TY - JOUR
T1 - Framing the elusive concept of sustainability
T2 - A sustainability hierarchy
AU - Marshall, Julian D.
AU - Toffel, Michael W.
PY - 2005/2/1
Y1 - 2005/2/1
N2 - Usage of the word "sustainability" is widespread and incorporates a plethora of meanings. After reviewing four extant sustainability frameworks, we propose a Sustainability Hierarchy to structure a broad array of issues that have been associated with sustainability. These issues vary widely in their urgency, severity and uncertainty of consequences, and temporal and spatial dimensions. It categorizes actions some view as unsustainable based on their direct or indirect potential to (i) endanger the survival of humans; (ii) impair human health, (iii) cause species extinction or violate human rights; or (iv) reduce quality of life or have consequences that are inconsistent with other values, beliefs, or aesthetic preferences. Effects considered include impediments to the ecosystem functions that support human life, human health, and species viability. This paper argues that for sustainability to become a more meaningful concept, the many worthy issues in the fourth category (values, beliefs, and aesthetic preferences) should not be considered sustainability concerns. Implications for companies, policy makers, and scientists are discussed.
AB - Usage of the word "sustainability" is widespread and incorporates a plethora of meanings. After reviewing four extant sustainability frameworks, we propose a Sustainability Hierarchy to structure a broad array of issues that have been associated with sustainability. These issues vary widely in their urgency, severity and uncertainty of consequences, and temporal and spatial dimensions. It categorizes actions some view as unsustainable based on their direct or indirect potential to (i) endanger the survival of humans; (ii) impair human health, (iii) cause species extinction or violate human rights; or (iv) reduce quality of life or have consequences that are inconsistent with other values, beliefs, or aesthetic preferences. Effects considered include impediments to the ecosystem functions that support human life, human health, and species viability. This paper argues that for sustainability to become a more meaningful concept, the many worthy issues in the fourth category (values, beliefs, and aesthetic preferences) should not be considered sustainability concerns. Implications for companies, policy makers, and scientists are discussed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13544249624&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13544249624&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1021/es040394k
DO - 10.1021/es040394k
M3 - Review article
C2 - 15757326
AN - SCOPUS:13544249624
SN - 0013-936X
VL - 39
SP - 673
EP - 682
JO - Environmental Science and Technology
JF - Environmental Science and Technology
IS - 3
ER -