Reinterpreting the Definition of Sustainable Development for a More Ecocentric Reorientation

Abstract

While environmental and social research have generated a large amount of information and data on how values and environmental ethics relate to sustainable development, there are no studies that examine the missing links reflected in the terminology of the sustainable development definition that alienates it from its ecological ethos. This paper reviews the concept of sustainable development that continues to remain vague even two decades after the Brundtland Commission report. It then examines the limitations in the contemporary anthropocentric conceptualization of sustainable development with a utilitarian ethic and argues for a more ecocentric reinterpretation of its definition that is more inclusive and incorporates recognition of the socio-ecological values. The paper concludes with a call for a revised global resolution and a framework for sustainable development based on its reinterpretation that recognizes the interdependence of humans with the rest of the ecosphere.

Sustainable Development: The Role of Scientific Literature in Dutch Municipal Spatial Planning

“…This means that we will start in 1980 when the term sustainable development was first used by the 'World Conservation Strategy' (Hopwood et al, 2005). Seven years later the Brundtland commission published its report 'Our Common Future' (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987), which accelerated the discussion surrounding sustainability (Kambites, 2012;Hopwood et al, 2005;Imran et al, 2011). The Brundtland report also introduced one of the most widely used definitions for sustainable development, namely: 'Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.…”

“…Although widely spread, the definition of sustainability in the Brundlandt report remains quite vague. Imran et al (2011) argues this has been done with purpose to gain political support, as anyone can interpret it the way he or she prefers and thus making it difficult to reject this definition. Aside from the reasoning behind the definition, its vague character has led to a great number of views, interpretations and definitions of sustainable development of which the most important ones will be shortly discussed hereafter.…”

“…The ecocentric view on sustainability is exactly the opposite. Ecocentrists focus on protecting the environment first, whereas human needs come second (Imran et al, 2011). When taking a look at the definition of sustainability in the Brundtland report it is clear that it has an anthropocentric orientation; it focusses on the needs of humans first (Barkemeyer et al, 2014).…”

“…The Brundtland report positioned sustainability and sustainable spatial development in the worldwide centre point of interest (Blewitt, 2008;Imran, Alam & Beaumont, 2011;Christen & Schmidt, 2012;Barkemeyer, Holt, Preuss & Tsang, 2014). And with good reason: sustainable development was, and is, thought to be able to tackle some of the most fundamental challenges mankind is facing (Hopwood, Mellor & O'Brien, 2005).…”

“…Moreover, one of the most profound problems is the gap between international theoretical literature (e.g. Campbell, 1996;Luke, 2005, Imran et al, 2011Kambites, 2012), national professional literature, and the implementation of sustainability via planning practices. Dutch literature for example entails some theoretical notions (e.g.…”