Applying sustainable development to resource assessment and environmental planning: meaning, method and application

(1)

(2)

(3)

List of Tables

Table 3.1 H ypothetical Land Use Impact Matrix 113

Table 3.2 H ypothetical Criteria Rankings 113

Table 3.3 Land Use Option Appraisal Rankings 114

Table 3.4 A dditional Em ploym ent Required to Attain H ighest Rank 114

Table 3.5 Characteristics of Reviewed Evaluation M ethods 125

Table 3.6 Strengths and Weaknesses of Evaluation M ethods

and Processes for Resource Assessment and Planning 126

Table 4.1 W elfare/D evelopm ent Indicator Approaches 168

Table 4.2 Landscape Level M easures of Spatial Pattern 190

Table 4.3 A Hierarchical Structure for Developing Indicators for

Sustainable Development 198

Table 5.1 Components of the Clayoquot Coastline 209

Table 5.2 M ean Climatic Data for Biogeoclimatic Units in

the Clayoquot Area 210

Table 5.3 Average Annual Escapement for Four Salmon Species:

Clayoquot Sound - Selected Years 213

Table 5.4 The State of Clayoquot Ecosystems by Area 215

Table 5.5 The Relative Importance of Resource Sectors to the

A lberni-Clayoquot Regional District 220

Table 5.6 Income Summary for Clayoquot Fisheries, Aquaculture,

and Processing in 1990 226

Table 5.7 Employment Summary for Clayoquot Fisheries, Aquaculture,

and Processing in 1990 227

Table 5.8 Specification of the Clayoquot Sound Sustainable

Development Programming Model 232

Table 5.9 Baseline Em ploym ent Data for the CSSDPM 237

Table 5.10 Baseline Resource Data for the CSSDPM 242

Table 5.11 M aximum Sustainable Employment 253

Table 5.12 Sustainable Employment Levels - Clayoquot Sound 255

Table 5.13 Intergenerational Impacts of M aintaining the W elfare

of the Present Generation 257

Table 5.14 Land Use Implications of Five Plans 263

Table 5.15 Criterion Scores: Wellbeing Present Generation 265

Table 5.16 Criterion Scores: Wellbeing Future Generations 266

Table 5.17 C riterion Scores: Biophysical Criteria 268

Table 5.18 Clayoquot Sound Plan Impact Matrix 268

Table 5.19 Clayoquot Sound Criteria Rankings 270

Table 5.20 W eights Corresponding to Criteria Rankings 270

(8)

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Dissertation Structure 15

Figure 2.1 The Structure of Chapter Two 20

Figure 2.2 A Co-Evolutionary View of Developm ent 36

Figure 3.1 The Structure of Chapter Three 68

Figure 3.2 The Structure of a Simplified Input-O utput Table 90

Figure 3.3 The Isard Input-O utput Framework 92

Figure 3.4 Structure of the French N atural Resource Accounts System 99

Figure 3.5 Energy Systems View of Ecological and

Socioeconomic Interrelations 102

Figure 3.6 An Overview of the Evamix Procedure 111

Figure 3.6 A Goal Program m ing Approach to Sustainable Developm ent 121

Figure 4.1 The Structure of Chapter Four 134

Figure 4.2 The Interplay of Disciplines Involved in Landscape A ssessm ent

for Environmental Planning 186

Figure 5.1 The Structure of Chapter Five 204

Figure 5.2 Clayoquot Sound Study Area 207

Figure 5.3 The State of Clayoquot Ecosystems by Proportion 215

Figure 5.4 Provincial Governm ent M anagem ent Designations

for the Clayoquot Landscape 217

(9)

Acknowledgments

The researching and w riting of this dissertation have involved a num ber of people to w hom I am indebted. Foremost, I w ould like to thank my supervisor Dr. Steve Lonergan for his helpful comments and patience. I am also indebted to my other com m ittee members Dr. Dave Duffus, Dr. M ark Flaherty and Dr. Dave Nickerson (Economics) for their comments and criticisms. Dr. Colin Wood (Geography), Dr. Bill Reed (Mathematics and Statistics) and Dr. Peter Kennedy (Economics) also provided advice at im portant stages of this research.

Thanks also go to my fellow graduate students and colleagues (both past and present) in the UVic D epartm ent of Geography for their sup p o rt and friendship. In no particular order I w ould like to recognise Gil Sherwin, Phil W akefield, Michael T ripp, Tim M cDonald, W alter MacWilliams, Patti H arris, Pat Bartier, N ina

Redding, Brad Judson, Diana Hocking, Paul Cham berlain and John Newcom b for their various contributions to my work and wellbeing.

Finally, my family deserves special thanks. To M um and Dad for teaching me to w onder, to Julie for her unfailing support and belief in me, w ithout you none of this w ould have been possible, and to Jessica for m aking everything worthwhile.

(10)

C hapter O ne

S ustainable D evelopm ent, G eography

and the Research Problem

1.1 Introduction

The concept of sustainable developm ent has become w idely accepted as an

instrum ental objective of resource planning and environmental policy analysis. Its

general endorsem ent has been due to a persuasive sustainable developm ent literature,

perhaps best exemplified by the publication of Our Couuuoii Future by the World

Com m ission on Environm ent and Developm ent (WCED) in 1987. The WCED describes

sustainable developm ent as "meeting the needs and aspirations of the present generation

w ithout com promising the ability of future generations to m eet their needs." (WCED

1987, p. 43). Presented in this m anner, it is difficult to disagree w ith the goals of

sustainable developm ent. Nevertheless, despite considerable academic and institutional

activity, there have been few attem pts to formally incorporate criteria for sustainable

developm ent into applied resource assessment and environmental planning. The

response to sustainable developm ent has been predom inantly norm ative in nature and

the em pirical relevance of the concept to real w orld resource and environm ental issues

has yet to be established. It rem ains to be dem onstrated w hether or not sustainable

(11)

1,2 Sustainable D evelop m en t and G eography

The application of sustainable developm ent to real-world problem s represents

both an opportunity for, and a challenge to the practice of geography. M anning (1990,

p. 290) in a recent presidential address to the C anadian Association of G eographers

(GAG) wrote:

"Sustainable developm ent presents a major challenge to geography to dem onstrate its capability and relevance to w hat may be the m ost

im portant public issue of our time. The h um an/biosphere relationship is at the core of grow ing global problems, and geography has comparative advantage in spearheading attem pts to make this relationship m ore sustainable.

