Introduction

The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development says, "Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Hart 1995, 4). From this statement there has evolved a rich discussion of how the terms "sustainable" and "development" fit together. The introduction of the concept "sustainable" to long-held development approaches raises questions about the ecological capacity of the planet we inhabit. It also raises questions about what is just and fair when development takes place. In fact, the issue of sustainability even raises questions regarding the real meaning of the word "growth" in the context of development. One common element within this discussion is the concept that sustainable development addresses economic, environmental and social issues. Some individuals and organizations want to link the issues of economy, environment and society while others want to bring about balance among the three. Still others want to ensure that we understand that it is ecology that sets the limits for development. Some organizations and individuals believe sustainability is an issue best resolved at the grassroots level of a community through inclusion of all residents. Still others want to ensure that the key stakeholders of a community are the decision makers while others want the responsibility for decisions to be spread between grassroots groups and key stakeholders.

The sustainability discussion has increased to the point that Web sites are now established not only by organizations who have formed institutes or centers to deal with the issue, but also by public agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Association of Counties and U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Department of Energy. President Clinton even established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to keep the executive office informed on the progress of a sustainable development philosophy. Some of these organizations focus on creating new indicators for assessing the nation's well-being, others on creating sustainable visions, and numerous others on environmental awareness and change. Each is contributing substantially to the rich discussion and various initiatives begun at the local level and throughout the world to enhance sustainable communities.

The discussion of sustainable development also brings with it confusion, particularly for the person just discovering the topic. Unlike other development concepts, sustainable development has yet to emerge with a unified consensus regarding its nature. For example, when people attach the word "economic" to the word "development," they are usually talking about the attraction, creation, retention and expansion of business. However, the actual purposes and results of these four activities of the economic development profession are questioned by the sustainable development movement. This challenge from sustainable development advocates at times seems to focus on how to bring economic activity into a more collaborative effort with the environmental health of the local community and world. At other times sustainable development advocates seem to be asking for initiatives that replace current economic practices in favor of environmental initiatives that save the world exactly as it is for future generations. Also, at times, the sustainable development discussion seems to be about bringing a fairer reward to those individuals who have not benefited from the economic vitality of a community, particularly the people of developing nations whose resources are consumed with every increasing demand by prosperous developed nations.

The various uses of the term "sustainable development" add to the confusion. At times words and phases such as "sustainability," "sustainable communities" and "smart growth" seem to be interchangeable, but they may not refer to the same concept. Technical terms play a role in the confusion. People entering the discussion must learn such environmental terms as "ecological footprint," "carrying capacity" and "biodiversity," all of which sustainability advocates take for granted. In addition, the introduction of the word "sustainable" suggests that people weren’t always trying to be responsible stewards looking toward the future. What does it mean, for example, to create a sustainable building? Weren’t buildings always created to be sustainable?

An exploration of the literature regarding sustainable development will show numerous examples indicating successful individual projects and responses promoting sustainable practices. Many of these examples are collected and awards given under the Best Practices program of The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements and administered by The Together Foundation (http://www.bestpractices.org/). If sustainable development is to be effective it must involve and often begin with individuals and specific project initiatives. However, there are also emerging efforts from geographically defined communities to make sustainable development a collaborative commitment to establish a new community ethos. Max Stackhouse in his book Ethics and The Urban Ethos talks about the concept of ethos. Ethos,, Stackhouse tells us, is "the subtle web of values, meanings, purposes, expectations, obligations and legitimations that constitutes the operating norms of a culture in relationship to a social entity" (Stackhouse 1972, 5). Sustainable development brings with it a particular ethos that challenges, or at least requires clarification of, a long accepted American understanding of human destiny.

The question we are concerned with in this document is whether sustainable development can be a community-wide priority and behavior which expands, and perhaps even at times replaces, existing priorities and behaviors. To accomplish such a task requires, it seems, the integration of a diverse leadership base guiding the discovery of a new community ethos. Currently a great deal of the leadership for sustainable practices is housed within the environmental organizations of a community. Often these organizations point toward individual efforts as the key to sustainable practices. If, however, sustainability is to become the foundation of a shared community ethos we must find methods to build these individual efforts into collective behavior. This requires the inclusion of economic and social professionals and organizations in the adoption of an ethos based on sustainability. Is it possible, for example, to include development professionals, particularly economic development professionals, in these discussions? Hopefully, the materials contained in this document will help both those entering the sustainability discussion and those with a rich history of implementing sustainable activities to consider ways traditional development leadership can be integrated into current sustainable development efforts. Included in our effort to encourage this integration is a history of the sustainable development concept, a review and discussion regarding the actual definition of sustainability, a search and explanation regarding various organizations involved in the sustainability question, a comparison of sustainable development to traditional development philosophy, and a suggestion for creating a local sustainable development community process.

Glossary of Terms

The discussion surrounding sustainability involves some economic and environmental terms that are often taken for granted by writers of sustainable development literature. These terms are often ideas that are frequently encountered in an individual’s formal education. The problem is that these terms do not appear in the daily conversation of most people. A refresher of these terms will help the reader clearly understand the thoughts presented. The following operational definitions of terms is presented so the reader can quickly recognize the concept being expressed within sustainable development literature:

• Capital

• Carrying Capacity

• Ecological Footprint

• Ecology

• Ecosystem

• Equity

The History of the Sustainable Development Movement

"In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."

-Law of the Iroquois

Although the discourse surrounding sustainability has only come to the forefront of public awareness within the past few decades, the concept of preserving society for future generations has been voiced by humans throughout history. What culture has not been concerned with its continuation into the distant future and with the survival of future generations? While it is true that the world is a very different place than it was when the Iroquois recognized the impact of decisions made in the present on generations in the future, this sentiment still hits a responsive chord today among communities and cultures throughout the world. What is different, and what has evolved during the past few decades, is a transition from our belief that growth and technology will solve social and environmental problems, to a recognition that the natural world has limits and that growth must occur within these limits to be sustainable.

"Sustainable" and "Development:" Origins of the Terms

The term "sustainable" has become almost ubiquitous, but it is not well understood. "Sustainable agriculture," "sustainable forestry," "sustainable communities," "sustainable land use" are among terms that have emerged into common vocabulary in the past decade. In some senses this is unfortunate because they have served to weaken, through overuse and lack of clarity, a very powerful concept that has begun and will continue increasingly to reshape our lives as citizens of the world now and into the future.

The concept of "sustainability" originated with European foresters during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It came about in response to concerns about rapid deforestation resulting from the intense consumer demand for wood and wood products. Wood was a critical element of the economy in Europe at that time. It was used to heat homes, provide lumber for residential and business construction, and create value-added products such as furniture. The problem of resource depletion arose because the harvesting method of choice, clear cutting, was economically advantageous for the forester but environmentally harmful to the forest. Clear cutting involved cutting down all of the trees in a forest tract, harvesting the valuable wood and leaving the rest. The trees that grew back were not the same quality as those that had been cut down, reducing the value and usefulness of the resource. In response to this problem, the forest industry, especially foresters in Germany, developed the concept of scientific, sustainable forestry. They reasoned that if sufficient numbers of trees were planted each year to replace those cut, and if the entire forest was monitored scientifically to ensure that this replacement was keeping pace with harvesting, then the forest would be sustainable. Thus the first definition of sustainable was put into operation. In this context it meant that as a resource such as timber is depleted, it could always be replaced by growing additional amounts of the same resource, leading to sustainability (Davis n.d., 1).

The term "development" has a much different history, especially as viewed in the context of sustainable development. During the Cold War the capitalistic ideology of the United States was seriously challenged in developing nations by communist political ideology, which promised an improved standard of living for those in poverty. Communist ideology held that if communism were embraced, the disenfranchised would rise up in revolution and overcome the ruling classes, redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor. The ideology held that this political and economic transformation would result in the well-being of all (Davis n.d., 1). This ideology was embraced by populations in the Third World who were facing the daily struggle of poverty and starvation.

