ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY: FITTING THEM TOGETHER INTO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Sustainable Development
Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sd.199
ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY
AND SOCIETY: FITTING THEM
TOGETHER INTO
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Bob Giddings, Bill Hopwood* and Geoff O’Brien
Sustainable Cities Research Institute, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Sustainable development is a contested sustainability of communities and the
concept, with theories shaped by people’s maintenance of cultural diversity.
and organizations’ different worldviews, Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
which in turn influence how issues are and ERP Environment.
formulated and actions proposed. It is
usually presented as the intersection
between environment, society and Received 1 February 2001
Revised 18 April 2001
economy, which are conceived of as
Accepted 24 April 2001
separate although connected entities. We
would argue that these are not unified
entities: rather they are fractured and SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A
multi-layered and can be considered at CONTESTED CONCEPT
different spatial levels. The economy is
often given priority in policies and the ustainable development is a contested
environment is viewed as apart from
humans. They are interconnected, with the
economy dependent on society and the
S concept with a wide range of meanings.
It is embraced by big business, gov-
ernments, social reformers and environmental
environment while human existence and activists, all of which put their own interpreta-
society are dependent on, and within the tion on what sustainable development means.
environment. The separation of After initial reluctance, 95% of large com-
panies in Europe and the USA now believe
environment, society and economy often
that sustainable development is important (Lit-
leads to a narrow techno-scientific
tle, undated). The World Economic Forum,
approach, while issues to do with society in their modest words the ‘world’s leader-
that are most likely to challenge the ship team’, discusses sustainability, although
present socio-economic structure are often giving it the WEF spin (WEF Forum, 2001).
marginalized, in particular the Over 150 of the world’s major companies in
mining, oil and gas, autos, chemicals, logging,
* Correspondence to: B. Hopwood, Sustainable Cities Research banking and finance, cement, electricity gener-
Institute, 6 North Street East, Newcastle-upon-Tyre, NE6 2Jf, UK.
E-mail: william.hopwood@unn.ac.uk ation, drugs and bio-technology are members
of the World Business Council for Sustainable
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Development (WBCSD, 2001). New LabourB. GIDDINGS, B. HOPWOOD AND G. O’BRIEN (DETR, 1999), the Conservatives (HMSO, 1994) to the dilemma of meanings over sustainable and the Liberal Democrats (2000) all support development is to change the use of words to sustainable development. Many environmen- sustainability (O’Connor, 1994) or sustainable talists including Friends of the Earth (2001) livelihoods (Workshop on Urban Sustainabil- and Greenpeace (2001) are committed to sus- ity, 2000). These phrases avoid some possi- tainable development, while being critical of ble conflicts between economic growth, social companies who are members of the WBCSD. equity and the environment and instead focus Organizations and individuals with concerns on human needs and the environment–what about social issues while supporting sustain- Brundtland claimed was the aim of sustain- able development disagree with the outlook of able development. Deep Ecologists reject the businesses and international economic organi- concept of sustainable development as it pri- zations. The Real World Coalition argues that oritizes the needs of humans, however con- the ‘the path of globalisation. . . will not suc- ceived and defined, over the rest of life and ceed in eliminating poverty; it will increase largely views the environment from a human it’ (Jacobs, 1996, p. 51). Companies who are standpoint. Despite these problems, we have members of WBCSD have been in conflict with used the phrase sustainable development as trade unions and human rights activists (Row- it attempts to embrace the relation between ell, 1996). the socio-economic and environmental and has The classic definition of sustainable devel- gained widespread recognition. opment, ‘meeting the needs of present with- It is clear from all the debates about sustain- out compromising the ability of future gen- able development is that there is no common erations to meet their needs’, was produced philosophy. There are so many interpretations by the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987). In of sustainable development that it is safe to many ways Brundtland was a political fudge say that there is no such thing as sustainable (Middleton et al., 1993, p. 16), based on an development-ism, in contrast to the schools ambiguity of meaning (Wackernagel and Rees, of neo-liberalism, feminism, deep ecology or 1996) in order to gain widespread acceptance. socialism. Rather, the existing worldviews of The combination of socio-economic concerns people and organizations flow into their con- and environmental concerns was guaranteed ception of sustainable development (Hopwood to be a contest field as the long standing et al., in