{"id":236,"date":"2022-04-15T02:52:30","date_gmt":"2022-04-15T02:52:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/?post_type=chapter&p=236"},"modified":"2022-05-10T19:13:18","modified_gmt":"2022-05-10T19:13:18","slug":"sustainability","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/chapter\/sustainability\/","title":{"raw":"Sustainability","rendered":"Sustainability"},"content":{"raw":"The last topic in the holistic techniques group is sustainability. Sustainability\u00a0is a popular concept for current management. The definition\u00a0of sustainability varies but generally includes aspects of\u00a0maintaining options for future generations, interaction between humans and the environment, and interdisciplinary\u00a0collaboration to solve problems. In this chapter we define sustainability and provide examples\u00a0of sustainable actions, present information on recent developments in the field, and examine\u00a0successful applications of sustainable principles. We end with a case study of San Francisco, a city\u00a0with a long history of sustainable practices.\r\n\r\nDEFINITIONS AND OBJECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe concept of sustainability first appeared in the early 1970s and 1980s as a method for managing interactions\u00a0between nature and society. Despite the intervening decades, sustainability has not yet become\u00a0a rigorously defined term. Most definitions include human needs for survival and natural needs.\u00a0The meaning of sustainability is variable in different contexts and to different people. The most established\u00a0definition is the one that spans generations and time. By this definition, sustainability involves\u00a0development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations\u00a0to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). However, there\u00a0are many that hold to a perspective more focused on preserving nature. This view results in definitions\u00a0that emphasize meeting fundamental human needs while preserving the life support systems of the\u00a0planet (Kates et al. 2001). Some definitions include the equitable distribution of resources between\u00a0present and future generations of all human beings (Weiss 1990), and the use of these resources in a\u00a0way that will not jeopardize the continued persistence of the planet\u2019s biodiversity and ecosystems\u00a0(Chapin et al. 2010). Another dimension of sustainability is that it applies to human needs, and also results\u00a0in a balance of nature and society (Castree 2017). A final definition for sustainability is one that\u00a0espouses peace, freedom, better living conditions and a healthy environment (National Research Council\u00a01999).\r\n\r\nThere are few common concepts across all definitions of sustainability. Definitions include aspects of\u00a0an intergenerational nature (transference from one generation to another); level of scale (multiple scales\u00a0are involved); domain (multiple domains participate including at the least economic, ecological, and\u00a0socio-cultural); and interpretation (there are a multitude of interpretations of the meaning of sustainability)\u00a0(Martens 2006). At its core, sustainability is a fundamentally holistic technique (Hani et al.\u00a02003).\r\n\r\nThe sustainability concept is not new to resource harvesting, especially fisheries and forestry (Clapp\u00a01998). From the early 1900s to the present, theoretical and empirical studies have been undertaken to\u00a0identify maximum sustained yields (e.g., catches or harvest) for valuable resources that could be sustained\u00a0at some level of effort (Nielsen 1976; Larkin 1977; Luckert and Williamson 2005). Yields were\u00a0solely based on the biological properties of species and population processes, and were not subject to\u00a0societal interactions or political influences. In practice, pure sustainable management rarely occurred\u00a0and most fisheries and forest resources were commonly overexploited (Ludwig et al. 1993) due to societal, economic and industry pressures. In the 1970s, professional organizations of fishery managers\u00a0adopted \u201coptimum sustained yield\u201d as the paradigm for management (Bennett et al. 1978). This philosophy\u00a0recognized the role of non-biological factors in management decisions and became the start of\u00a0sustainability as a union of economic, social, and public interest factors; a balance of forces linking the\u00a0biotic resource and human needs. This was the start of sustainability becoming a union of economic,\u00a0environmental, and social aspects. This concept has been termed the Three Pillars of Sustainability\u00a0(Hansmann et al. 2012). Unfortunately, overexploitation continues to occur in many fisheries (Ye and\u00a0Gutierrez 2017) and forested areas (Islam and Bhuiyan 2018).\r\n\r\nWHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE SUSTAINABLE?<\/strong>\r\n\r\nSustainability focuses on natural features and human needs. The natural features include life support\u00a0systems and biodiversity. Human needs target people, the economy, and community. Reducing the\u00a0impact on the environment at the same time as increasing food, income, and health is a fundamental\u00a0challenge (Table 13.1).\r\n
Table 13.1: What is to be sustained and what would be increased. Source: adapted from Parris and Kates 2003<\/em><\/pre>\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nThere are many aspects to enacting sustainability. At the individual level, enacting sustainable\u00a0practices can mean driving less, eating more locally-produced and more plant-based foods, setting the\u00a0thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter, avoiding single use plasticware, reducing\u00a0waste and more. At the corporate level it could mean switching to using recycled paper, striving for net-zero\u00a0emissions from buildings, installing solar panels on rooftops, encouraging worker well-being, and\u00a0more. At the regional, state and national scale, it can mean establishing policies and regulations to\u00a0reduce pollution, encourage conservation, and shift the way people think about all aspects of life in a\u00a0way that fully encompasses sustainable principles.\r\n\r\nSUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE<\/strong>\r\n\r\nSustainability science has emerged as a distinct research program (Clark and Dickson 2003; Clark\u00a02007; Barrett 2021). The aim of the program is to advance our understanding of the interactions between\u00a0society and nature to manage the transition to an increased use of sustainable principles for managing\u00a0the earth\u2019s resources. The incorporation of sustainable principles in resource management is a\u00a0big change for most societies around the world and, as such, pulls together a diverse array of disciplines (Aronson 2011). Scientists promoting sustainability have needed to engage in research ranging\u00a0from complex systems theory to cultural and political ecology. Combining these different theoretical\u00a0approaches is a big challenge because it requires scientists to get into policy and engage decision-makers\u00a0and the public. The research itself must be focused on the character of nature-society interactions,\u00a0on our ability to guide those interactions along sustainable trajectories, and on ways of promoting the\u00a0social learning that will be necessary to navigate the transition to sustainable practices (Kates et al.\u00a02001). Another dimension of sustainability science is to solve problems at the societal-ecological interface.\u00a0Sustainability science is problem-driven and interdisciplinary oriented. The hope is that stakeholders\u00a0with diverse experiences will discuss key questions, appropriate methodologies, and institutional\u00a0needs, and that outcomes from these discussions will provide applications that lessen the human\u00a0impact on the natural world and simultaneously support human needs (Kates et al. 2001). This is more\u00a0in the realm of traditional science because it is narrower and problem-oriented. Sustainability science\u00a0needs to be connected to a political agenda to engage national and state leaders as a priority issue. If\u00a0applied, all of these aspects will help to manage nature-society interactions to successfully transition to\u00a0a greater use of sustainable principles.\r\n\r\nBEST PRACTICES FOR\u00a0TRANSITIONING TO MORE\u00a0SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_245\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"300\"]\"\" Figure 13.1: Sustainability word cloud. Source: Town of\u00a0Maynard, MA 2021[\/caption]\r\n\r\nSustainability requires an enthusiastic\u00a0agenda that brings together academics,\u00a0agencies, and institutions\u00a0that can take action, consider global\u00a0and local perspectives, and derive\u00a0information from the environment,\u00a0society, and the engineering and\u00a0health care sectors (Figure 13.1).\u00a0Cash et al. (2003) performed historical\u00a0analyses of environmental issues,\u00a0from initial scientific discovery\u00a0to high-level policy agenda. They used scientific input to assess how these issues were defined and\u00a0framed, which options were considered, and what actions were taken. They discovered that for big policy\u00a0ideas (e.g., green revolution, aquifer depletion on the central United States, El Ni\u2000o forecasting,\u00a0ocean fisheries, and transboundary air pollution), it takes a decade or more to reliably evaluate the impact\u00a0of science on policy (Cash et al. 2003). The impact of scientific information on policy and public\u00a0action depends heavily on the perceptions of stakeholders and involves three key factors: salience,\u00a0credibility, and legitimacy (Cash et al. 2003; Cash and Belloy 2020). Sustainability must be relevant to\u00a0the people involved (e.g., salience). The arguments for focusing on sustainability must be supported by\u00a0technical evidence (e.g., credibility). The discourse must be respectful, unbiased, and fair to divergent\u00a0values and beliefs (e.g., legitimacy). The public, concerned about transitioning to a program that includes\u00a0sustainability, must be convinced that without such a transition, they might lose valuable materials\u00a0and experiences. Scientists and leaders must make the argument that they are trying to avoid future\u00a0problems.