See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233436481

Sustainability classifications in engineering: Discipline and approach

Article  in  International Journal of Sustainable Engineering · December 2010

DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2010.500743

CITATIONS READS

32 156

1 author:

Abdallah M. Hasna
Central Queensland University
29 PUBLICATIONS   179 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

teaching and learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdallah M. Hasna on 23 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by:
On: 28 November 2010
Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782909026

Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach

Abdallah M. Hasnaa
a
Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD,
Australia

First published on: 14 September 2010

To cite this Article Hasna, Abdallah M.(2010) 'Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach',
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 3: 4, 258 — 276, First published on: 14 September 2010 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2010.500743
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2010.500743

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering
Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2010, 258–276

Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach

Abdallah M. Hasna*
Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
(Received 26 November 2009; final version received 9 June 2010)

In order to discuss how to advance sustainability in engineering, it is necessary to be clear as to what exactly is the science of
sustainability. The linkage between sustainability philosophy and scientific principles has, in some ways, been
acknowledged in the wider literature. Moreover, the recent scholarship on sustainability in international literature has
focused on providing definitions, policies and methods, though from an engineering perspective, there is an obvious need for
clarity on how the engineering and science community can integrate the science of sustainability into practice. Prima facie,
this article provides an overview of the development of sustainability science through a textual analysis to collate the
underlying discourse and ideology cited in literature. While the number one sustainability challenge is to mitigate climate
change, compiling a definition genesis of sustainability will assist the engineering community in gaining an understanding in
the underlying philosophical frames. The aim of this paper is to analyse sustainability information in the print press,
journals, periodicals and textbooks since publication patterns contribute to our understanding of the cognitive aspects of
scholarly knowledge development.
Keywords: sustainability science; sustainability literacy; social construction; citation
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010

1. Introduction
So, what is the relationship between sustainability and
engineering, if any? Science is aimed at generating true
knowledge; engineering is about changing the world
(Mulder 2004). In addition, the engineering profession is a
practical discipline. Instrumentalist by nature applies science
to achieve an outcome, hence it is identified as having a
critical position in sustainability since it contributes to
improving the well being of mankind, i.e. energy supply,
refining minerals, building roads, etc. Thus, engineering is
classified as being anthropocentric. The focus of this paper is
on sustainability classifications in engineering to enhance the
paradigm shift, a paradigm that consists of a multiplicity of
attributes. This paper responds to a gap in the literature by
explaining what sustainability is for engineering. Currently,
in engineering education, there are a large number of papers
and special journal issues on wide-ranging sustainability
issues; from Universities plans to implementations and an
issue which is becoming a leading theme in education, how
to convince lecturers to introduce sustainable development
into their engineering courses? Boyle (2004) identified
problems in incorporating sustainability into traditional
engineering education such as a lack of textbooks and a lack
of case studies for students to examine. The growing need for
this research stems from the following statement that
underscored deliberations at the Johannesburg Summit of
2002:
In the ten years since Rio 1992, the international community
has spent enormous amounts of money on environmental
research; a veritable avalanche of books, papers and reports
have been published; and armies of environmental
bureaucrats have been appointed. Yet, the world of 2002 is
much less sustainable than the world of 1992. Why?
One of the reasons proposed in this article suggests that the
engineering and science community remain on the
sidelines, with little involvement in the development of
sustainability science (SS). In addition, since sustainability
is both a transdisciplinary and an interdisciplinary
paradigm that consists of a multiplicity of attributes,
blame is being allocated in many directions, with
accusations such as ‘I thought it was your job, not mine’
being thrown around. The thesis of this paper claims that
by understanding the scope of the definitions, the
engineering community will therefore be able to develop
a unique and universal operational definition of sustain-
ability to be applied in respective disciplines, in order to
move beyond compliance issues in terms of environment
protection and conservation and repair the extensive
damage that our development paradigm has wrought upon
the environment and society. The intended aim of this
definitional paper is not to add new philosophical
propositions or publish another document on sustainability
but instead to make sustainability propositions in
engineering clear.

*Email: ahasna@impe.com.au
ISSN 1939-7038 print/ISSN 1939-7046 online
q 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2010.500743
http://www.informaworld.com
 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering
1.1 Dissemination of the concept of sustainability
‘Sustainability’ has become widely accepted as a uniting
and purposeful focus for the twenty-first century
(Batterham 2003). Sustainability theory has gained global
recognition today. The debate over how to define
sustainability is not new. The definitions of sustainability
and sustainable development have become an important
global objective. There has been a variety of research
investigating sustainability, heralding it as the new
industrial revolution in terms of size, scale and
transformation but despite two decades of research on
sustainable development, a general theory of sustainability
grounded on a solid, interdisciplinary framework is still a
gap in the sustainability literature (Mudacumura et al.
2006). To approach the subject of SS, there is a need to first
explore these questions by analysing differences between
applied sustainability, sustainability theory and sustainable
development. Applied sustainability, also referred to as
operational sustainability, generally refers to the ability to
achieve within an existing framework also frequently
recognised as performance based in environmental
sustainability. Sustainability theory considers the system
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
functioning across its major tenets bridging economic,
political, social, cultural, institutional, technological and
spiritual ideas. Related research into operational sustain-
ability is also currently being conducted (Atlee and
Kirchain 2006, Howarth 2007, Sedlbauer et al. 2007, Davis
2009). On the other hand, sustainable development is the
process by which, over time, there has been success in
the management of different capital flows in our economy
on a genuinely sustainable basis (Parkin et al. 2003).
However, applied/operational sustainability, and sustain-
able development, remains a mammoth task for society.
The notion that history never repeats is contradicted
with our traditional reactive institutional responses.
It appears that every time society faces a new problem or
threat, then a new legislative process is introduced that tries
to protect that society from a future reoccurrence
(Romano 2004). Hence, to change the status quo thinking
and doing is the challenge that lies ahead for the scientific
and legislative community because our generation is
charged with an unprecedented responsibility that under-
pins all human activity. To this point, a number of
comparative theories exist: the positivist and the pessimist;
the scientist and the novice; the believer and the sceptic; the
expert and the layman; the righteous and the sinful; the
politicians and the noblemen, all suggesting sustainability
solutions to solve the planet’s problems. Consequently, it
would seem apparent that some attention should be paid to
the question and definition of SS. Is it a reactive remedy?; A
theoretical perspective?; A subject or domain?; A vogue?;
A new craze or something to stay? For this reason, it is
imperative to conduct this investigation to classify SS to
achieve a concise and workable definition of this new
259
domain. The aim of this study is to identify and collate the
cited literature on sustainability. The examination process
entails finding fairly common patterns or dynamics from
multiple cases (Ascher 2007). The investigation was
achieved by reviewing the antecedents of contemporary
scholarship to examine the theoretical progress towards SS.
The results of this investigation will characterise the new
developments to arrive at the current state of knowledge
sustainability.
1.2 Overview of prior research
Recent years have seen a growth in SS research in
response to the upsurge of the sustainability debate
(Kates et al. 2001, Jaeger 2002, Clark and Dickson 2003,
Kates and Thomas 2003, McMichael et al. 2003, Mihelcic
et al. 2003, Reitan 2005, Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006,
Martens 2006, Potschin and Haines-Young 2006,
Clark 2007, Kajikawa 2008). Jointly, the nucleus of SS
is asking: How are long-term trends in environment and
development, including consumption and population,
reshaping nature – society interactions in ways relevant to
sustainability? While this article acknowledges the
previous research debates, the current state of knowledge
requires a classification, an abridgment of SS. Since a clear
and concise description of what is unfolding remains
broad, the broadening focus motivated this research to
collect all the evidence and construct a datum underlying
SS developments. Buoyed by these findings, this paper sets
out to present a review of SSs by exploring an important
driver: the plethora of sustainability definitions and
considerations. Upon completion of this review, the key
findings will provide a common framework supporting the
emerging discipline of SS (Turner et al. 2003). The results
of this investigation are divided into three associated
sections. First, it presents a compilation of published
definitions; the second section provides new linguistic
terms in the print media and discusses the materialisation
of the discipline and approach; and finally, the third
presents a summary of sustainability-related journals
and periodicals. While it acknowledges the cumbersome
task of reviewing all existing publication trends in books,
journals, assessments tools or method of SS and
discourse in the print media, it is noteworthy to mention
their existence.
2. Research methods and results
The present review focuses on descriptive analysis;
consisting of searching, assessing and integrating sustain-
ability scholarly articles, books and other sources such as
dissertations and conference proceedings, thereby pre-
senting an account of what has been published on
sustainability by accredited scholars and researchers.
It begins by reviewing the literature on definitions.
 260
2.1 The anthology of sustainability definitions
The original World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) publication (Bruntland 1987)
invoked public interest in sustainability, posing challenges
such as the management of contractive problems,
acceptance that the world is faced with an environmental
crisis, and the idea that society must make a fundamental
change to overcome the crisis, for example, growth vs.
limits, intergenerational vs. intragenerational equity and
individual vs. collective interests (Dovers and Handmer
1995). The origin of the term ‘sustainable development’ in
contemporary terms is usually credited to the Brundtland
Report (Holden 2008); however, the Bruntland Report was
not an isolated project; it had built on the previous work of
the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972). Furthermore, it
had come together as a joint effort between many
institutions and governments. Essentially, from the time
when sustainability was first popularised by the Brundt-
land Report in 1987 to the present day, numerous efforts
have been made by different groups, organisations and
individuals to capture a common interpretation of the
concept. Meppem and Gill (1998) wrote that few concepts
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
have been applied with less precision and consistency in
policy circles than ‘sustainability’. The concept is now
espoused at all levels of government and industry
throughout the world, though rarely in a uniform way.
This has been noted by some, including (Gell-Mann 1994),
who suggests that, while ‘today many people are busy
writing the word “sustainable” in pencil, the definition is
not always clear’. Additionally, Costanza (1994) asserts
that ‘to a large degree the sustainability concept is not
internalised and the ramifications of internalisation are
poor’. Furthermore, some of the confusion around SS
exists due to the lack of clear-cut information.
The following are examples of some of the criticisms
cited in literature (Costanza 1994, Leal Filho 2000,
Martens 2006):
(1) sustainability is not a subject per se since it is not
classified as being part of the domain of any given
science;
(2) sustainability is too theoretical;
(3) sustainability is too broad for engineering;
(4) sustainability is too recent a field and
(5) sustainability is a fashion accessory.
The review focuses on answering the following research
questions and analysing each of the definitions of
sustainability:
(1) Is a new SS emerging?
(2) Does the literature support the claim?
(3) What is SS?
(4) How is it characterised? Is it a trans-, inter-, or multi -
disciplinary scientific approach?
A.M. Hasna
The word ‘sustain’ has been in the language for
thousands of years. It comes from the Latin sustenare
meaning ‘to hold up’ (i.e. to support). From there, it
evolved long ago to mean ‘to keep something going or
extend its duration’, with an overtone of providing the
support or necessities that made the extended duration
possible, e.g. a sustaining meal; ‘sustain’ to cause to
continue (as in existence or a certain state, or in force or
intensity); to keep up (especially without interruption,
diminution, flagging, etc.); or to prolong. A number of
notable authors have attempted to define sustainability, as
listed in Appendix B and are classified in terms of the year
of publication, the main or first author and a brief
description of the findings followed by an objective
classification of the definition. The Bruntland Report is
considered the modern genesis of the sustainability
movement, and of the papers listed in Appendix B, the
WCED (Bruntland 1987) is the most often cited definition:
‘development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs’.
Perhaps, it is worth noting a key question: Why is
sustainability, as a process, in some contexts so difficult to
understand (Leal Filho 2000)? There are various reasons,
but considering the earlier mentioned collection of
definitions, it is easy to see the reason for the attitude
variation towards definitional sustainability. More impor-
tantly, the broadness was answered by Seager et al. (2004)
who defined sustainability as a shared ethical belief. It is
important to note that more often than not, the concept of
‘sustainability’ is presented as an ideal state. It is also
useful at this point to review some of the more considered
articulations of the sustainability concept. Definitions can
be classified either in positivist or in normative terms.
Keynes (cited in Meppem and Gill 1998) declared that a
‘positivist science may be defined as a body of
systematised knowledge concerning what is; a normative
or regulative science as a body of systemised knowledge
relating to criteria of what ought to be’. Various definitions
have been suggested, which are all very similar, yet are
open to interpretation and still remain somewhat
ambiguous. Leal Filho (2000) reports that the expression
‘sustainability’ has been traditionally used as synonymous
with words such as ‘long-term’, ‘durable’, ‘sound’ or
‘systematic’ among others. Dobson (1998) connected
sustainability to justice: ‘subordinate to justice’. Indeed,
out of the context of the English language, sustainable
development is very often referred to as ‘Développement
durable’ in French, while word-for-word translations are
found in German (nachhaltige Entwicklung), Spanish
(desarollo sostenible) and Portuguese (desenvolvimento
sustentaÂvel).
Sustainability is defined differently within and
between cultures, and its definition has changed over
time. The concept of sustainability is a complex one;
 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 261