He elaborated further (p. 291):

"Geographers have unique comparative advantage in helping to produce solutions; their spatial and regional traditions and their history of w ork in integration of biophysical and socioeconomic information are germ ane to this challenge.”

Three dom inant them es in geographical research - spatial analysis, ecological analysis,

an d regional analysis - therefore appear to have particular relevance to the analysis of

sustainable developm ent issues.

1.2.1 M ajor T hem es in Geographical Research

Spatial A na lysis

The theme of spatial analysis in geographical research is expressed in a diversity

of ways. In brief, the intent of spatial analysis is the understanding of how spatial

(12)

{after A ckerm an 1958; M cCarty 1963). Mitchell (1989) suggests spatial analysis focuses

on locations and distributions of phenom ena; social, economic and ecological

interactions betw een places and regions; spatial structures, arrangem ents and

organisations; and spatial processes. A n understanding of how location, spatial

structure, and spatial processes influence hum an developm ent and of how location,

structure and process will be influenced by additional constraints im posed by the

concept of sustainability is fundam ental to the geographic stu d y of sustainable

developm ent.

Ecological A n a lysis

The im portance of the hum an-environm ent relationship as a them e in

geographical research has varied considerably during the tw entieth century (Mitchell

1989). Its m ost recent incarnation, beginning in the late 1960s, reflects a w ider societal

concern w ith resolving pressing environmental problems. This focus differs m arkedly

from geographical research in the first half of the century which was prim arily concerned

w ith explaining hum an behaviour in term s of the physical environm ent. The explanatory

an d predictive intent of contem porary ecological analysis gained im petus w hen

A ckerm an (1963, p. 435) argued that geography should be concerned w ith system s and

th at its task w as "...an und erstan d in g of the vast, interacting system com prising all

hum anity and its natural environm ent on the surface of the earth." In term s of

geographical research and sustainable development, analysing the hum an-environm ent

relationship is central to explaining and predicting the sustainability of evolving

(13)

Regional A nalysis

Regional analysis at an appropriate spatial scale is a prerequisite for applied

sustainability research. Required is an understanding and accounting of the attributes of

an area that give rise to character, problems and issues, and range of opportunities for

solution. Properly implemented, regional analysis integrates the ecological and hum an

welfare related elements of sustainable developm ent w ithin a defined area.

The regional analysis theme of geography may also provide a vehicle for the

integration of the spatio-tem poral aspects of contem porary ecological research w ith

more traditional resource m anagem ent decision theory. Emerging research areas in

ecology such as landscape ecology and the hierarchical approach to m easuring

biodiversity have im portant implications for interdisciplinary research into sustainable

developm ent at the regional level. For example, landscape ecology sbidics the nature,

distribution and abundance of landscapes; the dynamics of landscapes; and the local

and d istan t interactions of landscapes (Pickett et a i 1992; Stenseth 1992). Landscape

ecology has been widely applied to the problem of habitat fragm entation and attendant

losses of biodiversity brought about by hum an developm ent (Stenseth 1992). Similarly,

N oss (1990) adopts a hierarchical approach to the m easurem ent of biodiversity in which

the relevance of landscape structure to biodiversity is particularly em phasised.

1.2.2 T he Failure of G eography to R espond

M any of the ideas underlying sustainable developm ent are not new to

geographical inquiry. For example, over tw enty years ago, Zelinsky (1970, p. 499),

(14)

"The reader is asked to consider w h at I have come to regard as the m ost timely and momentous item on the agenda of the hum an geographer: the study of the implications of a continuing growth in hum an num bers in the advanced countries, acceleration in their production and consum ption of commodities, the m isapplication of old and new technologies, and of the feasible responses to the resultant difficulties.”

Zelinsky w ent on to argue that material accumulation could no longer be considered

progress for it is not m aintainable, and that there was a major geographical task

involved in the sensible reallocation of effort tow ard a more ecologically responsible

society. Sm ith (1971. p. 154) suggested that N orth American geography w as about to

undergo another revolution because: "...geography is preoccupied w ith the stu d y if the

p roduction of goods and exploitation of natural resources, while ignoring im portant

conditions of hum an welfare and social justice."

The idea of sustainable developm ent can thus be characterised in p a rt as a

contem porary articulation of a reoccurring theme(s) w ithin geography. But, despite the

ap p aren t potential of geography to take a lead in sustainable developm ent research, it

has been the positivistic disciplines of economics and ecology which have dom inated

subsequent research and discussion. Some of the reasons for the failure of geography to

feature m ore prom inently in the sustainable developm ent debate were perhaps foreseen

by Zelinsky, w ho concluded his paper thus:

"...how woefully deficient w e are in term s of practitioners, in term s of both quantity and quality, how w e are still lacking in relevant techniques, b u t m ost of all that we are totally at sea in term s of ideology, theory and p roper institutional arrangements." (Zelinsky 1970, p. 529).

S toddart (1987, p. 334), nearly two decades later, also found it necessary to say of

(15)

"We need to claim the high ground back: to tackle real problems: to take the broader view: to speak out across our subject boundaries on the great issues of the d a y .... We need to forget the trivia and the tedium of m uch that has passed for geographical research and erudition over the last tw enty years... . Land and life is w hat geography has always been about."

Two themes seem evident in these statements: (i) geography is still coming to

terms with its ow n relevance and role in providing solutions to societal problems; and

(ii) geography is searching for a central philosophy to replace positivistic spatial science

w hich has been judged inappropriate for the task of building a base of know ledge on

which social policy can be built. These disciplinary undercurrents perhaps explain the

general lack of attention given to sustainable developm ent by the geographic literature.

The absence of a substantive geographical contribution to the sustainable

developm ent debate has hindered meaningful discussion of some of the m ost im portant

concerns raised by the notion of sustainable development. Geography, unlike the more

positivistic disciplines, brings w ith it a greater ability to synthesise and understand the

array of ecological, economic, and social influences that im pact sustainable

developm ent. Such a holistic perspective is necessary if hum an interference w ith natural

system s is to result in a m inim um of negative feedback (repercussions). For example, of

particular relevance to environmental planning and policy formulation is the extent of

potential conflicts am ong ecological, social, and economic systems that m ay be realised

in attem pts to bring about sustainable development. The determ ination of the extent to

w hich the achievement of sustainability may compromise the ability to fulfil other

im portant societal goals and objectives is also pertinent to resource planning and

(16)

1.2.3 A Potential R ole for G eography

There is a pressing need for the applied study of the im plications of the concept

of sustainable developm ent for the hum an-environm ent relationship. W ithout this

advancem ent there is a risk that sustainable developm ent will languish as a good idea’

th at cannot be put into practice, and which may be m anipulated by established interests

in o rd er to give an appearance of respectability while m aintaining the status quo

(O'Riordan 1988). Too often sustainable developm ent serves as a virtuous concept used

by governm ent, resource developers, and environmentalists alike, for differing and often

conflicting reasons.