\r\n\r\nThe act of mobilizing science for sustainability requires that the boundaries between knowledge and action\u00a0be managed for salience, credibility, and legitimacy of the information produced. This is often\u00a0termed \"boundary work,\" - work that is carried out at the interface between communities of experts and\u00a0communities of decision-makers (Cash et al. 2003). The three functions that contribute most to boundary\u00a0management are: communication, translation, and mediation. Communication requires active, iterative,\u00a0and inclusive exchanges between experts and decision-makers. Communications experts can\u00a0translate among scientists, decision-makers, and the public to overcome impediments. Translation involves\u00a0linking knowledge to action and requires that participants understand each other. Mutual understanding\u00a0between experts and decision-makers is often hindered by jargon, language, past experiences,\u00a0divergent values, and presumptions about what constitutes a persuasive argument. Active mediation of\u00a0conflicts makes the boundary between experts and decision-makers selectively porous (i.e., open to certain\u00a0purposes but closed to others; for example, getting data to researchers but keeping politics out of\u00a0the scientific process). The boundary-management functions summarized above (communication,\u00a0translation, and mediation) can be performed effectively through various organizational arrangements\u00a0and procedures. These functions can be institutionalized in boundary organizations mandated to act as\u00a0intermediaries between the arenas of science and policy for the purposes of: 1) Organization for managing\u00a0the boundary; 2) Responsibility and accountability to social arenas on opposite sides of the\u00a0boundary; and 3) Provision of a forum in which information can be co-produced by actors from different\u00a0sides of the boundary. Those groups that made a serious commitment to managing boundaries between\u00a0expertise and decision-making effectively linked knowledge to action (Cash et al. 2003). Such\u00a0groups invested in communication, translation, and mediation, and thereby more effectively balanced\u00a0salience, credibility, and legitimacy in the information they produced.\r\n\r\nCHALLENGES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nCash et al. (2003) also identified a number of challenges, particularly in the way different stakeholders\u00a0viewed the process of moving toward more sustainable action. Mobilizing science toward sustainability\u00a0requires performing tasks not conventionally associated with research, leading many scientists, not\u00a0surprisingly, to see participating in knowledge systems for sustainability as at best uncomfortable and\u00a0at worst inconsistent with real scholarship. Reciprocally, many managers and decision-makers view\u00a0the process as at best an expensive time investment with uncertain returns and at worst a risk to their\u00a0perceived autonomy and independence. The focus on multiple, interacting perturbations and stressors,\u00a0attention to coupled human\u2013environment systems, and place-based analysis in the context of large scale\u00a0change demanded a recasting of the interactions between scholar and practitioner. Effective processes\u00a0were characterized by multiple boundary organizations, or multiple organizations that performed specific\u00a0functions in managing the boundaries of complex systems. Often, single individuals played key\u00a0boundary-spanning functions, independent of their particular organizational affiliations, thus there was\u00a0a need to harness the boundary spanning potential of individuals and organizations. The new ideas for\u00a0projects being called for in many sustainability discussions needed to be viewed as truly radical; these\u00a0were not just individual studies or projects, but ideas to shift whole professional careers.\r\n\r\nSUSTAINABILITY NEEDS TO BE PRACTICED WORLDWIDE<\/strong>\r\n\r\nUnsustainable activities are degrading the planet\u2019s ability to support humans (Chapin et al. 2011). The\u00a0switch to sustainability could secure the Earth into the future. Nearly a quarter of the world\u2019s human\u00a0population is living in poverty (Human Development Initiative 2018), and sustainability should address\u00a0this problem. Additionally, about 10% of people worldwide lack a secure connection to electricity (International\u00a0Energy Agency 2019). Globally, energy generation produces a lot of emissions which\u00a0change our climate (Davis et al. 2010). Hunger and malnutrition are widespread and food production\u00a0should be addressed to feed the world\u2019s human population. We need to rethink food production, and\u00a0move away from our heavy reliance on oil and fertilizers to make agriculture more sustainable\u00a0(McKenzie and Williams 2015). Global governance is necessary, one which embraces a platform of\u00a0trust between regions and nations.\r\n\r\nGLOBAL AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT<\/strong>\r\n\r\nTo address global challenges, all United Nations member states (193 countries) committed in 2015 to\u00a0make progress toward achieving seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\u00a0(Figure 13.2). They created a document called the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which\u00a0provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for both people and the planet, now and into the\u00a0future (United Nations 2021a). At the core of the agenda are the seventeen SDGs which provide a call\u00a0for action by all countries - developed and developing - in a global partnership. The SDGs recognize\u00a0that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health\u00a0and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth \u2013 all while tackling climate change and\u00a0working to preserve our oceans and forests (United Nations 2021b).\r\n\r\nThe SDGs themselves are the following (Figure 13.2): 1) No poverty; 2) Zero hunger; 3) Good health\u00a0and well-being; 4) Quality education; 5) Gender equality; 6) Clean water and sanitation; 7) Affordable\u00a0and clean energy; 8) Decent work and economic growth; 9) Industry, innovation, and infrastructure; 10)\u00a0Reduced inequalities; 11) Sustainable cities and communities; 12) Responsible consumption and\u00a0production; 13) Climate action; 14) Life below water; 15) Life on land; 16) Peace, justice and strong\u00a0institutions; 17) Partnerships for the goals (United Nations 2021b).\r\n\r\nMany of these goals interact with other goals to various extents (Figure 13.3). For instance, clean\u00a0water and sanitation (goal 6) strongly relates to responsible consumption and production (goal 12) and\u00a0benefits can be harnessed for both goals (e.g., co-benefits) by addressing these issues. Conversely,\u00a0climate action (goal 13) and life below water (goal 14) have significant tradeoffs for one in tackling the\u00a0other, and these will need to be addressed going forward.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_239\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"480\"]\"\" Figure 13.2: The seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) developed by the United\u00a0Nations. Source: United Nations 2021b[\/caption]\r\n\r\nEach SDG has a set of targets and related indicators with differing numbers of targets (from 5-19) for\u00a0each goal depending on its complexity. Targets are the concrete actions that each SDG is striving to\u00a0achieve. For example, let\u2019s examine the SDG Climate Action: take urgent action to combat climate\u00a0change and its impacts. Its five targets are: 1) Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate related\u00a0hazards and natural disasters in all countries; 2) Integrate climate change measures into national\u00a0policies, strategies and planning; 3) Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional\u00a0capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning; 4) Implement\u00a0the commitment, undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework\u00a0Convention on Climate Change, to a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 from all\u00a0sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions\u00a0and transparency of implementation, and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its\u00a0capitalization as soon as possible; and 5) Promote mechanisms to increase the capacity for effective\u00a0climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island\u00a0developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_240\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"471\"]\"\" Figure 13.3: Interactions among Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Source: Messerli et al. 2019[\/caption]\r\n\r\nA single target can have multiple indicators. Indicators are the metrics used to determine if a target was\u00a0met. The indicators relating to each of the Climate Action targets, respectively, are: 1) Number of\u00a0deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disaster per 100,000 people; number of countries with\u00a0national and local-disaster risk-reduction strategies; and proportion of local governments that adopt and\u00a0implement local-disaster risk-reduction strategies in line with national-disaster risk-reduction\u00a0strategies; 2) Number of countries that have communicated the establishment or operationalization of\u00a0an integrated policy\/strategy\/plan which increases their ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of\u00a0climate change, and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development in a\u00a0manner that does not threaten food production; 3) Number of countries that have integrated mitigation,\u00a0adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning programs into their primary, secondary and tertiary\u00a0curricula; and number of countries that have communicated the strengthening of institutional, systemic\u00a0and individual capacity-building to implement adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer, and\u00a0development actions; 4) Amount of United States dollars mobilized per year, starting in 2020\u00a0accountable towards the $100 billion commitment; and 5) Number of least-developed countries and\u00a0small island developing States that are receiving specialized support, and the amount of that support,\u00a0including finance, technology and capacity-building, for mechanisms that raise capacities for effective\u00a0climate change-related planning and management, including focusing on women, youth and local and\u00a0marginalized communities.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, the United Nations tracks events, publications, news, and actions related to each SDG.