J. Johnson.
Max-Neef, M. (1995). "Economic growth and quality of life: a threshold hypothesis." Ecological
Economics 15(2): 115-118.
Meadowcroft, J. (1997). "Planning for sustainable development: Insights from the literatures of
political science." European Journal of Political Research 31(4): 427-454.
Meadows, D. H. and Club of Rome (1972). The Limits to growth: a report for the Club of
Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New York, Universe Books.
Middleton, N. and P. O'Keefe (2001). Redefining sustainable development. London; Sterling,
Va., Pluto Press.
Munasinghe, M. and J. McNeely (1995). Key Concepts and Terminology of Sustainable
Development. Defining and measuring sustainability: the biogeophysical foundations. M.
Munasinghe and W. Shearer. Washington, DC, Distributed for the United Nations
University by the World Bank.
Muraca, B. (2013). "Decroissance: A Project for a Radical Transformation of Society."
Environmental Values 22(2): 147-169.
Naqvi, S., C. Zhu, G. Farre, K. Ramessar, L. Bassie, J. Breitenbach, D. Perez Conesa, G. Ros, G.
Sandmann, T. Capell and P. Christou (2009). "Transgenic multivitamin corn through
biofortification of endosperm with three vitamins representing three distinct metabolic
pathways." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(19): 7762-7767.
Nash, R. (1976). The American environment: readings in the history of conservation. Reading,
MA, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Neher, D. (1995). "Research in Support of Sustainable Agriculture." Bulletin of the Ecological
Society of America 76(1): 49-50.

200

Neumayer, E. (2000). "On the methodology of ISEW, GPI and related measures: some
constructive suggestions and some doubt on the threshold hypothesis." Ecological
Economics 34(3): 347-361.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing
paradigms. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar.
Nisbet, R. A. (1969). Social change and history; aspects of the Western theory of development.
New York, Oxford University Press.
Nordhaus, W. D., E. C. Kokkelenberg and N. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Panel on
Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting., Eds. (1999). Nature's numbers
expanding the national economic accounts to include the environment. Washington, D.C.,
National Academy Press.
Norgaard, R. B. (1984). "Coevolutionary Development Potential." Land Economics 60(2): 160173.
Norgaard, R. B. (1994). Development betrayed: the end of progress and a coevolutionary
revisioning of the future. London; New York, Routledge.
Norgaard, R. B. and T. O. Sikor (1987). The Methodology and Practice of Agroecology. In:
Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative agriculture. M. A. Altieri. Boulder, CO,
Westview Press: xviii, 227 p.
Norman, W. and C. MacDonald (2004). "Getting to the Bottom of "Triple Bottom Line"."
Business Ethics Quarterly 14(2): 243-262.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge;
New York, Cambridge University Press.
Norton, B. G. (2003). Searching for sustainability: interdisciplinary essays in the philosophy of
conservation biology. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University
Press.
Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
O’Connor, M. (2006). "The “Four Spheres” framework for sustainability." Ecological
Complexity 3(4): 285-292.
Orr, D. W. (2002). "Four Challenges of Sustainability." Conservation Biology 16(6): 1457-1460.

201

Oskamp, S. (2004). Attitudes and opinions. Mahwah, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Oskamp, S. and P. W. Schultz (2005). Attitudes and opinions. Mahwah, N.J., L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action; a study in social theory with special reference
to a group of recent European writers. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL, Free Press.
Parsons, T. and E. Shils (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, Harvard
University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage
Publications.
Pava, M. L. (2007). "A Response to "Getting to the Bottom of 'Triple Bottom Line'"." Business
Ethics Quarterly 17(1): 105-110.
Peet, R. (2009). Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives. New York,
Guilford.
Peet, R. and E. R. Hartwick (1999). Theories of development. New York, Guilford Press.
Perman, R., Y. Ma, J. McGilvray and M. Common (2003). Natural resource and environmental
economics. London; New York, Pearson.
Pezzey, J. and M. A. Toman (2002). The economics of sustainability. Aldershot, Hants, England
Burlington, Vt., Ashgate/Dartmouth.
Phillips, R. (2005). Community indicators measuring systems. Aldershot, Hants, England;
Burlington, VT, USA, Ashgate.
Pieterse, J. N. (1991). "Dilemmas of Development Discourse: The Crisis of Developmentalism
and the Comparative Method." Development and Change 22(1): 5-29.
Pieterse, J. N. (1996). "The Development of Development Theory: Towards Critical Globalism."
Review of International Political Economy 3(4): 541-564.
Pigou, A. C. (1951). "Some Aspects of Welfare Economics." The American Economic Review
41(3): 287-302.

