The double negative approach to sustainability

Abstract

Thirty years after Bruntland there is still no consensus on how sustainability should be defined. This is due to the multiplicity of value laden meanings, tradeoffs between goals, the political aspects of goal prioritization and the variance over time and place in perceptions of challenges. In the recent two decades, a double negative approach has gradually been accepted. That is, rather than defining what sustainability is, the emphasis has shifted to definitions of what is unsustainable, thereby identifying safe and just spaces, which can be viewed as sustainable states. In this paper, we review the evolution of the double negative approach, arguing that it can be generalized.We show this approach is scalable and adaptable, as it allows for the introduction of additional dimensions as a function of scale, sector and setting. To operationalize this approach we propose a method to identify red lines that serve as benchmarks for safe and just spaces.

Which Local Jurisdictions Are Environmental Policy Entrepreneurs? Insights from Israel

“…Multiple studies sought to characterize city initiatives and policies in the context of sustainability [7,42]. However, due to the multiple facets of sustainability and hence the inability to agree on a single definition [62], cities are ill-equipped to tackle such issues, thereby inhibiting the implementation of such policies [21]. Therefore, in this study, we focus exclusively on environmental policies.…”

Unlocking the evaluation of university‐business collaborations on sustainable regional development: A comprehensive review and framework for place‐based policy initiatives

“…In addressing the first question, there is recognition that measuring the impact of initiatives focusing on sustainable regional development can be challenging due to the flexibility and ambiguity of the notion of ‘sustainability’ (Baumgartner & Korhonen, 2010; Feitelson & Stern, 2023; Hernandez, 2021). The notion of sustainability is contested within both the natural and social sciences, with scholars debating the role of natural systems, economic growth (or de‐growth), resource exploitation and the prioritisation of these factors in forming strategies for sustainability (Chammas et al, 2020; Christen & Schmidt, 2012; Geissdoerfer et al, 2018).…”

“…The challenge for those evaluating UBCs for sustainable regional development, therefore, is that stakeholders might claim their actions as sustainable without justifying this in an objective manner: the so‐called “anything‐goes” mentality (Christen & Schmidt, 2012: 401). The flexibility and ambiguous nature of ‘sustainability’—and/or its corollary of the more‐or‐less indefinite absence of a single, universally‐agreed meaning and set of standards for this term—thus creates an epistemological challenge for those looking to evaluate the outputs and impact of UBCs for sustainable regional development, with diverse conceptualisations of what constitutes ‘successful’ outcomes for sustainability (Feitelson & Stern, 2023). Where the (exact nature of the) goal is open to wide, and even contrasting, interpretation, it is hardly surprising if discussion on the best means, or forms of knowledge, proves difficult to unify.…”