Emerging environmental, social and economic issues have catapulted the idea of sustainability into the limelight over the course of the last decade. While there has been a greater recognition of the need to be ‘sustainable’ the difficulty often lies in achieving a consensus as to ‘what’ sustainability actually means and ‘how’ it can be achieved. The ideologies of ‘sustainability’ have been used in attempts to provide a theoretical foundation for creating a balance between:
• cultural preservation and awareness of sensitivities
• economic development and technological progress
• environmental consciousness and conservation
While there have been great strides in recent years to increase our understanding of what ‘sustainability’ actually is and how it can be applied in real-world scenarios, we have, in many ways, taken a few steps backward due to misrepresentation and misuse of the word ‘sustainability,’ and the limitations of the word itself. Understanding the philosophies and ideologies that encompass sustainability is vital, but for the most part many of these principles are not new – they have just simply been repositioned in our modern-day context.
Many entities have taken on the label of ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ to attempt to appease the public or attempt to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace, but have failed in effectively integrating sustainability principles into their project or development. While developers and municipalities covet the sustainability label, it is important to realize that one additional feature does not make a house ‘sustainable,’ several of these houses do not create a ‘sustainable community,’ and a few of these communities do not produce a ‘sustainable city.’ We need to begin to move beyond sustainability in its current watered-down format and begin to expand upon our understandings of its core principles and ideologies.
Misrepresentations of the word ‘sustainability’ and its principles have tended to diminish its perceived importance and reduce its potential as a vehicle for creating a new development ethic for individuals, communities, and municipalities alike. In addition, the constant dispute over what ‘sustainability’ actually means and its competing definitions have also contributed to confusion in defining and achieving it. By focusing on the rhetoric and conflicting definitions we are missing the point, and potentially bypassing our opportunity to use these concepts to achieve a greater harmony between our built and natural environments. In our opinion, we need to severely limit our usage of the word ‘sustainability’ unless we are referring to the kind of comprehensive approaches discussed herein.
Comprehensive theories and ideologies pertaining to sustainability have been expressed for over 50 years. Contributions from Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Jane Jacobs and Garret Hardin (simply naming a few), individuals who were well ahead of their time, addressed the need to:
• Recognize the impact of the built environment on natural processes
• Respect and value biodiversity
• Preserve the natural environment
• Understand the importance of embracing culture while enhancing social well-being and equity.
These generalized principles come together, along with their many specialized professional disciplines, to define ‘sustainability’ in a broader sense. The principles can be applied to our present context to begin to “develop for the long term.” The purpose of this site is to focus on the core principles, and identify the necessary measures that need to be in place to garner large scale consensus and establish action-oriented policies and decision-making.
Finally, although there are philosophical implications in these ideologies, it is important to recognize that this discussion is not, per se, about accepting a philosophy. Rather, it is about developing an understanding of the interconnectedness of the social, economic and environmental linkages, and an awareness that this understanding can lead to responsible and profitable (socially and monetarily) progress from a development standpoint.
Philosophical distractions are in any case difficult to avoid in any discussion of sustainability. For example, if you ask ‘what are we trying to sustain,’ one could get a wide range of responses. One response could be anthropogenic-oriented – to preserve the human race. Another response could be to ensure the endurance of economic development and progress, and another to preserve and maintain our natural environment. But more often than not, when discussing the natural environment we view ourselves as an outside entity, separate from that environment.
Herein lies a fatal flaw in understanding the preservation and conservation of the natural environment, especially when discussing transgenerational equity: this viewpoint of affording future generations the same opportunities to which we have been allowed entails a predominantly anthropogenic view of the preservation of nature.
Moreover, we need to begin to look beyond sustainability as a term, label or 'idea' and realize its solution capabilities through action and application. Shifts in mindset and attitudinal changes will not occur overnight, but through proper awareness (sharing of information), action (policy and programmatic changes) and monitoring we can begin to make the shift towards a more responsible, future-oriented society.