\u00a0The United Nations also bridges a variety of needs in reaching SDGs by supporting policy analysis;\u00a0capacity development; inter-agency coordination; stakeholder engagement, partnerships,\u00a0communication, and outreach; and knowledge management (United Nations 2021c).\r\n\r\nASSESSING PROGRESS TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS<\/strong>\r\n\r\nGlobal progress toward SDG fulfillment is monitored by 231 unique socio-ecological indicators spread\u00a0across 169 targets. The United Nations Global Sustainable Development Report 2019\u2014The Future is\u00a0Now: Science for Achieving Sustainable Development (Messerli et al. 2019) concluded that, despite\u00a0initial efforts, the world is not yet on track for achieving most of the SDG targets (Figure 13.4).\r\n\r\nGood health and well-being (Goal 3) and Quality education (Goal 4) are closest to meeting some of\u00a0their targets. No poverty (Goal 1), Zero hunger (Goal 2), Quality education (Goal 4), Clean water and\u00a0sanitation (Goal 6), Affordable and clean energy (Goal 7), and Industry, innovation and infrastructure\u00a0(Goal 9) are within 5-10% of meeting some of their targets. The majority of the SDGs are greater than\u00a010% from meeting their targets. Disturbingly, some aspects of Zero hunger (Goal 2), Reduced\u00a0inequalities (Goal 10), Responsible consumption and production (Goal 12), Climate action (Goal 13),\u00a0Life under water (Goal 14), and Life on land (Goal 15) have been trending away from their targets\u00a0(Messerli et al. 2019). In 1999, the National Research Council stated that it will take two generations\u00a0to adopt a serious sustainability need (National Research Council 1999) and that seems to be playing\u00a0out over perhaps an even longer time scale (Tibbs 2011).\r\n\r\nSome positive news is that cross-national flows of information, goods, capital and people have all\u00a0increased dramatically in the last few decades, underpinning a world that is more interconnected than\u00a0ever (Figure 13.5). These flows overlap and interconnect and link the development of nations and\u00a0regions across North and South, global and local, current and future. The flows produce many benefits.\u00a0For example, through remittances, finances are transferred from richer parts of the world to poorer\u00a0ones, and use of the Internet can give small entrepreneurs and artisans access to the global marketplace.\r\n\r\nConversely, the flows can also propagate negative impacts, such as deepening inequalities, unfair\u00a0competition, resource depletion and environmental pollution and destruction (Messerli et al. 2019).\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_241\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"499\"]\"\" Figure 13.4: Projected distance from reaching selected targets (at current trends). Source:\u00a0Messerli et al. 2019[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_242\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"503\"]\"\" Figure 13.5: Cross-national flows of information, goods, capital and people. Source: Messerli et al. 2019[\/caption]\r\n\r\nCASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO - SUSTAINABLE CITY<\/strong>\r\n\r\nSan Francisco adopted a plan to become a sustainable city in 1997. The plan, which later became a\u00a0City document, was drafted by a community collaboration in which City staff contributed on equal\u00a0footing with members of other sectors of the community including representatives from the City Planning\u00a0Department, the Bureau of Energy Conservation, the Recreation and Parks Department, and the\u00a0Solid Waste Management Program, businesses, environmental organizations, elected officials, and concerned\u00a0individuals. In all, nearly 400 people worked on the plan. The plan was aimed at changing\u00a0long-standing environmental practices and consisted of goals, actions, and objectives to be achieved.\u00a0The aim of the plan was to \u201cbegin to fulfill our responsibility to our own futures and that of our children\u201d\u00a0(Sustainable City 2021).\r\n\r\nAlthough there was remarkable unanimity among the plan drafters about the basic attributes of a sustainable\u00a0society, as would be expected in any exercise of this size and scope, participants did not always\u00a0agree on the best strategy for achieving goals. Some felt strongly that the plan did not go far\u00a0enough and contained too many compromises; others felt that it had gone too far and was unrealistic.\r\n\r\nNonetheless, the document provided the rough game-plan that was necessary for a concerted effort to\u00a0achieve a sustainable society, an effort that had been orchestrated by as broad a cross-section of the\u00a0community as possible.\r\n\r\nSustainability can be divided into manageable sections with specific strategies proposed for action.\u00a0Topics addressed in the plan were divided into two main categories: 1) Specific environmental topics\u00a0and 2) Topics that span many issues. Specific environmental topics included: air quality, biodiversity,\u00a0climate change, energy, food and agriculture, hazardous materials, human health, ozone depletion,\u00a0parks and open spaces, solid waste, transportation, and waste and wastewater (Sustainable City 2021).\u00a0Topics that spanned many issues included: the economy and economic development, environmental\u00a0justice, municipal expenditures, public information and education, and risk management (Sustainable\u00a0City 2021).\r\n\r\nEach topic had specific goals associated with the issue. We will describe the plans for two of these topics\u00a0here: biodiversity, and water and wastewater. San Francisco is a heavily urbanized city, which\u00a0nonetheless has a rich variety of plant and animal communities. Thus, the strategy to increase biodiversity\u00a0had five goals: 1) To achieve a greater understanding of biodiversity, its importance, how it is\u00a0threatened, and how to protect and restore it; 2) To protect and restore remnant natural ecosystems; 3)\u00a0To protect sensitive species and their habitats and support their recovery in San Francisco through reintroductions\u00a0of extirpated species and habitat management; 4) To maximize habitat value in developed\u00a0and naturalistic areas, both public and private; and 5) To collect, organize, develop and utilize current\u00a0and historic information on habitats and biodiversity. The following indicators were used to assess\u00a0progress toward biodiversity goals: 1) Number of volunteer hours dedicated towards managing, monitoring,\u00a0and conserving San Francisco's biodiversity; 2) Number of square feet of the worst invasive\u00a0species removed from natural areas; 3) Number of surviving indigenous native plant species planted in\u00a0developed parks, private landscapes and natural areas; and 4) Abundance and species diversity of birds,\u00a0as indicated by the Golden Gate Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Counts.\r\n\r\nA water policy that creates sustainable water use balances the needs for protection of the environment\u00a0and public health, while not compromising the ability of future generations of San Franciscans to procure\u00a0water to meet their basic needs. A sustainable water policy also creates a shift from the traditional\u00a0view of water as a commodity managed solely for the convenience of humans to a more balanced effort\u00a0to maintain the water needs of the entire ecosystem, of which humans are only a part. San Francisco is\u00a0fortunate in having a source of high quality drinking water which comes from the headwaters of the\u00a0Tuolumne River in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Tuolumne River is captured behind O'Shaughnessy\u00a0Dam and diverted to San Francisco via the Hetch Hetchy system. The strategy to increase water\u00a0and wastewater sustainability had fifteen goals: 1) To maximize recovery and reuse of resources from\u00a0wastewater; 2) To maximize water conservation and minimize water use and waste; 3) To minimize\u00a0storm water flows into the combined sewer system; 4) To eliminate contaminants in supply and receiving\u00a0waters; 5) To discharge only wastewater that does not impair receiving water; 6) To ensure a sustainable\u00a0and adequate water supply; 7) To maximize protection of public health by providing safe\u00a0drinking water and the safe handling of wastewater; 8) To ensure fair and effective permit and enforcement\u00a0procedures; 9) To create a water and wastewater policy that reflects true environmental costs and\u00a0benefits; 10) To restore and enhance ground-water supply; 11) To achieve long-term enhancement and\u00a0restoration of local marine and fresh-water habitats; 12) To create an inclusive community of environmental\u00a0stewards; 13) To repair, replace and upgrade infrastructure; 14) To include alternative water,\u00a0wastewater and storm water policies; and 15) To create drinking water and wastewater standards that\u00a0protect local and regional natural resources and public health. The following indicators were used to\u00a0assess progress toward water and wastewater goals: 1) Per capita water consumption measured by the\u00a0San Francisco Water Department; 2) Mass of pollutants in wastewater; 3) Mass and frequency of combined\u00a0sewer overflows; 4) Recycled water use; and 5) Acres of habitat restored.\r\n\r\nTo begin to achieve these goals San Francisco created a new Department of the Environment, held\u00a0meetings for public comment, sought and gained endorsement of the plan by City leaders, and began\u00a0the long process of creating a healthy society that respects the needs of all its members, and the needs\u00a0of the natural systems of which they are a part. They created various projects to plant trees on public\u00a0schoolyards, ban plastic bags (in 2007), shift public transportation in the city toward zero emissions,\u00a0and encourage residents to conserve water (Djoulakian 2015). On several of these issues, San Francisco\u00a0was the first city in the nation to enact such projects or policies.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_243\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"300\"]\"\" Figure 13.6: San Francisco's iconic three-stream\u00a0waste collection program. Source: United States\u00a0Environmental Protection Agency 2021[\/caption]\r\n\r\nHow well did San Francisco do? According to a\u00a02011 Siemens\/Economist Intelligence Unit study\u00a0released at the Aspen Institute in Munich, San\u00a0Francisco is North America\u2019s greenest city, beating\u00a0out other sustainable cities such as Vancouver,\u00a0New York, and Seattle (Roggenbuck 2011).