M aking the concept of sustainable developm ent operational (i.e. responsive to

real-world m anagem ent and regulatory issues) is a task to w hich geography is well

suited. G eography’s central concern w ith hum an-biosphere relationships and general

rejection of reductionist a n d /o r uni-dim ensional approaches, means it is better able to

integrate necessary concepts from other disciplines such as economics and ecology.

Sustainable developm ent requires that the boundaries of resource analysis and

environm ental decision m aking be expanded (after Nelson (1984), cited in M anning

(1990)): (i) vertically, to encom pass m ore complex causal relationships w ithin ecological

and socioeconomic systems; (ii) horizontally, in terms of extended time horizons; and

(iii) cross-sectorally, to include more complex interrelationships betw een ecological and

socioeconomic sectors/system s. M anning (1990) suggests that the spatial dim ension

m ay be the only effective w ay to integrate information from all the disciplines and

(17)

s

The rem ainder of this C hapter describes the com ponents of a research

program m e intended to offer insight into some of the real w orld im plications of

sustainable developm ent for resource assessment and environm ental planning. It begins

w ith a discussion of the definition of sustainability and related concepts and then

describes the objectives and structure of the research program m e.

1.3 The D efinition of Sustainable D ev elopm ent

There is no universally accepted single definition of sustainable developm ent.

The concept has been described as inherently am biguous and heavily context dependent

{Boulding 1988; Brown et al. 1987; Cocklin 1989c; Colby 1991; Daly 1990; Liverm an ct

al. 1988; Nijkam p et a i 1991; O 'Riordan 1988; Turner 1991). It has been argued that in order to achieve clarity of discussion, sustainability m ust be explicitly defined (Brown et

al. 1987). This has resulted in extensive academic effort to com prehensively define sustainable developm ent. Barbier (1989a p. 185), for exam ple, w rites that the concept

of sustainability m ust be;

"...made more concise, systematic and rigorous before it can usefully be applied in policy m aking and planning."

For the purposes of this research the commonly encountered terms

"sustainability", "sustainable development" and "sustainable economic development" are

treated as related but distinct concepts, separated by the degree of anthropocentrism

contained in each.

• Sustainabilit}/ is used to refer to the ability of any given system to m aintain its self-

organising ability. It does n o t im ply a static state, allow ing for the coevolutionary

(18)

® Sustainable development introduces the needs and aspirations of hum ans and hence

anthropocentrism to the concept of sustainability. It is used to refer to the continued

ability of hum anity to m eet its needs and fulfill its aspirations w ithin the constraints

im posed by environment, society, and technology.

• Sustainable economic development is not only an anthropocentric concept, b u t derives

from the dom inant western w orld view and its inherent ideologies, im plying that the

m eans by which hum anity will continue to m eet its needs and aspirations will be

provided by economic activity and its inherent mechanisms, also w ithin the

constraints imposed by environment, society, and technology.

W hen referring to sustainability in the context of socioeconomic system s the term

sustainable developm ent is used in this research. In this m anner, the anthropocentric

nature of the term is explicit b u t the em phasis is on h um an developm ent rather than

furthering the economic process. C hapter Two, section 2.5 describes in m ore detail w hat

are believed to be the key operational elem ents of the concept of sustainable

developm ent. Briefly these are: (i) a set of ecological and socioeconomic interlinkages

th at act on the expression of social system s, and (ii) a series of developm ent goals

relating to the condition and evolution of socioeconomic systems.

There are m any other definitions of sustainable developm ent an d related

concepts. The following selected definitions are considered representative of these.

Sustainable developm ent has been variously described as:

"...a process in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investm ents, the orientation of technological developm ent, and

institutional change, are all in harm ony, and enhance both current and future potential to m eet h u m an needs an d aspirations." (WCED 1987, p. 46).

"..the indefinite survival of the h u m an species (w ith a quality of life beyond mere biological survival) through the maintenance of basic life su p p o rt system s (air, w ater, land, biota) an d the existence of

(19)

infrastructure and institutions which distribute and protect the com ponents of these systems." (Liverman et al. 1988, p. 133).

"...as the persistence over an apparently indefinite future of certain

necessary and desired characteristics of the socio-political system an d its natural environment." (Robinson et a i 1990, p.39).

There are also definitions of sustainable developm ent w hich are m ore context specific

than the preceding holistic definitions. For example:

"Sustainability is a relationship between dynam ic hum an economic systems and larger dynamic, but normally slower-changing ecological systems, in which 1) hum an life can continue indefinitely, 2) hum an individuals can flourish, and 3) hum an cultures can develop; b u t in which effects of hum an activities rem ain w ithin bounds, so as not to destroy the diversity, complexity, and function of the ecological life su p p o rt system." (Costanza 1991, p.8).

"We thus define agricultural sustainability as the ability to m aintain productivity, w hether of a field or farm or nation, in the face of stress or shock." (Conway and Barbier 1988, p. 653).

"Sustainable development... involves providing a bequest to the next generation of an am ount and quality of w ealth which is at least equal to that inherited by the current generation." (Pearce et al. 1989, p.48)

"The broad objective of sustainable economic developm ent is to find the optim al level of interaction betw een three systems - the biological and resource systems, the economic system, and the social system - through a dynam ic and adaptive process of trade offs. This optim al level w ould therefore be the m ost sustainable developm ent that these three crucial system s can support." (Barbier 1989a, pp. 185-86).

A preoccupation w ith defining sustainable developm ent m ay be ultim ately self-

defeating, however. There is a fine dividing line betw een the institutional conditions

required to bring about sustainable developm ent and the overall goal of sustainable

developm ent (O'Riordan 1988; Shearman 1990). The conditions influencing the

achievem ent of sustainable developm ent, for example prevailing institutional structures,

environm ental conditions, ecological consciousness etc., are highly context dependent.