Table 1. Institution, ideology and academic versions of sustainability (Mebratu 1998).

Institution Drivers Solution epicentre Solution platform Instruments (leadership)
World Commission on Environment Political consensus Sustainable growth Nation-state Governments and inter-
and Development (WCED) national organisations
International Institute for Rural development Primary environ- Communities National and
Environment and Development mental care international NGOs
(IIED)
World Business Council for Sustain- Business interest Eco-efficiency Business and Corporate leadership
able Development (WBCSD) industry
Ideology Liberation theory Source of environ- Solution epicentre Leadership centre
mental crisis
Eco-theology Liberation theology Disrespect to Spiritual revival Churches and
divine providence congregations
Eco-femininism Radical feminism Male-centred epis- Gynocentric value Women’s movement
temology hierarchy
Eco-socialism Marxism Capitalism Social Labour movement
egalitarianism
Academic discipline Drivers (epistemo- Source of environ- Solution epicentre Instruments (mechanism
logical orientation) mental crisis of solutions)
Environmental economics Economic Undervaluing of Internalisation of Market instrument
reductionism ecological goods externalities
Deep ecology Ecological Human domination Reverence and Biocentric egalitarianism
reductionism over nature respect for
nature
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010

Social ecology Reductionist- Domination of Co-evolution of Rethinking of the social