202

Pohl, C. (2008). "From science to policy through transdisciplinary research." Environmental
Science & Policy 11(1): 46-53.
Popenoe, D. (1983). Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Portney, K. E. (2003). Taking sustainable cities seriously: economic development, the
environment, and quality of life in american cities. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Pretty, J. (2008). "Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence." Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363(1491): 447-465.
Prugh, T., R. Costanza and H. E. Daly (2000). The local politics of global sustainability.
Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Raffaelle, R., W. Robinson and E. Selinger (2010). Sustainability Ethics: 5 Questions, Automatic
Press Publishing.
Ramadier, T. (2004). "Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: the case of urban studies." Futures
36(4): 423-439.
Randall, A. (2002). Rational Policy Processes for a Pluralistic World. In: Agricultural policy for
the 21st century. L. G. Tweeten and S. R. Thompson. Ames, Iowa State Press: xii, 309 p.
Reed, M. S., E. D. G. Fraser and A. J. Dougill (2006). "An adaptive learning process for
developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities." Ecological
Economics 59(4): 406-418.
Repetto, R. C. and World Resources Institute. (1989). Wasting assets: natural resources in the
national income accounts. Washington, DC, World Resources Institute.
Rist, G. (1997). The History of Development: from western origins to global faith. London; New
York, Zed Books.
Ritchie, J. and L. Spencer (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research.
Analyzing qualitative data. A. Bryman and R. G. Burgess. London; New York,
Routledge: xii, 232 p.
Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth, a non-Communist manifesto. Cambridge
Eng., University Press.
Rostow, W. W. (1971). Politics and the stages of growth. Cambridge England, University Press.

203

Sachs, W. (1992). The Development dictionary : a guide to knowledge as power. London ;
Atlantic Highlands, N.J., Zed Books: 306 p.
Schaller, N. (1993). "The concept of agricultural sustainability." Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 46(1–4): 89-97.
Scott, J. and G. Marshall (2005). A dictionary of sociology. Oxford; New York, Oxford
University Press.
Seghezzo, L. (2009). "The five dimensions of sustainability." Environmental Politics 18(4): 539556.
Segnestam, L., Ed. (2002). Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development: Theories
and Practical Experience. Environmental Economic Series. Washington, DC, The World
Bank.
Segre, S. (2012). Talcott parsons. Lanham, MD, University Press of America.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, Knopf.
Simon, D. (1997). "Development Reconsidered; New Directions in Development Thinking."
Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 79(4): 183-201.
Slater, D. (1993). "The Geopolitical Imagination and the Enframing of Development Theory."
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18(4): 419-437.
Smolko, R. and Redefining Progress (2006). The community indicators handbook : measuring
progress toward healthy and sustainable communities. Oakland, California, Redefining
Progress.
Solow, R. M. (1986). "On the Intergenerational Allocation of Natural Resources." The
Scandinavian Journal of Economics 88(1): 141-149.
Stauber, K. N., C. Hassebrook, E. A. R. Bird, G. L. Bultena, E. O. Hoiberg, H. MacCormack and
D. Menanteau-Horta (1995). The Promise of Sustainable Agriculture. In: Planting the
future : developing an agriculture that sustains land and community. E. A. R. Bird, G. L.
Bultena and J. C. Gardner. Ames, Iowa State University Press: xxiii, 276 p.
Talberth, J., C. Cobb and N. Slattery (2007). The Genuine Progress Indicator 2006: a tool for
sustainable development. Oakland, CA, Redefining Progress: The Nature of Economics:
31.

204

Thompson, P. (1992). "The varieties of sustainability." Agriculture and Human Values 9(3): 1119.
Thompson, P. (2007). "Agricultural sustainability: what it is and what it is not." International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5(1): 5-16.
Thompson, P. B. (1995). The spirit of the soil: agriculture and environmental ethics. London;
New York, Routledge.
Thompson, P. B. (2010). The agrarian vision: sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington,
KY, University Press of Kentucky.
Tietenberg, T. H. (2000). Environmental and natural resource economics. Reading, MA,
Addison-Wesley.
Tietenberg, T. H. (2004). Environmental economics and policy. Boston, Pearson Addison
Wesley.
Tolba, M. K. (1987). Sustainable development: constraints and opportunities. London; Boston,
Butterworths.
U.S. National Research Council and Board on Agriculture (1991). Sustainable agriculture
research and education in the field: a proceedings. Washington, D.C., National Academy
Press.
U.S. National Research Council and Committee on Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment
in the Humid Tropics (1993). Sustainable agriculture and the environment in the humid
tropics. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
UN World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford;
New York, Oxford University Press.
United Nations (1972). Development and environment: report and working papers of a panel of
experts convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment. Paris, Mouton.
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1992). Rio Declaration on the
Environment and Development: Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development ( UNCED): The Earth Summit. Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June
United Nations Development Programme (1990). Human Development Report 1990, New York,
Oxford University Press.

205

Victor, P. A. (1991). "Indicators of sustainable development: some lessons from capital theory."
Ecological Economics 4(3): 191-213.
Votaw, D. (1972). "Genius Becomes Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility
Pt. I." California Management Review 15(2): 25-31.
Votaw, D. (1973). "Genius Becomes Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility
Pt. II." California Management Review 15(3): 5-19.
Wahba, M. A. and L. G. Bridwell (1976). "Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the
need hierarchy theory." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 15(2): 212240.
Wallerstein, I. M. (1974). The modern world-system. New York, Academic Press.
Weimer, D. L. and A. R. Vining (2004). Policy analysis: concepts and practice. Upper Saddle
River, NJ, Pearson Prentice Hall.
York, R. and E. A. Rosa (2003). "Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization Theory."
Organization & Environment 16(3): 273-288.
York, R., E. A. Rosa and T. Dietz (2003). "Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental
Consequences of Modernity." American Sociological Review 68(2): 279-300.

206