Talk:Sustainable development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject International development (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Systems (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.


It's worth noting somewhere that the term "sustainable" or "sustainability" is heavily deprecated among Greens and especially Gaians for implying some kind of steady-state output.

In other words, ecological yields vary sometimes, and can be maximized but will still vary considerably with weather patterns, insect migration paths,soil transacttions and windmils-- (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)-- (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC) and etc... they can't be made as uniform as outputs of a factory - which almost seems to be the goal of "sustainability".

Also, to say something is "sustainable" or "not" implies that there is some actual test for it. Which there isn't. It's all a matter of scenarios and guesses.

The "Limits to Growth" type of numerical modelling, largely discredited now, was the actual origin of the "sustainable" paradigm. According to Hasna (2007)Sustainability is a process, which tells of a development of all aspects of human life affecting sustenance, It means resolving the conflict between the various competing goals, it involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity famously known as three dimensions (triple bottom line) with is the resultant vector being technology, hence it is a continually evolving process; the ‘journey’ (the process of achieving sustainability)is of course vitally important, but only as a means of getting to the destination (the desired future state). However, the ‘destination’ of sustainability is not a fixed place in the normal sense that we understand destination.

Hasna A M, Dimensions of sustainability, Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Development: Energy, Environment, and Health, Volume 2: Number 1, 2007, pages 47-57

Today ecologists are far more concerned with homeostasis, keystone species, and homeorhetic process, none of which benefit much from external measures of "sustainability".

Complex problem. Don't pretend to have an answer or a clear altnerative term.

"is by one definition" or "according to one definition" is unnecessarily wordy prose. The fact that the definition is in Wikipedia implies that is the Wikipedia definition unless otherwise cited such as what is done later in the entry by saying it’s the UN definition. It also is implied that it is one definition. It’s like writing a paper and starting it off, "The following is a paper I wrote…" -- oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 18:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The term "sustainable" should be replaced, as it's being stretched so much as to be practically meaningless. Today, BBC Radio 4 (Mar 16, 2008) reported that thousands of UK Post Offices are to be closed because they are not [economically] sustainable ... then went on to comment that they have an important role in the sustainability of rural communities. The French say développement durable in preference to développement soutenable - so why shouldn't we find another word for "sustainable"? NinthLifeCat (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


I did a lot of changes, lets discuss any problems that may have crept in from my edits here if you'd like. I think I expanded the concepts but I am sure that better phrasing could be done that is equally clear but more succinct. --ShaunMacPherson 09:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you have improved the article considerably, Shaun. I've edited the first few paragraphs, fairly stringently. I hope that my edits build on what you have started. Sunray 06:11, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

I think governance needs to be included into this breakdown of sustainable development because it is only through a more open, participatory and effective framework of governance that sustainable development can be attained. What are your thoughts on this?? Kvandermeer

VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?[edit]

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
(2) Rank of country’s HDI;
(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?



E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Limits to Growth and all that[edit]

It seems a bit hard to say LTG is 'discredited' when this insn't consistent with the W. entry. the 1970's critics no doubt had lots of good points but they are stuck with the uncanny accuracy of the model so far (ie 30 years later!). It doesn't after all predict armageddon until 2030.

The original Brundtland report is largely about short term decisions to alleviate the agony of poverty that only make the future worse by ruining some aspect of the underpinning environment. this problem of misinformed inter temporal trade-off seems to have got rather lost in this entry. It isn't immediately evident what indices have to do with managing this issue - though they of course have many other important uses in developemnt policy

Page reeks of MSY and equilibrium thinking. Not good[edit]

I don't think of LTG as discredited unless you are referring to the Ehrlich/Simons bet. The price of natural resources is set by the cost of extraction which has gone down in real terms because the price of oil has stayed low. The price of oil has gone up recently and so has the price of minerals.

The page talks about renewable resources when it should talk about all resources. Renewable resources do not give the full picture. It really should talk about limiting resources. When limiting resources are overused their supply per capita goes down. When it goes down below the minimum threshold necessary to support a society, the society collapses. See Diamond for examples, or think hard about soil and water.