press). When examining an interpreta- debates within both socio-economics and envi- tion of sustainable development it is important ronmentalism flowed into sustainable develop- to bear in mind the philosophy underlying the ment with the added debate over the relation proponent’s point of view. Concern with sus- between socio-economic and environmental tainable development, as with any other way issues. of looking at the world, inevitably involves As sustainable development is like ‘moth- abstractions, which are themselves shaped erhood and apple pie’, in that it sounds so by the observer’s outlook. These underlying good everyone can agree with it whatever worldviews influence what are considered the their own interpretation (Pearce et al., 1989), main priorities and choices about what policies this can be seen as a strength. Others argue should be implemented and actions taken. (Workshop on Urban Sustainability, 2000) that the blandness of meaning makes the concept almost meaningless and it lacks any clear THREE SECTORS: ECONOMY, rigour of analysis or theoretical framework. ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY It can be interpreted to mean almost any- thing that anyone wants, so that beneath its Sustainable development is often presented as covers lies a multitude of sins. One option being divided into the economy, environment Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002) 188
ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY
and society (Hardi and Zdan, 1997; West Mid- and systems (Neumayer, 1999). This ignores
lands Round Table, 2000). The three sectors are the fact that no number of sawmills will
often presented as three interconnected rings substitute for a forest, no amount of genetic
(ICLEI, 1996; du Plessis, 2000; Barton, 2000) engineering can replace biodiversity and it
(Figure 1). The model has a conceptual simplic- would be an immense technical problem to
ity. By encouraging the classification of impacts construct a replacement for the ozone layer
into three convenient categories it makes anal- (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).
ysis more straightforward. Often sustainable In most debates about sustainable devel-
development is presented as aiming to bring opment either the environment or the econ-
the three together in a balanced way, reconcil- omy is given priority. Although the Local
ing conflicts. The model usually shows equal Agenda 21 agreements at the Rio Conference
sized rings in a symmetrical interconnection, included issues to do with social and economic
although there is no reason why this should development, strengthening participation and
be the case. If they are seen as separate, as means of implementation (Grubb, 1993), most
the model implies, different perspectives can, LA 21 plans in Britain focus primarily on
and often do, give a greater priority to one or environmental issues (County Durham, 1997;
the other. Northumberland County, 2000). This concen-
There are major weaknesses and limitations tration of LA21 on the environment can be a
of this model. It assumes the separation and weakness, as this often means it is treated as
even autonomy of the economy, society and peripheral by both local and national govern-
environment from each other. This view risks ment, who usually concentrate on economic
approaching and tackling issues of sustainable issues. Many English and American environ-
development in a compartmentalized manner. mentalists give priority to issues of the coun-
The separation distracts from or underplays tryside, wild animals and wilderness with the
the fundamental connections between the aim of preservation from people, with much
economy, society and the environment. It leads less concern about the urban environment. This
to assumptions that trade-offs can be made outlook has its roots both in a view that sees
between the three sectors, in line with the the environment as separate from humans and
views of weak sustainability that built capital an anti-urban tradition.
can replace or substitute for natural resources One of the effects of the three sector separa-
tion is to encourage a technical fix approach to
sustainable development issues. This focuses
on pollution control, lower resource use and
greenhouse gas trading rather than tackling
Environment
the deeper issues or seeing the connections
between society, economy and the environ-
ment. Technical solutions in the economy, such
as changing interest rate, benefits or taxation
are seen as ways to move the economy towards
sustainable development. These are attractive
Society Economy to some as they can be introduced fairly
quickly and do not involve a more fundamen-
tal examination of the relationship between the
economy, society and the environment. A sec-
toral approach can divert attention from asking
Figure 1. Common three-ring sector view of sustainable questions that are important to getting to the
development core of sustainable development such as those
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
189B. GIDDINGS, B. HOPWOOD AND G. O’BRIEN
about the nature of our society, what the policy economic policies from the 1970s to the 1990s
priorities are, how decisions are made and in almost back to the level of the 1950s. It is no
whose interest. The wider social issues often surprise that during this time Prime Minister
fall off the sustainable development agenda. Thatcher infamously stated that ‘There is no
such thing as society’.