holistic people and nature nature andhumanity hierarchy

however, it is possible to distil some of its most basic and
general characteristics by adopting a systemic approach.
Acknowledging the lack of an agreed definition of
sustainability, Mebratu (1998) proposed that there were
three main ‘versions’ of sustainability: institutional,
ideological and academic, as shown in Table 1. However,
in considering our search for a definition of SS, the critical
theory and the analysis of institutions, ideologies and
academic perspectives presented in Table 1 underpin the
application of sustainability in its own context. However,
the normative interpretation most widely quoted in
sustainability is that expressed by the WCED (1987).
For the purposes of developing a definition of
sustainability, it is suggested to consider analysing
sustainability literature using a ‘systems model’ approach.
The advantages of such an approach are several; especially
as it provides a wholesome view of the defining activity.
Initially, in defining this ‘system model’, it was considered
a system simply defined as a set of interrelated elements or
subsystems. The elements can be molecules, organisms,
machines or their parts, social entities or even abstract
concepts. Hence, compiling sustainability definitional
literature is considered via the interrelations, interlinkages
or ‘couplings’ between these elements, which may also
have very different manifestations within the system, i.e.
economic transactions, flows of matter or energy, causal
linkages, etc. (Gallopı́n 2001). Similarly, the process of
adapting or acclimatising sustainability definitions is part
and parcel of a system model where contextual
modifications are made at sublevels to achieve an
individualised outcome.
According to Kajikawa et al. (2007), the accumulated
number of publications is increasing exponentially.
Furthermore, the SS approach has evolved over the past
quarter century to its current state, given that science starts
with an object of study, then analyses it in order to
understand it and the analytic results accumulated by
scientists contribute to the development of new scientific
disciplines. As the analytical process advances, its object
of study grows narrower. As analysis becomes more
specific and detailed in its focus, scientific disciplines
themselves become increasingly narrow and specialised
(Yoshikawa 2008). The following transcripts are snippets
of how the domain has evolved in the literature. A number
of notable researchers have provided meticulous studies of
the domain (Kates et al. 2001, Clark and Dickson 2003,
Reitan 2005, Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006) and
concluded that it was not an exclusive domain, rather a
transdisciplinary approach. According to Clark (2007), SS
is not yet an autonomous field. Keiner (2004) provided a
lot of definitions and models for its explanation, ranging
from triangles and prisms to eggs. Kates et al. (2000) and
Kates and Thomas (2003) wrote that sustainable develop-
ment exhibits broad political appeal, but has proven
difficult to define in precise terms. While much literature
made a case and promoted the dawn of the new
discipline/metadiscipline, Mihelci et al. (2003) described
it as a new field of science that seeks to understand the
 262 A.M. Hasna
fundamental character of interactions between nature and
society and to encourage those interactions along more
sustainable trajectories. Matson et al. (2007) described an
emerging field of research which integrates the physical,
biological and social sciences as well as medicine and
engineering. Pachauri (2008) showed its multidisciplinary
themes that examine the scientific aspects, the engineering
aspects and also the social science aspects of a problem.
Fricker (1998) described sustainability as a concept that
has captured our imaginations and aspirations and as a
tangible and identifiable goal that eludes us.
According to Kajikawa (2008), it was noticed that
some sustainability dimensions are related to institutional
definitions in view of the fact that human beings
traditionally have used an ‘adaptation strategy’ under
environmental uncertainty and vulnerability. Adaptation
strategies are classified into three types: institutional,
behavioural and technological. Institutions and their
associated policies are one of the three key dimensions
of adaptation to climate change. This institutional strategy
is in agreement with the definitions of sustainability listed
(Mebratu 1998). Although environmental protection,
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
macroeconomic stability, good governance and respect
for human rights, appropriate technology and technical
soundness are all necessary if development interventions
are to continue to yield benefits, they will amount to little
without sustainable institutions (Brown 1998). Insti-
tutional sustainability is therefore no less and in fact, one
could argue, is far more important than the other notions of
sustainability mentioned above, as all these are ultimately
dependent on institutions.
Thus far, literature indicates that aspects dealing with
the value of the environment are conceptualised as nature.
The second is the temporal dimension of intergenerational
equity, and the third is the spatial or social aspect of
intragenerational equity. These aspects relate to the
scientific operationalisation of sustainability from eco-
logical, economic and social points of view, respectively
(Becker 1997). O’Riordan (1988) offers various interpret-
ations of social change that influence the characterisation
of sustainability. According to O’Riordan, there is a
distinction between sustainability and globalisation. He
Table 2. Summary of sustainability science findings.
Taxonomy Component
Knowledge Sustainability definitions
Sustainability periodicals and journals
Comprehension Sustainability-related papers
Application Institutional policy (Kyoto)
Analysis Linguistic reference
World Wide Web presence (search engine)
Synthesis Sustainability degree programmes in OECD
Evaluation Sustainability metrics assessments (indicators)
Sustainability software tools
emphasises how discourse patterns vary from the
disciplinary perspective, i.e. political, ecological, econ-
omic, anthropological, legal and sociological, as shown in
Table 2, to comparative tables for translating this material
into discourses of globalisation and localisation. Although
it would be a cumbersome task to cover exhaustively all
the definitions that are mushrooming from literature, a
growing body of evidence suggests lengthy debates on the
definitions of sustainability. It is offered as normative, and
most of them articulate sharable concepts (Orecchini
2007). The horizon of definitional meanings refers to a
junction of at least five domains: economic, environmen-
tal, technological, institutional and social, which comprise
equity and justice, as well as cultural and spiritual meaning
in equal measure. These considerations of terminology
indicate that there is a strong normative component in the
concept of sustainable development (Becker 1997).
Another angle to view the broad definitional meanings of
sustainability is by evaluating the relationships between
human beings and the planet, human social union and our
moral fabric. The attempt to study the value of
sustainability by relating social benefits of products and
services to satisfying human needs is conceivably best
answered by Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs
(Maslow 1954), which articulated the five levels of
human needs. The common ground between Maslow’s
concept and sustainability is described in the lower order
needs in the pyramid, since it stipulates that higher needs
in the hierarchy only come into focus once all lower needs
are entirely satisfied (i.e. basic needs: sufficient food, clean
water, hygienic living conditions, etc.). Ecological
sustainability rests upon securing the basis of life and
industrial production without compromising the global
long-term functioning of the environment (Von Hauff and
Wilderer 2008). Therefore, sustainability, may be some-
thing more grand and noble, a dynamic, a state of
collective grace, a facet of Gaia, even our spiritual
understanding (Fricker 1998).
Finally, sustainability is a management methodology
of how to prioritise our consumption of resources and
hence minimise our footprint. This opinion was supported
by Anastas and Zimmerman (2003) in ‘The 12 Principles
Number Units
61 Definitions
117 During 2008
3000 Annually
Unlimited Unlimited
35,000 Citations
60 Million
15 Programs
60 2008
21 2008
 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering
of Green Engineering’. Skinner (2004) highlighted the
need for definitions of sustainability and interpretation to
be ones that are everyday workable that embody concepts
of long-term endurance and continuance in spite of
variability and even adversity in the contextual setting.
Bagheri and Hjorth (2007) propose that the major
challenge in dealing with sustainability is to develop a
means for practicing the paradigm in the everyday
planning and management of a society. It calls for
proponents of human, economic, as well as environmental
concerns to join together to provide an everlasting life for
the human species in the global ecosystem. To this end, the
notions of progress and sustainability are twinned concepts
inextricably bound together.
2.2 Sustainability discourse
The main reason periodicals and journals were investi-
gated was to establish sustainability literacy in literature
because the number of citations is usually considered
as one important indicator of the scientific impact
in a particular field. Sustainability Literacy is a term
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
which is usually used metaphorically to refer to the
knowledge and skills necessary to contribute to a more
sustainable society (Stibbe 2007). It is also worth noting
that most major English dictionaries, including the
American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary
and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary have had an
entry for sustainability since the mid-1990s. Garfield
(1973) claimed that because citation frequency is a
measure of research activity or of communication about
research activity, it reveals the impact of a particular
publication or scientist. In addition, according to
Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995), new scientific knowledge
is disseminated within the scientific community primarily
through peer-reviewed journal articles, but the rest of
society becomes informed largely through the mass media.
According to Zimmerman et al. (2001), the popular
print media constitutes a major source of new information
Figure 1. Use of the word ‘sustainability’ in mainstream media (Tomich et al. 2007).
263
about scientific research for the public and for members of
the scientific community outside their areas of expertise.
Hence, the enthusiastic usage of the term ‘sustainability’
in the English language print media according to Tomich
et al. (2007) is significantly increasing. This is illustrated
in Figure 1. Further examples, as seen on the World Wide
Web, reflect a full spectrum of general information,
ranging from minimal or null to highly authoritative. It is
considered an information sea which is still best described
as ‘quantity without quality’. This has made the Internet a
large information ocean (Yunjing et al. 2002). Hence, in
order to establish web usage of the term ‘sustainability’, a
web search on ‘sustainable’ or ‘sustainability’ was
conducted. The search retrieved pertinent information;
however, it did not include any qualitative evaluation or
filtering of the content, although the relevance rankings
offered by some browsers revealed the frequency of the
terms stated in the query. For example, a recent
google.com and yahoo.com search for ‘sustainable’ and
‘sustainability’ retrieved more than 60 and 75 million
records, respectively. Figure 2 presents the number
of papers containing ‘sustainable’ or ‘sustainability’ in
the title or abstract where the black circles and white
circles are the number of annual publications and the
accumulated number of publications, respectively, which
present the birth of SS in a contextual perspective.
Kajikawa et al. (2007) estimated that over 3000 papers are
published in the field annually.
Exploring the linguistic theme, Bastardas-Boada
(2005) describes language as not only defined by its
grammar or its lexis but also by living human cognition,
interaction and identification, in the simultaneous inter-
section of the noosphere, the psychosphere and the
sociosphere. To validate the rising coverage of sustain-
ability in both language and print media, Nash and Bacon
(2006) reported on non-randomly chosen samples of six
English-language newspapers in Southeast Asia, with a
side comparison to a leading Australian newspaper,
regarding their coverage of environmental sustainability
 264
Figure 2. Number of academic published papers (Kajikawa
et al. 2007).
and ecological issues confronting societies locally or
globally, over a limited period of time. It was reported that
the subjects generated more than 5% of the total coverage
for any one paper. From this perspective, Linguistic
Sustainability emerges with the increase of citations
in both the print media and the web. Considering the role
that language and socio-linguistic aspects play in forming
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
social structures, the consequent impact of those structures
on the literacy of society is well supported by social
construction and language and social change theories, as in
Cooper (1989), Nightingale and Cromby (1999), Gergen
(2000), Stibbe (2001), Berger and Luckmann (2002), Burr
(2003) and Fairclough (2003). Therefore, SS is making
advances in popular language and thus supports the
existence of this new domain.
2.3 Sustainability journals and periodicals
In order to ascertain the growth and development of
‘sustainability’ literature in research, this study examined
the contribution made in academic journals, periodicals
and newsletters using an electronic database to gather
citations matching specified keywords covering environ-
Figure 3. Sustainability journals and periodicals in existence.
A.M. Hasna
mental communication topics in literature from relevant
indices. These terms were ‘sustainable’ and ‘sustain-
ability’. The indices used were the Institute for Scientific
Information, Ulrichsweb Abstracts Citation Index (Web of
Science) and Periodical Abstracts (Pro-Quest Direct).
To congregate citations, search word combinations were
used in all the investigations in titles to determine research
output of publicly available literature. It was found that the
terms ‘sustainable’ or ‘sustainability’ were featured in the
titles of 117 journals and periodicals. The data provides
new insights into the developments of this emerging
science field. The data is plotted in a histogram shown in
Figure 3, each block represents the total entries within that
time frame, for example, the period between 2000 and
2005 witnessed a peak of new entries, followed by an
almost 50% less new entries in the next period, indicative
of an emerging area. Furthermore, in a recent review of the
research literature on sustainability simulation models, it
was found that in terms of computational technologies, 21
new software developments were found. These are
illustrated by country of origin, as shown in Figure 4.
Appendix A lists the search results of periodicals launched
to meet both academic and social demands of sustain-
ability since the early 1990s.
3. Discussion
Many educational engineering institutions are moving to
incorporate sustainability engineering into their curricu-
lum but each institution has its own interpretation of
sustainability engineering and its applicability within an
education programme (Boyle 2004). As such, it is
important to consider the dynamics of the discussions of
sustainability definitions and how it may facilitate
engineering involvement. This section begins by review-
ing the ontology for SS. Ontology is a collection of
concepts and relationships; among these concepts in a
specific domain (Badal et al. 2004). Sustainability
ontology has moved from a concept used more as a policy
 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 265