In response, the ideology of economic development was developed and promoted by Walter Rostow, a prominent American economist and government official. Rostow challenged the capitalistic countries to accept their responsibility to assist Third World nations to grow and improve economically. He believed that capitalism was the best answer for the economic well-being of developing countries. If enough money was provided in the form of foreign aid and assistance to these nations, their economies would grow to equal those of western Europe, the United States and Japan. The standard of living of all residents would be improved. The "development" part of sustainable development means, in this context, that the economies of Third World countries would be comparable to those of developed nations, resulting in the elimination of poverty and creation of a world more equitable for all humans (Davis n.d., 1 -2).

Impact of the Industrial Revolution

From the late eighteenth century on, the pervasive impact of the industrial revolution began to dictate the political, social and economic direction and priorities not only of the United States but other industrialized nations as well. Rather than considering the impacts of decisions on generations far into the future, industrialized nations became more immediate in scope and were driven often by short-term gain. Growth and the accumulation of wealth became synonymous with improvement and advancement. People began to believe that development had no limits and that technological advances would be capable of solving all of society’s ills.

It was not until the upheaval of the 1960s that the industrial-age wisdom of unlimited growth and accumulation began to be questioned and the environmental and social impacts of unbridled growth were recognized. At the same time, the disparity between the rich and the poor was growing, causing some to question the ability of unqualified growth to improve the well-being of all citizens. The rising tide was not lifting all boats equally.

The Population Bomb

Perhaps the one issue that helped to turn public opinion to a recognition of natural limits to sustained growth was the "population explosion"--the exponential growth of the world wide birth rate and the stress it placed upon our ability, as a world, to meet basic human needs. Consider the following:

• In the year 1 AD, our worldwide population stood at 200 million;
• It took the next 1,500 years for world wide population to double, reaching 400 million in 1500 AD;
• From 1650 to 1850, only two hundred years, the world population doubled from 500 million to 1 billion;
• From 1850 to 1930, only eighty years, the world population doubled from 1 billion to 2 billion; and
• From 1930 to mid-1994, only 60 years, the world population has more than doubled, from 2 billion to 5.607 billion.

The graph below clearly relates this geometrically increasing upward trend in worldwide population growth.

Compounding this exponential population growth is an even more alarming fact--this population growth is not happening evenly throughout the world, but is concentrated geographically in the un- and underdeveloped nations. While developed countries are actually experiencing a decline in the birth rate, some even dropping below the human being replacement rate, un- and underdeveloped nations are witnessing the greatest number of births. These are nations that more often than not can ill afford the intensifying demands on already stressed resources. Widespread famine and starvation have been the legacy of this population growth, especially in equatorial ecosystems that do not have the ability to accommodate a large number of humans beings. This growth has been coupled with the attempt to implement western-style agricultural techniques and technologies which proved to be unsuitable for these types of ecosystems. The leading authority on the population growth issue was Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford University biologist, whose 1968 book The Population Bomb helped to focus the attention of the world on this problem. Ehrlich suggested methods that could be used to help reduce the birth rate and several countries, most notably China and India, adopted strict population controls. However, by the mid 1970s the issue of birth rate dropped off of the radar screen for a few reasons: those who sought to solve the problem through increasing industrialization soon realized that with increased per capita income also came increased resource consumption, and nations soon found that enforcing zero-population policies became a political impossibility. The focus of the world leaders then began to swing from population control to that of reducing consumption and designing more sustainable production methods, that is, those that would use fewer resources and produce less waste.

Modern Economic Thought

Since the Great Depression of the 1930s American economic thought has been dominated by Keynesian-neoclassical theory, which postulates that the amount of output, as measured by the Gross National Product (GNP) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), provides the best way to determine the overall health of an economy. Under this "bigger is better" approach, making the whole economic pie bigger guaranteed all a larger individual piece. The progrowth mindset seemed to be working through the post-Depression period, and underlying assumptions about limitless resources were not called into question. It was not until 1970, when a group of international researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to examine the eventual effects of exponential worldwide economic growth, that the issue of limits was brought to the forefront. Their research was published in 1972 as a Club of Rome report entitled The Limits to Growth. The authors concluded that if present (present being 1970) growth trends in industrialization, birth rate, food production and the depletion of resources continued, the earth would reach its capacity to support this growth in the next 100 years. The result would be a global catastrophe; a sudden, uncontrollable decline in industrial capacity and world population. The authors advised that the way to prevent this from happening was to:

...(establish) a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future--a state of global equilibrium in which the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential. (Krizek and Power 1996, 9)

The Limits to Growth was clear in stating that because there are limits to the world’s resources, there will also be limits to economic growth. Although the report drew intense and widespread criticism at the time it was published, its main contentions have helped to form the theoretical underpinnings for the contemporary sustainable development movement.

Some time after the Club of Rome report, a number of economists began to further examine the report’s findings. The result of their examination was the creation of a new theory known as "steady-state economics," which is essentially the economics of sustainability. "Steady-state" economics takes the position that "enough is best" and its major proponent, Louisiana State University economist Herman Daly, calls for the minimization of both consumption and production in order to build a sustainable economy. Daly's work Steady State Economics (1997) advocates "an economy in which the total population and the total stock of physical wealth are maintained constant at some desired levels by a ‘minimal’ rate of maintenance throughout and by physical production and consumption rates that are equal at the lowest feasible level" (Daly, 1972). Krizek and Power (1996, 10) define the theory this way:

Fundamental to the notion of steady-state economy is the recognition that economic (human) activity creates neither matter nor energy. Rather, human activity merely converts low entropy forms of both matter and energy (soil, sunlight, etc.) into high entropy forms that are useful to humans (cars, televisions, microwave ovens). Because the earth is a closed-loop system with finite limits, every gain of the human economy, by definition, must come at the expense of the "natural economy." Consequently, there are finite limits to the amount of low entropy matter that can be converted to human uses before natural systems and feedback loops begin to fail.

Steady-state economics has not yet gained wide acceptance in American economic thought, but the influence is growing and the theory has become a critical element of much of the international work on sustainable development.

Moving from Theory to Policy and Action

The preceding concepts laid a theoretical foundation for sustainable development. Although each of these concepts had its own impact, the concepts had not been combined into a unified effort leading to policy development and action before the 1980s. For that to happen would take some international events which would initiate excitement over a sustainable approach to development. This excitement was later captured when countries began to institutionalize sustainability as a national initiative.

Global Frameworks

The concept of sustainable development first emerged on the world stage in 1987 with the publication of Our Common Future, the report of the United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development. Popularly called the Brundtland Commission after the chairperson, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the prime minister of Norway, the commission’s very existence and resulting report was a defining moment in the history of the sustainable development movement. It was the landmark event through which sustainable development became a recognized global issue, promoting worldwide dialogue and establishing common goals for the year 2000 and beyond. A few years later the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro established twenty-seven principles which provided a compromise blueprint for achieving global sustainability between industrialized and developing countries for a more equitable application of environmental and economic conditions.

The Brundtland Commission: Defining Sustainable Development and Setting the World Agenda

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

- World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future 1987, 43.

In December 1983 the Secretary-General of the United Nations called for the establishment of a special, independent commission, know as the World Commission on Environment and Development, with the purpose of formulating a global agenda for change. The specific charge to the commission was:

• To propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond

• To recommend ways concern for the environment may be translated into greater cooperation among developing 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

• 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

(World Commission on Environment and Development, ix)

The World Commission, the members of which represented 21 separate nations, sought advice and support from thousands of organizations, individuals and institutes in the creation of the report, which was finally published in 1987. At first, many argued that the commission should focus exclusively on issues of environmental concern, but others on the commission felt this would be a grave mistake. The interconnectedness of the economy and the environment in people’s minds was confirmed during the many interviews conducted through the commission’s work. No clear expression of environmental issues resulted from these interviews; they were all interrelated to social issues, cultural issues and economic issues. It became evident to the commission that to look at the environment without also looking at its interrelationship to equity, parity and social and economic well-being would be misguided. In the words of Brundtland:

The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs, and attempts to defend it in isolation from human concerns have given the very word ‘environment’ a connotation of naivete in some political circles. The word ‘development’ has also been narrowed by some into a very limited focus, along the lines of ‘what poor nations should do to become richer’, and thus again is automatically dismissed by many in the international arena as being a concern of specialists, of those involved in questions of ‘development assistance’.