As context changes so do the conditions influencing sustainable developm ent. The

(20)

perpetuity, or some variant of this) rem ains more or less constant despite the context in

w hich it is used. O ’Riordan (1988) suggests that incorporating conditions for the

achievem ent of sustainable developm ent within definitions of sustainable developm ent

results in a dissipation of m eaning and consequently, threatens to make the concept

meaningless.

It is perhaps appropriate, in light of the above discussion, to consider

sustainable developm ent a general developm ent goal. Over time, the concept may

become defined by successful research program m es w hich give rise to social actions

w hich are consistent w ith a set of accepted conditions for sustainable developm ent.

Lack of a precise, generally agreed upon definition need not hinder the empirical

investigation of sustainable development. The task required of researchers is the

developm ent of conceptual and methodological fram ew orks for addressing applied

issues in sustainable developm ent with regard to environm ental planning and policy. As

Daly (1990, p.2) suggests there is an im m ediate need to:

"...take up the challenge of giving the basic idea of sustainable developm ent a logically consistent and operational content."

1.4 Structuring the Research Programme

Given the breadth and diversity of literature concerning sustainable developm ent,

it is som ew hat surprising that few researchers have attem pted to take u p Daly's

challenge. M ost research, as dem onstrated by the context specific definitions presented

in the previous section, has attem pted to incorporate sustainable developm ent and

related ideas into existing research program m es and agendas. This contrasts w ith m ore

(21)

implications of sustainable developm ent for real-world resource issues. This neglect of

the broader perspective leaves a substantial void in the sustainable developm ent

literature and weakens the relevancy of the concept for real-world planning

applications. N eeded is a broader discourse that; articulates the conceptual dim ension

of sustainable development; describes potential m ethods for the application of agreed

upon concepts; a n d /o r outlines the developm ent of m easures of social and ecological

wellbeing that may act as objectives, inputs, a n d /o r constraints in applied studies.

This research, then, attem pts to create a fram ework for the application of the

concept of sustainable developm ent to real-world resource assessm ent and

environm ental decision making^. It treats each of the tasks necessary to create such a

fram ew ork as separate b u t related research challenges. These tasks are reflected in the

formal research objectives described below. The concepts and m ethodologies developed

in process of achieving these goals are intended to further sustainable developm ent

discourse by aiding in the creation of other conceptual and methodological frameworks

that respond to the strengths and weakness of this research.

1.4.1 Research O bjectives

The proposed research has the following objective; To develop a fram ew ork that

can apply the concept of sustainable developm ent to real-world resource assessm ent

an d environm ental decision making. Related to this prim ary objective are several related

secondary goals. These are to;

^ For the purposes of this research the term "resource assessment" refers to the process of determining the extent to which resources have the ability to satisfy development goals (Cocklin 1985). "Environmental decision making" (or planning) refers to the process of making decisions regarding tire allocation of environmental resources for development purposes.

(22)

• Establish a set of conditions consistent w ith the ideal of sustainable developm ent.

These conditions together form a conceptualisation of sustainable developm ent,

thereby defining the nature of the problem, identifying its parts and their

relationships.

• Review the capability of planning oriented evaluation m ethods and processes to

effectively apply the suggested concepts in the context of environmental decision

m aking and resource assessment.

• Discuss the types of social and ecological measures that could act as indicators in

sustainable developm ent and other sustainability-related research-.

• To dem onstrate the usefulness of the conceptual and methodological com ponents of

the research in an application to sustainable developm ent planning in the Clayoquot

Sound region of Vancouver Island.

1.4.2 D issertation Structure

Consistent w ith the above objectives, this research has four related b u t distinct

com ponents. Chapters Two, Three, and Four each examine a particular aspect of

applying sustainable developm ent to real-world resource problems. Chapter Five

applies aspects of this w ork in a sustainable developm ent planning case study. Each

Chapter is intended to make an individual contribution to the sustainable developm ent

literature. Significantly, they attem pt to examine the epistemological and ontological

dim ensions of creating a framework for applying sustainable developm ent. This

perspective is largely absent from the current sustainable developm ent literature.

2 When referring to the applied aspects of research carried out in this dissertation the terms "resource assessment for sustainable development" and " environmental decsion making (or planning) for sustainable development" are used. When referring to other authors research that may be carried out in other contexts, or to the wider application of the ideas developed in this research, the term "sustainability-related" is used.

(23)

The structure and contribution of the research is show n in Figure 1.1. Subsequent

Chapters aiso contain similar diagram s outlining their structure and the linkages between

Chapter sections. Chapter Two reviews the m any different and often competing

perspectives of sustainable development. It focuses in particular on methodological

approaches to sustainable development. These approaches tend to offer rules and

procedures that indicate how sustainable developm ent research should be conducted.

This is in contrast to broader norm ative approaches w hich tend to treat sustainable

developm ent as a policy objective and are distinctly program m atic in nature. The

C hapter concludes w ith its major contribution to this research, an articulation of three

general conditions for sustainable development. These conditions are intended to act as

guides for subsequent sustainable developm ent research that is more applied in nature.

A second im portant component of this research involves the review of various

evaluation m ethods and processes that m ight be suited to the real-world application of

the concept of sustainable developm ent for resource assessment and envronm ental

planning. In Chapter Three, the role of resource analysis, resource management, and

resource evaluation in sustainable developm ent research is examined. It is argued that

any m ethod that is applied to resource assessment a n d /o r environm ental decision in the

context of sustainable developm ent should be used w ith heuristic, rather than predictive

or descriptive intent. A num ber of methods for resource allocation, sim ulation, and

analysis are then reviewed. This review of m ethods in Chapter Three has relevancy to

two levels of resource analysis and evaluation. First, it recognises that the reviewed

m ethodologies are applicable to a wide range of resource assessment and environm ental

decision problems that contain varying degrees of consideration for sustainable

(24)

Figure 1.1 D issertation Structure

Chapter Six

Sutm ttaty and Prospects

Chapter O ne

Sustainable Development, Geography and the Research Problem

D isc u sse s th e re se a rc h p ro b le m , th e ro le o f g e o g r a p h y in its r e s o lu tio n a n d re se a rc h objectiv es.

Chapter Two

The M any Perspectives o f Sustainable D evelopm ent

E x am in es th e su s ta in a b le d e v e lo p m e n t lite r a tu r e a rtic u la te s u n d e r ly in g c o n c e p ts.