research materialising as a new domain. The New Scientist

Figure 4. Sustainability software listed by country.
guide to a true science state approach with a sound
scientific basis. Furthermore, sustainability ontology can
also be seen as large taxonomies. SS exists in
relationships, and its stature is confirmed by the theoretical
and practical perspectives offered in the definitions,
periodicals and journals, academic qualifications, linguis-
tic developments and metrics. The perceived value of
sustainability as a discipline in the scientific community is
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
Special Report: The folly of growth? (2008) reviewed 12
recent books on economic growth and overconsumption,
and the consequences for environmental sustainability
(Goerner et al. 2008). The New Science of Sustainability
proposes that as a science or discipline, sustainability is, as
one expression of interactions between natural and social
systems, a healing response. According to Holmberg et al.
(1996), by 1994, there were more than 80 different
definitions and interpretations fundamentally sharing the
core concept of the WCED’s definition. According to
Parkin et al. (2003), 200 definitions of ‘sustainable
development’ exist. By the mid-1990s, there were well
over 100 definitions of sustainability (Marshall and Toffel
2005). Hasna (2007) confirmed 61 sustainability defi-
nitions as per Appendix B to hand there seems to be as
many published definitions of sustainability as well as
journals and periodicals that carry either the name
sustainable or sustainability in their titles refer to
Appendix A. That is not to suggest these are the only
published avenues of material dealing with this subject
matter. However, if defining sustainability is difficult,

confirmed by the upsurge of new textbooks and SS journal
titles. The linguistic fluency of the results of these findings
is summarised in Table 3.
The literature is divided into three phases: the mid-
1970s hub which was a response to the limits of growth;
the mid-1980s which observed the emergence of
sustainable development literature; and the mid-1990s
which focused on clarifying the distinction between
sustainability and sustainable development (Hasna 2004).
In this first decade of the twenty-first century, society is
witnessing a fusion of the previous three decades of
putting it into practice is yet to be seen (Parkin et al. 2003).
As for definitional consensus, it is held that sustainability
is not a problem, nor an end point; rather, it is a process and
a vision involving renewed awareness of the natural
environment and interaction with it. According to Becker
(1997), terminology used in the definitions indicates that
there is a strong normative component in the concept of
sustainable development. It is to be expected that SS would
foster sustainable development and will deal specifically
with all four elements of sustainability as outlined earlier.
It therefore becomes possible to state the following: in

Table 3. Discourse patterns that apply to sustainability transition, globalisation and localisation, adapted and modified from O’Riordan
et al. (2001) and O’Riordan and Voisey (1997).

