QUEENS UNIVERSITY BELFAST

SCHOOL OF PLANNING, ARCHITECTURE AND CIVIL ENGINEERING

Essay
Explain the reasons why concepts such as sustainability and sustainable development are
subject to intense academic debate and contestation.

EVP2009 Planning and Sustainable Development

Prof. Dr. Philip Boland
Brbara Ferronato dos Santos
40117808

INTRODUCTION
The terms sustainability and sustainable development have been, particularly in the past three
decades, subjects to intense discussions in many different debates regarding their great conceptual
range and how controversial might be the multiple meanings attached to them. Since concepts and
ideas dont exist in a conceptual vacuum - they are constructed within a space and time framework they must not be considerable as static thoughts. Understanding the surrounding context in which
concepts are conceived and placed in, is of fundamental importance to identify the different layers
contained in the construction of their meanings.
Sustainability and sustainable developments definitions are still conceptually vague despite
the continuous and prolonged effort in assigning a more accurate understanding to them (Parker et
al., 2012). They may be considered as socially constructed terms as their meanings are ideologically
driving by the background in which they are inserted (Luke, 2005) and as Redclift (2005) suggests, the
power of these concepts are situated in the discourses in which they are included. Hence, these
concepts present different approaches in different philosophies and ideologies, changing accordingly
to distinct interests.
That placed, this essay aims to analyse the distinct approaches in which sustainability and
sustainable development concepts are situated in relation to the distinct proposals and examinations
placed by different authors regarding this matter, attempting to understand the underlying reasons
why these terms take place in many discussions with a notable contested and diverse character.

THE CONCEPTS OF SUSTAINABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The capitalist model in which our society is inserted, sets business and economy as prevailing
issues of human relations, addressing economic growth, by means of expanding production, as a prior
condition. According to Hopwood et al. (2005), in such context, for most of the last couple of hundred
years the environment has been largely seen as external to humanity, mostly to be used and exploited
[].
In the World Conservation Strategy (1980), in accordance to Hopwood et al., the term
sustainable development was approached in a more relevant way for the first time. Although, only in
1987, with the formulation of the Brundtlands Report, outlined by the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED), the concept was established as a shift in understanding
relationships of humanity with nature and between people (Hopwood et al., 2005).

The Brundtlands report brought the term sustainable development into use in policy circles
(Redclift, 2005) and marked its entry into international political debate (Meadowcroft, 2000), setting
the classic definition of sustainable development, meeting the needs of present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Giddings et al., 2001),
approaching the environmental and socio-economic issues (Hopwood et al., 2005). Although it
brought the forefront the triad that underpin the concept of sustainable development economy,
society and environment, as discussed later on it is still characterized by an anthropocentric approach
since it is still prioritizes the human needs (Parker et al., 2012), as well as its definition of sustainable
development is allied to a particular developmental worldview that is resisted and contested by many
commentators (Williams et al., 2004)
The deliberations of the Brundtland Commission, as argues Giddings et al (2001), can be
interpreted to mean almost anything that anyone wants, so that beneath its covers lies a multitude of
sins. The conception of sustainable development but the report also carries certain ambiguity and
looseness (Hopwood et al., 2005) which enable business and governments to employ the term without
much commitment with the spheres that may not be of their main interest, favoring the economic
discourse, which is frequently considered their main concern. Hence, the capability of this term to be
re-created to suit prevailing conditions and attitudes reveal in some extent, the reason why
sustainability is seen as being so important and yet so contested (Parker et al., 2012).

SOCIETY, ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

Despite the conceptual inconsistencies and ambiguities commonly criticized by many
commentators regarding the definition of sustainable development, the Brundtlands report drew the
attention to the integration of diverse sectors, combining socio-economic and environmental
questions in a holistic view. The tri-partite environmental, economic and social concerns of sustainable
development (Parker et al., 2012) are addressed by many authors as, emerging as goal the
fundamental idea that sustainable development may be the key to integrated these three sectors in a
balanced way, easing conflicts between them.
Given these three elements as fundamental components of sustainable development,
different approaches are placed by different authors.
Campbell (1996) defines the Planners Triangle, in which are exposed three priorities and their
consequent conflicts, which should be reconciled by planners: economic growth, social justice and
environmental protection (Figure 1). Each corner of the triangle reveals one type of priority to different
perspectives of the city and it consequently exposes the idea of three distinctive views that would be

guided by these contrasting aspects. From these different views, would emerge three distinct kinds
of planners, focused on different aspects, yet securing the integrative aspect towards the
sustainability concept.