Chapter Five

Resource Assessmetitfor Sustainable Development: The Case ofClayoquot Sound

B rings th e fin d in g s o f C h a p te rs T w o , T h re e a n d F o u r to g e th e r in an a p p lie d s tu d y .

Chapter Three

Sustainable D evelopm ent & Resottrce Evaluation; A Revieiu o f

P otential Approaches R e v ie w s a n d r e c o m m e n d s a p p r o p ria te

m e th o d o lo g ie s for th e a p p lic a tio n o f s u s ta in a b le d e v e lo p m e n t co n c e p ts.

Chapter Four

Indicators fo r Assessing Sustainable D evelopm ent E x p lo res th e ro le of in d ic a to rs in th e a p p lie d s tu d y o f s u s ta in a b le d e v e lo p m e n t. D esc rib e s a n a p p r o a c h for in d ic a to r se le c tio n a n d use.

(25)

contribution to the literature in this w ider context. Second, it outlines the strengths and

weaknesses of these m ethods and processes for resource assessment and environm ental

planning in the narrow er context of sustainable developm ent. This may aid other

sustainable developm ent researchers in their search for appropriate applied

methodologies. The duality of the review recognises that while the concept of

sustainable developm ent is a unique construct, its com ponent parts are found in varying

forms and to different degrees throughout the resource and environmental literature.

Chapter Four complements Chapter Three by exam ining indicators of sustainable

development. A pplying the concept of sustainable developm ent to resource assessm ent

and environmental planning is necessarily complicated by the need to find and integrate

measures of social and ecological wellbeing. Moreover, these measures m ust be

applicable across a range of developm ent contexts and spatial scales. The Chapter

begins with a critique of indicator use in the sustainable developm ent literature. This

critique is followed by a review of the major analytical considerations necessary for the

developm ent and use of indicators for sustainable developm ent. A pproaches to

developing social welfare and ecological indicators are then examined. It is argued that

the selection of welfare indicators will depend on the political economy of the problem

at hand. Ecological indicators receive special attention because consideration of the

ecological dimension and its integration with social systems has largely been absent in

the sustainable developm ent literature. An approach to developing ecological indicators

and integrating them w ith social indicators based on landscape m easures of ecological

attributes is then articulated and its advantages discussed. The C hapter concludes w ith

the description of an approach for indicator selection an d use in sustainable

(26)

In C hapter Five, a case study centered on Clayoquot Sound, Briti=:h Colum bia is

used to draw the concepts, m ethods and indicator fram ew orks discussed in preceding

C hapters together. First, an overview of the physical, culture, economic, ecological and

institutional aspects of the region are reviewed. Second, a sim ple optim isation m odel is

used to examine the trade-off betw een resource stocks, intragenerational equity and

intergenerational equity. Third, various developm ent options for the region are

evaluated in the context of sustainable developm ent through a combination of the

program m ing m odel and mixed data multi-criteria analysis. W hile the m ain objective of

the C hapter is to synthesise and dem onstrate the application of some of the concepts

and m ethods articulated in previous Chapters, the case stu d y also reveals som ething of

the nature and prospects for sustained socioeconomic an d ecological linkages in the

region. The research concludes w ith a sum m ary of findings and a discussion of the

(27)

C hapter Two

The M any Perspectives of S ustainable D evelopm ent

2.1 Introduction

The principle of sustainable developm ent is appearing w ith increasing frequency

in the literature associated with economic developm ent and resource planning.

Concomitantly, governments, international institutions, an d industry are adopting the

idea as the objective of environmental management. This developm ent represents a

substantial alteration to the conventional w isdom of resource planning and policy

formulation. Traditional concerns regarding economic and technical efficiency are giving

w ay to a broader, more holistic planning approach in which there is explicit recognition

of the dependency of society and economy, and hence hum an welfare, on the continued

wellbeing of environmental systems.

It is not always clear w h at is m eant by sustainable developm ent, however. As

discussed in Chapter One, the concept is inherently am biguous an d context dependent.

To som e extent the use of the term sustainable developm ent in different contexts to

refer to disparate things is a reflection of disciplinary biases, separate paradigm s, and

differing ideologies. The vagueness of the concept is sometimes regarded as its strength,

increasing acceptance by a w ide range of disparate interest groups (Redclift 1991).

The purpose of this Chapter is to review the m ultiple perspectives of sustainable

developm ent. This will aid in the establishm ent of a set of operational concepts

(28)

section 1.3. Once developed, the operational concepts serve a dual purpose. First, they

provides a foundation for applied sustainable developm ent research and analysis.

Second, an d perhaps more im portantly, they serve to stim ulate discussion an d debate

regarding the appropriate components of such a framework. A particularly pertinent

issue is the implication of particular schools of thought in economics and ecology for

sustainable developm ent planning policy.

The review makes a fundam ental distinction betw een norm ative and

methodological treatm ents of sus^'ainable developm ent and related concepts. Norm ative

approaches tend to treat sustainable developm ent as a policy objective and are

distinctly program m atic in nature. Methodological treatm ents are narrow er in scope,

prim arily concerned w ith the implications of sustainable developm ent for the

investigation of hum an-environm ent interaction. The Chapter concludes w ith the

articulation of concepts consistent w ith the overall goal of sustainable developm ent.

These form the basis for subsequent discussion and research in this dissertation. The

structure of the Chapter is outlined in Figure 2.1.