Market Regulatory Equity Revelatory

Myths of nature Expandable Precautionary Breached Negotiated
Social values Limits Limits Limits Limits
Policy orientations Price signals Rules of contracts Equality of opportunity Communication
Distributional Markets By agents of rule-makers By democracy By negotiation
arrangements
Generating consent Compensation By agreed rules Negotiation and By reasoned discussion
compensation
Intergenerationality Future looks Future helped by present Future planned by Future envisioned
after itself present
Liability Spread losses By redistribution Burden sharing By negotiation mechanisms
Globalisation Expandable By agents of role makers Mixed scanning for Evaluation of social
limits vulnerable responsibility
Competitive By common agreement Reliance or global Corporate and governmental
advantage watchdog activities
Localisation Initiative Precaution and Social-local identity Deliberative and inclusionary
pragmatism procedures
Opportunism Links to global standards Local citizenship Social commitments to participatory
through social negotiated by local initiatives through involvement through best value
markets stakeholders social networks procedures
 266 A.M. Hasna
terms of the definitional fragmentation, it is appropriate
to recognise that the character and behaviour towards
sustainability are mainly defined by the individual’s
education: knowledge, background, experience, percep-
tion, values and context (Leal Filho 2000, Hatch and
Schultz 2004, Austgard 2007, Murray and Murray 2007).
Therefore, definitional universality can be achieved by
classifying the existing variety of definitions of sustain-
ability into four major groups, depending on the
constituent representation reflected. These are (a) insti-
tutional systems-based, (b) ideological stewardship ver-
sion, (b) academic version and (c) physical version,
economic, social, natural and technological. However, in
terms of the definitions of the new paradigm, Clark and
Dickson (2003) reported that SS focuses on the dynamic
interactions between nature and society. These two
dimensions, along with economics, form the foundation
of sustainability criteria for assessment. Martens (2006)
wrote SS is academic and social, trans- and interdisci-
plinary, participative, uncertain and exploratory, with its
central elements co-evolution of a complex system and its
environment, co-production of knowledge, co-learning,
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
learning by doing and doing through learning. The
relationship of discipline integration and SS was plotted by
Martens (2006), covering functional and multifunctional
theory as mapped in Figure 5. In addition to the above
definitions, a consensual SS definition is one that
recognises the synergies and constraints among nature,
economic activities and people; it is a tool or methodology
that endorses sustainable practices for meeting funda-
mental human needs while preserving Earth’s life support.
An applied example in support of this newly growing
science domain is that SS has made way into many
reputable education institutions, schools, universities and
governmental agencies as a field of study. For example,
Central Queensland University’s Department of Sustain-
ability incorporates the engineering schools, and the
Victorian Government’s Department of Sustainability and
Environment, and similarly in the United States of America,
Figure 5. Sustainability science trans- and interdisciplinary
(Martens 2006).
Stanford University’s Department of Sustainability and
Energy Management. In addition, at the beginning of the
academic year of 2007, Harvard University commenced a
SS degree programme. Harvard reported that it was seeking
to advance the basic understanding of the dynamics of
human – environment systems, to use that understanding to
facilitate the design, implementation and evaluation of
practical interventions that promote sustainability in
particular places and contexts, and to improve linkages
between relevant research and innovation communities on
the one hand, and relevant policy and management
communities on the other hand.
Another applied example is witnessed in one of the key
heavy industrial areas in Australia, specifically, Gladstone,
Queensland and Kwinana, Western Australia where
sponsorship of synergies and interactions along more
sustainable trajectories is demonstrated. These industrial
areas are home to alumina, nickel and oil refineries, pigment
and chemical plants, aluminium smelters, cement industries,
coal export terminals, power supply and the first commercial
direct reduction iron making plant. These industries have a
traditional collaboration in areas of mutual interest, such as
raw materials and community relations, in addition to safety
and environment. It is also encouraging to see resource
synergies that provide a significant avenue towards
sustainable resource processing via exchanges of by-
products such as water and energy between companies:
one chemical plant’s waste is another plant’s feedstock.
There are also international examples of industrial symbiosis
such as Styria in Austria, Rijnmond in The Netherlands,
Humber in the United Kingdom, Tampico in Mexico, Map
Ta Phu industrial estate in Thailand and Alberta in Canada.
From the definitions and other cited knowledge, it
appears that SS is an interactive attempt among
disciplines. In other words, it is interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary and hence cannot be set into one area. It
is noted that a fusion of interdisciplinary disciplines is
channelled to create SS as known today. This field is
developing at a fast pace where the number of annual
publications is increasing linearly. This was briefly
demonstrated in Figure 2.
Using the evidence of definitional descriptions of
sustainability, this section has established the engineering
context of sustainability. Primarily, the divergence of
definitions evolved from the confluence of many themes
including ecosphere, local and global vision, the
consequences of humanity’s influence on a planetary
scale, human social welfare, human values, knowledge of
ethics over different periods of time, management of
resources (limitation) from cradle to cradle, and social and
cultural context through promotion of social justice and
environmental awareness. As a result, in classifying the
budding mechanism of SS using Bloom’s (1956) six levels
within the cognitive domain of intellectual behaviour to
verify the development of sustainability: knowledge,
 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering
Figure 6. Characteristics of sustainability normative.
critical comprehension and practical application (analysis,
synthesis and evaluation). The notion of Bloom’s
characterisation offers many benefits to elaborate this
theory. It creates a common ground for discussions about
SS goals and objectives and it helps in the steering and
alignment of SS. The structure of the SS concept is
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
illustrated in Figure 6 where the operational/applied
sustainability propositional framework leverages the
founding sustainability dimensions, leading it to policy
shift or new paradigm.
Mind-independent thought compels us to ‘accept the
world as it is’. It is governed by physical laws that are a
reality which recognises the systemic nature of the
universe and gives consideration to the notions of truth.
Knowing that engineering has provided the infrastructure
of human progress, are engineers ethically compelled to
resist contributing to products or services that aid and abet
‘overconsumption’? This includes dissipative use of raw
materials and production of waste at rates higher than
sources or sinks regenerate. High technology engineering
projects (e.g. superhighways, dams and skyscrapers) and
engineered processes (e.g. wastewater treatment) can be
viewed as works exemplifying the goals and progress of
current industrialised society. However, many of our
current engineering practices also contribute to urban
sprawl, loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction,
unsustainable use and conversion of resources and
degradation of essential services that functional, healthy
ecosystems provide (Rosemond and Anderson 2003). For
this reason, new academic programmes are appearing in
academic institutions. These include industrial ecology
and, recently, ecological engineering resembles chemical,
hydrological and other engineering programmes in which
the prefix denotes the discipline specialisation. On a
different note, civil, mechanical or electrical engineering
titles indicate engineering subdivisions based on areas of
application. The ecological engineering title is twice
asymmetric: it indicates a kind of engineering, not science
267
(engineering ecology); and only part of ecological science
has as yet been included in ecological engineering. The
‘civil’ engineering descriptor is defined by its context,
rather than this area being defined by its descriptor. Civil
engineering includes a specialisation with an inappropriate
title, environmental engineering (Painter 2003). Hence, the
profession in general needs to consider minimising
anthropogenic perturbations to natural cycles, especially
cycles of the key elements (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus
and sulphur) of biological life and not just individual
disciplines or sub disciplines. Although the basics of this
concept can be understood by most, understanding
sustainability engineering requires a greater maturity
than that of most engineering disciplines (Boyle 2004).
According to Madea and Hibiki (2008), SS is not only
made up by a single academic field fractionalised as in the
past, but also by problem solving-based approaches.
Therefore, SS is not an autonomous science per se, it is
neither pure nor applied, but it is a practical scientific
subject. It has a functional scientific articulation which
relates to planetary and benevolent application of the
existing scientific domains. It is one that integrates and
defragments multiplicities of logical attributes from
scientific knowledge across many disciplines. It solves
various problems concerning human existence; it reflects a
humane message underpinned by scientific, social,
technological and economic disciplines, public and private
sectors, local and global, academia and government
perspectives.
The evolution of this discipline is through various
components as shown in Figure 7, placing the central
theme or unifying factor in the centre of Figure 7 where
sustainability definitions are outwardly radiating sub-
themes surrounding the definitions, thus yielding an
integration of the different components that make up the
science to produce the new field of study. By doing so, this
article has also answered the questions raised by Leal
Filho (2000) by demonstrating that sustainability is a
 268 A.M. Hasna
Figure 7. Components of sustainability science.
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
subject per se and it should be classified as comprising 15
main research domains as purported by Kajikawa et al.
(2007): agriculture, fisheries, ecological economics,
forestry (agroforestry), forestry (tropical rain forest),
business, tourism, water, forestry (biodiversity), urban
planning, rural sociology, energy, health, soil and wildlife.
4. Conclusion
This paper has examined literature to validate the specific
contributions that engineering can make to the develop-
ment of a universal operational definition of sustain-
ability. Whether sustainability and, in turn, sustainable
development is determined to be a discipline or
transdiscipline is not going to change the world or the
status of the sustainability progress per se; however, it is
important to seek clarity regarding engineering education,
hence determining the strategy to embed in the
engineering curriculum. It follows that if pollution is
not created in the first place, then there is no need for
clean-up and remediation technologies. Engineers are yet
to adopt accountability and avoid finger pointing. For this
reason, the author acknowledges some of the weaknesses
of reductionist theory, however, the facts remain that ‘if
pollution wasn’t created in the first place, there would be
no need for clean-up and remediation technologies’.
Sustainability is an ‘engineering responsibility’. Since the
interest of this paper is to investigate the growth of
sustainability scientific knowledge and is motivated by the
tenets of science to ‘create conclusion from evidence’,
this article has provided an overview of some key
contexts of SS discourse theory to address how a
sustainability philosophy or culture in engineering might
drive development towards net positive outcomes, rather
than the current focus on minimising negative impacts on
the environment and society. The ontology on SS is
derived from journals, books and linguistic behaviour.
Generally, SS is proving to be different from previous
numerical sciences because it crosses transdisciplinary
borders. This is confirmed by the representation of SS in
social, economic, natural, technical and institutional
areas. Furthermore, the birth of this emerging transdisci-
pline is identified by the drivers and factors that can be
expected to signify the formation. SS is more than just
relations between the economy, society, technology and
the environment. Important though these interconnections
are, they are largely only the external manifestations of
SS. This article has considered and discussed the context
of literature citations interpretations of SS and the
convergence of definitions. It is of no surprise that the
sustainability definition presented in this paper is a
holistic process, where all living matter subsistence is
respected, emanating not as an end point, but rather a
journey. Furthermore, it is a vision involving renewed
awareness of the natural environment and interaction with it.
This article has revealed this new paradigm. Hence,
sustainability is a new science, an emerging discipline, an
evolving approach. Indeed, the analysis suggested that it is
sturdily promising with multiple interpretations and multiple
dimensions, and a complexity of issues. While the article
provided some broad results indicative of the growth of the
discipline, it also revealed that it is a flourishing field that is
still developing in literature. This paper has attempted to
simplify a complex and diverse topic to defragment and
support the new paradigm with scientific evidence of its
development.
 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering
References
Allen, R., 1980. How to Save the World.
Anastas, P.T. and Zimmerman, J.B., 2003. Design through the
twelve principles of green engineering. Environmental
Science and Technology, 37 (5), 94A – 101A.
Ascher, W., 2007. Policy sciences contributions to analysis to
promote sustainability. Sustainability Science, 2 (1), 141–149.
Atlee, J. and Kirchain, R., 2006. Operational sustainability
metrics assessing metric effectiveness in the context of
electronics-recycling systems. Environmental Science and
Technology, 40 (14), 4506– 4513.
Austgard, K., 2007. Language and the experience of patients’
values in nursing care: a theoretical exploration.
Nurse Education Today, 27 (2), 139– 144.
Australian Government. 2007. Sustainability Report 2005-2006.
Department of the Environment and Water Resources our
approach to sustainability.
Badal, R., Cornejo, C., and Beck, H., 2004. A database approach
for developing, integrating, and deploying educational
material on the web. In: J. Nall and R. Robson, eds.
Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in
Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education.
Chesapeake, VA: AACE, 475– 481.
Bagheri, A. and Hjorth, P., 2007. A framework for process
indicators to monitor for sustainable development, practice to
an urban water system. Environment, Development and
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
Sustainability, 9 (2), 143– 161.
Bastardas-Boada, A., 2005. Linguistic sustainability and
language ecology. Language & Ecology, 1 (4).
Batterham, R., 2003. The chemical engineer and the community. In:
R.C. Darton, R.G.H. Prince, and D.G. Wood, Chemical
engineering: visions of the world. Amsterdam, Boston:
Elsevier.
Becker, B., 1997. Sustainability assessment: a review of values,
concepts, and methodological approaches, issues in Agri-
culture 10. Washington, DC (CGIAR).
Beder, S., 1993. Making engineering design sustainable.
Transactions of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering Australia.
It is an extended version of a paper presented at the Design,
Ecology and Economy Conference, University of Sydney,
November 1990. GE17, 31– 35.
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T., 2002. The social construction of
reality. In: J.G.C.J. Calhoun, J. Moody, S. Pfaff and I. Virk,
eds. Contemporary sociological theory. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T.N., 1995. Genre knowledge
in disciplinary communication: cognition culture power.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boyle, C., 2004. Considerations on educating engineers in
sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 5 (2), 147– 155.
Brown, D.R., 1998. Evaluating institutional sustainability in
development programmes: beyond dollars and cents.