To only mention renewable resources is to ingnore most of the problem. To mention the equilibrium point is to take an MSY approach which assumes predictability in the resource and a good understanding of its variability. This should approach usually fails. Look at American Atlantic fisheries as an example of bad fishery management from an MSY perspective.


Added a link to Sustainable National Income Colignatus 19:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Holy crap there's a lot of external links. Would someone familiar with the subject go through and remove the ones that don't need to be there? Isopropyl 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that! I'm going to try to weed out blatent junk, but if someone more familiar with the topic could review what's left I'd appreciate it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sustainable development in the Amazon[edit]

As this is such a important issue, i ask why it hasn't come up before. This links the Environmental section more with up to date issues. -- 09:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)andy2808

p.s feel free to edit some of it but i personally think it should be in there... :D

Sustainable "D"evelopment[edit]

I believe the "d" should be capitalized as "D". This is the correct way to write Sustainable Development (SD). Black Mamba 11:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak vs Strong Sustainability, Deep Ecology and other pertinent info[edit]

This article is, quite frankly, pretty bad. A large amount of important information is missing. There is no discussion of the concepts of weak and strong sustainability, no discussion of Deep Ecology, no discussion of anthropocentrism and virtually nothing on the major international conferences, such as Rio and Johannesburg, that focused on sustainable development. There isn't even much from the Brundtland Report which virtually is the founding document for the sustainable development movement. I am going to begin inserting these topics into the article, though I certainly can't do it alone. It would be nice if a few other individuals with some knowledge of this topic would help. --The Way 03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"See Also"[edit]

The 'see also' list is rather long, perhaps we should remove terms that aren't absolutely essential... --The Way 03:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In Need of Overhaul[edit]

All right, I've made some substantial alterations to both the introduction and the section on environmental degradation. However, I personally feel that the layout of the page is quite poor and the article could use a complete overhaul. Does anyone have ideas as to a better, more informative outline? New topics are certainly needed. Perhaps sections with the following titles: Sustainable Social Development, Sustainable Economic Development, Sustainable Environmental Development, Trade-offs, Sustainable Development Policy in the Domestic Arena, Sustainable Development Policy in the International Arena, International Conferences, Theory. Any other ideas? --The Way 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Referring to "Sustainable Social Development", "Sustainable Economic Development", "Sustainable Environmental Development" is contradictory. Considering only one can never be sustainable. All three must be considered simultaneously pervasively. For example, reword the introductory paragraph:
"The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and sociopolitical sustainability".
to something like
The field of sustainable development seeks to understand the interaction of environmental, economic and socio-political aspects of development and develop integrative practices which lead to sustainability. K (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "examples of Sustainable Development"

or unsustainable development (e.g. increase in GDP on account of oil pollution on a coastline bringing in aid money for cleanup operations - not to imply that more oil spills will be good for the economy ...).

solar power?[edit]

why is "Sustainable Development" reserbed for solar power?Θ

First sentence[edit]

The article begins "Sustainable development is an umbrella . . . ." Obviously it isn't. The term "sustainable development" may be a metaphorical unbrella for several related concepts, but "sustainable development" itself is not. Saying that sustainable development is an unbrella is like saying George Bush is a name -- accurate at some level but not very informative.

I am sorry if this is the wrong point to make a suggestion but I cannot see a way to make a new post. The current definition (first sentence) contradicts the explanations given below it. I am refering in particular to the part: "...while preserving the environment...". This definition is very "environment-heavy" and completely blocks out the social and economic parts of S.D., which are then discussed below. (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First line[edit]

"Sustainable Development is an (sic) term used by its proponents..." If this is the case, what do its opponents call it? I think this article could do with a serious revision.

Hullaballoo84, 11.33, 29th November 2006.