\u00a0San Francisco took one of the top five spots for\u00a0the categories of energy use, water quality, and air\u00a0quality; second place for building standards and\u00a0transportation; and first place for waste management\u00a0(Figure 13.6) (Roggenbuck 2011). However,\u00a0biodiversity was not among the categories\u00a0for which San Francisco was highly ranked.\r\n\r\nWhat factors account for this success? First, political\u00a0will and supportive voters were needed to\u00a0pass sustainable legislation, and San Francisco had both. Voters passed, by wide margins, measures\u00a0such as the 2001 Proposition H, which set the stage for community choice aggregation (Hess 2005),\u00a0and the 2003 Proposition K, which continued a sales tax to\u00a0fund socially and environmentally motivated transportation\u00a0projects (County of San Francisco 2011). Additionally, San\u00a0Francisco became the\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_244\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"300\"]\"\" Figure 13.7: Solar panel installation in\u00a0San Francisco, CA. Source: Bay Area\u00a0Rapid Transit 2021[\/caption]\r\n\r\nfirst United States city to mandate solar\u00a0and living roofs on most new construction (Sustainable City\u00a02018). Second, San Francisco\u2019s experience with alternative\u00a0energy helped it become a leader in solar energy use, and the\u00a0city has completed a number of successful solar projects (Figure\u00a013.7). Finally, the city has strong environmental planning\u00a0due in part to its robust sustainability plan (Diamond 2011).\u00a0San Francisco continues to work toward its goals and increasingly\u00a0become more sustainable each year.\r\n\r\nSUMMARY<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe transition toward the inclusion of sustainability principles in ecological conservation is a challenge\u00a0and faces many hurdles. Efforts have to address multiple scales, interests, and shortcomings to eliminate\u00a0impacts to natural environments and maximize human benefits. The transition to the incorporation\u00a0of holistic, sustainable principles in managing the earth\u2019s resources is anticipated to take many decades\u00a0because different ways of thinking have to be adopted across the world. However, the United Nations\u00a0SDGs are inspiring, and progress is being made every day toward the achievement of these targets.\r\n\r\nREFERENCES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAronson, J., 2011. Sustainability science demands that we define our terms across diverse disciplines.\u00a0Landscape Ecology, 26<\/em>, pp.457\u2013460.\r\n\r\nBarrett, C.B., 2021. On design-based empirical research and its interpretation and ethics in\u00a0sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118<\/em>(29).\r\n\r\nBay Area Rapid Transit, 2021. Energy at Bart. Available: https:\/\/www.bart.gov\/sustainability\/energy\u00a0(October 2021).\r\n\r\nBennett, D.H., Hampton, E.L. and Lackey, R.T., 1978. Current and future fisheries management goals:\u00a0Implications for future management. Fisheries, 3<\/em>(1), pp.10-14.\r\n\r\nCash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., J\u2000ger, J. and Mitchell,\u00a0R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the national academy of\u00a0sciences, 100<\/em>(14), pp.8086-8091.\r\n\r\nCash, D.W. and Belloy, P.G., 2020. Salience, credibility and legitimacy in a rapidly shifting world of\u00a0knowledge and action. Sustainability, 12<\/em>(18), p.7376.\r\n\r\nCastree, N., 2017. The nature of produced nature: Materiality and knowledge construction in Marxism.\u00a0In Environment (pp. 217-254). Routledge.\r\n\r\nChapin III, F.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W.C., Olsson, P., Smith,\u00a0D.M.S., Walker, B., Young, O.R. and Berkes, F., 2010. Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies\u00a0for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in ecology & evolution, 25<\/em>(4), pp.241-249.\r\n\r\nChapin, F.S., Pickett, S.T., Power, M.E., Jackson, R.B., Carter, D.M. and Duke, C., 2011. Earth\u00a0stewardship: A strategy for social\u2013ecological transformation to reverse planetary degradation. Journal\u00a0of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1<\/em>(1), pp.44-53.\r\n\r\nClapp, R.A., 1998. The resource cycle in forestry and fishing. Canadian Geographer\/Le Geographe\u00a0Canadien, 42<\/em>(2), pp.129-144.\r\n\r\nClark, W.C., 2007. Sustainability science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of\u00a0Sciences 104<\/em>(6), pp.1737-1738.\r\n\r\nClark, W.C. and Dickson, N.M., 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program.\u00a0Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 100<\/em>(14), pp.8059-8061.\r\n\r\nCounty of San Francisco, 2011. About Proposition K. San Francisco County Transportation Authority.\u00a0Available: http:\/\/www.sfcta.org\/content\/view\/11\/27\/ (June 2011).\r\n\r\nDavis, S.J., Caldeira, K. and Matthews, H.D., 2010. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from\u00a0existing energy infrastructure. Science, 329<\/em>(5997), pp.1330-1333.\r\n\r\nDiamond, M., 2011. San Francisco: Sustainability and the New Energy Horizon in a Model City. In\u00a0David J. Hess, ed., Urban Sustainability Programs: Case Studies. Available: http:\/\/www.davidjhess.net\u00a0(June 2011).\r\n\r\nDjoulakian, H., 2015. The Top 5 Reasons Why San Francisco Is California's Sustainable City. Culture\u00a0Trip. Available: http:\/\/theculturetrip.com\/north-america\/usa\/california\/articles\/top-5-ways-sanfrancisco-\u00a0is-environmentally-friendly\/ (July 2015).\r\n\r\nHani, F., Braga, F.S., Stampfli, A., Keller, T., Fischer, M. and Porsche, H., 2003. RISE, a tool for\u00a0holistic sustainability assessment at the farm level. International food and agribusiness management\u00a0review, 6<\/em>(1030-2016-82562), pp.78-90.\r\n\r\nHansmann, R., Mieg, H.A. and Frischknecht, P., 2012. Principal sustainability components: Empirical\u00a0analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable\u00a0Development & World Ecology, 19<\/em>(5), pp.451-459.\r\n\r\nHess, D., 2005. San Francisco Electric Power. Case Studies of the Greening of Local Electricity.\u00a0Available: http:\/\/www.davidjhess.net\/SFPower.pdf. (June 2011).\r\n\r\nHuman Development Initiative, 2018. Global Multidimensional Poverty Index 2018: The most detailed\u00a0picture to date of the world\u2019s poorest people. University of Oxford, UK.\r\n\r\nInternational Energy Agency, 2019. SDG7 Data and Projections. Available: https:\/\/www.iea.org\/reports\/sdg7-data-and-projections (September 2021).\r\n\r\nIslam, S.D.U. and Bhuiyan, M.A.H., 2018. Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh: Causes of\u00a0degradation and sustainable management options. Environmental Sustainability, 1<\/em>(2), pp.113-131.\r\n\r\nKates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber,\u00a0H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M. and Faucheux, S., 2001. Sustainability science. Science, 292<\/em>(5517),\u00a0pp.641-642.\r\n\r\nLarkin, P.A., 1977. An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield. Transactions of the\u00a0American fisheries society, 106<\/em>(1), pp.1-11.\r\n\r\nLuckert, M.K. and Williamson, T., 2005. Should sustained yield be part of sustainable forest\u00a0management? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35<\/em>(2), pp.356-364.\r\n\r\nLudwig, D., Hilborn, R. and Walters, C., 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:\u00a0Lessons from history. Ecological applications, pp.548-549.\r\n\r\nMartens, P., 2006. Sustainability: Science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, practice and policy, 2<\/em>(1),\u00a0pp.36-41.\r\n\r\nMcKenzie, F.C. and Williams, J., 2015. Sustainable food production: Constraints, challenges and\u00a0choices by 2050. Food Security, 7<\/em>(2), pp.221-233.\r\n\r\nMesserli, P., Murniningtyas, E., Eloundou-Enyegue, P., Foli, E.G., Furman, E., Glassman, A.,\u00a0Hern\u2000ndez Licona, G., Kim, E.M., Lutz, W., Moatti, J.P. and Richardson, K., 2019. Global sustainable\u00a0development report 2019: The future is now\u2013science for achieving sustainable development. United\u00a0Nations, New York, NY.\r\n\r\nNational Research Council, 1999. Our common journey: A transition toward sustainability. National\u00a0Academies Press, Washington, DC.\r\n\r\nNielsen, L.A., 1976. The evolution of fisheries management philosophy. Marine Fisheries Review,\u00a038<\/em>(12), pp.15-23.\r\n\r\nParris, T.M. and Kates, R.W., 2003. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual\u00a0Review of environment and resources, 28<\/em>(1), pp.559-586.\r\n\r\nRoggenbuck, J., 2011. San Francisco leads the U.S. in environmental sustainability. Siemans. Available:\u00a0http:\/\/www.siemens.com\/press\/\/pool\/de\/pressemitteilungen\/2011\/corporate_communication\/AXX20110673e.pdf (June 2011).\r\n\r\nSustainable City, 2018. Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. San Francisco Department\u00a0of the Environment, San Francisco, CA.\r\n\r\nSustainable City, 2021. Sustainability plan. Available: http:\/\/sustainablecity.org\/Plan\/Intro\/intro.htm\u00a0(September 2021).\r\n\r\nTibbs, H., 2011. Changing cultural values and the transition to sustainability. Journal of Futures\u00a0Studies, 15<\/em>(3), pp.13-32.\r\n\r\nTown of Maynard, MA, 2021. Sustainability Committee. Available: https:\/\/www.townofmaynardma.\u00a0gov\/gov\/committees\/sustainability\/ (September 2021).\r\n\r\nUnited Nations, 2021a. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.\u00a0Available: https:\/\/sdgs.un.org\/2030agenda (September 2021).\r\n\r\nUnited Nations, 2021b. The 17 goals. Available: https:\/\/sdgs.un.org\/goals (September 2021).\r\n\r\nUnited Nations, 2021c. About the Division for Sustainable Development Goals. Available:\u00a0https:\/\/sdgs.un.org\/about (September 2021).\r\n\r\nUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. Zero waste case study: San Francisco.\u00a0Available: https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/transforming-waste-tool\/zero-waste-case-study-san-francisco (October\u00a02021).\r\n\r\nWeiss, E.B., 1990. Our rights and obligations to future generations for the environment. American \u00a0Journal of International Law, 84<\/em>(1), pp.198-207.\r\n\r\nWorld Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University\u00a0Press, Oxford, England.\r\n\r\nYe, Y. and Gutierrez, N.L., 2017. Ending fishery overexploitation by expanding from local successes\u00a0to globalized solutions. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1<\/em>(7), pp.1-5.","rendered":"