Journal of International Development, 10 (1), 55– 69.
Brown, B.J., et al., 1987. Global sustainability: toward definition,
environmental management. 11 (6), 713– 719.
Bruntland, G., ed., 1987. Our common future. United Nations
World Commission on Environment and Development.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Burness, H.S. and Cummings, R.G., 1986. Thermodynamic and
economic concepts as related to resource-use policies: reply.
62 (3), 323 – 324.
Burr, V., 2003. Social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Cary, J., 1998. Institutional innovation in natural resource
management in Australia: the triumph of creativity over
269
adversity, Abstracts of the Conference Knowledge Gener-
ation and Transfer.
Clark, W.C., 2007. Sustainability science: a room of its own. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Science, 104, 1737–1738.
Clark, W.C. and Dickson, N.M., 2003. Sustainability science: the
emerging research program. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
100 (14), 8059– 8061.
Conway, G. and Barbier, E., 1988. After the green revolution:
sustainable and equitable agricultural development. 20 (6).
Coomer, J.C., 1979. The nature of the quest for a sustainable
society.
Coop America, 1995. Coop America Quarterly, No. 37, Summer
1995, p. 46.
Cooper, R., 1989. Language planning and social change.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Costanza, R., 1994. Three general policies to achieve
sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Daly, H.E., 1986. Thermodynamic and economic concepts as
related to resource-use policies: comment. 62 (3), 319– 322.
Daly, H.E., 1991. Steady state economics. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Davis, A.D., 2009. Beyond an inconvenient truth: the army’s
march toward operational sustainability. ARMY Magazine
April, 59 (4).
Dobson, A., 1998. Justice and the environment. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dorf, R.C., 2001. Technology, humans, and society.
Dovers, S. and Handmer, J., 1995. Ignorance the precautionary
principle and sustainability. Ambio, 24 (2), 92 – 97.
Dower, N., et al., 1992. Sustainability and the right to
development. International Justice and the Third World.
DuBose, J.R., 1994. Sustainability as an inherently contextual
concept: some lessons from agricultural development.
ESI. 2005. Environmental sustainability index. Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP) and the Center for
International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)
of Columbia University, World Economic Forum and the
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
Fairclough, N., 2003. Analysing discourse: textual analysis for
social research. London: Routledge.
Fricker, A., 1998. Measuring up to sustainability. Futures, 30 (4),
367 – 375.
Gallopı́n, G., 2001. Science and technology, sustainability and
sustainable development. ECLAC, LC/R2081. p. 30.
Garfield, E., 1973. Citation frequency as a measure of research
activity and performance. In: Essays of an Information
Scientist, 1: 406 – 408, 1962– 73, Current Contents, 5.
Gell-Mann, M., 1994. The quark and the jaguar: adventures in
the simple and the complex. London: Abacus.
Gergen, K., 2000. An invitation to social construction.
London: Sage.
Gibson, R., 2001. Specification of sustainability-based environ-
mental assessment decision criteria and implications for
determining ‘significance’ in environmental assessment.
Goerner, S.J., et al., 2008. The new science of sustainability:
building a foundation for great change. BC, Canada:
New Society Publishers.
Goodland, R. and Ledec, G., 1987. Neoclassical economics and
principles of sustainable development. 38, 19 – 46.
Hargroves, K. and Smith, M., 2005. The natural advantage of
nations: business opportunities, innovation and governance
in the 21st century. London: Earthscan/James and James
Publishing.
 270 A.M. Hasna
Harris, J. and Goodwin, N., 2001. Introduction. In: MH Jonathan,
AW Tomothy, PG Kevin and RG Neva, eds. A survey of
sustainable development: social and economic dimensions,
frontier issues in economic thought, 6.
Hasna, A.M., 2004. Sustainability philosophy in engineering
context review and discussion. Faculty of Engineering and
Surveying Toowoomba QLD, University of Southern
Queensland Master of Engineering, 324.
Hasna, A.M., 2007. Dimensions of sustainability. Journal of
Engineering for Sustainable Development, 2 (1), 47 – 57.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M., 2004. Organizational identity: a
reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawken, P., 1993. The ecology of commerce. 144.
Hicks, J.R., 1946. Value and capital. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Holden, A., 2008. Environment and tourism. New York: Routledge.
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological
systems. 4, 1 – 23.
Holmberg, J., et al., 1996. Socio-ecological principles for a
sustainable society. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Howarth, R.B., 2007. Towards an operational sustainability
criterion. Ecological Economics, 63 (4), 656– 663.
Ikerd, J.E., 1997. Toward an economics of sustainability.
Ecological Economics Columbia, MO: Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri.
Jaeger, J., 2002. Implementing a sustainability science research
system. The Science and technology for a transition toward
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
sustainability symposium. Boston, MA, American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting.
Jeroen, C.J.M., et al., 1998. A survey of economic modeling of
sustainable development, Theory and implementation of
economic models for sustainable development.
Johnston, S., 2003. Sustainability and globalisation: a positive
role for engineering. Engineering education for a sustainable
future. 14th Annual Conference for Australasian Association
for Engineering Education and 9th Australasian Women in
Engineering Forum. A. Brown. Melbourne, Vic, Australasian
Association for Engineering Edu., 442– 449.
Kajikawa, Y., 2008. Research core and framework of sustain-
ability science: Sustainability Science, 3 (2), 215–239.
Kajikawa, Y., et al., 2007. Creating an academic landscape of
sustainability science: an analysis of the citation network.
Sustainability Science, 2 (2), 221–231.
Kates, R.W., et al., 2000. Sustainability science, research and
assessment systems for sustainability program. Environment
and Natural Resources Program, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA. Discussion Paper 2000-33.
Kates, R., et al., 2001. Sustainability science. Science,
292 (5517), 641–642.
Keiner, M., 2004. Re-emphasizing sustainable development –
the concept of ‘Evolutionability’: on living chances, equity,
and good heritage. Environment, Development and Sustain-
ability, 6 (4), 379– 392.
Komiyama, H. and Takeuchi, K., 2006. Sustainability science:
building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1, 1 –6.
Lachman, B.E., 1997. Linking sustainable community activities
to pollution prevention: a sourcebook. On Common Ground:
Sustainable Community Activities and Pollution Prevention,
MR-855-OSTP, RAND Research.
Leal Filho, W., 2000. Dealing with misconceptions on the
concept of sustainability. International Journal of Sustain-
ability in Higher Education, 1 (1), 9 – 19.
Lebel, L., 2005. Transitions to sustainability in production-
consumption systems. Industrial Ecology in Asia, 9, 1 – 2.
Liddle, B.T., 1994. Construction for sustainability and the
sustainability of the construction industry. Proceedings, CIB
TG 16, Sustainable Construction. Tampa, FL.
Liverman, D.M., et al., 1988. Global sustainability: toward
measurement. 12 (2), 133 – 143.
Madea, S. and Hibiki, S., 2008. Research trends of sustainability
science on the global warming problems – Issues on the Japan
Contribution in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. Science &
Technology Trends, Quarterly Review, 28 (7), 35–56.
Manning, E.W., 1990. Presidential address: sustainable devel-
opment, the challenge. 34, 290 – 302.
Marcuse, P., 1998. Sustainability is not enough. 10, 103– 111.
Markandya, A. and Pearce, D.W., 1988. Natural environments
and the social rate of discount. 3 (1), 2 –12.
Marshall, J. and Toffel, M., 2005. Framing the elusive concept of
sustainability: a sustainability hierarchy. Environmental
Science and Technology, 39 (3), 673 – 682.
Martens, P., 2006. Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain-
ability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 2 (1), 36 – 41.
Maslow, A., 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper,
91–93.
Matson, P., et al., 2007. Grand challenges in sustainability
science symposium presentations. AAAS 2007 annual
meeting, 17 February, San Francisco, CA.
McMichael, A.J., Butler, C.D., and Folker, C., 2003. New visions
for addressing sustainability. Science, 302 (5652), 1919–1920.
Meadows, D.H., et al., 1972. The limits to growth. New York:
New American Library, Universe Books.
Meadows, D., et al., 1992. Beyond the limits: confronting global
collapse, envisioning a sustainable future. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Co.
Mebratu, D., 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development:
historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 18 (6), 493 – 520.
Meppem, T. and Gill, R., 1998. Planning for sustainability as a
learning concept. Ecological Economics, 26 (2), 121– 137.
Mihelcic, J.R., et al., 2003. Sustainability science and engineering:
the emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environmental Science
and Technology, 37 (23), 5314–5324.
Mudacumura, G.M., et al., 2006. Sustainable development policy
and administration. Florida: Taylor and Francis, CRC Press.
Mulder, K., 2004. Engineering education in sustainable
development: sustainability as a tool to open up the windows
of engineering institutions. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 13 (4), 275-285.
Munasinghe, M., 1995. Making growth more sustainable. 15,
121 – 124.
Murray, P.E. and Murray, S.A., 2007. Promoting sustainability
values within career-oriented degree programmes: a case
study analysis. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 8 (3), 285 – 300.
Nash, C. and Bacon, W., 2006. Reporting sustainability in the
English-language press of Southeast Asia. Pacific Journalism
Review, 12 (2), 106 – 135.
Nightingale, D.J. and Cromby, J., 1999. Social constructionist
psychology: a critical analysis of theory and practice.
Buckingham Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Norton, B.G., 1992. A new paradigm for environmental manage-
ment. In: R. Costanza, B.G. Norton and B.D. Haskell, eds.
Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management,
23–41.
O’Riordan, T., 1988. The politics of sustainability. In:
R.K. Turner, ed. Sustainable environmental management:
principles and practice. London: Belhaven Press.
 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering
O’Riordan, T., 2001. Globalism, localism and identity: fresh
perspectives on the transition to sustainability. London:
Earthscan.
O’Riordan, T. and Voisey, H., 1997. The political economy
of sustainable development. Environmental Politics, 6 (1),
1 – 23.
Orecchini, F., 2007. A “measurable” definition of sustainable
development based on closed cycles of resources and its
application to energy systems. Sustainability Science, 2 (2),
245–252.
Oskamp, S., 2000. Psychology in the public forum, a sustainable
future for humanity? How can psychology help. 55 (5),
496 – 508.
Pachauri, R., 2008. Climate change and sustainability science.
Sustainability Science, 3 (1), 1– 3.
Painter, D., 2003. Forty-nine shades of green: ecology and
sustainability in the academic formation of engineers.
Ecological Engineering, 20 (4), 267–273.
Parkin, S., et al., 2003. Sustainable development: understanding
the concept and practical challenge. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, 156 (1), 19– 26.
Parris, T. and Kates, R., 2003. Characterizing and measuring
sustainable development. 28, 559– 586.
Parris, T.M. and Kates, R.W., 2003. Characterizing a sustain-
ability transition: goals, targets, trends, and driving forces.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 100 (14), 8068– 8073.
Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010
Peacock, K., 1999. Staying out of the lifeboat sustainability,
culture, and the thermodynamics of symbiosis. 5 (2).
Pearce, A.R., 1999. Sustainability and the built environment: a
metric and process for prioritizing improvement opportu-
nities, Dissertation (PhD).
Pearce, D., 1987. Foundations of an ecological economics. 38,
9 – 18.
Pearce, D., 1993. Natural resources, growth and development:
economics, ecology and resource scarcity. Clement Tisdell,
Prae. 7 (1), 78 – 79.
Pearce, D.W., 1988. Optimal prices for sustainable development.
In: D. Collard, D. Pearce, and D. Ulph, eds. Economic growth
and sustainable environment. London: Macmillan.
Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R., 2006. Rio ^ 10’, sustain-
ability science and landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 75 (3 – 4), 162– 174.
Reitan, P., 2005. Sustainability science – and what’s needed
beyond science. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy,
1 (1), 77–80.
Repetto, R., 1985. The global possible – resources, development
and the new century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Richard, L., et al., 1986. Hierarchical approach to sustainable
agriculture. 1 (4), 169– 173.
Robert, K.H., 1991. Educating a nation. 28 (10).
Robert, K.H., et al., 1997. A compass for sustainable
development. 4, 79–92.
Romano, R., 2004. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the making of
quack corporate governance. Brussels: ECG Institute,
52/2004.
Rosemond, A.D. and Anderson, C.B., 2003. Engineering role
models: do non-human species have the answers? Ecological
Engineering, 20, 379– 387.
Ruckelshaus, W., 1989. Towards a sustainable world. 1.
Sachs, I., 1999. Social sustainability and whole development:
exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. In: B
271
Egon and J Thomas, eds. Sustainability and the social
sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating
environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation.
Seager, T.P., Melton, J., and Eighmy, T.T., 2004. Working
towards sustainable science and engineering: introduction
to the special issue on highway infrastructure. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 42 (3), 205 – 207.
Sedlbauer, V.K., et al., 2007. Spatial differentiation in LCA
moving forward to more operational sustainability.
SCHWERPUNKT, Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie
und Praxis, 3 (16), 24 – 31.
Skinner, C., 2004. Interoperability for sustainable transport.
AC21 SATELLITE FORUM, Sustainable Transport in
Sustainable Cities. Everest Theatre, Seymour Centre.
Solow, R., 1993. An almost practical step toward sustainability.
19 (3), 162 – 172.
Starik, M. and Rands, G., 1995. Weaving an integrated web:
multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically
sustainable organizations. Academy of Management, 20 (4),
28.
Stibbe, A., 2001. Language, power and the social construction of
animals. Society and Animals, 9 (2), 145 –161.
Stibbe, A., 2007. Words and worlds: new directions
for sustainability literacy. In: W. Filho, E. Manolas,
M. Sotirakou and G. Boutakis, eds. Report of the 1st European
Conference on Education for Sustainable Development
‘Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability:
Problems, Promises and Good Practice’ held at Environmental
Education Center of Soufli, Soufli, Greece, 283 – 292.
Available from: http://www.eauc.org.uk/file_uploads/prak-
tika-web.pdf [Accessed 25 Feb 2008].
Tietenberg, T.H., 1984. Environmental and natural resource
economics. Glenview IL.
Tomich, T.P., et al., 2007. A framework for assessment of
California agroecosystems: pitfalls and possibilities, agroe-
cosystem services brief. 1 San Luis Obispo, California
Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops, California
Polytechnic State University.
Turner, R., 1988a. Sustainability, resource conservation and
pollution control: an overview. Sustainable Environmental
Management: Principles and Practice. London: Belhaven
Press.
Turner, R., 1988b. Sustainable global futures – common interest,
interdependency, complexity and global possibilities. 19 (5),
574 – 582.
Turner, B.L., et al., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis
in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
100 (14), 8074– 8079.
Von Hauff, M. and Wilderer, P.A., 2008. Industrial ecology:
engineered representation of sustainability. Sustainability
Science, 3 (1), 103 – 115.
Yoshikawa, H., 2008. Synthesiology as sustainability science.
Sustainability Science, 3, 169 – 170.
Yunjing, P., et al., 2002. Construction of sustainable collection of
free web resources. AFITA, Third Asian Conference for
Information Technology in Agriculture. Beiing, China.
Zimmerman, C., et al., 2001. Science at the supermarket: a
comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts’
advice to readers, and what students want to know.
Public Understanding of Science, 10 (1), 37 – 58.
 Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010

