2012 Book SustainabilityScience

Sustainability Science
wwwwwwwwwwwww
Michael P. Weinstein ●
R. Eugene Turner
Editors
The Emerging Paradigm and the Urban
Environment
Editors
Michael P. Weinstein R. Eugene Turner
PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies Department of Oceanography
Montclair State University and Coastal Sciences
Montclair, NJ, USA Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
ISBN 978-1-4614-3187-9 e-ISBN 978-1-4614-3188-6

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3188-6
Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012937794
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written
permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY
10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection
with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are
not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject
to proprietary rights.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Photo by Mike Peters/Montclair State University
This book is dedicated to Robert W. Kates,

a pioneer in Sustainability Science who
inspired a generation of systems thinkers.
wwwwwwwwwwwww
Preface
Balancing human needs with the ability of ecosystems to provide the goods and
services that we all depend on is a fundamental formula for the global sustainability
transition (Fig. 1). Equilibrium can be attained either by increasing these goods and
services or by reducing our consumption of them, or in today’s world, both!
Furthermore, demographic shifts and new patterns of settlement have placed
unprecedented pressures on human well-being, ecosystem functions, and the inter-
actions between them. Society has yet to adequately address the challenges of
diminishing resources, i.e., by facing challenges that make sustainability more feasi-
ble technologically, and simultaneously more difficult politically and economically.
First, there has been a dramatic growth in per capita domestic product in many
regions of the globe and an increased ability to meet human needs. Second, despite
recent successes in decreasing harmful consumption per unit value of product,
worldwide consumption of energy and other natural resources in industrialized
nations continues to accelerate (Kates and Parris 2003; Brown et al. 2011).
Authorities worldwide have called for the prioritization of uses in order to mini-
mize conflicts, protect resources, and ensure that all uses are compatible with sus-
tainability goals. The public interest is addressed through recommendations to
balance long- and short-term strategies with greater decentralization of governance
to regional and local levels. Ecosystem-based management has been widely advo-
cated as a central organizing principle for addressing land-use impacts holistically
and reconciling multiple use conflicts at different geographic scales. Nevertheless,
academicians, governance organizations, decision-makers, and the general public
have yet to confront one very real issue:
Where multiple desirable but competing objectives exist, it is not possible to maximize
each…[and] in any system with multiple competing objectives, it will not be possible to
meet every one.
United States Commission on Ocean Policy 2004
vii
viii Preface
Fig. 1 The “Sustainability Equation” balancing human needs with ecosystem integrity
Any solution to the emerging conflicts arising on the path to long-term sustain-
ability will, in part, require the integration of the biophysical and social sciences
into a new transdisciplinary science that we refer to as “sustainability science,”1
continued development and refinement of a number of new approaches and con-
cepts including a systems approach to problem-solving, social learning, resolution
of the “paradox of the dual mandate,”2 and enhanced incorporation of human dimen-
sions into resource management.
There is a growing awareness that the intractability of environmental problems
can be explained in part by the social context in which they arise. When perceptions
of a problem vary broadly, and when there is uncertainty in the scientific assump-
tions and outcomes that underlie the process, then a consensus is difficult to achieve.
Under such circumstances, tensions can arise among stakeholders (Fig. 2), even
1
There are many definitions of sustainability science; the National Academy of Sciences through
its Proceedings offer the following: “…an emerging field of [transdisciplinary] research dealing
with the interactions between natural and social systems … how those interactions affect the challenge
of sustainability: meeting the needs of present and future generations while substantially reducing
poverty and conserving the planet’s life support systems.”
2
Whereas complexity, interdependence, high levels of uncertainty, unpredictability, and dynamism
characterize natural systems—traits that prevent competitive dominance by any one species—hu-
man-dominated systems require predictability and stability to ensure uninterrupted provision of
resources for human use. The paradox of the dual mandate arises from the need to reconcile society’s
desire to preserve, restore, and rehabilitate natural ecosystems while at the same time ensuring the
provision of reliable, predictable, and stable supplies of goods and services at a time of escalating
demand (Roe and van Eeten 2001; Berkes 2006).
Preface ix
Fig. 2 (modified from Weinstein 2009) A conceptual framework for achieving the sustainability
transition through the integration of the natural and social sciences in a transdisciplinary, systems
approach to managing natural and social capital. Developing “new knowledge”, changing human
behavior and perceptions through a lens of social learning, and achieving consensus on how to
effectively manage ecosystems for sustainability will be consummated through the emerging dis-
cipline of Sustainability Science and Conflict Management. Resolution of the “paradox of the dual
mandate”—reconciling society’s desire to preserve, restore, and rehabilitate natural ecosystems
while at the same time ensuring the provision of reliable, predictable, and stable supplies of goods
and services—will be a key component of any future success
when all are committed to sustainable development (Weinstein et al. 2007). This
understanding of the social character of environmental problems has focused the
attention of researchers, stakeholders, and policy-makers on the important role of
governance, participation, and collaborative decision-making in better managing, if
x Preface
not solving, environmental problems. The human dimensions of natural resource

management incorporate the ways people affect, value, utilize, and benefit from
ecosystems (Salz and Loomis 2005). While ecological considerations are essential,
the successful implementation of sustainable management depends on, and is driven
by, societal values. We need a better understanding of the human-induced causes
and social drivers of environmental change and how human behavior can be made
to coincide with environmental and social priorities.
Although political, economic, and social systems make up the human dimen-
sions of natural resource management, natural resource values originate in only the
social system (Kennedy and Thomas 1995; Ayensu et al. 2003). These values are
manifested as environmental laws, national and local budgets, volunteerism, voting
behavior, and management decisions and largely determine the fate of the natural
systems that sustain societies. Implicit in the human dimensions approach is not
whether ecosystems will persist—they will—but rather what trade-offs will be
struck and what kinds of ecosystems will be desired by individual social groups,
based on their demographics, cultural identity, and existing and expected resource
requirements. The present scenario is one in which issues tend to be treated in isola-
tion, instead of being considered as part of an integrated system, and broad-scale
decisions are generally avoided. Accordingly, policy-makers may too easily avoid
the trade-offs and there are therefore many conflicts and few solutions.
Difficult Choices
Most citizens now recognize that natural resources are not inexhaustible, and an
international call for fundamental shifts in governance, political will, and resource
management is underway. The challenges we face in the move towards global sus-
tainability are substantial and often underappreciated:
1. The complexity of natural systems precludes a reductionist experimental approach
to management. Moreover, the scale of large ecosystems make controlled and rep-
licated experiments virtually impossible. Consequently, our “imperfect science”
and the effects of natural variability and uncertainty lead to an inability to reach
consensus and accurately predict the environmental consequences of our actions.
We are often left with a wide range of opinions on the issues (Ludwig et al. 1993).
2. With acquired wealth comes political and social power that is often used to pro-
mote further unlimited exploitation of natural resources (Ludwig et al. 1993).
3. Traditional demography and economics do not incorporate sufficient apprecia-
tion of environmental principles. Furthermore, ecologists tend to disregard
human influence and instead concentrate on ecosystem function and dynamics.
Numerous authors have suggested that the failure to agree on a collective vision
of how to attain sustainability lies in the limitations and disconnects among
disciplines (Kaufman and Cleveland 1995; Holling 2000; Clark and Dickson
2003; McMichael et al. 2003; Naveh 2005).
Preface xi
4. Anthropocentrism and the “we versus them” mentality stemming from the
“arrogance of humanism” is a concept that expresses humankind’s faith in its
technology to manage nature so that all can prosper (Ehrenfeld 1981). In anthro-
pocentric terms, humans have the “right” to control the natural world for the
benefit of humanity. Even a cursory examination of the published literature
reveals the sometimes large divide between ecocentrists and anthropocentrists,
scholars and practitioners, functionalists and compositionalists (Callicott et al.
1999), environmental organizations and industry, commercial and recreational
fishermen, public and government, etc. (Weinstein and Reed 2005). Thus, the
ultimate compromises and sacrifices required—a distasteful concept to many,
and possibly the root cause of the “we versus them” mentality that pervades sus-
tainability management—will be necessary to accommodate human needs.
Thomas Friedman (2007) stated this idea succinctly: “if you think we can deal
with these huge problems without asking [the American] people to do anything
hard, you’re a fool or a fraud.” Successfully balancing the demands of competing
uses is perhaps the greatest challenge we face.
In the end, the successful transition to sustainability rests on a complex infra-
structure that translates science-based information into public policy. This, in turn,
elicits effective responses from society at large (Baird 2005). It is the performance
and long-term capacity of this diverse array of entities (including scientific and
educational institutions) from global to local scales that will ultimately determine
the tempo and mode of the transition. Our fate rests in societal action involving all
stakeholders, consensus building, and accepting the compromises and sacrifices that
will ensure environmental and social justice for all. We hope that this book will
contribute towards those goals, and quickly!
This book is organized into five thematic sections and an Epilogue; a summary of
which precedes each compilation of chapters: Part I. Managing the Earth’s Life
Support Systems: The Emergence of Sustainability Science and Transdisciplinarity;
Part II. Balancing Ecology and Economy: Natural Capital and Quality of Life; Part
III. From Science to Policy: Managing the Commons, Social Learning, and
Social Responsibility; Part IV. The Ecology of Cities; Part V. Restoring and
Rehabilitating Ecosystems: Return from the Precipice; and Epilogue: The Challenge
of Sustainability—Lessons from an Evolutionary Perspective. Key topics address
emerging research and policy in (a) sustainability science, (b) the ecology of cities,
(c) landscape ecology—scale, spatial patterns, organizational levels, and ecological
processes, and (d) related topics in resource exploitation and management, eco-
system health and habitat restoration, the valuation of natural and social capital,
habitat and biodiversity conservation, social learning, ecosystem-based man-
agement, and integrated watershed-coastal zone management.
Montclair, NJ, USA Michael P. Weinstein

Baton Rouge, LA, USA R. Eugene Turner
xii Preface
References
Ayensu E, van R Claasen D, Collins M et al (2003) International ecosystem assessment. Science

286:685–689
Baird RC (2005) The human dimension in ecosystem management: institutional performance of
the Sea Grant paradigm. In: Hennessey T, Sutinen J (eds). Sustaining large marine ecosystems:
the human dimension. Elsevier, New York
Berkes F (2006) From community-based resource management to complex systems: the scale
issue and marine commons. Ecol Soc 11:45
Brown JH, Burnside WR, Davidson AD et al (2011) Energetic limits to economic growth.
Bioscience 61:19–26
Callicott JB, Crowder LR, Mumford K (1999) Current normative concepts in conservation.
Conserv Biol 13:22–25
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. P Natl
Acad Sci 100:8059–8061
Ehrenfeld DW (1981) The arrogance of humanism. Oxford University Press, New York
Friedman TL (2007) The power of green. New York Times, 15 April
Holling CS (2000) Theories for sustainable futures. Conserv Ecol 4:7–13
Kates RW, Parris TM (2003) Long-term treands and a sustainability transition. P Natl Acad Sci
100:8062–8067
Kaufman RK, Cleveland CJ (1995) Measuring sustainability: needed—an interdisciplinary
approach to an interdisciplinary concept. Ecol Econ 15:109–112
Kennedy JJ, Thomas JW (1995) Managing natural resources as social value. In: Knight RL, Bates
SF (eds). A new century for natural resource management. Island Press, Washington
Ludwig D, Hillborn R, Walters C (1993) Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:
lessons from history. Science 260:17–18
McMichael AJ, Butler CD, Folke C (2003) New visions for addressing sustainability. Science
302:1919–1029
Naveh Z (2005) Epilogue: towards a transdisciplinary science of ecological and cultural landscape
restoration. Rest Ecol 13:228–234
Roe E, van Eeten M (2001) Threshold-based resource management: a framework for comprehen-
sive ecosystem management. Environ Manage 27:195–214
Salz RJ, Loomis DK (2005) Human dimensions of coastal restoration. In: Thayer GW, McTigue
TA, Salz RJ et al (eds). Science based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats. NOAA, Silver
Spring
US Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final report. US
Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC
Weinstein MP (2009) The road ahead: the sustainability transition and coastal research. Estuar
Coasts 32:1044–1053
Weinstein MP, Reed DJ (2005) Sustainable coastal development: the dual mandate and a recom-
mendation for “commerce managed areas”. Rest Ecol 13:174–182
Weinstein MP, Baird RC, Conover DO et al (2007) Managing coastal resources in the 21st century.
Front Ecol Environ 5:43–48
Acknowledgments
Major funding for the precedent to this book – The International Symposium on
Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm and the Urban Environment – was
provided by the PSEG Foundation, and the PSEG Public Affairs and Sustainability
Practice. Additional co-sponsors whom we gratefully acknowledge include the
USEPA, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., S/L/A/M Collaborative, Sodexo, NJ
Department of Environmental Protection, PS & S, and NJ Natural Gas.
xiii
wwwwwwwwwwwww
Contents
Part I Managing the Earth’s Life Support Systems:

The Emergence of Sustainability Science and Transdisciplinarity
From the Unity of Nature to Sustainability Science:

Ideas and Practice ........................................................................................... 3
Robert W. Kates
Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems Science
in a Fragmented Academy and Polarized World ......................................... 21
John D. Sterman
A Landscape Approach for Sustainability Science ...................................... 59
Jianguo (Jingle) Wu
It’s OK to Talk About Sustainability ............................................................ 79
Alan D. Hecht
Part II Balancing Ecology and Economy: Natural Capital

and Quality of Life
The Value of Natural and Social Capital in Our Current

Full World and in a Sustainable and Desirable Future ............................... 99
Robert Costanza
Steps Towards Sustainability and Tools for Restoring
Natural Capital: Etang de Berre (Southern France) Case Study ............... 111
James Aronson, Florian Claeys, Vanja Westerberg, Philippe Picon,
Guillaume Bernard, Jean-Michel Bocognano, and Rudolf de Groot
Sustainability of Biodiversity Under Global Changes,
with Particular Reference to Biological Invasions ....................................... 139
Daniel Simberloff
xv
xvi Contents
Part III From Science to Policy: Managing the Commons,

Social Learning, and Social Responsibility
“Post-sustainability”: The Emergence of the Social

Sciences as the Hand-Maidens of Policy ....................................................... 161
Michael R. Redclift
The Purpose and Politics of Ecosystem-Based Management ...................... 177
Judith A. Layzer
Sustainable Coastal Margins: Challenges of Tempo
and Mode for the Policy Domain ................................................................... 199
Ronald C. Baird
Fishery and Forest Transitions to Sustainability:
A Comparative Analysis ................................................................................. 221
Bonnie J. McCay and Thomas K. Rudel
Part IV The Ecology of Cities
Cities as Dissipative Structures: Global Change

and the Vulnerability of Urban Civilization ................................................. 247
William E. Rees
A Mathematical Description of Urban Metabolism .................................... 275
Christopher Kennedy
Urbanization, Local Government, and Planning
for Sustainability ............................................................................................. 293
Robert W. Taylor
Climate Change, Globalization, and the Double Exposure
Challenge to Sustainability: Rolling the Dice
in Coastal New Jersey ..................................................................................... 315
Robin Leichenko
Sustainability Trajectories for Urban Waters .............................................. 329
Richard Burroughs
Part V Restoring and Rehabilitating Ecosystems:

Return from the Precipice
Reversing Two Centuries of Wetland Degradation:

Can Science Better Inform Policy and Practice? ......................................... 353
Michael P. Weinstein, Steven Y. Litvin, and Michael G. Frisk
Changing Nature: Novel Ecosystems, Intervention,
and Knowing When to Step Back .................................................................. 383
Eric Higgs
Contents xvii
Knocking on Doors: Boundary Objects in Ecological

Conservation and Restoration ....................................................................... 399
Jac. A.A. Swart and Henny J. van der Windt
Sustainability: More About the Toolmaker than the Tools ......................... 415
R. Eugene Turner
Epilogue: The Challenge of Sustainability:
Lessons from an Evolutionary Perspective ................................................... 431
Simon Levin
Index ................................................................................................................. 439

wwwwwwwwwwwww
Contributors
James Aronson Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CNRS-UMR

5175), Montpellier, France
Ronald C. Baird Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island,
Narragansett, RI, USA
Guillaume Bernard Groupement d’Intérêt Publique pour la Réhabilitation de
l’Etang de Berre (GIPREB), Berre-l’Etang, France
Jean-Michel Bocognano Grand Port Maritime de Marseille, Marseille, France
Richard Burroughs Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI, USA
Florian Claeys École Normale Supérieure, Département de Biologie, Paris, France
Robert Costanza Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University,
Portland, OR, USA
Michael G. Frisk School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook
University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
Rudolf de Groot Environmental Systems Analysis Group, University of
Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Alan D. Hecht Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Washington, DC,
USA
Eric Higgs School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC,
Canada
Robert W. Kates Senior Research Associate, Kennedy School, Harvard University,
Trenton, ME, USA
Christopher Kennedy Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, Canada
xix
xx Contributors
Judith A. Layzer Department of Urban Studies and Planning, MIT, Cambridge,

MA, USA
Robin Leichenko Department of Geography, Rutgers University, Piscataway,
NJ, USA
Simon Levin Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Guyot Hall,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Steven Y. Litvin Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove,
CA, USA
Bonnie J. McCay Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ, USA
Philippe Picon Groupement d’Intérêt Publique pour la Réhabilitation de l’Etang
de Berre (GIPREB), Berre-l’Etang, France
Michael R. Redclift Department of Geography, Kings College London, London,
UK
William E. Rees School of Community and Regional Planning, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Thomas K. Rudel Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ, USA
Daniel Simberloff Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
John D. Sterman MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, USA
Jac. A.A. Swart Science & Society Group, Energy and Sustainability Research
Institute Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Robert W. Taylor Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University,
Montclair, NJ, USA
R. Eugene Turner Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Henny J. van der Windt Science & Society Group, Energy and Sustainability
Research Institute Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Michael P. Weinstein PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies, Montclair State
University, Montclair, NJ, USA
Vanja Westerberg Ecole nationale supérieure agronomique de Montpellier
(SupAgro), Laboratoire Montpelliérain d’Économie Théorique et Appliquée
(LAMETA), Montpellier, Cedex 1, France
Jianguo (Jingle) Wu School of Life Sciences and Global Institute of
Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Part I
Managing the Earth’s Life Support
Systems: The Emergence of Sustainability
Science and Transdisciplinarity
By focusing on the science–policy interface through a “systems” lens, sustainability

science addresses the fundamental character of interactions between nature and soci-
ety and society’s capacity to guide those interactions along sustainable trajectories
(Kates et al. 2001). The underlying principles of this nascent field suggest, moreover,
that a sustainable biosphere is not only necessary but economically feasible, socially
just, and ecologically sound. It targets the need to break down artificial and outdated
disciplinary gaps between the natural and social sciences through the creation of new
transdisciplinary knowledge and its practical application to decision-making. New
applications of “use inspired” science that incorporate different perspectives of soci-
ety become more relevant and, in turn, contribute to more transparent and democratic
processes of governance (Gibbons et al. 1994; Nowotny et al. 2001).
Conflict mitigation, consensus building, and trade-offs in the form of sacrifice
and compromise will become the norm for sustainable management of coupled
human-environment systems because growing demands on resources can no longer
be met by access to unexploited sources. An integrated systems approach is required,
taking into account conflicting goals and interlinkages among environmental issues
(Ayensu et al. 2003; Naveh 2005), as well as the geographic scales of both the
issues and political jurisdictions. Success will depend on the ability to create new
paradigms that will resolve the growing tensions among the involved communities.
More effort at the interface between science and society is needed in order to make
the transition from the centralized, top-down approach of government institutions to
more decentralized, regional, and local approaches to resource management
(Bruckmeier 2005).
2 Managing the Earth’s Life Support Systems…
References
Ayensu E, van R Claasen D, Collins M et al (2003) International ecosystem assessment. Science

286:685–689
Bruckmeier K (2005) Interdisciplinary conflict analysis and conflict mitigation in local resource
management. Ambio 34:65–73
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H et al (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics
of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London
Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642
restoration. Restor Ecol 13:228–234
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age
of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge
From the Unity of Nature to Sustainability
Science: Ideas and Practice
Robert W. Kates
Abstract The ideas of sustainability science are at least two centuries old, but only
a decade in practice. This introductory paper reviews some of the key concepts
underlying sustainability science beginning with Alexander von Humboldt and the
unity of nature, discusses the basic foundation of the science, and illuminates the
three major tasks of sustainability science: fundamental research on use-directed
problems; nurturing the next generation of sustainability scientists; and moving
knowledge into action.
Keywords Sustainability science • New knowledge • Use-directed research • Student

learning
Ideas of Sustainability Science
I have selected some of the major ideas that contributed to the development of sus-
tainability science from a much larger set, beginning first with Alexander von
Humboldt’s dream of understanding the unity of nature. This was followed by
George Perkins Marsh’s vision of nature as modified by human action. Then much
later, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) linked nature
and human development, which led to the World Commission on Environment and
Development, and culminated in the US National Academy of Science (NAS) report
of Our Common Journey and the call for a sustainability science.
R.W. Kates (*)

Senior Research Associate, Kennedy School, Harvard University, 33 Popple Point,
Trenton, ME 04605, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
M.P. Weinstein and R.E. Turner (eds.), Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm 3
and the Urban Environment, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3188-6_1,
4 R.W. Kates
The Unity of Nature
Let me begin with Alexander von Humboldt’s dream. Humboldt, then 29 years old,
set out his dream in a letter to friends in 1799 as he awaited his sailing from Spain
to Venezuela and the beginning of a 5-year exploration of the Orinoco River and the
Andes mountains: “In a few hours we sail round Cape Finisterre. I shall collect
plants and fossils and make astronomic observations. But that’s not the main pur-
pose of my expedition—I shall try to find out how the forces of nature interact upon
one another and how the geographic environment influences plant and animal life,
In other words, I must find out about the unity of nature.” (Alexander von Humboldt;
as quoted in Nicolson 1995).
He would pursue that goal until the final posthumous publication of Volume 5 of
the Kosmos in 1862. But his dream was not to be shared widely, for by then the
Academy had discovered another more powerful approach to understanding nature,
but not its unity. To pursue this new approach of reductionism, specialization
increased, disciplines were born, and graduate degrees were invented.
Nature Modified by Human Action
Beyond the unity of nature, a second great idea was that of a nature modified by
human action. George Perkins Marsh, the remarkable Vermonter wrote Man and
Nature in 1862 and revised it as Earth Modified by Human Nature in 1874 (Marsh
1965[1862, 1874]) documenting for the first time, the destructive impacts of human
activity on the biosphere. A more detailed examination of human activity took place
in 1956 (Thomas 1956) but 30 years later a systematic review moved beyond
modification and found the earth transformed (Turner et al. 1990). Along the way,
Vernadsky had integrated human knowledge with the biosphere in a “noosphere”
(Vernadsky 1998[1926]) and Rachel Carson helped initiate the modern environ-
mental movement with her Silent Spring (Carson 1962).
Nature Linked to Human Development
The next great idea about an earth already transformed by human action was to link
nature or the environment to development, particularly human development. Thus
the idea of sustainable development was born, emerging in the early 1980s from
scientific perspectives on the interdependence of society and environment that were
fostered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (1980) in the World Conservation Strategy. It gained considerable politi-
cal attention through the publication by the Brundtland led World Commission on
Environment and Development (1983–1987) report, Our Common Future (World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987) and the subsequent
From the Unity of Nature to Sustainability Science: Ideas and Practice 5
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro

in 1992. There were no scientists on the World Commission and little science present
in Rio. Ten years later at the Johannesburg world summit, there was some scientific
presence, in part because work on sustainability science had already begun.
NAS-NRC Board on Sustainable Development 1995–99
Beginning in 1995, I served as vice-chair along with William Clark of Harvard

University on the National Academy of Sciences Board on Sustainable Development
when we began a 5-year effort to reconnect science and technology to sustainable
development. We sought to make the concept of sustainable development both man-
ageable and measurable by focusing on a minimal sustainability transition over two
relatively foreseeable generations. Using one of the major social science findings of
the time, i.e., the demographic transition, we envisioned a world population of about
nine billion in 50 years. To decide what constituted a sustainability transition we
chose three normative goals that had emerged at the top of priority-setting negotia-
tions of international conferences and summits: meeting the human needs of the
nine billion, preserving the life support systems of the planet, and reducing hunger
and poverty. We argued for acting on what we already know and creating a sustain-
ability science for what we needed to know (National Research Council-Board on
Sustainable Development [NRC-BSD] 1999).
Friibergh Workshop on Sustainability Science
But after finishing our report and presenting it to a meeting of the World Academies
of Sciences (Interacademy Panel on International Issues 2000) which embraced the
notion of a sustainability science, we also realized that there was much to learn on
how to do sustainability science. So with assistance from Sweden we convened a
small international workshop in Friibergh to identify the core questions and meth-
odologies of sustainability science (Kates et al. 2001). This meeting was followed
by a series of regional meetings in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and North America
(International Council for Science [ICSU] 2002).
Our discussions at Friibergh and in the subsequent regional meetings revealed
profound differences in problems and perspectives between scientists based in
developed countries and those in developing countries. Scientists in developed
countries focused primarily on global issues, whereas their colleagues in developing
countries were concerned primarily with local issues. The two groups were sepa-
rated by a variety of economic, digital, and capacity divides (Fig. 1). Scientists in
the “north” worried about the effects of affluence and consumption, climate changes
and its causes, and undertook theory-driven research. Scientists in the “south”
worried about the effects of poverty and under-consumption, and the impacts of
climate change, and they undertook action-driven research. Scientists in the north
6 R.W. Kates
Fig. 1 Differences in problems and perspectives in developed and developing countries. Scientists
based in developed countries focus primarily on global issues, worry about consumption, climate
changes and its causes, and undertake theory-driven research with needed tools and funds.
Scientists based in developing countries focus primarily on local issues, worry about poverty and
under-consumption, the impacts of climate change, and undertake action-driven research, often
short of facilities and funding (based on Figure 1 in Kates et al. 2001)
took for granted broadband Internet access and many sources of funding. Scientists
in the south tried to cope with interrupted electricity, worked at multiple jobs to sup-
port themselves, and had few funding sources.
Such differences notwithstanding, the workshops also reflected broad agreement
that science and technology have an enormous potential to make important contri-
butions to a sustainability transition. Realizing that potential, however, will require
that serious efforts be made to promote science for sustainability. It will have to be
more than the status quo such as simply renaming work we are already doing or
claiming that specific work limited to either environmental science or development
studies is sustainability science. And sustainability science is not just an extension
of existing research agendas (e.g., that of earth systems science) or action agendas
(e.g., that of climate change) to include the various goals of sustainability.
The science and technology needed to develop sustainability is essentially integra-

tive of the natural, social, and engineering sciences; seeks to bridge the communi-
ties engaged in promoting environmental conservation, human health, and economic
development; and brings together the worlds of knowledge and action.
Our discussions also revealed agreement that much of the science and technology
developed to support sustainability will be regional and place-based, and focused at
intermediate scales where multiple stressors intersect to threaten or degrade human-
environment systems. In a sense, sustainable development differs in every place as
human needs and life support systems vary, and as hunger and poverty are smaller or
larger. It is at these intermediate scales that the complexity of coupled human-
environment systems is more readily comprehensible, where innovation and
management happen, and where significant transitions toward sustainability may
have already begun.
We also agreed in our workshops that sustainability science addresses fundamental
questions of scale, nonlinear processes and complexity, and the unity of nature and
society. How is the universal related with the particular, the whole with its parts, and
the global with the local? How can knowledge of the component parts explain the
properties of larger systems, and are such properties knowable? How do the earth,
its living biota, and our human species work together?
Thus our global conversations concluded that the science and technology needs
for sustainability will have fundamental and applied characteristics. These needs will
be addressed with cutting-edge questions regarding nature-society dynamics, while
recognizing the need to address sustainability concerns in a problem-solving mode,
and to apply what we already know in science-based action programs. Stokes’ (1997)
quadrant model of scientific research is instructive with his 2 × 2 view of research
contrasting the quest for fundamental understanding with the quest for utility (Fig. 2).
His model has a “Neils Bohr” quadrant that is high in fundamental understanding
and little immediate utility, and a contrasting “Thomas Edison” quadrant that has
pure applied focus. The sustainability science quadrant of use-inspired fundamental
research, in contrast, is exemplified by the discoveries of Louis Pasteur.
Fig. 2 Quadrant model of scientific research. Stokes’ (1997) two by two view of research contrasts
the quest for fundamental understanding with the quest for utility
For a succinct definition of sustainability science, I prefer that of the Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS 2010) as: “…an emerging field of
research dealing with the interactions between natural and social systems, and with
how those interactions affect the challenge of sustainability: meeting the needs of
present and future generations while substantially reducing poverty and conserving
the planet’s life support systems.” Variants of this definition are widely accepted,
8 R.W. Kates
but as sustainability science spread around the world, different emphases emerged,
as in Europe (Jäger 2009; European Commission 2009), Japan (Komiyama et al.
2010), or the US (Clark 2007; Matson 2009).
Major Tasks of Sustainability Science
There were three major tasks for sustainability science in its first decade; (1) fill the
Pasteur quadrant (Fig. 2) and do fundamental research on use-directed problems;
(2) nurture the next generation of sustainability scientists; and (3) move new knowl-
edge into action. I will illustrate the progress currently being made for each task
with three examples.
Fundamental Research on Use-Inspired Problems
Over this last decade, core fundamental research questions and themes have been
identified. Central to these has been the study of coupled human-environment sys-
tems. Existing models for many of the components of human-environment systems
have been evaluated for their suitability for integrated sustainability assessments.
And a growing body of fundamental research on use-inspired problems has been
published.
Core Research Questions and Themes
There have been two major efforts to articulate core research questions for sustain-
ability science. At Friibergh, seven core questions were identified and these sur-
vived a set of follow-up regional meetings in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and North
America (Kates et al. 2001; International Council for Science [ICSU] 2002). Then
at the initiative of the US National Science Foundation, a second conference
“Towards a Science of Sustainability” was convened in 2009 at the Airlie Center in
Warrenton, Virginia. There were twice as many conferees at the Airlie conference
as at the original Friibergh workshop, but unlike that workshop, most attendees
were from the United States. The conference identified six sets of major thematic
research areas (Clark and Levin 2010). These core questions and themes are com-
pared in Table 1. Four of the core questions and research themes were almost identi-
cal in both Friibergh and Airlie efforts, but some were expanded in the Airlie version.
Three of the Friibergh core questions (in italics) were not specifically singled out at
the Airlie Conference, while two new themes (also in italics) were added about the
trade-offs between natural and human systems and rigorous evaluation of sustain-
ability trajectories were added.
Table 1 The Friibergh international workshop of 2000 (Kates et al. 2001) identified seven core
research questions for sustainability science. A decade later, the US Airlie House conference,
Towards a Science of Sustainability (Clark and Levin 2010), selected six major research themes.
Those that differ between the efforts are in italics. H-E; Human Environment
Sustainability science research questions and themes
Friibergh 2000 (Kates et al. 2001) Airlie House 2009 (Clark and Levin 2010)
Core questions Major themes
Integrative H-E models H-E theory and models
Long-term trends Long-term trends and transitions
Vulnerability or resilience H-E systems adaptability
Incentive structures Guidance of H-E systems
Limits or boundaries H-E trade-offs
Monitoring and reporting Evaluation of sustainability trajectories
Better integrated activities
Research questions are now better defined as a result of these two attempts to
articulate the overlapping questions and themes. The view of the participants at the
Airlie conference was, however, that major progress has been made only in the two
themes concerned with the original core set of research questions identified as
“Long-term trends” and “Vulnerability or resilience.” Selected progress has been
made on “Limits or boundaries” (primarily about climate), in “Incentive structures”
(primarily for common resources or conservation), in “Monitoring and reporting”
(primarily from space), and in “Better integrated activities” (primarily from inter-
disciplinary efforts). The two new themes on coupled Human-Environment (H-E)
system trade-offs and sustainability trajectories seem well justified. The results of
both the Airlie and Friibergh meeting were the identification of the basic need for
better theory and models to bridge the gap between those expert in modeling
approaches but not in H-E systems and those empirical scientists knowledgeable
about H-E systems but not modeling complexity. Only in climate modeling has
there been a significant improvement in the merger of theory and models.
Elaborating Human-Environment (H-E) Systems
At the heart of sustainability science are the closely coupled human-environment

systems that are more easily described with box and arrow models than detailed
with numbers and equations. Although I use these all the time, I suspect that box
and arrow diagrams are more useful to their authors than to prospective viewers.
Nevertheless, I will use two recently described box and arrows diagrams from
Dasgupta et al. (forthcoming) to illustrate several points (Figs. 3 and 4). The basic
structure of interacting H-E systems has been used for many years (e.g., Burton
et al. 1978) although labeled variously as “nature-society,” or “socio-ecological,” as
well as “human environment.” There has been much effort over the past decade that
10 R.W. Kates
Fig. 3 The coupled Human-Environment system. The basic overview of interacting H-E systems
have been labeled variously as nature-society, socio-ecological, or human environment and contain
a human subsystem, environmental subsystem, and other external systems that impact these sub-
systems. Source: Dasgupta et al. forthcoming
Fig. 4 Inner workings of coupled Human-Environment system. Each of the subsystems has been
expanded with the human subsystem including population, technology, governance, and economy
and the environmental subsystem including a biogeophysical earth system, ecosystems, and eco-
system services. Source: Dasgupta et al. forthcoming
has focused on detailing the interactions (wavy lines) and exogenous flows from
other coupled systems (Fig. 3), and on elaborating the human and environmental
subsystems (Fig. 4).
There has been an emerging consensus that the important elements of human
subsystems are population, technology, governance, and economy (Fig. 4). But
these four elements are still studied primarily as separate entities and usually intro-
duced into models as external inputs or as scenarios. A major addition to the con-
ceptual model of environmental subsystem has been idea of ecosystem services
(Daily et al. 1997). This idea is now widely used as the major output of the
environmental subsystem. Judging from the literature of the last decade, much of
coupled H-E system study focuses on the environmental subsystem with less atten-
tion to the human subsystem (see Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2 Models evaluated for integrated sustainability assessment by MATISSE project.

The models are listed by acronym. See Lotze-Campen (2008) for the full titles. Source of the table
is Lotze-Campen (2007)
Category Models (examples)
Biophysical models
Climate GCM (HadCM, ECHAM): EMIC (CLIMBER, MAGICC/
SCENGEN)
Hydrology WaterGAP, SWIM, IRM-ABM
Biogeochemistry LPJ, VECODE, 4C, WOFOST, ACCESS
Socioeconomic models
General economy GE (GTAP, WorldScan, GEM-CCGT, GEM-E3, SNI-AGE):
Macroeconometric (E3ME, NEMESIS, QUEST-II,
GINFORS)
Partial economy sectors Energy (POLES, PRIMES, MARKAL); Agriculture
(WATSIM, IMPACT, CAPRI, RAUMIS); Transport
(TREMOVE)
Demography PHOENIX, IIASA Population Project
Public health MIASMA, PHSF, TARGET
Integrated models
Land use change FARM, AgLU, MAgPIE, CLUE, SFARMOD, CORMAS
Qualitative systems analysis SYNDROMES, QSA-SCENE
Integrated assessment IMAGE, ICLIPS, FUND, MIND, DEMETER, RICE-
FEEM, GENIE, IMPACT-WATER
Scenario building and planning QUEST, POLESTAR, THRESHOLD-21, FAIR
12 R.W. Kates
Table 3 Sustainability science research by topic as reflected in

titles to PNAS articles. The titles of the 232 PNAS papers for the
years 2003–2010 listed under sustainability science (PNAS 2010)
were classified under 16 topics, using nine describing human
needs and seven describing life support systems used to prepare a
Reader in Sustainability Science and Technology (see below;
Kates 2010)
Topics number %
Human well-being
Population 3 1
Health and well-being 13 5
Poverty/affluence 11 4
Habitation and transportation 7 2
Peace and security 0 0
Energy and materials 20 7
Food and fiber 44 16
Water and sanitation 2 1
Disasters 8 3
Total 108 38
Life support systems
Climate and stratospheric ozone 60 21
Land 35 12
Atmosphere 6 2
Water 9 3
Oceans and fisheries 20 7
Biodiversity 25 9
Ecosystem services 18 6
Total 173 62
Grand total 281 100
PNAS papers 2003–2010 232
Modeling tools already exist for many of the components of human-environment

systems described above. A major European effort (2005–2008) on Methods and
Tools for Integrated Sustainability Assessment (MATISSE) focused on methods and
tools for integrated sustainability assessment (Lotze-Campen 2008). This assessment
included comparative evaluations of dozens of available biophysical, socioeconomic,
and integrated models (Table 2). Overall, the MATISSE assessment concluded that
integrated sustainability assessments were in their infancy (Lotze-Campen 2008).
Published Research
The growing sets of sustainability science research results have many new sources
for publication that include traditional journals (e.g., Global Environmental Change
or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [PNAS]), new journals (e.g.,
Sustainability Science), Internet journals (e.g., Ecology and Society), review
volumes (e.g., the Annual Review of Environment and Resources), and pieces
written for the general public (e.g., Environment).
During the last decade, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
established a Sustainability Science section in which public access is readily avail-
able (PNAS 2010). Many of the best of research results appear there (only about 1
in 5 submissions to PNAS are accepted). There were 232 articles in that section
from 2003 to 2010, and many of them appeared in special features which character-
ized the range of current research in sustainability science. The topics covered
include features on marine reserves, ecosystem services, poverty, health, gover-
nance, food security, climate change, and land use change.
Results of a more detailed analysis of these same 232 titles (Table 3) classified the
papers into 16 topics; nine described human needs and seven described life support
systems. Where titles seemed to contain multiple topics, they were allotted to all of
the topics, and so the number of papers listed in Table 3 is larger than the actual num-
ber of papers. Twelve were unclassifiable by title.
I concluded, based on these data, that the first eight years of Sustainability
Science Research seem to have been devoted primarily to environment (life support
systems 62%) rather than development (human needs 32%) and were concentrated
in only six topics: climate (21%), agriculture (16%), land use, primarily forests (12%),
biodiversity (9%), energy and materials (7%), and oceans and fisheries (7%).
Bias toward environmental science is as clear as the underrepresentation of the
varied fields of development sciences that include health and human development,
economic and social development, governance, and the multitude of technologies
that make development possible. A second bias is that despite considerable involve-
ment of developing countries, the current agenda (as represented in these papers)
reflects the priorities of what are primarily environmental scientists from the devel-
oped countries. There is a similar bias toward global aspects, despite the emphasis
in sustainability science on regional and place-based studies.
Nurturing the Next Generations
Sustainable development is a century-long goal and the best sustainability scientists

are probably still unborn. Thus the second of our tasks is that of nurturing the next
generation of sustainability scientists addressed here by three current examples: (1)
educational opportunities at Arizona State University (ASU); (2) a recently pub-
lished Readings in Sustainability Science and Technology; and (3) the first distrib-
uted graduate seminar in sustainability science.
ASU School of Sustainability
President Michael Crow has been refiguring ASU into a new type of American
University since 2002 by featuring among many things an emphasis on sustainability.
14 R.W. Kates
A sustainability effort is within all of its various schools that has the intent to intro-
duce sustainability principles to all of its 72,000 students. Furthermore, there is also
a specific School of Sustainability which had enrolled, as of September 2010, 581
undergraduate majors and 84 graduate students, including 58 PhD candidates. A
minor in sustainability is available to all undergraduates at ASU.
The school of sustainability represents one major approach to sustainability
science education—the creation of new sustainability science degrees. At least ten
PhD degree programs and many more Master’s programs are available around the
world either in sustainability science or sustainable development. It is much too early
to know how such degrees will be received in academia as an entré to graduate work
or academic employment. Thus, an alternate approach is to create teaching programs
with sustainability nomenclature within existing disciplines, programs, or centers. At
ASU, for example, undergraduate concentrations and degree programs are available
in the Business School, the Institute of Design and the Arts, the Engineering school,
the Law School, and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. But as environmental
disciplines or programs are often the hosts for such concentrations and degrees, the
result may be to add to the environmental bias discussed above.
To help students bridge the gap between textbooks and careers or graduate
education, ASU encourages and supports numerous opportunities for undergradu-
ates to participate in internships, workshops, and service and all students are required
to take and successfully complete an applied/capstone learning or research experi-
ence. Further, the School of Sustainability partners with community businesses and
other organizations to provide undergraduate and graduate internships. An intern-
ship coordinator helps students match their interests and capabilities with outside
internship hosts and monitors these to ensure that the internship experience counts
as credit toward fulfilling degree requirements (Buizer 2011, Personal communica-
tion, e-mail, 1/24/2011).
Readings in Sustainability Science and Technology
There is need for new sets of educational materials as opportunities continue to

increase in sustainability science. The Readings in Sustainability Science and
Technology are the result of a 4-year effort and available as the Harvard, Center for
International Development Working Paper 213 (Kates 2010), and available on the
Internet. It is written for teachers of advanced undergraduate students and beginning
graduate students, and it suggests a three-part architecture for courses organized
around major domains of sustainability science. The first part presents an overview
of sustainable development that begins with the history of sustainable development
and the dual goals of sustainable development—the promotion of human develop-
ment and well-being while protecting the earth’s life support systems. Readings are
provided for the current status, long-term trends, and the impacts of nine essentials
for human well-being and seven essential life support systems. It concludes with a
description of the interactions of human society and the life support systems
sketched—simply, realistically, and imaginatively.
The second part of the reader focuses on the “what, why, and how” of sustain-
ability science and technology. For “what to do” in sustainability science, it examines
three essential qualities of the emerging science: its use or needs orientation, a focus
on human-environment systems, and the goal of integrated understanding. As to why
to do sustainability science, it considers normative values and the science of identify-
ing and analyzing values and attitudes. As to “why do sustainability science,” it
examines the current practice of the science, the analyses undertaken and the distinc-
tive methods and models used.
The reader ends by linking knowledge systems and action using examples of
both global and local solutions to meeting the needs of human well-being and the
earth’s life support systems. It specifically identifies three critical needs that consti-
tute grand challenges: poverty, climate change, and peace and security.
In all, there are some 93 readings to choose from for course material supported
by a mini-text of 60 pages to place them in context. In its current form, the Reader
has been reviewed extensively and many suggestions for additional topics are incor-
porated. Because it is an electronic reader, it can be frequently updated and users are
requested to send commentary and suggestions for new or replacement readings to:
[email protected].
Sustainability Science Distributed Graduate Seminar
In the fall semester of 2010, seven universities (Arizona State, Cornell, Florida
International, Harvard, Minnesota, the National University of Mexico [UNAM],
and Princeton) took part in an Internet-based distributed graduate seminar attended
by 120 students. The majority of the lecturers were authors of draft chapters from a
book to be completed in 2012: Sustainability science: an introduction for research-
ers which served as the primary readings for the course and were supported by read-
ings from the reader described above. Students for each session and at a particular
school took the initiative in a commentary that was later opened to all. Course mate-
rials and video recordings of the sessions can be currently downloaded from their
website (https://groups.nceas.ucsb.edu/sustainability-science). Overall, student and
faculty viewed the course as an exciting success.
Moving Knowledge into Action
Perhaps the most challenging task of sustainability science is moving knowledge

into action. I will begin with tracking the global and local agenda of needed action,
report on major opportunities that act on what we already know how to do, and
conclude with an exciting state-wide effort that focuses on solutions to sustainability
problems.
16 R.W. Kates
Knowledge into Action Challenges
There has been a convergence of agreement over the past decade about what consti-
tutes the central challenges of sustainable development, which is essentially an
agenda of priority areas (Table 4 ). The list of these challenges begins with
Dr. Bruntland and the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED) which identified six challenges for sustainable development: (1) population
and human resources; (2) food security; (3) species and ecosystems; (4) energy;
(5) industry; and (6) urban areas (WCED 1987). The National Academy of Sciences
Board on Sustainable Development grouped two together and reduced these chal-
lenges to five (NRC-BSD 1999). Four of these five were kept by the Secretary-
General of the UN as an achievable agenda for the 2002 Johannesburg successor
conference to Rio, and to which he added “water” while dropping population
(Annan 2002). My own Reader keeps all of these but expands the agenda to
specifically include three grand challenges for sustainable development: poverty,
climate change, and peace and security (Kates 2010).
Table 4 Putting knowledge into action: global agendas. An agenda of priority areas or central
challenges of sustainable development can be constructed from the four major documents begin-
ning with Our Common Future from the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED 1987), Our Common Journey from the NRC-BSD (1999), the Achievable Agenda of the
Secretary-General of the UN (Annan 2002), and the Reader on Sustainability Science and
Technology (Kates 2010)
Our common Achievable Readings in sustainability
Our common future journey (NRC- agenda science and technology (Kates
(WCED 1987) BSD1999) (Annan 2002) 2010)
Population and Human population Population
human resources
Health Health and well-being
Food security Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture and food security
Species/ecosystems Living resources Biodiversity Biodiversity ecosystem services
Energy industry Energy industry Energy Energy materials
Urban Cities Urban growth
Water Water and sanitation
Poverty
Climate change
Peace/security
It is not clear how this set of challenges will emerge in 2012 when the United
Nations again convenes a world conference in Rio de Janeiro. Judging from the
preliminary documentation (United Nations and Sustainable Development 2010),
there will be a review of progress which will probably touch on many of these chal-
lenges. But the themes of the next Rio conference are not on challenges but on
means of addressing them, specifically economic mechanisms labeled collectively
as the “green economy” and the effectiveness of the complex of institutions that
address aspects of sustainable development.
Acting on What We Already Know
As noted in Table 4, we have had a consistent agenda of sustainability challenges

and problems for more than two decades. Sustainability science does not, therefore,
start from a blank slate; indeed we already know ways of moving into a sustainabil-
ity transition over the next two generations. We know, for example, how to reduce
the expected nine billion population by as much as 10% through encouraging cur-
rent downward trends in fertility by addressing unmet contraceptive needs, by edu-
cating women, and by delaying marriage. Africa can produce much more food just
by increasing its use of fertilizer. The rate of improvement in energy intensity can
be met by using technologies and behaviors that are readily available. The rapidly
growing cities in developing countries can work more efficiently, provide housing
and employment, and become increasingly green. We have learned much about how
to restore degraded ecosystems. Some progress has been made in all of these areas
over the last decade, but in none have these been sufficient to compensate for the
growth in fossil fuel use or the unplanned expansion of existing cities.
There is also the process of localization. Because the challenges of sustainable
development are place-based problems, sustainability scientists need to join hands
with practitioners from local communities, industry, government, and civil society
to address their specifics. This is beginning to happen, but there are still too few
examples of solutions offered or problems solved. The growing body of research
may at best be only slowly yielding solutions for important global and local prob-
lems in the priority action areas of population, settlements, agriculture, energy and
materials, and living resources identified in the NAS report (NRC-BSD 1999).
Progress in all of these areas has been slow in this first decade of needed action.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the need to overcome the normal academic
penchant to emphasize current uncertainty and thus the need to do more research,
and also to fail to acknowledge how much is already known about the crucial needs
for a transition into sustainability.
Maine Sustainability Solutions Initiative
Thus sustainability scientists are better at research than in finding and implementing
solutions to local and regional sustainability problems. A major initiative is under-
way in my home state of Maine to go beyond a purely research agenda to address
Maine’s sustainability problems and opportunities. It is a 5-year effort funded jointly
by the State and the EPSCoR program of the National Science Foundation and cur-
rently involves over 100 faculty and 200 students in 10 institutions of higher educa-
tion in the State. The sustainability problems being addressed are those posed by the
convergence of four important and long-term changes in landscape: (1) there is
major change in forest resource management (87% of Maine lands are in forest)
moving from paper company ownership to diverse ownership and development;
18 R.W. Kates
(2) there is significant new urbanization in southern Maine; (3) climate change has
already affected the State and will increase in the future; and (4) renewable energy,
particularly in hydropower, biofuels, and wind, may make the State a significant
exporter of energy. The major state research institutions have a current portfolio of
20 projects that focus on problems and needed solutions where these four trends
intersect. There is also research on the research itself. We need to address the
efficacy of organizational innovations that facilitate interdisciplinary effort. Three
other projects, therefore, study the process of how to move knowledge into action.
Some of the problems encountered within this large research program in Maine
mirror problems like the bias to environmental problems found in science projects
working at the global scale. Academic researchers also have difficulty addressing
big problems in their local expression and in identifying and finding solutions. Most
begin with what they already study and have difficulty to move beyond what they
know to address bigger questions or to integrate their work with others. The Maine
project recognizes these problems and some progress is being made in dealing with
all of them.
From the Unity of Nature to Sustainability Science
Having reviewed both the ideas and practice of sustainability science, we can now
return to the opening theme of the paper—the yet unborn future sustainability
scientist Alexis V. Humble. She too has a dream:
In a few hours, we launch from Cape Canaveral the first of the next generation of
Sustainability Earth Observation Satellites (SEOS). We shall collect full spectrum data on
populations of people, plants, and places; the atmosphere and oceans; the movements of
energy, materials, and information; of warfare and welfare, and of environment and devel-
opment. But that’s not the main purpose of our science. We shall try to find out how the
forces of nature and society interact upon one another and how the geographic environment
and the complex system of life can sustain itself.
In other words, we must find out about the unity of nature that we humans are both
a part of, and apart from.
References
Annan K (2002) Towards sustainable development. United Nations, New York

Burton I, Kates RW, White GF (1978) The environment as hazard. Oxford University Press,
New York
Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston
Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:1737
Clark WC, Levin SA (2010) Toward a science of sustainability. Report of conference toward a
science of sustainability. Airlie Center, Warrenton
Daily GC et al (1997) Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosys-
tems. Issues Ecol 2:1–18
Dasgupta P, Clark WC, Bongaarts J et al (forthcoming) Sustainability science: an introduction for

researchers
European Commission, Research Directorate General for Environment (2009) Report from the
workshop on sustainability science. Brussels, 28 Oct 2009 http://ec.europa.eu/…/report_work-
shop_sustainability_science_october_2009.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2011
International Council for Science (2002) Science and technology for sustainable development:
report from the synthesis meeting sponsored by the initiative on science and technology for
sustainability. TWAS and ICSU series on science for sustainable development 9. ICSU,
Paris
Interacademy Panel on International Issues (2000) Transition to sustainability in the 21st century.
Interacademy Panel, Trieste http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3568. Accessed 12 January 2011
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1980) World conserva-
tion strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development. http://data.iucn.org/
dbtw-wpd/edocs/WCS-004.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2011
Jäger J (2009) Sustainability science in Europe. Background paper prepared for European com-
mission’s DG for research. http://ec.europa.eu/research/sd/pdf/workshop2009/background_
paper_sust_science_workshop_october_2009.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2011
Kates RW ed (2010) Readings in sustainability science and technology. CID working paper
No. 213. Center for International Development, Harvard University, Cambridge. http://www.
hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/faculty-working-papers/cid-working-paper-no.-213.
Accessed 12 January 2011
Kates RW, Clark W, Corell R et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642
Komiyama H, Takeuchi K, Shiroyama H et al (eds) (2010) Sustainability science: a multidisci-
plinary approach. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC
Lotze-Campen H (2007) Review of experience with existing models and their suitability for inte-
grated sustainability assessment (ISA). MATISSE working paper No. 16. http://www.matisse-
project.net. Accessed 12 January 2011
Lotze-Campen H (2008) The role of modeling tools in Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA).
Int J Innovation Sustain Develop 3:70–92
Marsh GP (1965) [1864] Man and nature: or physical geography as modified by human action.
Belknap Press, Cambridge
Matson PA (2009) The sustainability transition. Issues Sci Technol Summer; http://www.issues.
org/25.4/matson.html#. Accessed 12 January 2011
National Research Council, Board on Sustainable Development (1999) Our common journey: a
transition toward sustainability. National Academy Press, Washington
Nicolson M (1995) Historical introduction In: Wilson J (ed) Personal narrative of a journey to the
equinoctial regions of the new continent by Alexander von Humboldt. Penguin Books,
London
PNAS (2010). Sustainability science. http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/sustainability.shtml. Accessed
12 January 2011
Stokes DE (1997) Pasteur’s quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Brookings
Institution Press, Washington
Thomas WL Jr (ed) (1956) Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago
Turner BL II et al (eds) (1990) The earth as transformed by human action. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
United Nations, Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (2010) Report of the secretary-general: progress to date and remaining gaps in
the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits in the area of sustainable develop-
ment, as well as an analysis of the themes of the conference. A/CONF.216/PC/2. United
Nations, New York
Vernadsky VI (1998)[1926] Biosphere: complete annotated edition. Copernicus Books,
New York
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future.
Oxford University Press, New York
Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems
Science in a Fragmented Academy
and Polarized World
John D. Sterman
Abstract From climate change, deforestation, and depletion of fossil fuels to

overexploited fisheries, species extinction, and poisons in our food and water, our
society is unsustainable and it is getting worse fast. Many advocate that overcoming
these problems requires the development of systems thinking. We have long been
told that the unsustainability of our society arises because we treat the world as
unlimited and problems unconnected when we live on a finite “spaceship Earth” in
which “there is no away” and “everything is connected to everything else.” The
challenge lies in moving from slogans to specific tools and processes that help us
understand complexity, design better policies, facilitate individual and organiza-
tional learning, and catalyze the technical, economic, social, political, and personal
changes we need to create a sustainable society. Here I outline a design for a
systems science of sustainability that rises to this challenge. Where the dynamics of
complex systems are conditioned by multiple feedbacks, time delays, accumula-
tions, and nonlinearities, our mental models generally ignore these elements of
dynamic complexity; where the consequences of our actions spill out across time
and space and across disciplinary boundaries, our universities, corporations, and
governments are organized in silos that focus on the short term and fragment knowl-
edge. I describe how sustainability research, teaching, and engagement with the
policy process can be organized to provide scientifically grounded, reliable knowl-
edge that crosses disciplinary boundaries, that engages multiple stakeholders, that
grapples with unavoidable issues of ethics, values, and purpose, and that leads to
action.
Keywords Sustainability • System dynamics • Limits to growth • Ecological

footprint • Overconsumption • Mental models
J.D. Sterman (*)

MIT Sloan School of Management, E62-436,100 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
22 J.D. Sterman
The Challenge
First, the bad news: our civilization is unsustainable and it’s getting worse fast.
Humanity is overwhelmingly dependent on nonrenewable resources, especially
fossil fuels, and the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are rapidly changing
the climate (IPCC 2007). Most of the world’s fisheries are overexploited, and world
capture fishery production is falling (FAO 2008). Extinction rates “exceed normal
background rates by two to three orders of magnitude” with one-fifth of tracked
species “classified as Threatened” (Hoffman et al. 2010). The food we eat, water we
drink, and products we consume expose us to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors
(e.g., US EPA http://www.epa.gov/iris). Humanity’s total ecological footprint
exceeds the global carrying capacity (Wackernagel et al. 2002). We have exceeded
sustainable planetary boundaries for vital elements of the ecosystems upon which
our lives depend, including GHGs, nitrogen, and biodiversity loss (Rockström et al.
2009). And the demands we place on those ecosystems are growing: world popula-
tion, which reached 7 billion in 2011, is projected to exceed 9.3 billion by 2050 and
10.1 billion by 2100 (United Nations 2011). Real Gross World Product (GWP) is
growing at an average rate of 3.5% y−1 (World Bank 2010). Billions in developing
nations legitimately seek to rise out of poverty and live like those in the developed
world, with the housing, refrigerators, air conditioners, flat screen TVs, cars, jet
travel, vacations, and consumption that lifestyle entails, while those in the devel-
oped world seek even greater consumption than they enjoy today.
The good news? After decades of false starts, “sustainability” is becoming main-
stream. Most large corporations have programs promoting corporate social respon-
sibility and environmental stewardship. Universities, including business schools,
offer sustainability courses and programs. Scholarly papers and journals devoted to
sustainability are growing. Store shelves in developed nations stock more and
more eco-friendly products. EnergyStar, LEED, fair trade, and other certification
programs abound. Toyota has sold over one million Priuses™ in the USA, and con-
sumers can choose among efficient hybrid, plug in hybrid, and electric vehicles
offered by a growing number of carmakers. Firms from GE to Walmart have com-
mitted themselves to sustainability, and even oil companies trumpet their devotion
to the environment. To paraphrase fictional Wall Street profiteer Gordon Gecko,
“green is good.”
But is the burgeoning sustainability movement itself sustainable? And do current
approaches to sustainability actually make a difference to the sustainability of
human society? The answer to both questions is no. Despite notable successes and
many important contributions, the current sustainability movement, in business,
public policy, and education, is neither effective nor itself sustainable. Why not, and
what can be done?
Here I argue that the most efforts by firms, individuals and governments in the
name of sustainability are directed at symptoms of unsustainability rather than
causes. These include policies to reduce waste, cut energy and material use, reduce
GHG emissions, promote green products and local consumption, and so on. Many
Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems Science in a Fragmented Academy… 23
of these activities are necessary to create a more sustainable society and economy.
But they are not sufficient. They fail to address the underlying source of the unsus-
tainable world we have created. I argue that the focus on symptoms and low-
leverage policies reflects a widespread failure of systems thinking.
We have long been told that the unsustainability of our society arises because
we treat the world as unlimited and problems unconnected when we live on a finite
“spaceship Earth” in which “there is no away” and “everything is connected to
everything else.” Many sustainability advocates argue that overcoming these prob-
lems requires the development of systems thinking (e.g., Suzuki 2007; McKibben
2010; Senge et al. 2008). If the world’s peoples developed a more holistic apprecia-
tion of the intricate interconnections binding us to one another and to nature, it is
argued, we would internalize social and environmental externalities, consider the
welfare of future generations in making decisions today, and act in consonance with
our collective long-term best interests. I agree. The challenge lies in moving from
slogans about systems to specific tools and processes that help us understand com-
plexity, design better policies, facilitate individual and organizational learning, and
catalyze the technical, economic, social, political, and personal changes we need to
create a sustainable society. Here I outline a design for a systems science of sustain-
ability that rises to this challenge. First, I describe the characteristics of complex
systems that lead to policy resistance—the tendency for our attempts to solve prob-
lems to be defeated by unintended reactions of the system to these interventions.
Policy resistance arises from the gap between the complexity of the systems in which
we live and the often simplistic and erroneous mental models of those systems that
guide our decisions and behavior, from the short time horizons we consider, and
from the fragmentation of knowledge into disciplinary silos. I illustrate some of the
specific tools of systems thinking with a variety of examples. The goal is to design
sustainability research, teaching, and engagement with the policy process that
generates scientifically grounded, reliable knowledge that crosses disciplinary
boundaries, that engages multiple stakeholders, that grapples with the unavoidable
issues of ethics, values, and purpose, and that leads to action.
Characteristics of Complex Systems
Policy Resistance
Thoughtful leaders throughout society increasingly suspect that the policies we

implement to address difficult challenges have not only failed to solve the persistent
problems we face, but are in fact causing them. All too often, well-intentioned pro-
grams create unanticipated “side effects.” The result is policy resistance, the
tendency for an intervention to be defeated by the system’s response to the interven-
tion itself (Forrester 1969, 1971a; Sterman 2000). Forest fire prevention and sup-
pression policies work in the short run, but as a consequence of initial success, the
24 J.D. Sterman
fuel burden builds, increasing the incidence and severity of fires. Buying vehicles
with better gas mileage in response to high gasoline prices reduces the demand for
petroleum, lowering gas prices and undermining the demand for more efficient cars.
Powerful pumps help farmers access deep aquifers in arid regions, but speed the
drop in the water table, reducing water availability. In these and many other cases,
our best efforts to solve problems often make them worse (Table 1).
Table 1 Examples of policy resistance

• Road building programs designed to reduce congestion have increased traffic, delays, and
pollution (Sterman 2000)
• Low tar and nicotine cigarettes actually increase intake of carcinogens, carbon monoxide, and
other toxics as smokers compensate for the low nicotine content by smoking more cigarettes
per day, by taking longer, more frequent drags, and by holding the smoke in their lungs longer
(Tengs et al. 2005)
• Health plan policies “limiting what drugs can be prescribed—intended to prevent the
unnecessary use of expensive drugs—[are] having the unintended effect of raising medical
costs” (Horn et al. 1996)
• Antilock brakes and other automotive safety devices cause some people to drive more
aggressively, partially offsetting their benefits (Wilde 2002)
• Forest fire suppression causes greater tree density and fuel accumulation, leading to larger,
hotter, and more dangerous fires, often consuming trees that previously survived smaller fires
unharmed (US Forest Service 2003)
• Flood control efforts such as levee and dam construction have led to more severe floods by
preventing the natural dissipation of excess water in flood plains. The cost of flood damage
has increased as flood plains were populated in the belief they were safe (Sterman 2000)
• The impacts of large dams “are more negative than positive and, in many cases, have led to
irreversible loss of species and ecosystems” (World Commission on Dams 2000)
• Antibiotics have stimulated the evolution of drug-resistant pathogens, including multiple-
resistant strains of TB, S. aureus, and sexually transmitted diseases (Fong and Drlica 2003)
• Pesticides and herbicides have stimulated the evolution of resistant pests, killed off natural
predators, and accumulated up the food chain to poison fish, birds, and, in some cases,
humans (Palumbi 2001)
• Despite dramatic gains in income per capita and widespread use of labor-saving technology,
Americans have less leisure today than 50 years ago and are no happier (Layard 2005;
Kahneman et al. 1999)
Policy resistance arises from a narrow, reductionist worldview. We have been

trained to view our situation as the result of forces outside ourselves, forces largely
unpredictable and uncontrollable. Consider the “unanticipated events” and “side
effects” so often invoked to explain policy failure. Political leaders blame recession
on corporate fraud or terrorism. Managers blame bankruptcy on events outside their
organizations and (they want us to believe) outside their control. But there are no
side effects—just effects. Those we expected or that prove beneficial we call the
main effects and claim credit. Those that undercut our policies and cause harm we
claim to be side effects, hoping to excuse the failure of our intervention. “Side
effects” are not a feature of reality but a sign that the boundaries of our mental
models are too narrow, our time horizons too short.
Policy resistance also arises from a mismatch between the characteristics of com-
plex systems (Table 2) and the simplistic mental models we use to make decisions.
Table 2 Policy resistance arises because systems are