I see you've corrected the spelling, so what of the content? Hullaballoo84 16:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Architecture is important to SD because buildings must be designed much more energy efficient and able to take advantage of passive solar, rainwater capture, etc. --Skyemoor 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


THis article has a major NPOV problem in that it is written as though the beliefs of sustainable development proponents are the only opinion. There is no serious discussion of alternative views, criticism or the feasability of the statements... it is just one side represented. (RookZERO 03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

No problem. Just pitch in and write a criticism section. However, bear in mind that the majority of readers will want to know what "sustainable development" is. Sunray 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, RookZero may not understand that "sustainable development" is an argument tool where alternative views, criticism or the feasabilities of each side are represented. - HRS IAM 01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Sustainability?[edit]

Arkuat placed a tag on this article asking if it should be merged with Sustainability. He may not be aware, but this subject was discussed within the past year on the latter article's talk page. There was consensus that the two articles should not be merged. Thus I am removing the tag.Sunray 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say don't merge. But, by the way nice article so far! - HRS IAM 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


The interlocking circles diagram of sustainability shown in this article is based on the idea that sustainability can be viewed in terms of 3 dimensions: economic, social, and environment.

This 3-element approach is a discussion in its own right however the problem with the interlocking circles model is that if perpetuates a vision (and a worrying one) that economy, society, and environment, can be seen as stand alone elements in the sustainability debate. It fails to recognise that economy is part of society – a human manufactured thing, and both society and economy are subsystems of environment. The diagram should be one where economy sits inside a social-circle, and the social circle sits inside the environment.

The interlocking circles model creates a vision of being able to play around with the size of the circles independently of each other ignoring dependencies. This may be a view held by those who think the economy can go on growing forever and is not dependent on environmental constraints, but it is a mistake to suggest that this view of sustainability is the only credible view, or that it is a view that will in fact turn out to be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donclif (talkcontribs) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen these two models contrasted. We need another diagram made. Will see if I can find the sources.
... It looks like the source was Ecological context of development : New Zealand perspectives by Marjorie van Roon and Stephen Knight. Will have to have a look at the book. Richard001 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Added a diagram request - this is a pretty easy one to make. Also note that "placing the economy in the centre does not mean that it should be seen as the hub around which the other sectors and activities revolve. Rather it is a subset of the others and is dependent upon them." (Giddings et al, 2002)

A good reference for the diagram is: Adams, WM 2006, 'The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century', The World Conservation Union, January 2006. Adams goes over the main representations (interlocking circles, concentric circles etc) and gives a good explanation of the problems with the interlocking circles model. The other point is that even with the Adams article and the concentric circles diagram, it represents society and economy as somehow clearly distinguishable from Nature (or 'environment' as these models tend to label it), a contention that some would argue (Naess for example) makes no sense and to picture society and economy in this way is one of the underlying problems we have from a sustainability perspective. This view would see any lines of demarcation between society, economy, and environment fade away to nothing, with a single figure (box, circle, whatever..) labeled "Nature" and within it words such as "human socioeconomic system" with no borders surrounding it. This may however be too much for some people as yet as it is hard enough just getting the concentric circles model accepted over the interlocking circles version - maybe one step at a time.... . comment added by Donclif

Different meanings of sustainable development[edit]

Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely.

However, in the term sustainable development, the 'sustainable' part doesn't mean sustainable as defined above at all. In fact, it is necessarily an unsustainable process. Here it means 'that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future'.

I'm not sure why the word 'sustainability' was ever used in this way (well, I suspect it is because unsustainable development doesn't have such a great ring to it), but we should be very careful not to mislead the reader. It must be made very clear that 'sustainable' does not mean 'sustainable' (it's doubleplusconfusing, I know). Richard001 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to explain this as best I can in the lead, as I think it's important that someone that only reads the lead section doesn't come away confused. Hopefully it's reasonably accurate and understandable. Richard001 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Bravo. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental technology template[edit]

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

social / cultural sustainability[edit]

is there really a difference here? don't all societies have a culture weather they think they do or not, e.g. americans? or maybe a society is considered a political entity? with one or more possible cultures? and a culture can cross political boundaries. if so, why is it not political sustainability? it seems they were trying to get across both political and cultural sustainability with one word and with that they've upset peoples who've had their culture threatened in recent times. hopefully they'll make this more clear in future declarations and remove the vague word "society." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nations or Notions?[edit]

"The concept has included nations of weak sustainability, strong sustainability and deep ecology." is the first sentence in the "Scope and Definitions" section. I made what I assumed was a minor edit, changing the word nations to notions. I assume from the text that "weak sustainability" etc are notions that form part of the concept. This change was reverted immediately by another author.