Appendix A
Academic journals periodicals and newsletters featuring sustainable or sustainability in the title
272

Journal title Year Journal title Year

Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2005 Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 1999
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 1981 Journal of Sustainable Forestry 1993
Alberta. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development 1996 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1993
Biological Conservation, Restoration and Sustainability 1999 Living Sustainably 2005
British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Special Committee on 2005 Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 1996
Sustainable Aquaculture
Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators. Air Quality 2005 Made in Holland. Sustainable Health Care 2004
Indicator
Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators. Freshwater Quality 2005 OECD and Environment and Sustainable Development 1997
Indicator
Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators. Greenhouse Gas 2005 Our Sustainable Future
Emissions
Canadian Heritage. Sustainable Development Strategy 2003 Passive Solar Journal: Heating, Cooling, Hybrid Technologies and Strategies 1982
for Sustainable Design
ChemSusChem: Sustainable Chemistry Journal 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy: Sustainability Science 2007
Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability 2004 Profitable Farms, Sustainable Systems, Healthy Landscapes Project Update 2006
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to 1997 Public Health Agency of Canada. Sustainable Development Strategy 2007
the House of Commons
Copper Volume II: Health, Environment and Sustainable Develop- 1995 Public Works and Government Services Canada. Sustainable Development 1997
ment Strategy
CSA Sustainability Science Abstracts 2005 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 1997
Energy and Sustainable Development Magazine 2004 Renewable Energy World 1996
A.M. Hasna

Energy for Sustainable Development 1994 SA Water. Sustainability Report 2003

Energy Resource and Environmental Sustainable Management 1996 Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. 5NR Biennial Report 1996
Energy Sustainable Development: The Journal of the International 1994 Source OECD Environment and Sustainable Development 1997
Energy Initiative
Engineering Sustainability, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil 2003 Sustainability Journal: Swedish Research for Sustainability 1994
Engineers
Environment Canada’s Sustainable Development Strategy 2000 Sustainability Report 1995
Environment, Development and Sustainability: a multidisciplinary 1999 Sustainability Science, Springer 2006
approach to the theory and practice of sustainable development
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development Sustainability, Economics, and Natural Resources 2005
Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series 1994 Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 2005
Ethiopian Journal of Technology, Education and Sustainable 2005 Sustainability: The Journal of Record 2008
Development
European Directory of Sustainable and Energy Efficient Building – 1993 Sustainable Building 2006
Components Services Materials
Forum for the Future. Sustainable Economy Programme. Policy Sustainable Business Investor – America 2000
Briefing
Health Canada. Sustainable Development Strategy 2000 Sustainable Development 1993
International Institute for Environment and Development. Sustainable 1987 Sustainable Development Digest 2007
Agriculture Programme. Gatekeeper Series
International Institute for Environment and Development. Sustainable 1993 Sustainable Development Law and Policy 2001
Agriculture Programme. Hidden Harvest Research
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2003 Sustainable Development Strategy 1997
International Journal of Applied Sustainable Development 2004 Sustainable Development UK 1997
 Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010

Appendix A – continued

Journal title Year Journal title Year

International Journal of Arab Culture, Management and Sustainable 2008 Sustainable Development: Journal 1993
Development
International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 2002 Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme Newsletter 2000
International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and 2004 Sustainable Forest Management Network. Projects and Publications Guide 2001
Social Sustainability
International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 2005 Sustainable Grazing on Saline Lands Network News 2004
(IJISD)
International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings 1999 Sustainable Humanosphere 2005
International Journal of Management and Sustainable Development 2005 Sustainable Industries Journal 2003
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 2000 Sustainable Land Use Change in the Northwest Provinces of China. Research 2004
Reports
International Journal of Sustainable Design 2007 Sustainable Urban Areas 2004
International Journal of Sustainable Development 1998 The Sustainable World Series 2002
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning: 2005 Sustaining Regions 2001
encouraging the unified approach to achieve
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 1994 Systems Approaches for Sustainable Agricultural Development 1992
International Journal of Sustainable Energy 2003 The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 1995
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 2008 The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 2001
International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing 2007 The Journal of Sustainable Product Design: balancing economic, 1997
environmental, ethical and social issues in product design and development
International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing (IJSM) 2007 The McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and 2005
Policy
International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management 2007 The Sustainable Times 1993
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2007 The Sustainable World 2002
International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable 2002 Transport Canada. Entry Sustainable Development Strategy 1997
Development
Journal of Chemistry for Sustainable Development 2000 Virtual Journal of Environmental Sustainability 2003
Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability 2005 Western Economic Diversification Canada. Sustainable Development 1997
Strategy
Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 2007 What Works: An Annotated Bibliography of Case Studies of Sustainable 1993
Development
Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Development: Energy, 2006 World Journal of Sustainable Development 2006
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