Figure 1 The Planners Triangle, with the three goals on the corner and the
three associated conflicts on each axis. Sustainable development is placed in its
centre. (Campbell, 1996)

According to Campbell (1996), the three axis of the triangle represent three fundamental
conflicts arising from the three divergent interests in the planning perspective. The first axis, defined
by the Property Conflict, derives from the friction between the social and economic aspects. This
conflict defines the boundary between private and the public good and it is considered by the author
as an especially complicated conflict, since each side not only resists the other, but also needs the
other for its own survival. The Resource Conflict emerges from the discordance between the
economic and environmental priorities. It is appointed as the resource antagonism, as it arises when
business resists the regulation of its exploitation of nature, but at the same time needs regulation to
conserve those resources for present and future demands. At last, the Development Conflict lies
between the environmental preservation and social justice dimensions and is considered by Campbell
the most intriguing issue of sustainable development, since it deals with the concurrent ideas of
expansion of social equity while the environment is kept under protection.
The sustainable development is exposed by Campbell as the balance between these three
goals, taking place in the triangles center. Nevertheless, the author call attention to the challenging

objective on getting it to the center, still, he argues sustainability can be a key concept when socialenvironmental systems balance is aimed.
Giddings et al. also draws pertinent observations regarding the three aspects in which
sustainable development is based. On Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into
sustainable development (2001), a critical construction emerges towards the most common
approaches regarding the environmental, economic and social aspects presented by the sustainable
development concept and it is argued that frequently this concept is presented as aiming to bring the
three together in a balanced way, reconciling conflicts (Giddings et al., 2001).
First, it is presented the scheme in which the three sectors of sustainable development are
represented by interconnected rings (Figure 2). This frequent representation has as primary fragility as pointed by Giddings et al. - the fact that a separation between the economic, social and
environmental aspects is presented, assuming certain independence among them.
If they are seen as separate, as the model implies, different perspectives can, and
often do, give a greater priority to one or the other. (Giddings et al., 2001)

Figure 2 Sustainable development view in three separated

sectors/rings. (Giddings et al., 2001)
It is explained that since the large global companies dominate decision making, including that
of many governments, politics has become dominated by economic interests, that tend to prevail

over the environmental and social aspects. Indeed, the model presented above can be easily used to
reinforce this idea.
A second model is unfolded on the article (Figure 3). It is exhibited as a more accurate scheme
based on the idea of co-existence and dependence of the economic aspect in relation to the social
one, as well as the dependence of society relatively to the environment. Once more, though, the
limitations of the model are exposed. Giddings et al. argues that the consideration of three undivided
aspects ignores the diversity and fluidity of the world, reinforcing the present dominant structures.

Figure 3 Nested sustainable development view (Giddings et al.,

2001)
The over-simplification into the three separate sectors of economy,
environment and society risks ignoring the richness and multi-layeredness of
reality; giving precedence to the present dominant economic and social
relationships [] (Giddings et al., 2001)
Therefore, a third model is presented in order to combine in a more effective way those
multiple aspects of sustainable development, placing the idea of a continuous interaction between
them (Figure 4). This configuration is based on the belief that a divided idea of sustainable
development, in contrast to an integrated one, not only represents impediments to moving towards
sustainable development, as well as reinforces the present configuration of political reality, in which
economic aspects are prioritized.

Figure 4 Breaking boundaries model. (Giddings et al., 2001)

DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Another field of debate towards sustainable development lies between the distinct
proponents views regarding this subject. As a very open and elusive concept, different ways were
found to answering the question of the environmental paradox (Williams et al., 2004). The disparity
from what is the environment capable to supply and what is demanded of it, as well as the manner
how we should deal with it, propels the emergence of different and contrasting views towards the
sustainable development concept.

Although there is an agreement among the diverse views

concerning the demand to change (Hopwood et al., 2005), the various interpretations may be outlined
accordingly to the different relevance given to the different aspects in which sustainable development
is often based (environment, society and economy).
In this regard, three main approaches are often proponed by many authors as weak
sustainability, the moderate sustainability and the strong sustainability (Williams, et al., 2004).

WEAK SUSTAINABILITY
Supporters of weak sustainability are favorable to the defense of the status quo. Adopting an
anthropocentric path, this spectrum of sustainable development analysis, assume that no
fundamental change in the present society is needed. As economic growth still figures as one of the
central aspects of this discourse, the expansion of resources is required and should be achieve through
the technological progress (Williams et al., 2004). As Hopwood et al. (2005) argues

This is the dominant view of governments and business and supporters of the
status quo are most likely to work within the corridors of power talking with
decision makers in government and business. Development is identified with
growth and economic growth is seen as part of the solution. (Hopwood et al.,
2005)

MODERANTE SUSTAINABILITY
Classified as Reformers by Hopwood et al. (2005), this vision is supported by acceptance that
profound transformations will be required, in some moment, in the present circumstances, assuming
that the government has a fundamental role in ensuring these changes. Though, it is assumed that
these can be achieved over time within the present social and economic structures. The key is to
persuade governments and international organizations, mainly by reasoned argument, to introduce
the needed major reforms (Hopwood et al., 2005).