• Constantly changing: Heraclitus said, “all is change.” What appears to be unchanging is,
over a longer time horizon, seen to vary. Change occurs at many time scales, and these
different scales sometimes interact. A star evolves over billions of years as it burns its
hydrogen fuel, but can explode as a supernova in seconds. Bull markets can rise for years,
then crash in a matter of hours
• Tightly coupled: the actors in the system interact strongly with one another and with the
natural world. Everything is connected to everything else. “You can’t do just one thing”
• Governed by feedback: because of the tight couplings among actors, our actions feed back
on themselves. Our decisions alter the state of the world, causing changes in nature and
triggering others to act, thus giving rise to a new situation, which then influences our next
decisions
• Nonlinear: effect is rarely proportional to cause, and what happens locally in a system
(near the current operating point) often does not apply in distant regions (other states of the
system). Nonlinearity often arises from basic physics: bacteria in a river can convert sewage
into harmless byproducts until the sewage load becomes so large that dissolved oxygen is
depleted, at which point the fish die and anaerobic bacteria produce toxic hydrogen sulfide.
Nonlinearity also arises as multiple factors interact in decision-making: pressure from the
boss for greater achievement increases your motivation and effort—up to the point where you
perceive the goal to be impossible. Frustration then dominates motivation—and you give up
or get a new boss
• History dependent: many actions are irreversible: you cannot unscramble an egg (the second
law of thermodynamics). Stocks and flows (accumulations) and long time delays often
mean doing and undoing have fundamentally different time constants: during the 50 years
of the Cold War arms race the nuclear nations created more than 250 tons of weapons-grade
plutonium (239Pu). The half-life of 239Pu is about 24,000 years
• Self-organizing: the dynamics of systems arise spontaneously from their internal structure.
Often, small, random perturbations are amplified and molded by the feedback structure,
generating patterns in space and time. The stripes on a zebra, the rhythmic contraction of your
heart, and persistent cycles in predator–prey populations and the real estate market all emerge
spontaneously from the feedbacks among the agents and elements of the system
• Adaptive and evolving: the capabilities and behaviors of the agents in complex systems
change over time. Evolution leads to selection and proliferation of some agents while others
become extinct. People adapt in response to experience, learning new ways to achieve their
goals in the face of obstacles. Learning is not always beneficial, however, but often supersti-
tious and parochial, maximizing local, short-term objectives at the expense of long-term
fitness and well-being
• Characterized by trade-offs: time delays in feedback channels mean the long-run response
of a system to an intervention is often different from its short-run response. Low leverage
policies often generate transitory improvement before the problem grows worse, while high
leverage policies often cause worse-before-better behavior
• Counterintuitive: in complex systems cause and effect are distant in time and space, while
we tend to look for causes near the events we seek to explain. Our attention is drawn to the
symptoms of difficulty rather than the underlying cause. High leverage policies are often not
obvious
• Policy resistant: the complexity of the systems in which we are embedded overwhelms our
ability to understand them. As a result, many seemingly obvious solutions to problems fail
or actually worsen the situation
26 J.D. Sterman
Where the consequences of our actions spill out across space and time, we tend to
focus on the local and short term. Where complex systems are dynamic, tightly
coupled, governed by feedback, nonlinear, self-organizing, adaptive, and evolving,
our mental models tend to be static and narrow. We ignore interconnections and the
delayed and distal impacts of our decisions. We divide the world into silos, whether
a firm, with separate and often competing fiefdoms of sales, production, finance,
research, and so on; governments with separate departments of energy, interior,
agriculture, transportation, and so on; or universities with separate departments
and disciplines.
Much of the debate around sustainability frames the issue as conflict between the
economy and the environment, as if these were distinct domains competing against
one another: growth vs. social justice, jobs vs. nature, logging vs. spotted owls,
polar bears vs. drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But these boundaries
are not features of reality. They are mental constructs. Boundaries are “invisible
fences in the mind” (Sterman 2002), the result of the mental models we create, the
categories into which we place people. Without underestimating the differing inter-
ests that arise in a heterogeneous population, I argue that framing sustainability as a
zero-sum game of contending objectives reflects a narrow and deeply dysfunctional
mental model. The economy, society, and environment are not separate domains to
be traded off against one another. The economy is embedded in a social and political
context, which in turn is embedded in ecosystems upon which all life depends. The
interests of business, society, and the environment are therefore fundamentally
aligned: We cannot have healthy firms, a healthy economy and healthy people if
growth and the pursuit of profit destroys the environment, and we cannot have a
healthy environment if people live in poverty, ill-fed, without decent housing, health
care, education, or economic opportunity. Environmentalists tend to stress the
first half of this mutual dependency: Destroy the environment and we destroy both
society and the economy. But it is equally true that the health of the environment
depends on a society and economy that secures people’s human rights and fulfills
people’s needs. Where there is poverty, hunger, conflict, and war, there the environ-
ment suffers. Creating an effective science of sustainability and building the public
understanding required for action requires us to develop the skill to recognize the
boundaries of our mental models and then expand them so that we become aware
of and take responsibility for the feedbacks created by our decisions.
Feedback: (Almost) Nothing Is Exogenous
Contrary to the open-loop mental model so prevalent in people’s thinking, the world
reacts to our interventions (Fig. 1). There is feedback: Our actions alter the environ-
ment and therefore the decisions we make tomorrow. Our actions may trigger
so-called side effects we did not anticipate. Other agents, seeking to achieve their
goals, act to restore the balance we have upset; their actions also generate intended
and unintended consequences.
Fig. 1 Sources of policy resistance. The boundary of the decision-makers’ mental model is
represented by the thin lines, showing the basic feedback loop through which we seek to bring the
state of the system in line with our goals. Policy resistance arises when we fail to account for
the so-called side effects of our actions, the responses of other agents in the system, human and
natural (and the unanticipated consequences of these), the ways in which experience shapes our
goals, and the time delays often present in these feedbacks
It is hard to underestimate the power of the feedback view. Indeed, almost

nothing is exogenous. Ask people to name processes that strongly affect human
welfare but over which we have no control, and many people cite the weather, echo-
ing Mark Twain’s famous quip that “everybody talks about the weather, but nobody
does anything about it.” But today even the weather is endogenous. We shape the
weather around the globe, from global warming to urban heat islands, the Antarctic
ozone hole to the “Asian brown cloud.”
Human influence over the weather is now so great that it extends even to the
chance of rain on the weekend. Cerveny and Balling (1998) showed that there is a
7-day cycle in the concentration of aerosol pollutants around the eastern seaboard of
the USA. Pollution from autos and industry builds up throughout the workweek and
dissipates over the weekend. They further show that the probability of tropical
cyclones around the eastern seaboard also varies with a 7-day cycle. Since there are
no natural 7-day cycles, they suggest that the weekly forcing by pollutant aerosols
affects cloud formation and hence the probability of rain. Their data show that the
chance of rain is highest on the weekend, while on average the nicest day is Monday,
when few are free to enjoy the out of doors. Weekly cycles in temperature, cloud
cover, and other meteorological variables have now been documented in many
regions of the world (Forster and Solomon 2003; Bäumer and Vogel 2007; Laux and
Kunstmann 2008). Few people understand that driving that SUV to work helps
spoil their weekend plans.
In similar fashion, we are unaware of the majority of the feedback effects of our
actions. Instead, we see most of our experience as a kind of weather: something that
happens to us but over which we have no control. Failure to recognize the feedbacks
in which we are embedded, the ways in which we shape the situation in which we
find ourselves, leads to policy resistance as we persistently react to the symptoms of
difficulty, intervening at low leverage points and triggering delayed and distal, but
28 J.D. Sterman
powerful, feedbacks. The problem intensifies, and we react by pulling those same
policy levers with renewed vigor, at the least wasting our talents and energy, and
all too often, triggering an unrecognized vicious cycle that carries us farther and
farther from our goals. Pumping water from deep aquifers for irrigation causes the
water table to fall, requiring more powerful and costly pumps. To offset the rising
costs, governments often subsidize electric power for the farmers, increasing pump
use and speeding the drop in the water table and need for subsidies.
Policy resistance breeds a sense of futility about our ability to make a difference.
One of the challenges in building a more sustainable world is helping us to see our-
selves as part of a larger system in which our actions feed back to shape the world
in ways large and small, desired and undesired. The greater challenge is to do so in
a way that empowers us to take action instead of reinforcing the belief that we are
the helpless victims of systems we can neither comprehend nor change, mere leaves
tossed about by storm systems of inscrutable complexity and scope.
All dynamics arise from the interaction of just two types of feedback loops,
reinforcing (or positive) and balancing (or negative) loops (Fig. 2).1 Reinforcing
feedbacks tend to amplify whatever is happening in the system: the larger a popula-
tion, the greater the number of births, further increasing the population. The greater
a nation’s investment in capital plant, equipment, and infrastructure, the larger its
gross domestic product (GDP) becomes, increasing the resources available for
investment still further. The higher the concentrations of GHGs such as carbon
dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth becomes; as higher
temperatures melt permafrost, bacteria metabolize previously frozen organic
matter, releasing still more CO2 and methane and leading to still more warming.
These self-reinforcing feedbacks are all processes that generate their own growth,
leading, respectively, to population and economic growth and the potential for
runaway climate change.
Balancing feedbacks counteract and oppose change. The larger a population
relative to the carrying capacity of its environment, the lower the net birth rate will
be, slowing population growth. The more oil we discover, the less remains to be
discovered in the future. High levels of air and water pollution harm human health,
leading to political pressure for action and, eventually, regulations to limit pollutant
concentrations. These loops all describe self-correcting processes that seek balance
and equilibrium.
Research on mental models shows few incorporate any feedback loops. Axelrod
(1976) found virtually no feedback processes in the cognitive maps of political
leaders. Dörner (1980, 1996) found that people tend to think in single-strand
1
The scientific literature generally uses the terms “positive” and “negative” to denote self-reinforcing
and self-correcting feedbacks. However, laypeople persistently conflate “positive feedback” with
“good” and “negative feedback” with “bad,” as in “my boss gave me negative feedback on my
performance.” However, either type of feedback can be good or bad, depending on how the loop is
operating and on one’s values. The positive feedback of compound interest on credit card debt is
“bad” if you are the debtor, but “good” for the card issuer. To avoid the confusion, I use the terms
reinforcing and balancing rather than positive and negative.
Reinforcing feedback: Reinforcing loops are self-

reinforcing. In this case, more chickens lay more eggs,
+
which hatch and add to the chicken population, leading to
still more eggs, and so on. A Causal Loop Diagram
Eg gs R Chi cke ns
(Sterman 2000) captures the feedbacks in a system. The
+ arrows indicate the causal relationships. The + signs at the
arrowheads indicate that the effect is positively related to
A system s feedback structure
the cause: an increase in the chicken population causes
the number of eggs laid each day to rise above what it
generates its dynamics would have been (and vice versa: a decrease in the
chicken population causes egg laying to fall below what it
would have been). The loop is self-reinforcing, hence the
Chickens loop polarity identifier R. If this loop were the only one
operating, the chicken and egg population would both grow
Eggs exponentially.
Time Of course, no real quantity can grow forever. There must

be limits to growth. These limits are created by balancing
feedbacks.
Structure:
Balancing feedback: Balancing loops are self-correcting.
+ They counteract change. As the chicken population grows,
Road various self-correcting loops will act to balance the chicken

Chickens B
Crossings population with its carrying capacity. One classic feedback
is shown here: The more chickens, the more road
-
crossings they will attempt. If there is any traffic, more road
crossings will lead to fewer chickens (hence the —
Behavior: [negative] polarity for the link from road crossings to

chickens). An increase in the chicken population causes
more risky road crossings, which then bring the chicken
Road
Crossings population back down. The B in the center of a loop
denotes a balancing feedback. If the road-crossing loop
was the only one operating (say because the farmer sells
Chickens
all the eggs), the number of chickens would gradually
Time decline until none remained.
All systems, no matter how complex, consist of networks of

reinforcing and balancing feedbacks, and all dynamics
arise from the interaction of these loops with one another.
Fig. 2 Reinforcing and balancing feedback loops
causal series and had difficulty in systems with side effects and multiple causal
pathways, much less feedback loops. Booth Sweeney and Sterman (2007) found
limited recognition of feedback processes among both middle school students and
their teachers. People tend to assume each effect has a single cause and often
cease their search for explanations when the first sufficient cause is found (see,
e.g., Plous 1993).
30 J.D. Sterman
Compounding the lack of feedback in people’s mental models, research also

shows that people do not understand the behavior of even the simplest feedback
systems. Wagenaar (1978) and Wagenaar and Sagaria (1975) studied people’s
ability to understand exponential growth processes. They found people tend to
extrapolate linearly instead of exponentially, assuming a quantity increases by the
same absolute amount per time period, while exponential growth doubles the
quantity in a fixed period of time. When the growth rate and forecast horizon
are small, linear extrapolation is a reasonable approximation to exponential
growth. However, as the growth rate increases or the forecast horizon lengthens, the
errors become huge. I often demonstrate this phenomenon in my classes with the
“paper folding” task, starting with a sheet of copy paper, which I show the students
is about 0.1 mm thick:
“Consider an ordinary sheet of paper like this one. Fold it in half. Fold the sheet in half
again. The paper is still less than half a millimeter thick. If you were to fold the paper 40
more times, how thick would it be?
Do not use a calculator. We are interested in your intuitive judgment. Along with your
estimate, give your 95% upper and lower confidence bounds for your estimates (i.e., a range
of estimates you are 95% sure includes the right answer. Your 95% confidence bound means
you believe there is only a 5% chance the correct answer falls outside the upper and lower
bounds you give).”
Lower bound Upper bound

(95% sure it is between (95% sure it is between
lower and upper bound) Your estimate lower and upper bound)
42 folds
Typical of results with a wide range of audiences, the median estimate in a sam-
ple of 95 graduate students at the MIT Sloan School of Management was 0.05 m
(less than 2 in.), and the mean, skewed by a few who offered higher numbers, was
134 km (»83 miles). The correct answer? Each fold doubles the thickness of the
paper. After 42 doublings the thickness has increased by a factor of 242 » 4.4 trillion,
from 0.1 mm to 440,000 km (»273,000 miles), farther than the distance from the
earth to the moon. The mean response is only 0.03% of the correct value. None of
the confidence bounds included the correct value—not only do we fail to understand
exponential growth, but we are grossly overconfident in our judgments (see, e.g.,
Plous 1993). Some students provided the correct formula, but still failed to grasp its
implications, such as the student who wrote, correctly, that the paper would be
“0.1 mm*242 thick,” but whose upper confidence limit was 1.2 km, less than
three-quarters of a mile.
These misperceptions of reinforcing feedback and exponential growth are
powerful barriers to understanding the sustainability challenge. For most of our
existence as a species on the planet, humans were small in number and population
growth slow. People had limited power to deplete resources and poison the environ-
ment. To be sure, humans could and did despoil local environments (e.g., Diamond
2005), but the consequences, though severe for the affected populations, remained
local; in most cases people could move to regions where resources were abundant
+
Net
R Population
Births
+ + Population
Growth
Fractional Net
Birth Rate
Net R Gross World

Investment Product
+ + Economic
Growth
Fractional Net
Investment Rate
Fig. 3 Reinforcing feedbacks underlying population and economic growth. Source: population:
UN (2011); GWP: 1970–2010: World Bank, http://databank.worldbank.org; 1950–1970:
Worldwatch Institute, Signposts 2001
(though such migrations often triggered conflict and war). But exponential growth
explodes very quickly. World population reached one billion sometime in the early
1800s, roughly 100,000 years after modern humans evolved, but it took only about
a century to reach two billion. Only about 40 years were required to add the next
billion. World population by the end of 2011 was roughly seven billion (Fig. 3) and
it took only about a dozen years to add that last billion. More important, the impact
of that population is growing even faster. Real Gross World Product (GWP) grew
from 1950 to 2009 at an average rate of 3.5% y−1 (Fig. 3), doubling every 20 years.
At that rate, in a century, the real value of goods and services produced worldwide
would grow by a factor of 32.
Such astounding growth in population and material throughput cannot continue
indefinitely on a finite planet. The question is not if growth will cease, but when and
how. Yet corporations seek ever-growing sales, governments strive for ever-greater
economic growth, and individuals desire ever-higher incomes. Many believe that
the goal of environmental policy is to enable “sustainable growth,” an impossibility.
Material growth in a finite world must eventually cease; by definition it cannot be
sustained (for excellent discussion, see e.g., Meadows et al. 2004; Daly 1991; Daly
and Townsend 1993). Yet, as I write this (August, 2011), Google returns over seven
million results for the term “sustainable growth” and hundreds of organizations,
including firms and well-intentioned environmental groups, promote “sustainable
growth” and other oxymoronic constructs that reinforce the idea that endless growth
is not only possible but a worthy goal. Thus, “DuPont has a mission of sustainable
32 J.D. Sterman
growth, which we define as the creation of shareholder and societal value while we
reduce our environmental footprint along the value chains in which we operate.”
The Clinton Foundation offers its “Sustainable Growth Initiative.” And the World
Environmental Organization lists the “100 top sustainable growth sites.”2
Nonlinearity
The interactions among the feedbacks in complex systems are typically nonlinear.
Consider the interaction of a population with the carrying capacity of its environ-
ment (Fig. 4). The population could be yeast in a Champagne cask or the popula-
tion of earth. The larger the population, the more net births, forming the reinforcing
population growth feedback R1 and leading to exponential growth—as long as the
fractional net birth rate is constant. However, every organism grows in the context
of its carrying capacity. The carrying capacity is the size of the population the
habitat of that species can support. It is determined by the resources available in
the environment and the resource requirements of the population (e.g., sugar for
the Champagne yeast). As the population approaches its carrying capacity,
resources per capita fall, reducing the fractional net birth rate and slowing popula-
tion growth, forming the balancing “limits to growth” feedback, B1. In general, a
population depends on many resources, each creating a balancing feedback that
can limit growth. The constraints that are most binding determine which balanc-
ing loops will be most influential as the population grows: fermentation can be
stopped by either depletion of the sugar the yeast consume or a rise in the concen-
tration of the alcohol they produce as waste. The relationship between the ratio of
population to carrying capacity and the net fractional birth rate must be downward
sloping: when population is small relative to the carrying capacity, resources are
abundant, each organism has all the resources it needs, and the population grows
at its maximum fractional rate. As resources become scarce, however, fertility
falls and mortality increases, lowering the net fractional birth rate, until, when the
population equals the carrying capacity, resources are just scarce enough to halt
growth. If resources became even more scarce—if, say, the carrying capacity
dropped—then the population would fall, raising resources per capita until equi-
librium is again reached. The relationship between net births and population is
highly nonlinear. When population is small and resources abundant, the reinforc-
ing population growth feedback dominates the dynamics of the system. But as the
population grows, the balancing Limits to Growth loop becomes stronger, and
eventually dominates the system dynamics. If the carrying capacity is fixed and
there are no significant time delays in the balancing feedback then the population
2
http://www2.dupont.com/Our_Company/en_US/glance/sus_growth/sus_growth.html, http://www.
clintonfoundation.org/what-we-do/clinton-giustra-sustainable-growth-initiative, http://www.world.
org/weo/growth.
+
Net Births R1 Population
+
+ Population
Growth
B1 -
Fractional Net Resource Carrying
Birth Rate Limits to Adequacy Capacity
Growth
+ +
Top: Feedback structure for growth of any population

relative to its carrying capacity. Bottom: the dynamics
of the population resulting from the nonlinear
relationship between population relative to carrying
capacity and net births.
Top: Fractional net birth rate; Bottom: Total net births;
both as functions of population relative to the carrying
capacity.
Fig. 4 Nonlinear interaction of population and carrying capacity
will follow an S-shaped path, as seen in Fig. 4. However, for most species the car-
rying capacity is endogenous and there are long delays in the system; population
growth can then degrade and overshoot the carrying capacity, leading to popula-
tion decline or collapse.
Tipping Points
Nonlinear interactions of populations with their carrying capacity often create the
possibility of sudden shifts in resource abundance. Consider the Atlantic cod,
Gadus morhua. When Europeans began to fish in the rich waters off the east coast
of North America, cod, a predator with few natural enemies, had reached the car-
rying capacity of their marine environment (Rosenberg et al. 2004). Stocks were
immense: John Cabot, exploring Newfoundland in 1497, noted the cod were so
thick they nearly blocked his ship (Kurlansky 1997). Fishers easily filled their
holds, but because the total take was small, the balancing feedback dominated: by
taking a few cod, fishers increased the abundance of food for those that remained,
so stocks rapidly recovered. For decades, the more fishers caught, the more grew
34 J.D. Sterman
back, leading them to conclude that there were no limits. Many scientists agreed,
including biologist T. H. Huxley (1883), who famously declared:
I believe, then, that the cod fishery, the herring fishery, the pilchard fishery, the mackerel
fishery, and probably all the great sea fisheries, are inexhaustible; that is to say, that nothing
we do seriously affects the number of the fish.3
However, as the catch continued to grow, cod stocks eventually fell below the
maximum sustainable yield. At that point, the reinforcing population growth loop
dominated the dynamics, but now operating as a vicious cycle of smaller popula-
tions, fewer net births, and a still smaller population. The fishery collapsed, taking
with it the livelihood of the fishers and the communities that depended on them, from
St. Johns, Newfoundland to New Bedford, Massachusetts. Fig. 5 shows a simulation
of the model in Fig. 4 configured to represent a fishery. The fleet grows exponentially
at a modest rate of 2% y−1. As the growing catch reduces the stock of cod, recruitment
(the net addition to the stock of fish) rises, almost compensating for the catch, so the
population declines only slowly. But by about year 225, the tipping point is reached:
+
Catch per Boat
Fleet Size
B2
+ +
Fishing
Effectivneess Catch
+ -
Recruitment R1 Fish Stock
- +
Population
Growth
B1
Limits to
Growth
+
Fish Density
Fig. 5 Environmental tipping point: The fishing fleet (potential catch) grows at a constant rate of
2% y−1. The fishery collapses when stocks fall enough to push the system into the regime in which
recruitment falls because there are simply too few fish to replace the catch
3
Huxley’s analysis was, for the day, rather nuanced, and he did not believe that all fisheries were
inexhaustible. He considered oyster beds and riverine salmon fisheries to be exhaustible, and
recognized the tragedy of the commons, concluding that in such cases “Man is the chief enemy,
and we can deal with him by force of law. If the stock of a river is to be kept up, it must be treated
upon just the same principles as the stock of a sheep farm.”
stocks have declined so much that recruitment begins to fall. Now the dynamics are
dominated by the vicious cycle of fewer fish, lower recruitment, and a still smaller
fish population. Although the precipitous decline in stocks soon forces catch per boat
down (via the balancing Fishing Effectiveness loop, B2), the total catch still exceeds
recruitment, so fish stocks continue to drop until the cod are extirpated.
Eroding Goals
Surely fishers would limit the catch before the tipping point is crossed. Because
fish are common pool resources, stocks are vulnerable to the “Tragedy of the
Commons” (Hardin 1968), in which overexploitation is the outcome of rational
decision making because the benefits of taking more accrue to individual fishers,
while the costs (lower future catch) are borne by all. Further, experimental studies
(Moxnes 2000) show that even when the common pool resource problem is absent,
people’s poor understanding of resource dynamics leads to overexploitation and,
often, collapse. More optimistically, Ostrom (2010) demonstrates how communities
can establish sustainable harvesting for a variety of common pool resources.
Communities that agree on and enforce limits on the harvest of their resources
create an important balancing feedback, shown in Fig. 6 as the Catch Limit loop, B3.
+
Catch per Boat
Fleet Size
B2
+ +
Fishing
Effectivneess Catch
-
+ - Catch
Limits
Recruitment R1 Fish Stock B3 +
- +
Population Catch Limits
Growth
- Stock Relative
B1 to Target
+
Limits to
Growth
+
Fish Density Target
Stock
Fig. 6 Catch limits: fishery collapse can be avoided if the members of the community agree to
lower the catch as stocks fall below a target (B3)—if the target is high enough
36 J.D. Sterman
As the resource stock falls relative to a target, the community voluntarily limits its
catch. If the target is high enough—and if enforcement or social norms prevent free
riders from taking more than their share—the stock stabilizes above the tipping
point and the resource can be sustained.
Few goals are absolute. How much should you weigh? What grades should a
student earn? How much income is enough? When goals are not absolute, self-
evident, and obvious, they co-evolve endogenously with the state of the system. To
reduce cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957), we adapt to our circumstances,
redefining what we consider “normal” and “acceptable” to match our situation.
Then, as our goals erode, so too do our efforts to improve system performance, a
reinforcing feedback that can lead to path dependence and self-fulfilling prophecy
(Forrester 1969; Sterman 2000). Thus, we buy larger clothes when we gain weight,
literally easing the pressure that might motivate us to eat less and exercise more;
teachers often adjust their beliefs about a student’s ability toward that student’s
grades, providing more help to those they conclude are gifted and less to those they
believe to lack potential, further boosting the achievement of the favored while the
rest fall farther behind (Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968); as we consume more we
become habituated to our higher standard of living, leading us to strive for still
greater income (Kahneman et al. 1999; Layard 2005).
Eroding goals are particularly common in sustainability contexts due to our
imperfect understanding of ecosystem dynamics. Due to limited information,
natural variability, and limited knowledge of population dynamics, estimates of
“normal” stocks and maximum sustainable yield are uncertain. Consequently, target
stocks are vulnerable to political pressure from fishers, who often argue that current
stocks are close to normal, so catch should not be limited. More important, people,
including scientists, typically credit their own experience more than other informa-
tion, while environmental changes are often slow relative to our lifespan. Fishery
biologist Daniel Pauly (1995) describes the resulting “shifting baseline syndrome”
in which “each generation of fisheries scientists accepts as a baseline the stock size
and species composition that occurred at the beginning of their careers, and uses this
to evaluate changes. When the next generation starts its career, the stocks have fur-
ther declined, but it is the stocks at that time that serve as a new baseline. The result
obviously is a gradual shift of the baseline, a gradual accommodation of the creep-
ing disappearance of resource species, and inappropriate reference points for evalu-
ating economic losses resulting from overfishing, or for identifying targets for
rehabilitation measures” (Pauly 1995; see also http://www.shiftingbaselines.org).
Fig. 7 shows the feedback structure and behavior of the shifting baseline syndrome.
Now, as fish stocks fall, the beliefs of fishers and scientists about normal stock lev-
els gradually drop. Pressure to limit the catch is reduced. Stocks fall further, and
beliefs about the normal stock level fall still more in a vicious cycle—the Shifting
Baseline feedback (R2). The simulation shows the result when the target stock
adjusts to the actual stock over an average of 20 years. Goal erosion undermines the
effectiveness of community efforts to limit the catch to a sustainable rate. The
fishery still collapses.
+
Catch per Boat
Fleet Size
B2
+ +
Fishing
Effectivneess Catch
-
+ - Catch
Limits
Recruitment R1 Fish Stock B3 +
+
- Population Catch Limits
Growth
- Stock Relative
B1 DELAY to Target
R2 +
Limits to +
Growth Perceived Shifting
+ Normal
Fish Density Baselines
Stock Target
Maximum Fish Stock
Stock - +
Fig. 7 Eroding goals: allowing target stocks to adjust to actual levels with a time constant of 20
years leads to collapse of the fishery through the reinforcing Shifting Baselines loop R2. All other
conditions identical to Fig. 6
Eroding goals and shifting baselines are not limited to fisheries, but occur for a
wide range of environmental issues, particularly those in which the dynamics are
slow relative to human lifespan and in which the signal-to-noise ratio is low, for
example, in climate change, where daily and seasonal fluctuations in local weather
dominate our experience, while the slow rise in global average temperatures, loss of
snow cover, changes in the behavior and range of species, and other impacts are
hard to discern.
Time Delays
Time delays in complex systems are common and particularly troublesome. For
example (Table 3), more than 6 decades have passed from the first undeniable
evidence that air pollution from combustion of fossil fuels causes significant health
problems, including death, yet the US EPA reports 145 million Americans live in
so-called nonattainment areas—regions where air quality does not meet the
standards of the Clean Air Act.
38 J.D. Sterman
Table 3 Delays in societal response to air pollution in the USA

1800s: widespread use of coal leads to growing air pollution in Europe and the USA
1948: Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania, kills 20 people and sickens 6,000. Soon after, coal
fumes kill nearly 800 in London
1955: First US Federal Air Pollution Control Act laid primary responsibility for limiting air
pollution upon states and cities, though it allocated $5 million for research
1963: Federal Clean Air Act recognizes air pollution does not respect state boundaries; sets up
regulations for interstate abatement; provides more assistance to state and local
governments
1970: Clean Air Act strengthened by defining “safe” standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2),
carbon monoxide (CO), particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrous
oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb). States are required to submit plans to meet
standards by 1975
1977: deadline postponed until 1982 as 78 cities were in violation of ozone standards
1988: ninety urban areas with 150 million inhabitants exceed ozone standard; 40 violate CO
standard
1990: Amendments to Clean Air Act require all cities to meet ozone standard by 2007 (except
Los Angeles, which had until 2010). Stricter regulations for auto emissions, gasoline,
SO2, and newly regulated pollutants
1990s: medical evidence shows health problems and deaths from air pollution are caused by
lower concentrations of key pollutants than previously thought
1997: reflecting new science, and over strong opposition by industry, the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act tightened for six “criteria” air pollutants
(O3, CO, SO2, NOx, Pb, and PM10 and PM2.5—particulates smaller than 10 and 2.5 mm).
Industry groups immediately challenge the new regulations in court
2001: US Supreme Court, in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., unanimously
upholds the bulk of the new regulations
2010: 145 million Americans live in “nonattainment” areas in violation of EPA standards for
the six criteria pollutants. The National Research Council estimates that the pollutants
released by use of fossil fuels, primarily O3, NOx, SO2, and particulates, cause economic
damage of at least $120 billion per year, including the cost of 20,000 premature deaths
per year
Time from first clear signal of problem to initial Clean Air Act: 15 years
Total delay from first clear signal to full compliance with law: 62 years and counting
Source: paraphrased and condensed with permission from D. Meadows and A. AtKisson, The
Balaton Bulletin, 1997; updated by J. Sterman from EPA Green Book (http://www.epa.gov/oar/
oaqps/greenbk). Nonattainment population in 2010 given by the maximum population living in
each nonattainment area across each criterion pollutant per EPA Green Book data as of December
17, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl3.html
The National Research Council (2010) estimated that the pollutants released by
use of fossil fuels cost the US economy at least $120 billion per year, including the
cost of 20,000 premature deaths per year. These estimates exclude the harms these
pollutants cause to ecosystems and national security, the damage caused by other
pollutants such as mercury, and the costs of climate change arising from anthropo-
genic GHGs.
Research shows people routinely ignore or underestimate time delays (Sterman
1989; Sterman 2000; Buehler et al. 2002; Faro et al. 2010). Underestimating time
delays leads people to believe, wrongly, that it is prudent to “wait and see” whether
a potential environmental risk will actually begin to cause harm, or until scientific
research resolves uncertainty about whether something is harmful, then address it if
it does. Consider climate change. Many people, including many who believe
climate change is real and poses serious risks, nevertheless advocate a wait-and-see
approach, reasoning that uncertainty about the causes and consequences of
climate change means potentially costly actions to address the risks should be
deferred. If climate change turns out to be more harmful than expected, policies to
mitigate it can then be implemented, they argue.
Wait-and-see policies often work well in simple systems, specifically those with
short lags between detection of a problem and the implementation and impact of
corrective actions. In boiling water for tea, one can wait until the kettle boils before
taking action because there is essentially no delay between the boiling of the water
and the whistle of the kettle, nor between hearing the whistle and removing the
kettle from the flame. Few complex public policy challenges can be addressed so
quickly. To be a prudent response to the risks of climate change, wait-and-see poli-
cies require short delays in all the links in a long causal chain, stretching from the
detection of adverse climate impacts to the decision to implement mitigation poli-
cies to emissions reductions to changes in atmospheric GHG concentrations to
radiative forcing to surface warming and finally to climate impacts, including
changes in ice cover, sea level, weather patterns, agricultural productivity, habitat
loss and species distribution, extinction rates, and the incidence of diseases, among
others. Contrary to the logic of “wait and see” there are long delays in every link
of the chain (Fiddaman 2002; O’Neill and Oppenheimer 2002; Stachowicz et al.
2002; Alley et al. 2003; Thomas et al. 2004; Meehl et al. 2005; Wigley 2005;
Solomon et al. 2009; Pereira et al. 2010). Similar delays exist for many environ-
mental problems.
More problematic, the short- and long-run impacts of our policies often differ.
Such “better-before-worse” behavior is common across many spatial and temporal
scales. Credit card debt boosts your material standard of living today but forces a
drop in consumption when the bills and interest must be paid. Smoking brings
immediate pleasure but disease and death later. Forest fire suppression works in the
short run, until the resulting fuel accumulation leads to more, hotter and more
damaging fires decades later. DDT was a boon to agriculture and human health in
the short run, while pest resistance and the harmful effects of chlorinated hydrocar-
bons on ecosystems and humans emerged only later. Similarly, what’s best for the
long term often imposes short-run costs, a “worse-before-better” pattern. Saving
for retirement requires we sacrifice consumption in the short run. Restoring the cod
fishery requires cutting the catch today. Because the long-term benefits and harms
of current actions are uncertain, delayed, and diffuse, we are often biased toward
actions that improve welfare in the short run at the expense of the future (better-
before-worse). And the worse-before-better impact of policies required to improve
long-run performance often causes them to fail (Repenning and Sterman 2001).
The trade-off between the short- and long-term responses to policies is particularly
problematic in the domain of sustainability because of the long time delays in
ecological and economic processes.
40 J.D. Sterman
Stocks and Flows
Stocks and the flows that alter them are fundamental in disciplines from accounting
to zoology: Debt is increased by borrowing and reduced by repayment or default;
the burden of mercury in a child’s body is increased by ingestion and decreased by
excretion; a population is increased by births and decreased by mortality. In physi-
cal and biological systems stocks are often tangible: the stock of fresh water in the
Ogallala aquifer, the number of gasoline-powered vehicles, the amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere. The dynamics of our economic and social systems, however, are
also determined by intangible resources such as technical knowledge, behavioral
norms around littering and recycling, trust among extractors of common pool
resources, and other forms of human, social, and political capital.
We should have good intuitive understanding of accumulation because stocks and
the flows that alter them are pervasive in everyday experience: Our bathtubs accumu-
late the inflow of water through the faucet less the outflow through the drain, our
bank accounts accumulate deposits less withdrawals, and we all struggle to control
our weight by managing inflows and outflows of calories through diet and exercise.
Yet research shows that people’s intuitive understanding of stocks and flows is poor
in two ways that perpetuate low leverage approaches to sustainability. First, despite
their ubiquity, people have difficulty relating the flows into and out of a stock to the
level of the stock, even in simple, familiar contexts such as bank accounts and bath-
tubs. Second, narrow mental model boundaries mean people are often unaware of the
networks of stocks and flows that supply resources and absorb wastes.
Although the relationship between stocks and flows is a fundamental concept of
calculus, knowledge of calculus is not necessary to understand their behavior. Any
stock can be thought of as the amount of water in a tub. The water level accumulates
the flow of water into the tub (the inflow) less the flow exiting through the drain
(the outflow). The rate of change in the water level is the net flow, given by the
difference between the inflow and outflow.4 As everyone knows, the water level in
the tub rises only when the inflow exceeds the outflow, falls only when the outflow
exceeds the inflow, and remains the same only when the inflow equals the outflow.
Yet even highly educated adults with strong background in STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) often do not understand these basic
principles. Booth Sweeney and Sterman (2000) presented graduate students at MIT
4
Consider any stock, S, with inflow I and outflow O. The stock at time T, ST , is the integral of its
net inflow from the initial time, t0 , plus the initial stock, St . Equivalently, the rate of change of the
0
stock is the net inflow, I–O:
T T
dS
ST = ò Net Inflow dt + St0 = ò (I - O )dt + St0 ; = Net Inflow = I - O
t0 t0
dt
Note the units of measure: stocks are measured in units, e.g., liters of water in a tub or tons of CO2
in the atmosphere, while flows are measured in units/time period, e.g., liters/second or tons of
CO2 /year.
with a picture of a bathtub and graphs showing the inflow and outflow of water and
then asked them to sketch the trajectory of the stock of water in the tub. Although
the patterns were simple, fewer than half responded correctly. The majority in these
and subsequent experiments fail to apply the basic principles of accumulation.
Rather, people often use the intuitively appealing “correlation heuristic” (Cronin
et al. 2009), assuming that the output of a system should “look like”—be positively
correlated with—its inputs. Although sometimes useful, correlational reasoning
fails in systems with important accumulations. The US federal deficit and national
debt have both risen dramatically since 1950. Correlational reasoning predicts that
cutting the deficit would also cut the debt. However, because the national debt is a
stock that accumulates the deficit, it keeps rising even if the deficit falls. The debt
falls only if the government runs a surplus.
Poor understanding of accumulation leads to serious errors in reasoning about sus-
tainability. Herman Daly (1991) articulated three fundamental, necessary conditions
for sustainability in any finite environment, shown in Fig. 8 using standard stock and
Fig. 8 Three necessary conditions for sustainability (Daly 1991) shown in stock and flow
notation. Rectangles denote stocks; pipes and valves denote the flows. Here, the stock of renew-
able resources is depleted by harvest (e.g., logging) and filled by regeneration (e.g., forest regrowth).
The harvest of renewables, generation of wastes, and extraction of nonrenewables are driven by
human activity (the population and economy). Renewable resource regeneration and the processes
that render wastes harmless (e.g., breakdown of sewage, removal of CO2 from the atmosphere) are
provided by ecosystem services. For simplicity the stocks that support activities are not shown but
are themselves finite: there are no limitless sources and sinks on a finite planet
flow notation. In a sustainable society, (1) renewable resources cannot be used faster
than they regenerate, (2) pollution and wastes cannot be generated faster than they
decay and are rendered harmless; and (3), in the long run, nonrenewable resources
cannot be used at all. These principles follow directly from the fundamental laws of
accumulation: If a bathtub is drained at a higher rate than it fills, the level of water will
fall; in exactly the same way, a sustainable society cannot harvest cod faster than they
reproduce. Filling a tub faster than it drains raises the level of water, so a sustainable
society cannot produce GHGs faster than they are removed from the atmosphere. And
the level of water in a tub with an open drain but no inflow will fall until the tub is
empty, so a sustainable society cannot rely on nonrenewables such as fossil fuels.
42 J.D. Sterman
Our society is far from meeting any of these three fundamental requirements for
sustainability (Wackernagel et al. 2002; Rockström et al. 2009). Any policy or pro-
gram that purports to promote sustainability should be judged by whether it moves
us closer to stabilizing stocks of resources and wastes. If it does not, then it does not
advance the cause of sustainability. Experimental studies show that people do not
understand these concepts. Sterman and Booth Sweeney (2007) gave 212 graduate
students at MIT a description of the relationships among GHG emissions, atmo-
spheric concentrations, and global mean temperature. The description, excerpted
from the IPCC’s “Summary for Policymakers,” a document intended for nonspecial-
ists, described the flows into and out of the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere. Participants
were then asked to sketch the emissions trajectory required to stabilize atmospheric
CO2. To highlight the stock–flow structure, participants were first directed to esti-
mate future net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (net CO2 taken up by the oceans
and biomass), then draw the emissions path needed to stabilize atmospheric CO2.
Knowledge of climatology or calculus is not needed to respond correctly. The
dynamics are easily understood using the bathtub analogy. Like any stock, atmo-
spheric CO2 rises when the inflow to the tub (emissions) exceeds the outflow (net
removal), is unchanging when inflow equals outflow, and falls when outflow exceeds
inflow. Participants were informed that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are now
roughly double net removal, so the tub is filling. Yet, 84% drew patterns that vio-
lated the principles of accumulation. Nearly two-thirds asserted that atmospheric
GHGs can stabilize even while emissions continuously exceed removal—analogous
to arguing a bathtub continuously filled faster than it drains will never overflow. The
false belief that stabilizing emissions would quickly stabilize the climate not only
violates mass balance, one of the most basic laws of physics, but leads to compla-
cency about the magnitude and urgency of the emissions reductions required to
mitigate climate change risk (Sterman 2008).
Training in science does not prevent these errors. Three-fifths of the partici-
pants had degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM);
most others were trained in economics. Over 30% hold a prior graduate degree,
70% of these in STEM. These individuals are demographically similar to influential
leaders in business, government, and the media, though with more STEM training
than most. On a more hopeful note, it is possible for people to learn these principles:
Sterman (2010) shows that a half-semester course on system dynamics modeling
significantly improves people’s ability to relate stocks and flows and reduces the
prevalence of the correlation heuristic.
Understanding the principles of accumulation, while necessary, is not sufficient.
People must also be able to identify the networks of stocks and flows through which
resources and wastes move through the economy and ecosystem. The inability to
recognize and map the network of stocks and flows in a system contributes to policy
resistance and unsustainability by focusing people’s attention on local conditions at
the expense of the distal and delayed consequences of their actions. It allows us to
externalize the environmental consequences of our actions by promoting the illu-
sion that there are unlimited supplies of natural resources and limitless sinks into
which wastes can be dumped. California’s Air Resources Board promotes so-called
zero emission vehicles (ZEVs; see http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.

htm). True, ZEVs—likely to be electric vehicles—need no tailpipe. But the plants
required to make the electricity to power them do generate pollution. California is
actually promoting DEVs—displaced emission vehicles—whose wastes would
blow downwind to other states or accumulate in nuclear waste dumps. Air pollution
causes substantial harm, electric vehicles may prove to be an environmental boon
compared to internal combustion, and eventually electricity must be produced from
renewable sources such as wind and solar. But no technology is free of environmen-
tal impact, and no government can repeal the second law of thermodynamics.
Fig. 9 shows the stock and flow network mapping the movement of carbon from
fossil fuels, through combustion, into the atmosphere, and from the atmosphere
C Sequestered from C Circulating in

Active Carbon Cycle Active Carbon Cycle
C in Soils
Formation of C Flux
Fossil Fuels Biomass to
from C in C Flux Soils Soils
Soils to Atm
C in Biomass
C Emissions C Flux
from Fossil Fuel Biomass to
Combustion Atm
C in Fossil C in
Fuels Atmosphere
C Flux Atm to
Biomass
C Flux Atm
to Ocean C Flux Ocean
toAtm
C in Mixed
Layer of
Ocean
C Flux Mixed C Flux Deep
Layer to Ocean to
Deep Ocean Mixed Layer
C in Deep
Ocean
C Flux Deep C Flux

Formation of Ocean to Abyssal
Fossil Fuels Abyssal Sediment to
from Abyssal Sediment Deep Ocean
Sediment
C in Abyssal
Sediment
Fig. 9 Stock and flow structure of the carbon cycle. Combustion of fossil fuels injects carbon that
has been sequestered for millions of years into the atmosphere, where it is taken up by biomass or
dissolves in the ocean, but eventually cycles from these stocks back into the atmosphere. Flows
showing the formation of fossil fuels from carbon in terrestrial soils and ocean sediments are
shown in gray because these flows are, relative to human time scales, essentially zero. The diagram
does not show flows of C associated with the formation and weathering of limestone and other
rocks as these flows are unchanging over human time scales
44 J.D. Sterman
into various stocks including carbon in biomass, soils, and the ocean. The fluxes of
carbon among these reservoirs determine the concentration of CO2 in the atmo-
sphere, and thus anthropogenic global warming. Many argue that we can limit
climate change by Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and land Degradation
(REDD) (see e.g., http://www.un-redd.org). REDD policies often focus on carbon
credits and offsets, through which polluters “offset” the CO2 generated by the
fossil fuels they burn by paying developing nations to preserve their forests or
plant trees.
It’s true that a growing forest removes carbon from the atmosphere. But what
happens to that carbon? Within a few decades it returns to the atmosphere through
several routes: First, as the forest grows, more and more leaves, pine needles,
branches, and trees die and fall to the forest floor, where bacteria and fungi consume
them, releasing CO2 and methane back into the atmosphere. Second, if humans
harvest the wood for fuel or clear that land for crops, the carbon stored in the trees
returns to the atmosphere via fire or decay. Even if the forest is protected from legal
and illegal logging, the larger the stock of carbon in the forest, the greater the chance
of wildfire. Halting deforestation is essential in building a more sustainable world:
it accounts for roughly 20% of total world carbon emissions and causes a multitude
of other harms including erosion and mudslides; changes in regional albedo, cloud
formation, and rainfall; and habitat loss that displaces indigenous peoples and
accelerates species extinction. But allowing nations, firms, and individuals to
“offset” their fossil fuel use by buying carbon credits to reduce deforestation is a
fool’s bargain. Burning fossil fuels injects carbon that has been sequestered for
millions of years into the atmosphere. Such carbon remains in the active carbon
cycle for eons, while afforestation removes carbon from the atmosphere only tempo-
rarily and does nothing to reduce the stock of carbon in the active carbon cycle.
Poor understanding of stock and flow networks is not limited to the public and
policymakers but is all too common in academic research. In the early 1990s,
William Nordhaus developed the DICE (Dynamic Integrated Climate Economy)
model. DICE closes an important feedback: the economy generates GHGs, which
alter the climate, which feeds back to reduce economic growth and emissions. But
the DICE are loaded. The carbon cycle in the model represents only a single stock:
carbon in the atmosphere (eq. 8 in Nordhaus 1992),
M (t ) = bE (t ) + (1 - d M ) M (t - 1)
“where M(t) is CO2 concentrations relative to preindustrial times, b is the marginal
atmospheric retention ratio, and dM is the rate of transfer from the rapidly mixing
reservoirs to the deep ocean” (p. 1316). The transfer rate dM is constant, implying
that the carbon sinks that accumulate the CO2 removed from the atmosphere have
infinite absorption capacity. As seen in Fig. 9, these sinks are finite; the carbon
taken up by the land and oceans eventually makes its way back into the atmo-
sphere. By omitting these stocks DICE ignores important nonlinear constraints on
carbon uptake by biomass as primary production is constrained by other nutrients
and as the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean rises. These feedbacks cause the
fractional removal rate to fall as atmospheric CO2 rises, as terrestrial and oceanic
carbon sinks saturate, and as global mean temperature increases (e.g., IPCC 2007).
Worse, the so-called marginal atmospheric retention ratio b is set to 0.64. A chari-
table interpretation is that 36% of total emissions is quickly absorbed out of the
atmosphere (within a year), with the rest removed slowly, at the rate dM. However,
the emissions that leave the atmosphere quickly are absorbed by biomass or by the
ocean. As these stocks fill, additional removal from the atmosphere is constrained.
Since none of these carbon reservoirs are represented, however, Nordhaus has in
fact assumed that 36% of total emissions disappear forever, without a trace.
Expanding the model boundary to account for sink capacities and conserve carbon
increases the warming generated by a given rate of CO2 emissions, working against
Nordhaus’ conclusion that optimal carbon taxes are low (Fiddaman 2002;
Solomon et al. 2009). Indeed, Solomon et al. (2009) show that even if GHG
emissions fell to zero today, the carbon and heat already absorbed by the oceans
would cause global mean surface temperature to remain roughly constant for at
least 1,000 years: the impact of current GHG emissions on the climate are essen-
tially irreversible.
Yet the narrow boundaries in resource models persist. For example, addressing
the debate over future supply of minerals and energy, energy economist Morris
Adelman (1993) declared:
“Minerals are inexhaustible and will never be depleted. A stream of investment
creates additions to proved reserves, a very large in-ground inventory, constantly
renewed as it is extracted….How much was in the ground at the start and how much
will be left at the end are unknown and irrelevant” (p. xi). “The fixed stock does not
exist” (p. xiii) “What exists, and can be observed and measured, is not a stock but a
flow” (p. xiv).
Adelman’s statements violate conservation of matter. Every ton of titanium
and every barrel of oil added to the stock of proven reserves reduces the stock of
titanium and oil remaining to be found in the future. Every ton and barrel extracted
reduces the quantity remaining in the ground. Ceteris paribus, the smaller the
stock of resources remaining to be discovered, the lower the productivity of explo-
ration activity must be (on average), and the smaller the rate of addition to proven
reserves will be for any investment rate. In the limit, if the stock of undiscovered
resource fell to zero, the rate of additions to proven reserves would necessarily
fall to zero.
Economists argue that a drop in proven reserves will raise prices, leading to sub-
stitution of other resources and inducing additional exploration activity and improve-
ments in technology that increase exploration and recovery. But even if markets
function well, additional exploration only drains the stock of undiscovered resource
faster. Depletion must continue—the stock of resources in the ground must fall—as
long as there is any extraction. Only if there is a so-called backstop technology that
can fully substitute for all uses of the nonrenewable resource at a finite price, in
finite time, will extraction fall to zero and halt depletion. The size of the resource
base, the costs of substitutes, and whether new technologies can be developed before
depletion reduces extraction and harms economic welfare are empirical questions,
not matters of faith. The very possibility that depletion might matter cannot be
46 J.D. Sterman
assumed away, to be made untestable with models in which resources are infinite,
the price system always functions perfectly, delays are short, and technology
provides backstops at low cost.
Where Is the Leverage?
Integrating feedback, time delays, and stock–flow structures yields a simple con-
ceptual framework to identify the key leverage points for the creation of a sustain-
able world. As shown earlier, the sustainability challenge arises from the collision
of population and economic growth with the limits of our finite world. Fig. 10 shows
Human Activity
Resource
B2
Consumption
Population
Net +
Births Technology B4
DELAY
Net Increase in Technological
Human Activity Productive Innovation DELAY
Capacity Solution
+ Net + DELAY
+ R3 +
Investment Technological
DELAY
"Side Effects"
Resource Prices, Technological
R1 + -
Social Concern, Nightmare
Population and +
Economic Growth Gov't Policy Consumption and
- Degradation
DELAY Global Carrying
- Capacity
Net Fractional B1 Adequacy of Regeneration and
Growth Rate Involuntary Limits Resources Restoration
- + to Growth + B3 - +
Regeneration DELAY
DELAY
Voluntary Limits
B5 Regeneration
to Growth
R2 Capacity
- Environmental
VoluntaryLimits Tipping Points +
Fig. 10 Interactions of growth, carrying capacity, and technology
a simplified model integrating growth of human activity with the carrying capacity
of the planet (see Meadows et al. 2004 for a more detailed model). On the left,
human activity grows through the reinforcing feedbacks of population and eco-
nomic growth described earlier (aggregated into reinforcing loop R1). If the
environment were unlimited, growth could continue indefinitely. However, growth
in human activity is constrained by the adequacy of resources (the ensemble of
nonrenewable resources, renewable resources, and a healthy, clean environment
shown in Fig. 8). As populations and economic activity grow relative to carrying
capacity, the adequacy of those resources decline. Sufficient decline in resource
adequacy lowers the net fractional growth rate in human activity, eventually causing
growth to stop via “Involuntary Limits to Growth” (loop B1).
If the carrying capacity were constant growth would follow an S-shaped pattern
(as in Fig. 4) in which resources per capita fall until they are just scarce enough to
balance births with deaths: a subsistence equilibrium in which life would be nasty,
brutish, and short. That naïve Malthusian model is simplistic because the carrying
capacity of the earth is dynamic. On the one hand, the larger the population and the
greater the economic impact of each person, the greater the consumption and deg-
radation of the carrying capacity: a larger, richer population consumes more
resources, generates more waste, uses more fossil fuels, emits more greenhouse
gases, etc. On the other, the carrying capacity can regenerate: logging provides more
light and nutrients for seeds and saplings; plants fix nitrogen and other nutrients in
soils; chlorinated hydrocarbons such as DDT and dioxin eventually break down into
harmless compounds. These processes are captured by the balancing Regeneration
loop B3. Of course, there are delays in the regeneration process: acorns require
decades to become mighty oaks; soils form at rates of a few millimeters per year;
DDT degrades over decades. And some elements of the carrying capacity cannot be
regenerated: fossil fuels and high-grade copper ores are nonrenewable; extinction is
irreversible; stocks of plutonium and other nuclear wastes will remain with us far
longer than any civilization on earth has yet endured.
Even for the renewable elements of the carrying capacity there are limits to
regeneration and restoration, as illustrated by the fishery model earlier. Harvest a
few cod and the population recovers, but take too many and the population collapses;
take a few trees and the forest regenerates, but clear cutting can alter rainfall and
surface albedo so that the land becomes savannah or desert. These processes are
captured by the reinforcing Environmental Tipping Point feedback R2: degrade the
earth’s carrying capacity too much and its ability to regenerate withers, accelerating
the collapse in a vicious cycle. Where these tipping points lie is usually uncertain—
until they have been crossed, by which time it is too late.
Expanding the naïve Malthusian model, with its constant carrying capacity, to
include the dynamics of the earth’s resources and ecosystems changes the dynamics
of the system. Now, as the population and economy grow, resources per capita fall
in two ways: first, as before, there are more people relative to the resources of the
earth. Second, the carrying capacity itself begins to fall as resource consumption
and degradation exceed regeneration and restoration. If regeneration is rapid and
regeneration capacity robust (loop B3 is strong and swift and the tipping point loop
R2 is weak), then regeneration quickly rises to offset resource consumption and
waste production and the decline in the carrying capacity is slight. Human popula-
tion and activity still follow an s-shaped path, growing until resources are scarce
enough to halt further increase. However, if regeneration is weak and slow, or the
tipping points strong and close, then carrying capacity will fall. Unlike the prior
case, the system does not reach equilibrium when the carrying capacity and human
activity meet. Instead, the high level of human activity means consumption and
degradation of the carrying capacity exceed regeneration, so the carrying capacity
of the earth continues to fall. As it does, economic output and/or human population
must fall. In the extreme, if the population remains dependent on nonrenewable
resources or generates wastes that cannot be dissipated, the carrying capacity must
48 J.D. Sterman
continue to fall as long as there is any remaining activity, and the only equilibrium
is zero population—extinction. Incorporating the dynamics of the carrying capacity
changes the system dynamics from S-shaped growth to overshoot and collapse
(Forrester 1971b; Meadows et al. 2004).
Many societies have degraded their carrying capacities and collapsed, for
example, on Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Carbon dating puts the arrival of the first
humans, intrepid Polynesian sailors, around the year 1200 (Wilmshurst et al. 2011).
Pollen counts from soil cores and other records show that they found a lushly
forested island with diverse fauna, particularly birds (Bahn and Flenley 1992;
Steadman 1995). Population increased exponentially, and as it did, the islanders
harvested trees to provide wood and fiber for fuel, boats, structures, ropes, and tools.
The Polynesian rat, which arrived with the settlers, hastened the decline by killing
birds and eating the seeds and nuts of the native palm. Deforestation was nearly
complete by the year 1400, dramatically reducing the island’s carrying capacity.
The rain now washed the unprotected soil away. Wind speeds at ground level
increased, carrying still more valuable soil into the sea. Erosion was so severe that
sediment washed from higher elevations eventually covered many of the moai, so
that European visitors thought these giant statues were just heads, when in fact
they were complete torsos averaging 20 ft in height. Deforestation also increased
evaporation from the soil and may have reduced rainfall, further reducing food
production and fresh water supplies. Most of the bird species living on Easter
Island became at least locally extinct. Only 1 of about 25 indigenous species still
nests on the island today (Steadman 1995). Eventually, fishing, the other main
source of food, fell as boats, lines, and hooks, all made from wood, could no longer
be replaced. When the first Europeans arrived the islanders prized wood above all
other items offered in trade.
As the carrying capacity declined, hardship slowed population growth. Population
peaked between six and ten thousand around the year 1600. A precipitous decline
set in by about 1680. Spear points and tools of war appeared for the first time and
there is evidence of large battles. Some scholars believe there is evidence of canni-
balism during this period. The first Europeans known to visit Easter Island arrived
in 1722 and found a small, impoverished population. Similar overshoot and collapse
dynamics befell other island societies (Kirch 1997) and much larger civilizations,
such the Classic Maya (Webster 2002).
Technological optimists and many economists object that the model so far
(loops R1, B1, B2, B3, and R2 only) ignores human ingenuity and the power of
markets. The primitive people of Easter Island might have experienced overshoot
and collapse because they lacked modern technology and could not leave the island,
but, it is argued, today we have superior innovative powers and markets that can
compensate for any resource shortages and environmental problems growth may
create. Thus Julian Simon (1996) argued that
Greater consumption due to increase in population and growth of income heightens scarcity
and induces price run-ups. A higher price represents an opportunity that leads inventors and
businesspeople to seek new ways to satisfy the shortages. Some fail, at cost to themselves.
A few succeed, and the final result is that we end up better off than if the original shortage
problems had never arisen.
Expanding the boundary of the model to capture prices and innovation creates a
new balancing feedback, the Technological Solution loop B4. As a resource becomes
scarce, its price rises, stimulating technical innovation that cuts demand and sub-
stituting more abundant resources for those that are scarce (e.g., drilling deep off-
shore oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico as shallower deposits on land are depleted;
boosting the gas mileage of autos). Going further than free market advocates such
as Simon, the technological solution feedback B4 also includes the possibility that
scarcity may induce governments to increase research and development (e.g., R&D
on alternative energy sponsored by the US Department of Energy), and correct
market failures through regulation, stimulating innovation (e.g., CAFE standards
and the cap and trade market in SO2). Further, social norms may change in response
to scarcity (e.g., recycling).
There are, however, important lags in these technological solution feedbacks,
including delays in the detection of environmental problems, in recognizing the
opportunity for profit when prices rise, and in the reallocation of capital and R&D
resources. There are long delays before R&D yields new technologies and between
laboratory demonstrations and commercialization. Once new technologies reach
the market, there are even longer delays in adoption and the replacement of old
infrastructure, and further delays before the carrying capacity responds.
In the technological optimist’s model, innovation and technology are beneficial.
But many technologies create unintended effects that intensify scarcity or environ-
mental problems elsewhere. Taller smokestacks on Midwestern power plants
reduced smog in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but caused acid rain in New York and New
England; the Haber–Bosch process to fix nitrogen led to synthetic fertilizer, dramati-
cally boosting crop yields (where farmers could afford it), but consumes huge
amounts of fossil fuels while fertilizer runoff eutrophies rivers and lakes and creates
dead zones in offshore waters. Dams generate electric power and reduce flooding,
but the World Commission on Dams (2000) found that on balance, the impacts of
large dams “are more negative than positive and, in many cases, have led to irrevers-
ible loss of species and ecosystems” because they halt the accumulation of fertile
silt on downstream floodplains, cause deltas such as those of the Nile and Mississippi
to subside, disrupt the lifecycle of riverine species such as salmon, and may contrib-
ute more to GHG emissions from the decay of inundated vegetation than they save
through the generation of hydropower.
Expanding the boundary of the model to include the possibility of unintended
harm from technological innovation creates the reinforcing “Technological
Nightmare” feedback R3: as before, scarcity and environmental degradation caused
by growth in human activity lead to higher prices for the affected resources, along
with government and social responses. The resulting technological solutions have
some benefits, but also lead, usually after delays, to harms that accelerate the
erosion of the carrying capacity, leading to greater scarcity and new environmental
problems, triggering still higher prices and still greater attempts to find a techno-
logical solution, in a vicious cycle.
How does the inclusion of the price system and technological innovation alter the
dynamics of the system? Clearly, if markets are imperfect, if the delays in the social,
50 J.D. Sterman
economic, and technical response to scarcity and environmental degradation are

long, or if the harmful “side effects” of technology dominate the benefits, then the
result will still be overshoot and collapse: technological solutions will be “too little,
too late” or will actually worsen the problem.
More interesting, what happens if markets work well, the delays in innovation
are short and unintended harms absent? Will the result be, as Simon (1996)
suggests, “that we end up better off than if the original shortage problems had
never arisen?” No. Simon’s conclusion would hold if the level of human activity
that created the shortage were exogenous, unaffected by the availability of resources.
But there is feedback: technological solutions increase the adequacy of resources
and lower prices, enabling growth to proceed at a higher rate. The population and
economy grow still further, reducing the adequacy of resources directly (loop B1)
and indirectly, by increasing the rate of consumption and degradation of the
carrying capacity (loop B2). The result: society is once again pushed up against one
environmental limit or another. If markets and technology once again succeed in
addressing those new limits, then human activity grows still further. To avoid invol-
untary limits to growth through technology, one must assume that technological
solutions to all resource and environmental problems can be found, that the costs of
these solutions are so low that they do not constrain economic growth; that the
delays in the recognition of problems, in the innovation process, in adoption and
diffusion of new technologies, and in the response of the carrying capacity are
always short; that these solutions never generate significant unintended harms; and
that technological solutions keep the carrying capacity from crossing important
environmental tipping points. Most important, one must believe that, eventually,
both population growth and people’s desire for more income and wealth will end. If
any of these conditions fail, then the carrying capacity will eventually drop, leading
to overshoot and decline.
As is typical in complex systems, much of the debate between environmentalists
and technological optimists focuses on the symptoms of the problem: resources and
the resiliency of the environment. How much oil is there? How much nuclear and
solar power can be produced? How much copper can be mined, and at what costs?
And so on. That debate misses the point. It makes no difference how large the
resource base is: to the extent technology and markets alleviate scarcity today, the
result is more growth tomorrow, until the resource is again insufficient, some other
resource becomes scarce, or some other environmental problem arises. Solve these,
and growth continues until some other part of the carrying capacity is lost, some
other limit reached. As long as growth is the driving force there can be no purely
technological solution to the problem of scarcity. The high leverage points lie else-
where, in the forces that cause population and economic growth. Even with
significant potential for new technical solutions, a prosperous and sustainable future
can only be built if growth of both population and material throughput cease volun-
tarily, before growth is stopped involuntarily by scarcity or environmental degrada-
tion (the balancing “Voluntary Limits” loop B5 in Fig. 10).
Fortunately, population growth may stabilize “voluntarily.” Contrary to, or
perhaps in response to, fears of a population explosion (as with China’s one child
policy), fertility and population growth have fallen in recent decades, a process
known as the demographic transition. Prior to industrialization and economic devel-

opment, both crude birth and death rates were high and variable. Infant mortality
was high and life expectancy low, so women began to bear children early and bore
many to ensure that a few would survive. Population growth was slow. The intro-
duction of modern sanitation, public health systems, transportation, and medical
care raised life expectancy. Death rates fell. Population growth accelerated dramati-
cally. Eventually, however, birth rates also fell: more children survived to adult-
hood, so women did not need to bear as many to achieve their desired family size.
Further, the economic benefits of children fall with industrialization because they
enter the labor force later than in traditional agricultural societies and must be
supported by their parents longer. Desired family size drops. Birth rates fall only
slowly, however: family size, marriage age, and other determinants of fertility are
strongly embedded in traditional culture, religious norms, and other social struc-
tures. Today, fertility and mortality are in rough balance in a number of developed
economies. In still-developing nations, death rates have fallen, but birth rates con-
tinue to lag behind, so population growth remains high.
The UN’s 2010 projections assume that the demographic transition will continue
throughout the world, including the least developed nations, nearly stabilizing
population by 2100 at more than ten billion. But even if population growth eventually
stops, human impact on the environment will not: economic growth is projected to
continue, and as the production of goods and services per capita rises, so too will the
impact of each person. Endless economic growth is envisioned, indeed desired, by
many technological optimists, for example, “The standard of living has risen along
with the size of the world’s population since the beginning of recorded time. There
is no convincing economic reason why these trends toward a better life should not
continue indefinitely” (Simon 1996). Endless economic growth is impossible, how-
ever. Resource use and environmental impact per person cannot fall to zero—people
need a minimum amount of food, living space, energy, and waste disposal capacity,
among other resources. The only way total impact can stabilize is for both popula-
tion and economic output per person to stabilize. Yet no nation on earth seeks to end
the growth of its economy.
These limits are not theoretical and distant. The best available science shows that
humanity has already overshot the carrying capacity of the earth. The human family
is projected to grow by more than two billion in less than 40 years, and most of these
people will be born in the poor nations of the world. All of them, and the billions who
today live in poverty, legitimately aspire to live the way those in developed nations
do today, dramatically increasing the demand for resources and production of wastes.
To take but one example, if the projected world population of 9.3 billion in 2050
lived like Americans did in 2008, there would be 7.8 billion vehicles on the world’s
roads, consuming 382 million barrels of oil per day, more than five times total world
oil production in 2008, and spewing 60 billion tons of CO2 per year into the atmo-
sphere, nearly double total world CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in that year.
Avoiding a decline in population or economic output will require all the technical
and social innovation we can muster. We urgently require technologies to replace
fossil fuels, cut GHG emissions, boost food production without use of toxic pesti-
cides, create new antibiotics as pathogens evolve resistance, end deforestation, and
52 J.D. Sterman
protect biodiversity. We urgently need to create more effective markets to capture

environmental and social externalities, providing businesses and consumers with
the price signals that will drive innovation and stimulate efficient use of resources.
We urgently require better science, environmental monitoring, and product testing
so that the new technologies we develop and deploy do not create unintended con-
sequences that worsen the very problems we seek to solve. But while necessary,
technological innovation alone is not sufficient. We must also ask how much is
enough? How much wealth, how much consumption do we each require?
With a few important exceptions (the work of Herman Daly and colleagues, e.g.,
Daly and Townsend 1993; see also Princen et al. 2002; Meadows et al. 2004;
DeGraaf et al. 2005; Whybrow 2005; Victor 2008; Schor 2010), most of the research,
teaching, and popular discourse on sustainability continues to focus on techno-
logical solutions—more energy, more resources, more efficient eco-friendly
growth—while the actual leverage point—voluntarily limiting our consumption—
remains largely undiscussable, particularly among our business and political lead-
ers. That conversation is not an easy one. For many years I have asked my students
“how much is enough” (Table 4).
Table 4 How much is enough?