The last topic in the holistic techniques group is sustainability. Sustainability\u00a0is a popular concept for current management. The definition\u00a0of sustainability varies but generally includes aspects of\u00a0maintaining options for future generations, interaction between humans and the environment, and interdisciplinary\u00a0collaboration to solve problems. In this chapter we define sustainability and provide examples\u00a0of sustainable actions, present information on recent developments in the field, and examine\u00a0successful applications of sustainable principles. We end with a case study of San Francisco, a city\u00a0with a long history of sustainable practices.<\/p>\n
DEFINITIONS AND OBJECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY<\/strong><\/p>\n
The concept of sustainability first appeared in the early 1970s and 1980s as a method for managing interactions\u00a0between nature and society. Despite the intervening decades, sustainability has not yet become\u00a0a rigorously defined term. Most definitions include human needs for survival and natural needs.\u00a0The meaning of sustainability is variable in different contexts and to different people. The most established\u00a0definition is the one that spans generations and time. By this definition, sustainability involves\u00a0development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations\u00a0to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). However, there\u00a0are many that hold to a perspective more focused on preserving nature. This view results in definitions\u00a0that emphasize meeting fundamental human needs while preserving the life support systems of the\u00a0planet (Kates et al. 2001). Some definitions include the equitable distribution of resources between\u00a0present and future generations of all human beings (Weiss 1990), and the use of these resources in a\u00a0way that will not jeopardize the continued persistence of the planet\u2019s biodiversity and ecosystems\u00a0(Chapin et al. 2010). Another dimension of sustainability is that it applies to human needs, and also results\u00a0in a balance of nature and society (Castree 2017). A final definition for sustainability is one that\u00a0espouses peace, freedom, better living conditions and a healthy environment (National Research Council\u00a01999).<\/p>\n
There are few common concepts across all definitions of sustainability. Definitions include aspects of\u00a0an intergenerational nature (transference from one generation to another); level of scale (multiple scales\u00a0are involved); domain (multiple domains participate including at the least economic, ecological, and\u00a0socio-cultural); and interpretation (there are a multitude of interpretations of the meaning of sustainability)\u00a0(Martens 2006). At its core, sustainability is a fundamentally holistic technique (Hani et al.\u00a02003).<\/p>\n
The sustainability concept is not new to resource harvesting, especially fisheries and forestry (Clapp\u00a01998). From the early 1900s to the present, theoretical and empirical studies have been undertaken to\u00a0identify maximum sustained yields (e.g., catches or harvest) for valuable resources that could be sustained\u00a0at some level of effort (Nielsen 1976; Larkin 1977; Luckert and Williamson 2005). Yields were\u00a0solely based on the biological properties of species and population processes, and were not subject to\u00a0societal interactions or political influences. In practice, pure sustainable management rarely occurred\u00a0and most fisheries and forest resources were commonly overexploited (Ludwig et al. 1993) due to societal, economic and industry pressures. In the 1970s, professional organizations of fishery managers\u00a0adopted \u201coptimum sustained yield\u201d as the paradigm for management (Bennett et al. 1978). This philosophy\u00a0recognized the role of non-biological factors in management decisions and became the start of\u00a0sustainability as a union of economic, social, and public interest factors; a balance of forces linking the\u00a0biotic resource and human needs. This was the start of sustainability becoming a union of economic,\u00a0environmental, and social aspects. This concept has been termed the Three Pillars of Sustainability\u00a0(Hansmann et al. 2012). Unfortunately, overexploitation continues to occur in many fisheries (Ye and\u00a0Gutierrez 2017) and forested areas (Islam and Bhuiyan 2018).<\/p>\n
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE SUSTAINABLE?<\/strong><\/p>\n
Sustainability focuses on natural features and human needs. The natural features include life support\u00a0systems and biodiversity. Human needs target people, the economy, and community. Reducing the\u00a0impact on the environment at the same time as increasing food, income, and health is a fundamental\u00a0challenge (Table 13.1).<\/p>\n
Table 13.1: What is to be sustained and what would be increased. Source: adapted from Parris and Kates 2003<\/em><\/pre>\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
There are many aspects to enacting sustainability. At the individual level, enacting sustainable\u00a0practices can mean driving less, eating more locally-produced and more plant-based foods, setting the\u00a0thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter, avoiding single use plasticware, reducing\u00a0waste and more. At the corporate level it could mean switching to using recycled paper, striving for net-zero\u00a0emissions from buildings, installing solar panels on rooftops, encouraging worker well-being, and\u00a0more. At the regional, state and national scale, it can mean establishing policies and regulations to\u00a0reduce pollution, encourage conservation, and shift the way people think about all aspects of life in a\u00a0way that fully encompasses sustainable principles.<\/p>\n
SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE<\/strong><\/p>\n
Sustainability science has emerged as a distinct research program (Clark and Dickson 2003; Clark\u00a02007; Barrett 2021). The aim of the program is to advance our understanding of the interactions between\u00a0society and nature to manage the transition to an increased use of sustainable principles for managing\u00a0the earth\u2019s resources. The incorporation of sustainable principles in resource management is a\u00a0big change for most societies around the world and, as such, pulls together a diverse array of disciplines (Aronson 2011). Scientists promoting sustainability have needed to engage in research ranging\u00a0from complex systems theory to cultural and political ecology. Combining these different theoretical\u00a0approaches is a big challenge because it requires scientists to get into policy and engage decision-makers\u00a0and the public. The research itself must be focused on the character of nature-society interactions,\u00a0on our ability to guide those interactions along sustainable trajectories, and on ways of promoting the\u00a0social learning that will be necessary to navigate the transition to sustainable practices (Kates et al.\u00a02001). Another dimension of sustainability science is to solve problems at the societal-ecological interface.\u00a0Sustainability science is problem-driven and interdisciplinary oriented. The hope is that stakeholders\u00a0with diverse experiences will discuss key questions, appropriate methodologies, and institutional\u00a0needs, and that outcomes from these discussions will provide applications that lessen the human\u00a0impact on the natural world and simultaneously support human needs (Kates et al. 2001). This is more\u00a0in the realm of traditional science because it is narrower and problem-oriented. Sustainability science\u00a0needs to be connected to a political agenda to engage national and state leaders as a priority issue. If\u00a0applied, all of these aspects will help to manage nature-society interactions to successfully transition to\u00a0a greater use of sustainable principles.<\/p>\n
BEST PRACTICES FOR\u00a0TRANSITIONING TO MORE\u00a0SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES<\/strong><\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 13.1: Sustainability word cloud. Source: Town of\u00a0Maynard, MA 2021<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
Sustainability requires an enthusiastic\u00a0agenda that brings together academics,\u00a0agencies, and institutions\u00a0that can take action, consider global\u00a0and local perspectives, and derive\u00a0information from the environment,\u00a0society, and the engineering and\u00a0health care sectors (Figure 13.1).\u00a0Cash et al. (2003) performed historical\u00a0analyses of environmental issues,\u00a0from initial scientific discovery\u00a0to high-level policy agenda. They used scientific input to assess how these issues were defined and\u00a0framed, which options were considered, and what actions were taken. They discovered that for big policy\u00a0ideas (e.g., green revolution, aquifer depletion on the central United States, El Ni\u2000o forecasting,\u00a0ocean fisheries, and transboundary air pollution), it takes a decade or more to reliably evaluate the impact\u00a0of science on policy (Cash et al. 2003). The impact of scientific information on policy and public\u00a0action depends heavily on the perceptions of stakeholders and involves three key factors: salience,\u00a0credibility, and legitimacy (Cash et al. 2003; Cash and Belloy 2020). Sustainability must be relevant to\u00a0the people involved (e.g., salience). The arguments for focusing on sustainability must be supported by\u00a0technical evidence (e.g., credibility). The discourse must be respectful, unbiased, and fair to divergent\u00a0values and beliefs (e.g., legitimacy). The public, concerned about transitioning to a program that includes\u00a0sustainability, must be convinced that without such a transition, they might lose valuable materials\u00a0and experiences. Scientists and leaders must make the argument that they are trying to avoid future\u00a0problems.<\/p>\n
