Sustainability - The Need, Problem, and Value of Definition

In an APA Sustainable Community Planning Interest Group LinkedIn discussion, Daniel Lerch prompts us with the question “which definition of "sustainability" do you use?” Daniel posed this question in the context of its emerging importance as the Interest Group moves towards becoming a Division along with other recent developments that he summarizes. Daniel notes the reticence of many to participate in the “definition” debate because it has a tendency to be unproductive; but he also notes the increasing need for a definition as the stakes grow. His key questions are as follows. “What definition --or formulation-- of "sustainability" do YOU find most useful? Do you think APA should develop a once-and-for-all definition of "planning for sustainability,” or "sustainable community planning," or another term? Should it be left flexible and undefined? What are the pros and cons of these possible directions?” My short answers follow in a comment on the Linked In site and below. A longer response, which explores various aspects and implications of sustainability’s definitional challenge, is available here.

I believe an effective definition of sustainability (accurate, powerful, flexible, aspirational, and operational) is essential for success for two reasons. First, if one does not know where one is going, one cannot get there nor even recognize if one has arrived. Second, definition is the first step in learning. Collectively embracing the task of definition forges a common framework, experience, and language that is required for collaborative communication and effectiveness. I believe that the sustainability success we need (massive transformation of economy and society in a short time before the opportunity effectively disappears for all practical purposes) requires a clear, scientific, replicable, achievable understanding of sustainability, and its opposite, unsustainability.
Daniel, my responses to your questions follow.

1. What definition --or formulation-- of "sustainability" do YOU find most useful?

I have been pursuing a synthesis for 40 years. The most powerful definition and planning package that I have found is The Natural Step (TNS). The roots of TNS’s operational definition of sustainability lie in ecological science and in a powerful formulation of human needs by the Chilean economist MaxNeef. It is a relatively simple strategic sustainability planning methodology that anyone can use to begin, and that leads to the deepening and on-going collaboration, innovation, and learning that are at the heart of sustainability success. In addition, it is inclusive; other approaches, tools, etc., fit within an overarching strategic framework and planning method.

2. Do you think APA should develop a once-and-for-all definition of "planning for sustainability," or "sustainable community planning" or another term?

Yes, to a once-and-for-all definition. My preference would be for a term that does not initially limit the scope of action or frame of reference to community, since the goal is a sustainable society in the biosphere that is the essential contextual requirement for sustainable communities. Without embracing the larger forces and challenges in novel and effective ways, community sustainability is not possible.
The task of defining sustainability should not be undertaken casually. We should structure it as a process that has high probability of leading to success. It should include a core group at the forefront of sustainability with capacity to forge effective definitions. The effort should begin from the work to date by the many pioneers. The Division should organize it as a co-creation/co-learning event for all interested planners to forge the critical mass of shared understanding to launch the Division. I would suggest beginning with TNS and its genesis, which was a collaborative iterative process of 50+ scientists, 2 years, and 20 iterations of a draft definition that TNS has used successfully for the past 20 years. They did a lot of heavy lifting and it would be a good starting point. The Committee could survey the work of other pioneers, definitions, approaches and synthesize a definition that works for planning. It might consider critically reviewing the definitional component of the existing APA Sustainability Planning Policy Guide and that of the APA PAS Rpt No. 564, Assessing Sustainability-A Guide for Local Governments.

3. Should it be left flexible and undefined?

No. We would have a rudderless ship doomed to a multitude of only tactical maneuvers and fuzzy thinking. Some would argue this approach is the intelligent "crowdsourcing" option. However, I think an option rooted in a powerful, principle-based definition akin to TNS empowers more intelligent and powerful strategic crowdsourcing. Sustainability needs the beacon of a lighthouse now.

4. What are the pros and cons of these possible directions?

Absence of definition or fuzzy definitions undermines success because they do not define direction, routes, or destination sufficiently. Less powerful definitions have a rigidity that can also compromise the effort. An accurate principle-based definition provides directional flexibility and clarity, and enables effective and strategic operational moves akin to a chess master. Arriving at such a definition would be well worth the expense in my mind.

(A longer response, which explores various aspects and implications of sustainability’s definitional challenge, is available here.)