1. How much would you need to spend each year to be happy? That is, how much consumption
would be enough to satisfy you?
Consumption spending here means expenditure to provide for the lifestyle you wish to have,
including food, clothing, housing and furnishings, education, health care, travel, entertain-
ment, and all other expenditures on goods and services.
Consumption does not include charitable giving, but only what you spend on yourself and
your immediate family (spouse and children).
Consumption does not include saving or investment (e.g., to build future income for
retirement or to leave an estate to your heirs).
Consumption does not include payment of taxes, but only the cost of the goods and services
you purchase.
One way to think about this is to imagine that you are guaranteed an annuity for life, exempt
from income and other taxes, and automatically adjusted for inflation. Under those
conditions, what annuity would you require?
Amount per year in US$:_________________
Select one of the following
£ I need at least this much, but more is always better. £ This much would be enough.
2. Imagine the following two worlds
World 1: last year you earned $150,000. This year you earned $200,000.
World 2: last year you earned $200,000. This year you earned $150,000.
The prices of all goods and services are the same in both worlds. The environmental impact
of each world is the same, and, through use of green technologies, negligible.
Which world do you prefer? £ World 1 £ World 2
3. Imagine the following two worlds
World 1: you earn $150,000 per year. Everyone else earns $75,000 per year.
World 2: you earn $250,000 per year. Everyone else earns $500,000 per year.
The prices of all goods and services are the same in both worlds. The environmental impact
of each world is the same, and, through use of green technologies, negligible.
Which world do you prefer? £ World 1 £ World 2
Typical of results with diverse groups, the median response to Question 1 of 109
students at the MIT Sloan School of Management (primarily MBA students) in the
fall term of 2010 was $200,000/year. The mean was over $2 million/year, skewed
by 14% whose responses were $1 million/year or more. These responses are deeply
disturbing. Spending $2 million (or even the median estimate of $200,000) per year
dwarfs mean per capita income in the USA, with GDP per capita of $46,650, much
less the GDP per capita of most African nations, which remains less than $1,000/
year (2008$; see hdr.undp.org/en/statistics). The urge for more is strong: about half
the students chose “more is always better.” Among 156 similar students in my
courses on sustainability in 2009 and 2010, an overwhelming 83% preferred to
earn more next year than this year (Question 2). These students know they would
be better off taking the extra $50,000 up front (the net present value of World 2 is
higher: you could spend the same as in World 1, invest the extra $50,000 and have
more than $200,000 the second year). When asked why they chose the less valu-
able option, many reported that it would be hard to reduce their standard of living
if their income dropped, though there is nothing in the question that requires them
to spend more in year 1 than year 2. Quite a few said they would feel they had
somehow failed, would feel less worthy as a person, if their income dropped. Even
more disturbing, 58% preferred to earn less each year—as long as they make more
than everyone else (Question 3). People tend to judge how well off they are by
social comparison, and are less happy when others have more than they do (Layard
2005). Of course, this is a zero sum game: everyone cannot be richer than everyone
else. The struggle to keep up with the Jones’ creates an obvious reinforcing feed-
back, an arms race of conspicuous consumption, egged on by advertising, enabled
by borrowing and requiring us to work ever harder. As we do, we have less time for
what matters most: exercising and staying healthy, spending time with family and
friends, developing intellectually and spiritually, helping those in need.
Until we learn to end the quest for more—more income, more wealth, more
consumption, more than last year, more than our neighbors—then a healthy, pros-
perous, and sustainable society cannot be created no matter how clever our tech-
nology. Innovation simply lets us grow until one or another limit to growth becomes
binding. We are not accustomed to asking “how much is enough,” uncomfortable
connecting abstract debates about growth and scarcity with the way live, with our
personal responsibility to one another and to future generations. Research, teaching,
and action to promote sustainability must grapple with these issues if we are to
fulfill Gandhi’s vision of a world in which “there is enough for everyone’s need but
not for everyone’s greed.”
Teaching and Learning
Creating a sustainable science of sustainability requires changes not only in what

we study but how we teach it and communicate it to policymakers, civic and busi-
ness leaders, the media, and the public at large. How can people develop their
54 J.D. Sterman
systems thinking capabilities? How can people, including scholars, policymakers,

business and civic leaders, educators, media, and members of the public, come to
deeper understanding of complex systems and the high leverage points needed to
build a sustainable society?
There is no learning without feedback, without knowledge of the results of our
actions. Traditionally, scientists generate that feedback through controlled experi-
mentation, an iterative process through which intuitions are challenged, hypotheses
tested, insights generated, new experiments run. But experiments are impossible in
many of the most important systems, including many critical for sustainability.
When experiment is impossible, scientists rely on models and simulations, which
enable controlled experimentation in virtual worlds. Simulation models have long
been central in sustainability and environmental research, from models of the per-
colation of toxics through groundwater to ecosystem dynamics to climate change.
But simulations are not only useful in knowledge creation. They must also become
a main tool in knowledge communication. As scientists, we develop our under-
standing through an iterative, interactive learning process of experimentation in
both the real world and the virtual world of simulations (Sterman 1994). But all too
often we then turn around and tell the results to policymakers, our students and the
public through reports, presentations, and lectures. We should hardly be surprised
when these people, excluded from the process of discovery—unable to assess the
evidence on their own, and presented with conclusions that conflict with deeply
embedded mental models—become confused, ignore the results, and challenge our
authority.
Interactive, transparent simulations for learning, rigorously grounded in and
consistent with the best available science, are now available for a wide range of
sustainability issues. To enable learning, these “management flight simulators” must
give people control over assumptions and scenarios, encourage wide-ranging sensi-
tivity analysis, and run nearly instantly online or on ordinary desktop and laptop
computers, so that people receive immediate feedback. Examples range from simple
models to help people develop their understanding of stocks and flows (e.g., http://
bit.ly/atmco2), to Fishbanks, a simulation of the tragedy of the commons and
“Eclipsing the Competition,” a simulation of the solar photovoltaic industry (both
available at http://bit.ly/mstir), to the C-ROADS climate policy simulation (http://
climateinteractive.org) used not only for education but by policymakers and climate
negotiators.
When experimentation is too slow, too costly, unethical, or just plain impossible,
when the consequences of our decisions take years, decades, or centuries to mani-
fest, that is, for most of the important issues we face in building a sustainable world,
simulation becomes the main—perhaps the only—way we can discover for our-
selves how complex systems work, where the high leverage points may lie. The
alternative is rote learning based on the authority of a consultant, teacher, or text-
book, a method that dulls creativity, stunts the very systems thinking and scientific
reasoning skills we need, and thwarts implementation.
Conclusion
Our society is not sustainable. We harvest renewable resources faster than they
regenerate, we create wastes and pollution faster than ecosystems can break them
down into harmless substances, and we are, in the words of former US President
George W. Bush, “addicted to oil” and other nonrenewable resources. Despite recy-
cling, energy efficient light bulbs and other eco-friendly practices, these imbalances
are getting worse, with world population projected to grow by more than two billion
in just 40 years, and economic growth doubling the size of the real economy every
20 years.
Here I argued that the growing sustainability movement is neither effective nor
itself sustainable. Most efforts by firms, individuals, and governments in the name
of sustainability are directed at the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause.
Many lead to improvement locally and in the short run at the expense of others and
future generations. Such policy resistance is not unique to sustainability but com-
mon in complex systems at all scales, and arises from widespread failure of systems
thinking. Our mental models have narrow boundaries and short time horizons. We
commonly frame the sustainability challenge as a conflict, in which the economy,
social justice, and the environment fight for primacy, when the economy and society
are embedded in the ecosystems upon which all life depends. A healthy society and
prosperous economy depend on a healthy environment, and the health of the envi-
ronment depends on a healthy society and economy that fulfills people’s needs. To
move beyond slogans about interconnectedness and systems, however, we need to
develop specific tools and methods to develop our systems thinking capabilities,
methods that avoid both self-defeating pessimism and mindless optimism, while
remaining true to scientific method and ecological realities.
Some may object that the call for systems thinking is futile, that most people,
including our leaders, are incapable of understanding the complexities of the
economy and environment. They caricature systems thinking as hoping that if we
just understood how everything is connected to everything else we would all some-
how stop living unsustainably, then criticize that cartoon as naïve. Cynics claim that
humans are fundamentally selfish, greedy, and shortsighted. To the contrary, the
problem is not the few who are truly uncaring. It is the failure of even those who
sincerely care to understand the urgent need for action created by the long time
delays, feedbacks, nonlinearities, and other characteristics of complex systems. It’s
the vast mass of us mindlessly going about our everyday business, oblivious to the
consequences of our actions, our behavior shaped by the systems in which we are
embedded, systems we created and that only we can change. It’s the belief that we
are helpless, that nothing we do makes a difference, that change is not possible—a
belief that alienates and discourages us but that we also find comforting because it
absolves us from the responsibility to act.
Overcoming policy resistance and building a sustainable world requires that we
develop a meaningful systems thinking capability so that we can learn, collec-
tively, how we can promote the common good. It requires an unswerving commit-
56 J.D. Sterman
ment to the rigorous application of the scientific method, and the inquiry skills we
need to expose our hidden assumptions and biases. It requires us to face the ethical
issues raised by growth and inequality, to speak, unafraid, of our deepest aspira-
tions for a just, equitable and sustainable world. It requires that we listen with
respect and empathy to others. It requires the humility we need to learn and the
courage we need to lead, though all our maps are wrong. If we devote ourselves to
that work we can move past denial and despair to create the future we truly desire—
not just for us, but for our children. Not just for our children, but for all the
children.
References
Adelman MA (1993) The economics of petroleum supply. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Alley R, Marotzke J, Nordhaus W et al (2003) Abrupt climate change. Science 299:2005–2010
Axelrod R (1976) The structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ
Bahn P, Flenley J (1992) Easter Island, Earth Island. Thames and Hudson, London, UK
Bäumer D, Vogel B (2007) An unexpected pattern of distinct weekly periodicities in climato-
logical variables in Germany. Geophy Res Lett 34:L03819
Booth Sweeney L, Sterman JD (2000) Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking
inventory. System Dyn Rev 16:249–294
Booth Sweeney L, Sterman JD (2007) Thinking about systems: students’ and their teachers’
conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dyn Rev 23:285–312
Buehler R, Griffin D, Ross M (2002) Inside the planning fallacy: the causes and consequences of
optimistic rime predictions. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Cerveny R, Balling R (1998) Weekly cycles of air pollutants, precipitation, and tropical cyclones
in the coastal NW Atlantic region. Nature 394:561–563
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science
basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://www.ipcc.ch
Cronin M, Gonzalez C, Sterman J (2009) Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumula-
tion? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc
108:116–130
Daly H (1991) Steady-state economics, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington, DC
Daly H, Townsend K (1993) Valuing the earth: economics, ecology, ethics. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA
DeGraaf J, Wann D, Naylor T (2005) Affluenza: the all-consuming epidemic, 2nd edn. Berrett-
Kohler, San Francisco, CA
Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking, New York, NY
Dörner D (1980) On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulations Games
11:87–106
Dörner D (1996) The logic of failure. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, New York, NY
FAO (2008) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. UN Food Agric Organ, Rome
Faro D, McGill A, Hastie R (2010) Naïve theories of causal force and compression of elapsed time
judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 98:683–701
Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL
Fiddaman T (2002) Exploring policy options with a behavioral climate-economy model. System
Dyn Rev 18:243–267
Fong I, Drlica K (2003) Reemergence of established pathogens in the 21st century. Kluwer/
Plenum, New York, NY
Forrester JW (1969) Urban dynamics. Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA
Forrester JW (1971a) Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technol Rev 73:52–68
Forrester JW (1971b) World dynamics. Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA
Forster P, Solomon S (2003) Observations of a ‘weekend effect’ in diurnal temperature range.
PNAS 100:11225–11230
Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248
Hoffman M, Hilton-Taylor C, Angulo A et al (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of
the world’s vertebrates. Science 300:1503–1509
Horn S, Sharkey P, Tracy D et al (1996) Intended and unintended consequences of HMO cost-
containment strategies: results from the managed care outcomes project. Am J Manag Care
2:253–264
Huxley T (1883) Inaugural address. Fisheries exhibition, London http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/
SM5/fish.html
Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (1999) Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology.
Russell Sage, New York, NY
Kirch P (1997) Microcosmic histories: island perspectives on ‘global’ change. Am Anthropol
99:30–42
Kurlansky M (1997) Cod: a biography of the fish that changed the world. Penguin, New York, NY
Laux P, Kunstmann H (2008) Detection of regional weekly weather cycles across Europe. Environ
Res Lett 3:044005
Layard R (2005) Happiness: lessons from a new science. Penguin Press, New York, NY
McKibben B (2010) Earth. Times Books/Henry Holt, New York, NY
Meadows D, Randers J, Meadows D (2004) The limits to growth: the thirty year update. Chelsea
Green, White River Junction, VT
Meehl GA, Washington WM, Collins WD et al (2005) How much more global warming and sea
level rise? Science 307:1769–1772
Moxnes E (2000) Not only the tragedy of the commons: misperceptions of feedback and policies
for sustainable development. System Dyn Rev 16:325–348
National Research Council (2010) Hidden costs of energy: unpriced consequences of energy
production and use. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Nordhaus W (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science
258:1315–1319
O’Neill B, Oppenheimer M (2002) Dangerous climate impacts and the Kyoto protocol. Science
296:1971–1972
Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic
systems. Am Econ Rev 100:641–672
Palumbi S (2001) Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science 293:1786–1790
Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol
10:430
Pereira H, Leadeley P, Proenca V et al (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century.
Science 330:1496–1500
Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw Hill, New York, NY
Princen T, Maniates M, Conca K (2002) Confronting consumption. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Repenning N, Sterman J (2001) Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never happened:
creating and sustaining process improvement. California Management Review 43(4):64–88.
Rockström J et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475
Rosenberg A, Bolster W, Alexander K et al (2004) The history of ocean resources: modeling cod
biomass using historical records. Frontiers Ecol Environ 3:84–90
Rosenthal R, Jacobson L (1968) Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectation and pupil’s intel-
lectual development, Expanded edn. Irvington Publishers/Ardent Media, Norwalk, CT
Schor J (2010) Plenitude: The new economics of true wealth. New York: Penguin.
Senge P, Smith B, Schley S, Laur J (2008) The necessary revolution. Doubleday, New York, NY
58 J.D. Sterman
Simon J (1996) The ultimate resource 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

Solomon S, Plattner G-K, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P (2009) Irreversible climate change due to
carbon dioxide emissions. PNAS 106:1704–1709
Stachowicz J, Terwin J, Whitlatch R, Osman R (2002) Linking climate change and biological inva-
sions: ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions. PNAS 99:15497–15500
Steadman D (1995) Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific island birds: biodiversity meets zooarchae-
ology. Science 267:1123–1131
Sterman JD (1989) Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic
decision making experiment. Manag Sci 35:321–339
Sterman JD (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. System Dyn Rev 10:291–330
Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world.
Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
Sterman JD (2002) All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System
Dyn Rev 18:501–531
Sterman JD (2008) Risk communication on climate: mental models and mass balance. Science
322:532–533
Sterman JD (2010) Does formal system dynamics training improve people’s understanding of
accumulation? System Dyn Rev 26:316–334
Sterman JD, Booth Sweeney L (2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change:
adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim Change
80:213–238
Suzuki D (2007) The sacred balance: rediscovering our place in nature, 3rd edn. Greystone Books,
New York, NY
Tengs T, Ahma S, Savage J et al (2005) The AMA proposal to mandate nicotine reduction in ciga-
rettes: a simulation of the population health impacts. Prevent Med 40:170–180
Thomas C, Cameron A, Green R et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature
427:145–148
United Nations (2011) World population prospects: the 2010 revision. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/
index.html. Accessed 29 March 2012
US Forest Service (2003) Influence of forest structure on wildfire behavior and the severity of its
effects. http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/science.shtml. Accessed 29 March 2012
Victor P (2008) Managing without growth. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
Wackernagel M, Schulz N, Deumling D et al (2002) Tracking the ecological overshoot of the
human economy. PNAS 99:9266–9271
Wagenaar W (1978) Intuitive prediction of growth. In: Burkhardt D, Ittelson W (eds) Environmental
assessment of socioeconomic systems. Plenum, New York, NY
Wagenaar W, Sagaria S (1975) Misperception of exponential growth. Percept Psychophys
18:416–422
Webster D (2002) The fall of the ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, New York, NY
Whybrow P (2005) American mania: when more is not enough. WW Norton, New York, NY
Wigley T (2005) The climate change commitment. Science 307:1766–1769
Wilmshurst J, Hunt T, Lipo C, Anderson A (2011) High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent
and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 108(5):1815–1820
Wilde G (2002) Target risk 2: a new psychology of safety and health. PDE Publications, New York, NY
World Bank (2010) http://databank.worldbank.org. Accessed 29 March 2012
World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams and development. Earthscan, London, UK
A Landscape Approach for Sustainability
Science
Jianguo (Jingle) Wu
Abstract The global life-support system for humans is in peril but no alternative to
achieving sustainability is desirable. In response to this challenge, sustainability
science has emerged in recent decades. In this chapter, I argue that to advance sus-
tainability science a landscape approach is essential. Landscapes represent a pivotal
“place” in the place-based research and practice of sustainability. Landscape ecol-
ogy, as the science and art of studying and influencing the relationship between
spatial pattern and ecological processes at different scales, can play a critically
important role in the development of sustainability science. Global sustainability
cannot be achieved without most, if not all, landscapes being sustainable. As land-
scapes are spatial units in which society and nature interact and co-evolve, it is more
useful and practical to define landscape sustainability based on resilience rather
than stability. Furthermore, the development of landscape sustainability measures
can be facilitated by integrating landscape pattern metrics and sustainable develop-
ment indicators.
Keywords Landscape sustainability • Sustainability science • Human–nature inter-

actions • Sustainability metrics
Introduction
This traditional dichotomy of humanity-vs.-nature is false and dangerous. On the one hand,
it perpetuates our destructive mishandling of the biosphere. On the other hand, it scants the
self-understanding that Homo sapiens needs to settle down on our home planet, hence as a
J. (Jingle) Wu (*)
School of Life Sciences and Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University,
P.O. Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA
60 J. (Jingle) Wu
prerequisite to survival. Nature, to put the matter as succinctly as possible, is part of us, and
we are part of nature
E. O. Wilson (2007)
Human activities have transformed ecosystems and landscapes profoundly around

the world, and the entire biosphere has been influenced in fundamental ways
(Kareiva et al. 2007; Wu 2008). In search of solutions to a myriad of environmental
and social problems, sustainability has become the defining theme of our time (Kidd
1992; Kates et al. 2005; Du Pisani 2006). Sustainability concerns our ability to
maintain coupled human–environmental systems in a desirable state for multiple
generations in the face of anthropogenic and environmental perturbations and uncer-
tainties. To meet the needs and challenges of sustainability, a new kind of science
has emerged in the past 2 decades—sustainability science—that focuses on the
dynamic interactions between society and nature (Kates et al. 2001; Clark and
Dickson 2003; Clark 2007; Weinstein 2010). The ultimate goal of sustainability
science is not just to understand the human–environment relationship, but rather to
improve it through producing knowledge and solutions for management, planning,
and policy that are needed for a transition toward sustainability. Thus, sustainability
science has to be integrative and pluralistic. As Reitan (2005) put it, sustainability
science is “the cultivation, integration, and application of knowledge about Earth
systems gained especially from the holistic and historical sciences (such as geology,
ecology, climatology, oceanography) coordinated with knowledge about human
interrelationships gained from the social sciences and humanities.”
Three salient characteristics seem essential to sustainability science. First, sustain-
ability science is multidimensional and transdisciplinary. This means that it deals
with the nexus of environment, economy, and society, with integrative approaches
cutting across natural and social sciences (Kates et al. 2001; Wu 2006). Second, sus-
tainability is multiscaled and hierarchically linked in space and time. Sustainability
can be defined at any scale from a local site (e.g., a household or a biological com-
munity) to the entire globe, although only the local, regional, and global scales have
frequently appeared in the sustainability literature. Regardless of its specific definition,
the sustainability of a system varies with scale in space and time and, as in other
hierarchical systems, processes at different scales are linked in both bottom-up and
top-down directions (O’Neill et al. 1986; Wu and Loucks 1995; Wu 1999). So, we
not only need to ask the questions of what to sustain and what to develop, but also
over what area and for how long. Third, sustainability science emphasizes use-
inspired, placed-based research. Real-world problems occur in “places” and we must
go “places” to understand and solve them. As Kates (2003) stated, “Sustainability
science is regional and place based. …, it is in specific regions, with distinctive social,
cultural, and ecological attributes, that the critical threats to sustainability emerge and
in which a successful transition needs to be based.” This does not simply mean that
sustainability science is an “applied” discipline; it is a transdisciplinary enterprise
that bridges the traditional divide between basic and applied research by focusing on
use-inspired and place-based problems (Clark 2007).
A Landscape Approach for Sustainability Science 61
If the “place” in sustainability science is essential, then what is the “place?”

Kates (2003) asked the same question: “What constitutes an appropriate classification
of place? In part, the distinction is surely one of scale, and a grand query of sustain-
ability will be these scale relationships.” So, defining “place” in sustainability
research is critically important to effectively dealing with the issues of scale and
hierarchical linkages as well as integrating the environmental, economic, and social
dimensions. In this chapter, therefore, I argue that, although “place” can be defined
at any scale, “landscape” represents the most pivotal scale for sustainability research.
I will first discuss what landscape is and then present a landscape perspective on
sustainability, including conceptual and practical considerations.
Landscape as a Place for Sustainability
The term, “landscape,” is a key concept in a number of fields, from social to geo-
graphical and ecological sciences. Because of the plurality of its origins and inter-
pretations, landscape has acquired various connotations. The same word may refer
to a natural landscape, a cultural landscape, a political landscape, an economic land-
scape, a mental landscape, an adaptive landscape, a landscape view, landscaping, or
landscape painting (Fig. 1). “Landscape gives identity to place” and “landscape is
where past and present meet” (Phillips 2007). Human geographers may think of
landscape as “a work of human labor” or “an activity” of dynamic interactions
between people and place (Mitchell 2000). As such, a landscape may also be
Fig. 1 A transdisciplinary concept of landscape based on discussion in Tress and Tress (2001)
62 J. (Jingle) Wu
considered as “a form of ideology” or “a way of carefully selecting and representing

the world so as to give it a particular meaning,” and thus it can be “an important
ingredient in constructing consent and identity” (Mitchell 2000).
Geography has a long history of studying human–environment relationships, and
a number of perspectives have been developed, with different research cores and
methodologies that reflect a varying degree of affinity to either natural sciences or
humanities (Turner 1997). The term, “cultural landscape,” has been a fundamental
concept in geography since its first use in Germany in the 1890s, referring to land-
scape modified by human activity as opposed to the primeval natural landscape. In
his seminal publication, “The morphology of landscape,” Sauer’s (1925) defined cul-
tural landscape as landscape “fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group.”
Since the 1960s, the concept of cultural landscape has been widely used in human
geography (of which cultural geography is a part), anthropology, environmental
management, and other related fields (Sauer 1925; Webb 1987). One of the major
factors that contributed to the recent popularity of the term was the adoption of cul-
tural landscapes in the International Convention for the Protection of the World’s
Cultural and Natural Heritage (or the World Heritage Convention) by the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1992.
In the field of landscape ecology, the word “landscape” has different meanings.
The main differences among various definitions reflect the different spatial scales at
which a landscape is perceived and the different aspects of a landscape are empha-
sized (Wu and Hobbs 2007). For example, Forman and Godron (1986) defined
landscapes as kilometers-wide geographic areas, which corresponds to the “human-
perceived” landscape. This is the scale at which the field of landscape ecology was
originally developed in Europe, and at which most landscape studies have been
conducted ever since. This human-perceived landscape scale, in general, seems to
coincide well with geographic units such as watersheds and urban regions (Forman
1995), as well as spatial domains of human perception (Gobster et al. 2007). Thus,
it resonates with the public, the decision-makers, and researchers who are conscious
about the environmental setting in which they live, work, and play.
However, most landscape ecologists consider landscape as a multiscale or hier-
archical concept, meaning that a landscape is a spatially heterogeneous area of vari-
ous sizes, depending on the subject of study and the research questions at hand
(Urban et al. 1987; Wu and Levin 1994; Pickett and Cadenasso 1995; Turner et al.
2001). In this case, landscape is an “ecological criterion” (Pickett and Cadenasso
1995), and its essence does not lie in its absolute scale but in its internal heterogene-
ity. Different plant and animal species perceive, experience, and respond to spatial
heterogeneity at different scales, and patterns and processes in landscapes tend to
have different characteristic scales (Wu and Loucks 1995). Apparently, one does not
need to consider a landscape of tens of square kilometers in order to study how the
spatial patterning of grasses affects the movement of beetles (Wiens and Milne
1989) or is affected by gophers (Wu and Levin 1994).
Tress and Tress (2001) proposed a “transdisciplinary landscape concept” of
landscape that encompasses five dimensions: (1) landscape as a spatial entity, (2)
landscape as a mental entity, (3) landscape as a temporal dimension, (4) landscape
as a nexus of nature and culture, and (5) landscape as a complex system (Fig. 1).
This is probably the most comprehensive of all landscape definitions. It is pertinent

to cultural landscapes and implies a spatial scale that must be large enough to
encompass key environmental, economic, and social processes that determine the
sustainability of a place of interest. Following this notion, a landscape is more than
just a geographic space as it has contents; a landscape is not merely a container as it
shapes and is shaped by what it contains; a landscape is not just an environment
modified by humans as it is a holistic system in which nature and culture co-evolve.
Landscapes are endowed with and to foster the development of cultures, legacies,
and stories. Today, most landscapes are “cultural landscapes” in which people inter-
act or interfere with nature, whereas “natural landscapes” are found only as “islands”
in an expanding sea of human land uses.
Scholars who study landscapes from either ecological or cultural perspectives
seem to agree on the importance of landscape as an operational scale in sustainabil-
ity research. For example, Forman (1990) argued that human-perceived landscapes,
as a spatial scale for sustainable development, have significant advantages over
broader scales such as the continent. Forman (1995) further pointed out that to deal
with the “the paradox of management” (i.e., actions tend to be more effective at
local scales whereas success often needs to be achieved at broader scales), “man-
agement and planning for sustainability at an intermediate scale, the landscape or
region, appears optimum.” The ordinary elements of human landscapes (e.g., for-
ests, cropfields, urban land covers, residential areas, streams, and streets) also reso-
nate well with human perception and thus facilitate decision-making (Nassauer
1997; Gobster et al. 2007). From a cultural geographer’s perspective, Phillips (1998)
commented that cultural landscapes are “places which can demonstrate that talk of
sustainable development can be more than rhetoric.”
In summary, the landscape represents a basic spatial unit of society–nature inter-
actions and ought to be the primary “place” of study in sustainability science. It
provides a multidimensional meeting ground for ecologists, geographers, social sci-
entists, planners and designers, policy-makers who are all crucial to sustainability
research. The landscape is large enough to incorporate key environmental, eco-
nomic, and social processes and small enough to allow for in-depth and mechanistic
studies that produce locally actionable solutions to sustainability problems.
Culture–Nature Relationship in Landscapes
As discussed in the previous section, landscapes, as commonly used in ecology and

geography, represent a pivotal scale and place for sustainability. Beyond that, land-
scapes often shape, and are shaped by, the way we interact with nature. So, the
structure and functionality of a particular landscape are reflective of the past and
current relationships between humans and the environment in that region. As sus-
tainability science is focused on the dynamic relationship between people and nature,
landscapes have stories to tell, lessons to be learnt, and opportunities to offer.
Our perception and understanding of the relationship between people and nature
in landscapes are often influenced by our philosophical roots and cultural traditions.
64 J. (Jingle) Wu
These traditions represent the historical antecedent to the modern technocratic

approach to social and economic development. As Phillips (1998) stated: “The sep-
aration of culture and nature—of people from the environment which surrounds
them—which has been a feature of western attitudes and education over the centu-
ries, has blinded us to many of the interactive associations which exist between the
world of nature and the world of culture.” In contrast, one of the most influential
Asian philosophies on the relationship between culture and nature—the “Unity of
Man and Nature” (“ ”)—advocates that people should be in harmony
with the rhythms of nature (Chen and Wu 2009). Unity of Man and Nature was the
quintessential theme shared by dominant ancient Asian cultures and has been
described as the greatest contribution of Chinese culture to humanity (Ji 2007).
While the contemporary roots of the concept of sustainability include the ideas of
carrying capacity, biosphere conservation, and limits to growth (Kidd 1992), Unity
of Man and Nature is one of its most relevant ancient philosophical roots (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 Some key characteristics of sustainability science whose conceptual roots can be traced
back to the ancient Chinese philosophy—the unity of man and nature. The focus of sustainability
science is the dynamic relationship between nature and society, examined simultaneously from
environmental, economic, and social dimensions at local, regional, and global scales. This trans-
disciplinary science is multiscale, multidimensional, and use-inspired and place-based. The unity
of man and nature is its ultimate goal as well as its ancient philosophical root
The theme of Unity of Man and Nature is evident in some seminal works by
western environmental scientists and landscape architects. For example, in his land-
mark book, “A Sand County Almanac,” the conservation ecologist Aldo Leopold
(1949) advocated for “a state of harmony between man and land,” and a new land
ethic that “changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-commu-
nity to plain member and citizen of it.” The landscape architect Ian McHarg (1969)
developed the “design with nature” approach, based on the premise: “Let us then
abandon the simplicity of separation and give unity its due. Let us abandon the self-
mutilation which has been our way and give expression to the potential harmony of
man-nature.” Tress et al. (2001) argue that “The perceived division between nature
and culture has dominated the academic world,” and “In the case of landscapes, this
divide is counter-productive and must be overcome since all landscapes are multidi-
mensional and multifunctional.”
To unite culture with nature in landscapes and to advance a landscape-based sci-
ence of sustainability, four principles articulated by Nassauer (1995) should be
borne in mind when we formulate our research questions: (1) human perception,
cognition, and values of the landscape directly affect, and are affected by, the land-
scape; (2) cultural conventions have profound influences on both human-dominated
and apparently natural landscapes; (3) cultural concepts of nature may differ from
scientific concepts of ecological function; and (4) the appearance of landscapes
communicates cultural values. In our attempt to integrating culture and nature in
landscapes, we need to fully recognize the necessity and opportunities of taking
pluralistic and ecumenical approaches, as no single perspective or approach is
sufficient to understanding human–environment relationships (Turner 1997).
Defining Landscape Sustainability
If landscapes are pivotal, then how should sustainability be defined? Before defining
the sustainability of landscapes, some discussion on the conceptualization of the
structure and organization of landscapes should be helpful. Everything is related to
everything else, but some are much more related to each than most others; and com-
plexity often takes the form of hierarchical or modular structure (Simon 1962; Wu
and Loucks 1995). From this hierarchical perspective, the world is a nested hierar-
chical system, in which smaller spatial units (e.g., individuals and local popula-
tions) form larger spatial units (e.g., ecosystems and landscapes) that in turn make
up even larger spatial units (e.g., biomes and the entire biosphere). Many ecological,
as well as socioeconomic, systems may be viewed as hierarchical patch dynamic
systems whose behavior is determined by pattern–process interactions at different
scales (Simon 1962; Wu and Loucks 1995; Wu 1999; Wu and David 2002). Wu and
Loucks (1995) articulated five key elements of hierarchical patch dynamics: (1)
ecological systems are spatially nested patch hierarchies, (2) dynamics of an eco-
logical system can be studied as the composite dynamics of individual patches and
their interactions, (3) pattern and process are scale dependent, (4) nonequilibrium
66 J. (Jingle) Wu
and random processes are essential to ecosystem structure and function, and (5)
ecological (meta)stability is often achieved through structural and functional redun-
dancy and spatial and temporal incorporation of dynamic patches.
Landscapes are spatially nested hierarchical patch systems as each landscape is
composed of different kinds of patches that in turn comprise smaller patches. As
such, the sustainability of landscapes is not only influenced by the interactions
among environmental, economic, and social components, but also by their spatial
configurations and cross-scale linkages. In a similar way but on broader scales,
human-perceived landscapes or cultural landscapes form a pivotal level in the hier-
archy of study objects in sustainability science, which may include local communi-
ties/ecosystems, landscapes, nations/regions, and the entire world. In this context,
the sustainability of a landscape is influenced both by upper levels (constraints) and
lower levels (initiating processes and driving forces). From a hierarchical patch
dynamics perspective, landscape sustainability is similar to landscape metastabil-
ity—a shifting mosaic steady state in which macro-level structural and functional
patterns are maintained through constant micro-level changes (patch dynamics).
Ecosystems and the biosphere are the prototypical examples of complex adaptive
systems (Levin 1999), and so are landscapes. Interactions between spatial patterns
and ecological and socioeconomic processes at differing scales are keys to the
behavior of such systems. Key to the sustainability of any complex adaptive sys-
tems, including landscapes, is resilience. Holling (1973) defined resilience as the
ability of a system to absorb change and disturbance without changing its basic
structure and function or shifting into a qualitatively different state. This “ecological
resilience” or “ecosystem resilience” stresses persistence, change, and unpredict-
ability, and differs fundamentally from the equilibrium-based “engineering resil-
ience” which focuses on efficiency, constancy, and predictability (Holling 1996).
More recent work has further refined Holling’s (1973) definition by including the
system’s abilities to self-organize and adapt to changes, as well as expanding the
concept to socioeconomic systems (Levin et al. 1998; Walker and Salt 2006). For
example, social resilience is defined as the ability of a human community to with-
stand, and to recover from, external perturbations (Adger 2000). Resilience thinking
frequently invokes the concepts of thresholds or tipping points, alternate stable
states or regimes, regime shifts, complex adaptive systems, adaptive cycles, and
transformability (Holling 2001; Walker and Salt 2006).
From a resilience perspective, landscape sustainability is not about maintaining
the landscape at a steady state by reducing the variability in landscape dynamics or
optimizing its performance, but rather focusing on the landscape’s adaptive capa-
bilities to cope with uncertainties. In the face of changing climatic conditions and
intensifying land uses, the ability to self-organize and preserve system integrity is
crucial to realizing landscape sustainability. Recent studies have suggested that high
diversity of heterogeneous components, modular structures, and tight feedback
loops often characterize resilient complex adaptive systems (Levin 1999; Levin and
Lubchenco 2008). The hierarchical patch dynamics perspective corroborates this
conclusion from complex adaptive systems theory and resilience research.
Based on the above discussion, it is tempting to define landscape sustainability

as the capacity of a landscape to maintain its basic structure and to provide ecosys-
tem services in a changing world of environmental, economic, and social condi-
tions. To operationalize this rather general definition, different landscape types need
to be distinguished because they each have different structural and functional char-
acteristics. One common classification is the landscape modification gradient by
Forman and Godron (1986): (1) natural landscape (without significant human
impact), (2) managed landscape (where native species are managed and harvested),
(3) cultivated landscape (with villages and patches of natural or managed ecosys-
tems scattered), (4) suburban landscape (a town and country area with a heteroge-
neous patchy mixture of residential areas, commercial centers, cropland, managed
vegetation, and natural areas), and (5) urban landscape (with remnant managed park
areas scattered in a densely built-up matrix). Focusing more on characteristics
related to system self-regenerative capacities, Naveh (1998) classified cultural land-
scapes into seminatural and managed multifunctional landscapes (e.g., protected
areas, parks, recreation areas), traditional agricultural landscapes, rural and subur-
ban landscapes, and urban landscapes. These landscapes are distinguished based on
their energy inputs and self-organizing and regenerative capacities through the pho-
tosynthetic conversion of solar energy: (1) “solar-powered” seminatural and man-
aged landscapes, ranging from protected areas, traditional agricultural landscapes,
to contemporary organic farming systems, (2) “intensive agro-industrial” land-
scapes, including modern agricultural systems that are heavily subsidized by fossil
energy, and (3) “technosphere” landscapes, including rural, suburban, and urban-
industrial landscapes that are supported primarily by fossil energy, with all internal
natural regenerative capacities lost.
Also, insight into landscape sustainability can be gained from examining tradi-
tional cultural landscapes, which are the products of long-term co-evolution between
culture and nature. For example, based on a review of lessons from history, Forman
(1995) observed that water problems, soil erosion, high population density, war, and
a decline in exports are key attributes associated with decreased sustainability,
whereas cultural cohesion, low population density, export–import trade, overall
level and arrangement of the resource base, religious cohesion, varied linkages with
adjacent areas, and a major irrigation or dike system are key attributes associated
with increased sustainability. Selman (2007) suggested three propositions as a basis
for assessing the sustainability of landscapes: (1) “cultural landscapes are sustain-
able if they are regenerative,” (2) “landscape sustainability is characterized by eco-
logical integrity and cultural legibility,” and (3) “regenerative landscapes are
distinguished by feedback loops leading to accumulation of cultural and ecological
assets.” Forman (1990) postulated that “for any landscape, or major portion of a
landscape, there exists an optimal spatial configuration of ecosystems and land uses
to maximize ecological integrity, achievement of human aspirations, or sustainabil-
ity of an environment.” More detailed studies need to be carried out to further test
these observations, propositions, and hypotheses. This represents a promising future
direction for operationalizing the science and practice of sustainability science.
68 J. (Jingle) Wu
Measuring Landscape Sustainability
For a landscape-based approach to sustainability to succeed in research and practice,

measures must be developed to gauge sustainability at the landscape scale. A great
number of sustainability indicators (or sustainable development indicators—SDIs)
have been developed in the past several decades since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro which proposed the fundamental principles and the program of action for
achieving sustainable development. Especially after the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (Earth Summit 2002) in Johannesburg in 2002, a number of international
organizations, governmental agencies, NGOs, local communities and corporations,
and academic scholars have devoted significant effort to the design and implementa-
tion of indicators that gauge the state and trajectory of environmental conditions and
socioeconomic development. Today, hundreds of indicators and indices of sustainable
development have been developed and used at the global, national, and local scales.
SDIs are indicators that provide information on the state, dynamics, and underly-
ing drivers of human–environmental systems and represent arguably the most popu-
lar approach to gauging sustainable development. Landscape sustainability
indicators should be developed based on the commonly recognized criteria, includ-
ing: (1) an indicator set should cover the various dimensions of sustainability and
their complex interactions; (2) indicators should be indicative of the state and
changes of the targeted aspects of sustainability; (3) indicators should be informa-
tive based on available data; (4) indicators should be readily understandable and
policy-relevant; and (5) the methods for weighting and aggregating variables should
be transparent and unbiased (Wu and Wu 2011). A number of existing SDIs may be
incorporated into landscape indicator systems (see examples in Table 1).
Table 1 A select group of sustainability indices commonly used in the assessment of sustainable
development (Wu and Wu 2011)
Indicator Description
Green GDP Although GDP is the most popular measure of economic performance, it
does not accurately reflect actual human or environmental well-being.
Empirical data show that GDP is often negatively correlated with
environmental quality, and its positive correlation with social well-being
measures disappears after GDP reaches a certain level. Green GDP is a
variant developed in the early 1990s in an attempt to factor in the effects
of natural resource consumption and pollution on human welfare
Human develop- HDI was created in the 1990s by the United Nations Development Program to
ment index assess the levels of human and social development. The index is composed
(HDI) of three primary aspects: life expectancy, education, and standard of
living. HDI has become a standard and widely reported indicator in many
official reports and academic publications. A major criticism of HDI is its
abstraction from the environmental dimension of human welfare
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Indicator Description
Inclusive wealth Unlike the Green GDP, which is a “flow” measure, IW/GS are stock-based.
(IW)/genuine The economic patterns of production and consumption are necessarily
savings (GS) contingent upon the availability and configuration of the available
resources, or “capital.” Thus, inter-temporal transfers of economic
opportunity are best represented by the value of capital stocks. The
“inclusive” and “genuine” primarily refer to the inclusion of natural
resources into economic accounting. According to this framework, a
region or country is sustainable over a given period if its IW/GS per
capita does not decline over that time
Genuine progress GPI and ISEW are essentially equivalent metrics, although the former is
indicator (GPI) more widely recognized than the latter. Like the Green GDP, they adjust
and index of the standard flow-based metric of economic performance to consider the
sustainable role of environmental well-being. However, unlike Green GDP, GPI and
economic ISEW divide economic transactions between those that make a positive
welfare (ISEW) contribution to human welfare and those that make a negative contribu-
tion (e.g., an oil spill). GPI and ISEW also include the imputed values of
nonmarketed goods and services and adjust for income distribution effects
Material flows MFA tracks the weight of a number of different material flows in the
accounting economy, including production inputs and outputs, matter moved in the
(MFA) environment to access resources, and residual material from the
production process. By aggregating different material flows, MFA
produces a single metric called the total material requirement (TMR),
which gives a picture of the physical metabolism of the economic
system. Although monetary accounting is still more widespread, the use
of MFA is expanding
Ecological EF measures the land (and water) area that is required to support a defined
footprint (EF) human population indefinitely (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). The basic
unit of measurement is the “global hectare,” a normalized unit capturing
the average biocapacity of all hectares of all biologically productive
lands in the world. This comprehensive measure enables the comparison
of human demands on the planet’s ecosystems to the regenerative
capacity of those ecosystems
Environmental Published between 1999 and 2005, ESI was used as a measure of humanity’s
sustainability natural resource use. The computational methodology involved
index (ESI) and combining 76 variables into 21 metrics, which were then averaged to
environmental yield a single index. ESI was succeeded by EPI, which is developed by
performance the same institutions and has been published in 2006, 2008, and 2010.
index (EPI) EPI narrows its aims to two objectives: environmental health and
ecosystem vitality. EPI is meant to provide a report of “more immediate
value to policy-makers”
Indicator frameworks can help identify gaps in available data, indicator sets, and
our overall understanding of the human–environmental relationship in landscapes
(Wu and Wu 2011). Three indicator frameworks in the sustainability literature
should be useful for developing landscape sustainability indicators: the Pressure--
State-Response (PSR) framework, the theme- or issue-based frameworks, and the
70 J. (Jingle) Wu
Fig. 3 Illustration of the pressure–state–response framework for the development of sustainability

indicators
capital frameworks. With the PSR framework (Fig. 3), indicators of pressures repre-
sent forces that drive landscape changes; state indicators focus on current landscape
conditions; and response indicators pertain to societal reactions to changes in the
state of the landscape and underlying drivers. A theme-based framework organizes
indicators around key issues, as illustrated in the 2001 indicator set by the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) (Fig. 4). The CSD theme-
based framework has a hierarchical structure, with four dimensions of sustainable
development (social, environmental, economic, and institutional), 15 themes, and
58 core indicators. The capital-based framework attempts to calculate the wealth of
a region as a function of different kinds of capital: manufactured or built capital (all
produced assets that form the human economy in a traditional sense), natural capital
(the natural environment and resources), human capital (capacities of people to
work, including knowledge, skills, and health), and social capital (stocks of social
networks, trust, and institutional arrangements). Sustainability in this case depends
heavily on whether a strong or weak sustainability perspective is pursued.
By modifying these frameworks to focus on the landscape scale, sustainability
indicators can be developed for different kinds of landscapes. For example, the PSR
framework may work better for natural and seminatural landscapes, whereas the
theme- and capital-based frameworks seem more appropriate for human-dominated
landscapes. Many existing landscape indices may find their places in these frame-
works, but systematic efforts are needed to integrate SDIs and landscape pattern
metrics. In addition, scalograms using landscape indicators may provide an effec-
tive approach to revealing hierarchical linkages and relating key elements of sus-
tainability across multiple scales (Wu 2004).
Fig. 4 The theme-based indicator framework developed by United Nations Commission on

Sustainable Development (UNCSD 2001)
Landscape ecology has developed a large number of pattern metrics (or indices)
to quantify the composition and configuration of landscapes (Li and Wu 2007).
Many of these metrics have been successfully used to quantify how landscapes
change over time and how different landscape compare and contrast. Landscape
metrics can provide rich information on the diversity and relative abundance of dif-
ferent kinds of landscape components, as well as the shape complexity and spatial
configuration of patch mosaics. Among the most commonly used ones are the num-
ber of patch types and their proportions, patch density, edge density, patch size,
patch or landscape shape indices, connectivity indices, and fragmentation indices.
72 J. (Jingle) Wu
Some of these landscape metrics are conceivably useful in landscape sustainability

assessment, although more research is needed to relate landscape metrics to sustain-
ability variables and to develop sustainability-oriented landscape metrics (Wu and
Hobbs 2002; Li and Wu 2004).
Landscape Ecology as a Cornerstone of Sustainability Science
If landscapes represent a pivotal scale of sustainability, then the ecology of land-

scapes ought to have something to offer to the science and practice of sustainability.
Landscape ecologists have long considered the relevance of their science to sustain-
ability (Naveh 1982; Forman 1990; Naveh 2007) and, more recently, to sustainability
science (Potschin and Haines-Young 2006; Wu 2006; Musacchio 2009, 2011; Turner
2010). In this section, I briefly discuss some of the key ideas in landscape ecology
and how this field can contribute to the development of sustainability science.
Although the term was coined in Europe in 1939, landscape ecology was not an
established scientific field until the 1980s when remote sensing data and computers
became widely accessible to scientists. The 1980s was also a time when ecological
ideas of spatial heterogeneity and nonequilibrium dynamics flourished, and when
landscape ecology took root in North America. Spatial heterogeneity is ubiquitous
in all ecological systems, underlining the significance of pattern–process relations
and scale. The main theme of contemporary landscape ecology, with an unmistak-
able focus on spatial heterogeneity, was articulated in Risser et al. (1984): “Landscape
ecology focuses explicitly upon spatial pattern. Specifically, landscape ecology con-
siders the development and dynamics of spatial heterogeneity, spatial and temporal
interactions and exchanges across heterogeneous landscapes, influences of spatial
heterogeneity on biotic and abiotic processes, and management of spatial heteroge-
neity.” In addition, landscape ecology also fully recognizes the importance of the
multidimensionality of landscapes and their cross-disciplinarity. Again, as Risser
et al. (1984) put it: “A major forcing function of landscapes is the activity of man-
kind, especially associated cultural, economic, and political phenomena …
Landscape ecology is not a distinct discipline or simply a branch of ecology, but
rather is the synthetic intersection of many related disciplines that focus on the
spatial-temporal pattern of the landscape.”
Today, a general consensus seems to have emerged that landscape ecology is not
simply an academic discipline, but rather a highly interdisciplinary field of study
(Wu and Hobbs 2002, 2007). In an attempt to integrate the various connotations, Wu
and Hobbs (2007) defined landscape ecology as the integration of the science and
art of studying and influencing the relationship between spatial pattern and ecologi-
cal processes on multiple scales. The “science” of landscape ecology focuses on the
theoretical basis for understanding the formation, dynamics, and effects of spatial
heterogeneity, whereas the “art” of landscape ecology reflects the humanistic and
holistic perspectives necessary for integrating ecology, design and planning, socio-
economics, and management practices. Wu (2006) put forward a pluralistic and
Fig. 5 The pyramid of landscape ecology as an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary science
hierarchical framework that facilitates synergistic interactions between biophysical/

pattern–process and holistic/humanistic perspectives in landscape ecology (Fig. 5).
The “hierarchical” view here recognizes the varying scope and degree of cross-
disciplinarity in landscape ecological studies, whereas the “pluralistic” view stresses
the importance of different disciplines and perspectives. This pluralistic and hierar-
chical framework implies that all the five dimensions of landscape, as discussed in
Tress and Tress (2001), are important in landscape studies.
Several key research areas in landscape ecology have been identified (Wu and
Hobbs 2002, 2007). These include: quantifying landscape pattern and its ecological
effects; the mechanisms of flows of organisms, energy, and materials in landscape
mosaics; behavioral landscape ecology that focuses on how the behavior of organ-
isms interacts with landscape structure; landscape genetics that aims to understand
how landscape heterogeneity affects population genetics; causes and consequences
of land use and land cover change; spatial scaling that deals with translation of
information across heterogeneous landscapes; and optimization of landscape pat-
tern for conservation or sustainability. Towards the transdisciplinary end of the spec-
trum landscape ecology is increasingly related to sustainability science in theory
and practice (Fig. 5). The emerging “land-change science” focuses on observing and
monitoring land use and land cover change, assessing its impacts on ecosystem
processes and services, and understanding its causes and mechanisms (Rindfuss
et al. 2005; Turner et al. 2007). Much of this has been part of key research topics and
priorities (Wu and Hobbs 2002), and it is encouraging to see that ecologists and
geographers converge on their views toward sustainability.
Overall, landscape ecology can contribute to sustainability science in several
ways (Wu 2006). First, landscape ecology provides a hierarchical and integrative
74 J. (Jingle) Wu
ecological basis for dealing with issues of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
from fine to broad scales. Second, landscape ecology has already developed a num-
ber of holistic and humanistic approaches to studying nature–society interactions.
Third, landscape ecology offers theory and methods for studying the effects of spa-
tial configuration of biophysical and socioeconomic component on the sustainabil-
ity of a place. Fourth, landscape ecology has developed a suite of pattern metrics
and indicators which can be used for quantifying sustainability in a geospatially
explicit manner. Finally, landscape ecology provides both theoretical and method-
ological tools for dealing with scaling and uncertainty issues that are fundamental
to most nature–society interactions (Wu et al. 2006).
Concluding Remarks
Sustainability science focuses on the dynamic relationship between society and

nature, integrating environmental, economic, and social processes across scales of
local communities, regions, and the entire global system. While it is difficult or
implausible to pick a scale that is not relevant to sustainability, some scales may be
more effective than others for studying and achieving sustainability. The importance
of the global scale is given because global sustainability is the ultimate goal of the
science and practice of sustainability. However, global-level studies usually have to
be coarse-grained and lack details that are directly relevant to local actions. At the
other end, studies at the scale of local communities, while extremely important, usu-
ally lack regional contexts and are difficult to scale up to the global scale.
To bridge this gap, landscapes represent an intermediate scale that is operational
in research and actions and commensurate with human perception of the environ-
ment. Landscapes are not only the stage where environmental, economic, and social
processes play out, but also the integrator of these processes. Landscapes are the
products of interactions between human society and natural environment, represent-
ing a pivotal scale for linking local and global sustainability. Landscapes are argu-
ably the most meaningful places in the place-based research in sustainability science.
Also, landscapes provide a common ground for ecologists, geographers, planners
and designers, and policy-makers to work together to shape and improve the soci-
ety–nature relationship.
Sustainability science at the landscape scale will not only need to integrate the
multiple dimensions of environment, economy, and society, but also should focus on
elucidating the role of spatial heterogeneity in determining the sustainability of land-
scapes. Heterogeneity always makes scale matter. Thus, key research questions ought
to address the issues on scale multiplicity, scaling relations, and hierarchical linkages.
Consequently, landscape sustainability research will produce pattern–process–scale
relations of places that are fundamental to sustainability science. To move forward
with the landscape approach to sustainability, landscape ecology, as well as other
related interdisciplinary fields, will continue to play an important role.
Acknowledgments I to thank Dr. Michael P. Weinstein for inviting me to give a presentation at

the International Symposium on Sustainability Science at Montclair State University in October
2010, from which this paper has evolved. Also, I thank Tong Wu for a number of helpful discus-
sions on sustainability, resilience, and environmental economics. My research in landscape ecol-
ogy and sustainability has been supported by grants from National Science Foundation (DEB
9714833, DEB-0423704, BCS-0508002), US Environmental Protection Agency (R827676-01-0),
and collaborative grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China and Chinese Academy
of Sciences.
References
Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr
24:347–364
Chen X, Wu J (2009) Sustainable landscape architecture: implications of the Chinese philosophy
of “unity of man with nature” and beyond. Landsc Ecol 24:1015–1026
Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. PNAS 104:1737–1738
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. PNAS
100:8059–8061
Du Pisani JA (2006) Sustainable development—historical roots of the concept. Environ Sci
3:83–96
Forman RTT (1990) Ecologically sustainable landscapes: the role of spatial configuration. In:
Zonneveld IS, Forman RTT (eds) Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer,
New York
Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York
Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC et al (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have
to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972
Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23
Holling CS (1996) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: Schulze P (ed)
Engineering within ecological constraints. National Academy Press, Washington
Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems.
Ecosystems 4:390–405
Ji X (2007) Ji Xianlin on Chinese culture. China Books, Beijing
Kareiva P, Watts S, McDonald R et al (2007) Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and
ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316:1866–1869
Kates RW (2003) Sustainability science. In: IAP (Interacademy Panel on International Issues) (ed)
Transition to sustainability in the 21st century: the contribution of science and technology.
National Academies Press, Washington
Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz A (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators,
values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development
47(3):8–21
Kidd CV (1992) The evolution of sustainability. J Agric Environ Ethics 5:1–26
Leopold A (1949) A Sand County almanac. Oxford University Press, New York
Levin SA (1999) Fragile dominions: complexity and the commons. Perseus Books, Reading
Levin SA, Lubchenco L (2008) Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management.
Bioscience 58:27–32
Levin SA, Barrett S, Aniyar S et al (1998) Resilience in natural and socioeconomic systems.
Environ Dev Econ 3:222–236
76 J. (Jingle) Wu
Li H, Wu JG (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399

Li H, Wu J (2007) Landscape pattern analysis: key issues and challenges. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds)
Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
McHarg IL (1969) Design with Nature. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York
Mitchell D (2000) Cultural geography: a critical introduction. Blackwell, Oxford
Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a conceptual
framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six
Es of landscape sustainability. Landsc Ecol 24:993–1013
Musacchio LR (2011) The grand challenge to operationalize landscape sustainability and the
design-in-science paradigm. Landsc Ecol 26:1–5
Nassauer JI (1995) Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc Ecol 10:229–237
Nassauer JI (ed) (1997) Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology. Island Press, Washington
Naveh Z (1982) Landscape ecology as an emerging branch of human ecosystem science. Adv Ecol
Res 12:189–237
Naveh Z (1998) Ecological and cultural landscape restoration and the cultural evolution towards a
post-industrial symbiosis between human society and nature. Restor Ecol 6:135–143
Naveh Z (2007) Landscape ecology and sustainability. Landsc Ecol 22:1437–1440
O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB et al (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton
University Press, Princeton
Phillips A (1998) The nature of cultural landscapes—a nature conservation perspective. Landsc
Res 23:21–38
Phillips A (2007) International policies and landscape protection. In: Benson JF, Roe M (eds)
Landscape and sustainability. Routledge, New York
Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (1995) Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological sys-
tems. Science 269:331–334
Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2006) “Rio+10”, sustainability science and landscape ecology.
Landsc Urban Plann 75:162–174
Reitan PH (2005) Sustainability science—and what’s needed beyond science. Sustain Sci Pract
Policy 1:77–80
Rindfuss RR, Walsh DJ, Turner BL II et al (2005) Developing a science of land change: challenges
and methodological issues. PNAS 101:13976–13981
Risser PG, Karr JR, Forman RTT (1984) Landscape ecology: directions and approaches. Illini Natl
Hist Surv Spec Publ. 2, Champaign, IL
Sauer CO (1925) The morphology of landscape. Publ Geog 2:19–53
Selman P (2007) Landscape and sustainability at the national and regional scales. In: Benson JF,
Roe M (eds) Landscape and sustainability. Routledge, New York
Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106:467–482
Tress B, Tress G (2001) Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to
landscape research. Landsc Urban Plann 57:143–157
Tress B, Tress G, De’camps H, d’Hauteserre A-M (2001) Bridging human and natural sciences in
landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:137–141
Turner BL II (1997) Spirals, bridges and tunnels: engaging human-environment perspectives in
geography. Ecumene 4:196–217
Turner MG (2010) A landscape perspective on sustainability science. In: Levin SA, Clark WC
(eds) Toward a science of sustainability. Toward a Science of Sustainability Conference,
Warrenton, Virginia
Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern
and process. Springer, New York
Turner BL II, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global
environmental change and sustainability. PNAS 104:20666–20671
UNCSD (2001) Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. UN
Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York
Urban DL, O’Neill RV, Shugart HH (1987) Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help
scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience 37:119–127
Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing
World. Island Press, Washington
Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the
Earth. New Society Publishers, British Columbia, Canada
Webb M (1987) Cultural landscapes in the National Park Service. Publ Histor 9:77–89
Weinstein MP (2010) Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and the ecology of cities.
Sustain Sci Pract Policy 6:1–5
Wiens JA, Milne BT (1989) Scaling of ‘landscape’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology
from a beetle’s perspective. Landsc Ecol 3:87–96
Wilson EO (2007) Foreward. In: Penn D, Mysterud I (eds) Evolutionary perspectives on environ-
mental problems. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway
Wu J (1999) Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Can J Remot
Sens 25:367–380
Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landsc
Ecol 19:125–138
Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landsc Ecol
21:1–4
Wu J (2008) Making the case for landscape ecology: an effective approach to urban sustainability.
Landsc J 27:41–50
Wu J, David JL (2002) A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological
systems: theory and applications. Ecol Modell 153:7–26
Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic
synthesis. Landsc Ecol 17:355–365
Wu J, Hobbs R (2007) Landscape ecology: the-state-of-the-science. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key
topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wu J, Levin SA (1994) A spatial patch dynamic modeling approach to pattern and process in an
annual grassland. Ecol Monogr 64:447–464
Wu J, Loucks OL (1995) From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift
in ecology. Quart Rev Biol 70:439–466
Wu J, Wu T (2011) Sustainability indicators and indices. In: Madu CN and Kuei C (eds), Handbook
of sustainable management. Imperial College Press, London
Wu J, Jones KB, Li H et al (eds) (2006) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology: methods and
applications. Springer, Dordrecht
It’s OK to Talk About Sustainability
Alan D. Hecht
Abstract For much of the recent past, state and local governments and a number
of businesses have led in making sustainability operational in the United States, but
federal policies have lagged far behind. Today, however, environmental, economic,
and social pressures are beginning to move governments and businesses to more
urgently and effectively adopt sustainable management policies and practices. This
shift in public policy and business strategy reflects a new reality that today’s
problems are more complex, involve new stressors and multiple environmental
media, and thus require approaches that extend beyond traditional business prac-
tices or media-specific legislation. The transition to sustainability will not be easy.
For the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), this means going beyond
the existing regulatory framework and advancing an environmental policy and
research agenda that promotes sustainability science, innovation, and problem
solving. For business and government alike, this means that innovation and sustain-
ability science must be major drivers to advance economic growth while protecting
the environment and human health. More than ever, it is “OK to talk about
sustainability.”
Keywords Sustainable business practices • US National Sustainability Strategy

• Pressure–state–response model • USEPA
Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the USEPA where he is employed. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute Agency endorsement or recommendations for use.
A.D. Hecht (*)
Office of Research and Development, US EPA,
Washington, DC 20460, USA
80 A.D. Hecht
Introduction
For much of the past few decades, state and local governments have led in making
sustainability operational. Federal policies have lagged far behind. Since the early
1990s, the idea of sustainability has taken root in hundreds of state and local com-
munities in the United States and around the world. These governments are natural
laboratories for sustainability as they are responsible for development issues and are
closer to the nexus of sustainability and quality of life. What happens at their level
is an important measure of public support for sustainability.
On a global scale, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
(ICLEI) was established in 1990 by more than 200 local governments from 43
countries at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future. In
2003, the council expanded and revised its mission, charter, and name to reflect
challenges faced by local governments. The new ICLEI–Local Governments for
Sustainability includes more than 450 local governments, representing 300 million
people in 63 countries. Today, its web site (http://www.iclei.org) provides invalu-
able information on best urban practices in topics such as planning for sustainable
development, energy efficiency, transportation, green building, land use manage-
ment, environmental management, and education.
Since 2005 the online resource SustainLane has also surveyed and ranked the
50 most populous US cities on the basis of sustainability (http://www.sustain-
lane.com/us-city-rankings). The city top-ranked by SustainLane in 2006 and
2008 was Portland, Oregon, which ranked above other cities in planning for clean
technology, green building development, overall quality of life, and in planning
and management for sustainability. The concept of sustainability has also been
growing in small- and medium-size cities and a number of different regions in
the US (Weiss 2009).
In parallel with growing support for sustainability at state and local levels, sev-
eral major international firms are beginning to embrace sustainability principles and
practices:
• In May 2005, the General Electric Company launched its program of “ecomagi-
nation,” asserting that “things that are good for the environment are also good for
business.” GE was embarking on this initiative “not because it is trendy or moral,
but because it will accelerate [economic] growth” (Sullivan and Schiafo 2005).
In 2007, GE set a goal of generating $20 billion in revenue from ecomagination
products by 2010.
• In similar fashion, the giant retail-goods manufacturer Proctor & Gamble set a
goal in 2007 of gaining $20 billion in 5 years from innovative and sustainable
products such as Tide Coldwater; 2 years later the firm raised its goal to $50 bil-
lion by 2012 (Winston 2009). In October 2010, P&G went further, announcing a
new sustainability vision aiming to reach 5 billion consumers over the next 5
years, or roughly a billion more than the firm’s present number of consumers.
The vision is equally ambitious in aiming to use 100% renewable or recycled
materials for all of its products and packaging and to achieve zero consumer
It’s OK to Talk About Sustainability 81
waste entering landfills. In order to meet those goals, P&G has established a set
of benchmarks including renewable materials accounting for 25% of product/
packaging materials, and for the firm’s plants to rely on renewable power for
30% of its energy use.
• In the retail world, UK retailer Marks & Spencer (M&S) has set the goal of
becoming the world’s most sustainable major retailer by 2015. In 2007, M&S
launched its “Plan A: Doing the Right Thing” (“because there is no Plan B”), a
business-wide £200 million “eco-plan.” M&S has made significant strides on its
five goals of becoming carbon-neutral, sending no waste to landfill, extending
sustainable sourcing, setting new standards in ethical trading, and helping cus-
tomers and employees live a healthier lifestyle. Plan A began with 100 specific
goals and in 2010 added 80 more (Marks & Spencer 2010a). M&S has reported
that all the £50 million ($73 million) earned by Plan A activities in 2009 were
invested back into the company and that by 2010 it had achieved 62 of its original
100 specific goals (Marks & Spencer 2010b).
• Among the many companies that have now adopted new management and tech-
nical strategies to advance sustainability, Walmart stands out for aggressively
applying life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches to managing its global supply
chain. In 2006, Walmart launched its Sustainability 360 program and established
explicit goals to use 100% renewable energy sources, create zero waste, reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and sell products that “sustain our resources
and the environment.”
These examples showcase businesses that have begun to see the goal of sustainabil-
ity as a strategy for managing the rising cost of energy and material use and promot-
ing competitiveness and innovation. A 2002 PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of
industry stated that “companies that fail to become sustainable—that ignore the
risks associated with ethics, governance and the triple bottom line of economic,
environmental and social issues—are courting disaster” (PricewaterhouseCoopers
2002). Since then sustainability strategies have been incorporated into the manage-
ment principles of dozens of Fortune 500 companies, with more of these firms based
in Europe and Asia than in the United States.
The indispensable nature of sustainability was recognized by the European
Union (EU) in 2000 when it made sustainability the goal of its Lisbon Strategy, aim-
ing “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in
the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and
greater social cohesion” (European Council 2000). The European Council declared
that clear and stable objectives for sustainable development will present significant
economic opportunities, which “has the potential to unleash a new wave of technol-
ogy innovation, generating growth and employment” (Larsson et al. 2002). Today
this view of sustainability as an economic strategy is becoming more widespread in
industry. After examining sustainability initiatives in energy and manufacturing at
30 large corporations, a 2009 study published in the Harvard Business Review con-
cluded that “sustainability is a mother lode of organizational and technological
innovations that yield both bottom-line and top-line returns” and that “there is no
alternative to sustainable development” (Nidumolu et al. 2009).
82 A.D. Hecht
Given progress toward sustainability in Europe and at state and local government
levels and in the business community in the United States, why has the concept of
sustainability been so difficult to advance in the US federal government and what
drivers are operating today to change this? Can the goal of sustainability become a
more integral part of US national policy? How can science and innovation advance
sustainable solutions? And what role can the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) play in moving the United States to the next level of environmental pro-
tection with a focus on sustainability? Use of a conceptual pressure–state–response
model described in the following sections sheds light on these questions.
Pressure–State–Response Model Leads to Sustainability
Making sustainability operational in the federal government has been limited by a

number of factors largely related to fears of adding economic burdens to business
and society. The current debate on regulating GHGs and climate change is a good
example of divergent views on the economic impacts of climate change (Hecht
2009). However, notwithstanding the debate on climate change, sustainability is
now being recognized as a possible source of innovation in business and govern-
ment. This recognition has been driven by a number of social, economic, and envi-
ronmental factors.
Beginning in 2007, I started to sketch out factors exerting pressures on business
strategies and government policies to move toward sustainability (Hecht 2007).
I used a conceptual systems model (Fig. 1) often called a “pressure–state–response
Risk
2 Managers
and Insurers Business
6 Strategies
Federal, State,
3 & International
Regs & Policies
Environmental,
Sustainable
1 Economic, and 7 Development
Social Trends Financial
4 Investors and
Public Reporting
United Nations, U.S. National