But the ‘environment’ is where we all live; and ‘development’ is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable. Further, development issues must be seen as crucial by the political leaders who feel that their countries have reached a plateau towards which other nations must strive. Many of the development paths of the industrialized nations are clearly unsustainable. And the development decisions of these countries, because of their great economic and political power, will have a profound effect upon the ability of all peoples to sustain human progress for generations to come.

Many critical survival issues are related to uneven development, poverty, and population growth. They all place unprecedented pressures on the planet’s lands, waters, forests, and other natural resources, not least in the developing countries. The downward spiral of poverty and environmental degradation is a waste of opportunities and of resources. In particular, it is a waste of human resources. These links between poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation formed a major theme in our analysis and recommendations. What is needed now is a new era of economic growth--growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable (World Commission on Environment and Development, xi - xii).

The Brundtland Commission was unique in that it represented the first global effort to address the issue of sustainable development. It also produced the first international policy document that recognized and addressed the interconnection between the economy and environmental well-being. Finally, the Brundtland Commission developed the most widely used definition of sustainable development: "Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This definition contained within it two crucial elements: first, the concept of "needs," especially the basic needs of the world’s poor, which the commission stressed must be given overriding priority, and second, the concept of "limits" imposed by technology and social organizations on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 43).

The commission did not shy away from the word "growth" and consider it to be the root of all economic and environmental ills. In fact, the body embraced growth, provided certain changes occurred, as the path necessary to bring the developing nations more in line with those already receiving the benefits of industrialization. However, the commission warned that the world must design strategies that will help nations move from their current, often destructive growth paths, towards a long-range process of sustainable development. It argued that to proceed in a sustainable manner, environmental and development policy must meet certain critical objectives:

• Reviving Growth: Policies must help to stimulate growth in developing nations in order to result in increased economic well-being. At the same time, industrial countries need to maintain a certain level of growth (3 to 4 percent, at that time) if they are going to impact the expansion of the world economy. The commission recognized that poverty actually intensified pressures on the environment by encouraging the inefficient or unwise use of resources, overpopulation and other unsustainable practices. They focused on the need for an increase in per capita incomes in the Third World and the necessity to revive the economies of these nations in order to eliminate poverty. Industrialized nations need to continue current trends of growing along less energy- and material-intensive paths.

• Changing the Quality of Growth: The commission believed that changing the quality of growth means making a change in how we approach development, taking all of the eventual impacts, not just immediate impacts, into account. For example, a logger must consider as a cost against his/her profit not only the expenses incurred in harvesting, but also the long-range reduction on future revenues as a result of degradation of the forest. As another example, large-scale agriculture may increase the productivity of the land, but it also displaces small-scale farmers, skewing income distribution and creating poverty. It also often results in environmental degradation. Economic development is not sustainable if it contributes to vulnerability to crisis. Finally, concepts of growth must be broadened to include non-economic variables such as education and health care, clean water, air, and the protection of natural beauty. All of these factors should be incorporated into our efforts to attain economic well-being, according to the commission.

• Meeting Essential Human Needs: The commission raised a challenge: to meet the needs of an expanding world population in the basic of all human needs for livelihood, that is, employment. "Between 1985 and 2000 the labour force in developing countries will increase by nearly 900 million, and new livelihood opportunities will have to be generated for 60 million persons every year (World Commission on Environment and Development, 54). A second major need is for increased food production to not only feed more people because of expanding population, but also to address malnourishment. A third basic human need is for energy. Most poor Third World households depend upon wood for fuel, putting a strain on this resource that must be addressed to curb deforestation. Finally, interrelated basic needs such as housing, sanitation, water supply and health care have environmental impacts. The failure to meet these needs effectively is one of the major causes of malaria, gastrointestinal infections and other deadly diseases.

• Ensuring a Sustainable Level of Population: Population size must be kept at a level sustainable by the productive capacity of the ecosystem. While birth rates are declining in industrialized nations, the Third World, at a population of 3.7 billion of 1985 is projected to increase to 6.8 billion in 2025. If the experience of industrialized nations holds true, increased industrialization, per capita income, environmental improvement and social well-being go hand-in-hand with a reduction in birth rate. The commission therefore called for the facilitation of development in emerging nations as a method to help in ensuring a sustainable population level.

• Conserving and Enhancing the Resource Base: The commission believed that the conservation and enhancement of the Earth’s natural resource base should rest not only on development goals, but also on our moral obligation to other forms of life and to future generations. According to the commission: "Pressure on resources increases when people lack alternatives. Development policies must widen people’s options for earning a sustainable livelihood, particularly for resource-poor households and in areas under ecological stress." (World Commission on Environment and Development, 57).

• Reorienting Technology and Managing Risk: The accomplishment of all these objectives will necessitate a reorientation of technology, which is the critical link between humans and nature. The commission identified two steps that need to be taken to achieve this objective: "First, the capacity for technological innovation needs to be greatly enhanced in developing countries so that they can respond more effectively to the challenges of sustainable development. Second, the orientation of technology development must be changed to pay greater attention to environmental factors" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 60).

• Merging Environment and Economics in Decision Making: The common theme throughout these seven strategic imperatives for sustainable development is the integration of both the environment and the economy in decision making. The commission cautions that it is the tendency of rigid institutions to deal in isolation with one sector or industry at a time, failing to take account of the importance of linkages between these sectors. As a result, policies that are created address only the objectives of one segment instead of looking at impacts of each part on one another and the whole. For sustainable development to be achieved, this fragmentation must be overcome and changes in the legal and institutional framework must enforce the common interest.

The Bruntland Commission concluded that sustainable development seeks to promote harmony among humankind and between man and the natural world. To be effective, the pursuit of sustainable development requires the following:

• A political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making
• an economic system that is able to generate surpluses and technical knowledge on a self-reliant and sustained basis
• A social system that provides for solutions for the tensions arising from disharmonious development
• A production system that respects the obligation to preserve the ecological base for development
• A technological system that can search continuously for new solutions
• An international system that fosters sustainable patterns of trade and finance
• An administrative system that is flexible and has the capacity for self-correction

These requirements should form the goals that underlie action on development, both at an international and national level. The commission recognizes that what makes a difference between success and failure is the sincerity with which these goals are undertaken, and the effectiveness and speed with which departures from these goals are corrected (World Commission on Environment and Development, 65).

The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro: Expanding the Dialogue of Sustainability

To improve the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people...

The Earth Summit

The Earth Summit held in the summer of 1992 in Brazil was a watershed event in the sustainable development movement. Not only did it bring together an unprecedented number of countries, organizations and citizens from throughout the world, it represented the first time that developed and developing nations were able to reach a series of compromises on difficult issues related to the environment and development. The impact of the Earth Summit continued long after the conference itself concluded. The efforts of the various organizations formed before and during the two weeks in Rio, and the efforts continued by individual nations and communities to implement the principles promulgated during the Earth Summit, have continued the impact and influence of this global event.

The organizations formed during the summit that continue work to this day include: the Sustainable Development Commission, whose responsibility it is to promote the development of sustainable development procedures and policies throughout the world, the Planet Earth Council and the Business Council for Sustainable Development.