The act of mobilizing science for sustainability requires that the boundaries between knowledge and action\u00a0be managed for salience, credibility, and legitimacy of the information produced. This is often\u00a0termed “boundary work,” – work that is carried out at the interface between communities of experts and\u00a0communities of decision-makers (Cash et al. 2003). The three functions that contribute most to boundary\u00a0management are: communication, translation, and mediation. Communication requires active, iterative,\u00a0and inclusive exchanges between experts and decision-makers. Communications experts can\u00a0translate among scientists, decision-makers, and the public to overcome impediments. Translation involves\u00a0linking knowledge to action and requires that participants understand each other. Mutual understanding\u00a0between experts and decision-makers is often hindered by jargon, language, past experiences,\u00a0divergent values, and presumptions about what constitutes a persuasive argument. Active mediation of\u00a0conflicts makes the boundary between experts and decision-makers selectively porous (i.e., open to certain\u00a0purposes but closed to others; for example, getting data to researchers but keeping politics out of\u00a0the scientific process). The boundary-management functions summarized above (communication,\u00a0translation, and mediation) can be performed effectively through various organizational arrangements\u00a0and procedures. These functions can be institutionalized in boundary organizations mandated to act as\u00a0intermediaries between the arenas of science and policy for the purposes of: 1) Organization for managing\u00a0the boundary; 2) Responsibility and accountability to social arenas on opposite sides of the\u00a0boundary; and 3) Provision of a forum in which information can be co-produced by actors from different\u00a0sides of the boundary. Those groups that made a serious commitment to managing boundaries between\u00a0expertise and decision-making effectively linked knowledge to action (Cash et al. 2003). Such\u00a0groups invested in communication, translation, and mediation, and thereby more effectively balanced\u00a0salience, credibility, and legitimacy in the information they produced.<\/p>\n
CHALLENGES<\/strong><\/p>\n
Cash et al. (2003) also identified a number of challenges, particularly in the way different stakeholders\u00a0viewed the process of moving toward more sustainable action. Mobilizing science toward sustainability\u00a0requires performing tasks not conventionally associated with research, leading many scientists, not\u00a0surprisingly, to see participating in knowledge systems for sustainability as at best uncomfortable and\u00a0at worst inconsistent with real scholarship. Reciprocally, many managers and decision-makers view\u00a0the process as at best an expensive time investment with uncertain returns and at worst a risk to their\u00a0perceived autonomy and independence. The focus on multiple, interacting perturbations and stressors,\u00a0attention to coupled human\u2013environment systems, and place-based analysis in the context of large scale\u00a0change demanded a recasting of the interactions between scholar and practitioner. Effective processes\u00a0were characterized by multiple boundary organizations, or multiple organizations that performed specific\u00a0functions in managing the boundaries of complex systems. Often, single individuals played key\u00a0boundary-spanning functions, independent of their particular organizational affiliations, thus there was\u00a0a need to harness the boundary spanning potential of individuals and organizations. The new ideas for\u00a0projects being called for in many sustainability discussions needed to be viewed as truly radical; these\u00a0were not just individual studies or projects, but ideas to shift whole professional careers.<\/p>\n
SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS TO BE PRACTICED WORLDWIDE<\/strong><\/p>\n
Unsustainable activities are degrading the planet\u2019s ability to support humans (Chapin et al. 2011). The\u00a0switch to sustainability could secure the Earth into the future. Nearly a quarter of the world\u2019s human\u00a0population is living in poverty (Human Development Initiative 2018), and sustainability should address\u00a0this problem. Additionally, about 10% of people worldwide lack a secure connection to electricity (International\u00a0Energy Agency 2019). Globally, energy generation produces a lot of emissions which\u00a0change our climate (Davis et al. 2010). Hunger and malnutrition are widespread and food production\u00a0should be addressed to feed the world\u2019s human population. We need to rethink food production, and\u00a0move away from our heavy reliance on oil and fertilizers to make agriculture more sustainable\u00a0(McKenzie and Williams 2015). Global governance is necessary, one which embraces a platform of\u00a0trust between regions and nations.<\/p>\n
GLOBAL AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n
To address global challenges, all United Nations member states (193 countries) committed in 2015 to\u00a0make progress toward achieving seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\u00a0(Figure 13.2). They created a document called the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which\u00a0provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for both people and the planet, now and into the\u00a0future (United Nations 2021a). At the core of the agenda are the seventeen SDGs which provide a call\u00a0for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership. The SDGs recognize\u00a0that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health\u00a0and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth \u2013 all while tackling climate change and\u00a0working to preserve our oceans and forests (United Nations 2021b).<\/p>\n
The SDGs themselves are the following (Figure 13.2): 1) No poverty; 2) Zero hunger; 3) Good health\u00a0and well-being; 4) Quality education; 5) Gender equality; 6) Clean water and sanitation; 7) Affordable\u00a0and clean energy; 8) Decent work and economic growth; 9) Industry, innovation, and infrastructure; 10)\u00a0Reduced inequalities; 11) Sustainable cities and communities; 12) Responsible consumption and\u00a0production; 13) Climate action; 14) Life below water; 15) Life on land; 16) Peace, justice and strong\u00a0institutions; 17) Partnerships for the goals (United Nations 2021b).<\/p>\n
Many of these goals interact with other goals to various extents (Figure 13.3). For instance, clean\u00a0water and sanitation (goal 6) strongly relates to responsible consumption and production (goal 12) and\u00a0benefits can be harnessed for both goals (e.g., co-benefits) by addressing these issues. Conversely,\u00a0climate action (goal 13) and life below water (goal 14) have significant tradeoffs for one in tackling the\u00a0other, and these will need to be addressed going forward.<\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 13.2: The seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) developed by the United\u00a0Nations. Source: United Nations 2021b<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
Each SDG has a set of targets and related indicators with differing numbers of targets (from 5-19) for\u00a0each goal depending on its complexity. Targets are the concrete actions that each SDG is striving to\u00a0achieve. For example, let\u2019s examine the SDG Climate Action: take urgent action to combat climate\u00a0change and its impacts. Its five targets are: 1) Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate related\u00a0hazards and natural disasters in all countries; 2) Integrate climate change measures into national\u00a0policies, strategies and planning; 3) Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional\u00a0capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning; 4) Implement\u00a0the commitment, undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework\u00a0Convention on Climate Change, to a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 from all\u00a0sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions\u00a0and transparency of implementation, and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its\u00a0capitalization as soon as possible; and 5) Promote mechanisms to increase the capacity for effective\u00a0climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island\u00a0developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities.<\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 13.3: Interactions among Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Source: Messerli et al. 2019<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
A single target can have multiple indicators. Indicators are the metrics used to determine if a target was\u00a0met. The indicators relating to each of the Climate Action targets, respectively, are: 1) Number of\u00a0deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disaster per 100,000 people; number of countries with\u00a0national and local-disaster risk-reduction strategies; and proportion of local governments that adopt and\u00a0implement local-disaster risk-reduction strategies in line with national-disaster risk-reduction\u00a0strategies; 2) Number of countries that have communicated the establishment or operationalization of\u00a0an integrated policy\/strategy\/plan which increases their ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of\u00a0climate change, and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development in a\u00a0manner that does not threaten food production; 3) Number of countries that have integrated mitigation,\u00a0adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning programs into their primary, secondary and tertiary\u00a0curricula; and number of countries that have communicated the strengthening of institutional, systemic\u00a0and individual capacity-building to implement adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer, and\u00a0development actions; 4) Amount of United States dollars mobilized per year, starting in 2020\u00a0accountable towards the $100 billion commitment; and 5) Number of least-developed countries and\u00a0small island developing States that are receiving specialized support, and the amount of that support,\u00a0including finance, technology and capacity-building, for mechanisms that raise capacities for effective\u00a0climate change-related planning and management, including focusing on women, youth and local and\u00a0marginalized communities.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the United Nations tracks events, publications, news, and actions related to each SDG.\u00a0The United Nations also bridges a variety of needs in reaching SDGs by supporting policy analysis;\u00a0capacity development; inter-agency coordination; stakeholder engagement, partnerships,\u00a0communication, and outreach; and knowledge management (United Nations 2021c).<\/p>\n
ASSESSING PROGRESS TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS<\/strong><\/p>\n