8
5 World Bank, Policies
and NGOs
Fig. 1 A conceptual pressure–state–response model

model,” which identifies how social, economic, and environmental stressors (Box 1)
were shaping business strategies and government policies by their effects on four
stakeholder groups (Boxes 2, 3, 4, and 5): Risk Managers and Insurers, Policy
Makers and Regulators, Financial Investors, and the UN and Global Society. The
result was to move business strategies and government policies toward sustainabil-
ity (Boxes 6, 7, and 8).
Expanding this diagram to comprehensively model a real system Fig. 1 would
show many positive and negative impacts affecting each rectangle. Conflicts between
state and federal policies regulating GHG emissions would be seen as prominent
positive feedback that has moved federal policies toward sustainability. Such
conflicts led to the 2007 US Supreme Court case disputing whether the Clean Air
Act gives the USEPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide gas as a pollutant. The
several states that had initiated the lawsuit argued that The USEPA has such author-
ity, while the USEPA under the George W. Bush administration opposed such an
interpretation. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the states, the
USEPA under the Obama administration announced it will apply the Clean Air Act
to regulate GHG emissions.
This figure would become very complicated if it depicted all the relevant positive
and negative feedbacks. For example, rising GHG emissions—a result of current
business strategies and government policies—are affecting insurance practices,
corporate strategies, and government policies. Investors and financial managers
reacting to climate risks are encouraging companies to reduce their carbon foot-
print. Government feedback is both positive (as it sets targets for emissions reduc-
tion or GHG intensity) and negative (as it resists certain business and international
pressures).
Global environmental, economic, and social pressures are among the major driv-
ers of this model (Box 1). The world’s nations now use resources equivalent to 1.5
planets like earth to support their populations and economies. Drawing on UN sce-
narios, the Global Footprint Network suggests that if current trends in population
and consumption continue, by the 2030s we will need the equivalent of two earths
to support the world’s population. The ecosystem will be under even more pressure
by 2050 when global population will reach about nine billion, some 30% higher
than in 2000. Shortages and deterioration of natural resources and the impacts of
climate change will increasingly limit our ability to attain or maintain sustainable
economic growth (Global Footprint Network 2010).
These pressures on the planet date back far before the recognitions of environ-
mental problems that led to the creation of the USEPA and the calling of the World
Environmental summits of 1972, 1992, and 2002. In the early 1970s, environmental
protection was largely focused on addressing issues related to industrial emissions
and occupational safety: environmental challenges were highly visible and easy to
understand. Congress addressed the obvious problems of air and land pollution and
water contamination through media-specific environmental laws; consequently our
air and water are cleaner, many damaging industrial waste sites have been restored,
and we are producing less hazardous waste.
84 A.D. Hecht
New pressures are now threatening the well-being and resilience of both human
society and the natural environment. These pressures include growth in population and
the economy, resulting in increased use of energy and materials and significant changes
in land use. These not only drive climate change but also threaten biodiversity and integ-
rity of vital natural resources such as clean air and water, soil, forests, and wetlands.
Today, government and business leaders cannot easily ignore economic and
social statistics such as the 2.9 billion people living on less than $2 a day, and the
2.5 billion people having no access to proper sanitation. Many social stressors affect
those at the “bottom of the economic pyramid”—the four billion people in develop-
ing countries with annual incomes under $3,000. While the individual income of
these four billion is very low, together they have purchasing power of $5 trillion
(Hammond et al. 2007). The distress of the world’s less fortunate people affects not
only the stability of nations but also business operations and opportunities, with the
result that international firms operating in many developing nations must find ways
to address issues involving social and economic well-being in order to maintain
what they call their “license to operate.” Unilever’s global operations appear to
demonstrate such concerns: Business Week has suggested that the whole world con-
stitutes “Unilever’s laboratory” because in Brazil the global conglomerate operates
a free community laundry, provides financing for drip irrigation, and recycles sev-
enteen tons of waste; in Bangladesh it funds a floating hospital; in Ghana it teaches
sustainable practices to deprived communities; in India it helps women start micro-
enterprises; and globally it discloses how much carbon dioxide and hazardous waste
its factories produce (Business Week 2007).
The health of the environment and its ecosystems both affect and are affected by
the behavior of business and government. While the full costs of the loss and degra-
dation of ecosystem services—including access to clean water and sanitation—are
difficult to measure, the available evidence demonstrates that the costs are substan-
tial and growing: the 2005 United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment deter-
mined that fifteen of the twenty-four significant ecosystem services are being
degraded or used unsustainably (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program
2005). Many of the losses in ecosystem services are a consequence of actions taken
to increase the supply of other societal services, especially food production. These
trade-offs often shift the costs of ecosystem degradation from one group of people
to another; the greatest costs will likely be borne by future generations.
For the past decade, external pressures on the environment and awareness of its
impacts have been growing. The economic recession since 2008 has created addi-
tional stress on business and has also been giving some firms (and Congress) an
excuse to oppose any new regulation on climate change as an untimely extra burden
on the economy. Such a position is very shortsighted, for the long-term picture with-
out energetic intervention is more threatening: the combined impact on society of
continuing population growth, urban development, and increased use of materials
and energy is dramatic. Now more than ever, new business strategies and govern-
ment policies promoting sustainability are needed. The many stressors included in
Box 1 impact activities in Boxes 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Risk Mangers and Insurers (Box 2)
Risk managers are paid for avoiding costly problems and the insurance industry has
quickly come to understand that unsustainable development is costly. Floods,
droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados are the expected sources of most
major insurance losses. Because changes in the frequency of such events are critical
in anticipating risk, effective techniques to understand and evaluate future risk are
essential to the viability of insurance firms.
A number of insurers have been leaders in the study of natural catastrophes.
Aiming to describe the new risk landscape, insurers such as Swiss Re operate exten-
sive research programs on the early detection and assessment of environmental and
health risks, while Munich Re publishes an annual review of disasters and catastro-
phes and has set up a foundation to support sharing knowledge bearing on risk.
Munich Re, Swiss Re, and other major insurance and reinsurance firms are bring-
ing new attention to issues of environmental sustainability. In reacting to expected
pressures from climate change, these firms have adjusted their rate structures and
called for government action. In addition, insurance firms now commonly offer
businesses the option of reducing their insurance premiums by adopting innovative
“green” programs based on improving their risk profile and commitment to sustain-
ability. But the insurance industry cannot address the challenges of climate change
on its own. Government regulations are clearly needed.
Regulations and Policy (Box 3)
A combination of environment regulations and business standards is impacting how

businesses think about sustainability. EU countries began a GHG cap-and-trade pro-
gram in 2003. The impact of this approach is getting mixed reviews: from 2007 to
2009 emissions significantly dropped, but the decline may be due largely to the
concurrent economic recession. In areas other than climate change, the EU has set
new standards on addressing the growing amounts of wastes and toxic chemicals in
the environment. The EU has also enacted several directives with important global
environmental implications, including directives for the Restriction of Hazardous
Substances (RoHS), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and
Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH). RoHS and
WEEE, designed to tackle the rapidly increasing waste stream of electrical and
electronic equipment, complement EU action on landfills and incineration of waste.
The REACH regulation gives industries greater responsibility to manage risks from
chemicals and to provide related safety information; it requires manufacturers and
importers to gather information on the properties of substances, which will help
them to manage the substances safely and to register the information in a central
database.
From a sustainability perspective, the EU directives regulate product inputs
rather than outputs, manage materials rather than waste, promote use of LCA
86 A.D. Hecht
and cradle-to-grave management, apply green engineering and green chemistry

principles, shift the burden of proof to industry, and measure and manage future
financial risk and liabilities. Combined with pressures from insurers and risk
managers, these directives advance the movement toward sustainability.
The EU is also now moving ahead on regulating the use of nanomaterials. Its
NanoSustain project aims to develop innovative solutions for the sustainable design,
use, recycling, and final treatment of nanotechnology-based products. These goals
will be achieved by comprehensively gathering data, generating relevant missing
data, and evaluating and validating data for specific nanoproducts or product groups
based on their potential threat to human and environmental health hazards and to
impacts that may occur after their production. NanoSustain will set the stage for the
development of new sustainable products and industrial applications and hence for
making the European nanotechnology industry more competitive. A new EU rule—
part of a 397-page cosmetics regulation approved in November 2009 by the EU
Council—will require cosmetics manufacturers to list any nanoparticles contained
in products marketed within the EU.
In the United States, the USEPA is confronting a host of issues related to climate
change, economic growth, demographics and aging, urban development and rede-
velopment, energy and material use, non-point sources of pollution, ecosystem
destruction, and new chemical and biological risks. In response to 2008 Congressional
appropriations (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110-161), the USEPA has issued the
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. Intended to collect accurate and
timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions, the rule requires large US
sources and suppliers to report GHG emissions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil
fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that
emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit
annual reports to the USEPA.
While Congress debates the content and scope of national legislation on GHGs,
this USEPA reporting system will provide a better understanding of the sources of
GHGs and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to
reduce emissions. In addition to new efforts to regulate emissions, the USEPA has
come to recognize that, while regulating dangerous pollution and toxics certainly
remains a necessary and vital task, eliminating the use of toxic materials altogether
is a better, more sustainable approach. It is therefore not surprising that as pressures
grow and new risks are identified, USEPA programs have been inching toward life
cycle analysis, green chemistry, green design, green engineering, smart growth, and
industrial ecology.
Environmental regulators are not alone in responding to growing social pressures
on business. Disclosure requirements for industry have been strengthened
significantly in recent years. Significant pressure for transparency in business opera-
tions has come from the Financial Accounts Standards Board (FASB) of the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). In December 2006,
FASB issued FIN 47, an interpretation of its Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations Standards, which has prodded firms that had been slow to record obli-
gations for the anticipated expenses of retiring physical assets in an environmentally
safe and sound manner. The FASB accounting procedures require firms to identify
assets such as building sites, mines, chemical plants, and nuclear power facilities
that may cause long-term environmental damage and which the firms may be legally
required to restore to their original conditions. Firms are now clearly required to
recognize those future obligations as they purchase, construct, and use their physi-
cal assets. The FASB accounting procedures also require that firms estimate the
potential risk and liability of operating facilities that produce environmentally dan-
gerous products. Such procedures reinforce the movement toward more sustainable
management practices by reducing long-term risk.
Finance and Investors (Box 4)
Environmental and social pressures are also pushing bankers, pension fund manag-
ers, and individual investors toward more sustainable and socially responsible
investing. As the availability and quality of natural resources are under mounting
threat, commodities and public goods such as food, clean air, and water are becom-
ing increasing scarce. The financial sector has the potential and the instruments to
play a vital catalytic role for the conservation and value enhancement of natural
resources (Alms and Schanz 2008). For example, banks that adhere to the Equator
Principles must assess the social and environmental impacts of projects that they
finance. Influenced by actions and pressures from groups like the activist Rainforest
Action Network, Citigroup has gone beyond the Equator Principles by committing
to refuse funding for projects that could result in illegal logging, other environmen-
tal damage, or harm to indigenous people. Such actions demonstrate the potential
power of social pressures on business. Reacting to rising business and public pres-
sures on climate change, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January
2010 voted to require firms to provide information to investors about risks to their
businesses associated with climate change.
Changing perspectives on Wall Street and among pension fund managers and
millions of institutional and individual investors are also evident in the growth of
socially responsible mutual funds and from the evolving definition of fiduciary
responsibility to include environmental risk and performance. The 2007 Fiduciary
Guide to Toxic Chemical Risk, one of an increasing number of reports about
chemicals, foods, and other products, noted the “growing concern about the impact
on human health of relatively small amounts of chemicals in everyday products.”
The Guide notes that some of the largest law firms in the world have “definitely
concluded that considering environmental, social, and governance issues is at the
core of Fiduciary Duty of Prudence and that fiduciaries have an affirmative duty
to consider toxic chemical issues that impact corporate risk, returns and share-
holder values (Ambachtsheer et al. 2007).” If Fig. 1 were designed to capture all
the positive and negative feedbacks in the system, then this new interpretation of
fiduciary responsibility would be seen as a positive feedback of the changing risk
landscape.
88 A.D. Hecht
UN, World Bank, NGOs, and Global Society (Box 5)
The lower rectangle in the center of Fig. 1 includes pressures coming from the inter-
national community that are impacting the convergence of business and government
toward sustainability. Since 1972 the United Nations has been at the center of cham-
pioning environmental and social issues by collecting data, encouraging national
reporting, organizing world conferences and summits, and fostering international
agreements. The UN-rooted activities have focused global attention on a suite of
social and environmental issues that are increasingly affecting business strategies
and government policies. While UN conferences may not lead to concrete and bind-
ing actions, they have elevated public debate on strategic issues and exerted
significant pressure for member governments to take action.
The World Bank similarly provides a variety of lending and advisory services to
support the energy, transport, water, and information, and communication technol-
ogy sectors in client countries. The World Bank actions are outlined by the
Sustainable Infrastructure Action Plan (SIAP) and the Infrastructure Recovery and
Assets Platform (INFRA). In 2009, support for infrastructure represented 38% of all
World Bank commitments (World Bank Group 2008).
Concurrent with the growth of UN activities has been the increase in non-
government organizations focusing on environmental and social issues. Today these
organizations are key partners with government and business in efforts to bring clean
water, sanitation, clean energy, and medical care to billions of people around the world.
Non-government organizations are also exerting considerable pressure on business by
using modern satellite and Internet technology. For example, GeoEye has become one
of the major global providers of real-time satellite data for business sectors seeking
information on illegal logging and mining (http://www.geoeye.com/CorpSite).
Convergence of Business Strategies and Government Policies

(Boxes 6, 7, and 8)
The conceptual systems model shown and described above is in many ways a variant
of a pressure–state–response model. In this model, human activities exert pressures
on the environment (such as pollution, land use change, or increased demand for
livestock products). These result in changes in the environment (e.g., changes in
pollutant levels, habitat diversity, and livestock production) which in turn impact
economic, social, and environmental conditions. How society responds to these
changes is reflected in business strategies and practices and government policies
that are slowly converging on sustainability. This convergence reflects a new under-
standing that innovation and sustainable practices can boost the economy.
Analyzing business stressors and responses to the recession, Winston (2009)
highlights four key factors that can accelerate movement toward sustainable prac-
tices. He argues that businesses must (1) get lean and generate immediate bottom-line
savings by reducing energy use and waste; (2) get smart by using value-chain data
to cut costs, reduce risks, and focus innovation efforts; (3) get creative by posing
heretical questions that force companies to find solutions to tomorrow’s challenges
today; and (4) get engaged by giving employees ownership of environmental goals
and the tools to act on them. Winston argues that green initiatives can ratchet up a
company’s resource efficiency, creativity, and employee motivation. He concludes
that sustainability is at the very core of recovery: no company or society, he insists,
can last unless it cares for all of its human, financial, and environmental resources
and capital (Winston 2009).
Dozens of companies (like P&G, Walmart, GE, and others discussed in the pre-
vious section) are now evolving their business models by setting sustainability goals
and metrics and reporting annually on progress toward those goals. Some compa-
nies are taking regulatory actions that go beyond existing federal guidelines. For
example, Walmart has set a standard for lead in toys that is 85% lower than required
by US regulations. Winston (2009) notes that Toys “R” Us, Target, and Sears have
phased out products containing certain chemicals (such as BPA or phthalates) that
studies indicate are dangerous to human health.
All of the above suggest a new economic model that Lubin and Esty (2010) call
the “Sustainability Imperative.” The key point here is that sustainable management
is not a threat to the economy but a necessary force for innovation and competive-
ness. If in fact politics is all about money, then sustainability should drive economic
development and accelerate this business–government convergence. This will still
take time since long-standing conflicts between business and government over the
economic impacts of regulations and policies continue. The price to be paid by
industries releasing GHGs remains today the major test case for this convergence.
The pressures of the recession and projections of future energy and resource
needs clearly strengthen the argument for a different way of managing our economy.
Along with social and economic factors, these pressures in turn influence federal
policy, which today is putting greater attention on ways to achieve a “green
economy.” This means more efficient operations in government management as
well as in advancing science, technology, and innovation.
In sum, because of domestic and international environmental, economic, and
social pressures, federal policy is now overcoming past resistance to the concept of
sustainability. Can the goal of sustainability now become a more integral part of US
national policy? And how can science and innovation advance sustainable solutions?
This challenge for the USEPA and other agencies is discussed in the next section.
Sustainability at the USEPA: Promoting Sustainability Science

and Innovation
The enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970 formally estab-
lished as a national goal the creation and maintenance of “conditions under which
[humans] and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic
and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans” [emphasis
90 A.D. Hecht
added]. This language is remarkably similar to the UN-sponsored Brundtland

Report’s definition of “sustainable development” 17 years later (UN General
Assembly 1987). Implementing this goal and policy begs a number of practical
questions such as “What kind of regulations, policies, strategies, and practices are
needed to advance sustainability?” and “How will such changes impact economic
development?” These questions have often led to conflict between business and
government over regulatory policies and their implementation, including policies
aimed at reducing pollutants and GHG emissions (Hecht 2009).
For much of its history, the USEPA has wrestled with how to define the optimum
regulatory framework for implementing sustainability policies. Many USEPA
administrators have inched the agency forward, adapting to changing environmental
issues and slowly moving to make sustainability a key element of environmental
policy (Grossarth and Hecht 2007).
One historic effort by the USEPA to promote sustainability came in its 1993
report to Congress, “Sustainable Development and the Environmental Protection
Agency.” Prompted by international events such as the 1992 Rio Earth Summit,
Congress was “interested in USEPA’s effort to explore the concept of sustainable
development.” In particular, the committee was interested in how environmental
concerns can be best incorporated in national, State, and local development and
economic planning and decision-making processes (USEPA 1993).
Acknowledging that the USEPA “has not employed the concept of sustainability
explicitly in an overall policy framework or programmatic objective,” the 1993
report saw the problem as a consequence of a number of concerns including the
“minor role that sustainability plays in USEPA’s statutory authority”—a factor that
remains highly relevant today. The Report to Congress also noted that “the full
scope of planning and implementation of sustainable development policies extended
well beyond the purview of USEPA.”
While this is obviously true, the role that the USEPA can play in organizing and
integrating its own programs is a more practical challenge. Today almost every fed-
eral agency is wrestling with how to make sustainability operational. Consequently,
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has expanded the goal of
the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources to include Sustainability
(CENRS). Major thrusts of the broadened CENRS are to coordinate across federal
agencies and to promote the use of sustainability science in advancing a greener or
more sustainable economic growth (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
eop/ostp/nstc/committees/cenrs).
In its 1993 report to Congress, the USEPA concluded that the concept of sustainable
development “provides a useful framework for discussion of the Nation’s long-term
environment and economic priorities, although these concepts have not been devel-
oped yet to the extent that they provide a basis for EPA’s operational planning”
(USEPA 1993). The 1993 report failed to recognize the important role that USEPA
science and technology could play in achieving sustainability.
Ten years later, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) under the
leadership of Paul Gilman launched a renewed effort on sustainability. The
independent-minded Gilman knew that the task of advancing sustainability was not
going to be easy. His political advisor and communications director confirmed this,
stating in 2003 that the concept of sustainability had “no political traction.”
Fortunately, this atmosphere slowly changed and by the end of 2007, the same polit-
ical appointee assured me that it was “OK to talk about sustainability.” Gilman’s
vision was to move ORD research beyond its decades-long focus on supporting
regulatory development through risk assessment and management, which had
gained currency during the 1990s, as the USEPA faced and had to prioritize a large
set of responsibilities and as advanced technology allowed for improved detection
of potentially toxic chemicals.
Paul Anastas, USEPA’s Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
from 2009 to early 2012 and a widely respected researcher and author on green chem-
istry, vigorously promoted ORD’s research programs to address sustainability declar-
ing that USEPA science and research must inform, enable, and empower sustainable
solutions to the challenges posed to human health and the environment. He emphasized
that understanding problems is important and essential, but the only reason to under-
stand a problem deeply is to empower its solution. A diagnosis alone is not a cure,
Anastas insisted: we must facilitate solutions to the environmental problems we face.
ORD has moved through five phases, each aimed at advancing sustainability sci-
ence and innovation. In the mid-1990s, it promoted its “Pollution Prevention
Research Strategy” aimed “at implementing a program for systematic research and
development activities to carry pollution prevention into the twenty-first century
and toward the realization of sustainable development.” A key objective of this
research program was to improve and develop genetic tools and methodologies such
as LCA, which today is a major decision support tool in industry and government.
Recognizing the importance of consumer and public support for sustainability, the
strategy pioneered new efforts to “develop economic, social, and behavioral tools to
improve environmental policies and programs.” (http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/docu-
ments/p2.pdf).
This pioneering work was later transferred into the ORD “Sustainability Research
Strategy” which attempted to make sustainability an integrating concept across its
programs. It used the concept of living laboratories (regional and state projects) to
transfer sustainability concepts to users. It began such transfer through its
Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability (CNS) program
and by funding scores of CNS projects that connected diverse sets of partners
including universities, federal agencies, and local governments. It also began
research to focus on metrics, decision support tools, and technology development.
In a third phase from 2005 to 2007, ORD continued its move toward a more
systems-based approach as it developed a sustainability research strategy that
focused on systems management. Toward this end, ORD transitioned its Pollution
Prevention and New Technologies research program into the Science and Technology
for Sustainability (STS) research program. In a fourth phase from 2007 to 2010,
ORD responding to guidance from its Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the Board
of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) began to apply sustainability research to particular
areas of national significance, selecting the goal of sustainable biofuels as an initial
area of emphasis.
92 A.D. Hecht
Today ORD is aiming to make sustainability its “true north.” Toward this goal, it
is developing research linkages and themes around transdisciplinary research and
systems analysis (Fiksel et al. 2009). Making sustainability operational will require
realignment of USEPA science into a more systems-oriented approach and acknowl-
edgement of the need for developing models that advance the concept of resilience—
the capacity for an enterprise to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent
change (Fiksel 2006). In a complex, connected, and uncertain world, resilience will
enable human systems to cope successfully with continual waves of change.
In the USEPA and across ORD, making sustainability operational will require an
integrated organizational management strategy so that science and management can
reinforce each other and lead to a more innovative regulatory and policy framework.
ORD has already taken initial steps toward this type of transformation and has asked
the National Academies of Sciences to consider how to incorporate the theme of sus-
tainability into all of USEPA’s activities. An ad hoc committee under the NRC’s STS
program has prepared a consensus report addressing several central questions:
• What should be the operational framework for sustainability for USEPA?
• How can the USEPA decision-making process rooted for more than two decades
in the risk assessment/risk management paradigm be integrated into this new
sustainability framework?
• What scientific and analytical tools are needed to support the framework?
• What set of strategic metrics and indicators should the USEPA build to deter-
mine if sustainable approaches are or are not being employed successfully?
• Which assessment techniques and accounting protocols should the USEPA
adopt to inform ongoing efforts to improve its sustainability practices and
procedures?
The NRC study aims to help the USEPA overcome its stove-piped and frag-
mented organization. NRC panel member Terry Davies describes the challenges
USEPA faces, noting that the laws and the agency focus on pollution control,
whereas the emphasis needs to be on prevention. Summing up his preliminary
remarks to the NAS committee, Davies said what the agency needs is a global per-
spective, a fast response time, a focus on products rather than waste, a foundation of
science rather than law, a sympathetic approach to economic growth, an anticipa-
tory rather than reactionary stance, a system for self-evaluation, and a renewed
emphasis on data.
One of the major challenges for moving sustainability forward and making
USEPA an agency committed to sustainability has been the question of how this
regulatory agency created to address pollution control could evolve over 40 years
and undertake activities to address new problems resulting from population increases,
urbanization, and global economic growth. The USEPA has made substantial prog-
ress over the decades in addressing obvious and highly visible pollution issues. But
in many cases, the USEPA has been reactive to issues rather than getting out in front
of them. The sustainability challenge is in effect anticipating future problems, see-
ing them in an integrated manner, and using all available tools to address them.
Developing sustainable solutions to existing and future environmental and human

health problems raises complex scientific and technological issues that cannot be
addressed using traditional approaches. If the USEPA is to solve these challenging
problems, it must employ integrated systems thinking that complements traditional
single-discipline approaches. In all aspects of our work, from problem identification
and definition to research design and implementation, ORD must involve the widest
span of disciplines to bring different perspectives to the table.
Need for a National Sustainability Policy
While many federal agency reports deal with a range of sustainability issues, there
is no government-wide management strategy that focuses on key national issues
related to sustainability. “Measuring the Green Economy,” a new Department of
Commerce baseline report published with contributions from many agencies, begins
to advance a collective strategy to accelerate the green economy (US Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistical Administration 2010). Data in this report
reveal that green products and services comprised only 1–2% of the total business
economy in 2007 and the economy has between 1.8 and 2.4 million green jobs—
indicating that we have a long way to go to achieve a green economy. The modest
numbers in the Commerce report are a starting point for the use of the well-defined
metrics necessary for measuring future growth in green sectors of the economy.
National policy is essential for promoting renewable energies, regulating GHGs,
and adapting to climate change, which are evolving and cross-cutting dimensions
that affect virtually all federal agencies.
Two executive orders—one issued by President George W. Bush and the other by
President Barack Obama—have attempted to make sustainability operational in
managing government buildings and other facilities. In January 2007, President
Bush signed Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental,
Energy, and Transportation Management,” which sets goals in the areas of energy
efficiency, acquisitions, renewable energy, toxics reductions, recycling, sustainable
buildings, electronics stewardship, vehicle fleets, and water conservation. This
Order explicitly directs heads of federal agencies to implement sustainable practices
in these areas, and specifies that “sustainable” means “creat[ing] and maintain[ing]
conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that
permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future
generations of Americans” (Bush 2007).
In 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13514, “Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance,” which directs each federal
agency to appoint a sustainability czar to oversee efforts to reduce GHGs and
enhance energy efficiency (Obama 2009). Managing federal facilities is a narrower
and thus easier task than creating sustainability polices that many agencies would
manage under the constraints of federal statutes.
94 A.D. Hecht
The collective impact of federal policies is only now leading to recognition that
sustainability is an integrating concept, tool, and objective that calls for coordinat-
ing policies affecting land, water, and air policies must be coordinated. For example,
a successful national energy policy is not based on technology alone, but also on
effective management of policies affecting land, water, and air. Policies and regula-
tions must be linked to create sustainable national strategies. And we need a national
sustainability policy taking into account both national and international issues.
To serve in much the same way that the annual National Security Strategy guides
federal policies in the security area, we need a National Sustainability Strategy
(NSS). The 2010 National Security Strategy lays out a strategic approach for advanc-
ing American interests, including the security of the American people, a growing
US economy, support for our values, and an international order that can address
twenty-first century challenges. In an analogous fashion, the NSS would serve as a
strategic outline for achieving a greener economy through a convergence of business
practices and federal policies and regulations. The NSS should define long-term
goals and define a set of indicators or metrics to measure results. It should parallel
the National Intelligence Council’s role in anticipating and preparing for future
challenges. For example, the NIC’s “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World”
looks at how key global trends might impact world events in the coming 15 years
(http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html).
Most federal agencies are reassessing their roles in advancing sustainability. The
USEPA will obviously play a critical role in achieving these goals but the issues
extend beyond the USEPA with its environmental regulatory focus to nearly all
federal agencies—hence the need for a coordinated national strategy. For example,
the USEPA’s work in the water area is heavily dependent upon activities of the US
Geological Survey and state agencies. The success of endangered species protection
programs relies on collaboration among the Department of the Interior’s Fish and
Wildlife Service, the USEPA, the states, and many non-government organizations.
The effectiveness of climate change programs depends on USEPA collaboration
with the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration in the Department of
Commerce and with the states. The USEPA should be one of several federal agen-
cies helping us move toward a new environmental management approach that is
better suited to the complex and urgent environmental problems of today and the
future (Fiksel et al. 2009). At its core the agency must embrace and institutionalize
sustainability.
Conclusions
This paper has reviewed why has the concept of sustainability been so difficult to
advance in the US federal government and how new environmental, economic, and
social drivers are operating to better define sustainability and to make it operational
in business and in government. Much of the business world now sees sustainability
as a means to reduce long-term risk, reduce costs, and enhance competitiveness.
Many government leaders now see sustainability as essential to domestic well-being,

economic growth, and international security as it relates to poverty and social unrest,
food security, energy use, and availability of material resources. Advances in sci-
ence and technology are essential to promote innovation and sustainable solutions.
Public understanding and support is also crucial if sustainability is to become opera-
tional. Only with effective federal coordination of these vital and interacting
elements—green business strategies, regulations and policies, science and technology,
and public support—can we achieve sustainability.
Moving toward sustainability will require overcoming bureaucratic stovepipes
and fostering coordination within and across agencies and between government and
business. For the USEPA this means using science not only to fulfill its mandate to
develop and enforce regulations to protect human health and the environment but
also to move beyond the current regulatory framework in order to develop and
implement a more integrated, systems-based, and cross-media approach to address
environmental management.
A promising approach to making sustainability operational in the United States
would be the creation of an annual NSS that would define long-term goals and better
inform the public about the emerging global sustainability issues and how to effec-
tively deal with them. Like the National Security Strategy, the NSS would outline a
coordinated national strategy to achieve crucial short- and long-term national
goals—in this case, that of a more sustainable economy. The strategy should define
a set of indicators or metrics to measure results and parallel what the National
Intelligence Council does in anticipating and preparing for future challenges. More
than ever, it is “OK to talk about sustainability.”
Acknowledgment The author is grateful to Edward Fallon for his valuable suggestions and edit-
ing. Thanks to Joseph Fiksel for drafting Fig. 1.
References
Alms H, Schanz K-U (2008) Capitalising on natural resources: new dynamics in financial markets.
Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue, The Sustainability Forum, Zürich
Ambachtsheer J, Kron J, Liroff RA, Little T, Massey R (2007) Fiduciary guide to toxic chemical
risk. Investor Environmental Health Network and the Rose Foundation for Communities and
the Environment, Arlington, VA
Bush GW (2007) Executive order 13423: strengthening federal environmental, energy, and trans-
portation management. Federal register 72(17) (Jan 24), 3919–3923
Business Week (2007) Beyond the green corporation (Jan 29). http://www.businessweek.com/
magazine/content/07_05/b4019001.htm. Accessed 26 March 2012
European Council (2000) Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000 presidency conclusions.
Lisbon. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm. Accessed 26 March 2012
Fiksel J (2006) Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustain: Sci, Pract, and
Policy 2:14–21
Fiksel J, Graedel T, Hecht AD et al (2009) USEPA at 40: bringing environmental protection into
the 21st century. Environ Sci Technol 43:8716–8720
Global Footprint Network (2010). www.footprintnetwork.org. Accessed 26 March 2012
96 A.D. Hecht
Grossarth SK, Hecht AD (2007) Sustainability at the US Environmental Protection Agency,

1970-2020. Ecol Eng 30:1–8
Hammond A, Kramer W, Tran J et al (2007) The next 4 billion: market size and business strategy
at the base of the pyramid. World Resources Institute and International Finance Corporation,
Washington, DC
Hecht AD (2007) The next level of environmental protection: business strategies and government
policies converging on sustainability. Sustainable Dev Law Pol 7(Fall):19–25
Hecht AD (2009) Resolving the climate wars. Sustain Dev Law Pol 4:4–5
Larsson A, Azar C, Sterner T et al (2002) Technology and policy for sustainable development.
Centre for Environment and Sustainability at Chalmers University of Technology and the
Göteborg University, Goteborg
Lubin DA, Esty DC (2010) The sustainability imperative: lessons for leaders from previous game-
changing megatrends. Harv Bus Rev (May):42–50
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island
Press, Washington, DC
Nidumolu RA, Prahalad CK, Rangaswami MR (2009) Why sustainability is now the key driver of
innovation. Harv Bus Rev (Sept):87:56–64
Obama B (2009) Executive Order 13514, Federal leadership in environmental, energy, and eco-
nomic performance. Federal register74/194 (Oct 5), 52117–52127
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2002) Sustainability survey report. PricewaterhouseCoopers, New
York
Marks & Spencer (2010a) 100 ways to make a difference: the plan. http://plana.marksandspencer.
com/about/the-plan. Accessed 26 March 2012
Marks & Spencer (2010b) Your M&S: how we do business report. Marks & Spencer, London.
http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/documents/publications/2010/How_We_Do_
Business_Report_2010. Accessed 18 Feb 2011
Sullivan N, Schiafo R (2005) Talking green, acting dirty. The NY Times, June 12
UN General Assembly (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development:
our common future. United Nations General Assembly, New York
US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistical Administration (2010) Measuring the
green economy. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington
USEPA (1993) Sustainable development and the Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA report
to congress. USEPA 230 R-93-005, Washington, DC
Weiss J (2009) Local governance and sustainability: major progress, significant challenges. In:
Dernbach J (ed) Agenda for a sustainable America. Environmental Law Institute, Washington,
DC
Winston A (2009) Green recovery: get lean, get smart, and emerge from the downturn on top.
Harvard Business Press, Boston
World Bank Group (2008) Sustainable infrastructure action plan FY 2009-2011. International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank Group, Washington, DC
Part II
Balancing Ecology and Economy:
Natural Capital and Quality of Life
In addressing the issue of sustainability, John Peterson Meyers posed the fundamental
question: “how much of the earth’s ecological integrity can we disrupt before we
pass a threshold in the loss of life-support services?” In this section, we consider
ecosystem services and natural capital as the conditions and processes through
which undisturbed ecosystems, and the species that comprise them, sustain and
fulfill human life. Not only do these services maintain biodiversity, but also they
produce ecosystem goods that are of direct value to the world’s economies. Relative
to sustainability, new and truly integrated assessments and models of the quality,
quantity, and spatial and temporal dynamics of ecosystem services and the various
aspects of their connection to human well-being in the long run are needed.
The Value of Natural and Social Capital in Our
Current Full World and in a Sustainable and
Desirable Future
Robert Costanza
Abstract Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.
These include provisioning services, such as food and water; regulating services,
such as regulation of floods, drought, and disease; supporting services, such as soil
formation and nutrient cycling; and cultural services, such as recreational, spiritual,
and other nonmaterial benefits. These benefits may or may not be fully perceived by
people. Most are outside the market exchange system and are best thought of and
managed as public goods (the commons). Ecosystems are experiencing serious deg-
radation in regard to their capability of providing services. At the same time, the
demand for ecosystem services is rapidly increasing as populations and standards of
living increase.
Keywords Quality of life • Happiness • Sustainable well-being • Full world • Lisbon

principles • Genuine Progress Indicator
Introduction
As the world has moved from one relatively empty of humans and their artifacts to
one increasingly full of humans and their artifacts, the value of our natural and
social capital assets (the commons) has become significantly more important to
sustaining human happiness and well-being than marketed goods and services
(as measured by GDP). In this world we must better assess, model, and value our
natural and social capital assets. A sustainable and desirable future is one that
respects biophysical boundaries, distributes resources and responsibilities fairly,
and adequately values and balances built, human, social and natural capital assets.
R. Costanza (*)
Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University,
Portland, OR 97201, USA
100 R. Costanza
From an Empty to a Full World
The mainstream model of development (also known as the “Washington consen-

sus”) is based on a number of assumptions about the way the world works, what the
economy is, and what the economy is for (Table 1). These assumptions were created
during a period when the world was still relatively empty of humans and their built
infrastructure. In this “empty world” context, built capital was the limiting factor,
while natural capital and social capital were abundant. It made sense, in that con-
text, not to worry too much about environmental and social “externalities” since
they could be assumed to be relatively small and ultimately solvable. It made sense
to focus on the growth of the market economy, as measured by GDP, as a primary
Table 1 Basic characteristics of the current development model and the emerging sustainable and
desirable “ecological economics” development model
Sustainable and desirable
Current development model: development model: an emerging
the “Washington Consensus” “Green Consensus”
Primary policy goal More: economic growth in the Better: focus must shift from
conventional sense, as merely growth to “develop-
measured by GDP. The ment” in the real sense of
assumption is that growth improvement in quality of life,
will ultimately allow the recognizing that growth has
solution of all other negative by-products and more
problems. More is always is not always better
better
Primary measure of GDP GPI (or similar)
progress
Scale/carrying capacity Not an issue since markets are A primary concern as a determi-
assumed to be able to nant of ecological sustainabil-
overcome any resource ity. Natural capital and
limits via new technology ecosystem services are not
and substitutes for resources infinitely substitutable and real
are always available limits exist
Distribution/poverty Lip service, but relegated to A primary concern since it directly
“politics” and a “trickle affects quality of life and social
down” policy: a rising tide capital and in some very real
lifts all boats senses is often exacerbated by
growth: a too rapidly rising
tide only lifts yachts, while
swamping small boats
Economic efficiency/ The primary concern, but A primary concern, but including
allocation generally including only both market and nonmarket
marketed goods and goods and services and effects.
services (GDP) and Emphasizes the need to
institutions incorporate the value of natural
and social capital to achieve
true allocative efficiency
(continued)
The Value of Natural and Social Capital in Our Current Full World… 101
Table 1 (continued)
Sustainable and desirable
Current development model: development model: an emerging
the “Washington Consensus” “Green Consensus”
Property rights Emphasis on private property Emphasis on a balance of property
and conventional markets rights regimes appropriate to
the nature and scale of the
system, and a linking of rights
with responsibilities. A larger
role for common property
institutions in addition to
private and state property
Role of government To be minimized and replaced A central role, including new
with private and market functions as referee, facilitator
institutions and broker in a new suite of
common asset institutions
Principles of governance Laissez faire market capitalism Lisbon principles of sustainable
governance
means to improve human welfare. It made sense, in that context, to think of the
economy as only marketed goods and services and to think of the goal as increasing
the amount of these goods and services produced and consumed.
But the world has changed dramatically. We now live in a world relatively full of
humans and their built capital infrastructure. In this new context, we have to recon-
ceptualize what the economy is and what it is for. We have to first remember that the
goal of the economy is to sustainably improve human well-being and quality of life.
We have to remember that material consumption and GDP are merely means to that
end, not ends in themselves. We have to recognize, as both ancient wisdom and new
psychological research tell us, that material consumption beyond real need can actu-
ally reduce our well-being. We have to better understand what really does contribute
to sustainable human well-being, and recognize the substantial contributions of
natural and social capital, which are now the limiting factors to sustainable human
well-being in many countries. We have to be able to distinguish between real pov-
erty in terms of low quality of life and merely low monetary income. Ultimately, we
have to create a new vision of what the economy is and what it is for and a new
model of development that acknowledges this new full world context and vision
(Table 1).
Quality of Life, Happiness, and the Real Economy
There is a substantial body of new research on what actually contributes to human

well-being and quality of life (Costanza et al. 2008). This new “science of happi-
ness” clearly demonstrates the limits of conventional economic income and con-
sumption in contributing to well-being. Kasser (2003) points out, for instance, that
102 R. Costanza
people who focus on material consumption as a path to happiness are actually less
happy and even suffer higher rates of both physical and mental illnesses than those
who do not. Material consumption beyond real need is a form of psychological
“junk food” that only satisfies for the moment and ultimately leads to depression.
Easterlin (2003) has shown that well-being tends to correlate well with health,
level of education, and marital status, and not very well with income beyond a cer-
tain fairly low threshold. He concludes that:
People make decisions assuming that more income, comfort, and positional goods will make
them happier, failing to recognize that hedonic adaptation and social comparison will come
into play, raise their aspirations to about the same extent as their actual gains, and leave them
feeling no happier than before. As a result, most individuals spend a disproportionate amount
of their lives working to make money, and sacrifice family life and health, domains in which
aspirations remain fairly constant as actual circumstances change, and where the attainment
of one’s goals has a more lasting impact on happiness. Hence, a reallocation of time in favor
of family life and health would, on average, increase individual happiness.
Layard (2005) synthesizes many of these ideas and concludes that current
economic policies are not improving happiness and that “happiness should become
the goal of policy, and the progress of national happiness should be measured and
analyzed as closely as the growth of GNP.”
Frank (2000) also concludes that some nations would be better off—overall
national well-being would be higher, that is—if we actually consumed less and
spent more time with family and friends, working for our communities, maintaining
our physical and mental health, and enjoying nature.
On this last point, there is substantial and growing evidence that natural systems
contribute heavily to human well-being. Costanza et al. (1997a) estimated the
annual, nonmarket value of the earth’s ecosystem services at $33 trillion/year, sub-
stantially larger than global GDP at the time and yet an almost certainly a conserva-
tive underestimate. The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) is a
global compendium addressing the status and trends of ecosystem services and their
contributions to human well-being.
So, if we want to assess the “real” economy—all the things which contribute to
real, sustainable, human well-being—as opposed to only the “market” economy, we
have to measure and include the nonmarketed contributions to human well-being
from nature; from family, friends, and other social relationships at many scales; and
from health and education. One convenient way to summarize these contributions is
to group them into four basic types of capital that are necessary to support the real,
human-well-being-producing economy: built capital, human capital, social capital,
and natural capital.
The market economy covers mainly built capital (factories, offices, and other built
infrastructure and their products) and part of human capital (spending on labor,
health, and education), with some limited spillover into the other two. Human capital
includes the health, knowledge, and all the other attributes of individual humans that
allow them to function in a complex society. Social capital includes all the formal and
informal networks among people: family, friends, and neighbors, as well as social
institutions at all levels, like churches, social clubs, local, state, and national govern-
ments, NGOs, and international organizations. Natural capital includes the world’s
ecosystems and all the services they provide. Ecosystem services occur at many
scales, from climate regulation at the global scale, to flood protection, soil formation,
nutrient cycling, recreation, and aesthetic services at the local and regional scales.
Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services
“Ecosystem services” (ES) are the ecological characteristics, functions, or processes

that directly or indirectly contribute to human well-being—the benefits people
derive from functioning ecosystems (Costanza et al. 1997a; MEA 2005). Ecosystem
processes and functions may contribute to ecosystem services but they are not syn-
onymous. Ecosystem processes and functions describe biophysical relationships
and exist regardless of whether or not humans benefit (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007;
Granek et al. 2010). Ecosystem services, on the other hand, only exist if they con-
tribute to human well-being and cannot be defined independently.
The ecosystems that provide the services are sometimes referred to as “natural
capital,” using the general definition of capital as a stock that yields a flow of ser-
vices over time (Costanza and Daly 1992). In order for these benefits to be realized,
natural capital (which does not require human activity to build or maintain) must be
combined with other forms of capital that do require human agency to build and
maintain. These include (1) built or manufactured capital, (2) human capital, and (3)
social or cultural capital (Costanza et al. 1997b).
These four general types of capital are all required in complex combinations to
produce any and all human benefits. Ecosystem services thus refer to the relative
contribution of natural capital to the production of various human benefits, in com-
bination with the three other forms of capital. These benefits can involve the use,
nonuse, option to use, or mere appreciation of the existence of natural capital.
The following categorization of ecosystem services has been used by the MEA
(2005):
(a) Provisioning services—ecosystem services that combine with built, human, and
social capital to produce food, timber, fiber, or other “provisioning” benefits.
For example, fish delivered to people as food require fishing boats (built capi-
tal), fisherfolk (human capital), and fishing communities (social capital) to
produce.
(b) Regulating services—services that regulate different aspects of the integrated
system. These are services that combine with the other three capitals to produce
flood control, storm protection, water regulation, human disease regulation,
water purification, air quality maintenance, pollination, pest control, and cli-
mate control. For example, storm protection by coastal wetlands requires built
infrastructure, people, and communities to be protected. These services are gen-
erally not marketed but have clear value to society.
(c) Cultural services—ecosystem services that combine with built, human, and social
capital to produce recreation, aesthetic, scientific, cultural identity, sense of place,
104 R. Costanza
or other “cultural” benefits. For example, to produce a recreational benefit

requires a beautiful natural asset (a lake), in combination with built infrastructure
(a road, trail, dock, etc.), human capital (people able to appreciate the lake experi-
ence), and social capital (family, friends, and institutions that make the lake
accessible and safe). Even “existence” and other “nonuse” values’ require people
(human capital) and their cultures (social and built capital) to appreciate.
(d) Supporting “services”—services that maintain basic ecosystem processes and
functions such as soil formation, primary productivity, biogeochemistry, and
provisioning of habitat. These services affect human well-being indirectly by
maintaining processes necessary for provisioning, regulating, and cultural ser-
vices. They also refer to the ecosystem services that have not yet or may never
be intentionally combined with built, human, and social capital to produce
human benefits but that support or underlie these benefits and may sometimes
be used as proxies for benefits when the benefits cannot be easily measured
directly. For example, net primary production (NPP) is an ecosystem function
that supports carbon sequestration and removal from the atmosphere, which
combines with built, human, and social capital to provide the benefit of climate
regulation. Some would argue that these “supporting” services should rightly be
defined as ecosystem “functions,” since they may not yet have interacted with
the other three forms of capital to create benefits. I agree with this in principle,
but recognize that supporting services/functions may sometimes be used as
proxies for services in the other categories.
This categorization suggests a very broad definition of services, limited only by
the requirement of a contribution to human well-being. Even without any subse-
quent valuation, explicitly listing the services derived from an ecosystem can help
ensure appropriate recognition of the full range of potential impacts of a given pol-
icy option. This can help make the analysis of ecological systems more transparent
and can help inform decision makers of the relative merits of different options
before them.
Are We Really Making Progress?
Given this definition of the real economy, are we really making progress? Is the
mainstream development model really working, even in the “developed” countries?
One way to tell is through surveys of people’s life satisfaction, which have been
relatively flat in the USA and many other developed countries since about 1975.
A second approach is an aggregate measure of the real economy that has been devel-
oped as an alternative to GDP called the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare
(ISEW—Daly and Cobb 1989) and more recently renamed the Genuine Progress
Indicator (GPI—Cobb et al. 1995).
Let’s first take a quick look at the problems with GDP as a measure of true human
well-being. GDP is not only limited—measuring only marketed economic activity
or gross income—it also counts all of this activity as positive. It does not separate
desirable, well-being-enhancing activity from undesirable well-being-reducing

activity. For example, an oil spill increases GDP because someone has to clean it up,
but it obviously detracts from society’s well-being. From the perspective of GDP,
more crime, more sickness, more war, more pollution, more fires, storms, and pesti-
lence are all potentially good things, because they can increase marketed activity in
the economy.
GDP also leaves out many things that do enhance well-being but are outside the
market. For example, the unpaid work of parents caring for their own children at
home does not show up, but if these same parents decide to work outside the home
to pay for child care, GDP suddenly increases. The nonmarketed work of natural
capital in providing clean air and water, food, natural resources, and other ecosys-
tem services does not adequately show up in GDP, either, but if those services are
damaged and we have to pay to fix or replace them, then GDP suddenly increases.
Finally, GDP takes no account of the distribution of income among individuals. But
it is well known that an additional $1 worth of income produces more well-being if
one is poor rather than rich. It is also clear that a highly skewed income distribution
has negative effects on a society’s social capital.
The GPI addresses these problems by separating the positive from the negative
components of marketed economic activity, adding in estimates of the value of non-
marketed goods and services provided by natural, human, and social capital, and
adjusting for income-distribution effects. While it is by no means a perfect represen-
tation of the real well-being of nations, GPI is a much better approximation than
GDP. As Amartya Sen and others have noted, it is much better to be approximately
right in these measures than precisely wrong.
Comparing GDP and GPI for the USA shows that, while GDP has steadily
increased since 1950, with the occasional dip or recession, GPI peaked in about
1975 and has been flat or gradually decreasing ever since. From the perspective of
the real economy, as opposed to just the market economy, the USA has been in reces-
sion since 1975. As already mentioned, this picture is also consistent with survey-
based research on people’s stated life satisfaction. The USA and several other
developed countries are now in a period of what Herman Daly has called “un-eco-
nomic growth,” where further growth in marketed economic activity (GDP) is actu-
ally reducing well-being on balance rather than enhancing it. In terms of the four
capitals, while built capital has grown, human, social, and natural capital have
declined or remained constant and more than canceled out the gains in built capital.
A New Sustainable, Ecological Model of Development
A new model of development consistent with our new full world context (Table 1)
would be based clearly on the goal of sustainable human well-being. It would use
measures of progress that clearly acknowledge this goal (i.e., GPI instead of GDP).
It would acknowledge the importance of ecological sustainability, social fairness,
and real economic efficiency.
106 R. Costanza
Ecological sustainability implies recognizing that natural and social capital are
not infinitely substitutable for built and human capital, and that real biophysical
limits exist to the expansion of the market economy. Climate change is perhaps the
most obvious and compelling of these limits.
Social fairness implies recognizing that the distribution of wealth is an important
determinant of social capital and quality of life. The conventional development
model, while explicitly aimed at reducing poverty, has bought into the assumption
that the best way to do this is through growth in GDP. This has not proved to be the
case and explicit attention to distribution issues is sorely needed. As Frank (2007)
has argued, economic growth beyond a certain point sets up a “positional arms race”
that changes the consumption context and forces everyone to consume too much of
easily seen positional goods (like houses and cars) at the expense of nonmarketed,
nonpositional goods and services from natural and social capital. Increasing inequal-
ity of income actually reduces overall societal well-being, not just for the poor, but
across the income spectrum (Wilkenson and Pickett 2009).
Real economic efficiency implies including all resources that affect sustainable
human well-being in the allocation system, not just marketed goods and services.
Our current market allocation system excludes most nonmarketed natural and
social capital assets and services that are huge contributors to human well-being.
The current development model ignores this and therefore does not achieve real
economic efficiency. A new, sustainable ecological development model would
measure and include the contributions of natural and social capital and could better
approximate real economic efficiency.
The new development model would also acknowledge that a complex range of
property rights regimes are necessary to adequately manage the full range of resources
that contribute to human well-being. For example, most natural and social capital
assets are public goods. Making them private property does not work well. On the
other hand, leaving them as open access resources (with no property rights) does not
work well either. What is needed is a third way to propertize these resources without
privatizing them. Several new (and old) common property rights systems have been
proposed to achieve this goal, including various forms of common property trusts.
The role of government also needs to be reinvented. In addition to government’s
role in regulating and policing the private market economy, it has a significant role
to play in expanding the “commons sector” that can propertize and manage nonmar-
keted natural and social capital assets. It also has a major role to play as facilitator
of societal development of a shared vision of what a sustainable and desirable future
would look like. Strong democracy based on developing a shared vision is an essen-
tial prerequisite to building a sustainable and desirable future (Prugh et al. 2000).
This new vision implies a core set of principles for sustainable governance.
Principles of Sustainable Governance
The key to achieving sustainable governance in the new full world context is an
integrated (across disciplines, stakeholder groups, and generations) approach based
on the paradigm of “adaptive management,” whereby policy-making is an iterative

experiment acknowledging uncertainty, rather than a static “answer.” Within this
paradigm, six core principles (the Lisbon principles) that embody the essential
criteria for sustainable governance have been proposed (Costanza et al. 1998). Some
of them are already well accepted in the international community (e.g., Principle 3);
others are variations on well-known themes (e.g., Principle 2 is an extension of the
subsidiary principle); while others are relatively new in international policy, although
they have been well developed elsewhere (e.g., Principle 4). The six Principles
together form an indivisible collection of basic guidelines governing the use of
common natural and social capital assets.
• Principle 1: Responsibility. Access to common asset resources carries attendant
responsibilities to use them in an ecologically sustainable, economically efficient,
and socially fair manner. Individual and corporate responsibilities and incentives
should be aligned with each other and with broad social and ecological goals.
• Principle 2: Scale-matching. Problems of managing natural and social capital
assets are rarely confined to a single scale. Decision-making should (1) be
assigned to institutional levels that maximize input, (2) ensure the flow of infor-
mation between institutional levels, (3) take ownership and actors into account,
and (4) internalize costs and benefits. Appropriate scales of governance will be
those that have the most relevant information, can respond quickly and efficiently,
and are able to integrate across scale boundaries.
• Principle 3: Precaution. In the face of uncertainty about potentially irreversible
impacts to natural and social capital assets, decisions concerning their use should
err on the side of caution. The burden of proof should shift to those whose activi-
ties potentially damage natural and social capital.
• Principle 4: Adaptive management. Given that some level of uncertainty always
exists in common asset management, decision-makers should continuously
gather and integrate appropriate ecological, social, and economic information
with the goal of adaptive improvement.
• Principle 5: Full cost allocation. All of the internal and external costs and
benefits, including social and ecological, of alternative decisions concerning the
use of natural and social capital should be identified and allocated. When appro-
priate, markets should be adjusted to reflect full costs.
• Principle 6: Participation. All stakeholders should be engaged in the formula-
tion and implementation of decisions concerning natural and social capital assets.
Full stakeholder awareness and participation contributes to credible, accepted
rules that identify and assign the corresponding responsibilities appropriately.
Some Policies to Achieve Real, Sustainable Development
The conventional development model is not working, for either the developed or the
developing world. It is not sustainable and it is also not desirable. It is based on a
now obsolete empty world vision and it is leading us to disaster. We need to accept
108 R. Costanza
that we now live in a full world context where natural and social capital are the
limiting factors. We could achieve a much higher quality of life, and one that would
be ecologically sustainable, socially fair, and economically efficient, if we shift to a
new sustainable development paradigm that incorporates these principles.
The problem is that our entire modern global civilization is, as even former
President Bush has acknowledged, “addicted to oil” and addicted to consumption
and the conventional development model in general. An addictive substance is
something one has developed a dependence on, which is either not necessary or
harmful to one’s longer term well-being. Fossil fuels (and excessive material con-
sumption in general) fit the bill. We can power our economies with renewable
energy, and we can be happier with lower levels of consumption, but we must first
break our addiction to fossil fuels, consumption, and the conventional development
model, and as any addict can tell you: “that ain’t easy.” But in order to break an
addiction of any kind, one must first clearly see the benefits of breaking it and the
costs of remaining addicted, facts that accumulating studies like the IPCC reports,
the Stern Review (2007), the MEA (2005), and many others are making more apparent
every day.
What else can we do to help break this addiction? Here are a few suggestions.
• Create and share a vision of a future with zero fossil fuel use and a quality of life
higher than today. That will involve understanding that GDP is a means to an
end, not the end itself, and that in some countries today more GDP actually
results in less human well-being (while in others the reverse is still true). It will
require a focus on sustainable scale and just distribution. It will require an entirely
new and broader vision of what the economy is, what it’s for, and how it
functions.
• Convene a “new Bretton Woods” conference to establish the new measures and
institutions needed to replace GDP, the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO.
These new institutions would promote:
– Shifting primary national policy goals from increasing marketed economic
activity (GDP) to maximizing national well-being (GPI or something simi-
lar). This would allow us to see the interconnections between built, human,
social, and natural capital, and build real well-being in a balanced and sustain-
able way.
– Reforming tax systems to send the right incentives by taxing negatives (pollu-
tion, depletion of natural capital, overconsumption) rather than positives
(labor, savings, investment).
– Expanding the commons sector by developing new institutions that can prop-
ertize the commons without privatizing them. Examples include various forms
of common asset trusts, like the atmospheric (or sky) trust (Barnes et al. 2008)
payments for depletion of natural and social capital and rewards for protec-
tion of these assets.
– Reforming international trade to promote well-being over mere GDP
growth. This implies protecting natural capital, labor rights, and democratic
self-determination first and then allowing trade, rather than promoting the
current trade rules that ride roughshod over all other societal values and
ignore nonmarket contributions to well-being.
We can break our addiction to fossil fuels, overconsumption, and the current devel-
opment model and create a more sustainable and desirable future. It will not be easy,
and it will require a new vision, new measures, and new institutions. It will require
a directed evolution of our entire society (Beddoe et al. 2009). But it is not a sacrifice
of quality of life to break this addiction. Quite the contrary, it is a sacrifice not to.
Acknowledgments Versions of parts of this chapter have appeared in previously published works
with a range of co-authors. I thank the co-authors of those works and Michael P. Weinstein for
helpful comments on earlier drafts.
References
Barnes PR, Costanza P, Hawken D et al (2008) Creating an earth atmospheric trust. Science
319:724
Beddoe R, Costanza R, Farley J et al (2009) Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the
evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions and technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
106:2483–2489
Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? Ecol Econ 63:616–626
Cobb C, Halstead T, Rowe J (1995) The genuine progress indicator: summary of data and method-
ology. Redefining Progress, San Francisco
Costanza R, Daly HE (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv Biol 6:37–46
Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997a) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387:253–260
Costanza R, Cumberland JC, Daly HE et al (1997b) An introduction to ecological economics. St.
Lucie Press, Boca Raton
Costanza R, Andrade F, Antunes P et al (1998) Principles for sustainable governance of the oceans.
Science 281:198–199
Costanza R, Fisher B, Ali S et al (2008) An integrative approach to quality of life measurement,
research, and policy. Surv Perspect Integr Environ Soc 1:1–5
Daly HE, Cobb J (1989) For the common good. Beacon Press, Boston
Easterlin RA (2003) Explaining happiness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:11176–11183
Frank R (2000) Luxury fever. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Frank R (2007) Falling behind: how rising inequality harms the middle class. University of
California Press, Berkeley
Granek EF, Polasky S, Kappel CV et al (2010) Ecosystem services as a common language for
coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 24:7–216
Kasser T (2003) The high price of materalism. MIT Press, Cambridge
Layard R (2005) Happiness: lessons from a new science. Penguin, New York
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis.
Island Press, Washington, DC
Prugh T, Costanza R, Daly HE (2000) The local politics of global sustainability. Island Press,
Washington, DC
Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Wilkenson R, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger.
Bloomsbury Press, New York
Steps Towards Sustainability and Tools
for Restoring Natural Capital: Etang de
Berre (Southern France) Case Study
James Aronson, Florian Claeys, Vanja Westerberg, Philippe Picon,

Guillaume Bernard, Jean-Michel Bocognano, and Rudolf de Groot
Abstract Communities, nations, not-for-profit groups, and some mining,

infrastructure, and energy corporations are catching on to the fact that the ecological
restoration of degraded ecosystems is vital to their search for sustainability and eco-
logical accountability. The science of restoration ecology can provide the tools and
major building blocks necessary to develop a transdisciplinary sustainability science
and is a problem-solving toolkit used on the road to global, regional, national, and
local sustainability. We discuss a landscape-scale restoration program for the large
J. Aronson (*)
Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CNRS-UMR 5175),
1919, Route de Mende, Montpellier 34293, France
F. Claeys
École Normale Supérieure, Département de Biologie, 45 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
V. Westerberg
Ecole nationale supérieure agronomique de Montpellier (SupAgro),
Laboratoire Montpelliérain d’Économie Théorique et Appliquée (LAMETA),
2 place Pierre Viala, 34060 Montpellier, Cedex 1, France
P. Picon • G. Bernard
Groupement d’Intérêt Publique pour la Réhabilitation de l’Etang de Berre,
GIPREB, Cours Mirabeau, Berre-l’Etang 13130, France
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
J.-M. Bocognano
Grand Port Maritime de Marseille, 23 Place de la Joliette, BP 81965, Marseille 13226, France
R. de Groot
Environmental Systems Analysis Group, University of Wageningen, PO Box 47,
Wageningen 6700 AA, The Netherlands
112 J. Aronson et al.
(155 km²) and heavily polluted Étang de Berre (Berre Lagoon) to illustrate these
ideas. This lagoon is situated between Marseille, Salon-de-Provence, and Aix-en-
Provence in southern France. We illustrate the use of (a) sequential references, which
is a technique from the field of restoration ecology that helps clarify goals and develop
consensus among stakeholders and scientists of differing backgrounds; and (b)
HMCA (historical multicriteria analysis), which is a variation of MCA that is often
used in ecological and environmental economics. We show how to use a HMCA to
synthesize ecological, social, and economic criteria across different historical time
periods and be applied to a large scale, multifaceted project of this sort when a sequen-
tial reference exercise has been performed. Lastly, we note that ecological restoration
is the key means for restoring natural capital (RNC) and to simultaneously recover
and revitalize social capital. In the ecologically and economically beleaguered and
vulnerable area as the one considered here, and indeed many others around the world,
the road to sustainability passes through a portal of what we call “RNC thinking.”
Keywords Sustainability • Restoring natural capital • Mediterranean lagoon

• Historical MCA • Sequential reference method • Berre lagoon
Introduction
Many communities, nations, not-for-profit organizations, and some large corpora-

tions have understood that the ecological restoration of degraded ecosystems is
important—perhaps even essential—to achieve sustainability. Ecological restora-
tion programs can create jobs and livelihood opportunities and boost the flow of
ecosystem services to society while also contributing to the conservation of biodi-
versity and functional ecosystems (Bullock et al. 2011). Additionally, and across a
very wide range of biomes or ecosystem types, ecological restoration can be cost-
effective provided that the full range of benefits from restored ecosystem are fully
accounted for, along with the upfront costs (Neßhöver et al. 2011; de Groot et al. in
review; Elmqvist et al. in review). For these reasons and others, ecological restora-
tion actions are increasingly being deployed, developed, and implemented world-
wide, where they are supported by global policy commitments such as the Convention
on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change’s negotiations to update the Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocol
with something called “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (REDD)” as an international fund- or credit-based mechanism for
reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and protecting forest ecosystems
(Rey Benayas et al. 2009; Bullock et al. 2011; Alexander et al. 2011). Legislation in
some countries is getting underway that requires true restoration (Aronson et al.
2011). In many other countries, the long-standing regulations and environmental
legislation are getting tougher, which is a good first step. Many mineral extraction
and transformation companies, energy utilities and other corporate giants, as well as
insurance companies and large lending banks are taking note of this trend, even
though hard data from the corporations are hard to find.
Steps Towards Sustainability and Tools for Restoring Natural Capital… 113
Measures aimed at ecological restoration, however, are still generally seen as

net-cost projects, despite evidence showing that investing in the restoration of
renewable natural capital* (=ecosystems and biodiversity) (note: definitions of
terms in the text followed by “*” the first time they appear are provided in Box 1),
and cultivated natural capital (production-oriented systems), makes economic sense
once the full range of benefits provided by biodiversity and ecosystem services are
taken into account. Ecological restoration*, ecological rehabilitation* and, more
broadly, the restoration of natural capital* at the landscape* scale, can help recon-
cile the objectives of nature conservation, on the one hand, and sustainable eco-
nomic development goals on the other, and thereby help society move towards a
more sustainable, more just, and more desirable future. But, the road is not smooth,
and there will almost always be conflicts of interest.
Box 1 Definitions of Terms as Used in This Chapter

Ecosystem degradation is the loss of biodiversity and the simplification or dis-
ruption of the structure, function, and composition caused by disturbances that
are too frequent or severe to allow the natural regeneration or recovery to occur.
Degradation results from various factors that are often interlinked, such as human
activities, climate perturbations, and extreme events (e.g., drought, fire, and
storms), which reduce the quality and flow of ecosystem goods and services.
Ecological restoration is “The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosys-
tem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (SER 2004). It is an
intentional activity that initiates or accelerates those ecosystem processes that
return complexity and resilience, reinstate structure and function, and reestab-
lish a trajectory of self-sustaining maturation or, in a special case, reestab-
lishes arrested succession. The term is often used, in a very broad and rather
vague way, to mean to return a site or system to “predisturbance conditions.”
Ecological rehabilitation, in the broad sense, is the improvement of ecosystem
functions without necessarily achieving a return to “predisturbance” condi-
tions. Emphasis is generally on restoring ecosystem processes and functions so
as to increase the flow of services and benefits to people (SER 2004; Clewell
and Aronson 2007). Care must be paid not to so heavily favor one process or
function with the result of rendering the ecosystem more fragile or vulnerable
than it was before. However, when returning an ecosystem to a former state or
ideal condition is not possible, rehabilitation is often the best option.
Historical multicriteria analysis (HMCA) is an invention of the authors
intended to facilitate the collective choice of an ecological reference (sensu
SER 2004; Clewell and Aronson 2007) and is based on a sequential reference
study of the historical stages involved in the degradation and transformation
of a given ecosystem or landscape.
(continued)
Box 1 (continued)
Landscape is an assemblage of ecosystems that are arranged in recognizable pat-
terns and that exchange organisms and materials such as water (note: there are
many other acceptable definitions of this concept) (Forman and Gordon 1986).
Notably, most landscapes today are mosaics of interacting ecosystems that may
be natural, near-natural, or production systems, in which spaces or landscape units
managed for social and economic use without any specific systems thinking.
Natural capital is an economic metaphor for the limited stocks of physical and
biological natural elements found on Earth. Some of these stocks are of direct
use to society (resources), and some are not. According to Rees (1995) and MA
(2005), there are four, partially overlapping types: (1) renewable (living species
and ecosystems), (2) nonrenewable (subsoil assets, e.g., petroleum, coal, dia-
monds), (3) replenishable (e.g., the atmosphere, potable water, fertile soils), and
(4) cultivated (e.g., crops and forest plantations). Natural capital “provides the
basis for all life,” and it is a highly useful metaphor for the “stocks,” “assets,” or
reserves of physical and biological elements found on earth (MA 2005), some
of which are used by people, and then are called “resources.” If natural capital
is a stock or an asset, then the “dividend” is the flow in ecosystem goods and
services derived from the assets; e.g., the dividend from renewable natural capi-
tal is ecosystems and biodiversity. We note that many species or attributes of
natural ecosystems are not directly useful to people and are not normally con-
sidered as resources. The concept of renewable natural capital emphatically
includes those attributes, which exist within the ecosystems as a whole, and
evolve. Natural capital is a not just the obviously marketable bits and pieces.
Restoration of natural capital (RNC) is an investment in natural capital stocks
to improve the sustainability of both natural and human-managed ecosystems,
while contributing to the socioeconomic well-being of people (Aronson et al.
2007, 2010). Renewable, replenishable, and cultivated natural capital delivers
ecosystems goods and services. RNC is required when delivery of ecosystem
services is interrupted or impeded. The RNC includes the ecological restora-
tion or rehabilitation of ecosystems, ecologically sound improvements to pro-
duction systems, ecologically sound improvements in the utilization of
biological resources, or nonrenewable natural capital, and efforts to increase
public awareness and appreciation for the importance of natural capital and the
wisdom of investing in its restoration, which is sometimes also referred to as
“restoring ecological infrastructure” (TEEB 2010; Neßhöver et al. 2011).
RNC thinking is needed to complement “Resilience Thinking” (Salt and Walker
2006). Restoration of Natural Capital (RNC) is panoply of investments, inter-
ventions, improvements in current practices, and new ideas and social pro-
grams to promote and accelerate national and international transitions towards
sustainability. RNC is a broader concept than ecological restoration.
Social capital is the institutions, relationships, social networks, and shared
cultural beliefs and traditions that promote hope and mutual trust.
The preceding chapters of this book have many approaches to address the
question about how scientists can help society move forward on the path to sustain-
ability through and within the emerging paradigm of sustainability science.
Sustainability science comprises the different fields of scientific endeavors that
bring together scientists and professionals to study the dynamic interactions between
“nature” and human society. From the perspective of restoration ecology, this
endeavor is undertaken with a view to helping society maintain and restore both
natural capital and social capital*. Sustainability science, therefore, should contrib-
ute to the goals set by the Brundtland Commission of the UN in 1987: “Sustainable
development is development that meets the needs of the present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987).
We argue that restoration ecology, when coupled with the practice of ecological
restoration, can provide major building blocks for the development of a transdisci-
plinary science of sustainability and to support society’s search for problem-solving
processes carried on the rocky road to sustainability. This contribution holds at all
spatial and temporal scales. The concepts of the restoration of natural capital*
(RNC) and RNC thinking* will be required as well.
To illustrate these ideas, we discuss a landscape-scale restoration program located
in and around the large (155 km²) and heavily polluted Étang de Berre (Berre
Lagoon) that is situated between three of the major cities in southern France:
Marseille, Salon-de-Provence, and Aix-en-Provence. But, first let us clarify an
interesting historical twist that bears on our tale.
The closest equivalent in English to the French word étang is “lake,” but it is often
translated as “lagoon.” Indeed, the ambiguity is well founded in the present case. The
body of water known as the étang de Berre includes the étang de Bolmon (see below)
which was formed 8,000 years ago when sea rise slowed. Human remodeling only
began about 2,000 years ago when people with an interest in fishing deepened a
channel connecting the western edge of the lake to the Mediterranean Sea, thereby
turning the étang into a coastal lagoon characterized by regular influxes of seawater.
From a restoration or sustainability perspective, this is one of many complexities
concerning this large Mediterranean wetland that needs to be taken into account,
because most people today consider it a lagoon and do not want it to go back to being
a lake. What most of the very large local population does want is to see this very large
“lagoon” rehabilitated, restored, and revitalized. But, there is little agreement on how
to do it, who should do it, who should pay for it, or even what should be done.
Our goal here is to present some concepts and tools that are being employed in
the Berre landscape restoration program in order to help in planning, budgeting,
and, above all, in consensus-building. These tools include a sequential reference
system to guide ecological restoration efforts that is based on a semiquantitative
scenario of ecological degradation* and transformation of the area over the past two
millennia. We also briefly discuss the use of what we term a HMCA* that is used to
synthesize ecological, social, and economic criteria across different historical time
periods applicable to a large scale, multifaceted project of this sort. In this chapter,
we summarize the main features of the project. A more detailed presentation of the
results will be provided in a subsequent journal article. Finally, we advance the
basic concept of RNC thinking, i.e., that restoration “pays,” especially if we consider
that ecological restoration is a means to restore natural capital, while also restoring
social capital. In such an ecologically and economically beleaguered and vulnerable
area as the one considered here, the “high” road to sustainability passes through the
portal of RNC thinking.
The Target Area: The Berre Lagoon and the Berre-

Bolmon-Rove Landscape
Water is an “organ of the Earth” (the physiological metaphor of Bachelard 1942).