Environment, and Health

Journal of Nature Science and Sustainable Technology 2006 World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Develop- 2005
ment (WREMSD)
Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability 1999 World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Develop- 2004
ment
Journal of Sustainability Science and Management 2006 World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Develop- 2005
ment
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 1990 World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 2004
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture: innovations for the long-term and 1990 World Watch: working for a sustainable future 1988
lasting maintenance and enhancement of agricultural resources,
production and environmental quality
Journal of Sustainable Development 2008
273
 Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010

Appendix B
274

Sustainability definitions

Year Author Synopsis

1 1946 Hicks Amount one can consume during a period and still be as well off at the end of the period
2 1973 Holling Multiscale, dynamic, hierarchical measure of resilience, vigour and organisation
3 1979 Coomer Sustainable society is one that lives within the self-perpetuating limits of its environment. That society . . . is not a ‘no-growth’
society. It is, rather, a society that recognises the limits
4 1980 Allen Utilise species and ecosystems at levels and in ways that allow them to go on renewing themselves for all practical purposes
indefinitely
5 1989 Ruckelshaus Interrelations of human beings and their works, the biosphere and the physical and chemical laws that govern it. It follows that
environmental protection and economic
6 1984 Tietenberg The sustainability criterion suggests that, at a minimum, future generations should be left no worse off than current generations
7 1985 Repetto The greatest amount that can be consumed in the current period without reducing prospects for consumption in the future
8 Repetto Live off the dividend of our resources, maintaining and improving the asset base, mix of human, physical, and natural assets,
development demands the preservation of
9 1986 Burness All processes operate only at their steady state, renewable level, which might then suggest a return to a regulated caveman culture
10 1986 Richard et al. Food sufficiency; sustainability as stewardship; and sustainability as continuity
11 1986 Daly Sustainability, like justice, is a value not achievable by purely individualistic market processes
12 1987 Pearce The sustainability criterion requires that the conditions necessary for equal access to the resource base be met for each generation
13 1987 Goodland Sustainable development implies using renewable natural resources in a manner which does not eliminate or degrade them, or
otherwise diminish usefulness for future
14 1987 Brown One in which humans can survive without jeopardising the continued survival of future generations of humans in a healthy
environment
15 1987 Brundtland report Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
A.M. Hasna

16 1988 Pearce Imply use of environmental services over very long time periods and, in theory, indefinitely
17 1988a Turner Conservation strategy, although its precise meaning and practical applications were not presented in a detailed and operational form
18 1988 Liverman et al. Survival of human species through the maintenance of basic life support systems and the existence of infrastructure and institutions
which distribute and protect the components
19 1988 O’Riordan Survival of living matter to the rights of future generations and to institutions responsible for ensuring that such rights are fully taken
into account in policies and actions
20 1988 Markandya and Pearce The use made of these inputs to the development process through time. Apply the idea to resources, sustainability ought to mean that a
given stock of resources
21 1988b Turner In principle, such an optimal policy would seek to maintain an ‘acceptable’ rate of growth in per-capita real incomes without depleting
natural environmental
22 1998 Jeroen et al. The Hicksian definition of income (Hicks, 1939): the maximum amount of income that can be spent without reducing real
consumption in the future, social sustainability
23 1988 Conway and Barbie The ability to maintain productivity, whether of a field or farm or nation, in the face of stress or shock
24 1990 Manning Aspiration like happiness’ or justice
25 1991 Daly Rates of pollution emission do not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment
26 1991 Robert Moving from linear to cyclical processes and technologies. The only processes we can rely on indefinitely are cyclical, all linear
processes must eventually come to an end
28 1992 Dower et al. In order for a course of action to be sustainable it should be compatible with the local culture by respecting the structure of the society
and values of the people
27 1992 Meadows et al. Persist over generations, one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or its
social systems of support
 Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010

Appendix B – continued

Year Author Synopsis

28 1992 Norton Relationship between dynamic human economic systems and larger, dynamic, but normally slower-changing ecological systems, such
that human life can continue
29 1993 Solow Sustainability is an injunction not to satisfy ourselves by impoverishing our successors
30 1993 Pearce Sustainable economic development is continuously rising, or at least non-declining, consumption per capita, or GNP, or whatever the
agreed indicator of development is
31 1993 Hawken Create objects of durability and long-term utility whose ultimate use or disposition will not be harmful to future generations. Change
consumers to customers through education
32 1993 Beder Economic growth could not continue on into the future without disaster, the principal defect of the industrial way of life with its ethos
of expansion is that it is not sustainable
33 1994 DuBose Sustainability does not describe a quality that resides within the confines of technology or practice but refers instead to the relationship
between technology and context
34 DuBose It is the nexus of relations between elements working in harmony that indicates sustainability – like an equation for which an answer
cannot be derived from one variable
35 1994 Costanza A sustainable scale of the economy relative to its ecological life support system; a fair distribution of resources and opportunities
between present and future generations
36 1994 Liddle Transformation of assets, reduction of wastes and improvement of energy efficiency
37 1995 Coop Preserving the environment, developing strong peaceful relationships between people and nations and an emphasis on equitable
distribution of wealth
38 1995 Starik and Rans Ability of one or more entities, either individually or collectively, to exist and flourish for lengthy time-frames, in such a manner that
the existence and flourishing of other
39 1995 Munasinghe Making adequate provisions for the maintenance of biological diversity and maintaining the biogeochemical integrity of the biosphere
by conservation
40 1997 Robert et al. Concentrations of resources substances extracted from the Earth’s crust, increasing concentrations of substances produced by society,
impoverished by physical
41 1997 Ikerd Sustainability is the broadest, most inclusive concept of environmental stewardship
42 1997 Lachman Resources, politics, individual actions and the unique features of the community, ecosystem management, agriculture, biodiversity,
green buildings, energy conservation
43 1998 Marcuse Sustainability is not a goal; it is a constraint on the achievement of other goals
44 1998 Fricker Survival is merely not dying, whereas we probably think of sustainability in terms of justice, interdependence, sufficiency, intuitive,
the emotional, the creative and spiritual
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

45 1998 Cary Not a fixed ideal, but an evolutionary process of improving the management of systems. Analogous to Darwin’s species evolution, the
process is non-deterministic with the end
46 1999 Sachs Distinguishes between partial sustainability and whole sustainability. To realise whole sustainability
48 1999 Peacock Sustainability is purely a matter of the management of scarce and ever-diminishing ‘negentropy’
49 1999 Pearce Constraints are met, stakeholder satisfaction-basic needs met; resource base impact-no or neutral impacts; ecosystem impact-no or
neutral impacts
50 2000 Oskamp Sustainability may be defined as using the world’s resources in ways that will allow human beings to continue to exist on Earth with an
adequate quality of life
51 2001 Dorf Living within a frame work of earths system, both thermodynamically and kinetically to maintain change
52 2001 Gibson The protection of resources and ecological integrity over the long term, combined with great improvements in human well-being,
especially among the poor
53 2001 Harris and Goodwin Shift in perspective from a focus on economic development that is often defined as the expansion of consumption and GNP to a new
view of sustainable development
275
 Downloaded At: 12:51 28 November 2010

Appendix B – continued
276

View publication stats

Year Author Synopsis
54 2003 Parries and Kates Normative judgments, such as goals and targets coded in formal agreements, treaties, and declarations, not in the form of semantic or
philosophical clarification
55 2003 Johnston Is as an ideal state of long-term social, economic and ecological stability, a target towards which we strive, rather than one we expect
to reach
56 2005 Lebel The relations between nodes in production consumption systems are shaped not only by economics and material flows, but also by
culture, values, and power
57 2005 ESI Sustainability is a characteristic of dynamic systems that maintain themselves over time; it is not a fixed endpoint that can be defined
58 2005 Hargrove and smith Progress that improves economic social and environmental well-being with no major tradeoffs locally and globally, now and in the
future
59 2007 Kajikawa et al. Maintain something undiminished over some time period
60 2007 Australian Govt Using conserving and enhancing resources
61 2007 Orecchini Sustainable development does not consume resources; it uses and re-uses them, endlessly, closed cycles
A.M. Hasna