2.2 N orm ative A pproaches to S u stainable D evelopm ent

2.2.1 The C ontem porary O rigins of S ustainable D evelopm ent

The norm ative, and to a lesser extent the methodological, approaches to

sustainable developm ent issues can be characterised, in part, as a contem porary

articulation of the environm ental principles popularised in the late 1960s and early

1970s. For example, Kenneth Boulding's "The Economics of the Com ing Spaceship

(29)

Figure 2.1 The Structure of C h ap ter Tw o INTRODUCTION NORMATIVE APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT C ontem porary origins Sustainability as a solution to developm ent problem s I De'i'elopment versus grow th debate Neoclassical econom ics & resource use

A daptations to environm ental & resource economics A lternatives to neoclassical analysis

i

Ecological economics I I Coevolutionary Political perspective econom y I----The concept of a constant resource stock 1---Capital substitution & technological change I The ethical dim ension of a constant resource stock

THE SPATIAL DIMENSION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

T

CONCEPTS GUIDING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH 1 1 Ecological constraints 1 Development constraints

The welfare Equity of the present between

generation generations

(30)

resource conservation are p a rt of the economic grow th equation and "throughput" is

som ething to be m inim ised rather than m axim ised. E. F. Schum acher (1975) also

suggests that pollution m ust be controlled and that hum ankind's economic and social

system s be directed tow ards a perm anent and sustainable equilibrium . H erm an Daly

(1973, 1980) sim ilarly describes the conditions required for a steady state econom y. In

The Closmg Circle: Nature, Man and Technolog}/, C om m oner (1971, p. 299), writes;

"Hum ans have broken out of the circle of life, driven not by biological need, b u t by the social organisation which they have devised to conquer' n a tu re .... The end result is the environm ental crises, a crises of survival. Once m ore to survive, w e m ust close the circle. We m ust learn to restore to nature the w ealth that w e borrow from it."

Concerns about the ability of the earths resources to m aintain economic grow th are also

expressed by Forrester (1971), M eadow s et ai. (1975) and G eorgescu-Roegan (1971,

1977, 1980) am ong others.

The concept of sustainability also originated d u rin g the 1960s and early 1970s.

Caldw ell (1984) describes the term as being im plicit in tw o conferences held in 1968, the

Paris "Biosphere Conference" and the W ashington, D C. Conference on the "Ecological

A spects of International Development". O 'Riordan (1988) suggests that the trend

tow ard equating sustainable utilisation w ith nature conservation and wildlife

m anagem ent becam e established following a series of African based conferences in the

mid-1960s. Further recognition of the concept of sustainability followed the "United

N ations Conference on the H um an Environment" held in Stockholm in 1972 (Caldwell

1984).

It w as n o t until the late 1980s, how ever, that sustainable developm ent becam e

(31)

Cotiservation Strategy in 1980 by the International Union for the Conservation of N ature (lUCN) provided m uch of the initial stim ulus for the w idespread political acceptance of

sustainable developm ent. This report defines developm ent as:

"...the modification of the biosphere and the application of hum an, financial, living, and nonliving resources to satisfy h um an needs and im prove the quality of hum an life." (lUCN 1980, p. 1),

C onservation is defined as:

"...the m anagem ent of hum an use of the biosphere so that it m ight yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations w hile m aintaining its potential to m eet the needs and aspirations of future generations." {lUCN 1980, p. 1).

Sustainable developm ent w ould thus be brought about by such conservation {Tisdell

1988).

N orm ative approaches to sustainable developm ent received further im petus

follow ing the 1987 publication of Ottr Common Future by the W orld Com m ission on

Environm ent and Developm ent (WCED). This report contains a m ore concise definition

of sustainable developm ent:

"Sustainable developm ent is developm ent that m eets the needs of the present w ithout com promising the ability of future generations to meet their ow n needs." (WCED 1987, p. 43).

The process of sustainable developm ent is described as;

"...a process in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological developm ent, and

institutional change, are all in harm ony, and enhance both cu rren t and fu tu re potential to m eet h u m an needs and aspirations." (WCED 1987, p. 46),

(32)

an d following the sentim ents expressed in the environm ental w ritings of the late 1960s

and early 1970s:

"In its broadest sense, the strategy for sustainable developm ent aims to promote harm ony among hum an beings and between hum anity and nature." (WCED 1987, p. 65).

This norm ative perspective has been w idely adopted in the literature associated

w ith the developm ent of hum an society. For example. Brown et al. (1987) and Liverman

et al. (1988, p. 133) following an extensive and systematic review of the sustainable developm ent literature, define sustainability as:

"..the indefinite survival of the hum an species (with a quality of life beyond mere biological survival) through the m aintenance of basic life su p p o rt systems (air, w ater, land, biota) and the existence of

infrastructure and institutions which distribute and protect the com ponents of these systems."

Similarly, Robinson et al. (1990, p. 39) suggest in regard to the creation of a sustainable

society that:

"Sustainability is defined as the persistence over an apparently indefinite future of certain necessary and desired characteristics of the socio

political system and its natural environment."

These definitions of sustainable developm ent reflect an anthropocentric value

structure concerned w ith hum an needs and the betterm ent of the hum an condition

through the long term m aintenance and im provem ent of social and economic systems

and the relationship of these system s w ith the environm ent. This value structure is

shared b y the definition of sustainable developm ent used in this research (see C hapter

One, section 1.3). Sustainable developm ent is, as a consequence, regarded as a policy

(33)

2,2.2 S u stain ab ility as a Solution to D evelopm ent Problem s

N orm ative discussion of sustainable developm ent has tended to focus on the

issues of poverty and environm ental degradation. B rundtland (1987, p. 292), for

exam ple, w rites that "...poverty is a main source, as well as an effect, of environm ental

degradation. This applies equally to poverty of the individual and to the

im poverishm ent of nations." A dding in regard to sustainable developm ent that;

"It is a form of progress for social and economic generation that enhances the resource-base rather than degrades it. It requires a more equitable distribution of wealth than currently prevails w ithin and am ong nations, and it aims at the eradication of global m ass poverty, keeping options open for the future." (Brundtland 1987, p. 292).

Consequently, considerable attention has been paid to the problem s of the

developing w orld w here the m ism anagem ent of capital investm ent a n d /o r ecological

system s has resulted in economic failure, social inequity an d degradation of the natural

environment^. The norm ative perspective places both the responsibility for such

problem s, and the will to overcome them, in the hands of hum an actors (Redclift 1991),

Economic developm ent is often advised as the solution to the social,

environm ental, and economic problems of developing nations. It is implicitly assum ed

that the process of economic developm ent will provide the com m odities and services

required to im prove individual well being (Barbier 1987; Pearce et ai. 1989; Shearm an

1990). A lthough different approaches have been taken to achieve developm ent goals,

the conventional m ethod has been to set developm ent in the context of economic grow th.

In this m anner economic developm ent becomes the process w here real p er capita income

^ See, a m o n g oth ers, Biswas (1986), C onw ay (1985), C onw ay a n d Barbier (1988), G o w d y (1994), M acN eili (1989), M a n n in g (1990), M ellor (1988), M yers (1993), O 'R io rd an (1988), Redclift (1987, 1988b, 1991) a n d R uckelshaus (1989).