And coastal lagoons? They are filters and regulators at the interface of continents
and oceans. They are the kidneys of the planetary plumbing system, concentrating
a large portion of ecosystem outputs and energy flows cascading down from the
watersheds for which they serve as the natural sinks and receivers. As a result, they
are endowed with exceptional biological and ecological richness, productivity, and
attractiveness to people.
In spite of these attributes, coastal lagoons were all too often used in conflicting
ways. Not only were they cherished for fishing, hunting, navigation, and recreation,
but also as a free-of-charge and free-for-all dumping area. Sadly, this is true even in
the Mare Nostrum (“Our Sea”) as the Mediterranean was known by the Romans,
and the Berre Lagoon is a case in point (Fig. 1). Coastal lagoons are resilient, yet,
like all ecosystems, they are vulnerable to degradation and more or less irreversible
Fig. 1 Aerial view of the Berre Lagoon (southern France). The three superimposed images are of
the Saint Chamas hydroelectric plant (top), the Rove tunnel (right), and the Caronte channel (lower
left). See text for explication (source: Géoportail 2011)
transformation. One of the most serious pollution and degradation problems they
face is eutrophication, which occurs when a body of water acquires a high concen-
tration of nutrients, especially phosphates and nitrates. In the Berre Lagoon, nutri-
ent enrichment is far advanced, thanks to unabated urban, industrial, and agricultural
waste disposal over many decades.
The Berre Lagoon is approximately 15,500 ha, is the third largest inland body of
water in Europe, and is the largest of the 25 or 30 lagoons nestled along the
Mediterranean Basin coastline (Papayannis 2008). It is located just a few kilometers
northwest of Marseille, which is France’s oldest city, and quite near Salon-de-
Provence, Aix-en Provence, and many other smaller urban areas. Unlike many
coastal wetlands, the Berre Lagoon has never been drained and removed for farm-
land. However, it has been used by people in many ways over many millennia.
The Berre Lagoon was cherished since its Chalcolithic Age origins for the abun-
dant biological resources it supplied and its attraction as a dwelling place. Based on
digs at on the western end of the lagoon, archeologists date the oldest permanent
human settlements back to 800 bce. The human presence in the Berre region
increased steadily after the Phoenician port of Massalia (now Marseille) was
founded in ca. 600 bce (Bellet 1979). At some point during their stay in the region,
the Romans deepened a 6.5 km long canal to connect the western end of the lagoon
to the Mediterranean Sea, probably to increase the fishery productivity (Caronte
Channel; Fig. 1). Since the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, the intensification of
resource extraction, then industrialization, followed by urbanization of the shore-
lines in the twentieth century, has rendered the ecological state of the lagoon some-
what poor, to say the least.
A major event took place in 1925, when the Rove tunnel and canal were opened
after 15 years of government-funded construction (Fig. 1). The goal was to connect
the port of Marseille to the Rhône River in order to enhance river traffic via an inland
route that was safer for merchandise-laden barges than was motoring along the
Mediterranean coast to the mouth of the river. The canal was created along the south-
ern shore of both the Berre and Bolmon lagoons. The Bolmon, situated in the south-
east part of the wetland complex, is partially isolated by a natural sandbar that has
been sparsely inhabited for decades, if not centuries. This canal + tunnel passageway
functioned for 38 years until the tunnel collapsed in 1963.
French public policy for the region was strongly biased in favor of industrialization
during the entire twentieth century, when three oil refineries and many other factories
were implanted with heavy public subsidies. This development increased job oppor-
tunities, and the population size rose steadily in the ten municipalities bordering the
lagoon. It doubled from 1950 to 1990 and is now 350,000 in the larger landscape we
call BBR (for Berre and Bolmon Lagoons and the Rove tunnel and canal). During this
40-year period, everything from effluents from sewage treatment plants, agricultural
residues, to industrial and urban wastes was dumped into the lagoon.
Another major event took place in 1966, when a hydroelectric power plant opened
at Saint Chamas on the northern shore of the lagoon (Fig. 1). The Saint-Chamas plant
is at the tail end of no less than 20 interconnected power plants stretching all the way
up the Durance River, whose Verdon tributary begins high in the Alps. The course of
the Durance River was artificially diverted to empty into the northern portion of the
Berre Lagoon as part of this industrial effort, which is managed by the state-controlled
utility company, EDF. This company had a monopoly on energy distribution in
France until 2010 and was responsible for producing almost all energy not derived
directly from nuclear power. The chain of hydroelectric plants culminating at Saint
Chamas can provide a significant input in the electrical power grid for the region in
a matter of just minutes to help cope with surges in consumer demand (Clébert and
Rouyer 1991; Collomp 2002). In this way, brown-outs and black-outs can be avoided
during peak demand periods throughout the heavily populated SE portion of France.
Additionally, in a country where 80% of electrical power comes from nuclear energy,
and where the future of that industry is increasingly called into question because of
the problems related to wastes and occasional leaks, all alternative sources of power—
including hydroelectric—are of great public and strategic interest.
Historically, the Berre lagoon was more or less salty based on how exchanges with
the sea were managed. The deepening of the channel and the opening of the Rove
tunnel, for commercial and industrial development in the early 20th century, have
confirmed the marine dimension of the lagoon, leading to an important revival of tra-
ditional activities (e.g., fishing, shellfish gathering, algae harvests, salt production and
soap industries), and also contributed to the building the cultural dimensions of nearby
residents. Consequently, most people in the area today agree that it should stay that
way. One of the major concerns regarding the Saint Chamas plant is that its effluents
not only bring 500 tons of silt per annum from the Durance river (up to 1.6 million
tons in 1977), but also huge quantities of nonsaline water that are dumped each year
into the lagoon. This resulted in the decline of surface water salinity from 24–36 to
1–22 ppt. The annual average of freshwater inputs from the Saint Chamas plant is now
limited to 1.2 billion m3. Indeed, more than 85% of the fresh water coming into the
lagoon derives from the EDF plant, with the remainder coming from the Arc, Cadière,
and Touloubre rivers. In 1977, 6.6 billion m3 of fresh water were dumped into the
lagoon, equal to seven times its volume. The annual average discharge into the lagoon
is now 1 billion m3, but with large variations both seasonally and interannually.
This enormous annual input of fresh water and silt into the lagoon has led to
the stratification of both salinity and oxygen levels in the bottom of the lagoon,
maintaining large areas of anoxia. The huge inputs of nitrates from the Durance
amplified the eutrophication problem and led to virtual demise of the benthic
biota, and to the collapse of ecological functionality. To top it off, algal decompo-
sition in the lagoon is the source of malodorous odors every summer, which
creates a severe nuisance for the inhabitants of the surrounding communities and
for the day visitors visiting the shores of the lagoon to sunbathe, sail, or swim. In
retrospect, over the course of the last century, there has been a veritable cascade
of ecological degradation and fragmentation, that spread to the entire socioeco-
logical system encompassing the lagoon and BBR landscape, leading to, among
other things, the end of traditional hunting, fishing, and recreational activities on
and near the lagoon, and the tarnishing of Berre Lagoon’s public image at regional
and national levels.
Several local associations were created in the 1980s to call for the closure of the
Saint Chamas plant, or at least a redirection of the waters spewed forth from the
facility to the nearby Rhône River, rather than continuing to dump them into the Berre
Lagoon. At the very least, these associations—with the support of various town coun-
cils—argued for a significant cleanup effort on the part of the state and regional gov-
ernment, not to mention the energy utility, oil refineries, and chemical industries, in
order to ameliorate environmental conditions in and around the lagoon.
GIPREB Mission and Trajectory to Date
A Public Interest Group for the Rehabilitation of the Etang de Berre (GIPREB) was
created (http://www.etangdeberre.org/) in 1990, in response to a decade of public out-
cry about the polluted and stinky lagoon. Starting in 2000, the goal of GIPREB focussed
on stimulating and coordinating actions aiming at the restoration or rehabilitation of the
aquatic components of the Berre and Bolmon lagoons, and the clogged-up and mal-
odorous Rove canal.
The results in some areas were quick and dramatic. A 1993 grassroots-inspired
referendum led to legislation (the Barnier plan) that imposed the first quotas on the
EDF concerning the volume of fresh water that could be dumped into the Berre
Lagoon: 1.2 billion m3 year−1, instead of the three or more billion m3 year−1 in pre-
ceding years. A new series of even stricter quotas were imposed in 2005, following
European litigation in which France was condemned to pay penalties for the degra-
dation to the Berre Lagoon (Maljean-Dubois and Truilhe-Marengo 2005). The tech-
nical and political debates were strident, however, as described below.
Today, the GIPREB’s goal has expanded to include the ecological restoration of
the Berre and Bolmon portions of the lagoon, as well as the aquatic habitat created
by the Rove canal and tunnel. The socioeconomic reintegration and revitalization of
the watershed and coastal territories is implicitly sought as part of this restoration.
The most controversial and expensive operation concerns the proposed diversion
of the waters and silt from Saint Chamas to the Rhône River. The feasibility studies
initiated by the GIPREB yielded very detailed reports and calculations. The cost
would be close to two billion euros according to an unpublished study commissioned
by the GIPREB, and negotiations are likely to be stiff. In the meantime, a new and
important component of the project is the experimental reopening of the Rove tunnel
in 2013. The purpose of this project is to artificially renew seawater circulation in the
lagoon using pumps installed at shoreline where the tunnel begins in the harbour of
Marseille in the Estaque cove, in the Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 2). This influx of highly
saline water will offset—at least partially—the ongoing influx of freshwater coming
into the Berre Lagoon at Saint Chamas. But the main objective of the reopening of the
Rove tunnel and canal is to improve the ecological quality of the Bolmon lagoon,
which is presently highly confined and eutrophic. It is hoped to “breath” life back into
this portion of the lagoon by increasing the water renewal rate.
Fig. 2 The experimental reopening of the Rove tunnel and channel is depicted in four phases, 1.1,
1.2, 2, and 3, with the anticipated rates of seawater inflow and salinity for each phase. Note that
“Marignane” is the site of the international airport of Marseille
The results of preliminary studies (the “Ramade studies”) showed that the project
was viable and timely, provided that certain critical technical issues were respected.
Yet debate broke out on which level of water flow to choose. The results of these
first studies revealed that a 20 m³ s−1 flow would be required to meet the stated
restoration objectives. Despite the clear fact that failure to respect this level might
induce undesirable effects, some stakeholders—including the French government—
argued for a more modest flow rate that would be cheaper to install and easier to
maintain. This debate led to a delay of several months culminating in a decision
taken by the GIPREB General Assembly in favor of the flow rate initially recom-
mended. Several more months were spent to decide who should manage the project
and what specific objectives should be sought.
Soon after the project began slowly taking shape, the owner and manager of the
Bolmon lagoon (the public coastal conservation entity, Le Conservatoire du Littoral;
see http://www.conservatoire-du-littoral.fr/front/process/Home.asp) questioned the
validity of the project. This major stakeholder argued that the introduction of seawa-
ter to the Bolmon lagoon would modify the “original” fresh water ecosystem, but
provided no scientifically grounded basis for this assertion. The positive impact of
this assertion was to stimulate debate, discussions, and consultations with experts
within and among all the various stakeholders of the BBR, for which GIPREB
played the key role of negotiator.
Two important points we wish to emphasize are the great public demand for
restorative action, and that the State has called on the GIPREB and the Port of
Marseille to intervene and proceed to clean-up, rehabilitate, and restore the lagoon
in undefined ways. These actors also understand that their mission is to strive to
improve the socioecological sustainability of the lagoon. In 2009, after having
noticed significant confusion about basic concepts and the conflict among stake-
holders and actors, the directors of GIPREB and the Port de Marseille concluded
that new conceptual and analytical tools were required. They engaged a restoration
ecologist who brought along an economist, a landscape ecologist, and a student of
RNC. In the next section, we present the three major tools under development and
application by this transdisciplinary team: (1) sequential references, (2) HMCA,
and (3) RNC thinking.
Three Tools for Restoring Natural Capital

and Improving Quality of Life
The first of the new tools now being applied to the BBR program comes from resto-
ration ecology; the second one comes from ecological economics; and the third one
is an outcome of the early interactions of ecological economists with restoration
ecologists addressing the practical challenge of implementing ecological restoration
sustainably, and at a large scale.
All three tools can help elucidate the complexity and conflicts in situations where
sustainability will not come easily. They can, in fact, help advance the outreach and
consensus-building process that is essential to restore natural capital and social
capital, and to make a transition towards sustainability at any spatial scale.
Tool No. 1: Sequential References
Some of the major conceptual issues in any ecological restoration project or pro-
gram are: “Why invest in this, and, how much will it cost?” Additionally, one should
ask “How does one plan, organize and monitor the progress of a restoration project
within a complex biophysical and socioeconomic setting?” Although not all restora-
tion scientists and practitioners of ecological restoration agree with this approach,
one school of thought follows the SER Primer of Ecological Restoration (SER
2004), which includes an argument for the use of an ecosystem of reference model
to help for planning and project integration (cf. Aronson et al. 1995; White and
Walker 1997; Egan and Howell 2001). From this perspective, the agreed-upon refer-
ence system is the core element of a restoration project, because it serves to define
the goals, the methodology, and the “vision” of the stakeholders and operations, as
well as inform the choice of diagnostic and monitoring protocols. In principle, it
helps to synthesize all information obtained at each step and adjust the management
of the project and project accordingly.
A series of refinements of the reference model idea have gradually emerged in
the last few years that lead to a sequential reference model (see Aronson and Vallejo
2006; Clewell and Aronson 2007). The basic ideas are simple: if an ecological
restoration or a RNC project is likely to be long and complicated, then a sequential
series of references may be a better planning and consensus-building tool than a
single reference. A series of stages can be identified to define a degradation and
transformation scenario occurring in the past that brought the ecosystem (or land-
scape) to its current undesirable state, and which now drives the impetus to invest
in restoration. Finally, conceptual and strategic links can be made between each
successive stage in the projected restoration process and one or more of the
different historical stages identified in the degradation and modification scenario.
We present this scenario-building process in Fig. 3 in a very schematic fashion. It
should be noted that socioeconomic variables are included with the nested eco-
logical variables.
The target ecosystem shown in Fig. 3, at any given stage of development, is
represented as a circle within two matrices. One is a biophysical matrix (i.e., the
landscape), and the other is a socioeconomic matrix (comprising the way that people
use and manage the ecosystem). Ecosystem goods and services are represented as
triangles situated around the outer circle of each “star” on the model. As a triangle get
longer or shorter, this change represents what people have done or are doing or extract-
ing from the ecosystem in terms of goods and services. Fig. 3, therefore, provides a
multidimensional chart of a society’s move away from sustainability, or back towards
it. In other words, ecosystem goods and services wax and wane in response to human
use, management, and investment in the restoration of natural capital.
On the basis of this schematic model, an expert committee was set up to identify
the historical periods and reference states of our study area. The data serving as
Fig. 3 Sequential references in ecological restoration. As described in the text, concentric circles
in each “star” represent an Ecosystem within a Landscape and a Socio-economic matrix; triangular
appendages represent Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) that wax and wane in response to
human behaviors. The figure is modified from Clewell and Aronson (2007). Copyright © 2007
Andre F. Clewell and James Aronson. Reproduced by permission of Island Press, Washington, DC
input to Fig. 4 were compiled, the descriptive, qualitative figure was elaborated, and
the general schematic model was applied to the BBR landscape.
Fig. 3 is a schematic diagram that is intentionally general. Fig. 4, in contrast,
provides a more detailed and site-specific application of the general model of
sequential references. Fig. 4 illustrates the complexity of the problem facing man-
agers and would-be restorationists working in the Berre Lagoon and in the larger
BBR landscape. As noted earlier, the Berre Lagoon was a lake before it became a
lagoon. No one expert could affirm that there is one single historical period that
perfectly corresponds to an ideal reference state for the RNC program of the BBR
landscape. Arbitrary and subjective choices must, therefore, be made on the basis of
negotiation and consensus-building. Along the axis of natural capital and the flow
of EGS, for example, we see that the historical periods dating from 5000 bce to
1949 are associated with higher values relative to after 1949. In that same time
period, however, human well-being and the degree of socioeconomic development
was well below 2010 levels. More light can be shed on this issue by use of the second
tool in our toolkit, as described in the next section.
5000 BCE
Deforestation
Ecosystem
Socio-economic matrix
900 AD
Ecosystem goods & services (EGS)
Hunting
Natural Capital & flow of EGS
Fishing 1789
1918 Derivation of the
Farming
Durance river
Salt
?
Timber
Trade
1949 Rove tunnel
Industrialisation & channel
Moderation of extreme events ?
Erosion control
Water quality
Air quality Urbanisation
1993
Heavy industry
2010
Metropolisation
Tourism
Hydroelectricity
Local leisure activities
Time
Fig. 4 Sequential References model applied to the BBR Landscape (Berre Lagoon, Bolmon
Lagoon, and Rove tunnel and channel). Six major stages are shown in the historical transformation
of the landscape since deforestation began five millennia bce. The two major interventions
under discussion are also indicated in the lower right. See the text and legend of Fig. 3 for an
explanation
Tool No. 2: Historical Multicriteria Analysis
We undertook a multicriteria analysis (MCA) that has a strong historical dimension

(HMCA) to aid in the decision-making process when faced with the range of
alternative reference states or phases revealed in the complex process depicted in
Fig. 4. The aim of our HMCA—an exercise never before attempted, to the best of
our knowledge—was to identify an historical period that could be judged as optimal
by a majority of stakeholders, in terms of both its socio-cultural-economic and eco-
logical aspects or dimensions. As for any reference system (sensu Clewell and
Aronson 2007), however, the definition of an optimal historical state does not imply
that we should unequivocally strive for fulfilling those same socio-cultural-eco-
nomic and ecological dimensions today. This is because there are certain sociocul-
tural and economic parameters that we are not able to alter today. In each reference
state, however, there are other parameters revealed by the HMCA that are fully at
the disposition of communities and planners to work towards and implement. The
HMCA presented below thus aims to bring to light—in a methodical, analytical,
and transdisciplinary fashion—the historical period of the BBR landscape that best
balanced the ecological, sociocultural and economic factors of interest. This HMCA,
like all MCAs, was elaborated on the basis of the experts’ opinions. But, the tool is
now being applied to enrich a “bottom-up” debate about the most desirable future
of the Berre Lagoon and the larger BBR landscape, which is a debate aimed at
consensus-building among stakeholders.
Tool No. 3: RNC Thinking
The RNC is a panoply of investments, interventions, improvements in current prac-

tices, and new ideas meant to promote and accelerate national and international
transitions towards sustainability. The RNC is a broader concept than ecological
restoration. The RNC aligns ecological restoration with all other efforts to reduce
waste and pollution within production and resource exploitation systems, as well as
in and around cities and their support systems, and along modern transport net-
works. It also refers to educational programs that teach and reinforce the importance
of natural capital to human economies and well-being. Having presented the three
tools, let us now consider how this will be accomplished.
HMCA to Inform the Choice of a Reference Model Among

Varying Alternatives
As should be clear by now, the history and current status of the BBR landscape is
the result of a complex net of interactions between successive human societies and
a panarchy of ecological processes. As a prerequisite for a holistic landscape-level
approach to restoration and RNC, a thorough and transdisciplinary “brainstorming”
effort about the historical references of the BBR project was undertaken (described
by the three tools). The results of this reflection was applied and described below.
Methodology
A MCA provide techniques to compare and rank different outcomes through the use
of a variety of indicators or criteria. It is increasingly used in areas such as natural
resources, management, climate change and adaptation, and water management
(Bell et al. 2003; Paneque Salgado et al. 2009; Sheppard and Meitner 2005; Martin-
Ortega and Berbel 2010). In this project, we used the DEFINITE 3.0 software devel-
oped by the Environmental Studies Institute of the Free Amsterdam University
(Janssen et al. 2003) to conduct the MCA (see Box 2 for a note of caution about
MCA). Furthermore, because we wanted to select a historical period as an ecologi-
cal reference, we decided to call our tool a Historical MCA (HMCA). The software
Box 2 A Word of Caution About MCA

A MCA involves selecting a set of “criteria” to be achieved by a project or
policy alternative, and assigning a score to each criterion on the basis of the
predicted impact or effect. These criteria are usually measured in a range of
different units. The scores are then adjusted by multiplying them by weights
representing the analyst’s or expert’s assessment of the relative importance of
each variable’s impact. The scores are then standardized and summed to pro-
vide an indication of net benefit. The critics of an MCA argue the results can
be biased in favor of an alternative when those who are consulted about the
determination of weights or the attribution of scores are stakeholders or sub-
ject-matter experts (Dobes and Bennett 2009). In the same way, the solution
provided might be considered acceptable only by the stakeholders who noted
high values (or weights) for certain variables, while other stakeholders/experts
may well indicate something else. As an alternative, a cost–benefit analysis
(CBA) is often advocated because of its “whole-of-society perspective”
whereby all members of the concerned society are included by aggregating
the utilities (as measured by willingness-to-pay, for example) of a representa-
tive sample of individual citizens. While these criticisms have some ground-
ing, it is the authors’ opinion that they do not justify the rejection of a MCA
(we note that a CBA has many critics as well). As is the case with the applica-
tion of any analytical method, criticism of a MCA serves to remind us to be
prudent when interpreting and using results. In particular, a MCA is one of
several tools to help stakeholders organize available information, think about
consequences, explore their own wishes, and advance a collective decision-
making process (Belton and Stewart 2002). Therefore, we stress that this
MCA project was undertaken as a first attempt to evaluate the desirability of
different possible historical reference periods, and as a tool to enrich an ongo-
ing debate regarding the future of the Berre Lagoon and the BBR landscape;
it was not to be used to dictate policy in a “top-down” fashion on the basis of
would-be “scientific results.” The situation is far too complex for such an
arrogant approach.
presents the advantage of assembling a diversified panel of multicriteria methods

that have a high modularity on standardization and sensitivity analysis.
The HMCA was conducted in two steps. First, we sought to define and delineate
the outstanding historical periods or phases that could include the historical refer-
ence period that maximized the provision of ecosystem goods and services, but
without sacrificing sustainability. This was done on the basis of the nine ecological
attributes of a restored ecosystem, which are proposed as useful criteria to orient
any ecological restoration project (SER 2004; Clewell and Aronson 2007). In the
second step, we used a more global set of ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural
criteria to identify the historically based ecological reference state that could
maximize human well-being and ecosystem “health” simultaneously. We describe
our methods next.
Identification of the Alternatives
The first step was to identify a set of alternative historical reference states and a set
of criteria to evaluate these reference states. In this analysis, the alternatives refer to
different time periods characterized according to the successive transformations and
permutations of the BBR landscape. The groundwork undertaken in the sequential
reference model (conducted by the expert committee who engaged in a 3-day struc-
tured conversation process) was used to identify the historical reference-period
alternatives of the BBR landscape. Despite the multimillennial perspective offered
by Fig. 4, we decided to refer only to the mid-nineteenth century (see also ENSAML
2001), under the assumption that, for the great majority of actors and stakeholders,
this period was more than sufficient for our purposes. We briefly outline the main
characteristics of the pertinent reference periods in Box 3.
Box 3 Details Used in the Historical MCA Analysis

Before 1863: The Berre Lagoon is a brackish water ecosystem with a rich and
diversified flora and fauna. The abundance of fish and molluscs supports numer-
ous traditional activities of fishing and shellfish breeding, and underpin a strong
feeling of local identity. However, a first step of industrialization, namely heavy
chemistry, has already appeared in the western part of the lagoon.
1863–1924: The Caronte channel is reworked and deepened increasing salinity
in the lagoon and the marine fauna and flora is reestablished. A large investment
in the construction of harbors and waterways begins that gradually imposes an
industrial vocation on the lagoon, while the rural world in France is hard hit by
various economic, social, and cultural crises, not least of which was WWI.
1925–1965: The fauna and flora of the lagoon and surrounding ecosystems
are not yet profoundly affected by industrial activities, but the overall health
of the lagoon slowly begins to deteriorate. The increasing chemical pollution,
as well as the beginning of eutrophication, leads to the contamination of fish
and mollusks that then is followed by a prohibition of commercial fishing in
1957. Industrialization continues with the support of the aeronautic industry
in the 1920s and the petrochemical industries in the 1930s. The opening of the
Rove tunnel and canal, on the SE side of the lagoon, together with the Caronte
channel created a major waterway connecting Marseille’s port to the Rhône
valley and, thence, with Lyon, Paris and the rest of France.
(continued)
Box 3 (continued)
1966–1992: The collapse of the Rove tunnel in 1963, and near-simultaneous
opening of the hydroelectric plant at Saint Chamas in 1966, led to the destruc-
tion of aquatic communities and ecosystems in the lagoon, all of which were
already heavily affected by various sources of pollution. Salinity in both the
Berre and the Bolmon Lagoons declined, leading to the local extinction of
numerous marine species and to the regression of all benthic faunal assem-
blages. There were socioeconomic consequences as well. The traditional
interactions between the lagoon and people were replaced by industrialization
and urbanization, which transformed the character of the region and eroded its
overall attractiveness for the local populations and visitors.
1993–2005: The mobilization of local grassroots organization led to the adop-
tion in 1993 of the Barnier Plan. This plan imposed quotas on freshwater
dumping from the Saint Chamas plant. Water quality then improved, but the
faunal and floral habitats remained deeply impaired. A restructuring of heavy
industry was carried out through a growing externalization or outsourcing of
various processes, while a cultural transformation accompanied the growing
awareness of the negative environmental impacts of the industrial activities.
2006–2010: Ecosystems in the lagoon were heavily affected by eutrophi-
cation. Industry lost ground, but the local economy was relieved by the
well-developed tertiary sector. The public and NGO management of the
remaining intact or seminatural habitats and scenic sites around the Lagoon
led to the development of a dense fabric of NGOs. When the local conse-
quences of the economic crisis began in 2008, the precariousness and poverty
indicators put forward a strong deterioration of the social situation in the
whole region and the specialization of the Berre Lagoon economy increased
the effects of the crisis (DROS 2010).
Identification of Criteria Used to Judge the “Performance”

of Each Reference State
The experts’ points of view were considered adequate to establish comparisons.

There were 21 criteria selected for the final HMCA (Table 1). These criteria were
inspired, on the one hand, by the general model shown in Fig. 3 in which an
ecological system is included in a socioeconomic matrix and with ecosystem
services at the interface, and, on the other hand, by the nine identified attributes
which are a necessary prerequisite for a restored ecosystem (SER 2004). Of these
nine attributes, “auto-maintenance” and “indigenous composition” were not
used because of a lack of data. We readily acknowledge that the pool of experts
consulted was small; further interviewing will be necessary to complement
their input.
Table 1 Description of criteria and subcriteria used in the HMCA
Criteria categories Criteria Subcriteria in the socioecological performance matrix Unit Source
Ecological Characteristic composition Biotic composition, specific richness of benthic macrofauna, seagrass – GIPREB archives
complex area, average abundance indexes of macrophytes
Landscape integration Artificialized coast length, total freshwater inflow – GIPREB archives
Physical environment Average salinity, average depth of euphotic zone, dioxygen saturation – GIPREB archives
Functioning Various concentrations, linked to eutrophication – GIPREB archives
Potential threats Solid and liquid inputs of Saint Chamas plant – GIPREB archives
Resilience Flood resilience, summer stress resilience 0–1 Expert opinion
Functional composition Pico-phytoplankton, micro-phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic 0–1 Expert opinion
macrofauna, macrophytes, seagrasses, fishes
Socioeconomic Economic development Public infrastructure and purchasing power 0–1 Expert opinion
matrix Social cohesion Unemployment, precariousness, and health 0–1 Expert opinion
Demographic dynamism Population density 0–1 Expert opinion
Institutional environment Environmental protection and social policy 0–1 Expert opinion
Cultural strength Cultural vitality and diversity 0–1 Expert opinion
Ecosystem Provisioning Relative abundance of fishes, shellfish, wrack (seaweed), and salt 0–1 Expert opinion
services Regulating Water quality and waste treatment 0–1 Expert opinion
provision and Erosion and flood control 0–1
Steps Towards Sustainability and Tools for Restoring Natural Capital…
exploitation Habitat Waterways, nursery 0–1 Expert opinion

* Cultural services Tourism 0–1 Expert opinion
Local leisure activities and water sports 0–1

* There are 4 provisioning services, and 4 regulating ones included in the 21 criteria used in this analysis
129
For ease of interpretation, we have grouped the criteria and the respective
subcriteria in distinguishable components under the main headings: the ecological
complex, socioeconomic matrix, ecosystem services provision and exploitation
(Table 1). The chosen set of criteria was intended to cover the revelation of the most
pertinent ecological, economic, social and cultural parameters, and ecosystem
services. No one criterion reflected the same concept as any other. In this way, we
sought to avoid double counting and overvaluation of a single aspect.
Assessing the Value Associated with the Alternative

Reference States
The frame of reference in any MCA with finite alternatives is the performance
matrix in which the performance of each alternative is described in comparison to
all other criterion. We constructed a performance matrix for the ecological
complex in this survey by drawing on ecological time series data from the
GIPREB archives, and another derived from the socioecological and ecosystem
service matrix (Table 2). In the “Ecological performance matrix” the multiple
Table 2 Raw ranking of historical time periods

Alternative reference periods Impact score ecological matrix Impact score socioecological
Before 1863 0.93 0.48
1863–1924 0.93 0.54
1925–1965 0.86 0.64
1966–1992 0.53 0.40
1993–2005 0.43 0.36
2006–2009 0.35 0.39
impacts of each historical alternative were standardized to a common metric by

using the linear standardization technique suggested by Howard (1991). As for
the comprehensive socioecological matrix, standardization was done (for those
criteria not held within the GIPREB archives) by asking stakeholder experts to
score the above criteria impacts in Table 1 along a unitary scale that ranged from
0 = no impact to 1 = full impact. Finally, the criteria were weighted to denote the
influence that each criterion has in building up the total preference relation. As a
working hypothesis for this preliminary study, equal weighting was applied to
avoid imposing value judgments on the relative importance of one criterion vs.
any other. This seemed to be the best course given that the number of interviewed
experts remains limited (see Wang and Yang 1998; Janssen 2001; Hämäläinen
and Alaja 2008 for a discussion of the merits of various equal weighting vs.
various weighting methods).
Aggregation of Scores, Sensitivity Analysis,

and Examination of Results
The second and final step before conducting a sensitivity analysis consisted of
aggregating and analyzing the total performance scores. Upon combining the
weights and the standardized scores for each alternative, the HMCA yielded a clear
ranking for the ecological and the socioecological matrix (Table 2).
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to confront uncertainty stemming from
hesitations during the problem structuring process (e.g., which alternatives
should be used? How important are the criteria? Should weight be employed?
etc.). The sensitivity analysis confirmed the results in Table 2. If ecological
criteria were the only criteria, then the best historical reference was “Before
1863.” However, with regards to the entire socioecological complex, the HMCA
indicated that the 1925–1965 period was preferred, followed by the 1865–1924
period (Box 3).
Discussion
The results of the HMCA suggested that the optimal time period, if judged
purely from ecological criteria, was before 1836. Prior to this time, the lagoon
was not subject to eutrophication, its coastline was only slightly modified, and
the native fauna and flora were largely intact. The results of the HMCA are not
surprising but, nonetheless, are of great value because they show one way to
quantitatively integrate socioeconomic and cultural variables in an analysis
undertaken as part of a decision-making process related to sustainability.
Although these are preliminary results and based on a small number of expert
opinions, the HMCA ranking in Table 2 points to a reference state for the BBR
landscape restoration program in the 1925–1965 time period. At that time, the
lagoon suffered from increasing eutrophication, but the fauna and flora were,
nonetheless, typical of a marine habitat, and the surrounding ecosystems were
not yet profoundly affected by industrial activities. This period was also marked
by an improvement of socioeconomic attributes compared to previous periods.
To wit, the Caronte channel and the Rove tunnel were both completed by then,
and yet the traditional activities exploiting the lagoon and the associated cultural
identity were maintained (at least until 1957, when fishing was banned because
of water pollution). Lastly, it is during this period that annual paid leave was
instituted in France, which brought about a rapid rise in tourism, local leisure
activities, and the enjoyment of the various cultural services delivered by the
BBR landscape (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5 Panorama of ecosystem services furnished by the Berre Lagoon. (a) Wind surfing © Annick
Amabile. (b) Sailing © M. Torres GIPREB. (c) Wildlife watching © M. Torres GIPREB. (d)
Fishing © M. Torres GIPREB. (e) Rowing © M. Torres GIPREB. (f) Duck hunting © M. Torres
GIPREB
Conclusions and Perspectives
There is an urgent need in our rapidly changing and increasingly crowded world,
including in the Mediterranean region, to find ways to reconcile nature conserva-
tion with sustainable economic development objectives. Although the outcome of
the HMCA was the agreement that there was an optimal reference state between
1925 and 1965, it does not dictate that we should seek—or think that we ever could
go “back in time.” The way of life of people in the region has changed, as it has
everywhere; cultural norms and expectations have evolved, and so going back is
not an option. What remains as an option, however, is to strive for sustainability by

employing those features and resources of modern life and what social capital is
available to us, to move towards a state highlighted by the HMCA when, among
other things, local marine species and benthic fauna started to repopulate the
lagoon. Arriving at this state would permit, or at least facilitate, recovery of the
Berre Lagoon’s formidable capacity to provide regulating, provisioning, supporting,
and cultural ecosystem services. This objective is even more pertinent today than
half a century ago. Southern France’s economy today is largely service-dominated,
and its human population density is increasing rapidly. There is a potential to
increase tourism revenues in the BBR landscape—especially through the develop-
ment of ecotourism associated with the provisioning services of a restored Berre
Lagoon. Such a development would offer a new source of wealth and pride for the
surrounding communities of the Berre and Bolmon portions of the Lagoon, and
potentially reduce the pressure on the BBR from industrial activities that are
vulnerable to upheavals in the globalized economy.
The HMCA analysis supports the hypothesis that improved ecological condi-
tions could be achieved by increasing the salinity of the lagoon. The proposed
reopening of the Rove tunnel and canal would accomplish this objective simply
by artificially renewing seawater circulation into the lagoon. Ideally, a way will
soon be found to divert the huge fresh water and silt inputs from the hydroelectric
plant at Saint Chamas into the Rhône River (Fig. 4), thereby permitting a contin-
ued supply of renewable electricity to more than 200,000 households in the region
while, at the same time, contributing to the restoration of natural capital and
improvement of quality of life to the large local populations next to Europe’s larg-
est lagoon.
We suggest, therefore, that a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) based on the total eco-
nomic value is now required to compare the financial costs associated with the
divergence of fresh water and silt at Saint Chamas with the benefits of: (1) the aboli-
tion of restrictive quotas on freshwater dumping from the Saint Chamas plants, (2)
increased ecosystem provisioning and cultural services, in particular in terms of
new recreational capacity, (3) the removal of the foul-smelling odors, and (4)
improved tourism revenues. The benefit of such a CBA would be the opportunity to
engage the BBR population in a valuation exercise—to develop an optimal RNC
alternative that could be debated and ultimately embraced by policy makers and citi-
zens. The missing link, however, may be what we have called RNC thinking and the
awareness of the value of natural capital and quality of life. A summary of the best
data available to support this assertion is in Box 4. Readers interested in these details
should also consult TEEB Foundations (2010).
One valuable and overarching step toward a sustainability transition would be
to recognize that the RNC is a good investment for future generations (Box 4, cf.
de Groot et al. in review; Elmquist et al. in review). A true transition to “RNC
thinking” at societal and international levels will require revising unregulated
markets and market failures that lead to ecosystem destruction and biodiversity loss.
This development will vastly improve collaboration among scientists and
nonscientists, including community leaders, business leaders, and policy-makers.
Box 4 The Value of Natural Capital: Wetlands

Human well-being depends upon the “free” services provided by Natural
Capital. For example, wetlands purify water, forests clean the air and regulate
climate, bees pollinate agricultural crops, mangroves support fisheries and
protect coasts, etc. An overview of the monetary value of the main services
provided by wetlands is in Fig. 6, which is based on a large number of case
studies.
Fig. 6 The total economic value (TEV) of the main ecosystem services provided by wet-
lands (US$/ha/year). All figures are average global values based on sustainable use levels
and are derived from Schuijt and Brander (2004) (calibrated for 2000), and Costanza et al.
(1997) (calibrated for 1994). The two studies reviewed over 200 case studies
Unfortunately, most of these are public services that have no proper market
and, thus, no market price. As a result, their benefits are ignored or only par-
tially taken into account in our current economic system. Scientific studies,
however, are increasingly demonstrating that, in addition to the dependence of
the livelihoods and health of millions of people, the contribution of natural
capital to the economy is immense (TEEB 2010). Evidence is also mounting
that, when all services of our Natural Capital are properly accounted for, the
benefits of money spent on conservation and restoration by far outweigh the
costs (Fig. 7).
(continued)
Box 4 (continued)
Fig. 7 A benefit–cost ratio of ecosystem restoration. The ratio is based on data in Neßhöver
et al. (2011). Depending on the type of ecosystem and socioeconomic conditions the
benefit–cost ratio of ecosystem restoration ranges between a factor of 3–75. Similar
benefit–cost ratios apply to “green and blue” space in urban ecosystems
Biodiversity and natural ecosystems are a crucial source of nonmaterial

well-being through their influence on mental health and the historical, national,
ethical, religious, and spiritual values. While the conceptual and methodolog-
ical developments in economic valuation have aimed at covering a broad
range of values, including intangible ones (see the concept of Total Economic
Value below), it can be argued that sociocultural values cannot be fully
captured by economic valuation techniques and have to be complemented by
other approaches in order to inform decision-making. This is notably the case
where some ecosystem services are considered essential to a people’s very
identity and existence. To obtain at least a minimum (baseline) measure of
importance of sociocultural benefits and values, several metrics have been
developed such as the Human Well-being Index.
It also will build on the intuitive understanding that there is a direct connection
between ecosystem health and public health, and social capital. Restoring natural
capital implies, and, in fact requires, restoring social capital, which includes large
amounts of hope and trust.
Ways Towards Sustainability
Meadows (1999) said: “Complex systems are, well, complex. It’s dangerous to
generalize about them.” Likewise, the science of restoration ecology and the prac-
tice of ecological restoration are complex—no matter where you are. There is no
one-size-fits-all solution to fix or restore degrading ecosystems, especially when
they are very clearly socioecological systems with many historical layers. In spite of
this complexity and difficulty, we do think certain tools and strategies can be
widely applicable if and when the basic concepts and definitions have been
thoroughly discussed and agreed upon.
The proposed sequential reference construction and the MCA process constitute
an analytic framework meant to inform the design, and improve the coherence and
acceptability, of a RNC project. This process starts with the definition of the
potential reference conditions, and then characterizes the socioecological system
to restore, and then adopts the restoration strategy and tactics, and project manage-
ment, and then initiates the monitoring evaluation, communication and aftercare of
the restoration rehabilitation and reintegration work.
Moreover, because the set of proposed criteria can be filled with a large spec-
trum of data, the proposed HMCA approach can be applied to any kind of
socioecological system, and can constitute a support for comparative studies or
meta-analyses. These tools—plus what we call RNC thinking—clearly can help
constitute a participatory, consensus-building process, whether in the developing
countries of the geopolitical South, or in the affluent, industrialized countries of the
North (Kates et al. 2000). This should help advance what Kates et al. (2000) mem-
orably called “sustainability science” and is the heart of transdisciplinarity, which
is when scientists, engineers, and professional practitioners, along with nonpro-
fessional and nonscientist stakeholders, come together to work towards the pro-
tection and restoration of the natural capital for the sake of biodiversity
maintenance, sustainable and adaptable ecosystem functioning, and the quality of
life for human society.
Acknowledgments We warmly thank R. Eugene Turner and Michael P. Weinstein for their help-
ful comments, and Bérengère Merlot and Elisabeth Le Corre for help with the manuscript and the
figures.
References
Alexander S, Nelson C, Aronson J et al (2011) Opportunities and challenges for ecological restora-
tion within REDD+. Rest Ecol 19(6):683–689
Aronson J, Vallejo R (2006) Challenges for the practice of ecological restoration. In: Van Andel J,
Aronson J (eds) Restoration ccology: the new frontier. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK
Aronson J, Dhillion S, Le Floc’h E (1995) On the need to select an ecosystem of reference, how-
ever imperfect: a reply to Pickett & Parker. Rest Ecol 3:1–3
Aronson J, Milton SJ, Blignaut JN (eds) (2007) Restoring natural capital: science, business and
practice. Island Press, Washington, DC
Aronson J, Blignaut JN, de Groot RS et al (2010) The road to sustainability must bridge three great
divides. Annals New York Acad Sci 1185:225–236
Aronson J, Brancalion PHS, Durigan G et al (2011) What role should government regulation play
in ecological restoration: ongoing debate in São Paulo State, Brazil. Rest Ecol 19(6):690–695
Bachelard G (1942) L’eau et les rêves. Editions José Corti, Paris, France, p 12
Bell ML, Hobbs BF, Ellis H (2003) The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the inte-
grated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Econ Plann Sci
37:289–316
Bellet M-E (1979) Guide archéologique des rives de l’étang de Berre. Édisud, Aix-en Provence,
France
Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multi-criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Bullock J, Aronson J, Rey Benayas JM et al (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodi-
versity. Trends Ecol Evol 26:541–549
Clébert J-P, Rouyer J-P (1991) La Durance. Privat, Toulouse, France
Clewell AF, Aronson J (2007) Ecological restoration: principles, values, and structure of an emerging
profession. Island Press, Washington, DC
Collomp A (2002) La découverte des gorges du Verdon: Histoire du tourisme et des travaux
hydrauliques. Édisud, Aix-en-Provence, France
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387:253–260
de Groot R, Blignaut J, van der Ploeg S et al (in prep.) Restoration pays: evidence from the Field
Dobes L, Bennett J (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: “good enough” for government work? Agenda
16:7–30
DROS—Dispositif Régional d’Observation Sociale Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (2010)
Baromètre social 2009. Les Cah DROS 9:1–16
Egan D, Howell EA (2001) The historical ecology handbook: a restorationist’s guide to reference
ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC
Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel S et al (in prep.) Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in cities
ENSAML—École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Marseille-Luminy (2001) L’étang de
Berre: De la mer au lac. Éditions générales du CAUE des Bouches-du-Rhône, Marseille,
France
Forman RTT, Gordon M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York
Géoportail (2011) Institut Géographique National (IGN), France. http://ww.geoportail.fr. Accessed
10 September, 2011
Hämäläinen RP, Alaja S (2008) The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis.
Ecol Econ 68:556–569
Howard AF (1991) A critical look at multiple criteria decision making techniques with reference
to forestry applications, Can J For Res 21:1649–1659
Janssen R (2001) On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment in The
Netherlands. J Mult-Crit Decis Anal 10:101–109
Janssen R, van Herwijnen M, Beinat E (2003) DEFINITE case studies and user manual. Institute
for Environmental Studies, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Kates RW, Clark WC, Corelle R et al (2000) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis.
Millennium ecosystem assessment series. Island Press and World Resources Institute,
Washington. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/. Accessed 10 September, 2011
Maljean-Dubois S, Truilhe-Marengo E (2005) Le conflit entre les pêcheurs de l’étang de Berre et
EDF: Quelques remarques à propos des arrêts CJC des 15 juillet et 7 octobre 2004. Droit
Environ 131:186–190
Martin-Ortega J, Berbel A (2010) Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary

values of water quality changes in the context of the Water Framework Directive. Sci Total
Environ 408:3990–3997
Meadows DH (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. Sustainability Institute.
http://challenge.bfi.org/reference/PlacesToIntervene.pdf. Accessed 10 September, 2011
Neßhöver C, Aronson J, Blignaut JN et al (2011) Investing in ecological infrastructure. In: Ten
Brink P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policy
making. Earthscan, London
Paneque Salgado P, Corral Quintana S, Guimaraes Pereira A et al (2009) Participative multi-
criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol
(Malaga). Ecol Econ 68:990–1005
Papayannis T (2008) Action for culture in Mediterranean wetlands. Med-INA, Athens, Greece.
[email protected]. Accessed 10 September, 2011
Rees WE (1995) Cumulative environmental assessment and global change. Environ Impact Assess
Rev 15:295–309
Rey Benayas JM, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM (2009) Enhancement of biodiversity and
ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325:1121–1124
Salt D, Walker B (2006) Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing
world. Island Press, Washington, DC
Schuijt K, Brander L (2004) The economic value of the world’s wetlands. Conserving the source
of life. WWF Living Waters, Gland, Switzerland
SER (2004) The SER primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration
International, Science and Policy Working Group. http://www.ser.org
Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable
forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For Ecol Manage 207:171–187
TEEB Foundations (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic
foundations. In: Kumar P (ed) An output of TEEB. Earthscan, London
Wang M, Yang J (1998) A multi-criterion experimental comparison of three multi-attribute weight
measurement methods. J Mult-Crit Decis Anal 7:340–350
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future: the
Brundtland report. Oxford University Press, New York
White PS, Walker JL (1997) Approximating nature’s variation: selecting and using reference infor-
mation in restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 5:338–349
Sustainability of Biodiversity Under Global
Changes, with Particular Reference to Biological
Invasions
Daniel Simberloff
Abstract Five major interacting global forces heavily influence changed distribution
and abundance of biodiversity: (1) biological invasions, (2) overharvest, (3) changes
in climate, (4) biogeochemical cycles, and (5) habitat. Modified land use, overhar-
vest, and climate change have already affected distributions over large areas, region-
ally eliminating or substantially reducing natural resources such as fishing stocks,
forestry trees, and traditional food plants. Further, habitat and climate change indi-
rectly affect biodiversity patterns by their effects on invasions, biogeochemical
cycles, and overharvest. Species-level biodiversity—the number of species on the
planet—is unsustainable unless these impacts are ameliorated. Insufficient attention
has been paid to how invasions and changed biogeochemical cycles directly affect
distribution and abundance of biodiversity, as opposed to indirectly affecting biodi-
versity by modifying land use. Several direct, large-scale impacts of invasions and
altered biogeochemical cycles on distributions and abundances of important species
have been documented. These suggest that these global phenomena warrant much
more research. Forestalling these global changes, or simply retarding them, has
proven difficult, perhaps because of the immense scale of the enterprises causing
them. However, great improvements in preventing or minimizing impacts of inva-
sions are attainable, though we have been slow to develop effective policies and
management strategies. Risk assessment procedures for planned introductions and
invasion pathways are improving and can be modified to account for predicted cli-
mate and biogeochemical changes. Early warning systems, an underused tool in
invasive species management, can be expanded and tied to effective rapid response
procedures. Many approaches to managing established nonnative populations have
produced successful control, but these successes result from projects highly tailored
to particular species rather than from “silver bullets” that target multiple invaders
D. Simberloff (*)
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
140 D. Simberloff
simultaneously. Such successes will be possible even as other global changes proceed,
so long as we remain committed to the effort.
Keywords Biogeochemical cycles • Climate change • Habitat destruction • Invasions

• Overharvest
Introduction
What exactly does it mean to say “sustainability of biodiversity?” Biologists typi-

cally define “biodiversity” as the variety of life at three levels: the number of species
(species richness), the number of distinct genotypes within species (genetic diver-
sity), and the number of distinct communities of species (community-level diversity)
(Office of Technology Assessment 1987). Although data are rapidly accumulating
on genetic diversity of certain species, the relative dearth of knowledge about both
genetic diversity and community-level diversity is still too great even to draw pat-
terns of current status, much less to ask whether such biodiversity is sustainable
under current human practices. Nevertheless, the numbers of species of some groups
of organisms in many areas is quite well known, and much effort has gone into pro-
ducing credible estimates of species richness even for relatively poorly known groups
(e.g., May 1997). Further, at the species level of biodiversity, telling data exist or can
be cogently deduced that permit us to depict past patterns and current trajectories. In
this chapter, the term “biodiversity” will refer to the species level.
Biologists and paleontologists distinguish between background extinction and
mass extinction. Species have always been going extinct during the 3.5 billion years
that life has existed on earth; between 98 and 99% of all species that ever lived are
extinct, and they lasted an average of only 4–5 million years (May 1997). However,
species have not always gone at extinct at the same rate. Throughout the history of
life, there has always been a slow process of extinction, a relatively few species going
extinct each century, century after century. This is background extinction, and its rate
has gradually been falling. This type of extinction has been more than balanced by
the origination of new species, leading to a generally upward trend in species-level
biodiversity (Raup and Sepkoski 1982). However, at five separate times there have
been cataclysmic mass extinctions of large fractions of biodiversity in relatively short
periods of time, over and above background extinction rates (Sepkoski 1984; cf.
Alroy 2008), such as the mass extinction precipitated by an asteroid at the end of the
Cretaceous era, about 65 million years ago, that killed off most dinosaurs over a
period of just a few decades (Schulte et al. 2010). There have also been several less
dramatic but still marked excursions in extinction rate above background levels.
We are now in the midst of what is often termed the “sixth mass extinction”
(Leakey and Lewin 1995; Glavin 2007). Because so many groups of species in so
many parts of the world are so poorly known, it is difficult to get precise estimates
of the extinction rate, but if we stick to relatively well-known groups of species, a
dark picture emerges. For instance, birds are probably the best known vertebrate
group, because an army of birdwatchers supplements a substantial number of
Sustainability of Biodiversity Under Global Changes, with Particular Reference… 141
ornithologists. A conservative reading of fossil data suggests that we could expect,

as a background rate, about one bird species to go extinct every 100–1,000 years
(American Museum of Natural History 1998; Pimm 1998, 2007; BirdLife
International 2000). But 128 bird species are known to have gone extinct in the last
500 years, and 103 of these extinctions have occurred since 1800 (BirdLife
International 2000). This is 50–500 times the background rate. It is believed that
1,186 bird species are currently at risk of extinction within the next few decades
(BirdLife International 2000), more than 12% of the total 9,700 species of birds.
These threatened birds are not uniformly distributed over the surface of the earth.
They are disproportionately located in certain regions and especially on islands
(Groombridge 1992; Birdlife International 2000). One could repeat this exercise
with other well-studied groups such as freshwater fish and Australian mammals and
derive similarly disturbing findings (Pimm 1998).
In the United States, a nation in which species status is particularly well studied,
about a third of all species are believed to be in some danger of extinction, and about
20% of those are in great danger of extinction within the next few decades (Master
et al. 2000). For some groups, especially those inhabiting freshwater, percentages are
even higher. For freshwater mussels and crayfishes, for example, over 50% of species
face some threat to existence. For birds, the figure is 14%—close to the global per-
centage. Plants have by far the greatest number of species known to be imperiled in
the United States (Master et al. 2000), partly because there are so many more known
species of plants (18,100) than of, say, freshwater mussels (292). In fact, the number
of imperiled insect species is undoubtedly much greater than the number of imper-
iled plant species, but so little is known about the biology and status of most groups
of insects, even in a nation such as the United States with a relatively well-studied
entomofauna, that one cannot even estimate the number of species that are imperiled,
except for a few groups such as dragonflies (Odonata: Anisoptera) and tiger beetles
(Coleoptera: Cicindelinae ; Stein et al. 2000). Since the termination of a moratorium
imposed by Congress in 1995 on federally listing species under the Endangered
Species Act, the list has gradually grown by a few percent each year. However, except
for mammals, reptiles, and birds, the cumbersome nature of the listing process and
lack of adequate biological knowledge suggest that far more species are actually
imperiled than are listed—for example, four times as many amphibians and flowering
plants and over ten times as many for most other taxa (Master et al. 2000; Wilcove
and Master 2005). In sum, if humankind continues to behave as it has for the past two
centuries, current levels of species-level biodiversity are definitely not sustainable.
Causes of Biodiversity Loss
In order to know what actions might redress this accelerating loss of biodiversity, it
is necessary to know why all these species are going extinct. Five ongoing major
global changes are drastically modifying the distribution and abundance of
biodiversity: (1) biological invasions, (2) overharvest, (3) climate change,
(4) modified biogeochemical cycles, and (5) habitat change (U.S. National Research
142 D. Simberloff
Modified
Climate
Biogeochemical
Change
cycles
Overharvest Biodiversity
Habitat Biological
Destruction Invasions
Fig. 1 The five major causes of species-level biodiversity loss and the major interactions between
them (dashed line)
Council 2000). Furthermore, these global changes often interact in ways that exac-
erbate the impacts on biodiversity (Fig. 1). Biodiversity is not sustainable at any-
where near present levels without ameliorating the effects of these changes.
Most attention has been on the conservation consequences of habitat change—
habitat destruction, conversion, and fragmentation—until the last 15 years, when
public concern about the implications of global climate change rapidly increased.
However, the impact of global climate change on regional and especially global
biodiversity over the past two centuries has actually been far less than that of habitat
change, biological invasions, overharvest, and probably changed biogeochemical
cycles, and that is likely to be the case at least for the next two decades. Only one
species-level extinction has been convincingly attributed to climate change recently
(Pounds et al. 1999; Thomas et al. 2004), while for 680 animal species for which a
cause for recent extinction could be assigned, invasive species were a contributing
factor in 91 cases, habitat destruction in 82 cases, and overharvest in 77 cases
(Clavero and García-Berthou 2005). It is quite possible that, by the year 2050, far
more species will be “committed to extinction” by projected climate change (Thomas
et al. 2004), perhaps as many as will be committed to extinction by then because of
habitat change. However, how long before the commitment is realized is an unknown
factor; it will vary among species, but it will surely take decades for most of these
species to disappear. The other factors, however, have already caused many extinc-
tions and are continuing to do so (see, e.g., Clavero and García-Berthou 2005).
Habitat Destruction
A staggering amount of both terrestrial and aquatic habitat has been transformed in
the last two centuries, and the rate of transformation has accelerated rapidly over the
past few decades (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). In large parts of the
United States, more than half of the original vegetation type has been destroyed,
converted to agriculture, housing, industrial use, and plantation forestry. Losses of
wetlands are equally dramatic. This pattern is not unique to the United States; it is a
global trend. Of 14 biomes studied worldwide by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment project (2005), more than half had between 20 and 50% of their area
converted to human use. For instance, three-fourths of Mediterranean forests and
temperate grasslands worldwide have been placed in cultivation, while a third of all
mangroves have been destroyed just in the last two decades (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005). It is believed that half of all wetlands that existed in 1900 have
since been lost, but data are inadequate to confirm or refute that figure. A fundamen-
tal ecological principle is that each species can tolerate only a limited range of habi-
tat variables, so the massive amount of habitat destruction has led to an enormous
toll of extinction and endangerment. Many species are specialized to use only a nar-
row range of habitats, and such habitat specialists have been particularly ravaged by
habitat destruction. A forest species cannot survive if all forest is felled, nor can an
aquatic species survive when a wetland is drained.
For one particularly well-studied group, out of 116 bird species and subspecies
whose cause of recent extinction is known, 68 (59%) were driven to extinction by
habitat change (Simberloff 1986). For birds worldwide, for 1,008 of the 1,186
imperiled species (85%), habitat loss/degradation is a major threat (BirdLife
International 2000). Of 98 bird species of the United States whose causes of imper-
ilment are believed to be known, habitat degradation or loss was wholly or partly
responsible for the plight of 88 species (Wilcove et al. 2000). For 1,880 imperiled
species of all types in the United States for which causes of imperilment are estab-
lished, 85% are wholly or partly threatened by habitat loss or degradation. It is pos-
sible that birds are particularly sensitive to habitat alteration (see, e.g., Simberloff
1986), but many other taxa include large numbers of habitat specialists. Of imper-
iled species in the United States, more than 80% of plants, mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, fishes, freshwater mussels, tiger beetles, and butterflies are threatened
wholly or partly by changed habitat (Wilcove et al. 2000).
Not only is habitat being lost, but for many species the remaining natural area is
increasingly fragmented (Primack 2010). Patches of forest and prairie are increas-
ingly smaller and more isolated in many areas. One reason is land cleared for agri-
culture and pasture. Similarly, remaining bogs are increasingly separated as more of
them are drained. For some species, even if enough habitat exists, the fragmented
state can threaten their persistence—for example, they can be preyed upon as they
move from patch to patch, or they can experience great difficulty finding food or
mates. Highways and railroads can serve as formidable impediments to movement
for some species (Forman and Alexander 1998; Spellerberg 2002). Further, the
patches themselves, if they are small enough, might be heavily influenced by edge
effects, so that large fractions of the patch differ subtly from the habitat in the center
(Ries et al. 2004). Because fragmentation of a habitat is inevitably accompanied by
loss of area of the habitat (e.g., the area of a road corridor bisecting a formerly con-
tinuous forest), the relative impacts of habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have
144 D. Simberloff
been difficult to tease apart (Fahrig 2003; Ewers and Didham 2006). However, there
is no doubt that, in certain cases, fragmentation per se constitutes a substantial threat
to a species existence.
Invasions
Biological invasions are an enormous, multifaceted environmental and conserva-