STRONG SUSTAINABILITY
The stronger sustainability theorists argue that, since the Earth resources are finite and the
actual economic circumstance outlines certain patterns of production and consumption, which
demands much of these resources, a deep transformation in the fundamental features of society
today is required (Hopwood et al., 2005).
The common belief linking together stronger sustainability theorists is the view
of the Earth as finite and their conceding that no habitable future is possible
unless the demand-side of the equation radically alters by rethinking our
attitude towards nature as well as our view of economic progress and
development. (Williams et al., 2004)

CONCLUSIONS
Sustainable development and sustainability are multi-layered and multi-interpretative
concepts as this essay aimed to design on the brief analysis of both terms. They find different and
even contested and opposite meanings when used in different discourses, accordingly to the interests
of who is talking. Nevertheless, even with their vague meaning which enable them to be applied in
so many different perspectives and contexts, it is frequent the idea of their tri-partite concerns, to
which one of them - environmental preservation, social justice and economic growth - is frequently

giving a priority, resulting on different schools of thought due to the distinct concerns regarding
different players. Still, as Parker et al. (2012) suggests, the central idea brought by sustainability and
sustainable development is about ensuring that decisions taken today are justifiable and beneficial in
the long term and that short-term motives, such as profit making or responding to a need or want of
today, cannot be the overriding factors in our decisions.
Thus, due to the looseness of sustainability and sustainable development concepts as well as
their latent duality, the rise of a wide range of interpretations, which can be frequently considered
contrasting and antagonistic, is an outstanding character of debates concerning these terms. At
present, those concepts get considerable power in political discourses which are often linked with the
idea of development in terms of economic growth and expansion o of the capability of production of
goods.
Being those concepts, as defended by Luke (2005) ideological construction[s] in
contemporary global society, their utilization, given the present social and political circumstances and
the challenges brought by the actual economic activity and the pressure over the environment and its
capability in supplying resources, is frequently driven by political interests, resulting on a conceptual
flux regarding those terms when they are applied on the political discourse (Parker et al., 2012). As a
result, Luke (2005) argues that the real political agenda of sustainable development is obscured for
clear reasons that serve important ideological and political purposes. It is shaped to be a servant to
the dominant political thoughts and corporative interests, and since economic growth is still
considered a dominant way of measuring development (Redclift, 1987).
Hence, the multiple and contested uses of those terms gives rise to the question about the
achievement of social and environmental goals set by the idea of sustainable development, in a society
under the domain of the economic sphere. In the context of a capitalist model in which our society is
inserted, the economic growth and development are presented as predominant question and play a
central role in policy. The maintenance of the current political and economic discourse promotes an
idea of sustainability and sustainable development that have no real depth and is often used to
support the economic aspirations proposed by companies and politicians under their influence. In this
context planning debates have a crucial role in attempting to shape the current discourses, reasserting
the relevance of the others aspects of sustainability and sustainable development.

REFERENCES
Ascher, W. (1999) Resolving the hidden differences amongst perspectives on sustainable
development. Policy Sciences, 32(4): 351-377.
Campbell, S. (1996) Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of
Sustainable Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3): 296-312.
Dresner, Simon (2002). The Principles of Sustainability. London : Earthscan.
Giddings, Bob; Hopwood, Bill; OBrien, Geoff (2001). Environment, economy and society: fitting them
together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, pp. 187-196.
Hopwood, B. et al. (2005) Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches. Sustainable
Development, 13: 38-52.
Luke, T. (2005) Neither Sustainable nor Development: Reconsider8ing Sustainability in Development.
Sustainable Development, 13(5): 228-238.
Meadowcroft, James (2000). Sustainable Development: a New(ish) Idea for a New Century. Political
Studies, 48: 370-387.
OConnor, Martin (1994). Is capitalism sustainable? New York. The Guilford Press.
Parker, G. and Doak, J. (2012) Key Concepts in Planning. London: Sage, pp. 29-44.
Redclift, Michael (1987). Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. Sixth edition.
London, Routledge.
Redclift, M. (2005) Sustainable Development (1987-2005): An Oxymoron Comes of Age. Sustainable
Development, 13(4): 212-227.
Williams, C. and Millington, A. (2004) The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable
development. The Geographical Journal, 17(2): 99-104.