Global progress toward SDG fulfillment is monitored by 231 unique socio-ecological indicators spread\u00a0across 169 targets. The United Nations Global Sustainable Development Report 2019\u2014The Future is\u00a0Now: Science for Achieving Sustainable Development (Messerli et al. 2019) concluded that, despite\u00a0initial efforts, the world is not yet on track for achieving most of the SDG targets (Figure 13.4).<\/p>\n
Good health and well-being (Goal 3) and Quality education (Goal 4) are closest to meeting some of\u00a0their targets. No poverty (Goal 1), Zero hunger (Goal 2), Quality education (Goal 4), Clean water and\u00a0sanitation (Goal 6), Affordable and clean energy (Goal 7), and Industry, innovation and infrastructure\u00a0(Goal 9) are within 5-10% of meeting some of their targets. The majority of the SDGs are greater than\u00a010% from meeting their targets. Disturbingly, some aspects of Zero hunger (Goal 2), Reduced\u00a0inequalities (Goal 10), Responsible consumption and production (Goal 12), Climate action (Goal 13),\u00a0Life under water (Goal 14), and Life on land (Goal 15) have been trending away from their targets\u00a0(Messerli et al. 2019). In 1999, the National Research Council stated that it will take two generations\u00a0to adopt a serious sustainability need (National Research Council 1999) and that seems to be playing\u00a0out over perhaps an even longer time scale (Tibbs 2011).<\/p>\n
Some positive news is that cross-national flows of information, goods, capital and people have all\u00a0increased dramatically in the last few decades, underpinning a world that is more interconnected than\u00a0ever (Figure 13.5). These flows overlap and interconnect and link the development of nations and\u00a0regions across North and South, global and local, current and future. The flows produce many benefits.\u00a0For example, through remittances, finances are transferred from richer parts of the world to poorer\u00a0ones, and use of the Internet can give small entrepreneurs and artisans access to the global marketplace.<\/p>\n
Conversely, the flows can also propagate negative impacts, such as deepening inequalities, unfair\u00a0competition, resource depletion and environmental pollution and destruction (Messerli et al. 2019).<\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 13.4: Projected distance from reaching selected targets (at current trends). Source:\u00a0Messerli et al. 2019<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
 <\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 13.5: Cross-national flows of information, goods, capital and people. Source: Messerli et al. 2019<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO – SUSTAINABLE CITY<\/strong><\/p>\n
San Francisco adopted a plan to become a sustainable city in 1997. The plan, which later became a\u00a0City document, was drafted by a community collaboration in which City staff contributed on equal\u00a0footing with members of other sectors of the community including representatives from the City Planning\u00a0Department, the Bureau of Energy Conservation, the Recreation and Parks Department, and the\u00a0Solid Waste Management Program, businesses, environmental organizations, elected officials, and concerned\u00a0individuals. In all, nearly 400 people worked on the plan. The plan was aimed at changing\u00a0long-standing environmental practices and consisted of goals, actions, and objectives to be achieved.\u00a0The aim of the plan was to \u201cbegin to fulfill our responsibility to our own futures and that of our children\u201d\u00a0(Sustainable City 2021).<\/p>\n
Although there was remarkable unanimity among the plan drafters about the basic attributes of a sustainable\u00a0society, as would be expected in any exercise of this size and scope, participants did not always\u00a0agree on the best strategy for achieving goals. Some felt strongly that the plan did not go far\u00a0enough and contained too many compromises; others felt that it had gone too far and was unrealistic.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, the document provided the rough game-plan that was necessary for a concerted effort to\u00a0achieve a sustainable society, an effort that had been orchestrated by as broad a cross-section of the\u00a0community as possible.<\/p>\n
Sustainability can be divided into manageable sections with specific strategies proposed for action.\u00a0Topics addressed in the plan were divided into two main categories: 1) Specific environmental topics\u00a0and 2) Topics that span many issues. Specific environmental topics included: air quality, biodiversity,\u00a0climate change, energy, food and agriculture, hazardous materials, human health, ozone depletion,\u00a0parks and open spaces, solid waste, transportation, and waste and wastewater (Sustainable City 2021).\u00a0Topics that spanned many issues included: the economy and economic development, environmental\u00a0justice, municipal expenditures, public information and education, and risk management (Sustainable\u00a0City 2021).<\/p>\n
Each topic had specific goals associated with the issue. We will describe the plans for two of these topics\u00a0here: biodiversity, and water and wastewater. San Francisco is a heavily urbanized city, which\u00a0nonetheless has a rich variety of plant and animal communities. Thus, the strategy to increase biodiversity\u00a0had five goals: 1) To achieve a greater understanding of biodiversity, its importance, how it is\u00a0threatened, and how to protect and restore it; 2) To protect and restore remnant natural ecosystems; 3)\u00a0To protect sensitive species and their habitats and support their recovery in San Francisco through reintroductions\u00a0of extirpated species and habitat management; 4) To maximize habitat value in developed\u00a0and naturalistic areas, both public and private; and 5) To collect, organize, develop and utilize current\u00a0and historic information on habitats and biodiversity. The following indicators were used to assess\u00a0progress toward biodiversity goals: 1) Number of volunteer hours dedicated towards managing, monitoring,\u00a0and conserving San Francisco’s biodiversity; 2) Number of square feet of the worst invasive\u00a0species removed from natural areas; 3) Number of surviving indigenous native plant species planted in\u00a0developed parks, private landscapes and natural areas; and 4) Abundance and species diversity of birds,\u00a0as indicated by the Golden Gate Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Counts.<\/p>\n
A water policy that creates sustainable water use balances the needs for protection of the environment\u00a0and public health, while not compromising the ability of future generations of San Franciscans to procure\u00a0water to meet their basic needs. A sustainable water policy also creates a shift from the traditional\u00a0view of water as a commodity managed solely for the convenience of humans to a more balanced effort\u00a0to maintain the water needs of the entire ecosystem, of which humans are only a part. San Francisco is\u00a0fortunate in having a source of high quality drinking water which comes from the headwaters of the\u00a0Tuolumne River in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Tuolumne River is captured behind O’Shaughnessy\u00a0Dam and diverted to San Francisco via the Hetch Hetchy system. The strategy to increase water\u00a0and wastewater sustainability had fifteen goals: 1) To maximize recovery and reuse of resources from\u00a0wastewater; 2) To maximize water conservation and minimize water use and waste; 3) To minimize\u00a0storm water flows into the combined sewer system; 4) To eliminate contaminants in supply and receiving\u00a0waters; 5) To discharge only wastewater that does not impair receiving water; 6) To ensure a sustainable\u00a0and adequate water supply; 7) To maximize protection of public health by providing safe\u00a0drinking water and the safe handling of wastewater; 8) To ensure fair and effective permit and enforcement\u00a0procedures; 9) To create a water and wastewater policy that reflects true environmental costs and\u00a0benefits; 10) To restore and enhance ground-water supply; 11) To achieve long-term enhancement and\u00a0restoration of local marine and fresh-water habitats; 12) To create an inclusive community of environmental\u00a0stewards; 13) To repair, replace and upgrade infrastructure; 14) To include alternative water,\u00a0wastewater and storm water policies; and 15) To create drinking water and wastewater standards that\u00a0protect local and regional natural resources and public health. The following indicators were used to\u00a0assess progress toward water and wastewater goals: 1) Per capita water consumption measured by the\u00a0San Francisco Water Department; 2) Mass of pollutants in wastewater; 3) Mass and frequency of combined\u00a0sewer overflows; 4) Recycled water use; and 5) Acres of habitat restored.<\/p>\n
To begin to achieve these goals San Francisco created a new Department of the Environment, held\u00a0meetings for public comment, sought and gained endorsement of the plan by City leaders, and began\u00a0the long process of creating a healthy society that respects the needs of all its members, and the needs\u00a0of the natural systems of which they are a part. They created various projects to plant trees on public\u00a0schoolyards, ban plastic bags (in 2007), shift public transportation in the city toward zero emissions,\u00a0and encourage residents to conserve water (Djoulakian 2015). On several of these issues, San Francisco\u00a0was the first city in the nation to enact such projects or policies.<\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 13.6: San Francisco’s iconic three-stream\u00a0waste collection program. Source: United States\u00a0Environmental Protection Agency 2021<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
How well did San Francisco do? According to a\u00a02011 Siemens\/Economist Intelligence Unit study\u00a0released at the Aspen Institute in Munich, San\u00a0Francisco is North America\u2019s greenest city, beating\u00a0out other sustainable cities such as Vancouver,\u00a0New York, and Seattle (Roggenbuck 2011).\u00a0San Francisco took one of the top five spots for\u00a0the categories of energy use, water quality, and air\u00a0quality; second place for building standards and\u00a0transportation; and first place for waste management\u00a0(Figure 13.6) (Roggenbuck 2011). However,\u00a0biodiversity was not among the categories\u00a0for which San Francisco was highly ranked.<\/p>\n