tion threat (Mack et al. 2000; Baskin 2002) with substantial but sometimes subtle
impacts on biodiversity. For instance, invasive species—especially predators such
as rats, cats, and the small Indian mongoose—have entirely or partly caused most
bird extinctions over the past two centuries, and invasive species trail only habitat
destruction and direct exploitation (especially for human food) as a threat to cur-
rently imperiled bird species, affecting ca. 350 of the 1,186 threatened species
(Birdlife International 2000). Not only introduced predators, but also introduced
competitors, herbivores, and plants threaten various bird species. Invasions are a
key factor in biodiversity decline for other taxa as well. On islands, invasions are
the leading cause of extinction over the past 20 years, and in freshwater habitats,
invasions are the second leading cause (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005). In the United States, invasions are the second leading threat to imperiled
species (after habitat destruction), affecting almost half of all such species
(Wilcove et al. 2000).
Single invasive species can have a huge effect on local and even regional biodi-
versity. A chilling example is the impact of the predatory rosy wolf snail, Euglandina
rosea, introduced deliberately from Florida and Central America to many islands in
the Pacific and elsewhere as a biological control agent for the previously introduced
giant African snail, Lissachatina fulica. In fact, the rosy wolf snail has not controlled
the giant African snail, which grows too big for it to be consumed by the predator.
Rather, the rosy wolf snail is responsible for the global extinction of at least 50 spe-
cies of land snails on Pacific islands, such as the Hawaiian Islands and Tahiti, and
remains a threat to many others (Civeyrel and Simberloff 1996; Cowie 2002).
The small Indian mongoose, Herpestes auropunctata, was introduced to Jamaica in
1872 to control rats in cane fields, then deliberately spread from Jamaica to many
islands around the world (e.g., Hawaiian islands, many of the West Indies) for the same
purpose or in an attempt to control snakes (Simberloff et al. 2000). Other introductions
of this mongoose (e.g., to Fiji, Okinawa, Amami, Mauritius, Croatia) make this species
a global plague. Although it is difficult to separate its total impact from that of rats,
cats, and mustelids introduced to the same islands, the mongoose has surely contrib-
uted to the extinction of several mammal and bird species and subspecies, and it con-
tinues to threaten others, as well as amphibians (Hays and Conant 2007).
Many other invasive animals have eliminated native species or threaten to do so
(Simberloff and Rejmánek 2011). However, some invasive plants transform entire
landscapes or water bodies and generally have the greater impacts (Simberloff 2002;
Ehrenfeld 2010) and may completely eliminate species locally. Each such event
brings them closer to global extinction. Often introduced plants simply overgrow
and thereby replace native vegetation. For instance, Australian paperback (Melaleuca
quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) have overgrown
almost half a million hectares of forest and prairie in south Florida, and Hydrilla
verticillata has blanketed 40,000 ha of open water throughout the state (Schmitz
et al. 1997). South American water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), though con-
trolled in Florida, covers much of Lake Victoria in Africa (Matthews and Brand
2004a) and many water bodies in the southeastern United States (Schardt 1997) and
Asia and Australia (Matthews and Brand 2004b), often smothering native vegeta-
tion. Water hyacinth forms a thick mat that blocks sunlight and kills plants and
animals. This impact, in turn, causes hypoxia, which leads to a cascade of destruc-
tion through the food web. Introduced plants can have many other impacts, some of
them quite subtle (e.g., changed nutrient cycles [Vitousek 1986]) and others very
obvious (e.g., intensified fire regime [D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992]), that can
affect entire ecosystems to the great detriment of many of the native animal and
plant species (Ehrenfeld 2010).
Introduced species can interact with one another to exacerbate the total impact
on native species (Simberloff 2006). For instance, on Christmas Island, populations
of the long-present introduced yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) increased
dramatically when a scale insect was subsequently introduced (O’Dowd et al. 2003;
Abbott 2004). The ants feed on the honeydew the scales produce and protect the
scales from predators and parasites, increasing their populations. The ants devastate
populations of the native red land crab (Gecarcoidea natalis), which in turn leads to
massive growth of ground cover plants, seeds and seedlings of which had been
removed by crabs. The honeydew spurs growth of a sooty mold that causes canopy
dieback of large trees.
Biogeochemical Cycles
Because the nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon cycles are crucial to life on earth, it
is not surprising that changes in them can drastically affect biodiversity. Toxic pol-
lutants, such as heavy metals and DDT, were the key focus of conservation concern
about chemicals during the 1960s through the 1980s. Today, greatly increased nutri-
ent loading, particularly by nitrogen and phosphorus compounds, has come to be
recognized as a critical and pervasive global change (United States National
Research Council 2000; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005), and the climate
impacts of the changed carbon cycle now dominate our attention. Humans now
produce more reactive nitrogen than all natural processes combined, and as much of
half of all nitrogen fertilizer may end up in the environment, primarily through run-
off (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Similarly, phosphorus application
has increased threefold since 1960 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Accumulation of phosphorus in the soil changes plant communities, while runoff
and leaching into water bodies lead to eutrophication.
146 D. Simberloff
Enhancement of the nitrogen cycle has received the most attention. Some impacts
of this enhancement affect biodiversity indirectly. For instance, emissions of nitric
oxides (from many human activities, including fertilizers, land clearing, and various
manufacturing processes) have increased greatly; these are important precursors of
acid rain, which in turn negatively affects aquatic organisms in many water bodies
(Vitousek et al. 1997). The direct effects of enhanced nitrogen on biodiversity prob-
ably weigh most heavily on the many native plant species that have evolved to func-
tion best at lower levels; these are often replaced by invasive species adapted to the
new nutrient regime (Vitousek et al. 1997). Nitrogen enrichment has produced
severe eutrophication of many estuaries and coastal areas, which in turn has led to
local or even regional loss of species of fish, shellfish, and planktonic and benthic
organisms (Vitousek et al. 1997; Howarth et al. 2000).
Although phosphorus also contributes substantially to eutrophication of many
coastal ecosystems, phosphorus enrichment is the key threat in freshwater, because
producers in freshwater systems are generally phosphorus-limited. Some progress
has been made in limiting phosphorus wastewater effluent from industrial and
municipal sources, but excess fertilization of agricultural crops plus manure produc-
tion by livestock lead to phosphorus accumulation in the soil, some of which is
transported in runoff into aquatic ecosystems (Carpenter et al. 1998). The most vis-
ible effect of lake eutrophication is proliferation of algae, which can lead to loss of
plant beds that are critical habitats for certain aquatic animals. The algal growth in
turn leads to proliferation of bacterial decomposers that break down dead plant mat-
ter. The resulting oxygen reduction (hypoxia) can cause fish kills. Thus, local biodi-
versity is an early casualty of lake eutrophication.
The increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has many direct
impacts on plants, some of which likely affect animals that feed or live on them
(Bezemer and Jones 1998). For instance, elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide
causes leaf nitrogen content to decrease in most plant species, and leaf-chewing
insects respond by increasing their food consumption, often by substantial amounts.
Another impact of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is increased ocean
acidification. This change, in turn, threatens species that use calcium carbonate to
form structures such as shells or coral skeletons (Orr et al. 2005). Among these are
cold-water corals, which provide essential fish habitat, and shelled pteropods (a
group of marine gastropods), which are a major food source for marine predators.
These direct effects on the carbon cycle have not yet threatened species’ existence.
However, an indirect effect of the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases is global climate change, which is beginning to threaten biodiversity directly.
Climate Change
The list of species in the United States threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act cites many as affected by land use change, many by intro-
duced species, but only one clearly affected by global warming—the polar bear,
listed as threatened in 2008. A current lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity
aims to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list it as endangered. The polar
bear story is quite well known, and it has become a poster child for global warming;
with melting ice, the bears must swim further and live on beaches, where they are
far from their main food—seals. Several polar bear populations have already suf-
fered substantial declines. Two coral species—staghorn coral (Acropora cervi-
cornis) and elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata)—were also listed as threatened
(2006), but ocean warming was cited as only one of several threats (and not the
foremost).
Listing of several other species as threatened by global warming has become
a politically contentious issue in the United States in the face of climate change
skeptics. For example, avian ecologists are convinced that declines in several
penguin species are partially due to global warming and that warming consti-
tutes a grave and imminent threat. In response to a petition and a lawsuit by the
Center for Biological Diversity and the Turtle Island Restoration Network, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2010 listed five penguin species (Humboldt
penguin, yellow-eyed penguin, white flippered penguin, Fiordland penguin, and
erect-crested penguin) as threatened but declined to cite climate change as a part
of the threat, even though the petition and lawsuit argued that it is the primary
threat.
Other species on the U.S. Endangered Species list will surely be affected by
global warming, but that is not one of the threats yet listed for them. For instance,
species adapted to higher elevations of mountains will have to move constantly
higher as the climate warms, unless they can reach colder areas—for instance,
climbing down the mountain and going north. But most cannot do that, because they
cannot move quickly enough and because the intervening habitat is unsuitable—one
can consider how plants would accomplish this feat in a landscape heavily occupied
by humans. And eventually, as climate continues to warm, even the mountain peaks
will not be suitable habitat—such species will go extinct. A prominent example is
the American pika (Octotona princeps). This mammal occupies high elevations of
mountains in the American West and is believed to be in danger of extinction from
global warming (Guralnick 2007), leading to a petition to the Fish and Wildlife
Service in 2007 to list it under the Endangered Species Act. The petition was denied
in 2010, based on agency scientists’ assessment that pikas will either adjust to
warmer temperatures or migrate higher upslope (if there is an upslope left!). Another
high-elevation species is the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria
acrocnema), restricted to a few peaks in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern
Colorado. Britten et al. (1994) contend that a warming trend well within the range
of those predicted by general circulation models of climate could easily eliminate
its entire habitat.
Many changes in both geographic and elevational range, as well as timing of life
history events such as migration or flowering, have already been recorded over the
past few decades in response to warming (Parmesan 2006). The substantial pre-
dicted temperature changes over the next century (Metz 2007) imply a further
increase in the number of species threatened directly by climate change.
148 D. Simberloff
Overharvest
Overexploitation, particularly hunting and fishing, ranks fourth in the United States
(after habitat change, biological invasions, and chemical stressors) as a threat to
imperiled species (Wilcove et al. 2000). It plays a similar role globally; for instance,
it is the second leading threat, after habitat change, to bird species (BirdLife
International 2000), with 233 imperiled species hunted for food and 111 imperiled
species trapped for the pet trade. Overharvest is a particular threat to mammal and
reptile species, hunted for sport, food, or the pet trade, but many other types of spe-
cies are threatened by overharvest—for example, butterflies, which are prized by
collectors (Wilcove and Masters 2005). Even plants are threatened by overharvest.
For instance, in the United States Echinacea tennesseensis, a medicinal plant listed
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, is partly threatened by collecting for
medicinal purposes, and several cycads and cacti are imperiled by harvest for use as
ornamentals. Even edible fungi are threatened by collecting. In China, three fourths
of all imperiled vertebrate species are threatened by overexploitation (Li and
Wilcove 2005). Among marine fishes, the situation is not more promising. For
instance, five heavily fished species of large groupers in the genus Epinephelus are
listed as endangered in the IUCN Red List (World Conservation Union 2010); the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service simply lists them as “Species of Special Concern”
because they consider the available data insufficient to judge the degree of threat. Of
a total of 133 global, regional, and local extinctions of marine fish populations,
overexploitation was the main cause, contributing to 55% of these cases (Dulvy
et al. 2003).
Interactions Among the Key Extinction Forces
Often two or more factors combine to threaten a species’ existence. For instance, in
addition to species threatened directly by global warming, many animal species will
be threatened as rising temperatures plus the predicted increasingly severe and fre-
quent droughts in certain regions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2007) change vegetation that is the required habitat. Climate change also interacts
with biological invasions. For example, three major invasive plants in the United
States—kudzu (Pueraria lobata), privet (Ligustrum sinense, Ligustrum vulgare),
and cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica)—are predicted to spread widely as climate
warms (Bradley et al. 2010). Of course, some invasive species will have their ranges
contract with predicted climate change, but many more, such as the red imported
fire ant (Fitzpatrick et al. 2007), are predicted to be able to spread further.
Species introductions often interact with habitat change, as conversion of a natu-
ral landscape to one dominated by agriculture or some other human use makes the
habitat less suitable for native species and more suitable for one or more introduced
ones (Lockwood et al. 2007). For instance, the use of what had been prairie throughout
much of the American West for livestock grazing has led to the destruction of native
bunchgrasses, which has opened the way for Eurasian cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)
to spread and transform tens of millions of hectares into virtual cheatgrass monocul-
tures. This landscape transformation was a disaster for native plant diversity, and
cheatgrass is of poor nutritional quality for cattle as well (Mack 2011).
Biological invaders are also often favored by nitrogen deposition from air pollu-
tion. For example, in Minnesota grasslands, nitrogen-fertilized plots were quickly
overgrown by invasive European quackgrass (Elymus repens), and most of the
diverse native grass community disappeared (Vitousek et al. 1997). Nitrogen
enhancement and invasion can also interact in a different manner to facilitate fur-
ther invasions. The Atlantic shrub Morella faya was introduced to the Hawaiian
Islands in the nineteenth century as an ornamental, then widely spread for forestry
purposes through the 1920s. This nitrogen-fixing plant has invaded geologically
young, nitrogen-poor areas on the volcanic island of Hawaii (Vitousek 1986;
Vitousek and Walker 1989; Vitousek et al. 1987). Hawaii lacks native nitrogen
fixers, so native plants have evolved adaptations to nitrogen-poor soil. Native plants
have gradually been replaced, and nitrogen and water content of the canopy have
doubled in the wake of invasion by M. faya (Asner and Vitousek 2005). The previ-
ous absence of nutrients had impeded the spread of a number of introduced orna-
mentals and weeds not adapted to the nutrient-poor conditions. However, now that
M. faya has invaded, the habitat has become suitable for other introduced plants.
A similar phenomenon has occurred in areas of Australia where low soil phos-
phorus has limited invasion by many introduced species. However, the introduction
of three plant species that are able to concentrate phosphorus in the soil underneath
them has facilitated the invasion of previously restricted nonnatives (Fisher et al.
2006; Turner et al. 2008).
Overharvest can similarly interact with other forces to bring a species to the
threshold of extinction. For instance, habitat destruction, by reducing cover, exacer-
bates the threat posed by overhunting to many bird species used for food. It also
reduces nest site availability, worsening the threat to imperiled cage bird species
(BirdLife International 2000). Similarly, damage inflicted on marine substrates,
including coral reefs, during the process of overfishing greatly compounds the
impact on both the target species and many others (Dayton et al. 1995). The catalog
of ways in which the various forces interact to exacerbate the impact on biodiversity
is far longer than the examples adduced here, but the important point is clear: the
impacts of these forces are more than simply additive.
What to Do About Declining Biodiversity
It appears that there is nearly universal concern with the decline of biodiversity and
eagerness to try to stop it. The Convention of Biological Diversity, opened for sig-
nature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, has as its first two goals the
conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of its components. It has been
150 D. Simberloff
ratified by 193 nations; only the United States among major nations has failed to do
so. The United Nations declared 2010 to be the International Year of Biodiversity.
Yet, as demonstrated earlier, the wave of extinctions spreads and even accelerates,
seemingly inexorably.
If biodiversity is not sustainable given current practices, what can be done to
make it sustainable? The huge scale of global climate change makes it seem almost
futile to address, and a number of “climate skeptics” are in fact not skeptical about
the existence of anthropogenic climate change but rather doubt that any feasible
human actions can be mounted to retard it. They are incorrect; many partial solu-
tions that have been suggested would lessen the rate of climate change substantially
(Noble et al. 2005). Similarly to climate change, alterations in biogeochemical
cycles are diffused and not geographically restricted to sites engendering the change.
And the scale of changes in biogeochemical cycles like the nitrogen cycle is enor-
mous. This diffusion and the enormous scale do not mean that such forces cannot be
stemmed, but effective actions would entail international agreements and global
cooperation at a level not yet achieved. Again, a number of feasible ways to amelio-
rate this problem greatly have been proposed (Howarth et al. 2005). Although many
cases of habitat change involve two or more neighboring nations, for the most part
habitat destruction is a national problem and lessening it rests on how governments
encourage or constrain citizens in their use of lands and waters. This is a subject
well beyond the scope of this essay; suffice it to say that various successful
approaches (see, e.g., Koh and Gardner 2010; Tallis et al. 2010) could be replicated
or adapted to many other regions and, in sum, could greatly alleviate this greatest of
threats to biodiversity. Overharvest is also largely a national issue, although certain
cases (e.g., marine fisheries) are international. The solutions again largely reside in
the interactions between governments and their citizens, although international
instruments are required where a common resource (e.g., whales and marine fishes)
is exploited by different nations (Peres 2010).
Impacts of biological invasions, like those of overharvest, are primarily experi-
enced at the national or even local level, because each invasion involves a specific
species in a specific new place, and there are many ways to prevent or slow these
down and much recent progress (Simberloff 2010). Because each invasive species
arriving in a new site has come from some other site, and because an invasive spe-
cies, once established, does not respect national boundaries, international agree-
ments and joint efforts are also often important.
Reducing the Impact of Biological Introductions
The best way to deal with introduced species is to prevent their introduction in the
first place. If an invader defeats these efforts and establish populations, we can try
to eradicate them, especially if we detect them quickly. If eradication proves impos-
sible, we can attempt to manage these populations at low enough levels that they are
not problematic.
Introductions can be either planned or unplanned, and prevention differs some-

what between these categories. For planned introductions, such as new game species
or ornamental plants, an appropriate law would entail a risk analysis and consist of
either a black list (list of forbidden species), a white list (list of approved species),
or a combination of the two. For these lists to work, the risk analyses must be
sufficiently accurate that most species that would become invasive are recognized
and put on black lists or kept off white lists. Such analyses for invasive species are
in their infancy, but much active research (e.g., Kolar and Lodge 2002) is focused on
improving them. For plants, various versions of the Australian Weed Risk Assessment
(Pheloung et al. 1999) are in use worldwide and are believed to be effective.
Preventing unplanned introductions entails identifying pathways by which they
occur (Ruiz and Carlton 2003): ballast water for marine organisms, untreated
wooden packing for some insects, hitchhiking insects and pathogens on ornamental
plants, and the like. These pathways must then be constricted. For instance, ballast
water can be exchanged in the open ocean and ornamental plants can be fumigated
or refrigerated. None of these methods will eliminate every potential invader, but
many of them greatly reduce their number, and technologies are constantly being
improved. Of course, inspections at ports of entry are critical for both planned and
unplanned introductions, and various technologies, including both trained detection
dogs and increasingly accurate X-ray equipment, are in use in some nations (Baskin
2002). However, expense, including labor costs, has hindered their deployment in
many nations.
An ongoing monitoring system combined with an early warning/rapid-response
system is key to eradicating introduced species inexpensively, but labor and training
expense hinder the efforts of most nations to construct such a system. Web-savvy,
engaged citizens can certainly reduce the monitoring cost greatly. Early warning by
alert citizens allowed the eradication of the Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora
glabripennis) in the Chicago area and the “killer alga” (Caulerpa taxifolia) in
California (Simberloff 2010). In both instances, authorities mobilized a response
almost immediately after discovery and maintained the effort for several years to
ensure complete eradication. Maintaining the response effort even when the initial
population of the invader has been largely suppressed is a key step whose failure has
sometimes stymied eradication projects. Another key requirement is clear lines of
authority so that an agency can compel cooperation and prevent individuals from
subverting an eradication effort if they object to the eradication per se or to the
methods chosen to pursue it. The biology of the target organism must be well under-
stood, and the probability of quick reinvasion must be low.
Where these criteria have been met, many eradication projects have succeeded.
Frequently these are on islands, where reinvasion is unlikely. Rats have been eradi-
cated from islands as large as 113 km2 (Pascal et al. 2010), and feral goats and pigs
have been eradicated from Santiago Island (585 km2) in the Galapagos (Cruz et al.
2005). Even larger eradications are possible. For instance, the African mosquito
(Anopheles gambiae) vector of malaria was eradicated from ca. 50,000 km2 in
northeastern Brazil (Davis and Garcia 1989), and several fly species have been erad-
icated from large regions, especially in the tropics (Klassen 2005). Plant eradications
152 D. Simberloff
have proven more challenging, and most successful projects are small scale (e.g.,
Gardener et al. 2010). However, the weed Kochia scoparia was eradicated from a
large area of Western Australia (Randall 2001), and the 50-year-long campaign to
eradicate witchweed (Striga asiatica) over thousands of hectares in the southeastern
United States is nearing success (Eplee 2001). Plant eradications that failed usually
did so because of lack of support or cooperation rather than technical infeasibility
(Gardener et al. 2010). Successful eradication projects have used methods running
the gamut from hand-pulling of weeds and hunting and trapping of mammals to use
of sterilized males for insects and fishes and chemical pesticides and herbicides for
many species.
For established invasive populations, three main technologies alone or in com-
bination have often provided adequate control: mechanical or physical control,
chemical control, and biological control. With sufficient labor, even massive inva-
sions can sometimes be curtailed by physical means alone. In South Africa, the
invasive Australian tree Acacia cyclops has been effectively controlled by mechan-
ical means alone—cutting and pulling roots (Matthews and Brand 2004a).
Herbicides have often maintained invasive plants at low levels. In Florida, water
hyacinth (E. crassipes) was drastically reduced and eventually controlled by use
of the herbicide 2,4-D along with some mechanical removal (Schardt 1997). In
South Africa, a large public works program, Working for Water, has used physi-
cal, mechanical, and chemical methods to clear thousands of hectares of land of
introduced plants that use prodigious amounts of water (Matthews and Brand
2004a).
Long-term use of chemicals may lead to the evolution of resistance, and chemi-
cals are expensive. They may also have nontarget impacts, although many later-
generation herbicides and pesticides have fewer of these. These issues have led to
great interest in biological control—deliberate introduction of a natural enemy
(predator, parasite, or disease) of an introduced pest. Most such projects have not
succeeded, and some have had substantial nontarget impacts; both the aforemen-
tioned rosy wolf snail and the small Indian mongoose were introduced as biological
control agents. However, successes can be dramatic. For instance, on the island of
St. Helena a tropical American scale insect (Orthezia insignis) had threatened the
existence of the endemic gumwood tree (Commidendrum robustum), but a preda-
tory South American lady beetle (Hyperaspis pantherina) now limits the scale
insect population (Booth et al. 2001). Many other projects have been successful,
primarily in control of agricultural pests, but the technology is increasingly aimed
at invaders of natural systems (Van Driesche et al. 2008).
Conclusion
Human activities have rendered current levels of species-level biodiversity unsus-

tainable, primarily because of (1) biological invasions, (2) overharvest, plus anthro-
pogenic global changes: (3) climate change, (4) modified biogeochemical cycles,
and (5) habitat change. Further, these five factors interact with one another in
complex and often idiosyncratic ways to exacerbate their impacts on biodiversity.
The impacts on biodiversity of biological invasions and modified biogeochemical
cycles are less well publicized than are overharvest and changed climate and habi-
tat. The scope and, for climate change and biogeochemical cycles, diffuse nature of
these factors can easily induce pessimism about humankind’s ability to ameliorate
them sufficiently to stem biodiversity loss. However, technologies and policies to
alleviate all of these factors do exist. For biological invasions, although interna-
tional agreements on the movement of goods and people are needed to restrict path-
ways for hitchhiking organisms and to limit the deliberate introduction of species
presenting a high risk of invasion, many national, regional, and local actions can
contribute greatly to solving this problem. Probably most useful would be an effec-
tive early warning/rapid-response system, plus sufficiently centralized and enabled
government agencies to act quickly and to coordinate both policies and on-the-
ground actions. Although economic costs will be associated with the development
of effective machinery to tackle biological invasions, such costs are not astronomic
and drastic lifestyle shifts are unnecessary. Certainly the costs of failing to bring
invasions under control will be greater.
Acknowledgment I am grateful to Billy Goodman, Michael P. Weinstein, and an anonymous

referee for many useful comments on an early draft of this manuscript.
References
Abbott KL (2004) Alien ant invasion on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean: the role of ant-scale
mutualisms in the dynamics of supercolonies of the yellow crazy ant, Anoplolepis gracilipes.
Ph.D. Thesis. Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne
Alroy J (2008) Dynamics of origination and extinction in the marine fossil record. PNAS 105(suppl 1):
1536–1542
American Museum of Natural History (1998) http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/
Intro/OngoingProces.html. Accessed 15 October 2010
Asner GP, Vitousek PM (2005) Remote analysis of biological invasion and biogeochemical change.
PNAS 102:4383–4386
Baskin Y (2002) A plague of rats and rubbervines. Island Press, Washington
Bezemer TM, Jones TH (1998) Plant-insect herbivore interactions in elevated CO2: quantitative
analyses and guild effects. Oikos 82:212–222
BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Lynx Edicions and BirdLife, Barcelona
and Cambridge
Booth RG, Cross AE, Fowler SV et al (2001) Case study 5.24. Biological control of an insect to save
an endemic tree on St. Helena. In: Wittenberg R, Cock MJW (eds) Invasive alien species: a toolkit
of best prevention and management practices. CAB International, Wallingford
Bradley BA, Wilcove DS, Oppenheimer M (2010) Climate change increases risk of plant invasion
in the Eastern United States. Biol Invasions 12:1855–1872
Britten HB, Brussard PF, Murphy DD (1994) The pending extinction of the Uncompaghre fritillary
butterfly. Conserv Biol 8:86–94
Carpenter S, Caraco NF, Correll DL et al (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phos-
phorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:559–568
154 D. Simberloff
Civeyrel L, Simberloff D (1996) A tale of two snails: is the cure worse than the disease? Biodiv
Conserv 5:1231–1252
Clavero M, García-Berthou E (2005) Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions.
Trends Ecol Evol 20:110
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change 2007: synthesis report.
Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Reisinger A,
eds) IPCC, Geneva
Cowie RH (2002) Invertebrate invasions on Pacific islands and the replacement of unique native
faunas: a synthesis of the land and freshwater snails. Biol Invasions 3:119–136
Cruz F, Donlan CJ, Campbell K et al (2005) Conservation action in the Galápagos: feral pig (Sus
scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island. Biol Conserv 121:473–478
D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle,
and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87
Davis JR, Garcia R (1989) Malaria mosquito in Brazil. In: Dahlsten DL, Garcia R (eds) Eradication
of exotic pests. Yale University Press, New Haven
Dayton PK, Thrush SF, Agardy MT et al (1995) Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquat
Conserv Marine Freshw Ecosyst 5:205–232
Dulvy NK, Sadovy Y, Reynolds JD (2003) Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish
Fish 4:25–64
Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst
41:59–80
Eplee RE (2001) Case study 2.10. Co-ordination of witchweed eradication in the U.S.A. In:
Wittenberg R, Cock MJW (eds) Invasive alien species: a toolkit of best prevention and manage-
ment practices. CAB International, Wallingford
Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat
fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142
Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst
34:487–515
Fisher JL, Veneklaas EJ, Lambers H et al (2006) Enhanced soil and leaf nutrient status of a Western
Australian Banksia woodland community invaded by Ehrharta calycina and Pelargonium
capitatum. Plant Soil 284:253–264
Fitzpatrick MC, Weltzin J, Sanders NJ et al (2007) The biogeography of prediction error: why does
the introduced range of the fire ant over-predict its native range? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:24–33
Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst
29:207–231
Gardener MR, Atkinson R, Rentería JL (2010) Eradications and people: lessons from the plant
eradication program in Galapagos. Restor Ecol 18:20–29
Glavin T (2007) The sixth extinction: journeys among the lost and left behind. Thomas Dunne
Books, New York
Groombridge B (1992) Global biodiversity. Status of the earth’s living organisms. Chapman &
Hall, London
Guralnick R (2007) Differential effects of past climate warming on mountain and flatland species
distributions: a multispecies North American mammal assessment. Glob Ecol Biogeogr
16:14–23
Hays WST, Conant S (2007) Biology and impacts of Pacific island invasive species. 1. A world-
wide review of effects of the small Indian mongoose, Herpestes javanicus (Carnivora:
Herpestidae). Pac Sci 61:3–16
Howarth R, Anderson D, Cloern J et al (2000) Nutrient pollution of coastal rivers, bays, and seas.
Issues Ecol 7:1–15
Howarth R et al (2005) Nutrient management. In: Chopra K et al (eds) Ecosystems and human
well-being: policy responses: findings of the Responses Working Group of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington
Klassen W (2005) Area-wide integrated pest management and the sterile insect technique. In:
Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS (eds) Sterile insect technique. Principles and practice in
area-wide integrated pest management. Springer, Dordrecht
Koh LP, Gardner TA (2010) Conservation in human-modified landscapes. In: Sodhi NS, Ehrlich
PR (eds) Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, New York
Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North
America. Science 298:1233–1236
Leakey RE, Lewin R (1995) The sixth extinction: patterns of life and the future of humankind.
Doubleday, New York
Li Y, Wilcove DS (2005) Threats to vertebrate species in China and the United States. Bioscience
55:147–153
Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2007) Invasion ecology. Blackwell, Malden
Mack R (2011) Cheatgrass. In: Simberloff D, Rejmánek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological inva-
sions. University of California Press, Berkeley
Mack R, Simberloff D, Lonsdale M et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global
consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710
Master LL, Stein BA, Kutner LS et al (2000) Vanishing assets. Conservation status of U.S. species.
In: Stein BA, Kutner LS, Adams JS (eds) Precious heritage. The status of biodiversity in the
United States. Oxford University Press, New York
Matthews S, Brand K (2004a) Africa invaded. Global Invasive Species Programme, Cape Town
Matthews S, Brand K (2004b) Tropical Asia invaded. Global Invasive Species Programme, Cape
Town
May RM (1997) The dimensions of life on earth. In: Raven PH, Williams T (eds) Nature and
human society. The quest for a sustainable world. National Academy Press, Washington
Metz B (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group
III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, New York
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity syn-
thesis. World Resources Institute, Washington
Noble I et al (2005) Climate change. In: Chopra K et al (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being:
policy responses: findings of the responses working group of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. Island Press, Washington
O’Dowd DJ, Green PT, Lake PS (2003) Invasional “meltdown” on an oceanic island. Ecol Lett
6:812–817
Office of Technology Assessment (US Congress) (1987) Technologies to maintain biological
diversity, OTA-F-330. US Government Printing Office, Washington
Orr JC, Fabry VJ, Aumont O et al (2005) Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first
century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681–686
Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev
Ecol Evol Syst 37:637–669
Pascal M, Le Guyader H, Simberloff D (2010) Biological invasions and the conservation of biodi-
versity. World Org Anim Health (OIE) Sci Tech Rev 29:387–403
Peres CA (2010) Overexploitation. In: Sodhi NS, Ehrlich PR (eds) Conservation biology for all.
Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecu-
rity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57:239–251
Pimm SL (1998) Extinction. In: Sutherland WJ (ed) Conservation science and action. Blackwell,
Oxford
Pimm SL (2007) The extinction puzzle. http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/pimm1/
English. Accessed 15 October 2010
Pounds JA, Fogden MLP, Campbell JH (1999) Biological response to climate change on a tropical
mountain. Nature 398:611–615
Primack RB (2010) Essentials of conservation biology, 5th edn. Sinauer, Sunderland
156 D. Simberloff
Randall R (2001) Case study 5.5. Eradication of a deliberately introduced plant found to be
invasive. In: Wittenberg R, Cock MJW (eds) Invasive alien species: a toolkit of best prevention
and management practices. CAB International, Wallingford
Raup DM, Sepkoski JJ (1982) Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science
215:1501–1503
Ries L, Fletcher RJ Jr, Battin J et al (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms,
models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522
Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (eds) (2003) Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island
Press, Washington
Schardt JD (1997) Maintenance control. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC (eds) Strangers
in paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press,
Washington
Schmitz DC, Simberloff D, Hofstetter RH et al (1997) The ecological impacts of nonindigenous
plants. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC (eds) Strangers in paradise: impact and man-
agement of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington
Schulte P, Alegret L, Arenillas I et al (2010) The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at
the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Science 327:1214–1218
Sepkoski JJ Jr (1984) A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. III. Post-Paleozoic
families and mass extinctions. Paleobiology 10:247–267
Simberloff D (1986) The proximate causes of extinction. In: Raup D, Jablonski D (eds) Patterns
and processes in the history of life (Dahlem Conference L536). Springer, Berlin
Simberloff D (2002) Ecological and economic impacts of alien species. In: Claudi R, Nantel RP,
Muckle-Jeffs E (eds) Alien invaders in Canada’s waters, wetlands, and forests. Natural
Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa
Simberloff D (2006) Invasional meltdown six years later—important phenomenon, unfortunate
metaphor, or both? Ecol Lett 9:912–919
Simberloff D (2010) Invasive species. In: Sodhi NS, Ehrlich PR (eds) Conservation biology for all.
Simberloff D, Rejmánek M (eds) (2011) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of
California Press, Berkeley
Simberloff D, Dayan T, Jones C et al (2000) Character displacement and release in the small Indian
mongoose, Herpestes javanicus. Ecology 81:2086–2099
Spellerberg IF (2002) Ecological effects of roads. Science Publishers, Enfield
Stein BA, Kutner LS, Adams JS (eds) (2000) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the
United States. Oxford University Press, New York
Tallis H, Goldstein JH, Daily GC (2010) The natural capital project. In: Sodhi NS, Ehrlich PR
(eds) Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, New York
Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature
427:145–148
Turner PJ, Scott JK, Spafford H (2008) The ecological barriers to the recovery of bridal creeper
(Asparagus asparagoides (L.) Druce) infested sites: impacts on vegetation and the potential
increase in other exotic species. Austral Ecol 33:713–722
United States National Research Council (2000) Global change: ecosystems research. National
Academy Press, Washington
Van Driesche R, Hoddle M, Center T (2008) Control of pests and weeds by natural enemies: an
introduction to biological control. Blackwell, Malden
Vitousek PM (1986) Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a differ-
ence? In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and
Hawaii. Springer, New York
Vitousek PM, Walker LR (1989) Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai’i: plant demography,
nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol Monogr 59:247–265
Vitousek PM, Walker LR, Whittaker LD et al (1987) Biological invasion by Myrica faya alters
ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science 238:802–804
Vitousek PM, Aber J, Howarth RW et al (1997) Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle:
causes and consequences. Issues Ecol 1:1–16
Wilcove DS, Master LL (2005) How many endangered species are there in the United States?
Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J et al (2000) Leading threats to biodiversity: what’s imperiling
U.S. species. In: Stein BA, Kutner LS, Adams JS (eds) Precious heritage. The status of biodi-
versity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York
World Conservation Union (2010) http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/
search_iucn_red_list/. Accessed 15 October 2010
Part III
From Science to Policy: Managing the
Commons, Social Learning, and Social
Responsibility
Population growth and related land-use changes continue to exert local and regional
pressures on the sustainability of ecosystems. To more effectively manage human life-
support systems, governing agencies need better capacity to plan for and guide growth.
Because policies cannot manage one activity, or part of a system, without considering its
connections with all the other parts, future management scenarios should focus on mul-
tiple activities within specific areas defined by ecosystem rather than political boundar-
ies. It also places humans in the landscape, within the broader context of the biological
and physical environment, and ultimately combines ecology and human dimensions
into “society-integrated” ecosystem management (CBD 1993; Naveh 2002, 2005).
Scientific understanding of both ecosystem processes and of the underlying role of vari-
ability in maintaining ecosystem resiliency (that might otherwise descend irreversibly
into degraded states; Holling 2000) has improved in the past several decades. As a result,
emerging management approaches can begin to conform more closely to ecological and
societal values rather than being driven by purely political constraints.
There is urgent need to better understand the consequences of our actions. This is
stated quite succinctly by John Sterman from MIT who comments: “As the world
changes, decision makers and the scientific community increasingly recognize that we
are not only failing to resolve the persistent sustainability problems we face, but are in
fact causing them” (Sterman 2002). Our well-intentioned efforts with global initiatives,
environmental “summits,” and dialogue to confront environmental issues not only fail to
resolve sustainability issues, but create unanticipated side effects. Today’s decisions
often provoke reactions (feedbacks) that we could not foresee, and they often become
tomorrow’s problems. Sterman calls this policy resistance (see his contribution herein)
the tendency for interventions to be defeated by the response of the system to the inter-
vention itself. As we invoke “green technology” as the panacea for the world’s sustain-
ability ills, these same words become powerful sponsors of advice and caution.
The National Research Council (2002) has called for informed dialogue on goals
for the sustainability transition, a dialogue that is necessary if societies are to adopt
a measure of responsibility for their choices, i.e., where it should be headed rather
than passively navigate the currents of demographic, economic, and environmental
change. Social learning will be a centerpiece of this transition.
160 From Science to Policy…
References
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (1993) Handbook of the convention on biological

diversity, 2nd edn. Transcontinental Printing, Montreal
Holling CS (2000) Theories for sustainable futures. Conserv Ecol 4:7–13
National Research Council (NRC) (2002) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability.
National Academy Press, Washington
Naveh Z (2002) A transdisciplinary education program for regional sustainable development. Int J
Ecol Environ Sci 28:167–191
Sterman JD (2002) All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System
Dyn Rev 18:501–531
“Post-sustainability”: The Emergence
of the Social Sciences as the Hand-Maidens
of Policy
Michael R. Redclift
Abstract The background to the current financial crisis and the problems
surrounding policies to combat climate change through transitions out of depen-
dence on carbon are examined. This review provides an example of how the quest
for sustainability has invoked new policy tools, and the limitations of these tools in
accounting for human behavior and agency. After providing a critique of current
sustainable development policy, I suggest that there are fundamental flaws in the
way policy has addressed both agency and structure in relation to climate change.
I argue for a need to draw away from the path dependence that has served to define
mainstream policy initiatives focused on individual consumer behavior, and argue
for a stronger recognition of structural inequalities at the international and national
level, as the cornerstone of an alternative, more sustainable, political stance. If we
have now arrived at a “tipping point” on climate change, then we need to address the
problem of decarbonization through an approach that goes well beyond market
“mechanisms,” and requires both social and political mobilization.
Keywords Sustainability • Markets • Carbon • Environmental policy • Path

dependency • Normative science
Introduction
The last 2 decades have witnessed a series of crises over the economy and the envi-
ronment. In this paper, I argue that they are linked and, although this is sometimes
acknowledged in policy circles, and by scientists, that the policy response to the “twin
crisis” has been inadequate. During this period, the apparent incompatibilities between
M.R. Redclift (*)

Department of Geography, Kings College London,
The Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK
162 M.R. Redclift
economic growth and environmental sustainability came to mean two things. First,
the limits of resource capacity were in danger of being exceeded. Resource shortages
were a constraint on further economic growth and development and there was a need
to curtail economic growth which was costly in natural resource and energy use. We
should conserve resources to facilitate growth. This was essentially the “Limits to
Growth” position articulated in the early 1970s (Meadows et al. 1972).
From this starting point in the 1970s, there was another, distinct position devel-
oped which became associated with the term “sustainable development” (Redclift
1987, 2008). This position took the argument one stage further. Clearly, the existing
levels of economic growth represented a threat to the environment and resources
but, in addition, we needed to identify and (increasingly) measure the trade-offs
between economic growth and environmental conservation. The “weak” view of
sustainable development suggested that when these two elements were in conflict, it
was often possible to substitute human-made capital, such as physical infrastructure
and capital goods, for the “natural” capital and resources which were being lost.
A “stronger” view of sustainable development would imply much lower levels of
substitution between human-made and natural capital, because it was often impos-
sible to substitute for natural capital, notably what Pearce and associates referred to
as “critical natural capital” (such as primary tropical forests, mangroves, and coral
reefs) whose loss could not be recovered (Pearce 1991).
The first position on the economy/environment imbalances lost support partly
because it was a product of high energy prices (the oil hikes of the 1970s), which did
not continue, and for which substitutes could be found. As hydrocarbons became
relatively cheaper, and the effects of the Green Revolution in expanding food staples
to meet population growth began to be acknowledged, it was no longer clear that the
Malthusian position held—that population exceeded the resources necessary to feed
this growth. And the drive for economic development in the South which had been
urged by the Brandt Commission was overtaken by events (Brandt 1980). At first, it
was put in jeopardy by the Debt Crises of the 1980s, the Structural Adjustment
Programmes, and, “post-recovery” of the early 1980s, which included the deregula-
tion of markets, and the “retreat of the state” from some economic activities, in
favor of the market. Even more importantly, perhaps, was the rise of the new (and
increasingly deregulated) economies, of the so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,
and China) and, especially, China and India which began to enjoy historically high
rates of economic growth. The problem for the rapidly growing economies of Asia
was not the absence of economic growth, but its transformation along more sustain-
able lines using fewer natural resources and less energy to produce the same amount
of economic growth.
The genius of the second position (“sustainable development” in both weak and
strong forms) was that almost everybody could sign up to it. There were very few
dissenting voices (Redclift 1987; Norgaard 1988; Adams 1990). The mechanisms
which were unleashed via deregulation and the neoliberal ascendancy became the
favored instruments of policy in seeking to achieve “sustainable development”
(Stiglitz and Serra 2008). Their economic policy component was often talked about
in terms of the “Washington Consensus,” although it was not clear that the consensus
“Post-sustainability”: The Emergence of the Social Sciences… 163
included all of the “beneficiaries” of interventions from the International Monetary

Fund and the World Bank.
The environmental measures which paralleled economic deregulation and the
development of new markets were as follows and took several forms: First, attempts
were made to internalize what economists identified as environmental “externalities”
in products and services, that is the usually unintended consequences of economic
activities that bore heavily on the environment. The code name for this process,
although one used much more in Europe than in the United States, is “Ecological
Modernization.” This was viewed as a competitive strategy by the European Union,
in seeking to give Europe a competitive advantage over the United States and any
newly developing rivals in Asia. This approach relied on counting the embodied
carbon in products, seeking to reduce energy and material throughput, and conse-
quently making a “win/win” gain, by reducing energy costs (hydrocarbon prices
were rising again by then) and environmental damage. It was envisioned that future
trade arrangements would also take account of “embodied carbon,” and that the first
nations to acknowledge this would prove the trade “winners.” Some of the more
imaginative policies of the European Union facilitated this outcome in the 1990s.
Second, the development of carbon markets, both within industries and, more
importantly, between countries, was an important new development. These new
markets represented a challenge for entrepreneurship, new market opportunities for
investors, and required very little government action. Carbon markets were thus
popular among devotees of free-market economics and environmentalism, unlike
other interventions such as carbon taxes (Simms 2005). It is worth adding, perhaps,
that a decade ago few paused to consider what might happen when markets fall and
the price of carbon, like that of other traded commodities would drop significantly.
Both these developments are examined later in this paper.
The conversion of governments to a more or less uncritical view of markets was
even more evident in the international efforts to “protect” biodiversity. The biodi-
versity regime was expressed in the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000). This development demonstrated a shift
away from a focus on the loss of species diversity, and thus the loss of complex
ecosystems, and toward a focus on the preservation of genetic diversity, where the
principal gains were in the pharmaceutical industries and agriculture (Paterson
2008). Again the almost imperceptible shift was from nature conservation to nature
as commodity. The main opposition to the latter was from groups—principally Non-
Governmental Organizations—which argued that marginalized people had rights in
nature which governments and the pharmaceutical industry ignored. However, the
industry lobby won much of the political and ideological struggle, insisting that ex
situ conservation in gene banks should be treated as equivalent to in situ conserva-
tion in ecosystems. In effect, the pharmaceutical companies improved their access
to biologically diverse plants under new international regimes of trade and intellec-
tual property.
The third element in the redesign of “sustainable development” policy was the
creation of the “consumer-citizen,” the idea that the individual could best express
their preferences for goods and services through their own (and their household’s)
164 M.R. Redclift
personal consumption. Parallel with the development of both cleaner technology

and carbon markets came the concern with sustainable consumption. Partially as a
result of their insufficient understanding of the link between social structures and
consumer habits, and the awkward politics of wealth redistribution, governments
came to favor consumer encouragement to live more sustainably and to reduce
household “footprints.” This implied the design of new “lighter” consumer goods,
evocations to act in more environmentally responsible ways, and an accent on “life-
style” and the consumer, at the expense of livelihoods and citizenship.
From the perspective of those most critical of market-based environmental
valuation, the conjunction of newly “liberated” markets and environmental concern
was a necessary contradiction of capitalism seeking a resolution, and could with
hindsight be seen as a “managed senescence,” if we continue with the biological
metaphors of “development” (Smith 2007; Bellamy-Foster 2010; Woodgate 2010).
A more mainstream view, however, would be that they addressed system failures,
and could even lead to a rejuvenated, if scarcely recognizable, type of materials
“light” capitalism.
A Novel Crisis: Financial Markets and the Environment
The hopes that markets and technology, together with more informed personal
choices, would solve the environmental problems associated with accelerated eco-
nomic growth and the enormous rise in global consumption were about to be chal-
lenged by a number of events. First, it was extremely difficult to square increased
consumption and easy credit with longer term sustainability. The financial crisis
which began in 2007/2008 was a “crisis” fed by the personal greed of many bankers
and financial managers, and fueled by the virtually unregulated production of cred-
it—not because interest rates were low but because the price attached to housing
equity (especially in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Ireland)
was unrealistically high. The rise in “sub-prime” lending and borrowing, took place
under systems of ineffective governance that emphasized everybody’s right to
owner-occupied property regardless of collateral and debt levels. Politically, these
policies were “sold” to consumers as everybody’s right to credit rather than their
right to debt.
The financial crisis also revealed that the model was completely unsustainable in
the long term. The policy response from the developed world paid lip service to the
rapidly disappearing Green policy agenda, but did not support this rhetoric with
effective interventions. Only China and South Korea allocated more than one third
of their fiscal stimulus to Green investment (HSBC 2009). The fiscal stimulus for
most countries merely deepened the environmental crisis, as production was “out-
sourced” to less clean suppliers and a brake was put on the conversion to more
sustainable production if it came at an initial economic cost.
There was also now considerable evidence of the effects of the financial down-
turn on migration, as well as poverty, and on a continental scale, especially in China.
China supported the United States’ debt through buying in to its financial packages
and through the expansion of its consumer goods exports raised consumption in the
West and assisted the cost of living to most consumers. Despite the global economic
recession, internal migration between the interior and the coast of China continued
to accelerate, while China maintained an impressive annual growth rate of almost
10%. The large and newly developing economies, especially in Asia, were increas-
ingly looked to for the stimulus that would lead the economies of Europe and North
America out of their recession.
Another process that gathered speed is that of transnational sourcing of food,
minerals, and other resources. The internationalization of capital movements and
the need to secure resources led to increased transnational acquisition of land and
minerals principally in Africa, on the part of China and some of the Gulf States.
Rather than depend exclusively upon trade relations to meet their domestic
resource deficiencies—because trade contracts during an economic recession—
the advantages of acquisition of land, water sources, and food (via “virtual water”)
became evident, especially for their geopolitical reach (Allan 2003). Land dis-
placement for crops like soya had already changed international food/land imbal-
ances, by providing cheap fodder for animals in Europe and North America, but
the leasing and ownership of land in transactions between countries of the Global
South was new.
Each of these processes appeared to have undermined the international economic
stability that had been taken for granted since the 1980s, albeit with a few wobbles.
They also suggested connections between the financial and environmental crises
that had only been dimly perceived in the past. Other questions remained relevant:
could one generalize a “successful” model of economic development to the global
scale without doing irreparable harm to the environment? And, were individual
country economies placed in jeopardy when pursuing international policies to limit
the damage of climate change (Copenhagen 2009)?
The Financial Crisis, Climate Change, and Consumption
The changes in the way that materials, food, and energy are sourced globally have
usually been discussed without much reference to sustainable consumption in the
countries of the Global North. Today the expansion of credit in much of the devel-
oped world and the associated levels of personal and corporate debt are necessarily
linked with the banking crisis that has affected most financial institutions since
September 2008, leading to an economic downturn and period of recession. An
understanding of the “limits” imposed by shifts in demand needs to be comple-
mented by an analysis of the rising levels of personal consumption and debt, not
only in the developed world but also in many middle-income and fast-growing
developing economies (Durning 1992; Redclift 1996; Princen et al. 2002). As we
shall see, these issues are closely linked to the global problems surrounding climate
change and are manifested at different spatial scales.
166 M.R. Redclift
The “toxicity” of many financial institutions was triggered by excessive lending,

and low interest rates prompted by the costs of increased international conflict
after “9/11,” especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Financial institutions linked to
housing equity in a number of countries helped create an unrealistic credit profile,
especially in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Ireland. The rise
of the credit economy, as well as the popularization of new instruments like home
equity loans with which to draw on expected capital gains, contributed to dra-
matic changes in commercial credit markets. There are clear indications from the
literature over a decade ago that savings behavior shifted most sharply in coun-
tries with more liberal access to personal credit, notably in the United States and
the United Kingdom (Calder 1999; Parker 1999; Manning 2001; Guidolin and
La Jeunesse 2007). As we have seen, this brought about a loss of confidence in
the ability of the lending institutions to recoup their assets, and national govern-
ments acted to guarantee the private banking sector against a feared “run on the
banks.” These developments occurred within a context of relatively high per-
sonal (and institutional) indebtedness since financial deregulation was initiated
in the 1980s.
At the same time, another shift has been occurring in consumer policy. This shift
was prompted by the much wider acknowledgement of global climate change, espe-
cially after the Stern Report was published in 2007 (Stern 2007). The need to pursue
“low-carbon” solutions to economic growth rapidly altered the policy discourses
surrounding consumption and the environment, and it has become an article of faith
for public policy that economic growth is only tolerable if it does not exacerbate
existing concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere. In 2008, the United Kingdom’s
Climate Change Bill was introduced, establishing a very ambitious target for carbon
reductions of 80% by 2050 (Appendix Two, therein). This policy activity has been
accompanied by sustained lobbying on the part of NGOs and others, including
Rising Tide, Friends of the Earth, the Campaign Against Climate Change, and the
series of Climate Camps that have repeatedly mobilized sections of the public. It is
worth adding that “low-carbon” solutions take different forms and meet different
levels of support and opposition from the business and citizen communities.
Examples exist of “no-regrets” public policies in the United States, such as energy
conservation measures, that can serve to reduce some greenhouse gas emissions,
and which have gained wide support, often from groups opposed to new environ-
mental regulation and even incentives.
This new policy perspective is seen clearly in the document which, more than
any other, represents the high-water mark of free-market environmentalism. The
Stern Review (Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change) noted that:
The transition to a low-carbon economy will bring challenges for competitiveness but also
opportunities for growth… Reducing the expected adverse impacts of climate change is
therefore both highly desirable and feasible.
This quotation illustrates the way in which what had previously been viewed as a
“threat” could quickly become an “opportunity,” although the quotation fails to say
for whom the opportunities exist. Unsurprisingly, the immediate responses to Stern
(and the IPCC 4th Assessment of 2007) were optimistic in tone. One commentator
on business and the environment wrote that (Welford 2006):
People would pay a little more for carbon-intensive goods, but our economies could continue
to grow strongly… The shift to a low-carbon economy will also bring huge opportunities…
Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has seen.
The characterization of climate change as a “market failure” immediately offered

economists, businesses, and Government a lifeline. Rather than necessitating expen-
sive and comprehensive restructuring in new systems of provision, or even reduced
volumes of production and consumption, Stern’s neoclassical view was that sustain-
ability could be delivered through increased consumption of particular kinds of
products, simultaneously. Feeding the economy has come to typify the mainstream
environment and consumption discourse.
These developments in the economy and in public policy raise some awkward
questions for our understanding of the policy discourses that have characterized the
field. There is still considerable confusion over the most effective way of reducing
consumption and the accompanying carbon emissions, and several of the assump-
tions about consumer behavior—such as the role of an “information deficit” sur-
rounding the environmental costs of products and services are, at best, questionable
(Redclift and Hinton 2008). Remarkably, the assumptions about personal behavior
being triggered by available information are also largely untested. Whilst policy-
makers and pundits alike tend to measure progress toward sustainable consumption
in terms of the numbers of purchases of particular “green” or “ethical” commodi-
ties, where success is framed in terms of market share, an alternative discourse sug-
gests that the most effective forms of sustainable consumption rest on other facets
of behavior, such as frugality, thrift and what has been termed “voluntary simplic-
ity” (Soper et al. 2008). If this is indeed the case, then a focus on lowering economic
growth may still be preferable to pursuing “sustainable growth” strategies.
As the quote from the Stern Report above suggests, climate change is now
regarded as a “given,” and markets are now considered more relevant to policy solu-
tions than ever before. The reduced dependency on hydrocarbons is widely regarded
as deliverable through changing consumer policy. In effect, the language of “Green
Consumerism” has reduced the politics of climate change to the size of a Green
consumer product. The evidence of an impending economic recession in the devel-
oped world might only serve to intensify this process, creating policy tensions where
once there were only “policy opportunities.”
I began this paper by arguing that the “contradictions” of thinking about sustain-
ability and development have merged into distinct policy discourses, around the idea
of “natural limits,” resource capacity and (un)sustainable consumption. Each of these
discourses can be usefully informed by recent work in the social sciences which
explores the changing role of science policy. One route is to point up the limitations
of a policy agenda apparently driven by faith in the verities of science itself. A realis-
tic, science-driven policy agenda, such as the work detailed in this and other volumes
from natural scientists, has been paralleled by a “science-sceptical” post-modern aca-
demic discourse in the social sciences (Yearley 1996; Demeritt 1998). This latter
168 M.R. Redclift
position begins by confronting the objectivity claims of science, suggesting instead

that biases enter into the way normal science is undertaken, and that scientists them-
selves are often poorly equipped to understand the limitations and assumptions of
their method. “Science-skeptical” positions part company with the realism that defines
most of the natural science projects, and prefers to regard “environmental” problems
as socially constructed, problems for society rather than problems of nature.
Neither position—“science-driven” and “science skeptical”—represents a threat
to the other since they inhabit quite different epistemological terrain, and address
different audiences. Most natural scientists remain blissfully ignorant of the mean-
derings of social constructivism and hold to a firm account of evidence-based,
experimental procedure. In the process, however, we have seen an enlarged aca-
demic debate, and one that closely examines the way environmental language is
deployed, while at the same time recognizing that public policy discourses them-
selves carry weight. The policy discourse surrounding “sustainability” has real con-
sequences in itself, by becoming a point of reference for those who agree and those
who differ as to its importance. However, issues around the social authority of sci-
ence, and the way it is employed politically, are linked to structural shifts both in the
“formal” economy and in the “informal” and “virtual” economies that have emerged
recently. I suggest that these shifts enable us to speak of a “post-sustainability” polit-
ical and policy discourse; one that recognizes “sustainability” not as a scientifically
verifiable fact, but as a social and political construct within a specific historical con-
juncture. These issues and connections are examined later in this paper.
I have argued that the policy debate has proceeded through assumptions about
“choice” and “alternatives,” that they have been largely devoid of any critical, struc-
tural analysis, and frequently narrow the sociological field of opportunity, by assum-
ing that people act primarily as consumers, rather than citizens (Redclift 2010).
There is clearly room for more rigorous analysis of what is a very broad social ter-
rain beginning with the assumptions of the model implicit in most environmental
and consumer policy.
Assumptions of the Policy Model
The neoliberal model characterizing the 1980s and 1990s was viewed by many as a
liberating model. It removed “government” as the engine of economic momentum,
and opened up activities to the market, or introduced “shadow” markets which
encouraged individuals to behave as if markets operated, in the process not merely
shifting economic activities to the private sector, but implementing a new logic for
the public sector (a sector that continued to grow in most developed countries). The
new policies also deregulated financial flows, facilitating the movement of capital
particularly finance capital, and reduced the burden on capital, through reducing the
presumed penalties on growth-like corporate taxes. The model also removed many
of the politically negotiated rights that organized labor had gained in the developed
world, and reconfigured the frontiers of the “welfare state.” Among the existing
capitalist economies, only those of the European Union sought to combine this mar-
ket-based model with measures in favor of labor, consumer, and environmental pro-
tection, producing a hybridization of neoliberal thinking and traditional welfare
support.
Rethinking the role of the state and the consumer in economic growth held
importance for the environment, too. The new policy emphasis, especially within
the European Union, was on moving away from the management of capitalist growth
on more environmentally sustainable lines and toward enabling private actors to
pursue their interests while simultaneously promoting sustainability. Policy increas-
ingly sought to structure incentives for actors, believing that the “agency” of the
individual, if it existed at all, consisted of a kind of “consumer-agency,” rather than
the battery of roles that constituted “citizenship.” This wider view of the multifari-
ous roles performed by the “citizen” had been pioneered by social democratic (and
some Christian Democrat) governments. However, as I have argued, the new model
envisaged the individual as reducible to their “consumer self,” and this applied as
much to the way environmental externalities were treated, as to the loosening up of
credit, and (in the case of some economies) the burden of equity-based housing.
These changes came at a cost, of course. The movement of neoclassical econom-
ics into more mainstream environmental policy left several concerns at the margin of
policy and politics. The challenges of reducing material throughput, and reducing
carbon emissions, converted environmental policy into a technical question, while
the agency of social movements and their pursuit of alternative social and cultural
objectives was effectively sidelined. Unlike the position in the first half of the twen-
tieth century, for the discursive politics of the decades after 1980, the term “utopia”
was treated pejoratively, as irrelevant, and out of phase with the realities of the
“enabling market.” The apparent need to reassure the public that the impending envi-
ronmental dystopias were not inevitable seems to have led policymakers to empha-
size individual contributions (e.g., Tesco’s advertising line that “every little helps”)
above collective political action. Unlike other policy domains, notably education,
the environment was not considered “aspirational” by many leading politicians dur-
ing the years of New Labour Government in the United Kingdom (1997–2010).
The underlying assumptions of the dominant model transposed the supposed
“barriers” to market freedom and choice in the formal economy, to the new terrain
of environmental and sustainability policy. Policy interventions assumed that simi-
lar barriers, this time “social” rather than economic, existed to people acting more
sustainably in everyday life (Redclift and Hinton 2008). It was suggested that these
social barriers were constituted by habit, poor education, a lack of information and
state bureaucracy, and could be rectified by policy. The solution was to introduce
more choice of products and services, new “Greener” technologies, and market
opportunities which could maximize utility while placing more responsibility on
the individual. The individual consumer could regard herself as “Greener” through
encouragement, or even, in the current argot “nudging,” that is, being leant upon by
government to behave better. This solution rendered the individual as a consumer,
rather than a fully reflexive citizen and their environment solely in terms of products
and services, rather than social processes or structures.
170 M.R. Redclift
At the same time, science was viewed as part of the solution, rather than the
“problem” confronting societies threatened by climate change. The decisions were
only obliquely political, and technical solutions held the promise of removing
politics from environmental policy entirely. As demonstrated in the Stern Report,
we were embarking on what has been termed a “post-political” future (Swyngedouw
2009), which is one in which consensus science came to exercise normative author-
ity, and political judgments about the way resources and rights to them were distrib-
uted could be left to (supposed) independent rational discussion.
The market research approach to modeling consumer behavior regards consumer
attitudes, obtained through surveys and focus groups, as proxy for social and eco-
nomic structures. It matters little whether a consumer is a poor single parent living
in a high-rise housing complex or a wealthy household living in a rural area, using
two cars to do the shopping and ferry the children to school. What matters is that the
attitudes displayed influence the household’s level and type of market engagement.
The task then is to tailor policy for different consumer profiles.
Capitalism “Lite”
At a more “macro” level, the development of carbon markets, both within industries
and, more importantly, between countries, represent a mature version of the “market
solution” model. On the one hand, the development of carbon markets was wel-
comed by many sectors of industry; indeed, they were heralded as a “challenge for
entrepreneurship,” providing new “market opportunities” (Lovins et al. 2000). At
the same time, as we have seen, they required very little government action and
were consistent with the largely deregulatory model being widely pursued.
Carbon markets were thus popular among devotees of free-market economics and
those who recognized the urgency of environmental action, but who bemoaned the
shifts in behavior that this might imply. As one “progressive” think tank in the UK put
it, “they (provide) the political opportunity to highlight, secure and celebrate wealth
creation. The benefits from the low-carbon transition are waiting to be grasped”
(Policy Network 2010). Notwithstanding the endorsement of carbon markets by large
sections of political opinion, they also raised other questions which were an anathema
to the more radical Green opinion, raising the possibility, following Oscar Wilde’s
famous dictum, of “knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
The existence of carbon markets contributed to the new middle-ground consen-
sus that has come to characterize business-friendly environmental policy during the
first decade of the twenty-first century. Organizations like the Carbon Trust adver-
tised heavily in publications like “The Economist,” where individual entrepreneurs
were singled out for compliments and communicated their endorsement of carbon
trading. “What was I thinking when I cut our carbon and joined the standard?” asks
the Chris Pilling of HSBC. The answer is a conclusive “win/win” piece of advo-
cacy: “I saved money, gained a competitive edge, improved efficiency and shared
the tangible benefits of accreditation.”
The clear benefits of encouraging industry to enter the new carbon markets,
however, only represented one part of the equation. The downsides of carbon trad-
ing were perhaps less “tangible” but equally compelling. Once the financial reces-
sion became apparent, the benefits of carbon markets began to recede.1 The
“cap-and-trade” model was beginning to lose ground by late 2009 in precisely those
economic systems which had earlier favored it. Under President Obama in the
United States, electricity utilities looked likely to use “cap and trade” but transport
emissions were more likely to be taxed and industrial emissions regulated. The
“new tools” of the market was less in evidence in 2010 than 10 years earlier. By the
same token, the appeal of the “old” policy instruments of taxation and regulation
was more apparent during “bad times” when governments, especially in the United
States and Europe, needed to raise income, particularly for much needed new invest-
ments in energy (including renewables). The Economist put it this way: “climate
action may come to lean more heavily on the command-and-control techniques than
the market-based approaches they were intended to replace” (The Economist March
20, 2010).
What is the significance of carbon markets for individual consumers, whose
attention has increasingly been drawn toward ways of reducing carbon “footprints”—
which is the mechanism favored by many mainstream commentators? Carbon foot-
prints appear to provide a ready-made and measurable way of enabling individuals
to make choices about travel, in particular, leading some of them to “offset” some
choices against others and improve their sustainability “profile.” This has led some
commentators to advocate individual carbon budgets as the logical consequence of
carbon measurement.
However, there are a number of problems associated with carbon foot-printing
that are not always discussed. First, although it is a technique that allows compari-
sons between indicators, carbon footprints cannot be converted into monetary or
social values, and so they are of only limited use to policy (OECD 2004; Schmidtt
2009). In addition, measuring an individual’s carbon footprint does not help us to
understand what an acceptable rate of carbon is for an individual, or how their per-
sonal contribution might contribute to the wider society. It provides no interpreta-
tive framework through which policy can be guided. Finally, carbon foot-printing
uses no standard placement for the boundaries of the system in which it is deployed.
Most calculations use “cradle-to-gate,” or “cradle-to-site/plate” as the system
boundary, while the least used framework, and probably the most inclusive, is from
“cradle-to-grave.”
1
There have been several reports suggesting that the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme
(ETS) will do little to encourage investment to reduce emissions during the economic recession.
On the present course, emissions trading is likely to produce only a 3% reduction in emissions
within the EU by 2020. Two effects will be observed. First, the cap on emissions will exceed pro-
jected EU emissions providing no economic incentive to move to clean technology and infrastruc-
ture before 2012. Second, because the EU allows unused permits and offsets under phase three
(2013–2020), any claimed economic incentive during this later period will also be reduced.
(‘Recession plus ETS = fewer carbon emissions in the EU; National Audit Office 2009).
172 M.R. Redclift
Another consumer-led policy initiative to close the “carbon loop,” and one trig-
gered by the intergovernmental agreements at the first Earth Summit in 1992, which
heralded the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), is the development of volun-
tary carbon offsets. Carbon offsetting was seen as an approach with considerable
appeal to environmentally conscious consumers, which might help assuage the guilt
of people who traveled frequently by plane, but were painfully aware of the carbon
cost of doing so. Offsetting flights is widely promoted as a solution to emissions
reduction. It involves travelers paying a fee on top of their airfare to “offset” the
carbon emitted by the journey. There is, however, considerable confusion surround-
ing carbon offsets: the way that emissions are measured, the fees charged for man-
aging offsets, and the methods employed in calculating them, are all contentious
and complex calculations (Gossling 2000). In addition, the main target of voluntary
offsets has been tourists rather than the more significant business traveler, for whom
there is evidently less appeal in “guilt-free flying” (Francis 2009). The operator
Responsible Travel, which has pioneered ethical tourism in Europe, has recently
dropped its offsetting choices, on the grounds that some tourists might travel more
because they believe the effect of their flights has been neutralized. Critics of offset-
ting argue that it has a negligible effect on carbon sinks in the global South and,
indeed, removes the responsibility for preventing deforestation in the developing
countries themselves (Draper et al. 2009; Dawson et al. 2010).
Finally, in all the discussion of carbon accounting, trading, and offsetting, there
is a beggar at the feast. What might happen when markets fall and the price of car-
bon drops significantly? This possibility eventuality had not received much atten-
tion in the optimistic decade that proceeded the economic recession. In addition,
some commentators argued that those in the European Union are now faced with a
“sub-prime” market in carbon as the price drops, and that investors will lose the
benefits of government support. This is a situation not entirely dissimilar to that in
the housing market a decade earlier.
The shift toward more conventional policy tools, especially regulation, might
also have political consequences, because the environmental movement in all its
complexity assumes the lobbying role that has been the specialism of business and
the environment since the ascent of Ecological Modernization. If President Obama’s
Bill in the United States does not pass through Congress in 2010, then this role will
arguably become even more critical, strengthening the hand of more radical grass-
roots organizations in the political system rather than more business-friendly Green
lobbyists.
Underlying Structural Issues
On closer examination, the sociological consequences of these developments are