A platform of 27 principles, known as the Rio Declaration, were developed and adopted during the Earth Summit. These principles represented a series of compromises on difficult issues related to a long history of mistrust and accusations of exploitation between developed and undeveloped nations. The resulting agreement, widely regarded as the blueprint for achieving global sustainability, provided a framework through which world diplomats could work toward improving the economy and environment throughout the world. Key principles included:

Rio Principle #2:
The right of nation states to use their own resources as long as they do not harm the environment in other parts of the world

Rio Principle #3:
Nations have a right to pursue development

Rio Principle #4:
In order for development to be sustainable, it must reduce "unsustainable patterns of production and consumption"

Rio Principle #10:
All citizens must be involved and kept informed

Rio Principle #16:
Each polluter should be held responsible for his or her pollution

The central, overall agreement emerging from the Earth Summit was named Agenda 21, the goal of which was to "halt and reverse the environmental damage to our planet and to promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in all countries on earth." Moving the discussion of sustainability from theory to action, the Rio Declaration called for communities throughout the world to adopt and implement specific programs and actions centered on seven key objectives. These seven objectives included the provision of adequate shelter for all persons, the improvement of basic living conditions in cities, the adoption of sustainable energy and transportation approaches, the provision of land access for all families, the development of human resources and the lessening of the effects of man-made and natural disasters.

The results of the Earth Summit have been far reaching. Many communities in different parts of the world have adopted the principles of sustainable development as promulgated through the conference in Rio. National and international organizations have emerged to promote the adoption of Agenda 21 by communities and to help local jurisdictions implement programs based on these principles. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which played a key role in the development and adoption of Local Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in 1992, is one such organization. The ICLEI formulated the Local Agenda 21 Initiative to assist local governments in taking on a major role in efforts to implement sustainability in their communities. By 1999, more than 1,800 local authorities in 64 countries were preparing Local Agenda 21 action plans.

National Frameworks

Following the Earth Summit’s creation of its 27 principles, national governments chose to set initiatives for sustainable practices. The United States' effort is significant because of its status as a well developed industrialized nation. Sweden’s effort through The Natural Step movement demonstrates a significant approach which has actually been experienced by industry and residential households throughout the country.

The U.S. Experience: Challenges by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Our vision is of a life-sustaining Earth. We are committed to the achievement of a dignified, peaceful, and equitable existence. A sustainable United States will have a growing economy that provides equitable opportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality of life for current and future generations. Our nation will protect its environment, its natural resource base, and the functions and viability of natural systems on which all life depends.

Vision Statement
The President's Council on Sustainable Development

The United States’ response to the global concern with sustainable development emerged officially with the creation of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) in June 1993. The creation of the council was one of the first official actions of the Clinton administration, a testament to its importance. The members of the 25-person council, which included leaders from government, business, environmental, civil rights, labor and Native American organizations, were given a threefold mission:

1. To develop and recommend to the president a national sustainable development action strategy that will foster economic vitality

2. To develop an annual Presidential Honors Program recognizing outstanding achievements in sustainable development

3. To raise public awareness of sustainable development issues and participation in opportunities for sustainable development

The council set out to achieve this mission by seeking broad-based public input and launching an education and planning program. In February 1996 the council released its report entitled Sustainable America: A New Consensus.

This diverse council represented a microcosm of positions on the issues surrounding the environment and economy. Although it did not reach consensus on all issues, it did find sufficient common ground, based on shared values, that all members of the council chose to sign the report (see "We Believe" statement of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Appendix). In the preface to this document the two chairs for the council, one an environmentalist (Jonathan Lase, president of the World Resources Institute) and the other an industrialist (David T. Buzzelli, Vice President of the Dow Chemical Company), agreed that it is important to avoid the confrontation and mistrust that has too often attended discussions regarding the environment and the economy because these contentious interactions only contribute to the polarization that already exists. They said that the "politics of mistrust" presented the greatest obstacle to the process of change and innovation that the council felt was necessary to achieve shared goals. Consensus, they said, would serve to move the country ahead farther and faster than confrontation. The council chose to provide a model for these intense discussions that would lead to collaboration and common goals.

The council adopted the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development but added its own vision statement to augment and tailor it for its own purposes (see above). To achieve the vision, the council developed a series of ten goals covering a wide range of issues, issued policy recommendations to support the implementation of these goals, and designed a series of indicators by which to measure progress toward reaching sustainability. The ten goals identified by the council were as follows:

The report’s policy recommendations were aimed at challenging local communities in their quest to become more sustainable, in recognition that increasingly more decision making is occurring at the community level than the federal or state levels. The council’s report challenges communities to develop community-driven strategic planning and collaborative regional planning, improve community and building design, take steps to decrease sprawl, and create strong, diversified local economies while increasing jobs and other economic opportunities (President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1996, Ch. 4, 1). The council presented a picture of sustainable communities as a benchmark toward which to strive:

Sustainable communities are cities and towns that prosper because people work together to produce a high quality of life that they want to sustain and constantly improve...And while there is no single template for a sustainable community, cities and towns pursuing sustainable development often have characteristics in common. ...all people have access to educational opportunities that prepare them for jobs to support themselves and their families in a dynamic local economy that is prepared to cope with changes in the national and global economy. People are involved in making decisions that affect their lives. Businesses, households, and government make efficient use of land, energy, and other resources, allowing the area to achieve a high quality of life with minimal waste and environmental damage. These communities are healthy and secure, and provide people with clean air to breathe and safe water to drink.

Engagement of All Citizens

In sustainable communities, people are engaged in building a community together. They are well-informed and actively involved in making community decisions. They make decisions for the long term that benefit future generations as well as themselves. They understand that successful long-term solutions require partnership and a process that allows for representatives of a community’s diverse sectors to be involved in discussions, planning, and decisions that respond directly to unique local needs. They also recognize that some problems cannot be solved within the confines of their community and that working in partnership with others in the region is necessary to deal with them.

Infrastructure, Land and Structures

In sustainable communities, people use a participatory approach to make conscious decisions about design. The concepts of efficiency and livability guide these decisions. Development patterns promote accessibility, decrease sprawl, reduce energy costs, and foster the creation of built environments on a human scale. Use of environmentally superior technologies for transportation, industry, buildings, and agriculture boosts productivity and lowers business costs while dramatically reducing pollution, including solid and hazardous wastes.

Sustainable Economic Development

In sustainable communities, partnerships involving business, government, labor and employees promote economic development and jobs. Participants cooperatively plan and carry out development strategies that create diversified local economies built on unique local advantages and environmentally superior technologies. These efforts can strengthen the local economy, buffering it from the effects of national and international economic trends that result in job losses in a community. Such partnerships also invest in education and training to make community members more productive, raise earning power, and help strengthen and attract business.
(President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Ch. 4, 2-3).

The council encourages communities to engage in a planning process that will help set them on the path to sustainability. They identified specific communities throughout the United States that were using innovative approaches to determining and preparing for their future, and recognized that these communities followed certain steps in their community-driven planning process. First, communities provided the opportunity for all residents to participate in the planning process, going out of their way to ensure diversity, intergenerational input, and inclusiveness. The inclusion of individuals who were historically un- or under-represented was important. These community residents, through a series of meetings and events, helped to develop their vision of their communities' future. Next, the communities inventoried and assessed their existing human, economic and natural resources to identify assets that could be built upon. After that, goals were identified and prioritized, specific projects or actions that would help to achieve these goals were formulated, and finally, indicators or measurements that help to determine if the community remains on track were detailed for each goal.

While the challenges to communities offered by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development may seem too complex, or too much of a change in "business as usual" to be worth implementing, long-range costs of not addressing these issues must be considered seriously. For example, the cost of not preparing for the future, the cost of not considering the effects that economic development may have on the local environment, or the cost that failing to invest in local schools may have on the long-term social well-being of the community may be greater than any short-term gain can offset.

The following Web site has the latest information regarding the President's Council on Sustainable Development .