British urban policy has concentrated on
POLITICAL REALITY: PRIORITIZING economic and physical regeneration and less
THE ECONOMY on environmental and social issues. Business
has mainly concentrated on the economic
The reality of life today is that the econ- benefits of resource and energy efficiency and
omy dominates environment and society. The the marketing opportunities of a ‘green’ image.
large global companies dominate decision All these views of sustainable development
making, including that of many governments have concentrated on the development side
(Korten, 1996; Monbiot, 2000). Also interna- of the concept and interpreted it as meaning
tional forums and organizations, heavily influ- growth as defined in standard neo-liberal
enced by the large corporations, take decisions economic terms. This focus on the economy
without even the modest level of democratic is likely to increase with the advent of
control that exists on national governments. a recession.
Whilst central government and business have Environmental economists talk of the envi-
embraced sustainable development, the sepa- ronmental impacts of business such as pollu-
ration into the three sectors can be used to tion, damage to biodiversity and loss of attrac-
justify a concentration on a part, rather that the tive landscapes as unpaid costs or externalities.
whole. In most cases, governments’ main con- This begs the question of how or to what a
cern is economic growth. Bill Clinton famously company pays these costs. How does money
stated ‘It‘s the economy stupid’, not ‘It’s the compensate an animal for its loss of habitat
quality of life’ or ‘It’s people’s happiness’. or a tree for acid rain? In a similar way there
The British government’s definition of sustain- are many social externalities that business does
able development includes the aim of a ‘high not pay for, such as unemployment, a loss of
level of economic growth’ (DETR, 1999). The community and damage to health.
growth of GDP is one of the key indicators to Normally when governments, businesses
measure progress towards sustainable devel- and some theoreticians talk about the econ-
opment. There is little or no concentration on omy, they mean the production and exchange
an integrated approach or tackling deep-seated of goods and services through the operation of
inequality in British society. In Britain and the market. They are referring to the capitalist
internationally, inequality in wealth, power economy. They do not give equal considera-
and education is often justified on the grounds tion to the multitude of actions that provision
that it will aid economic growth, which in turn people and satisfy their needs that take place
will raise everyone’s living standards. This is outside the market, such as subsistence activ-
in spite of the increase in inequality under the ity in many parts of the world, the helping
trickle down theory. As well as the increased of friends, much of the raising of children,
inequality suffered by the poor, most people household labour and social relationships. One
have not benefited from the growth in GDP of the trends of capitalism is to increasingly
as quality of life has become separated from commodify the satisfying of human needs.
economic growth. The Index of Sustainable As well as the production of material goods,
Development for Britain (Jacobs, 1996), which capitalism is trying to turn knowledge, car-
measures human welfare and environmental ing for people, entertainment and nature into
issues, declined with the advent of neo-liberal commodities. Reflecting this change, human
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
190ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY
relationships and the environment are increas- While humans are capable of abstract thought,
ingly described in economic terms, as being philosophy, planning, language and making
natural and social ‘capital’ and as provid- tools, we are part of the natural world. The
ing ‘services’–an extension of Marx’s comment idea of our separation, whether rooted in reli-
that capitalism reduces everything to the ‘cash gion or mis-applied concepts of evolution, is
nexus’. Some (e.g. Pearce et al., 1989) argue a human delusion of grandeur, which risks
that putting a price on the environment, to ever more disasters for humanity. Being part
internalize the externalities, will reduce envi- of nature we, like every other species, have
ronmental damage. Others (Mellor, 1992; Cock unavoidable impacts on the environment. We
and Hopwood, 1996; Shiva, 1998) argue that should not dream of separation from the envi-
the commodification of nature and increasing ronment, rather work towards an interaction
areas of human activity will move society fur- that will last, that is sustainable (Levins and
ther from sustainable development. Lewontin, 1994).