(34)

of a country or region rises over a long period of time, subject to the distribution of

incom e not becoming m ore unequal (Barbier 1987; Shearm an 1990). The concept of

sustainable developm ent has been used to further argue that economic developm ent

m ust provide lasting and secure livelihoods that minimise resource depletion,

environm ental degradation, cultural disruption, and social instability (Myers 1993).

Barbier (1987, 1989a, 1989b) adds that economic developm ent m ust also be consistent

w ith social values and institutions, and encourage grass r aots participation in the

developm ent process.

2.2.3 T h e D evelo p m en t V ersus G row th D ebate

The em phasis placed on the achievement of sustainable developm ent through

economic grow th as argued for by Brundtland (1987) and the WCED (1987) am ong

others, has been subject to considerable debate, however. The WCED (1987, p. 16)

states:

"Many essential hum an needs can be met only through goods and services provided by industry, and the shift to sustainable developm ent m ust be pow ered by a continuing flow of wealth from industry."

Critics suggest, nonetheless, that mism anaged economic grow th and industrialisation are

often responsible for the environm ental, social, and economic difficulties faced by

developing, and to a lesser extent developed, nations (Daly 1987, 1990; Etkins 1989;

H ueting 1990; Simon 1989; Tisdell 1988). This is not to say that economic grow th is not

w ithout merit. It is ap parent that economic growth is vital to economic developm ent in

m any developing countries, b u t it m ust be recognised that grow th is sim ply a m eans and

not an end in itself (Shearman 1990). Fundam ental and pragm atic questions about

w hether economies should, or indeed can continue to increase the rate of flow of m atter

(35)

55) argues that there is "no convincing evidence that past economic grow th has led to an

unam biguous improvement in the hum an condition".

Daly (1987,1990) suggests that the significant difference betw een grow th an d

developm ent is often ignored in discussions of sustainable developm ent. G row th implies

a quantitative increase in the scale of the physical dim ensions of the economy, while

developm ent, in contrast, refers to the qualitative im provem ent in the structure, design

and composition of physical stocks and flows, that result from increased know ledge of

technique and of purpose. O ’Riordan (1988), from a w estern ecocentric perspective,

further argues that developm ent in contrast to growth comprises ethical concerns relating

to the survival of living matter, the rights of future generations, and to institutions to

ensure that such rights are included in policies and actions.

The debate surrounding the issue of achieving sustainable developm ent through

economic grow th dem onstrates the am biguity and lack of clear theoretical basis of the

norm ative view of sustainable developm ent concepts (O'Riordan 1988; Simon 1989;

Tisdell 1988). By stressing only w hat should be, m any fundam ental conceptual issues

are neglected. Significantly, there appears to be little debate about w hether or not

sustainability, sustainable developm ent, or sustainable economic developm ent are

realistic or achievable states for hum an society and economy. Treated as policy

objectives w ithout theoretical foundation, sustainability-related concepts tend to be

am biguous. For example, in the form presented by the WCED and lU CN sustainable

developm ent serves as a virtuous concept, used by politicians, resource developers, and

environm entalists alike w ithin differing and often conflicting contexts (O'Riordan 1988).

Before sustainable developm ent concepts can be incorporated into decision m aking and

(36)

2.3 M ethodological A pproaches to S u stain ab le D evelo p m en t

There is a grow ing recognition that the im plem entation of sustainable

developm ent requires the articulation of m ethods of study rather than political rhetoric

(B rundtland 1987; Barbier 1987, 1989a, 1989b; Pearce and T urner 1990; Pearce et a!.

1989; Pearce et al. 1990; WCED 1987). A substantial contribution to the sustainable

developm ent literature has thus come from researchers w ho regard sustainable

developm ent as a methodological problem. Sought are sets of rules and procedures

which indicate how sustainable developm ent research is to be conducted.

M ethodological approaches tend to be narrow er than those in the norm ative tradition,

having a more explicit philosophical a n d /o r ideological basis.

A m ong those w ho consider the achievem ent of sustainable developm ent to be a

methodological problem there is little consensus. Diverging m ethodologies reflect

disciplinary biases, differing paradigm s and ideological conflicts. Often, how ever, the

resulting m ethodologies have in com m on that they have evolved in response to the

conventional w isdom of neoclassical economics which underlies current economic, and

hence developm ent, theory. There are those approaches, for example, w hich represent a

reaction against the neoclassical economic paradigm . Examples include N o rg aard ’s

(1985, 1988) co-evolutionary view and Redclift’s (1987, 1988a, 1988b, 1991) political

econom y approach. In contrast to outright rejection of the neoclassical paradigm , there

are also adaptive approaches w hich w ork from v/ithin a neoclassical fram ew ork and

attem p t to extend its scope to include the analytical tools necessary to m odel

(37)

neoclassical economics and subsequent discussion concerns the critical reaction to its

dom inance of the analysis of economic-ecological interactions-.

2.3.1 N eoclassical Econom ics and Resource U se

Neoclassical economic analysis has been steadily refined since its inception late

last century. The validity of the paradigm is now w idely accepted and it has come to

dom inate western economic thinking and subsequent public policy. Central to the

conventional w isdom of economists and policy m akers are the notions that capital

substitution and technological progress are m ore than sufficient in overcoming resource

scarcity, and that the operation of a com petitive m arket will allocate natural resources

efficiently. There is no single neoclassical the .y of resource use to which all economists

subscribe, however, and the following discussion is a simplified generalisation of

neoclassical resource theories.

The fundam ental principles of neoclassical economics were developed by John

Stuart Mill, W illiam Jevons, and Alfred Marshall, beginning around 1870. Theit w ork

w as instrum ental in creating a paradigm shift which saw the methodological em phasis

of economics move from production dynamics to an analysis of exchange value. This

em phasis subsequently lead to the developm ent of the principles of optim isation,

efficiency, and equilibrium in the market. A new m ethodology, marginal analysis, based

on the study of relationships between incremental changes also evolved. The basic

intention of the early neoclassical economists was to define a set of laws w hich governed

2 It is b e y o n d the scope of the d issertatio n to critique in detail in d iv id u a l research p a ra d ig m s. R ather, th e n e x t section sum m arises m ajor aspects of a vigorous d iscourse th a t h a s arisen in several fields of s tu d y in response to the no tio n of su stainable dev elo p m en t. This d iscourse is p a rticu la rly u sefu l in h e lp in g to tu rn sustainable d e v e lo p m en t from a n o rm a tiv e goal in to a set of re la te d co ncepts w ith the po ten tial for a p p lie d stu d y .