The Swedish Experience: Achieving National Consensus on Sustainability through The Natural Step Program

In 1988 a sustainability movement was born in Sweden that has been, over the past decade, embraced by that nation and has gained a following in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, the United States and other countries as well. Based on the vision of Karl-Henrik Robert, noted Swedish oncologist and cancer researcher, The Natural Step (TNS) movement promotes a series of basic sustainability principles that have been adopted by both private industry and the public as guiding principles for both businesses and communities. The success of The Natural Step movement can be attributed to the development of clearly articulated principles, a charismatic proponent with a vision, and clear recognition that in order for it to be adopted as policy and action, broad consensus and inclusion of diverse interests must be achieved.

Dr. Robert’s insights and message are based on his personal experiences treating children with cancer and the conclusions that he reached regarding the relationship between man-made toxins in the environment and the increasing incidences of these types of diseases. As a scientist, Robert knew that there were fundamental principles by which all cells operate. He observed that toxins, in controlled doses, were beneficial at a molecular level in arresting cancer; however, doses too large could actually harm the host human. An environmentalist by avocation, he transposed these observations to the earth’s natural systems, concluding that if people exceed the earth’s ability to transform or absorb man-made toxins, the quality of environmental systems will degrade.

Issues surrounding quantities and kinds of toxins that produce harmful effects on the environment have presented an enduring stumbling block to consensus building within the Swedish scientific community. A scientist’s reality is determined by knowns and controlled variables as opposed to uncertainties and imprecise methodology. Robert recognized that reaching consensus in such a professional environment would be highly unlikely, so he purposely sidestepped the debate regarding levels and types of toxins, and focused instead on designing core principles that could be adopted universally by all of Sweden’s most prominent scientists. In 1988 Robert developed and circulated throughout the Swedish scientific community a paper that proposed a series of principles supportive of natural sustainable systems. These principles were based on indisputable laws of thermodynamics and matter conservation. Robert realized that in order for these principles to be effective in leading to policy and action, they must be agreed to by a consensus of scientists, so he devised an effective system of eliciting comment and agreement. He circulated a draft of the document to 50 leading scientists, incorporated their comments into a revised document, sent it out again, revised the document again, and repeated this process for 22 revisions until all 50 scientists agreed with his four-principle framework for sustaining natural systems. The four principles are as follows:

System Condition #1 - Substances from the Earth’s crust must not systematically increase in nature. Robert explains in practical terms that this means fossil fuels, other minerals and metals must not be extracted at a rate greater than their redeposit into the earth’s crust (Bandy n.d., 11). The goal then becomes to reduce our dependence upon these finite, virgin resources.

System Condition #2 - Substances that are produced by society must not have a systematically increased presence in nature (Bandy n.d., 11). The intent of this system condition is to recognize where man-made substances, such as chemicals or plastics, are produced at a rate faster than they can be broken down (biodegrade) into the environment or deposited into the crust of the earth. The two variables that must be considered are the biodegradability of the substance and the length of time it takes the earth to reabsorb the substance.

System Condition #3 - The physical basis for the productivity and diversity of nature must not face systematic deterioration. Productivity refers to fertility, and diversity refers to biodiversity, and within this context, humans must not harvest more from nature than can be recreated or renewed. Diverse and special habitats must be protected, and land use must reflect our efforts to maintain the quantity and quality of nature’s productive surfaces (Frankel 1998, 180).

System Condition #4 - There must be fair and efficient use of resources with respect to meeting human needs. Robert states, "Basic human needs must be met with the most resource-efficient methods possible, including a just resource distribution" (Robert, unpublished article, quoted in Frankel 1998, 180). In order to pursue this objective two things must happen; consumerism, especially among wealthy nations, must be reduced and the efficiency of organizations and the way we deal with the environment must be improved (Frankel 1998).

These four system conditions became Sweden’s "compass" for achieving sustainability. The Natural Step approach was officially endorsed by the King of Sweden and other leaders in the country. It has been adopted by such prominent Swedish industries as Electrolux and IKEA and has won praise from environmentalists. The four principles were presented in an easy-to-comprehend booklet and sent, with a companion audiotape, to every household (totaling 4 million) and school in Sweden. Corporations that believed in TNS underwrote the $4.5 million cost of this mailing. More that 3 million young people in schools and communities have been educated about the four principles of TNS, and a Youth Parliament has formed to further the work of TNS. Additionally, over 150 municipalities in Sweden are using the TNS approach.

Additional information can be obtained through the Web page for The Natural Step

Definitions of Sustainability

Then I say the earth belongs to each...generation during its course, fully and in its own right, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.

Thomas Jefferson
September 6, 1789

It would be nice if the reader could be provided with a clear definition of a sustainable world. Then a person could logically flow through methods or ways to achieve sustainability. Definitions help us determine how our destination looks. The term "economic development" causes the listener to imagine an effort that will enhance the financial well-being of an individual or community. "Social equity" tells the reader that something is being done to create fairness in the distribution of resources among various cultures, groups or individuals. The word "ecology" deals with understanding and caring for the natural environment. Yet, somehow, combining these three concepts and using them to define the word "sustainable" becomes confusing. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary tells us that "sustainable" means "1 : capable of being sustained 2 a : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged ... b : of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods."

Proponents of sustainable development talk about continuing economic development, continuing social justice and continuing the natural environment in a way that does not deplete or permanently damage the base of any resources needed for each to continue. Using the last part of Webster’s definition requires each of us to adopt "a lifestyle that involv[es] ... sustainable methods." It can become stressful to talk about balance between economic, social and environmental issues because each are often dependent upon the use of the same resources. A recent discussion by the closing panel at the recent "National Town Meeting" on sustainable development (May 1999, Detroit, Michigan) illustrates the struggle. This panel, comprising Fortune 500 corporate executives, federal agency executives, directors of local and national organizations/citizens groups, and youth, was discussing the concept of global warming. The panel recognized the issue was not about agreement on the existence of global warming but rather about finding the limits associated with the solutions to global warming. It is such limits that, perhaps, cause people difficulty in defining sustainability.

The Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development, coordinated by the United States Department of Energy, has a section of its Web page devoted to listing various definitions of sustainability. While each definition carries its own emphasis, there are some common themes present in, as well as a wisdom that comes from, the definitions collectively.

Themes:

1. Importance of considering the needs of future generations:

A sustainable society is one which satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future generations.

--Lester Brown, Founder and President, Worldwatch Institute

2. The preservation of natural resources into the future:

"Sustainable growth" is a contradiction in terms: nothing physical can grow indefinitely. "Sustainable use" is applicable only to renewable resources: it means using them at rates within their capacity for renewal.

--International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

3. Wise use of resources:

Sustainability refers to the ability of a society, ecosystem, or any such ongoing system to continue functioning into the indefinite future without being forced into decline through exhaustion ... of key resources.

-- Robert Gilman, President of Context Institute

4. An appreciation for the connection between environmental, social and economic resources:

Our vision is of a life-sustaining earth. We are committed to the achievement of a dignified, peaceful, and equitable existence. We believe a sustainable United States will have an economy that equitably provides for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality life for current and future generations. Our nation will protect its environment, its natural resource base, and the functions and viability of natural systems on which all life depends.

-- President's Council on Sustainable Development

It is enlightening to participate in a discussion group trying to define sustainability. Participants struggle with the actual meaning of even the simplest of words. In an effort to put on paper such a personal message each person begins to encounter his or her deep feelings about the environment, the future, economics, social fairness, equity, and the common interest. Some find struggling with a definition so frustrating that they conclude that although we may not know how to define sustainability, we do know it when we see it. It is difficult, if not impossible, to be against sustainability. When an individual first encounters the word "sustainable," he or she may wonder why there is a debate about sustainability. It just seems right to take sustainable actions.