What is placed in the area described as the
economy is a subset of society. Some human
MATERIAL REALITY: NESTING needs are met through the production of
ECONOMY IN SOCIETY AND commodities; many are met by other activities
ENVIRONMENT that take place partly or wholly outside what is
described as the economy (Langley and Mellor,
Political reality gives primacy to the economy. 2002). The production and exchange of goods is
This largely treats the environment and society a social relationship, dependent on many non-
as a resource to be exploited, both natural and monetary activities. The developments that go
human, and as a sink where problems are to make up modern industry, business and
dumped, whether unemployment, ill health technology are also products of human history,
or waste. In contrast, the material reality is much of which is based on non-monetary
that the economy is dependent on society activities. Even modern hi-tech sectors of
and the environment (Daly, 1992; Rees, 1995; the economy, such as pharmaceuticals, are
Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). often based on indigenous knowledge and
Society embraces the multitude of human the environment (Shiva, 1998). The economy
actions and interactions that make up human part of the entire process is primarily the
life. Without society, humans would not sur- exploitation of these wider connections in time
vive, as our very existence, in both evolu- and space. It is an abstraction to conceive of the
tionary and present terms, is based on social economy as a separate area of activity. Without
interaction. Human activity takes place within society there can be no economy.
the environment. Nearly all our actions have an A more accurate presentation of the relation-
impact on the environment. Human life itself ship between society, economy and environ-
depends on the environment. Our material ment than the usual three rings is of the econ-
needs, heat, light, food, medicines, clothing, as omy nested within society, which in turn is
well as modern consumer goods are made with nested within the environment (Figure 2). Plac-
materials and energy that come from it. Prod- ing the economy in the centre does not mean
ucts, regardless of whether they are described that it should be seen as the hub around which
as waste or as goods, eventually end up return- the other sectors and activities revolve. Rather
ing into the environment. As well as satisfying it is a subset of the others and is dependent
needs, the environment provides the source of upon them. Human society depends on envi-
much of culture and leisure enjoyment. Much ronment although in contrast the environment
of art and spiritual beliefs and most of science would continue without society (Lovelock,
and technology draws on the environment. 1988). The economy depends on society and the
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
191B. GIDDINGS, B. HOPWOOD AND G. O’BRIEN
European forest and Mediterranean scrub. At
Environment a finer scale there is difference between a
temperate oak forest and a boreal spruce
forest. Even on a single tree there can be
Society
different environments. Similarly an insect
and a fish may experience the same stretch
of a stream differently, with a fish being
Economy influenced by gravity while an insect is more
affected by surface tension. There is a complex
connection and interaction between the local
and the global.
Presenting society as a single entity gives
precedence to the dominant society of official
structures, ruling power relationships and
western culture. In effect this hides, and
therefore tends to ignore and discriminate
Figure 2. Nested sustainable development–the economy against, other cultures. Even the phrase ‘social
dependent on society and both dependent on the
environment
exclusion’ masks the real character of being
excluded from the dominant economic and
decision making structures. Many of the poor
environment although society for many people
living on council estates have a strong society;
did and still does (although under siege) exist
it is often vital to coping with a lack of money
without the economy.
and access to power structures.
A key issue for sustainable development is
Similarly, claiming there is a single econ-
the integration of different actions and sectors,
omy underestimates or ignores non-monetary
taking a holistic view and overcoming barriers
provisioning, the informal economy that many
between disciplines. The ‘nested’ model rather
use to cope with poverty, the subsistence
than the ‘three-ring’ model encourages a
economies of many cultures and other sectors
conceptual outlook sympathetic to integration.
that are not the concern of the stock market,
Of course this again is a very broad-brush
governments and the major world corporations
model. Most humans live their lives in all
and finance institutions. It reinforces the view
three areas, often without sharp distinctions
that all the actions of meeting human needs
in thought or practice.
should be based on the monetary economy and
gives priority to the interests of the globalized
MULTI-LAYERED AND sectors of the economy.