What factors account for this success? First, political\u00a0will and supportive voters were needed to\u00a0pass sustainable legislation, and San Francisco had both. Voters passed, by wide margins, measures\u00a0such as the 2001 Proposition H, which set the stage for community choice aggregation (Hess 2005),\u00a0and the 2003 Proposition K, which continued a sales tax to\u00a0fund socially and environmentally motivated transportation\u00a0projects (County of San Francisco 2011). Additionally, San\u00a0Francisco became the<\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 13.7: Solar panel installation in\u00a0San Francisco, CA. Source: Bay Area\u00a0Rapid Transit 2021<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
first United States city to mandate solar\u00a0and living roofs on most new construction (Sustainable City\u00a02018). Second, San Francisco\u2019s experience with alternative\u00a0energy helped it become a leader in solar energy use, and the\u00a0city has completed a number of successful solar projects (Figure\u00a013.7). Finally, the city has strong environmental planning\u00a0due in part to its robust sustainability plan (Diamond 2011).\u00a0San Francisco continues to work toward its goals and increasingly\u00a0become more sustainable each year.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/strong><\/p>\n
The transition toward the inclusion of sustainability principles in ecological conservation is a challenge\u00a0and faces many hurdles. Efforts have to address multiple scales, interests, and shortcomings to eliminate\u00a0impacts to natural environments and maximize human benefits. The transition to the incorporation\u00a0of holistic, sustainable principles in managing the earth\u2019s resources is anticipated to take many decades\u00a0because different ways of thinking have to be adopted across the world. However, the United Nations\u00a0SDGs are inspiring, and progress is being made every day toward the achievement of these targets.<\/p>\n
REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n
Aronson, J., 2011. Sustainability science demands that we define our terms across diverse disciplines.\u00a0Landscape Ecology, 26<\/em>, pp.457\u2013460.<\/p>\n
Barrett, C.B., 2021. On design-based empirical research and its interpretation and ethics in\u00a0sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118<\/em>(29).<\/p>\n
Bay Area Rapid Transit, 2021. Energy at Bart. Available: https:\/\/www.bart.gov\/sustainability\/energy\u00a0(October 2021).<\/p>\n
Bennett, D.H., Hampton, E.L. and Lackey, R.T., 1978. Current and future fisheries management goals:\u00a0Implications for future management. Fisheries, 3<\/em>(1), pp.10-14.<\/p>\n
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., J\u2000ger, J. and Mitchell,\u00a0R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the national academy of\u00a0sciences, 100<\/em>(14), pp.8086-8091.<\/p>\n
Cash, D.W. and Belloy, P.G., 2020. Salience, credibility and legitimacy in a rapidly shifting world of\u00a0knowledge and action. Sustainability, 12<\/em>(18), p.7376.<\/p>\n
Castree, N., 2017. The nature of produced nature: Materiality and knowledge construction in Marxism.\u00a0In Environment (pp. 217-254). Routledge.<\/p>\n
Chapin III, F.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W.C., Olsson, P., Smith,\u00a0D.M.S., Walker, B., Young, O.R. and Berkes, F., 2010. Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies\u00a0for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in ecology & evolution, 25<\/em>(4), pp.241-249.<\/p>\n
Chapin, F.S., Pickett, S.T., Power, M.E., Jackson, R.B., Carter, D.M. and Duke, C., 2011. Earth\u00a0stewardship: A strategy for social\u2013ecological transformation to reverse planetary degradation. Journal\u00a0of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1<\/em>(1), pp.44-53.<\/p>\n
Clapp, R.A., 1998. The resource cycle in forestry and fishing. Canadian Geographer\/Le Geographe\u00a0Canadien, 42<\/em>(2), pp.129-144.<\/p>\n
Clark, W.C., 2007. Sustainability science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of\u00a0Sciences 104<\/em>(6), pp.1737-1738.<\/p>\n
Clark, W.C. and Dickson, N.M., 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program.\u00a0Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 100<\/em>(14), pp.8059-8061.<\/p>\n
County of San Francisco, 2011. About Proposition K. San Francisco County Transportation Authority.\u00a0Available: http:\/\/www.sfcta.org\/content\/view\/11\/27\/ (June 2011).<\/p>\n
Davis, S.J., Caldeira, K. and Matthews, H.D., 2010. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from\u00a0existing energy infrastructure. Science, 329<\/em>(5997), pp.1330-1333.<\/p>\n
Diamond, M., 2011. San Francisco: Sustainability and the New Energy Horizon in a Model City. In\u00a0David J. Hess, ed., Urban Sustainability Programs: Case Studies. Available: http:\/\/www.davidjhess.net\u00a0(June 2011).<\/p>\n
Djoulakian, H., 2015. The Top 5 Reasons Why San Francisco Is California’s Sustainable City. Culture\u00a0Trip. Available: http:\/\/theculturetrip.com\/north-america\/usa\/california\/articles\/top-5-ways-sanfrancisco-\u00a0is-environmentally-friendly\/ (July 2015).<\/p>\n
Hani, F., Braga, F.S., Stampfli, A., Keller, T., Fischer, M. and Porsche, H., 2003. RISE, a tool for\u00a0holistic sustainability assessment at the farm level. International food and agribusiness management\u00a0review, 6<\/em>(1030-2016-82562), pp.78-90.<\/p>\n
Hansmann, R., Mieg, H.A. and Frischknecht, P., 2012. Principal sustainability components: Empirical\u00a0analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable\u00a0Development & World Ecology, 19<\/em>(5), pp.451-459.<\/p>\n
Hess, D., 2005. San Francisco Electric Power. Case Studies of the Greening of Local Electricity.\u00a0Available: http:\/\/www.davidjhess.net\/SFPower.pdf. (June 2011).<\/p>\n
Human Development Initiative, 2018. Global Multidimensional Poverty Index 2018: The most detailed\u00a0picture to date of the world\u2019s poorest people. University of Oxford, UK.<\/p>\n
International Energy Agency, 2019. SDG7 Data and Projections. Available: https:\/\/www.iea.org\/reports\/sdg7-data-and-projections (September 2021).<\/p>\n
Islam, S.D.U. and Bhuiyan, M.A.H., 2018. Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh: Causes of\u00a0degradation and sustainable management options. Environmental Sustainability, 1<\/em>(2), pp.113-131.<\/p>\n
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber,\u00a0H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M. and Faucheux, S., 2001. Sustainability science. Science, 292<\/em>(5517),\u00a0pp.641-642.<\/p>\n
Larkin, P.A., 1977. An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield. Transactions of the\u00a0American fisheries society, 106<\/em>(1), pp.1-11.<\/p>\n
Luckert, M.K. and Williamson, T., 2005. Should sustained yield be part of sustainable forest\u00a0management? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35<\/em>(2), pp.356-364.<\/p>\n
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. and Walters, C., 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:\u00a0Lessons from history. Ecological applications, pp.548-549.<\/p>\n
Martens, P., 2006. Sustainability: Science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, practice and policy, 2<\/em>(1),\u00a0pp.36-41.<\/p>\n
McKenzie, F.C. and Williams, J., 2015. Sustainable food production: Constraints, challenges and\u00a0choices by 2050. Food Security, 7<\/em>(2), pp.221-233.<\/p>\n
Messerli, P., Murniningtyas, E., Eloundou-Enyegue, P., Foli, E.G., Furman, E., Glassman, A.,\u00a0Hern\u2000ndez Licona, G., Kim, E.M., Lutz, W., Moatti, J.P. and Richardson, K., 2019. Global sustainable\u00a0development report 2019: The future is now\u2013science for achieving sustainable development. United\u00a0Nations, New York, NY.<\/p>\n
National Research Council, 1999. Our common journey: A transition toward sustainability. National\u00a0Academies Press, Washington, DC.<\/p>\n
Nielsen, L.A., 1976. The evolution of fisheries management philosophy. Marine Fisheries Review,\u00a038<\/em>(12), pp.15-23.<\/p>\n
Parris, T.M. and Kates, R.W., 2003. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual\u00a0Review of environment and resources, 28<\/em>(1), pp.559-586.<\/p>\n
Roggenbuck, J., 2011. San Francisco leads the U.S. in environmental sustainability. Siemans. Available:\u00a0http:\/\/www.siemens.com\/press\/\/pool\/de\/pressemitteilungen\/2011\/corporate_communication\/AXX20110673e.pdf (June 2011).<\/p>\n
Sustainable City, 2018. Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco. San Francisco Department\u00a0of the Environment, San Francisco, CA.<\/p>\n
Sustainable City, 2021. Sustainability plan. Available: http:\/\/sustainablecity.org\/Plan\/Intro\/intro.htm\u00a0(September 2021).<\/p>\n
Tibbs, H., 2011. Changing cultural values and the transition to sustainability. Journal of Futures\u00a0Studies, 15<\/em>(3), pp.13-32.<\/p>\n
Town of Maynard, MA, 2021. Sustainability Committee. Available: https:\/\/www.townofmaynardma.\u00a0gov\/gov\/committees\/sustainability\/ (September 2021).<\/p>\n
United Nations, 2021a. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.\u00a0Available: https:\/\/sdgs.un.org\/2030agenda (September 2021).<\/p>\n
United Nations, 2021b. The 17 goals. Available: https:\/\/sdgs.un.org\/goals (September 2021).<\/p>\n
United Nations, 2021c. About the Division for Sustainable Development Goals. Available:\u00a0https:\/\/sdgs.un.org\/about (September 2021).<\/p>\n
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. Zero waste case study: San Francisco.\u00a0Available: https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/transforming-waste-tool\/zero-waste-case-study-san-francisco (October\u00a02021).<\/p>\n
Weiss, E.B., 1990. Our rights and obligations to future generations for the environment. American \u00a0Journal of International Law, 84<\/em>(1), pp.198-207.<\/p>\n
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University\u00a0Press, Oxford, England.<\/p>\n
Ye, Y. and Gutierrez, N.L., 2017. Ending fishery overexploitation by expanding from local successes\u00a0to globalized solutions. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1<\/em>(7), pp.1-5.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"menu_order":7,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-236","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":210,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/236\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":332,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/236\/revisions\/332"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/210"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/236\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=236"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=236"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}