This appreciation of the concept of sustainability is the wisdom that seems to come from struggling to discover a clear definition. A person can imagine that this same struggle existed for the participants of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) as they worked toward their definition of sustainability: "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

This definition is the one most widely found in the literature on sustainability. The goal of the Brundtland Commission in creating this definition was to make the topic of sustainability a conversation that everyone could enter. In its report Our Common Future , the Brundtland Commission identified a number of "common challenges" that it believed needed to be addressed to maintain the earth. These challenges involve energy, urbanization, population and human resources, species and ecosystems, industrial development and food security. This report and definition made the discussions about the future of the earth discussions that proponents of both economic development and environmental conservation could appreciate. The commission made the discussions even more interesting when it called for "equity and the common interest." This phrase made discussions about the future not simply an economic and environmental issue, but also a social issue.

From the landmark action by the Bruntland Commission, the issue of defining "sustainability" or "sustainable development" became popularized. The report Our Common Future, however, did not provide details of how to actualize sustainability at the local community level. What has arisen since this 1987 report is an effort to further interpret and define sustainability often based on the particular mission or goal of the organization under consideration. Some definitions emphasize the importance of environmental sustainability with such terms as "natural capital," "renewable resources," "production capacity of land and water" and "preventing the loss of genetic diversity." Still other definitions highlight the economic importance when they speak of an equitable future, an economy for future generations or no debts for future generations. Each organization, it seems, focuses on a particular set of characteristics, processes and initiatives to define sustainability (Roseland 1994, 2) and, more importantly, outline successful sustainable behaviors.

Interpreting Sustainability

Organizations which focus on sustainability often identify particular examples of success stories regarding application of sustainable practices. Nearly every Web site with a sustainable approach has a section on success stories (http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/management/sstoc.htm). These successes are listed under numerous headings that include the word "sustainable." Such headings include "sustainable development," "sustainable cities," "ecological sustainability," "sustainable agriculture," "sustainable measures," "sustainable growth," "sustainable societies," "sustainable forests" and even "sustainable sports." There is, however, a sense within all applications of the word "sustainable" that it involves some kind of balance. This balance may be looked at by some as being between the environment on which life is dependent, the economy from which we seek financial security and society from which we seek some type of quality for living. Sustainability has been characterized as a three-legged stool, with its seat dependent on all three legs to give balance. If any one of the legs is missing the seat will not be in balance and will be unable to carry the weight of the person. Those talking about sustainability over the past few decades often approach the subject feeling that one or more of the stool’s legs has been missing (or forgotten). That means that for the stool to be back in balance the missing leg must be installed. When we listen to the various organizations involved in discussions or actions regarding sustainability we begin to discover variations regarding the emphasis placed on sustainability. The focus of organizations seems to be on individual activities that will collectively lead to a more sustainable world. It is indeed important to recognize that to live sustainability is a conscious individual choice. This focus on individual aspects of sustainability can be seen within the literature, program activities, and emphasis which some organizations or individuals bring to the discussion of what "sustainable" means.

While the challenges to communities offered by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development may seem too complex, or too much of a change in "business as usual," to be worth implementing, long range costs of not addressing these issues must be considered seriously. For example, the cost of not preparing for the future, the cost of not considering the effects that economic development may have on the local environment, or the costs that failing to invest in local schools may have on the long term social well-being of the community are greater than any short-term gain can offset.

The following web site has the latest information regarding the President's Council on Sustainable Development .

The Swedish Experience: Achieving National Consensus on Sustainability through The Natural Step Program

Some parties bring expertise and emphasis on the built environment to discussions of sustainability. They bring approaches that seek to incorporate sustainable practices into new development or rehabilitation of existing development. For example, this expertise may be in actual construction of buildings or in areas of land use planning. Such contributions to sustainable development come from architects, planners and consultants. Roseland identifies these contributions as contributions of Designers (Roseland 1994, 4). The Web sites of the American Planning Association and the Greenbuilding Information Council provide examples of sustainable contributions to the built environment.

Practitioners bring assistance to efforts surrounding sustainable development approaches directed by municipalities or local governments. Practitioners try to assist public officials in finding the balance that sustainability fosters. Practitioners focus on issues of urban development, cities and local efforts primarily by political systems. The sustainability emphasis of practitioners is demonstrated by the work of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). ICLEI defines a local area as sustainable if it "is designed, built and operates in a way that uses energy and natural resources efficiently and equitably, for both present and future generations of human and other species" (ICLEI, no date given, 1). A major effort of ICLEI is to help local governments initiate strategies for sustainable practices. To support this effort, ICLEI created the Local Agenda 21 Initiative to fulfill the objectives contained in Chapter 28 of the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit. Another United States example can be seen on the Web site of the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities. The center is a collaboration of The United States Conference of Mayors and The National Association of Counties. The center serves as a resource where local leaders can come together and address sustainability issues.

Communities can be places defined not only by geographical boundaries but also by interest. People can form communities based on association, occupations, beliefs, or any number of circumstances. An emphasis is placed on social interaction, which is often evaluated on items such as values, principles and measures. Sustainability among communities of interest focuses on ways in which communities can develop more self-reliance to meet local needs from within existing community resources. Roseland identifies this "sustainable communities" literature as that of Visionaries (Roseland 1994, 3). An example of such literature would be literature dealing with sustainable agriculture. The Sustainable Agriculture Network provides outreach regarding research and information on sustainable agricultural systems. Another example would be the Sustainable Business Challenge, which focuses on developing sustainability understanding among business professionals by such means as testing and certifying them.

A fourth orientation toward sustainability emphasizes the damage humans and their social context have done to the environment. Such a focus is helpful in raising issues regarding the importance of living within the capacity of the world’s natural resources. People in this camp emphasize the systems view which sees the interconnection of humans to everything else on earth, respecting a holistic approach. They think in terms of a new world order, seeing it as a society which values a more sustainable course than the industrial society of the Western world. Development is encouraged to place emphasis on the area’s natural features and incorporate grassroots initiative. Roseland classifies this camp, which emphasizes sustainable communities, as Activist. Organizations such as Redefining Progress seek new ways to measure progress besides traditional national economic growth measurements.

Worldwatch Institute is a nonprofit organization that provides research regarding emerging global problems and the link between economic and environmental support systems.

Roseland’s research of sustainable community literature clarifies the variations within sustainability themes. Activists place emphasis on natural capital and the need to place the environment at the center of the sustainability discussion. Visionaries will direct us towards the sustainability activities which emphasize the importance of recognizing communities of interest and association as well as place. Visionaries' view focuses on the potential present within these associations. Those interested in sustainability from a Practitioners view will emphasize the importance of local sustainable initiatives by governments and geographical communities in redesigning communities. Finally, when discussing sustainability with Designers we will hear emphasis placed on creating new developments and enhancing existing developments through urban and community designs which encourage the revival of public life.

Each category presented by Roseland includes interaction between each of the three foundations (legs of the stool) of sustainability: economy, environment and social resources. Each focuses on finding balance among these three foundations. There is no division by audience in each of the various categories of orientation. Each category also provides assistance to a wide range of parties including individuals, public officials, communities, organizations, governments and local residents. What distinguishes each category is how particular worldviews, values, priorities and passions cause significant attention to be directed in the creation of sustainable communities.

It is clear that the desire of the Bruntland Commission to encourage conversation by its definition of sustainability has led to various thoughts and practices on how to actualize the concept of sustainability. There is a rich discussion unfolding regarding sustainability that may well be enhanced by each participant to further define sustainability based on the individual's particular emphasis. What is most exciting about all this continued effort to further define sustainability is the fact that all of us are legitimate participants in determining what is sustainable.

Equity: The Goal of Sustainable Development

What then is the goal of sustainable development? Is it to get humans to respect nature more? Is it about better living environments for urban residents? Is it about urban and rural growth patterns? Is it about the global relationships we are beginning to understand? Is it to preserve farmland? Is it to provide opportunities for those in poverty? Is it all about the struggle between economic development and environmental concern? The answer is yes to all these questions. But is there a common thread among all these issues and the many not mentioned here?

Sustainable development calls for balance between the use and care of economic, environmental and social resources. Sustainability is about stewardship; caring for, respecting and sharing the resources we have encountered or created. Whatever the sustainable topic may be, what we are really trying to decide is what will bring equity. Equity is defined as what is just and fair.