MULTI-FACETED The effect of pretending that the economy
and society are each a unified whole is to
Until now the three sectors have been con- ignore diversity and difference and instead
sidered as if there is an environment, an give precedence to the dominant parts. Just as
economy and a society; assuming that each in the environment, diversity is an important
sector is a unified entity. This, of course is part of human sustainability (Jacobs, 1965). The
a further abstraction. There are a multitude changes in science, technology, art and culture
of environments, societies and economies. At are stimulated by diversity. Shiva (1998) points
different spatial scales different environments, to how global capitalism exploits all forms of
economies or societies are apparent. diversity for profit and while so doing risks
There are clear differences between the destroying that very diversity, with dangerous
environments of the Antarctic ice sheet, a consequences for people and the environment.
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
192ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY
As well as there being different economies,
societies and environments, depending on the Environment
spatial scale, all of these have changed and
are changing over time. The abstraction into
three unified entities underplays the constant Human Activity
change and reinforces the idea of a static world, and Well Being
in which the present dominant structures and
priorities have always existed and will remain.
Although all theories or explanations of the
world are based on simplification and abstrac-
tion, it is important to be aware of the limi- Figure 3. Breaking down boundaries: merging society
tations and dangers of such abstraction. The and economy and opening up to the environment
over-simplification into the three separate sec-
tors of economy, environment and society risks
ignoring the richness and multi-layeredness of materials and energy between human activi-
reality; giving precedence to the present domi- ties and the environment and both constantly
nant economic and social relationships; seeing interact with each other (Figure 3).
the economy as a separate part of human activ- One of many possible examples of the
ity and thinking that human activity is sepa- need for an integrated approach is issues of
rate from the environment. All of these are health. The WHO (1997) places ‘health and
impediments to moving towards sustainable sustainable development’ at the centre of the
development. three sector ring model. Health is affected by
the economy–people’s poverty, type of work
or lack of it all have a major impact on
health. Their social circumstances also have a
CHANGE OF VIEWPOINT: BREAKING major impact on health as does the quality
DOWN THE BOUNDARIES of their immediate and wider environment
(Acheson, 1998).
Although the move from three rings to a nested This shift would base sustainable develop-
view is a step forward, it still has limitations. ment on an integrated view and reduce the
An improvement would be to remove the sepa- theoretical justification for trade-offs between
ration of the economy from other human activ- such features as poverty in society or deple-
ities. This separation inflates the importance of tion of resources against growth in GDP in
the market, assumes it is autonomous and does the economy. Instead it would encourage a
not focus primarily on meeting of human needs ‘win–win’ outlook, for example appreciating
whether by the market or other means. We a shift to renewable energy can benefit the
would suggest that human activity and well environment and human well being. Defining
being, both material and cultural, should be the aim as human well being would encour-
viewed as interconnected and within the envi- age seeing discrimination in any form as con-
ronment. Humanity’s well being depends on trary to sustainable development, rather than
the environment, although we should recog- as at present, as undesirable but justified by
nize that the natural world, although it would gains elsewhere. Instead of having a prior-
change without humans, would survive with- ity on the economy, which is a means to an
out us. The same cannot be said for humanity. end, the focus should be on human provi-
The boundary between the environment and sioning and satisfying needs, which may be
human activity is itself not neat and sharp; done in many more ways than those described
rather it is fuzzy. There is a constant flow of within economy.
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
193B. GIDDINGS, B. HOPWOOD AND G. O’BRIEN
Theories of sustainable development stress These principles, futurity, equity, participa-
the need to take a ‘whole systems’ approach tion and importance of biodiversity, would
that appreciates emergent properties, complex- move society beyond present approaches
ity and interactions (Hardi and Zdan, 1997). based on monetary cost/benefit analysis or a
These lead to the need for an integrated and utilitarian view that can justify the suffering of
holistic approach, using analogies with ecosys- some by the benefits of others. Averages can
tems rather than linear systems (Expert Group mask great inequality. A population of 100 peo-
on the Urban Environment, 1996). As Lawrence ple with every person receiving £20 000 has the
(1996, p. 64) points out, sectoral concepts and same average as if one person has £1 million
approaches ‘hinder the definition and applica- and the other 99 have £10 101 but one is much
tion of integrated perspectives’. less equitable and therefore contrary to the
principles of sustainable development.
