Abstract
It is possible to frame sustainability as occurring when the global or local system is within a set of limits and boundaries, such as the concept of safe operating spaces within planetary boundaries. However, such framings, whilst highly useful conceptually, have been difficult to translate into operation, especially in the development of policies. Here we show how it is possible to define a safe operating space, bounded by sets of constraints. These constraints can be of a variety of forms (e.g., income, or biodiversity), and, importantly, they need not all be converted to a single common metric such as money. The challenge is to identify a set of policy options that define the “safe policy space” which maintains the system within the safe operating space defined by boundaries. A formal methodology, Co-Viability Analysis (CVA), can be used to do this. This provides a coherent framework to operationalize sustainability and has a number of extra advantages. First, defining a safe policy space allows for a political choice of which policies and so is not prescriptive—such as would be the case if a single policy option were defined. Secondly, by allowing each boundary to be defined with its own scale of measurement, it avoids the necessity of having to value natural capital or ecosystem services in financial terms. This framework, therefore, has the potential to allow decision-makers to genuinely meet the needs of their people, now and in the future.
Highlights
The concept of “sustainability” has a long history in many cultures, associated with stewardship and maintaining access to resources [1]
We formally define the boundaries of the safe operating space in line with the Brundtland definition of sustainability, as the irreducible set of basic needs identified by society, related to the economic, social and environmental dimensions, and necessary to maintain its development without compromising subsequent generations
The difficulty of defining sustainability operationally—due to sustainability’s three dimensions—has implicitly created the conditions whereby it is seen as a costly constraint to economic growth
Summary
The concept of “sustainability” has a long history in many cultures, associated with stewardship and maintaining access to resources [1] It was crystallized in the Brundtland Report in 1987 [2] as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”. The three dimensions cover a range of potential variables, each with their own problems of how to measure them This creates a condition of such operational inexactitude that it is difficult to imagine how the Brundtland concept can be used operationally in policy formulation. In order to simplify operationalizing the concept of sustainability, policy-makers often weight the three dimensions. Converting “ecology” into “natural capital” so it can be incorporated into economic decisions is problematic, uncertain, and arbitrary
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