To avoid starting some trivial edit war, and because I'm not an expert in the field, I'll merely note the probable mistake in the page here and invite someone with more knowledge of the topic to make the change if appropriate. Brendan Cosman (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Critique from anti-Western Culture perspective[edit]

As much as a section such as this one would be important to this article, I removed it. In its current form it is as good as mockery; and thus unencyclopedic and in contrast to various Wikipedia customs; it has also been kept in its current form for quite a while, and there's no mention of it being a work in progress or otherwise the basis to a worthy section. (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"resultant vector being technology"[edit]

What does this phrase mean? (4th paragraph under Scope and Definitions) K (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition is vague[edit]

Is SD only defined in lofty political or ideological terms, or is there also a practical (measurable) definition? I'm an engineer, so I want to know by looking at facts and figures whether a particular company or country is "sustainably" managing/developing its resources.

How is sustainable development comparable to "conservation"? Is SD the same as "making sure we don't use up the resource"? For example, suppose there is a specific area of the ocean where there are many fish. If fisherman cooperate to ensure that always leave enough mommy and daddy fish so that enough baby fish will be created to sustain the population, would this be sustainable development?

Or if a logging company made sure to plant enough trees when harvesting timber, so that the acres of forested land (or at least the cubic feet of timber) was increasing (not decreasing), is this sustainable development?

How about this definition:

  • Sustainable development of a resource means managing it in such a way that it can be used without being depleted. For example, fishing or forestry which increases the population of fish or trees (see sustainable management).

I just want to know. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Sustainable Development is contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A point i tried to add yesterday. (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the 2nd law but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This argument needs expert references... Couposanto (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

–== Rethink Sustainability ==

Conventionally, sustainability is protectionism which originates from our fear for sustaining in this beautiful planet called earth. Necessity is mother of invention. As a matter of fact we have started worrying about human impacts on climate and found out few terminologies like global warming, climate change etc. I believe that there is nothing to worry about. In billions years of history, earth is more sustainable than us. Trees are most ancient and more sustainable than us. They survived being the most suitable and a part of earth’s ecological systems. They are the foundation stones of life on earth. Every other creature is just the part of a series developed by trees directly or indirectly depends on them only. They are so rigidly and strongly connected with entire ecology and control our atmosphere and life as a whole; no other creature can challenge their dominance. Being anthropocentric till date even while thinking about sustainability we think of being most advanced version of this whole system taking responsibility of saving this planet rather than thinking just a small entity created by trees. We cannot overwhelm the rules created by them. I believe that system created by trees and earth together is sustainable in itself and more superior than we could think of. It is not possible to change or control its rules. Because, it is in itself the most sustainable policies they have already created millions years before. We just need to understand it and accept it. There is nothing to worry about climate change and global warming; because they are just temporary effects. We just need to feel happy about being a part of sustainable world. It is not about taking measures to save this planet with the base of worry and fear. It is about understanding our own existence as a part of this billion year old system. Don’t worry, be happy and enjoy sustainability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transvaluation (talkcontribs) 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable development coarses[edit]

A new section should describe where sustainable development is taught. This includes eg centres as Centre for Alternative Technology, Kinsale College of Further Education [1], ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Business Case for Sustainable Development[edit]

Minor change, realise to realize. Greenopedia (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Add case study from May-June 2011 Environment magazine of planned “Ganghwa Tidal Power Plant” in South Korea?[edit]