Basing sustainable development on princi-
PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE ples would mean that similar questions could
DEVELOPMENT be asked about any policy or action. Such ques-
tions might include the following: are benefits
Even the redefinition of sustainable develop- and losses shared fairly, now and in the future;
ment to focus on human well being and remov- is the quality of life improved and in an equi-
ing the separation of economy and society as table manner; do people have an equal access
outlined above still has drawbacks. Nowhere to decision-making; do decision-makers carry
are there clear ethical values or guidelines responsibility for, and feel the effects of, their
to indicate the basis for decisions or what decisions; will the benefits last; does this pro-
are priorities. Sustainable development needs tect or improve biodiversity; will this ecosys-
to be based on principles that would apply tem continue into the future; will our children
to all issues whether they are classified as and grandchildren approve of the decisions
environmental, social, economic or any mix and do the proposals encourage an integration
of the three. Haughton (1999) outlines five of policies?
equity principles:
(i) futurity–inter-generational equity; CONCLUSION: STANDING BACK TO
(ii) social justice–intra-generational equity; MOVE FORWARD
(iii) transfrontier responsibility–geographical
equity; The division of sustainable development into
(iv) procedural equity–people treated openly three separate sectors, environment, society
and fairly–and and economy, which are only partially con-
(v) inter-species equity–importance of biodi- nected, does not produce an integrated or prin-
versity. ciple based outlook. This division reflects the
common approach to the study and descrip-
As sustainable development principles for tion of human life and the world around us,
human relations these can be summarized which is dominated by a multitude of separate
as futurity to give regard for the needs of disciplines. These are partly a product of the
future generations; equity covering social jus- need for detailed study in an area, but also of
tice regardless of class, gender, race, etc or the history of thought in our society.
where they live and participation so that peo- This separation has been shaped by the alien-
ple are able to shape their own futures. A ation of much of human life from the envi-
principle recognizing the importance of bio- ronment we live in, as well as the separation
diversity and ecosystem integrity is also vital. between the production and consumption of
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
194ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY
the means of life. To many people today, goods Friends of the Earth Website. 2001.
just appear in a shop and there is little or no http://www.foe.co.uk [6 February 2001].
Greenpeace Website. 2001. http://www.greenpeace.org/
awareness of where they came from or how
[6 February 2001].
they were made. At the other end of a prod- Grubb M. 1993. The Earth Summit Agreements: a Guide
uct’s life, it disappears into another unknown and Assessment. Earthscan: London.
black box labelled waste. The philosophy of the Hardi P, Zdan T. 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development.
separation of mind and body is a fundamen- International Institute for Sustainable Development:
tal conception of alienation and of separation. Winnipeg.
Haughton G. 1999. Environmental justice and the
Technology is often seen as separate from soci-
sustainable city. Journal of Planning Education and
ety yet it only exists within social and cultural Research 18(3): 233–243.
relationships. HMSO. 1994. Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy.
Sustainable development will require more HMSO: London.
than technical changes at the end of the pipe or Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G. In press. Sustainable
modifications to cost/benefit analysis. It will Development: Mapping Different Approaches.
International Council for Local Environmental Initiative
need a shift in how humans see the world.
(ICLEI). 1996. The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: an
Humans are part of a web of connections Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning. ICLEI:
within what is called the environment and Toronto.
society. We cannot pretend to separate the Jacobs J. 1965. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
impacts of our actions into distinct compart- Pelican: London.
ments. There is a need to overcome the barri- Jacobs M. 1996. The Politics of the Real World. Earthscan:
London.
ers between disciplines to an interdisciplinary
Korten D. 1996. When Corporations Rule the World.
or even trans-disciplinary view of the world. Earthscan: London.