Robert M. Solow in a USA Today article entitled "Sustainability: Our Debt to the Future" identifies the central issue of sustainability as equity. Solow, who won the 1987 Nobel Prize in Economics, talks about "distributional equity," which he describes as dealing with who gets what (Solow 1992, 40). For Solow, sustainability is a discussion about distributional equity between the present generation and future generations. Sustainability is about the sharing of well-being between generations. Sustainability calls upon the current generation not to reach its level of satisfaction by impoverishing future generations. Solow discusses the substitution of goods and services, referring to the economic term "fungible" (40). Fungible, he tells us, means that one resource can take the place of another. What the current generation must concentrate on is leaving a "generalized capacity to create well-being, not any particular natural resource or thing" (41). The example Solow uses is aluminum. Is it really this generation's obligation to leave aluminum available to future generations? Is aluminum a necessary ingredient of a generation’s well-being? Or is the obligation of this generation to leave a resource which has the same capacity to perform the functions of aluminum? Solow argues it is the latter.

At the core of the sustainability discussion is the question of equity. Equity not only between the present generation and future generations as Solow suggests, but also in other matters. Equity between the environment and the economy and the societal good. Equity between undeveloped nations with natural resources and developed nations with excess demand for these resources. Equity between those who economically have plenty and those who suffer in poverty. Equity between urban demands and agricultural space. Equity between demand for residential space and the need for open space. Equity between humans and all living species. This list of equity issues goes on and on; it is without limits. And that is exactly why there are so many different understandings of sustainability. Each group and each individual will play a role in raising questions about equity from their particular points of interest. When we enter discussions about sustainability we are entering conversations about equity. We are trying to discover what is just and fair within a framework in which there are not clear, easy, unanimous answers. Instead communities, whether of place or association, must continually discuss and review their decisions. When we accept the question of sustainability to be about equity we can begin to reflect on how we are going to go about deciding what is just and fair. We can start setting some goals which are measurable to define balance between our use and care of economic, social and environmental resources.

The issue of equity starts to move sustainable development beyond an individual decision. Equity involves a community decision. Communities have defined fairness throughout history. Decisions are made about health care, education, tax rates, transportation, recreation, income levels, utility services, crime and punishment and a host of other issues by communities. These decisions are often reflected in the application of development strategies. Traditional development efforts focused on the opportunity to achieve equity provided through economic growth and measured success reviewing economic statistics. Sustainable development brings a fundamental change in how equity is determined. Sustainable development does not remove the importance of economic benefits but matches and evaluates such benefits in concert with social and environmental benefits. An understanding of the contrast between traditional development strategies and goals and sustainable development goals will help us discover how looking at the world through key sustainability concepts can lead to the discovery of new ways to create equity.

Traditional Development and Sustainable Development: Compared and Contrasted

Both traditional and sustainable development models have been developed and operationalized in response to our need to improve the well-being of our communities and their residents, both in the present and the future. This desire is as true in the United States as it is throughout the rest of the world. Both traditional and sustainable philosophies are deeply concerned with insuring that individuals and families are afforded opportunities to be financially self-sufficient and to live in decent, affordable housing, educate their children so that their future opportunities are enhanced, enjoy a clean, safe and attractive local environment, and leave a legacy of well-being and opportunity for their children.

Although both models start with the same desires for community, the "roots" of traditional and sustainable development are different, leading to divergent views about the best way to work toward their desired ends. How proponents of these two approaches operate, and what they focus on to ensure that they are achieving a community vision, is very different in a number of critical ways when applying the traditional or the sustainable development model. These divergent worldviews and differences in root values have led to a passionate debate among those proclaiming one position or the other.

It is useful to review a delineation of the major commonalities and differences between the two perspectives. First, although both place importance on using measures or indicators to track their progress toward reaching the community vision, the types of measurements and the ways in which they are used and the importance afforded them, are quite different. Second, although both examine the past and present to look into the future, how far forward they look is not the same. Third, both recognize the importance of involving local stakeholders and key leaders in the development process, but beyond that the push toward inclusiveness of all sectors of the community is quite different. Finally, both recognize that even local communities are part of a larger, global network, but their views of community priorities and needs vis a vis the world are not the same.

In the following sections we will explore, in greater depth, these critical differences and similarities between sustainable and traditional development, how the traditional model approaches community economic development, and how this traditional model considers social and ecological elements at the community level. We will also identify cornerstones of sustainable development.

What is Traditional Economic Development?

In American culture, and in fact in most of the Western world, we have traditionally measured success, on both a personal and corporate level, by using economic values and measurements. Private companies are perpetually held accountable to their owners and shareholders to make a profit. Greater profits translate to an increasing value of the company’s stock shares, enhancing its ability to attract shareholder investment. An individual’s social status is conferred by the amount of money the person makes as reflected by the neighborhood in which he or she lives, and the make and number of cars he or she owns. The greater a person's income, and the more the person possesses in material goods, the more the person is viewed as a success in others' eyes.

Economically based values are pervasive in American culture as they relate to an individual’s or a business’s status. Similar economic values and measurements have also traditionally indicated the difference between successful and less successful communities. The labels "distressed communities" and "depressed neighborhoods" have become synonymous with failure and moral decay and the inability to control one’s destiny. And this distressed status is primarily conferred by using economic measures such as joblessness, eroding tax base, low per capita income, substandard housing and homelessness. It is therefore no surprise that traditional economic development efforts have been aimed at helping a community reach its vision of prosperity - and therefore success - by launching strategies that are targeted at correcting these economic shortcomings. Such strategies include expanding the local tax base, creating new jobs for area residents, attracting new industry, building local business, and encouraging private investment.

Since American culture does use economic values and measurements, local communities feel, at first, comfortable reaching their overall community vision through the application of economic measurements. The communities also feel comfortable using these economic indicators to determine whether they are successfully moving toward their vision of prosperity and success. Through the economic development activities related to increasing the local tax base (property, income) in a community, income is generated first to meet and then go beyond residents' basic needs. If the efforts work, communities feel successful since they are able to generate additional wealth. This "excess" wealth generated can then be used to address the social and environmental needs of the community. So traditional economic development focuses first on the basic activities, such as job creation, that will lead toward the enhancement of local wealth. The excess wealth generated will then be applied to meet the broader social, environmental and cultural goals of the community. The authors, as former economic development practitioners, were given the message in their local communities - "You pay attention to work with business and industry to create jobs and build local wealth, and the rest of our community residents' needs can then be met."

Another concept important in the traditional economic development field is the notion of growth as an indicator of prosperity. Areas in which growth is sought include jobs, the number of businesses in a community, property values and population. The quality of this growth has traditionally been less of an issue than the importance of its taking place. Because a typical community loses five to eight percent of its jobs each year (Boyle, 1992, p. 3), trying to maintain the status quo can result in a community’s economic decline. Communities must grow at least a little to maintain what they already have, and to improve they must grow even more. Let’s look at the experience of Fairfax County, Virginia:

Located in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, (Fairfax County) has experienced rapid residential growth over the last three decades. In the 1970's, county government leaders faced a severe fiscal crisis. They either had to raise property taxes or find an alternative source of revenues. Business growth was the answer. Unlike residents, businesses pay more in taxes than they receive in services. The Fairfax Economic Development Commission was given a seven-figure budget and told to go forth and bring business to the county. The product proved to be very marketable. Over the next sixteen years, the county attracted several Fortune 500 corporate headquarters and numerous technology-based software, telecommunications, and electronic firms.

Unfortunately, county investments in roads and other support systems lagged. In 1987, this "buy now-pay later" approach collapsed. Faced with a large bill for needed road expansion, voters threw out the architects of growth who had held office for almost two decades and elected slow- or no-growth advocates. Once in office, this new Board of supervisors not only changed the groundrules for future development; they also reneged on agreements for projects in place and under development. Their efforts worked too well. Business interest in the county evaporated. Existing businesses diverted expansions to other locations. Some even moved out of the county.