Add case study from May-June 2011 Environment magazine of planned “Ganghwa Tidal Power Plant” in South Korea ... A Conflict of Greens: Green Development Versus Habitat Preservation – The Case of Incheon, South Korea by Yekang Ko, Derek K. Schubert and Randolph T. Hester ? See curious example in Figure 1: Comparison between Sustainable Development versus Green Growth; and Songdo International Business District. (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See Tidal Power. (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted "Inefficient Development"[edit]

I have deleted the words "(Also referred to as Inefficient Development)" in the first line. I have never heard of SD being referred to as "Inefficient Development" and find the term to be highly problematic. Schaltegger et al would actually argue that eco-efficiency increases both economic and environmental efficiency and thus may lead to SD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai Hockerts (talkcontribs) 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing File:Gletscherschmelze.jpg photo[edit]

Unless there are any objections, combined with a serious, non-biased counter-argument, I will be shortly removing this photo from this article. The photo states "The retreat of Aletsch Glacier in the Swiss Alps (situation in 1979, 1991 and 2002) due to warming." This has nothing to do with sustainability, but rather is an attempt to place global warming into the sustainability argument. If you want to argue warming as a sustainability argument, then come up with credible sources. All other photos in this article fit into the sustainability argument and flow of this article. This one sticks out like a sore thumb as an attempt to invoke a biased view. 10stone5 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Removed Gletscherschmelze.jpg -- [[Image:Gletscherschmelze.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The retreat of Aletsch Glacier in the Swiss Alps (situation in 1979, 1991 and 2002) due to warming.]] 10stone5 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies[edit]

Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns[1] I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've improved the description. Prokaryotes (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes: Since it was deleted with no discussion of specific reasons here, I am replacing it. Tim AFS (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
My edit was in response to your image question. I'm not sure where carbon neutral fuels or energy topics belong, though mentioning of technologies appears reasonable. See Environmental technology and Sustainable engineering Prokaryotes (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues[edit]