Sustainable development, to have long-term Langley P, Mellor M. 2002. ‘Economy’, sustainability and
meaning, will be an integrated and principle sites of transformative space. New Political Economy
based outlook on human life and the world we 7(1): 49–66.
live in. Lawrence R. 1996. Urban environment, health and
economy: cues for conceptual clarification and more
effective policy implementation. In Our Cities, Our
REFERENCES Future, Price C, Tsouros A (eds). WHO Healthy Cities
Project: Copenhagen.
Acheson D. 1998. Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Levins R, Lewontin R. 1994. Holism and reductionism
Health: Report. Stationery Office: London. in ecology. Capitalism, Nature and Socialism 5(4): 33–40.
Barton H. 2000. Conflicting perceptions of neighbour- Liberal Democrats. 2000. A Strategy for Sustainability,
hood. In Sustainable Communities, Barton H (ed.). Policy Paper 41. Policy Unit: London.
Earthscan: London; 3–18. Little Arthur D. Undated. Realising the Business Value of
Cock M, Hopwood B. 1996. Global Warning: Socialism and Sustainable Development. Arthur D, Little.
the Environment. Militant Labour: London. Lovelock J. 1988. The Ages of Gaia: a Biography of our
County Durham. 1997. The First Three Years of Living Earth. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Sustainability in Action. County Durham Local Agenda Mellor M. 1992. Breaking the Boundaries. Virago: London.
21 Partnership: Durham. Middleton N, O’Keef P, Moyo S. 1993. Tears of the
Daly H. 1992. Steady State Economics. Earthscan: London. Crocodile: From Rio to Reality in the Developing World.
DETR. 1999. A Better Quality of Life: a Strategy for Pluto Press: London.
Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom. DETR: Monbiot G. 2000. Captive State. Macmillan: London.
London. Neumayer E. 1999. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability:
du Plessis C. 2000. Cities and sustainability: sustaining Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Elgar:
our cultural heritage. In Cities and Sustainability: Cheltenham.
Sustaining Our Cultural Heritage, Conference Northumberland County. 2000. Local Agenda 21 Strategy.
Proceedings, Brandon P, Lombardi P, Perera S (eds). Northumberland Council: Morpeth.
Kandalama: Sri Lanka. O’Connor J. 1994. Is sustainable capitalism possible? In
Expert Group on the Urban Environment. 1996. European Is Capitalism Sustainable? O’Connor M (ed.). Guilford:
Sustainable Cities. European Commission: Brussels. New York.
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
195B. GIDDINGS, B. HOPWOOD AND G. O’BRIEN
Pearce D, Markandya A, Barbier E. 1989. Blueprint for a World Health Organisation (WHO). 1997. City Planning
Green Economy. Earthscan: London. for Health and Sustainable Development. WHO Regional
Rees W. 1995. Achieving sustainability: reform or Office Europe: Copenhagen.
transformation? Journal of Planning Literature 9(4): WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University
343–361. Press: Oxford.
Rowell A. 1996. Green Backlash. Routledge: London.
Shiva V. 1998. Biopiracy: the Plunder of Nature and
Knowledge. Green: Dartington. BIOGRAPHY
Wackernagel M, Rees W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint.
New Society: Gabriola Island, Canada.
West Midlands Round Table. 2000. Quality of Life: the Bob Giddings, Bill Hopwood (corresponding
Future Starts Here. West Midlands Round Table for author) and Geoff O’Brien work at the Sustain-
Sustainable Development: Solihull. able Cities Research Institute, Newcastle upon
Workshop on Urban Sustainability. 2000. Towards Tyne, UK.
a Comprehensive Geographical Perspective on Urban Correspondence to Bill Hopwood, Sustain-
Sustainability. Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ.
able Cities Research Institute, 6 North Street
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) Website. 2001. http://www.wbcsd.ch
East, Newcastle upon Tyne NE6 2JF, UK.
[6 February 2001]. Tel.: 0191 227 3108
World Economic Forum (WEF) Website. 2001. Fax: 0191 227 3066
http://www.weforum.org [6 February 2001]. E-mail: william.hopwood@unn.ac.uk
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 187–196 (2002)
196You can also read