(38)

economic activity. Consequently, economic analysis w ithin the neoclassical paradigm

becam e alm ost solely concerned w ith the investigation of price determ ination and

m arket structures. The evolution of neoclassical economics has been characterised by

the application of increasingly rigorous m athematical techniques to economic param eters

m easured by m ore disagregate indicators.

Dom inance of economic analysis by m arket theory created an analytical

indifference to the production process and its use of natural resources. Production w as

com m only treated as an aspect of the allocation and pricing of factors of production

(land, labour and capital) and the capacity of the environm ent to provide inputs to the

production process elicited little interest am ong economists. H ow ever, concern w ith the

lack of economic grow th in w estern economies during the 1930s and the need to

stim ulate post w ar economic production caused neoclassical analysts to reassess their

neglect of production and economic grow th patterns. A ttention turned to developing

m odels of economic grow th based upon the macroeconomic ideas of John M aynard

Keynes. Neoclassical grow th m odels typically use an aggregate production function for

an econom y. Inputs of capital and labour are com bined to generate an o u tp u t w hich can

either be consum ed or reinvested to increase the stock of capital.

H eightened environm ental aw areness du rin g the 1960s caused a further re-

evaluation of neoclassical theory. Of concern was the central role of the environm ent

and resource flows in determ ining aggregate levels of welfare and production functions.

Two economic subdisciplines subsequently evolved, environm ental economics, and

resource economics. In very general terms environm ental economics reflects a concern

w ith the theoretical operation of the m arket and the price m echanism as it relates to the

(39)

economics^ suggests that the economic value of m arketable commodities and un-priced

environm ental goods and services is determ ined by the am ount of personal utility

yielded. The utility of an individual depends not only on the level of their consum ption,

b u t also on environm ental qualit}\ Tradeoffs are m ade by individuals at the m argin to

determ ine positions of equal satisfaction. Such preferences are revealed by the rational

decisions people make, and are in turn reflected in the operation of the m arket

mechanism. Future utility is incorporated into welfare through discounting.

Equilibrium in the m arket represents a Pareto optim um situation in which

collective societal welfare is maximised. The m arket thus allocates scarce environm ental

resources in an economically efficient m anner on the basis of rational hum an behaviour.

W hen rational behaviour occurs but m arkets do not maximise collective welfare, m arket

failure is deem ed to have occurred. Governm ents fulfil the role of ethical agent,

intervening to correct m arket failure by easing the tension betw een individual rationality

and collective ethics. Significantly, ethical and m oral obligations are not recognised at

the level of the individual by dom inant utilitarian approaches to economics.

In contrast to the m arket orientation of environm ental economics, resource

economics places less em phasis on the operation of the m arket m echanism, and is

instead concerned w ith the way in which resource dynam ics affect the intertem poral

allocation of the natural resource stock to com peting dem ands. M clnem ey (1981)

suggests that three features serve to distinguish natural resource economics from the

stu d y of other economic problems. First, problem s are view ed at the societal level rather

than individual level, therefore focusing attention on societal choice. Second, w ith m inor

qualifications, there is no com pletely static theory of n atural resource economics, an d

(40)

tem poral considerations take precedence. Third, social choice is constrained by factors

outside the control of hum ans, for either resource stocks are fixed or change at natural

rates. The foundations of the economics of natural resource use appear in w orks of

H otelling, carried out in the 1930s, and Scott in the 1950s. These early contributions

focused on the m arket's ability to efficiently allocate resources over time, rather then on

the im plications of its failure to achieve this task, how ever (Victor 1991).

The theoretical w ork of H erfindahl and Kneese w as instrum ental in the

developm ent of resource economics in the early 1970s. H erfindahl and Kneese (1974)

extended standard formulations of the aggregate grow th function to include natural

resources. They defined the capital com ponent of grow th m odels to be "anything which

yields a productive flow of services over time and which is subject to control in the

production process." (H erfindahl and Kneese 1974, p. 68). The environm ent was

considered to provide two services: the provision of m aterial inputs,and be a sink for

residuals. Theoretical m odels based on the extended notion of capital, led H erfindahl

an d Kneese to the conclude that overall economic outp u t (and hence welfare or utility)

w as constrained by lim ited supplies of resources. They also concluded that

techrvological prc^ \ ..<s could overcome these limits (Victor 1991).

A m ore detailed analysis of the economics of exhaustible resources w as carried

out by D asgupta and Heal (1979). N atural resources w ere again held to be essential for

production, b u t it w as assum ed that o u tp u t can be m aintained by the substitution of

m anufactured capital for resources. They concluded that exhaustible resources do not

represent a problem if m anufactured capital is considered substitutable for natural

resources, even in the absence of technological change (D asgupta and Heal 1979; Solow

(41)

Renewable resources were considered to be less problematic by early resource

economists since they were assum ed to grow according to a natural grow th function.

Clark (1976) describes the availability of renewable resources as being a function of

initial resource stock, its natural growth rate, and the carrying capacity of the

environment. Since the resource is renewable there is a theoretical level of extraction

which can be sustained forever even w ithout technological change and substitution. If

the extraction rate is higher than the maxim um sustained yield the resource is being

depleted. In this case production can still be maintained through continuous

technological progress and the substitution of m anufactured capital for renewable

resources (Baumol and Oates 1988). Consequently, the conventional position on the role

of renewable and non-renewable resources in production, and hence economic growth, is

that even w ithout technological change, economic output can be sustained or increased

indefinitely through substitution. Introducing technological progress increases the

possibility of sustained or im proved output further.

Neoclassical environm ental/resource economics is not w ithout methodological

lim itations despite its theoretical elegance and apparent com prehensiveness. These

limitations bring into question the ability of the m arket to ensure the present welfare of

hum anity through the efficient allocation of natural resources, and perhaps more

significantly, the provision of future welfare for hum anity via the intertem poral

allocation of the natural resource stock. Three areas of concern can be identified, the

hom ogeneic and separate treatment of resource inputs, the principle of equilibrium in

n atural and economic systems, and the treatm ent of time. The issues of substitution

betw een m anufactured capital and resources and the role of technological change will be

Applying sustainable development to resource assessment and environmental planning: meaning, method and application

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Acknowledgments

s

i

T