I've added the "multiple issues" tag to the article. The most obvious problem I see is the addition of vague references to "Circles of sustainability." I've yet to find a reliable source on this concept and there appears to be a fair amount of original research that attempts to link it with various UN programmes and conventions. I'm thinking that the article should be reverted to an earlier version prior to the addition of this concept. The alternative would be to go through the article line by line and source by source. I'm in favour of the former approach as it seems much simpler. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you have been making accusations of OR and SYNTH, would you care to state the specifics? Tim AFS (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you read WP:OR? Sunray (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sunray, please be more specific before you set page notifications. It is unclear what you refer to as "obvious problems", thanks. Also notice that the mentioning of various UN affords has been part of the history of sustainability and this article (and the Circles of Sustainability) before recent edits took place. Prokaryotes (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that the problems in this article go back a long way and are not even related to your recent edits. Do not remove the "multiple issues" tag, though. I have described the problem, above. I will be adding more specific tags to the article. Sunray (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Good, if you look at my edits and find something which needs discussion, please mention it here and i will try to further improve the content. It is not enough to just place a general notification on the page, you need to address the parts on a case by case basis, so that i can look at it. I acknowledge that both articles sustainability and sustainable development need further improvements. Some of the content of SD has been vandalized with false data. Further did both articles were written as if there is a conflict between a 3 domain approach or 4 domain approach. When the four domain approach is the general assumption since 1992. I could not find credible content which supports the theory that there is a conflict. See also the history section in this regards. However, i tried to avoid any definition which claims a four domain approach is the rule. It is just the most official identification of sustainable development. ( 1987 Brundtland Commission -> 1992 Agenda 21 -> 2001 Millennium Declaration and then in recent times Earth Summit (Rio+ 2012)) In this regards see also the article outline of sustainability (And the PDF linked there under the image . Prokaryotes (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I now see that you were not claiming that the three pillar and four pillar approaches are equivalent. I may have misjudged your intent. However, I saw that you moved the "Circles of Sustainability" (four pillar) graphic to the article lead. This seems out of sync with what you are saying here. Would you be able to explain? Sunray (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the image description clear enough now? Also, the depiction of the four fields are in line with the UN Agenda 21 goals and in line with the majority of scientific papers. "This broader outlook, which views sustainability challenges as arising from conflictualelements within interconnecting economic, ecological, political, and cultural domains,heavily informs the approach adopted here"[1] Prokaryotes (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
We might also need an article for "sustainability governance". And notice that the sustainability article currently only features images based on three model approach, sourced by a think tank (Cato Institute). Prokaryotes (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem I see isn't whether the image description is clear or not. I can't find evidence that the "four pillars" approach has much prominence in the field of sustainability. I'm still looking into this, but so far I note that the four elements were named in UN Agenda 21, but most of what has been written about the four elements is the work of a group of consultants in Australia. I'm not seeing much academic work on this. So it comes down to a question of WP:WEIGHT. If I'm mistaken, please point me to some reliable sources. Sunray (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The 4 pillars is part of a UN programme, Btw. someone changed the section sorting, and i adjusted the domain section. prokaryotes (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes I saw that. I'm talking about WP:WEIGHT. We need to discuss sustainable development with due balance given to the various sources on the subject. Sunray (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In fact there is academic work other than from the UN, here prokaryotes (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that you are on the right track to go to Google Scholar to see what has been written about the "four pillars." However, a closer look at some of those references shows that authors often make up their own "four pillars":
  • The first reference, for example, is "The Four Pillars of Sustainable Urban Transportation." The four pillars are: "effective governance of land use and transportation; fair, efficient, stable funding; strategic infrastructure investments; and attention to neighbourhood design."
  • The second reference, "Sustainable Construction" states: "Principles of sustainable construction are developed and divided into four ‘pillars’ - social, economic, biophysical and technical."
So, you see, determining how prevalent Agenda 21's four pillars are will be more difficult. From my own knowledge of the field, I can venture to say that the four pillars of Agenda 21 are not all that prevalent compared to the three pillars and the triple bottom line. So the article is going to have to address that in order to meet WP:WEIGHT. Sunray (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you link me to the reference for the "triple bottom line" approach you mentioned? Generally, i have nothing against the addition of adding info about different approaches, and the current "Domains" section is clear in this regard. However, the "UN" four pillar or domain approach appears so far as the most widely and accepted approach, since it is used in UN programmes. prokaryotes (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There are references in the Triple bottom line article. Would you please show me some references as to why you think that the four pillar approach is "the most widely and accepted approach?" The three pillars approach is pervasive in the field. Sunray (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Why the four domain or pillar approach appears to be more widely used? 1) UN uses it. 2) Article has almost nothing to offer about triple approach (add them?) and/or add context to the different approaches. Also notice the page you link states "Triple bottom line incorporates the notion of sustainability into business decisions", thus it is a specific kind of model. Hence, it belongs under the Business section. prokaryotes (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Engineering emerging technologies[edit]

Tim AFS once again added this section to the article. I had removed it on March 18 with the edit summary: "Removed OR: Specifically WP:SYNTH)." I don't have time to do a tutorial on WP:SYNTH, so I will just mention that the section was the subject of an RfC on the talk page of the "Sustainability" article. In that RfC Tim AFS asked the following question:

"Is it appropriate to include short sections marked as incomplete with {{expand section}} templates describing, wikilinking to, and citing appropriate sources for carbon-neutral fuel, airborne wind power, and compressed air energy storage here in the Sustainability and in the Sustainable development articles?"

The result was:

"There is a clear consensus, that the proposed sections are not appropriate for this article."

Despite the RfC and my explanation that it was WP:SYNTH, Tim AFS has seen fit to add this section to this article (albeit without the "{{expand section}}" tag). Simply put, this section is WP:SYNTH because the statement made: "Engineering of emerging technologies supports the ecological aspects of sustainable development..." is not stated by a reliable source. Rather it is Tim AFS who is making the claim and citing sources that describe these various "emerging technologies." Thus the statement is original research. I've removed the section for these reasons. I request that it not be re-added to the article except through consensus to do so on this talk page. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added Environmental technology, Environmental engineering, and Ecological engineering as "see also", which was suggested in the past RfC discussion. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).