Unfortunately, all of this occurred just as the national economy entered a recession and federal spending dried up. The result was catastrophic--declining property values for the first time in twenty years, huge county budget deficits leading to tax increases plus layoffs of teachers, police and fire fighters, curtailment or closure of recreation and social services facilities. By 1991, county voters decided they had made a mistake four years earlier and returned a pro-growth Board of Supervisors. Most of the draconian zoning changes have not been rescinded but business remains skeptical. New investment is still just a trickle, not a stream (Boyle 1992, 3).

The lessons to be learned through the Fairfax County example are important. First, promoting growth without considering and addressing the local challenges that go along with such growth, i.e. impact on infrastructure, schools, housing, is a mistake that may very well jeopardize a community’s continued health. Second, switching strategies and local policies from progrowth to no-growth and back again sends a message of uncertainty and lack of commitment to the business sector from which it is difficult to rebuild mutual trust and the willingness to partner.

How do Economic Development Professionals View their Role in their Community?

In the traditional economic development paradigm it is growth that creates excess wealth. Once this excess wealth is created and basic residents' needs have been met, what is then left can be applied toward meeting social and environmental concerns. It becomes the job of the community economic developer to promote this growth and help to establish a business environment conducive to investment and job creation by the private sector.

Research on the needed job competencies of economic development professionals and the indicators they use to measure the impact of economic development in their communities has been conducted by Ohio State University Extension. The results of these studies offer insights into the professional’s perception of the key elements of their role in traditional economic development, their understanding of what is expected of them by their local communities, what measurements they use to gauge the success of their programs, and to what extent they recognize the need for balance between economic, social and ecological aspects of their community.

Survey of Economic Development Professionals attending the Ohio Economic Development Course

Every year the Ohio State University Extension Community Development Program conducts the Ohio Economic Development Course (OEDC) for the state’s economic development professional organization, the Ohio Development Association. This weeklong course, accredited by the American Economic Development Council, is intended to offer an in-depth introduction to the profession of economic development. Similar courses are offered in other states in the United States. The target audience for the OEDC is economic development professionals who have been working in the field for three years or less or more seasoned veterans who want a refresher and update on the basics of their profession. During the 1997 and 1998 OEDC, 108 professionals were asked to provide written responses to two questions:

• What does economic development mean to you?

• What do you see as valid measures to assess the impact of economic development?

The responses indicated an almost universal recognition that the development of the local economy was linked to improvements in the social and environmental resources of the community. Economic development was clearly seen as the means of reaching the ends of improved quality of life and well-being for community residents. Sixty-four percent of the respondents linked social components such as housing, education, and health care with economy. Seventeen percent of the respondents believed that economic development was needed to improve the "quality of life" or "well-being" of their local areas. Twelve percent of the respondents specifically tied improvements in the local environment with the development of their economy. Themes that came through in a number of the responses indicated an awareness of the need for balance, the importance of looking at the whole picture, the tie-in between community and economic development and community empowerment, self-sufficiency, and self-reliance. Some of the respondents used the word "sustainable" to qualify growth and development. While it is clear that these individuals see the philosophical relationship between economic, social and environmental considerations, the economic development professional is still using the single-dimensional measurement of economics as the starting point.

Thirty-one percent of the respondents took a more long-range focus in their answers. The need for planned development and master planning was mentioned frequently, as were land use issues such as agricultural preservation and the development of brownfields and inner-city areas. Diversity was mentioned only four times, but when taking a broader view and including comments about involving community residents from all walks of life, the response rate increased.

Seventeen percent of the respondents pointed to underlying problems and began to suggest solutions in their answers. For example, one participant called for the creation of an education-business partnership that would be involved in the long-range development of a qualified employee pool for those trades that are either in short supply or within desirable industries. This answer showed the respondents' recognition of the shortage of skilled labor in their communities and suggested a mechanism through which this problem could be addressed.

Seventeen percent of the surveyed professionals also mentioned the importance of considering impacts in the region, not just the community, when conducting economic development activities. They recognized the interdependence of local community efforts and the success of their regions as a whole. While none of the respondents mentioned the need to be aware of the impact of local efforts on the global village, they did recognize the need to look beyond community boundaries. It should be noted, however, that economic development professionals are often the primary source of reminding the community that they compete in a global economy.

When identifying specific measurements of economic development impact the overwhelming majority, 93% of the respondents, used traditional economic yardsticks. Most frequently mentioned were the number of jobs created, increases in tax base and tax revenues, business creation, expansion and retention, and private investment generated as valid measures to assess the impact of economic development. The respondents said the following:

• Job creation, employment, quality of labor force and related measures were the most frequently cited, with seventy-seven percent responding. These responses ranged from job creation and retention, to employment opportunities for youth, to labor force trained to meet the task at hand.

• Expansion of the tax base, tax revenues, and amount of new investment was the next most frequently occurring measurement, with fifty-four percent responding that these measures were important.

• Forty percent of the respondents named infrastructure development and improvement as a measure of impact. Specific types of infrastructure named most frequently included water, sewer, power and roads.

• Business expansions, attraction, creation, retention and turnover were mentioned by sixteen percent of the respondents. This category was closely associated with job creation; a typical response in this category was "job creation due to business attraction." Other related responses not included in those listed above entailed requests for information from businesses, the number and types of businesses opening and closing, number of businesses assisted, business loans made, and overall business climate of the community. Many respondents saw their role as helping the community to create an atmosphere conducive to business development and growth.

• Growth was a frequently occurring theme, mentioned twenty-eight percent of the time, although many responses were qualified with such modifiers as "sustainable," "steady," "responsible," "controlled," and "growth in harmony for the future."

In summation, the economic development professionals attending the Ohio Economic Development Course are beginning to connect the relationship between economic issues, environmental issues and social issues. This indicates that they are on the path to see their role in terms of how it contributes to the larger context of community sustainability. However, they are still defining their primary role in a one-dimensional manner, i.e. that of enhancing the economies of their communities through a focus on job creation, expansion of the tax base, and business attraction, retention and creation. They use traditional economic indicators as the starting point from which to measure the impact of their efforts in the economic development arena. They then transfer their success based upon these economic indicators to answer the question "economic development for what?" They recognize the contribution of a healthy economy and assume that economic success will transfer toward meeting the community’s social and environmental goals and improve quality of life for community residents.

It is important to recognize the background, education, experience and level of maturity that those persons choosing to practice community economic development come to the profession already possessing. In Ohio it is rare to find an individual holding the position of economic development professional who was specifically trained for that career path. Practitioners frequently come to the profession with a wealth of experience in other, oftentimes related, fields. A profile of individuals involved in economic development has been tracked through the Ohio Economic Development Course over the past three years (1996, 1997 & 1998). This profile indicates that seventy-nine of the persons enrolled in the course have three years or less of economic development experience. Even though these individuals are relatively new to the profession, they are not recent graduates entering the workplace for the first time. Seventy-four percent of the participants in the course were 30 to 49 years of age (forty-eight percent of these individuals were 40 to 49 years of age). Forty-seven percent have earned a bachelor’s degree, and thirty-two percent have earned a masters’ degree. Persons enrolled in the economic development course are employed within various organizations including local and state government, utility companies, economic development organizations and public agencies such as human services. This profile of economic development professionals new to the field suggests that individuals in this profession enter it later in their work career after working in various occupations. The individuals are well educated and bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to the profession.

Competency Profile of the Economic Development Professional - The Experience in Ohio

A separate study by Ohio State University Extension inventoried the Competency Profile of the Ohio Economic Development Professional, and identified key areas of expertise that economic developers must have to perform their role at the community level. This research indicated that these professionals must have knowledge and skills related to a wide variety of subjects including time management, local codes, marketing, management, general business, economics, public finance (including taxes), regulatory information, government structures, listening, public speaking,