profound. The pricing of individual household-level technology, like wind turbines
and solar panels, makes some Green innovations look more like “positional goods”
than public goods. This occurs when the gains accrue mainly to people who can put
up the initial capital, utilize government subsidies, and, ultimately, reap the income
benefits (Hirsch 1977). The contribution of these consumer “fixes” to national
energy production and the emerging “energy gap” in the second decade of the cen-
tury is likely to be very modest, indeed. The observation that has been made about
other forms of Green or Ethical consumerism, such as “responsible travel” and “fair
trade,” also applies to these new forms of Green consumerism too: they require a
higher outlay and yield most benefits for the middle-class consumer. Meanwhile,
the big decisions on energy generation and conservation are stalled, and the nuclear
power “option” is resurrected.
The emergence of Green technology as a positional good, rather than what econo-
mists call a “public good,” is only one of several indications that climate policy is
insufficiently grounded in our knowledge of social structures. The existence of embod-
ied carbon, and its acknowledgement in the discussions (but not the policies) sur-
rounding global trade agreements is another (Kejun and Murphy 2008). Climate policy,
and the piecemeal attempt to provide incentives for individuals to reduce their own
carbon dependency, is rarely linked to a wider global experience outside the OECD
countries. In what ways does it contribute to the transfer of much needed cleaner tech-
nology to the global South? What are the international and distributive consequences
within the global South of our attempts at limited decarbonization in the North?
We might, indeed, dig deeper still. What other forms of human agency, other
than those of the “informed” consumer, have been left out of the equation? What are
the wider social and cultural implications of placing so much emphasis on trading
in a “bad” (pollution) rather than a “good” (such as cleaner technology)? What
forms of human agency, innovation, and collective action lie outside the compass of
“entrepreneurship,” but help distill community support and engage environmental
citizens (Dobson 2003)? Climate scientists are seen as the “guardians of the dogma”
on climate change, but there is evidence of low levels of public trust in science,
including climate science. What is required, then, to mobilize areas in which there
are high levels of public mistrust, such as climate change, while other institutions
and practices do command widespread public support, such as community-based
credit unions and some of the financial mutuals? New forms of Web communication
and networking suggest widespread support for organizations which are embedded
locally in communities and which acknowledge, rather than ignore, social and eco-
nomic inequalities. As in previous historical periods, addressing international and
national structural inequalities might become the engine of new transitions, creating
new social solidarities, and means of liberation from the path dependency associ-
ated with our heavy reliance on hydrocarbons (Redclift 2008).
Is There a “Bright Narrative?”
I have argued here that a meaningful transition to a low-carbon economy is impos-

sible as long as we rely on models of market choice and normative science policy
that leave little room for collective and group behavior and ignore the underlying
174 M.R. Redclift
social commitments that govern our everyday lives. The dual crises of global
financial debt and climate change are reaching a “tipping point” beyond which it
will be difficult to move.
Already there is evidence that some behavioral responses to the environmental
and financial crisis are taking forms that are not easily accommodated to the pre-
vailing approaches to environmental policy favored by most governments. They lay
in challenges to conventional food systems, alternative recycling and re-use activities,
and small-scale attempts to provide sustainable renewable energy at the level of
communities, as well as individual households, and the brave efforts of enthusiasts
to hold back ecological damage. Much of this activity is “informal” in a new sense,
too; it is often funded within the “formal” market economy, but depends heavily on
Web-based organization and group and community loyalties without formal institu-
tional ties. These partial, but evolving, challenges to conventional thinking and
behavior are often only weakly connected to each other, because they cover a num-
ber of apparently isolated social fields. What they do reveal are fissures in the fabric
of governance and the management of nature, and a need felt by some third-sector
organizations to transcend anxiety over the environment. They reveal ways in which
conventional path dependency is shifting, allowing new kinds of social organization
and governance to emerge, often in unexpected places, to build new forms of social
and ecological resilience. One can observe in more resilient human and natural
systems the ability to “self-organize” among the components or constituent parts of
the system (Adger et al. 2005). This resilience has also been observed in relation to
apparently “marginalized” groups in the Global South, notably urban “squatter”
populations, but similar trends have occurred during periods of economic recession
or war in the industrialized world, when families had no alternative to finding their
own solutions. This was particularly the case during and immediately after the
Second World War in the United Kingdom, when housing was not available and
food was rationed (Redclift and Hinton 2008, 2009). Can alliances today be built
from these small innovative “alternatives?” Can a “brighter narrative” be developed
for the future?
In the recent past, extreme traumas such as World War II have transformed many
of the taken-for-granted assumptions that characterize modern industrial societies.
Major shifts in behavior, such as rationing, women’s employment and dramatic
changes in resource and energy use, have come about as path dependency has been
transformed by events on the world stage. Societies and economies have been mobi-
lized for different purposes. Although historically conjunctural, such experiences
might help inform us today. The challenges of the “new” conflicts associated with
climate change today are much greater, of course, and carry fewer political impera-
tives than the wartime policy on the Home Front. The “tipping point” is no longer
the prospect of military occupation by an enemy, but a “retreat” in the face of a self-
induced problem: anthropogenic climate change. In exploring the possibilities of
transition to a post-carbon future, we might begin by examining the “pieces”—
fragmented, often virtual and inevitably local—with which such a narrative might
be constructed. They need to be constructed from peoples’ lives and the resilience
of their households and communities, rather than simply from their performance in
consumer markets that are often transitory and unstable. But this is unlikely to be
enough to redirect economic development in ways that are genuinely sustainable.
The “Bright Narrative” may elude this generation, but without re-examining soli-
darities and social commitments in the next generation it will be too late to even
contemplate.
References
Adams WM (1990) Green development: environment and sustainability in the third world.
Routledge, London
Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across
scales. Glob Environ Change 15:77–86
Allan JA (2003) Virtual water—the water, food and trade nexus: useful concept or misleading
metaphor? Water Int 28:4–11
Bellamy-Foster J (2010) Marx’s ecology and its historical significance. In: Redclift MR, Woodgate
G (eds) The international handbook of environmental sociology, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham
Brandt Commission (1980) North-South: a programme for survival. Pan Books, London
Calder L (1999) Financing the American dream: a cultural history of consumer credit. Princeton
University Press, Princeton
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Fourth assessment. http://www.ipcc.
ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.html.
Accessed 7 June 2010
Dawson SEJ, Lemelin H, Scott D (2010) The carbon cost of polar bear viewing tourism in
Churchill, Canada. J Sustain Tour 18:319–336
Demeritt D (1998) Science, social constructivism and nature. In: Braun B, Castree N (eds)
Remaking reality: nature at the millennium. Routledge, New York
Dobson A (2003) Citizenship and the environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Draper S, Goodman J, Hardyment R et al (2009) Tourism 2023: four scenarios, a vision and a
strategy for UK outbound travel and tourism. Forum for the Future, October. http://www.scribd.
com/doc/21001489/UK-Tourism-2023-Full-Report-Web-Version. Accessed 31 July 2010
Durning A (1992) How much is enough? The consumer society and the future of the earth. Norton,
New York
Francis J (2009) Responsible travel has ditched offsetting flights and holidays for environmental
reasons. Guardian (London), 16 October
Gossling S (2000) Sustainable tourism development in developing countries: some aspects of
energy use. J Sustain Tour 8:410–425
Guidolin M, La Jeunesse E (2007) The decline in the US personal savings rate: is it real and is it a
puzzle? Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, November/December 2007
Hirsch F (1977) The social limits to growth. Routledge, London
Kejun CA, Murphy D (2008) Embodied carbon in traded goods. Trade and Climate Change
Seminar, June 18–20. IISD, Copenhagen
Lovins A, Hawken P, Lovins LH (2000) Natural capitalism. Earthscan, London
Manning R (2001) Credit card nation: the consequences of America’s addiction to credit. Basic
Books, New York
Meadows DH, Randers J, Meadows DL (1972) The limits to growth. Pan Books, London
National Audit Office (2009) European Union emissions trading scheme. National Audit Office,
London
Norgaard R (1988) Sustainable development: a co-evolutionary view. Futures 20:606–620
176 M.R. Redclift
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2004) Measuring sustainable
development: integrated economic, environmental and social frameworks. OECD, Paris
Parker J (1999) Spendthrift in America? On two decades of decline in the US savings rate. NBER
Macroecon Ann 14:305–370
Paterson M (2008) Global governance for sustainable capitalism? The political economy of global
environmental governance. In: Adger N, Jordan A (eds) Governing sustainability. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Pearce D (1991) Blueprint two. Earthscan, London
Princen T, Maniates M, Conca K (eds) (2002) Confronting consumption. MIT Press, Cambridge
Redclift MR (1987) Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. Routledge, London
Redclift MR (1996) Wasted: counting the costs of global consumption. Earthscan, London
Redclift MR (2008) The environment and carbon dependence: landscapes of sustainability and
materiality. Curr Sociol 57:369–387
Redclift MR (2010) The transition out of carbon dependence: the crises of environment and markets.
In: Redclift MR, Woodgate G (eds) The international handbook of environmental sociology,
2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Redclift MR, Hinton E (2008) Progressive governance conference: living sustainably. Policy
Network, London
Redclift MR, Hinton E (2009) Austerity and sustainability: the road from wartime austerity to the
consumer citizen. Working Paper no 17. Department of Geography King’s College, London
Schmidtt H (2009) Carbon foot-printing, labelling and life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Asses
suppl 1:S6–S9
Simms A (2005) Ecological debt: the health of the planet and the wealth of nations. Pluto Press,
London
Smith N (2007) Nature as accumulation strategy. In: Panitch L, Leys C (eds) Coming to terms with
nature. Socialist Register 43:16–36
Soper K, Thomas L, Ryle M (eds) (2008) Counter-Consumerism and its pleasures. Palgrave,
Basingstoke
Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern Review. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Stiglitz J, Serra N (2008) The Washington consensus reconsidered. Oxford University Press,
Oxford
Swyngedouw E (2009) The antinomies of the post political city: in search of a democratic politics
of environmental production. Int J Urban Reg Res 33:601–620
Welford R (2006) The economics of climate change: an overview of the Stern review. Intl J
Innovation Sustainable Development 1:260–262
Woodgate G (2010) Introduction. In: Redclift MR, Woodgate G (eds) The international handbook
of environmental sociology, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Yearley S (1996) Rethinking the global. In: Yearley S (ed) Sociology, environmentalism, globali-
sation: rethinking the globe. Sage Publications, London
The Purpose and Politics of Ecosystem-Based
Management
Judith A. Layzer
Abstract Ecosystem-based management (EBM) emerged in the late 1980s as an

alternative to the piecemeal, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approach to natural resource
management that dominated the twentieth century. EBM features three central attri-
butes: (1) planning at a landscape scale, (2) collaboration with stakeholders, and
(3) adaptive and flexible implementation. According to its proponents, EBM can
generate management that is not only ecologically sensitive and responsive to new
scientific information but also widely accepted. Application of EBM has yielded
some important environmental benefits, including improvements in scientists’
understanding of large-scale ecosystems. Those advances in knowledge, however,
have not necessarily translated into the kinds of political and policy changes that the
proponents of EBM had hoped for. Nor have they yielded more resilient ecosys-
tems. Instead, in prominent cases of EBM, powerful interests have dominated the
collaborative planning process, and flexible implementation has allowed those
who are not committed to evade responsibility for implementing environmental
sustainability measures. Simply enhancing scientific models to better assess
complex risks will not ensure that EBM yields genuine ecological restoration. Also
important are a credible and stringent regulatory framework and political leaders
who place a premium on ecological integrity.
Keywords Ecosystem-based management • Landscape-scale planning • Adaptive

management • Collaborative planning • Evaluation
J.A. Layzer (*)

Department of Urban Studies and Planning, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 9-326,
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
178 J.A. Layzer
Introduction
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) emerged in the late 1980s as an alternative to

the piecemeal, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approach to natural resource manage-
ment that predominated during the twentieth century.1 EBM was originally the
brainchild of scientists and natural resource managers concerned with the deteriora-
tion of natural systems. They pointed out that the “conventional” approach to natu-
ral resource management—a product of environmental laws and procedures layered
on top of conservation-era mandates to produce commodities—was not only gener-
ating conflict but also failing to stem the decline of natural systems. In fact, despite
the efforts of environmentalists, environmentally oriented scientists, and land-use
managers, species extinctions were accelerating, as high-quality habitat disappeared
or was fragmented and degraded. Evidence from a variety of sources supported the
conclusion that the cumulative impact of human activity was reducing the carrying
capacity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and destroying the ecological
services on which humans and other species depend (MEA 2006).
Critics suggested that there were three main reasons conventional management
was failing: (1) its top-down, one-size-fits-all, expert-driven approach; (2) an
emphasis on either exploiting or protecting individual resources; and, (3) a lack of
coordination among entities with authority over land and natural resources. As a
remedy, they proposed an approach widely known as “ecosystem management,”
which involves planning across large landscapes; collaborating with stakeholders;
and flexible, adaptive management. EBM eventually became the preferred term
for this set of practices because it conveys the idea of managing the activities of
humans within ecosystems, and not the ecosystems themselves. Proponents antici-
pated that EBM would enhance the integration of science and management and
therefore lead to more resilient landscapes. In practice, EBM has yielded some
important environmental benefits, including improvements in scientists’ under-
standing of large-scale ecosystems. But those advances in knowledge have not
necessarily translated into the kinds of political and policy changes that proponents
of EBM had hoped for. Nor have they yielded more resilient ecosystems. Instead,
in prominent cases of EBM, powerful interests have dominated collaborative
planning processes, and flexible implementation has allowed those not fully com-
mitted to EBM principles to evade responsibility for implementing environmental
restoration measures.
1
EBM is just one of the new approaches that emerged at this time. Smaller, more local initiatives
constitute what Weber (2003) calls grass-roots ecosystem management (GREM). According to
Weber, GREM arises in rural, natural-resource-dependent communities, primarily in the West, in
an effort to overcome gridlock in public lands management. The lines dividing different types of
initiatives are blurry, and some authors cast a wide net (Gordon and Coppock 1997; Meffe et al.
2002), while others draw a distinction between initiatives that are large scale and often led by
government and more ad hoc, small-scale efforts driven primarily by local activists (Cestero 1999).
This chapter focuses on large-scale, government-led initiatives former. It also focuses on EBM in
the USA, although the concept has taken hold around the world.
The Purpose and Politics of Ecosystem-Based Management 179
Origins of EBM
The scientific community was particularly influential in developing the concept of

EBM. Ecologists and conservation biologists had long complained that the con-
ventional regulatory framework for managing natural resources treated complex,
diffuse phenomena as though they were separable into clearly defined problems
that were linear with respect to cause and effect. This critique was rooted in a series
of conceptual and value shifts within the ecological sciences. During the 1970s and
1980s, ecologists had moved away from the classical, equilibrium-based paradigm,
in which ecological systems were viewed as closed, self-regulating systems operat-
ing within a single stable state. In its place, they adopted a “flux-of-nature” view
that treated ecosystems not as self-regulating but as limited by external sources.
Furthermore, ecologists had recognized that disturbances—such as fire, floods,
droughts, and storms—played a central role in shaping ecosystem dynamics, and
that humans were an inextricable part of natural systems (Perry and Amaranthus
1997; Pickett and Ostfeld 1995). From this perspective, ecosystems were depicted
as open, unpredictable, and unique, rather than as closed and comprehensible. In
addition, process, dynamics, and context were more important than endpoint
stability (Meffe and Carroll 1994). Parallel to these developments in ecology was
the emergence of conservation biology, whose practitioners focused on conserving
biological diversity and ecological integrity, rather than commodity production
(Noss and Cooperrider 1994).2
Ecologists and conservation biologists charged that the conventional manage-
ment paradigm, with its emphasis on controlling natural variation, was producing
brittle ecosystems that were unable to deal with external shocks (Holling and Meffe
1996). “The command-and-control approach,” wrote Holling and Meffe (1996)
“implicitly assumes that the problem is well-bounded, clearly defined, relatively
simple, and generally linear with respect to cause and effect.” But in a complex,
nonlinear, and poorly understood world, such an approach could have disastrous
ecological, social, and economic consequences. Attempting to manage fisheries
using the concept of “maximum sustainable yield,” for example, caused the wide-
spread collapse of commercial fish stocks and, consequently, declines in marine
ecosystems. Benign neglect, an alternative approach also rooted in the equilibrium-
based paradigm, was untenable as well. Often practiced in nature preserves, benign
neglect led to increasing populations of wildlife that, when confined within park
boundaries, decimated vegetation and then declined precipitously (Botkin 1990).
Environmentalists and environmentally oriented policy scholars were also
dismayed by the approach to natural resource management that prevailed in the
2
According to Haeuber ( 1996 ) , the EBM concept has historical roots that predate the fl ux-
of-nature paradigm in ecology. He notes that in the early 1930s the Ecological Society of America’s
Committee for the Study of Plant and Animal Communities recommended protecting ecosystems
rather than just species, incorporating natural disturbance regimes into management, and using a
core reserve/buffer design approach for natural area protection.
180 J.A. Layzer
1970s and 1980s. Drawing on the philosophies articulated by George Perkins

Marsh and Aldo Leopold, they insisted that planning should conform to ecological
boundaries rather than political jurisdictions, and that policymaking should address
environmental problems in a comprehensive and holistic fashion. They had hoped
the environmental laws passed in the 1960s and 1970s would transform resource
management agencies from commodity maximizers into protectors of forest, range,
and coastal lands. In practice, however, those agencies’ institutionalized emphasis
on commodity extraction and commercial development was resistant to change.
Rather than transforming their practices, public officials simply tried to accom-
modate environmental demands within the existing paradigm of multiple-use
resource management. The typical result was conflict over rules and decisions,
with development interests defending their historical prerogatives and environmen-
talists seeking to enforce new statutory mandates through administrative challenges
and litigation.
Further complicating matters was the fact that, in any given landscape, multiple
entities had jurisdiction over land and natural resources, creating an incoherent
patchwork of rules and practices. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) were trying to balance demands for commodity production,
recreation, and wilderness preservation on their properties. Adjacent lands managed
by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service aimed to conserve
habitat for wildlife and protect scenic vistas. Other federal agencies—including the
Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers—had authority over federal
irrigation and flood-control projects, both of which affected surrounding lands.
Although often operating within a single landscape, these various agencies were
making little effort to coordinate their activities. Exacerbating the management
challenge, state and privately owned tracts—often comprising the most ecologically
valuable land—were scattered among the federally owned land, but were subject to
their own regulations, including local zoning ordinances, property tax laws, and
state forestry and wildlife laws.
Critics from a variety of disciplines charged that the cumulative result of
perpetual conflict, complex landownership patterns, and an overwhelming focus on
individual resources or species was the steady decline of wildlife and vital ecologi-
cal services.3 To remedy these deficiencies, they prescribed an ecosystem-based
approach emphasizing cumulative impacts, as well as connections among ecosys-
tem elements and between ecological and social systems. Their aim was to conserve
or restore the long-term ability of a particular ecosystem to deliver ecological goods
and services and recover from broad-scale perturbations. Some of the earliest U.S.
examples of EBM actually preceded efforts to define the approach formally. For
example, although not explicitly identified as EBM, the multistate efforts to restore
the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay that were initiated in the late 1970s and
early 1980s adopted an ecosystem-based approach. Two events in the late 1980s,
3
Ecological services are the benefits supplied by natural systems; they range from clean air and
water to the cycling of nutrients that are essential to life.
however, underscored the need for, and catalyzed high-level interest in, EBM:
the controversy surrounding efforts to conserve grizzly bear habitat in the Greater
Yellowstone region, and the fight to save the northern spotted owl and its old-growth
forest habitat in the Pacific Northwest.
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) spans more than 18 million acres
across three states and is the largest nearly intact natural ecosystem in the
temperate zone. It provides critical habitat for the world’s largest elk herds, as well
as for free-roaming bison, grizzly bears, whooping cranes, bald eagles, peregrine
falcons, and trumpeter swans (Keiter 1991). The GYE is also a “complex patchwork
of management and ownership” (Goldstein 1991) that includes 28 different political
units. For decades, a lack of shared conservation goals among the region’s many
stakeholders led to habitat fragmentation, disruption of ecological processes, and
human–wildlife confrontations (Glick and Clark 1998). In the mid-1980s, after
legislators castigated the National Park Service and Forest Service for failing to
coordinate their planning and management activities, the two agencies reinvigo-
rated the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC), an interagency
group created in the 1960s. The GYCC eventually issued a draft vision statement
that called for ecosystem management that would conserve the region’s “natural-
ness” (Fitzsimmons 1999). After an intensely negative reaction from local politi-
cians and economic interests, however, the committee dramatically revised the
document, ultimately producing a bland and ineffectual final version.
The Northwest Forest Plan, crafted in response to the spotted owl crisis in the
Pacific Northwest, marked the start of a more successful EBM initiative. A series of
disputes in the late 1980s over preserving spotted owl habitat culminated in litiga-
tion that virtually halted logging in the region’s federally owned old-growth forests.
In the spring of 1993, newly elected President Clinton charged a team of experts
with crafting a forest management plan that would end the stalemate. The resulting
plan embodied important EBM attributes. First, its boundaries were defined not by
political jurisdictions but by the range of the spotted owl and other endemic species.
Second, it was based on a comprehensive, state-of-the-art scientific assessment and
sought to establish a network of preserves and corridors to facilitate the dispersal of
native species and to re-establish natural disturbance regimes. Third, it proposed
creating ten adaptive management areas where land managers could experiment
with novel interventions. Because the plan reduced logging to well below historic
levels, it also included measures to help dislocated timber workers and their
communities adjust to the new regime.
Theoretical Benefits of EBM
By the mid-1990s, EBM had become the preferred strategy of many professional
societies and the dominant paradigm—at least rhetorically—among the nation’s
land management agencies (Beattie 1996; Christensen et al. 1996; Dombeck 1996;
182 J.A. Layzer
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force 1995; NAPA 1995; PCSD 1996;
Society of American Foresters 1993; Thomas 1996; USEPA 1994; Western
Governors’ Association 1998). Scholars and practitioners offered a variety of
definitions that, although not identical, consistently emphasized three elements:
(1) landscape-scale planning with an emphasis on restoring ecosystem processes
and functions; (2) collaboration with stakeholders; and (3) flexible, adaptive imple-
mentation (Browman et al. 2004; Christensen et al. 1996; Clark 1999; GAO 1994;
Gordon and Coppock 1997; Franklin 1997; Grumbine 1994; Keiter 1998, 2003;
Lamont 2006; Lee 1993; Meffe et al. 2002; Wallace et al. 1996; Yaffee 1999, 2002).
Proponents hoped that, in combination, these three elements would lead to more
comprehensive management at larger spatial scales on a longer time frame than
conventional management and would therefore lead to a more sustainable and resil-
ient landscape (Table 1).4
Table 1 Ecosystem-based management vs. traditional management

Traditional natural Ecosystem-based
Attribute Resource management Management
Underlying view A collection of resources Complex, dynamic, inter-related, and
of nature to be controlled inherently unpredictable systems
Relevant science Equilibrium perspective: Flux-of-nature perspective:
succession leads to stable disturbance is normal; holism;
climax communities; embrace of uncertainty and
reductionist methods; surprise
goal is predictability
Goal(s) of management Maximum sustainable yield Sustainable ecosystems, ecological
of commodities integrity
OR
Balance between commodity
production, amenities, and
ecological integrity
Decision making Centralized, top-down, Decentralized, participatory,
expert-driven collaborative
Implementation/ Prescriptive, uniform, piecemeal, Incentive-based or voluntary,
solutions technology-based; emphasis locally tailored,
on control and remediation and performance-based;
of damage emphasis on prevention
Management that is rigid Management that is experimental,
and aims for control adaptive
4
Haeuber and Franklin (1996) argue that sustainability is at the core of EBM, its essential element
and precondition. Franklin (1997) defines sustainability as “the maintenance of the potential of our
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to produce the same quantity and quality of goods and services
in perpetuity.”
Landscape-Scale Planning
A central feature of EBM is planning at a landscape scale. Forest ecologists Perry

and Amaranthus (1997) explain: “The critical role of landscapes and regions in
buffering the spread of disturbances, providing pathways of movement for organ-
isms, altering climate, and mediating key processes such as the hydrologic cycle
means that the fate of any one piece of ground is intimately linked to its larger
spatial context.” Ecologists acknowledge that there is no single, widely accepted
scientific definition of an ecosystem (Szaro et al. 1998), but there are distinctive
landscapes, such as watersheds, that are widely recognized as meaningful because
of their distinctive biogeographical features. The point is that planning, and there-
fore management, should be organized around the problem(s) to be solved, not
around political units or property lines, and should focus on the relationships among
landscape elements, rather than on individual elements in isolation.
Theoretically, landscape-scale planning should yield significant environmental
benefits for two main reasons. First, it requires scientists to develop integrative
assessments illuminating the relationships within coupled human-ecological sys-
tems, as well as the ecological structures and functions that are critical to a system’s
long-term resilience. It also requires scientists to incorporate multiple scales and the
dynamic character of ecosystems. Such assessments, in turn, raise policymakers’
and stakeholders’ awareness of critical ecological processes. Armed with this
knowledge, they should be more likely to design solutions that are holistic and com-
prehensive—and, therefore, more effective at conserving biological diversity than
are uniform, single-media-oriented, national-level policies (Christensen et al. 1996;
Meffe and Carroll 1994; Murphy 1999). Second, landscape-scale planning requires
coordination among the numerous entities with jurisdiction over the landscape.
Such coordination, in turn, should alleviate the problems that arise when federal and
state agencies operating within a single ecosystem pursue inconsistent policies. It
should also avert the “death by a thousand cuts” that occurs when localities make
decisions that disregard spillovers across jurisdictional boundaries and facilitate
urban sprawl (Beatley and Manning 1997).
Stakeholder Collaboration
Another critical element of EBM is collaboration among stakeholders—an attribute

that gained prominence as proponents contemplated the challenges of implementa-
tion (Duane 1997). Specifically, stakeholders should select the desired states of the
ecosystem and formulate the means to achieve those states. In most collaborative
planning processes, participants deliberate with the aim of reaching consensus,
generally defined as willingness by all to accept the decision of the group. When
properly structured, consensus-based problem solving identifies solutions that
promise gains for all of the participants, even though no one group is likely to get
everything it wants.
184 J.A. Layzer
In theory, engaging stakeholders in a collaborative process of defining the goals,

objectives, and outputs of EBM will produce several environmental benefits.
Repeated interactions among stakeholders are likely to increase their knowledge
and understanding of one another’s interests and eventually foster trust among
participants (Axelrod 1984; Dryzek 1990; Innes and Booher 1999; Susskind and
Cruikshank 1987). Trust, in turn, generates more creative interactions, which can
yield innovative solutions (Dryzek 1990; Innes 1996; Wondollek and Yaffee 2000).
Brick and Weber (2001) explain: “Instead of a system premised on hierarchy, col-
laboratives devolve significant authority to citizens, with an emphasis on voluntary
participation and compliance, unleashing untapped potential for innovation latent in
any regulated environment.”
Proponents of collaboration also expect that it will yield solutions that are
more effective at solving environmental problems than top-down approaches,
because the process incorporates more and better information, and does so more
thoroughly. Collaboration is likely to engage scientists more productively than
adversarial processes because, in a deliberative forum, reasoning, rather than tac-
tics, is paramount (Andrews 2002; Ozawa 1991). Moreover, unlike decision-
making by narrowly trained experts, collaboration incorporates local knowledge,
which is based on extended, close observation of how an ecosystem behaves
(Berkes 1999; Brunner et al. 2005; Fischer 2000). In the process, it filters out the
biases and broadens the perspectives of experts, while simultaneously enhancing
the technical expertise of citizens (Brick and Weber 2001; Susskind and
Cruikshank 1987).
Involving all interested parties can also ease implementation because everyone
who might obstruct the implementation of a collaborative decision will have
participated in formulating the solution (Blumenthal and Jannink 2000; Meffe
et al. 2002). Gordon and Coppock (1997) point out that “The inclusiveness of
the process broadens the base of support, making it harder for die-hard opponents
to overturn agreements as soon as they see a political advantage.” By contrast, local
stakeholders tend to perceive mandates issued by federal officials as unfair and
illegitimate and therefore to resent and resist them (Susskind and Cruikshank
1987). This is why Leslie and McLeod (2007) argue that “meaningful engagement
with stakeholders is needed to create management initiatives that are credible,
enforceable, and realistic.”
Flexible, Adaptive Implementation
The third critical element of EBM is implementation that is flexible and adaptive.
A flexible implementation strategy is one that employs information, incentives,
performance standards, and voluntarism, rather than prescriptive rules and
deterrence (Fiorino 2004). Such flexibility is important because next-generation
environmental problems are fundamentally different from those tackled in the
1970s. Centralized rules may have been appropriate for problems caused by large
factories, for example, but they are inadequate for dealing with suburban sprawl,
agricultural runoff, and other problems caused by myriad individual decisions
(Esty and Chertow 1997; Graham 1999). Adaptive management entails designing
interventions to illuminate ecosystem responses, in light of which management
can be continually refined, which is essential because both ecological and social
systems are complex, dynamic, and inherently unpredictable (Cortner and Moote
1999; Karkkainen 2002). Ideally, adaptive management begins with the establish-
ment of baseline conditions and the identification of gaps in knowledge about a
system. Next, scientists devise management interventions as experiments that test
hypotheses about the behavior of the system and monitor the results of those inter-
ventions. Finally, managers modify their practices in response to information
gleaned from monitoring (Holling 1978).
Flexible, adaptive implementation promises at least two major environmental
benefits. In theory, flexibility fosters a sense of stewardship among regulated
entities, increasing the likelihood they will take protective measures that exceed
minimum legal requirements (Fiorino 2004). By contrast, according to critics of the
status quo, traditional regulatory approaches appear unreasonably burdensome
and arbitrary, so provoke resistance or efforts to circumvent the rules. Those who
do comply are likely to engage in the minimum legally required behavior change
(Fiorino 2004; Freeman 1997). Adaptive management promotes continuous learning,
which is essential given our limited ability to comprehend the dynamic and unpre-
dictable natural world and the impacts of our interventions (Holling 1995, 1996;
Lee 1993). Adjustments in our responses to new information should result in man-
agement practices that are more reflective of the best scientific understanding of
ecosystem process and function.
Critiques of EBM
Despite great enthusiasm about the potential benefits of EBM, its critics worried
that the concept was too ambiguous to bring about genuine environmental protec-
tion, and that absent a shift in values EBM would yield more of the same while
breeding complacency (Lackey 1998; Ludwg et al. 1993; Stanley 1995). Some crit-
ics suggested that existing statutory frameworks that give precedence to commodity
production or species-level obligations might impede ecosystem-based approaches
(Keiter 1998; Tarlock 2003). Others worried that institutional factors, particularly
longstanding agency missions and standard operating procedures, would obstruct
EBM initiatives (Cortner and Moote 1999; Keiter 1998). Still others complained
that flexible implementation would allow evasion of protective measures by recalci-
trant managers and stakeholders (Lowi 1999; Steinzor 2000), while adaptive man-
agement, although desirable in theory, would encounter resistance in practice
(Johnson 1999; Stankey et al. 2003; Walters 1997).
186 J.A. Layzer
The gravest fears about EBM, however, focused on stakeholder collabora-

tion.5 Critics argued that collaboration aimed at consensus would yield lowest-
common-denominator solutions rather than environmentally protective ones.
According to this logic, collaboration undermines efforts to depart dramatically
from the status quo because, in an effort to attain consensus, planners exclude or
marginalize those with “extreme” views, skirt contentious issues, focus on the attri-
butes of the ecosystem that are easiest to control, and avoid considering solutions
that impose costs on participating stakeholders (Beierle and Cayford 2002;
Coglianese 2001; Eckersley 2002; Peterson et al. 2005; Stanley 1995). Some skep-
tics charged that collaboration actually exacerbates the power imbalance between
environmental and development interests and, therefore, generates worse outcomes
than the traditional regulatory approach (Amy 1990; Coggins 2001; McCloskey
1996; Stahl 2001; Steinzor 2000).
Ambivalence about stakeholder collaboration is reflected in the extent to which
proponents are explicit about the preeminence of restoring ecological integrity and
biological diversity. Some proponents of EBM, including many scientists, empha-
size sustaining ecosystems and moderating human behavior to accommodate natu-
ral constraints (Callicott 2000; Christensen et al. 1996; Grumbine 1994; Lamont
2006; Wood 1994). Wood (1994), for example, argues that “To embrace the ecosys-
tem management concept is to accept that ecological factors such as maintaining
biological diversity, ecological integrity, and resource productivity dictate strict lim-
its on social and economic uses of the land.” Similarly, Grumbine (1994) contends
that “ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relation-
ships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the general goal
of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term.” And Salwasser (1998,
p 90) argues that “The aim of ecosystem management on national forests should be
to sustain healthy land first, then to provide people with the variety of benefits and
options they need and want, consistent with basic land stewardship.” This perspec-
tive acknowledges the strong possibility of trade-offs between environmental pro-
tection and development goals, particularly in the short run (Rosenberg and Sandifer
2009; Levin and Clark 2010).
Many others, however, have proffered a view of sustainability in which social,
economic, and ecological benefits are pursued simultaneously and, apparently,
harmoniously. For example, in 1996 the Keystone Center defined ecosystem man-
agement as “a collaborative process that strives to reconcile the promotion of eco-
nomic opportunities and livable communities with the conservation of ecological
integrity and biological diversity” (Fitzsimmons 1999). Szaro et al. (1998) argue
that “the mandate [of EBM] should be to protect environmental quality while also
producing the resources that people need. Therefore, ecosystem management can-
not simply be a matter of choosing one over the other.” The EBM Tools Network, a
5
While critics on the left suggested that EBM would yield watered-down, and therefore insufficiently
protective, solutions, critics on the right argued that EBM was a vehicle of nature-worshipping
environmentalists to elevate protection of ecosystems above all else (Fitzsimmons 1999).
web-based alliance of EBM researchers and practitioners seeking to promote

EBM for coastal and marine environments, says that EBM “is concerned with the
ecological integrity of coastal-marine systems and the sustainability of both human
and ecological elements.” Such formulations elide the possibility of short-term eco-
nomic or ecological losses that may result from the pursuit of multiple goals
simultaneously.
Cortner and Moote (1999) acknowledge the ambiguity that pervades definitions
of EBM when they say that “while ecosystem management explicitly recognizes
that social goals and objectives play a central role in framing management direction,
it also presumes that humans will decide to make protection of ecological processes
their overriding social objective.” Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO 1994) observes: “Proponents of ecosystem management believe that
coordinating human activities across large geographic areas to maintain or restore
healthy ecosystems…would, among other things, better address declining ecologi-
cal conditions and ensure the sustainable long-term use of natural resources, includ-
ing the production of natural resource commodities.” The GAO also recognizes,
however, that “In the absence of a clear statement of federal priorities for sustaining
and restoring ecosystems and the minimum level of ecosystem health needed to do
so, ecosystem management has come to mean different things to different people.”
EBM in Practice
Despite its ambiguities, EBM has become the strategy of choice among natural
resource managers worldwide. By 1999, federal officials in the United States
had stopped referring to ecosystem management, retreating in the face of vitriolic
reactions from commodity interests and western “wise use” advocates. But the
concepts that underpin EBM persisted and initiatives continued under different
names, such as “collaborative conservation.” In 2006, for example, the Cooperative
Sagebrush Initiative began engaging stakeholders across eleven western states
in an ostensibly comprehensive effort to reconcile resource use with conserva-
tion of the sage grouse, whose numbers were dwindling as a result of habitat
fragmentation.
Even as the term fell out of favor among U.S. land managers, enthusiasm was
growing for applying EBM principles to marine ecosystems (Browman et al. 2004;
McLeod et al. 2005; Rosenberg and McLeod 2005; UNEP and GPA 2006;
Ruckelshaus et al. 2008). California’s 1999 Marine Life Management Act required
EBM for managing all marine wildlife in the state’s waters. Two prestigious
scientific panels (Pew Oceans Commission 2003; US Commission on Ocean Policy
2004) recommended taking an ecosystem-based approach to managing all marine
systems. In fact, by the early 2000s EBM had become the dominant paradigm for
managing natural resources around the world, and several international organiza-
tions, including the World Conservation Union (Pirot et al. 2000), United Nations
(UNCB 2003; UNDP et al. 2003), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
188 J.A. Layzer
(MEA 2006), developed case studies and principles for successful implementation
of EBM.6
A Systematic Assessment of EBM
Although there is widespread enthusiasm about EBM, systematic assessments of its

efficacy have been few and far between. This is in part because, until the 2000s, few
initiatives had existed long enough for evaluators to assess them. The complexity
and heterogeneity of those initiatives that were under way made evaluation particu-
larly challenging. Beginning in the mid-2000s, however, I sought to conduct a
systematic assessment of the results of EBM and the mechanisms by which those
results were produced. I chose four prominent cases of EBM, two terrestrial and
two aquatic-system initiatives, in rapidly urbanizing regions of the United States.
It became clear upon further investigation that, although they differed in their
particulars, all four cases were generating results that were only minimally environ-
mentally beneficial. In hopes of clarifying which attributes of EBM were responsible
for these disappointing outcomes, I identified three additional cases that were
similar in terms of locations and the problems being addressed but seemed to
be producing more substantial environmental benefits (Table 2).7
Table 2 Case selection

Minimal environmental benefit Substantial environmental benefit
Terrestrial ecosystem Austin (Texas) Balcones Pima County (Ariz.)
Canyonlands Conservation Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan (BCCP) Plan (SDCP)
San Diego (Calif.) Multiple Species
Conservation Plan (MSCP)
Aquatic ecosystem Comprehensive Everglades Kissimmee River Restoration (Fla)
Restoration (Fla)
California Bay-Delta Program (Calif.) Mono Basin Restoration (Calif.)
The results of my investigation were surprising. All seven of the initiatives

I examined yielded concrete policies and practices that appeared likely, over time,
to produce some environmental benefits. Each had prompted the creation of a deeper
and more holistic understanding of how specific ecosystems work which, in turn,
had fostered a more widespread recognition among policymakers and stakeholders
of the relationships among the landscape’s ecological elements and functions.
Without exception, the programs had furnished participants with a rationale for rais-
ing large sums of money that were used to acquire ecologically valuable land or to
6
Elsewhere, EBM went by other names, including Integrated Coastal Management, Integrated
Water Resources Management, and Integrated River Basin Management.
7
For analysis, see Layzer (2008).
undertake activities aimed at restoring ecological functions. Each program had

empowered environmentally oriented personnel within agencies and jurisdictions,
some of whom had tried to institutionalize more environmentally beneficial prac-
tices. Only those projects that did not rely on collaborative planning, however, had
yielded policies and practices that appeared likely to conserve and restore biological
diversity and, therefore, ecological resilience.
A comparison among the seven cases suggested that a landscape-scale focus was
an important catalyst for the adoption of more environmentally protective policies
and practices. In each of the cases, scientists described a defining “moment” when
they realized that what happens in one part of a system affects the other parts; for
the first time, they saw the system as a whole, not just a set of parts. In addition,
scientists identified key drivers of ecological damage and documented the mecha-
nisms by which that damage was occurring. They recommended measures to con-
serve key species and the ecological processes they depend on. Furthermore, in
every case, trying to address problems at a landscape scale prompted planners to
adopt more comprehensive approaches to environmental problem solving and led to
new forms of coordination among disparate agencies and jurisdictions.
The beneficial effects of collaborating with stakeholders were more elusive,
however. In the four cases where policymakers deferred to stakeholders to set goals,
the policies and practices that emerged appeared unlikely to conserve or restore
ecological health because, to gain consensus, planners skirted trade-offs and opted
instead for solutions that promised something for everyone. The resulting plans
typically featured management-intensive approaches with little buffering. As a con-
sequence, they imposed the risk of failure on the natural system. There are several
explanations for this result. First, although collaboration did enhance trust, there is
little evidence that stakeholders’ interests were genuinely transformed or that the
collaborative process generated innovative solutions. Instead, consensus-oriented
groups tended to marginalize advocates who espoused “extreme” views. Even with
a carefully selected stakeholder group, negotiations often resembled bargaining
more than deliberation, particularly as plans became more specific. Stakeholder
groups tended to avoid the most difficult issues or to mask differences by using
vague language—decisions that ultimately haunted implementation.
Stakeholder collaboration also did not ensure that the best information would
prevail. The four cases that involved collaboration featured scientific enterprises
that were difficult to penetrate, so that local knowledge was often ignored. Nor did
collaboration put an end to bickering among stakeholders over scientific issues.
(It is noteworthy that the plans that did not rely on collaboration were actually more
recognizably grounded in science than those that did.) The evidence also failed to
support the notion that collaboration ensures durable implementation. Instead,
implementation exposed many of the differences papered over during the
collaborative planning processes, as stakeholders sought to prevent or modify proj-
ects that threatened their interests.
A commitment to flexible, adaptive implementation did not compensate for the
failings of these four environmentally risky plans and, in fact, sometimes exacer-
bated them. Adaptive management did not yield a willingness to alter policies in the
190 J.A. Layzer
face of new information, partly because minimalist plans actually provided little
room for adjustment, but also because management and monitoring were
insufficiently funded, and learning by scientists did not translate automatically into
management changes. Flexible implementation allowed managers with missions
that were incompatible with ecological restoration to resume user-friendly practices
when political conditions shifted.
By contrast, when policymakers—elected officials, administrators, or judges—
endorsed an environmentally protective goal and used regulatory leverage to
prevent development interests from undermining that objective, as they did in the
three comparison cases, the resulting policies and practices were more likely to
conserve or restore ecological integrity. In these cases, a willingness among political
leaders to make ecological health the preeminent aim changed the balance of power
and altered perceptions of what was politically feasible. When restoring ecological
health was the paramount goal, planners were more likely to approve, and managers
to implement, approaches that relied less on energy-intensive manipulation and
more on enhancing the ability of natural processes to sustain themselves, even if
doing so imposed costs on some stakeholders.
Generalizing the Results
The insights generated by this comparative analysis should be taken as cautionary,

rather than definitive. In particular, it is important to note that the four cases of genu-
ine EBM were more complex, both geographically and organizationally, than the
comparison cases. That said, the findings are consistent with the results of other
research on EBM or its components. Several detailed examinations of the Chesapeake
Bay Program, for example, have yielded comparable results. The Chesapeake Bay
Program was established in 1983 to restore the resilience of the nation’s largest and
most productive estuary. But, on January 5, 2010, the 26-year-old program missed
its second major cleanup deadline. Careful analysis of monitoring data suggested
that efforts to reduce pollution of the bay had fallen more than 40% short of their
goals, despite spending of nearly $6 billion, because the impacts of relentless growth
were overwhelming pollution control efforts.
Most observers attribute the Chesapeake Bay Program’s failures to its reliance
on collaborative planning and flexible implementation (Ernst 2003; Horton 2003;
Layzer 2012). Historically, the program has operated as a multistate cooperative,
with the Environmental Protection Agency in a supporting role and the Bay states
following different paths depending on their political culture and proximity to the
Bay. While the state of Maryland has typically enacted more stringent measures,
Virginia and Pennsylvania have taken advantage of the program’s flexibility to adopt
minimally protective policies and practices. Furthermore, the states’ heavy reliance
on nonregulatory approaches—including educational programs, incentives, and
voluntary stewardship initiatives—has yielded few measurable results. In fact, the
single most effective measure taken in the watershed to date has been the ban on
phosphate detergent adopted by the Bay states in the 1980s and 1990s.
Similarly, in the Great Lakes a multibillion-dollar international effort to restore

ecological integrity has been under way for decades. Yet ecological recovery has been
limited, and progress is likely to be negated by increasing population, urban sprawl,
and ongoing problems with invasive species, all of which will be exacerbated by
global warming (Shear 2006). There are signs of progress in the Great Lakes: phos-
phorus inputs have declined; there has been a dramatic recovery of the walleye as a
result of fishing limits and phosphorus controls; and the population of the burrowing
mayfly, historically the dominant benthic invertebrate in the lakes, rebounded between
1990 and 2001. On the other hand, the available data suggest that wetland-dependent
birds have been static or declining, nonnative fish dominate prey fish in most areas,
and invasive zebra mussels have decimated native freshwater mussel communities.
Less prominent initiatives have also fallen short of restoring resilient ecosys-
tems. For example, Arizona’s collaborative Upper San Pedro Partnership (USPP),
formed in 1998, failed to prevent the San Pedro River from running dry for the first
time in 2005. Although the partnership has generated and disseminated an impres-
sive amount of information to stakeholders, and local governments have taken sev-
eral steps to reduce water consumption in the region, there has been no consensus
on the ultimate issue, which is growth control. According to Saliba and Jacobs
(2008), “Perhaps the largest criticism leveled against the USPP is its inability to
make difficult decisions regarding growth….The politics and economics of growth
in Arizona make this conversation very difficult.”
Scholars investigating marine EBM have also turned up pallid results. Pitcher
et al. (2009) reviewed the role of EBM in fisheries management around the world
and found that, while many countries had adopted EBM principles, few had actually
taken the steps to achieve effective implementation. Only a handful of countries in
the developed world were clearly moving toward EBM, and many European coun-
tries garnered dismal ratings. The authors concluded that “Whilst the late nineties
also saw the blossoming of ‘Oceans’ approaches aimed at developing and applying
EBM principles to multiple sectors in multistakeholder processes, the gradual pace
of these reforms and their perceived expense has meant that few have been imple-
mented” (Pitcher et al. 2009). Arkema et al. (2006) investigated forty-nine manage-
ment plans for eight large marine and coastal ecosystems to assess the extent to
which managers were actually practicing EBM. They, too, found that implementa-
tion of EBM principles was lagging. Moreover, management objectives included
more detailed criteria relevant to human activity than ecological criteria; many of
the plans focused on objectives that promoted commercial and recreational uses,
such as maintaining public access and rebuilding depleted fisheries.
Other studies support claims about the propensity of collaborative planning, in
particular, to yield environmentally risk-tolerant solutions. Pralle (2006), for exam-
ple, conducted a detailed analysis of the Quincy Library Group (QLG), and found
that the decision by key activists to plan collaboratively in a local forum led planners
to redefine the central problem facing the ecosystem as forest fires, rather than exces-
sive logging. Doing so defused conflict and allowed for a solution that gave some-
thing to everyone without necessarily addressing the root cause of the region’s
environmental degradation. Pralle noted that the focus on process disarmed environ-
mental challengers, who found it difficult to combat the “overwhelmingly positive
192 J.A. Layzer
characterization” of local, collaborative decision making. She observed that “In a

world of polarized interest groups and partisan gridlock, policymakers may be more
than willing to settle for outward signs of consensus rather than true political com-
promises” (Pralle 2006).
Similarly, in a study of two collaborative projects within the Everglades resto-
ration in South Florida, Frank (2009) found that collaboration was better at
resolving conflict than at problem solving, which was a subordinate objective.
She concluded that:
Since collaborative processes did not significantly change power relations, collaborative
outputs and the political capital upon which they depended were largely transient.
Collaboration produced a delicate balancing act of aligned interests in keeping with the
rhetoric of win–win and sustainability. Collaborative recommendations appeared highly
integrated, yet under the surface there were strategic motivations and shallow commitments.
The agreements began to unravel when system dynamics of technical shortcomings changed
the conditions upon which the agreements depended. Combine this with the long-range
dominance of economic interests, and the result was poorer implementation performance
for environmental plan features.
Other scholars, however, have identified more encouraging examples of EBM that
incontrovertibly have resulted in environmental improvements. These projects tend to
feature most of the characteristics posited by political scientist Ostrom (1990) and her
colleagues as essential to effective local, collaborative management of common pool
resources. In particular, appropriators have the following characteristics: (1) they
believe they will be harmed if they do not adopt rules to govern use of the resource;
(2) they are affected in similar ways by the proposed rules; (3) they value the contin-
ued use of this common property resource (discount rates are low); (4) they face low
information, transformation, and enforcement costs; (5) they share generalized norms
of reciprocity and trust; and (6) they constitute a relatively small and stable group.
In addition, the target resource is in sufficiently good shape that efforts to protect it
will confer benefits, there are valid and reliable indicators of system health, the flow
of resources is relatively predictable, and the system is sufficiently small to allow
knowledge of external boundaries and internal microenvironments (Ostrom 2001).
Such conditions rarely hold at the larger scales that are typical of EBM.
Furthermore, in many cases, evaluators who discern positive results have
relied on the testimony of participants, rather than on actual evidence of eco-
logical improvement. For example, Steven Yaffee (2002) reported on 105 EBM-like
partnerships throughout the United States. According to surveys of those initiatives,
a majority had not only produced better relationships and greater awareness of the
ecosystem, but also improved scientific understanding, ecological restoration,
increased native species populations, and improvements in “overall ecosystem
integrity.” Similarly, in a survey by the GAO (2008) of seven collaborative initiatives,
participants claimed they had improved natural resource conditions—although none
had collected any data to demonstrate their claimed impact(s) at a landscape scale.
Alternatively, analysts have evaluated EBM on the basis of process, but not
outcomes. Tallis et al. (2010), for instance, proffer two case studies of “successful”
EBM, one in Raja Ampat, Indonesia, and the other in Puget Sound, Washington.
Neither purported to show ecological improvements, however.
Conclusions
Overall, the evidence suggests that EBM, although widely embraced in theory, does
not necessarily result in ecological restoration in practice. In cases where EBM has
been fully implemented, landscape-scale planning has yielded discernible environ-
mental benefits, but the effects of collaboration with stakeholders and flexible, adap-
tive implementation are more ambiguous. This is not entirely surprising: proponents
of EBM often gloss over the potential trade-offs among environmental, economic,
and social considerations, particularly in the short run. They assume that long-term
thinking, and a related preoccupation with ecological sustainability, will somehow
emerge from a collaborative process. For this to happen, however, participants must
adopt a view that healthy, functioning ecosystems are essential to human well-being.
They must embrace a land ethic and eschew a short-run economic point of view.
Such transformation is unlikely under any circumstances but, counterintuitively,
appears to be made more probable by the exercise of political leadership and regula-
tory leverage. That is why, as legal scholar Bradley Karkkainen (2002) observes, in
the United States the federal government plays a critical role in EBM. More gener-
ally, he notes that productive collaboration is most likely when the most powerful
actors have their backs against the wall—usually as a result of a stringent federal
law that is likely to be enforced. Mobilization and litigation by environmental advo-
cates can also generate the kind of “pervasive, persistent, and profound uncertainty,
and the associated recognition of mutual dependence” necessary to bring about
shifts in the balance of power that precede productive deliberation (Cohen and
Rogers 2003).
Proponents of sustainability science anticipate that new modeling tools will do a
better job of forecasting trajectories, assessing complex risks, and laying bare the
potential trade-offs between short-run economic development and long-run envi-
ronmental sustainability. The link between a shift toward more holistic, integrative
science and more environmentally protective governance is not straightforward,
however. We will also need insight into human motivation, and better mechanisms
for transforming social priorities, to bring about the kinds of behavior changes
required for society to become genuinely sustainable.
References
Amy DJ (1990) Environmental dispute resolution: the promise and the pitfalls. In: Norman JV,
Kraft ME (eds) Environmental policy in the 1990s. CQ Press, Washington
Andrews CJ (2002) Humble analysis: the practice of joint fact-finding. Praeger, Westport
Arkema KK, Abramson SC, Dewsbury BM (2006) Marine ecosystem-based management: from
characterization to implementation. Front Ecol Environ 4:525–532
Axelrod RM (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New York
Beatley T, Manning K (1997) The ecology of place: planning for the environment, economy, and
community. Island Press, Washington
Beattie M (1996) An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation. Ecol Appl 6:696–699
194 J.A. Layzer
Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental

decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington
Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia
Blumenthal D, Jannink J-L (2000) A classification of collaborative management methods. Ecol
Soc 4:13. http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art13/
Botkin DB (1990) Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the twenty-first century. Oxford
University Press, New York
Brick P, Weber EP (2001) Will the rain follow the plow? Unearthing a new environmental move-
ment. In: Brick P, Snow D, Van De Wetering S (eds) Across the great divide: explorations in
collaborative conservation and the american west. Island Press, Washington
Browman HI, Cury PM, Hilborn R et al (2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
Brunner RD, Steelman DA, Co-Juell L et al (2005) Adaptive governance: integrating science,
policy, and decision making. Columbia University Press, New York
Callicott JB (2000) Harmony between man and land: Aldo Leopold and the foundations of eco-
system management. J For 98:4–13
Cestero B (1999) Beyond the hundredth meeting: a field guide to collaborative conservation on the
west’s public lands. Sonoran Institute, Tucson
Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Carpenter S et al (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of
America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:665–691
Clark JR (1999) The ecosystem approach from a practical point of view. Conserv Biol
13:679–681
Coggins GC (2001) Of californicators, quislings, and crazies: some perils of devolved collabora-
tion. In: Brick P, Snow D, and Ven de Wetering S (eds) Across the great divide: explorations in
collaborative conservation and the American west. Island Press, Washington
Cohen J, Rogers J (2003) Power and reason. In: Fung A, Olin Wright E (eds) Deepening democracy:
Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso, New York
Cortner HJ, Moote MA (1999) The politics of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington
Coglianese G (2001) Is consensus an appropriate basis for regulatory policy? In: Orts EW,
Deketelaere K (eds) Environmental contracts. Kluwer Law International, Boston
Dombeck MP (1996) Thinking like a mountain: BLM’s approach to ecosystem management. Ecol
Appl 6:699–702
Dryzek J (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge University
Press, New York
Duane TP (1997) Community participation in ecosystem management. Ecol Law Quart
24:771–797
Eckersley R (2002) Environmental pragmatism, ecocentrism, and deliberative democracy:
between problem-solving and fundamental critique. In: Minteer B, Taylor BP (eds) Democracy
and the claims of nature: critical perspectives for a new century. Rowman and Littlefield,
Landham
Ernst HR (2003) Chesapeake Bay blues: science, politics, and the struggle to save the bay. Rowman
and Littlefield, Landham
Esty DC, Chertow MR (1997) Thinking ecologically: an introduction. In: Marion R, Chertow MR,
Esty DC (eds) Thinking ecologically. Yale University Press, New Haven
Fiorino DJ (2004) Flexibility. In: Durant RF, Fiorino DJ, O’Leary R (eds) Environmental gover-
nance reconsidered: challenges, choices, and opportunities. MIT Press, Cambridge
Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment. Duke University Press, Durham
Fitzsimmons AK (1999) Defending illusions: federal protection of ecosystems. Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers Inc, Landham
Frank K (2009) The role of collaboration in Everglades restoration (Unpublished dissertation).
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Franklin J (1997) Ecosystem management: an overview. In: Haney A, Boyce MS (eds) Ecosystem
management: applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press,
New Haven
Freeman J (1997) Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA Law Rev 45:1–98
Glick D, Clark TW (1998) Overcoming boundaries: the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. In: Meffe
G, Nielsen LA, Knight RL, Schenborn DA (eds) Ecosystem management: adaptive, commu-
nity-based conservation. Island Press, Washington
Goldstein B (1991) The struggle over ecosystem management at Yellowstone. Bioscience
42:183–187
Gordon J, Coppock J (1997) Ecosystem management and economic development. In: Chertow
MR, Esty DC (eds) Thinking ecologically. Yale University Press, New Haven
Graham M (1999) The morning after earth day. Brookings Institution Press, Washington
Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conserv Biol 8:27–38
Haeuber R (1996) Setting the environmental policy agenda: the case of ecosystem management.
Nat Resour J 36:1–28
Haeuber R, Franklin J (1996) Perspectives on ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:692–693
Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New York
Holling CS (1995) What barriers? What bridges? In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (eds)
Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press,
New York
Holling CS (1996) Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for people. Ecol
Appl 6:733–735
Holling CS, Meffe G (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource manage-
ment. Conserv Biol 10:328–337
Horton T (2003) Turning the tide: saving the Chesapeake Bay. Island Press, Washington
Innes JE (1996) Planning through consensus building. J Am Plann Assoc 62:460–472
Innes JE, Booher D (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for
evaluating collaborative planning. J Am Plann Assoc 65:412–423
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force (1995) The ecosystem approach: healthy ecosystems
and sustainable economies, vol 1. Report of The Interagency Ecosystem Management Task
Force. http://www.denix.osd.mil/nr/upload/ecosystem1.html
Johnson BL (1999) Introduction to the special feature: adaptive management—scientifically
sound, socially challenged? Conser Ecol 3:10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss1/
art10
Karkkainen BC (2002) Collaborative ecosystem governance: scale, complexity, and dynamism.
Virginia Environ Law J 21:189–243
Keiter RB (1991) An introduction to the ecosystem management debate. In: Keiter RB, Boyce MS
(eds) The greater Yellowstone ecosystem: redefining America’s wilderness heritage. Yale
University Press, New Haven
Keiter RB (1998) Ecosystems and the law: toward an integrated approach. Ecol Appl 8:332–341
Keiter RB (2003) Keeping faith with nature: ecosystems, democracy, and America’s public lands.
Yale University Press, New Haven
Lackey RT (1998) Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape Urban Plan 40:21–30
Lamont A (2006) Policy characterization of ecosystem management. Environ Monit Assess
113:5–18
Layzer JA (2008) Natural experiments: ecosystem-based management and the environment. MIT
Press, Cambridge
Layzer JA (2012) Ecosystem-based management in the Chesapeake Bay. In: The environmental
case, 3rd edn. CQ Press, Washington
Lee KN (1993) Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment.
Leslie HM, McLeod KL (2007) Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-
based management. Front Ecol Environ 5:540–548
Levin SA, Clark WC (eds) (2010) Toward a science of sustainability. Airlie Center, Warrenton
Lowi TJ (1999) Frontyard propaganda. Boston Rev 24:17–18
Ludwg D, Hilborn R, Walters C (1993) Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:
lessons from history. Science 260:36
196 J.A. Layzer
McCloskey M (1996) The skeptic: collaboration has its limits. High Country News, May 13
McLeod KL et al (2005) Scientific consensus statement on marine ecosystem-based management.
Accessed 28 March 2012 http://www.compassonline.org/sites/all/files/document_files/EBM_
Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf
Meffe GK, Carroll CR (1994) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland
Meffe GK, Nielsen LA, Knight RL, Schenborn DA (2002) Ecosystem management: adaptive,
community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2006) Ecosystems and human well-being. Island
Press, Washington, DC
Murphy D (1999) Case study. In: Johnson KN, Swanson F, Herring M et al (eds) Bioregional
assessments. Island Press, Washington
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) (1995) Setting priorities, getting results: a
new direction for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Academy of Public
Administration, Washington
Noss RF, Cooperrider AY (1994) Saving nature’s legacy. Island Press, Washington
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.
Ostrom E (2001) Reformulating the commons. In: Burger J, Ostrom E, Norgaard R (eds) Protection
the commons: a framework for resource management in the Americas. Island Press,
Washington
Ozawa C (1991) Recasting science: consensual procedures in public policy making. Westview
Press, Boulder, CO
Perry DA, Amaranthus MP (1997) Disturbance, recovery, and stability. In: Kohm KA, Franklin J
(eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Island Press, Washington
Peterson MN, Nils M, Peterson MJ et al (2005) Conservation and the myths of consensus. Conserv
Biol 19:762–767
Pew Oceans Commission (2003) America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change. Pew
Oceans Commission, Arlington
Pickett STA, Ostfeld RC (1995) The shifting paradigm in ecology. In: Knight RL, Bates SF (eds)
A new century for natural resources management. Island Press, Washington
Pirot J-Y, Meynell P-J, Elder D (2000) Ecosystem management: lessons from around the world.
World Conservation Union, Cambridge
Pitcher TJ, Kalikoski D, Short K et al (2009) An evaluation of progress in implementing
ecosystem-based management in fisheries in 33 countries. Mar Policy 33:223–232
Pralle SB (2006) Branching out, digging in. Environmental advocacy and agenda setting.
Georgetown University Press, Washington
President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) (1996) Sustainable America: new
consensus for prosperity, opportunity, and a healthy environment for the future. US Government
Printing Office, Washington
Rosenberg AA, McLeod KL (2005) Implementing ecosystem-based approaches to management
for the conservation of ecosystem services. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 300:270–274
Rosenberg AA, Sandifer PA (2009) What do managers need? In: McLeod K, Leslie H (eds)
Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Island Press, Washington
Ruckelshaus M, Klinger T, Knowlton N, DeMaster DP (2008) Marine ecosystem-based manage-
ment in practice: scientific and governance challenges. Bioscience 58:53–63
Saliba G, Jacobs KL (2008) Saving the San Pedro River. Environment 50:30–43
Salwasser H (1998) Ecosystem management: a new perspective for national forest and grasslands.
In: Aley J et al (eds) Ecosystem management. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia
Shear H (2006) The Great Lakes, an ecosystem rehabilitated, but still under threat. Environ Monit
Assess 113:199–225
Society of American Foresters (1993) Sustaining long-term forest health and productivity. Society
of American Foresters, Bethesda
Stahl A (2001) Ownership, accountability, and collaboration. In: Brock P, Snow D, Van de Wetering
S (eds) Across the great divide: explorations in collaborative conservation and the American
west. Island Press, Washington
Stankey GH, Bormann BT, Ryan C et al (2003) Adaptive management and the northwest forest
plan. Forestry 101:40–46
Stanley TR Jr (1995) Ecosystem management and the arrogance of humanism. Conserv Biol
9:255–262
Steinzor RI (2000) The corruption of civic environmentalism. Environ Law Reporter
30:10909–10921
Susskind L, Cruikshank J (1987) Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public
disputes. Basic Books, New York
Szaro RC, Sexton WT, Malone CR (1998) The emergence of ecosystem management as a tool for
meeting people’s needs and sustaining ecosystems. Landscape Urban Plan 40:1–7
Tallis H, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus M et al (2010) The many faces of ecosystem-based management:
making the process work today in real places. Mar Policy 34:340–348
Tarlock AD (2003) Slouching toward eden: the eco-pragmatic challenges of ecosystem revival.
Minn Law Rev 87:1173–1208
Thomas JW (1996) Forest service perspectives on ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:703–705
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCB) (2003) Ecosystem approach: further
elaboration, guidelines for implementation and relationship with sustainable forest manage-
ment. Report of the expert meeting on the ecosystem approach, UNEP, Montreal
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United National Environmental Programme,
World Bank, and World Resources Institute (2003) A guide to world resources
2002–2004—decisions for the earth—balance, voice, and power. World Resources Institute,
Washington
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Global programme of action for the pro-
tection of the marine environment from land-based activities (GPA) (2006) Ecosystem-based
management: markers for assessing progress. UNEP/GPA, The Hague, The Netherlands. http://
gpa.unep.org/documents/ecosystem-based_management.english.pdf
US Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. US Commission
on Ocean Policy, Washington
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1994) The new generation of environmental
protection. US EPA, Washington
US General Accounting Office (GAO) (1994) Ecosystem management: additional actions needed
to adequately test a promising approach. August, GAO/RCED-94-111
US General Accounting Office (GAO) (2008) Opportunities exist to enhance federal participation
in collaborative efforts to reduce conflicts and improve natural resource conditions. February,
GAO-08-262
Wallace MG, Cortner HJ, Moote MA et al (1996) Moving toward ecosystem management:
examining a change in philosophy for resource management. J Polit Ecol 3:1–36
Walters C (1997) Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conser
Ecol 1:1. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1
Weber EP (2003) Bringing society back. Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and
sustainable communities. MIT Press, Cambridge
Western Governors’ Association (1998) Principles for environmental management in the west.
Resolution 98-001, Denver
Wondollek JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural
resource management. Island Press, Washington
Wood CA (1994) Ecosystem management: achieving the new land ethic. Renew Res J 12:6–12
Yaffee SL (1999) Three faces of ecosystem management. Conserv Biol 13:713–725
Yaffee SL (2002) Ecosystem management in policy and practice. In: Meffe G, Nielsen LA, Knight
RL et al (eds) Ecosystem management: adaptive, community-based conservation. Island Press,
Washington
Sustainable Coastal Margins: Challenges
of Tempo and Mode for the Policy Domain
Ronald C. Baird
Abstract The urgent need for coastal management of tempo and mode for global
population growth and urbanization is generally underappreciated. That growth is
inevitable in the coming two decades. With a population of 311 million, the United
States must absorb one to two million people per year in coastal watersheds, yet
maintain a sustainable and built environment. Degree of success is largely depen-
dent on the policy domain–political will and performance of governance. The
current compartmentalized governance structure has been inadequate in meeting
environmental goals, and the structure is unlikely to change in the next decade.
Strategic and targeted approaches that account for the social, economic, and envi-
ronmental realities of urban space in a sustainability context are needed for framing
contemporary management strategies. That is, confronting reality, thinking strategi-
cally, and changing the way institutions are managed and their degree of connectiv-
ity. Strategic guidelines are advanced as a blueprint for creating practical,
sustainability-based frameworks for performance enhancement. Operational imper-
atives include pragmatism, prioritization, alignment, understanding, anticipation,
context, and implementation.
Keywords Coastal urbanization • Sustainability frameworks • Policy and performance
Introduction
Considerable thought has been given in recent years concerning sustainability in the
context of today’s rapidly expanding populations and resource consumptive societies
(e.g., NRC 1999; Kennedy 2002; Hall and Day 2009). Likewise, frameworks for
R.C. Baird (*)

Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island,
South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI, 02882, USA
200 R.C. Baird
science and technology to support transitions to sustainability have also been articu-
lated (e.g., Kates et al. 2001; Clark and Dickson 2003; Holdren 2008). As a conse-
quence, the notion of sustainability has become the central focus and organizing
principle of contemporary environmental policy. The concept has great value in that
it is understandable to broad audiences and captures the essential management objec-
tives in addressing today’s very real issues of resource utilization, environmental deg-
radation, limitations, and the human condition. The problem comes in the translation
of a global concept of reconciling human needs with environment into one of practi-
cal application in context-specific public policy and management interventions.
The reality is that society will continually have to address the central issue of
maintenance of living standards, environments, and quality of life, one that is fraught
with human values, conflicting objectives, economic reality, and enormous environ-
mental complexity (Roe and van Eeten 2001; Weinstein and Reed 2005). As Albert
Speer, in an excellent treatise on sustainable cities put it, “a sustainably planned and
built environment is a must—not a nice to have” (Gaines and Jager 2009). When
applied to coastal environments, there are implications of great significance for
coastal stewardship—the central focus of this paper. Sustainability implies mainte-
nance of environment in an acceptable state or condition. Finally, and this is critical,
sustainability is forever, in that time horizons for maintaining such states are
indefinite in the face of natural and anthropomorphic driven changes.
The application of sustainability concepts to contemporary, coastal management
contexts remains an immense challenge at virtually all spatial scales, global to local
(USCOP 2004). The reality for practical application is that societal response to
environmental issues rests with a complex of socioeconomic and governance inter-
relationships that constitutes the domain of public policy. Appropriate decisions on
courses and principles of action must be made and then translated by a complex
institutional infrastructure into public policy that elicits effective responses from
society at large. How well society addresses sustainability challenges is in great
measure a function of the performance of our institutions of governance (Orbach
2002; Baird 2005a; Layzer 2008). Institutional performance can be judged by deter-
mining how well environmental goals and standards are being met and are coastal
ecosystems at scales of concern, within or trending toward acceptable states in a
sustainability sense.
Coastal margins are of immense economic importance to society, as are associ-
ated environments (e.g., Beach 2002; PEW 2003; Pendleton 2008). Such environ-
ments have long been subject to human-related stresses, yet those impacts have
increased dramatically in recent decades, resulting in substantial changes to associ-
ated ecosystems (e.g., USCOP 2004; Lotze et al. 2006). What has changed in those
decades is tempo and mode in the size and distribution of human populations in
coastal watersheds. That distribution is primarily urban. By urban, I mean simply
having the characteristics of cities, including suburban areas, and not to specific
political boundaries. Current demographic momentum is expected to continue at
significant rates for several decades and beyond with profound implications for the
domains of public policy and coastal management (Crossett et al. 2004; MEA 2005).
It is the magnitude of these changes, the time lines involved, and the environmental
Sustainable Coastal Margins: Challenges of Tempo and Mode for the Policy Domain 201
challenges they portend that are generally underappreciated, even for those immersed
daily in management and sustainability issues.
The purpose here is to review some well-known facts relative to tempo and mode
of population increase and the environmental challenges this portends for coastal
margins. The next decade or so will be a time of critical transition for humanity in a
sustainability sense (Holdren 2008; Hall and Day 2009; O’Neill et al. 2010). This is
a short time frame for our current domain of public policy, where time periods to
pass legislation, settle litigation, develop regulations, and restore degraded ecosys-
tems are measured in years. The objectives are to provide a framework for thinking
strategically and realistically about a fast changing world, and stimulate thinking
about practical and effective approaches in improving performance of our institu-
tions of governance. The need is strategic, targeted approaches that take into account
the qualities, characteristics, and dynamics of urban societies and the social/eco-
nomic/environmental realities of urban dominated space as essentials to framing
coastal management strategies global to local.
Sustainability in Application
Conceptually there are limits, many well articulated in the literature, to human con-
sumption in a finite world of natural capital (e.g., Rees 2012). The reality, however,
is that transitions to sustainable states and defining what sets of conditions are suit-
able for human well-being as sustainability goals are enormously complex, poorly
understood, involve many dimensions, but clearly are dependent on the behavior of
human societies (e.g., Sterman 2012). The first order of business then is to develop
effective approaches to resource management based on sustainability concepts.
Sustainability implies maintenance of environmental conditions consistent with
human well-being. In a practical sense, there are no absolutes, just collective judg-
ments made at a given time as to conditions suitable for society. It is this central
precept of defined conditions that provides the conceptual basis and operational
definition of sustainability that can now be applied in practical management
contexts.
A second reality is that we are faced with rapidly changing conditions fueled by
demographic momentum, development, and expanding economies. These linked
systems are insufficiently understood. There are feedback loops, time delays, and
multiple effects on environment. Consequently, to be effective, management
approaches must be highly responsive, adaptive, and flexible in addressing issues
and generating/applying new knowledge/technology. Operationally, the old axiom
attributed to Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee applies. “If you can’t measure
it, you can’t manage it, and if you don’t measure it, you don’t deserve to manage it.”
A second axiom is equally true. If the measurement or indicator has no context, you
still cannot manage it. Operationally, then, measurements must be related to envi-
ronmental conditions or state and that state deemed by current understanding and
policy to be acceptable or unacceptable in a sustainability sense.
202 R.C. Baird
In concept, institutions of governance are responsible for defining sustainability

goals and indicators of acceptable conditions for natural capital management based
on current knowledge and public policy. Institutional performance can be judged on
how well the defined/desired conditions are being maintained, restored, and adapted
to new understanding. In practice, this is a highly complex, value laden and dynamic
approach of many dimensions under rapidly changing conditions. Nonetheless, the
approach provides a sound conceptual basis for developing effective management
applications in a sustainability framework, as well as targets for implementation.
Tempo and Mode
Tempo. The term simply refers to the rate or pace of change in the size of human
populations. Tempo can be applied in a spatial context, such as jurisdictional,
coastal, or urbanized space. Population is the principal driver of the multitude of
interconnected systems that constitute human drivers of environmental change and
therefore is directly related to issues of sustainability. Population is a widely mea-
sured variable at many spatial scales relevant to management decision-making.
A multitude of socioeconomic, environmental, and spatial variables can be expressed
as a function of tempo, even though mechanisms are poorly understood. These are
discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. The important point is that
population is an essential indicator and proxy for a host of drivers of environmental
change. Tempo provides a focal point for scientific inquiry, predictive capacity, and
decision-making for sustainability frameworks. The impetus to socioeconomic and
environmental variables from tempo is defined here as demographic momentum.
Concerning current tempo, the human global population will shortly reach seven
billion; an astounding number given that world population in 1930 was estimated at
two billion. There are people living today who have seen world population more
than triple. Moreover, we continue to add 70+ million people per year, and high
rates are predicted for the next several decades. Much of this growth is in develop-
ing countries where population momentum and sustainability issues will be particu-
larly acute, yet capacity and governance problematic (Kunzig 2011).
For the United States, today’s population is approaching 311 million and adding
some 3.3 million per year. Over 52% of the population resides in coastal counties.
Population in coastal counties increased by 46% from 1970 to 2010 and is expected
to grow by another 7–8 million people by 2015—a rate of about 1.5 million people
per annum. Such rates are expected to continue throughout the coming decades and
beyond (Crossett et al. 2004; NOAA 2010). That is equivalent to adding the popula-
tion of metro Philadelphia to our coastal margins every year.
Similar patterns are manifest at regional and local scales. Since 1985, the six-
state Chesapeake Bay Watershed has added 4 million people to the 13 million
already there. The Watershed is currently adding 157,000 people per annum, a rate
expected to continue for another 2 decades (EPA 2007). The State of New Jersey,
where 90% of the population lives in coastal counties, has the nation’s highest
population density. The state is expected to grow by 20–30% in the next 2 decades
(NJDEP 2009; Hasse and Lathrop 2008). At yet smaller scales, New Jersey’s
Barnegat Bay Watershed has grown 170% in population since the Clean Water Act
was passed in the early 1970s to about 570,000 people today. Current estimates
predict adding another 150,000 people by 2020 (Moore and Bates 2010). Tempo
along the world’s coastal margins is a sobering reality. The environmental and
socioeconomic consequences of that momentum must be a primary and urgent
driver in crafting practical, effective approaches to coastal management at all rele-
vant spatial scales.
Mode. As used here, mode refers to the manner in which human populations are
distributed, in this case in urbanized environments. In the United States, the urban
percentage of population is 80% and urban space dominates coastal watersheds.
Urban space and environmental footprints are currently expanding in concert with
tempo. Contemporary human society can be for all intents and purposes considered
an urban civilization (Rees 2012). Consequently, any strategic approach to engage-
ment of coastal sustainability issues needs to incorporate the social, economic, and
environmental attributes of urbanized areas as a first principle in framing manage-
ment strategies.
It is evident that human populations are undergoing one of the most profound
and rapid changes in distribution in our evolutionary history. In just two genera-
tions, the number of humans living in urban environments is expected to increase by
60% to fully 80% of the global population. That is an additional four billion people
living in cities (McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2003; McDonald 2008). In the
United States, about 80% of the population now lives in urban environments, and
the majority of the country’s major urban areas lie in coastal and Great Lakes water-
sheds (Grimm et al. 2008a). The nation’s top 20 coastal cities are on track to add 32
million people between 2000 and 2030 while expanding their urban footprints by
46% (McGrath 2000).
The process of urbanization involves population size and density, location, and
spatial dimensions driven by a complex dynamic of multiple interrelated factors
that are the subject of intense study (e.g., Bettencourt et al. 2007; Batty 2008;
Gaines and Jager 2009). By way of example, of the world’s 25 largest so-called
mega cities (population now or expected by 2020 to exceed ten million inhabit-
ants), only two are located in the United States, and 19 of the 25 are in coastal
locations. About 80% of all cities with populations exceeding eight million inhab-
itants are coastal (Marshall 2005). Spatial extent presents a very different picture.
Of the 25 largest cities in the world ranked by areal extent, 16 are under US juris-
diction, and all of these are located in coastal watersheds (Gaines and Jager 2009).
This is a graphic illustration of the propensity of US cities to develop new land at
high rates per capita compared to elsewhere. Such sprawl is particularly acute in
coastal margins (Beach 2002).
Fig. 1 shows another important pattern of the urban mode in the United States,
namely the emergence of highly urbanized corridors—the megalopolis (Grimm
204 R.C. Baird
Fig. 1 Map of megapolitan areas overlaying on the topography of the continental USA. Source:
after Grimm et al. (2008a)
et al. 2008a). This phenomenon is prevalent worldwide (Liu and Diamond 2005;
Montgomery 2008). Note the number of megalopolis areas in Fig. 1 located in
coastal or Great Lakes watersheds. The State of New Jersey (Fig. 2) is connected
to two major metroplexes at either end of the state, and over half of the total land
area is predicted to now be classified as developed (Hasse and Lathrop 2008). It
could be argued that New Jersey is part of a single urban complex stretching from
Boston to Washington, DC. This phenomenon of connectivity in the growth of
urban development along coastal margins is critical in environmental manage-
ment contexts. To reiterate, coastal management strategies must address the urban
mode and put urbanization into a context of time, space, people, and dynamic
process.
Fig. 2 Patterns of urban development depicted for the coastal state of New Jersey. Note presence
of urbanized corridors and jurisdictional complexity. Source: after Hasse and Lathrop (2008)
206 R.C. Baird
Dynamic Systems and Coastal Margins
Domains of interaction. In practical terms, managing for sustainability is first and

foremost a dynamic process that responds to constant change and continually
reevaluates both sustainability goals and implementation strategies in response to
new knowledge and changed conditions. Institutional performance is judged on
how well sustainability goals are being met. Strategic frameworks and resulting
actions for meeting such goals then involve interactions with highly interconnected,
dynamic systems of urban space, human drivers of environmental condition, and
dynamics of coastal ecosystems and natural resources. Spatial context can vary
from global to small scales.
Fig. 3 is a conceptual diagram to illustrate the interactions of these domains.
The domains will be discussed in more detail in later sections. Coastal management
lies in the domain of institutions of governance, that collective network of human
institutions that set policy, create new knowledge, provide resources for building
capacity, and fund management agencies. The domain also involves educational,
legal, legislative, and enforcement elements and relationships with the private sector
(Baird 2005b). This institutional network has the responsibility for measuring indi-
cators, creating strategic frameworks, and implementing actions to achieve sustain-
ability goals.
Urban
Dynamics
Actions Drivers
Strategic Frameworks
Institutional Environmental
Dynamics Dynamics
Condition
Indicators
Fig. 3 Conceptual diagram of interactions of principal domains of coastal resource management.

The system is highly dynamic, interconnected, and illustrates the critical roles of measurement,
strategic frameworks, and management actions
Urban dynamics. The challenge, from a coastal management perspective, is in

restoring and maintaining acceptable environmental conditions as defined by insti-
tutions of governance in the face of the momentum of urbanization. With over one
million km2 of urban area expected to be added globally in the next two decades,
understanding the relationships of cities to multiple environmental stressors is para-
mount (McDonald 2008). The cumulative impacts of coastal urbanization on eco-
systems are highly complex and occur at many spatial scales (Bettencourt et al.
2007; Grimm et al. 2008b; McDonald 2008). Knowledge about the relationships of
urban growth to consumption of and impacts on natural resources must be rapidly
assimilated and translated into management actions (Baird 2009). Many diverse
properties of cities (e.g., wealth, pollution, and infrastructure) have been shown to
scale with population size and density and urban form, the overall spatial pattern of
development. These properties in turn affect resource use and ecosystem services.
While the mechanisms behind these relationships are incompletely understood,
many can be tied to spatial metrics and associated census data. For instance, auto
use and energy consumption are nonlinear functions of population size and density.
Such relationships with population can be characterized at scales from regional to
local and can be very useful as key indicators of socioeconomic and environmental
impacts for planning, prediction, and management decision-making. Greater
knowledge and understanding of socioeconomic and environmental parameters
critical to quality of life at spatial scales appropriate to decision-making is key to
developing new and more comprehensive approaches to integrated coastal zone
management. The following are examples of known relationships useful in better
understanding how urban processes relate to coastal resource management.
1. The ecological footprint of coastal cities far exceeds their actual dimensions
(e.g., air quality, food, transportation, water, pollution).
2. Urban form affects resource use in that past patterns tend to persist because of
infrastructure (e.g., roads) that creates a physical imprint that persists for years.
3. Variables that affect coastal ecosystems that exceed per capita urban population
growth rates include vehicle miles, land development, impervious surfaces,
urban runoff, consumption (food, water, energy), production (trash, fertilizers,
wastewater, pollutants).
4. Important variables that lag per capita growth are infrastructure efficiency (roads,
wastewater treatment, and energy distribution) and management response to eco-
system problems.
5. Contemporary urban complexes (e.g., New Jersey, Shanghai) now exist as part of
larger scale multijurisdictional, regional urban corridors that exhibit high degrees
of connectivity and commonality in dynamics, form, economics, and ecological
impacts.
Institutional performance and coastal margins. We have made progress in the pol-
icy domain both globally and domestically particularly with the development of
ecosystem based and spatial approaches to management (e.g., Leslie and McLeod
2007; Sivas and Caldwell 2008) and the advent of valuing ecosystem services and
natural resource values (Freeman 2003; Tallis et al. 2008). This includes sustainability
208 R.C. Baird
science, legislation, international policy forums, councils, and NGO/private sector

engagement, plus new technology, stakeholder involvement, and conflict resolution.
Likewise, the human dimensions, such as core values, political will, cultural com-
plexity, management structure and dynamics, information flow, and human resource
development, are areas of active study. Indeed, institutions of governance can be
thought of as systems and networks in their own right. Recent studies have exam-
ined the multitude of issues and problems facing mankind in addressing sustain-
ability goals, including knowledge bases required (Parris and Kates 2003; Holdren
2008; Levin and Clark 2010).
The central problem for coastal margins is how to make sustainability goals
operational, and then translate these into practical management applications and
performance metrics for current institutions of governance. We continue to experi-
ence ecosystem degradation, deplete resources, and fail to meet goals for coastal
margins, strong indicators of inadequacy of current institutional performance. The
reasons are many and varied and are the subject of other chapters in this volume
(Layzer 2012; Sterman 2012). The following few examples illustrate the complex
nature, context, and scale of the problem:
1. Recent analysis indicates that no marine ecosystem is unaffected by human
activities. The intensity varies spatially, and 41% of systems examined globally
are strongly affected by human-related drivers (Halpern et al. 2008).
2. For estuaries and coastal seas, over 65% of sea grass and wetland habitat has
been destroyed worldwide, and many formally abundant species have been
severely depleted (Lotze et al. 2006).
3. Dead zones from nutrient runoff in coastal seas are spreading in extent globally
(Diaz and Rosenberg 2008).
4. For the metropolitan area of greater Jakarta, population 20 million and growing,
only about 3% of sewage is treated, while traffic is responsible for 70% of nitrous
oxides and particulates in the air (Marshall 2005).
5. In the United States, the size of anoxic zones has doubled in 22 years and includes
Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and Lake Erie; 1/3 of saltwater fish tested had
at least one chemical contaminant above benchmarks for human health; greater
than 60% of coastal rivers are degraded by nutrient runoff and half of assessed
estuaries are classified as impaired (Heinz 2008; EPA 2009).
6. At smaller scales yet, water quality goals for Chesapeake Bay have not been met
in spite of 26 years of regulation and many millions of dollars spent on research,
while in Barnegat Bay, dissolved oxygen levels are below federal standards and
jellyfish now plague the upper Bay (EPA 2007; Moore and Bates 2010).
Thus, major indicators of environmental stress along coastal margins abound,
and the situation is much more serious in developing countries. The reality is per-
formance of current institutions of governance in the United States and globally has
been inadequate in maintaining or restoring coastal habitats to acceptable states as
currently defined. The question is what can we do about it in a complex world
driven by tempo and mode? There are no pat answers, yet a sustainable environment
is a necessity. In this country alone, performance enhancement strategies will
have to address adding one to two million additional people per year in coastal
watersheds for at least several decades.
Progress will have to come primarily from reducing impediments to the collec-
tive performance of current institutions. That means a focus on practical, workable
solutions, best practices, and the cumulative contributions of countless individual
steps.
On Building Strategic Frameworks
Confronting reality. Good performance rests on three essential steps—confronting

reality, understanding the big picture, and thinking about the practical details of
what to do about it (Bossidy and Charan 2004). The process starts with an under-
standing of current conditions, future trends, and systems characteristics. The fol-
lowing are examples of contemporary reality institutions of governance must
confront:
1. Increases in population, urbanization, and intensity of human activity in coastal
margins are inevitable over the next 2 decades and the environmental conse-
quences must be dealt with in a management context.
2. Human institutions of governance, political systems, and cultural proclivities
have not evolved to operate under such time horizons. Today there is consider-
able time lag between onset of ecological degradation and management response;
it takes time to pass a law, build infrastructure, settle litigation, and improve
technology (Baird 2009).
3. The current multijurisdictional, compartmentalized and hierarchical manage-
ment structure will not radically change in the next decade. Today’s management
framework involves a broad array of agencies, jurisdictions, and policies. By
way of example, in coastal New Jersey over 20 federal agencies and 140+ laws
affect coastal management. The State’s Department of Environmental Protection
lists 66 separate programs and units, while some 245 coastal municipalities have
authority over land use and zoning (NJDEP 2009; Kennedy 2009).
4. Human drivers of ecosystem stress involve context (e.g., socioeconomic, geo-
graphic, and cultural), space, time, and dynamics. The spatial dimensions and
rates of human activity in urbanizing landscapes are increasing while spatial
dimensions for coastal resources that provide services essential to human well-
being are finite. From the perspective of sustainability, maintaining and/or restor-
ing coastal ecosystems to acceptable states in the future must involve reduction
of the per capita contribution to ecosystem stress and/or rates of resource con-
sumption in the face of tempo and mode.
5. It is political will that determines in large measure society’s response to environ-
mental issues. The political system provides resources to the complex bureaucra-
cies that manage coastal resources; sets policy through legislation, litigation, and
regulation; and provides enforcement and supports the complex of institutions
210 R.C. Baird
and corporations that provide the backbone of science and technology essential
to support sustainability transitions.
6. Economic systems and economic strength determine in large measure society’s
capacity and performance capability in addressing environmental challenges at
scales global to local. GDP, costs and incentive structures, tax rates and land use
policies, risks and insurance are important determinants of cause, effect, and
solution potential for environmental problems. Pressures from tempo will require
economic growth rates of 3% or greater in the United States to avoid high unem-
ployment rates, now a worldwide problem (Elliot 2010). Signs of financial
exhaustion in public budgets are evident. Understanding of socioeconomic vari-
ables and systems is essential to resolving sustainability issues (Pendleton 2008;
Julia and Duchin 2007; Lumenello 2008).
Thinking strategically. This is an approach to problem solving—not the formal process
of strategic planning. It may be viewed as the practice of devising and employing plans
and actions for setting and achieving performance goals once these are understood and
defined. It involves pragmatism, defining problems and feasible solutions, then decid-
ing on a course of action to address identified issues. That means making operational
such global concepts as sustainability, ecosystem state, and adaptive management,
then applying them to specific contexts and spatial scales (Gaines and Jager 2009).
This process involves utilizing a broad array of approaches, engaging many constitu-
encies, blending scientific understanding with the realities and limits of current institu-
tions in order to enhance management performance. In practice, good strategic thinking
is truly an art form utilizing science, knowledge of human behavior, leadership, and
experience in devising and implementing effective actions (Baird 2005a).
Given the realities of slow evolutionary change rates in the structure of contem-
porary institutions of governance the primary strategic focus need be on changing
the way they are managed and their degree of connectivity. This involves common-
ality of goals, objectives, and core values. It also involves engagement of the politi-
cal systems that provide resources, set policy/regulate, and resolve conflicts. In the
United States, the major sources of financial and human resources, as well as dic-
tates of policy, reside at the federal level. The inability of existing federal institu-
tions to adequately address pressing coastal issues and the difficulty of bureaucratic
structures to change behavior in the face of rapidly changing conditions must be a
prime target for strategic focus (Rassam 2006).
Strategically, performance enhancement starts with a common understanding of
the primary goals of coastal management—that is, restoration and maintenance of
acceptable ecosystem states as defined by institutions of governance. The second is
accepting that current performance has been inadequate in a dynamic and fast
changing world where rapid response is an imperative. Once this is understood, then
management at every level in the policy domain need determine the primary imped-
iments to performance in their sphere of influence. The next step is crafting practi-
cal, workable, and actionable performance enhancement frameworks.
Foundations for frameworks. Strategic thinking must lead to effective action that is
based on smart, creative thinking, reliable information, defining objectives, taking
responsibility, and evaluating performance. The goal is effective approaches and a

culture of implementation. Action agendas are by necessity specific in context (e.g.,
spatially). Eight broadly applicable conceptual guidelines for creating performance
enhancement frameworks are summarized below:
1. There has been little fundamental change in the federal agency structure and
related legislative oversight concerned with coastal management in over two
decades. There have been calls for consolidation and new structure for environ-
mental agencies, but little of substance has been done (Schaefer et al. 2008).
There is now an interagency National Ocean Council to enhance coordination
and articulate national priorities. For instance, new mandates have been devel-
oped for research and marine spatial planning (Obama 2010). The issue remains
that a more systematic approach to implementation of policy among and within
management agencies at spatial dimensions of application, including better coor-
dination and pooling of effort, promises significant performance enhancement.
That means more efficient, coordinated, and decentralized organizations must be
coupled with concepts of management by objective (Drucker 2008). Management
by objective means setting specific measurable environmental objectives at
multiple spatial contexts and measuring progress on the timeliness and effective-
ness of actions taken in addressing those specific goals.
2. Performance by necessity rests on timely, evidence-based assessments, sound
indicators, and feedback whereby critical information (data with a purpose) is
rapidly assimilated and broadly distributed. Given the complexity of problems
and need for rapid response, there is no substitute for knowledge of environmen-
tal condition, trends, and their relationship to human populations, urban/land/
ocean spatial use characteristics, and sustainability goals. Resources for monitor-
ing and assessment are chronically underfunded and underutilized in a world of
scarce resources. Concentration on this sector, including technology, use of heu-
ristics, proxies (such as population-related parameters), logic-based predictive
models, and data management protocols, promises significant performance
advantages. Measurements, monitoring, and assessment are the necessary foun-
dations of management capacity and performance.
3. We need to better understand contemporary driving forces that influence political
will. The political process impacts decision-making, be it legislation, litigation,
conflict resolution, sustainability goals, or capacity to perform through resource
distribution. It is the array of laws and regulations especially at the national and
state level that provide the legal framework for the application of management
interventions. Cities are centers of political power. Engage the political process
in constructive ways, and advance the art of outreach and information transfer to
political leadership and key stakeholders in creating understanding for policy
development. Current events can be highly emotive in today’s world in the sense
of arousing intense feelings among segments of a population. These episodes of
emotional contagion (rapid spreading of emotion in populace) can rapidly change
political will, leading to episodes of new legislation and resource availability for
the environment. Emotional contagion can provide great opportunities to advance
performance agendas, build partnerships, and shift paradigms (Gladwell 2002).
212 R.C. Baird
4. Tempo and mode have vastly increased performance challenges arising from the
problems of home rule and local/regional management complexities. Not only is
there institutional and jurisdictional complexity, but urbanized regions also
exhibit major cultural and associated value/political differences over small spa-
tial scales (Schlesinger 1991; Gaines and Jager 2009). Management agencies
concerned with coastal management, especially at federal and state levels, often
have little direct jurisdictional authority over development, patterns of growth,
infrastructure, enforcement (a significant, highly relevant and underappreciated
performance drag), and service provision in urban municipalities, yet such pat-
terns have major economic and environmental consequences. The issues of
Chesapeake and Barnegat Bays are cases in point, including the common prob-
lem of shifting baselines for management objectives (Duarte et al. 2009).
Jurisdictional alignment around common sustainability goals is essential for per-
formance enhancement agendas. Increase engagement among jurisdictional
authorities and promote innovations that increase coordination, joint planning,
information exchange, and improved decision support.
5. Cities and populations need be related to effects on associated ecosystems and to
the landscape (Angermeier et al. 2004; Weinstein 2008). Cities are highly
dynamic, complex, and difficult to manage. Cities operate through major cycles
such as waste, water, energy, and transportation. These can be related to
infrastructure efficiency and environmental stressors in time/space and
quantified. Urbanization occurs over long time horizons, and once constructed,
is difficult and expensive to change (Fig. 4). Relate where possible urban processes
Fig. 4 Temporal and spatial extent of environmental impacts due to three major phases of urban
growth: road construction, road presence, and built environment. Note axes are on a logarithmic
scale. Source: after Angermeier et al. (2004)
to population (size, density, per capita). Understand the sustainability consequences

of urban processes and concentrate management effort on regulating new devel-
opment and land uses. Determine how development can most benignly grow and
the eco-services trade-offs with increasing development.
6. Understand that performance is dependent on good science and policy, espe-
cially nationally, where most of the resources for research agendas are managed
and national policy determined (e.g., Bloch 1996; Levin and Clark 2010). Know
what managers need in various management contexts to enhance performance
(Rosenberg and Sandifer 2009). Policy must be supported by resource concen-
tration on objectives. Concerning national policy, the need is more focus on
sustainability-related research. That means less fragmentation and more coordi-
nation (share and pool resources) and focus of research on common problems.
More emphasis need be placed on research with a purpose, less on the basic vs.
applied dichotomy. Assessments to identify research priorities for spatially
specific areas such as watersheds, urban space, and regional ecosystems help
clarify science objectives (Lester et al. 2010). Reduce time from knowledge cre-
ation to its use in application. Focus on the interface between research and prac-
titioners (Palmer 2009). Add practitioners and stakeholders as part of the research
review and policy process (Byron et al. 2011). Promote partnerships among
agencies, universities, and industry. Interdisciplinary research approaches need
to better engage the many practitioner elements of modern development (e.g.,
urban planners, landscape ecologists, coastal managers, and infrastructure-
related expertise). Increase investment in spatially (regional, local) and process
specific research.
7. Economic factors are major drivers of human activity and therefore stressors to
coastal environments. Economies, particularly the public economy, impact
options for action agendas. For instance, only 1/3 of nutrient loads to Chesapeake
Bay are derived from developed lands, yet require 2/3s of remediation costs
(EPA 2007). The replacement rate of US public infrastructure is lagging rates of
obsolescence (Petroski 2009). Valuations, tax structure, zoning, and regulatory
interventions relate to performance. These interrelationships need to be better
understood and incorporated into performance frameworks. Economic under-
standing is central to good strategic frameworks. The tension between continued
economic growth and development and achieving/maintaining sustainability tar-
gets will intensify with demographic momentum.
8. Finally, there are operational imperatives essential to strategic frameworks.
Emphasize pragmatism, problem definition, and feasible solutions, realizing that
planning and implementation is a continuous process. Stress the importance of
innovations that reduce response times to emerging problems. Focus on anticipa-
tion, scenario creation, and predictive models for decision support. Get critical
information in understandable formats to decision makers when needed. Base per-
formance on evidence and indicators, and promote practices known to be effective
and why. Improve communication and information transfer across jurisdictions
and stakeholders. Performance is all about context—spatial scale, time, and place.
Local scales are particularly critical to reducing environmental stress and resolving
214 R.C. Baird
conflicts (e.g., Layzer 2008). Create a mind-set of urgency, rapid assimilation,

innovation, and use of new technologies and methods. Above all, continually
prioritize actions, resources, and policy on the most important problems.
Summary and Conclusions
Exploitation of land and water resources is already greater than most of us realize,
and demand fueled by tempo and urbanization promises much greater pressure on
coastal ecosystem functions and services. We know urban form lasts for years, and
maintaining acceptable environments rests on getting it right the first time with new
development—a daunting and expensive challenge. Humans have a strong sense of
place and culture. Cities have unique spatial characteristics. Conflict resolution and
management success will hinge on relating problems to spatially specific contexts,
especially at the local level. While sustainability is essential to modern urban soci-
ety, socioeconomic issues in the United States generally outweigh environmental
issues for the urban voting public. A poll taken in Washington DC found environment
ranked eighth among concerns of city residents (Harper 2004). That is cause for
concern and a target for our attention.
As has been stressed throughout, management actions must be applied in specific
spatial contexts. Contemporary approaches for coastal management such as ecosys-
tem-based management are inherently spatial (Layzer 2012). Coastal management is
all about spatial context. Promising new developments now entering the lexicon of
coastal management involve coastal marine spatial planning (CMSP), where multi-
ple complex databases can be expressed spatially. Humans can rapidly assimilate
spatial information, greatly improving our ability to get information to decision mak-
ers and resolve jurisdictional alignment issues (Crowder et al. 2006; Dennison et al.
2007). CMSP has now become a national priority and agencies like the US National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are adopting spatial protocols.
We are in our infancy with regard to developing a spatial language for sustainability
and management of coastal watersheds. There is emerging a world of possibilities
for spatially explicit research agendas, trend analysis, decision support tools, and
predictive modeling—all with great promise for performance enhancement.
Sustainability thresholds are no longer theoretical constructs, but today’s reality.
We are closer on a per capita basis than ever before in our evolutionary history to
such thresholds and now have the challenge of shaping landscapes and ecosystems
for human welfare (Kareiva et al. 2007). Issues of carrying capacity and world pov-
erty abound (Butler 2004). Fig. 5 is a graphic illustration of tipping points, sustain-
ability thresholds, and the socioeconomic consequences of remediation. From 1900
to about 1975 water levels dropped about 10 m in the Dead Sea. At that point the
usage slope increased and in only 15 years water levels dropped another 10 m,
indicative of a tipping point being crossed. By 1990 it was clear that a sustainability
threshold had been crossed, yet growth-based usage continued and from 2000 to the
present, well over ten additional meters were lost. Addressing the problem now
Fig. 5 Depiction of “tipping

point” phenomenon for water
levels in the Dead Sea. Note
rapid decline after 1980. New
development has had
increasingly larger impacts
on water levels. Source:
reprinted by permission from
Macmillan Publishers Ltd:
Nature Glausiusz (2010),
copyright 2010
involves international dialog, changes in usage patterns, severe socioeconomic

consequences, and large remediation costs with uncertain outcomes (Glausiusz
2010). The real dilemma of tipping points is that small increments in growth at one
spatial scale can lead to major costs for a far greater area and population in order to
maintain/restore acceptable ecosystem states under current policies. Many other
examples can be cited (e.g., Oczkowski and Nixon 2008; Sterman 2012). Note the
relationships of population, consumption, socioeconomics, slow response, and
environmental consequences.
The good news is that marine ecosystems and fisheries have been surprisingly
resilient to many anthropogenic impacts, and evidence is mounting that mitigation/
regulation can lead to varying degrees of recovery. Land, water, and other finite
resources are more problematic. The next decade will present many economic,
legal, and policy dilemmas and reevaluation of trade-offs in decision-making. The
reality is one of urgency in dealing with the complexity, knowledge gaps, and pro-
cess understanding and their relationships to population and urbanization. There is
no substitute for leadership and effective decision-making at all levels in a complex
world of tempo and mode. President G.W. Bush, in discussing decision-making,
makes the following points of fundamental relevance to sustainable coastal margins
(Bush 2010). Decisions must be made based on best available knowledge that are
practical, purposeful, and about getting results. One must learn from decisions what
was effective or not, and why. Most importantly, in a world of uncertainties, many
decisions are difficult, knowledge is incomplete, and outcomes uncertain. Strong
arguments can be made for alternatives, yet inaction is not an option. Decide, then
set clear objectives, evaluate outcomes, and adjust.
Much has been written about our coastal management shortcomings, global to
local. We simply must take action and responsibility to reshape thinking and current
approaches of our institutions of governance at all levels. The old adage “The future
is now” is an apt description. That is not just a higher order problem. It must be
addressed in the trenches of every day politics, policy, and practical application with
spatial specificity and a mind-set of management by objective. Faced with the
216 R.C. Baird
seemingly intractable challenges of urbanization and growth in coastal margins, the

objective here is to provide a blueprint for more proactive, integrated, and adaptive
governance and making a spatial and jurisdictionally nested system of coastal stew-
ardship a reality.
Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by the Universities of Hawaii and Rhode
Island Sea Grant Programs. Thanks to Michael P. Weinstein for his support and encouragement.
Special thanks to Lisa Humphrey for her numerous contributions to this effort and to two anony-
mous reviewers for their constructive comments.
References
Angermeier PL, Wheeler AP, Rosenberger AE (2004) A conceptual framework for assessing
impacts of roads on aquatic biota. Fisheries 29:19–29
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (2010) State of the coast report.
http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/. Accessed 6 July 2010
Baird RC (2005a) On sustainability, estuaries, and ecosystem restoration: the art of the practical.
Restor Ecol 13:154–158
Baird RC (2005b) The human dimension in ecosystem management: institutional performance and
the Sea Grant paradigm. In: Hennessey T, Sutinen J (eds) Sustaining large marine ecosystems:
the human dimension. Elsevier, New York, NY
Baird RC (2009) Coastal urbanization: the challenge of management lag. Manag Environ Qual Int
J 20:371–382
Batty M (2008) The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science 319:769–771
Beach D (2002) Coastal sprawl: the effects of urban design on aquatic ecosystems in the United
States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA
Bettencourt LMA, Lobo J, Helbing D et al (2007) Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life
in cities. PNAS 104:7301–7306
Bloch E (1996) Cooperation, competition, and science policy. Science 273:1779
Bossidy L, Charan R (2004) Confronting reality: doing what matters to get things right. Crown
Business, New York, NY
Bush GW (2010) Decision points. Random House, New York, NY
Butler CD (2004) Human carrying capacity and human health. PLoS Med 1:192–194
Byron C, Bengtson D, Costa-Pierce B et al (2011) Integrating science into management: ecological
carrying capacity of bivalve shellfish aquaculture. Mar Pol 35:363–370
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. PNAS
100:8059–8061
Crossett KM, Culliton TJ et al (2004) Population trends along the coastal United States: 1980–2008.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Washington, DC
Crowder LB, Osherenko G, Young OR et al (2006) Resolving mismatches in US ocean gover-
nance. Science 313:617–618
Dennison WC, Lookingbill TR, Carruthers TJB et al (2007) An eye-opening approach to develop-
ing and communicating integrated environmental assessments. Front Ecol Environ 5:307–314
Diaz RJ, Rosenberg R (2008) Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems.
Science 321:926–929
Drucker PF (2008) The essential Drucker. HarperCollins, New York, NY
Duarte CM, Conley DJ, Carstensen J et al (2009) Return to Neverland: shifting baselines affect
eutrophication. Estuaries Coasts 32:29–36
Elliot M (2010) The US isn’t alone: high unemployment rates are a new global reality. Fortune
162:36
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2007) Development growth outpacing progress in water-
shed effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. EPA Report 2007-P00031. Washington, DC
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2009) Bay barometer: a health and restoration assess-
ment of the Chesapeake Bay and watershed in 2008. EPA-903-R-09-001. Washington, DC
Freeman AM (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values, 2nd edn. Resources
for the Future Press, Washington, DC
Gaines J, Jager S (2009) Albert Speer & partners: a manifesto for sustainable cities: think local, act
global. Prestel, London, UK
Gladwell M (2002) The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. Little Brown and
Company, New York, NY
Glausiusz J (2010) Environmental science: new life for the Dead Sea? Nature 464:1118–1120
Grimm NB, Foster D, Groffman P et al (2008a) The changing landscape: ecosystem responses to
urbanization and pollution across climatic and societal gradients. Front Ecol Environ
6:264–272
Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE et al (2008b) Global change and the ecology of cities.
Science 319:756–760
Hall CAS, Day JW Jr (2009) Revisiting the limits to growth after peak oil. Am Sci 97:230–237
Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA et al (2008) A global map of human impact on marine eco-
systems. Science 319:948–952
Harper J (2004) Environment lags in poll of concerns; 35% Americans worry about it. Washington
Times, 20 April
Hasse J, Lathrop RG (2008) Tracking New Jersey’s dynamic landscape: urban growth and open space
loss 1986-1995-2002. Rowan University and Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis,
Rutgers University. http://crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/lc/download/urbangrowth86_95_02/
HasseLathrop_njluc_executive_summary_7_14_08.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2011
Heinz (H. John Heinz Third Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment) (2008) The
state of the Nation’s ecosystems 2008: measuring the lands, waters and living resources of the
United States. The Heinz Center, Washington, DC
Holdren JP (2008) Science and technology for sustainable well being. Science 319:424–434
Julia R, Duchin F (2007) World trade as an adjustment mechanism of agriculture to climate. Clim
Chang 82:393–409
Kareiva P, Watts S, McDonald R et al (2007) Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and ecosys-
tems for human welfare. Science 316:1866–1869
Kennedy D (2002) Sustainability problems, science and solutions. In: Kennedy D (ed)
Recommendations for achieving sustainable communities, science and solutions. National
Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, DC
Kennedy SM (2009) Coastal resource protection: a review of select New Jersey regulatory & planning
tools. White paper for the Monmouth University Urban Coast Institute. Monmouth, NJ http://
www.monmouth.edu/urban_coast_institute/articles/SusanKennedyCoastal.ProtectionWhitePaper.
pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2011
Kunzig R (2011) Population 7 billion: find out why you shouldn’t panic-at least not yet. Natl
Geogr 219:32–69
Layzer J (2008) Natural experiments: ecosystem-based management and the environment. The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Layzer J (2012) The purpose and politics of ecosystem based management. In: Weinstein MP (ed)
Sustainability science. Springer, New York
Leslie HM, McLeod KL (2007) Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-
based management. Front Ecol Environ 5:540–548
Lester SE, McLeod KL, Tallis H et al (2010) Science in support of ecosystem-based management
for the US West Coast and beyond. Biol Conserv 143:576–587
Levin SA, Clark WC (eds) (2010) Toward a science of sustainability report from toward a science
of sustainability conference. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Liu J, Diamond J (2005) China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature 435:1179–1186
218 R.C. Baird
Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ et al (2006) Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of
estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312:1806–1809
Lumenello S (2008) Keynote address—Jeffrey Sachs: “common wealth: economics for a crowded
planet”. Alumni Quarterly Colloquy. Harvard University, Cambridge, pp 2–4
Marshall J (2005) Megacity, mega mess. Nature 437:312–314
McDonald RI (2008) Global urbanization: can ecologists identify a sustainable way forward?
McGranahan G, Satterthwaite D (2003) Urban centers: an assessment of sustainability. Annu Rev
Environ Resour 28:243–274
McGrath D (2000) Predicting urban sprawl in top 20 U.S. coastal cities. Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant,
The Helm Fall, pp 1–6
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well being: current
state and trends. Island Press, Washington, DC
Montgomery MR (2008) The urban transformation of the developing world. Science 319:
761–764
Moore K, Bates TB (2010) Barnegat Bay under stress. The Sunday Press, Asbury Park, NJ
National Research Council (NRC) (1999) Our common journey, a transition toward sustainability.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC
NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) (2009) Coastal management program.
http://www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/. Accessed May 2009
O’Neill DW, Dietz R, Jones N (2010) Enough is enough: ideas for a sustainable economy in a
world of finite resources. The report of the Steady State Economy Conference, Leeds, UK.
Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (Arlington, VA, USA) and Economic
Justice for All (Leeds, UK)
Obama B (2010) National Ocean Policy. Executive order, July 19, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.
gov/the-press-office/executive-order-stewardship-ocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes. Accessed
27 Jan 2011
Oczkowski A, Nixon S (2008) Increasing nutrient concentrations and fall of a coastal fishery; a
review of data from the Nile Delta, Egypt. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 77:309–319
Orbach MK (2002) Beyond freedom of the seas: ocean policy for the third millennium. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
Palmer MA (2009) Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applica-
tions in need of science. Estuaries Coasts 32:1–17
Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing a sustainability transition: goals, targets, trends and
driving forces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8068–8073
Pendleton LH (2008) The economic and market value of coasts and estuaries: what’s at stake?
Coastal Ocean Values Press, North Sandwich, NH
Petroski H (2009) Infrastructure. Am Sci 97:370–374
PEW Ocean Commission Report (2003) America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change.
A report to the nation. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA
Rassam G (2006) The ocean action plan: what is it? Where is it going? Fisheries 31:556
Rees WF (2012) Cities as dissipative structures: global change and the vulnerability of urban civi-
lization. In: Weinstein MP (ed) Sustainability science. Springer, New York
Rosenberg AA, Sandifer PA (2009) What do managers need? In: McLeod KL, Leslie HM (eds)
Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Island Press, Washington, DC
Schaefer M, Baker DJ, Gibbons JH et al (2008) An earth systems science agency. Science
321:44–45
Schlesinger AM Jr (1991) The disuniting of America. Whittle Direct Books, Knoxville
Sivas DA, Caldwell MR (2008) A new vision for California ocean governance: comprehensive
ecosystem-based marine zoning. Stanford Environ Law J 27:209–279
Sterman J (2012) Sustaining sustainability: creating a systems science in a fragmented academy

and polarized world. In: Weinstein MP (ed) Sustainability science. Springer, New York
Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M, Chang A (2008) An ecosystem services framework to support both
practical conservation and economic development. PNAS 105:9457–9464
USCOP (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy) (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final
report, Washington, DC
Weinstein MP (2008) Ecological restoration and coastal management: placing people in the land-
scape. J Appl Ecol 45:296–304
mendation for “commerce managed areas”. Restor Ecol 13:174–182
Fishery and Forest Transitions to Sustainability:
A Comparative Analysis
Bonnie J. McCay and Thomas K. Rudel
Abstract What are the causes of and sources of resistance to transitions from
depleting, damaging trends to conserving and restoring trends in the use and man-
agement of natural resources? This is a central question in sustainability science,
which we address by discussing “forest transition theory,” one well-established area
of analysis, and proposing “fisheries transition theory” for another. The general
question is whether such transitions take place, their timing, and evident causes.
Forest transition theory developed around the questions of how factors such as
industrialization and urbanization affect forest cover and what situations encourage
turnarounds in forest cover, from deforestation to forestation. We point to similari-
ties and differences in the factors that appear to be involved in the recovery of
depleted fish stocks as a first step toward a comparable theory concerning fisheries
transitions to sustainability.
Keywords Forest transition • Fishery transition • Fisheries sustainability
Introduction
With concern mounting over an array of global environmental problems, “sustain-

ability science” emerged in the 1990s to focus on human processes that repair,
restore, or stabilize imperiled environmental resources like fish, forests, and the
global climate (Kates et al. 2001). Scientists began to talk about “transitions to sus-
tainability” (Speth 1992; National Research Council 1999; Lebel 2005; Fischer-
Kowalski and Rotmans 2009; Rock et al. 2009), whereby humans put their
B.J. McCay (*) • T.K. Rudel

Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University,
55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
222 B.J. McCay and T.K. Rudel
exploitation of natural resources on a more sustainable footing by transforming how

they use these resources. In this context, the search for driving forces behind shifts
toward sustainability became a high priority for investigators.
To date considerable attention has been directed toward “forest transitions,”
documenting the restoration of degraded forests and the emergence of sustainable
forest exploitation practices, and analyzing forces that drive these transitions. Most
analyses identify changes in human incentives as the most important force driving
these transitions (Baird 2012). These assertions no doubt reflect empirical realities,
at least in the case of the forest transition, but to some extent these analytic tenden-
cies may reflect the systems approach or social scientific training of most of the
people who have studied these transitions as well as technical capabilities to
measure changes. Differences between the sustainability transition that character-
izes one natural resource, forests for example, and sustainability transitions that
characterize other natural resources like fisheries have not received much attention.
In this context it seems useful to examine less frequently analyzed fisheries transi-
tions, a matter that is timely given mounting evidence that at least some major
marine fisheries have been restored to viable levels of biomass and sustainable
levels of harvest (Hilborn 2007; Worm et al. 2009). The analysis begins with a
general description of the trajectory and underlying causes for forest transitions
over the past two centuries. Then, we describe the empirical patterns in an emerging
fisheries transition. The chapter concludes with a comparison of the patterns and
processes that characterize the two transitions.
Forest Transitions
By forest transition is meant a long-term shift in patterns of land cover change

from forest depletion to forest recovery. If a country undergoes a forest transition,
this means most generally a shift from net losses in forest cover during a period of
agricultural and settlement expansion to net gains in forest cover during a subse-
quent period of urbanization and urban economic growth. As implied by this
definition, a point of inflection occurs in forest transitions in which long-term
declines give way to long-term gains in the extent of forest cover (Fig. 1) (Rudel
et al. 2005). In effect, the term “forest transition” is intellectual shorthand for a
historical generalization about changes in the relationship between human societies
and forests. Because forest transitions in most instances enhance the delivery of
important environmental services like carbon sequestration, water purification,
pollination, and nutrient recycling, they represent an important type of sustain-
ability transition.
Fishery and Forest Transitions to Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis 223
Major changes in human societies have periodically led to large-scale changes in

forest cover. For example, the Black Death in fourteenth century Europe led to a
considerable expansion of forests into the depopulated regions. With the onset of
industrialization in the early nineteenth century a sequence of changes in forest
cover–society relations began to recur, first in western Europe, then in North
America, and most recently in Eurasia and selected countries in the Global South.
With urbanization and industrialization demand for wood increases at the same time
that the numbers of factory jobs grow. At the same time farmers become better
acquainted with the agricultural potential of their lands. Faced with higher prices for
wood, diminishing supplies of labor as farm workers depart for urban jobs, and an
increased appreciation for differentials in soil fertility, farmers concentrate agricul-
tural production on their most fertile lands and return their remaining lands to for-
ests (Mather and Needle 1998).
The transitions occur in variable ways across nations. In the wealthier countries
(Europe and the Americas) most forest regrowth has occurred spontaneously, after
scarce labor leaves the land. In more labor abundant and poorer places in Africa, the
Middle East, and Asia, smallholders plant many of the trees and plantations that
contribute to the increments in forest cover (Rudel et al. 2005). In the East Asian
cases where governments have had a tradition of intervening actively in markets to
promote economic development, states have created significant economic incen-
tives to expedite the conversion of marginal agricultural lands into forest plantations
(Mather 2007). In the East African cases householders have led the way in planting
fruit trees around their houses, creating what might be called “fruit forests” in
densely populated zones (Rudel 2010). A social movement organized around the
iconic figure of Wangari Maathai, a 2004 Nobel laureate, aims to plant a billion
trees; it has spurred the planting of household orchards and kitchen forests in some
locales (see www.unep.org/billiontreecampaign).
Temporal as well as geographical differences have characterized forest transi-
tions. Perhaps most notably, the point of inflection (Fig. 1) for forest transitions has
come to take place earlier in the process (Rudel et al. 2005). For example, forest
cover did not begin to increase in Scotland in the early twentieth century until
forest cover had declined to only 6% of the entire land area. In contrast in Costa
Forest Area
Point of
Inflection
Fig. 1 A forest transition

with the point of inflection Time
Rica forest cover began, after a long period of decline, to increase during the 1990s
when the country still had around 30% of its land area in forest. One partial explana-
tion for the change in these “turning points” is the recent creation of extensive park
systems in tropical countries. These preservation efforts have prevented further
declines in the extent of forests until demographic and economic trends began to
promote forest recovery. Comparable park protections for forests did not exist when
the nineteenth and early twentieth century forest transitions began, so in those peri-
ods the extent of forests declined even further before recovery began.
The historical changes from the earliest to the most recent forest transitions
suggest that forest transitions, like economic development efforts (Gerschenkron
1962), exhibit latecomer effects. As people begin to recognize these recurring pat-
terns of change in forests, they evaluate the changes and, if judged positively, these
historical shifts in forest cover become the aim of government policies, foundation
projects, and social movements. Arguably, these conscious efforts to induce the
transitions speed them up, so the most recent transitions occur more quickly than
the first transitions (Rudel and Hooper 2005).
A critical eye on forest transitions raises important questions about the extent of
the environmental benefits and in particular the likelihood that a kind of “environ-
mental leakage” occurs in which forest growth in one place (or country) comes at
the cost of forest losses in other places. In other words as European countries
increased their forest cover and reduced the extent of their agricultural lands did
they begin to import more wood and agricultural products from other countries that
had to deforest lands to provide these products for European consumers? If exten-
sive leakage characterizes a forest transition, it could undo at a global scale the
environmental benefits that appear at some national scales. Alternatively, if the shift
in agricultural lands from one country to another country involves a shift toward
more productive agricultural lands and an associated reduction in cultivated lands,
then one might be able to make the case that a global forest transition has occurred.
A recent empirical investigation of this question from 1961 to 2007 in 12 countries,
eight of which experienced forest transitions, demonstrates that leakage in other
countries offset 22% of the forest gains in the countries experiencing forest transi-
tions. More disturbingly, the magnitude of the offsetting leakage effects has
increased to 50% over the past decade (Meyfroidt et al. 2010).
Fishery Transitions
Can we discern comparable transitions in the world’s fisheries? Are there points of
inflection, within which long-term declines give way to long-term gains in the abun-
dance or productivity of marine (and freshwater) living resources, which may be
taken as the equivalent of forest cover? Are these points occurring earlier or later in
the process? What forms do the transitions take? Restoration of wild stocks?
Replacement of wild production with farmed production? How might they be related
to the creation of protected areas? Are there other “latecomer” measures? Are cases
of successful fish stock restoration counterbalanced by overexploitation of other

stocks, the kind of environmental leakage or externality noted for some forest tran-
sitions? The following discussion is a preliminary effort to address these questions
which, to our knowledge, have not been raised in comparison with forest transitions
and in the context of sustainability science.
The dominant narrative about wild marine fisheries continues to be one of
long-term and gradual as well as short-term and precipitous decline and a disturb-
ing trend toward impoverished marine ecosystems as larger predators at higher
trophic levels are removed or fished down, leading to complex ecological changes
in marine systems that some say is a process of “fishing down the food web”
(Pauly et al. 1988). There is a concurrent process of harvesting species lower in
the food chain, the “forage fishes” and the shellfish that rely on phyto- and zoo-
plankton and provide essential functions for the ecosystem. Although consider-
able debate and uncertainty remain about these processes, the standard view is
that if a transition is underway, it is going in the wrong direction: from what may
have been sustainable fisheries some time ago to overharvested fisheries and
highly vulnerable and stressed ecosystems (Worm et al. 2006). A well-known
and dramatic instance is that of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) on both sides of
the Atlantic ocean since 1950 (Fig. 2).
What are the signs of transition in the other direction, toward regeneration of fish
stocks and a resumption or emergence of more sustainable human uses? At a global
scale, the situation is complex and can be interpreted in different ways. Global fish
Fig. 2 Atlantic cod biomass estimates, Northwest and Northeast stocks, 1950–2005. Source: FAO
Fishery Statistics programme (FIGIS Online), Atlantic cod capture 1950–2005; available at http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atlantic_cod_capture_1950_2005.png
Fig. 3 World fish utilization and supply, 1960–2007. Source: FAO (2009)
production continued to increase well throughout the twentieth century, according to

the Fisheries and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the major source
of global-scale data. However, as shown in Fig. 3, it had begun to level off by 2000.
In 2007, overall catches of coastal fishes and of “demersal” or bottom fishes had
dropped by 6% compared to 2006; catches of small pelagics (like the herrings and
anchovetas) grew by 2.5%; and tuna and tuna-like species began to decrease slightly
after an increasing trend period which had led to a historical catch peak in 2006
(FAO 2009). The data may signal not only further depletion but also cases where
there is indeed a transition toward more sustainable fisheries taking place. The 2009
review of global fisheries between 1960 and 2007 showed that catches of some
classes of marine organisms remained stable or improved. Marine crustaceans and
shell mollusks remained stable, and catches of cephalopods (squids, cuttlefishes,
octopuses) rose, continuing a strong upward trend, 35% over 5 years (FAO 2009:xvi),
a trend that increased through 2008 (FAO 2010, Fig. 4).
These data should be treated with caution. From another perspective, the situation
has greatly worsened over time, masked by high catches for some species. The FAO
estimated that the proportion of different fish stocks (defined in terms of species and
area) that are considered to be either depleted, overexploited, or in the process of
recovering from depletion had risen from 10% in 1975 to 32% in 2008 (FAO 2010).
However, the process of recovery is important, the signal of transition, to which we
will turn after a discussion of the role of fish farming in global seafood production.
Fig. 4 Catch trends by marine species groups, 1970–2008. Source: FAO (2010:16)
Fisheries Transitions: Fish Farming
Using nations as the jurisdictional unit (somewhat problematic given the transna-
tional and international nature of many fish populations), we can say that a consid-
erable number of countries have entered into a fisheries transition due to the
expansion of fish farming, which is similar to the expansion of tree-planting and
husbandry in forested systems. An ever-increasing portion of global fish production
comes from fish farming (Fig. 3) (FAO 2009). As of 2007, the increase of total pro-
duction of fish (including crustaceans and mollusks) had continued, but increase
was almost entirely from aquaculture. The production of wild fish and shellfish
(“capture production”) stayed fairly level since 2001, whereas aquaculture produc-
tion continued strong growth, about 6.5% per year, and as of 2007 had reached
about 50.3 million tons, compared with 90 million for capture production. The trend
continued through 2008, the latest reported date (FAO 2010).
Is this sign of significant transition in the world’s fisheries? Following measure-
ment conventions for forest transitions, a fisheries transition is defined as taking
place when the total stock of fish in a jurisdiction begins to increase, irrespective of
what that stock is comprised of. This stock of fish can include farmed fish in pens
and ponds as well as wild fish in the oceans, just as a forest transition can come from
planted as well as wild trees. This is problematic if the negative effects of tree and
fish farming on biodiversity are at issue, but it may be justified from the perspective
of sustainable production of food and fiber.
In some regions of the world, particularly Southeast Asia and Asia, coastal fish-
farming ventures have long histories and continue to expand. Some types of fish
farming are mainly for local consumption (e.g., milkfish [Chanos chanos] in the
Philippines); others are for high-end luxury and export markets (e.g., shrimp).
Salmon farming is very big business in temperate environments, having expanded

from native homes of salmonids in the North Atlantic and North Pacific rivers and
oceans to South American fjords. Shellfish culture is significant as well, and new
farmed products appear in supermarkets; for example, tilapia and hybrid striped
bass are now staples in U.S. supermarkets, though rarely seen 2 decades ago, and
branzini (Dicentrarchus labrax), from Mediterranean fish farms, is a popular new-
comer in the northeast USA.
The rise of fish farming can be viewed as a positive transition, whereby fish
farming is compensating for decline in wild fishes and growth in demand for
seafood given rising human populations. This interpretation is reasonable in
some cases and not in others. Given the diversity of fish farming, aquaculture can
be paradoxically both a solution and a contributing factor to the collapse of
fisheries stocks. For species such as carp and mollusks, the culture of which
involves little transformation of fragile habitats and which are herbivorous or
filter feeders, the net contribution to global fish supplies is substantial. However,
many farmed animals, like salmon and tuna, are carnivores that require fish as
food. This adds to demand for small pelagic “forage” fish (Naylor and Burke
2005), and the rise of demand for fishmeal for aquaculture feeds in countries like
China is of concern.
Shrimp is another problematic example. It is a major farmed export crop, mainly
grown in brackish coastal ponds. Wild shrimp harvesting is costly to marine eco-
systems because of the often large and destructive by-catch involved, reflecting
difficulty avoiding juvenile and other vulnerable individuals when harvesting fish
using fine-meshed nets (comparable perhaps to clear-cutting forests in conse-
quences for biodiversity). However, shrimp aquaculture has problems, too. One is
the demand on wild shrimp stocks (and associated by-catch) of the harvest of
“seed” shrimp for farms because of the high costs and technical challenges of
breeding shrimp in controlled facilities; another is loss of coastal ecosystem ser-
vices due to alterations of coastal habitats for the ponds, and a third is the need for
high protein feeds. These features of shrimp farming pose threats to marine eco-
systems that may not be compensated for by reliance on farming for final
production.
Production data for salmon and shrimp, and likely for other species as farming
for them expands, indicate that farming supplements rather than substitutes for
fishing (Goldburg and Naylor 2005). Furthermore, most mariculture systems are not
fully enclosed; they are open to the sea, one way or the other, allowing for exchange
of nutrients, pollutants, disease organisms, and genes with the wild system.
Accordingly, in some places and from some perspectives, farming seafood does not
reduce pressure on wild stocks and may actually maintain or increase pressures on
them. Calls for more “ecological” approaches to fish farming, especially in the open
ocean (e.g., Goldburg and Naylor 2005) are just that; a transition to such has not yet
occurred.
Fisheries Transitions: Leaving the Seas
A major kind of transition identified for forests comes about as a side effect or
unintended consequence of people shifting to other activities or places, due largely
to urbanization and industrialization. It complements the creation of protected
areas that force people to reduce their forest activities. Little is known about this
kind of transition for fisheries. No comparable effort has been made to examine
systematically the movement of people in and out of marine fisheries occupations,
due to the pull of other activities and places, and the possible restorative effects on
fish stocks and marine ecosystems. More predominant are accounts of intensified
exploitation over time, particularly recent efforts to document prehistorical and
historical effects of human activities on marine ecosystems, some of which high-
light how profoundly those ecosystems have changed in a negative sense (Jackson
et al. 2001; Sandin et al. 2008).
Glimmers and suggestions for future research can be found in historical accounts
that show intensified or changing fishing patterns in relation to population migration
to coastal areas, changes in other sectors such as agriculture or industry, and the
exigencies of conflict. One example is the closure of the herring fishery of the North
Sea during World Wars I (Parmanne 1999) and II because of military activities in
the waters; it is often referred to as an exemplary case of how the cessation of
fishing can lead to fish stock recovery. The history of the herring fishery shows
many points of time in the more distant past—indeed, throughout the seventeenth
century and during the Napoleonic Era—when maritime warfare and privateering
resulted in lower productivity (Poulsen 2006), a possible example of inadvertent
transition, when lowered effort corrected for harvesting levels that may have led to
depletion. Furthermore, shifts in the distribution of power among mercantilist net-
works could result in loss of markets, also leading to downturns in fishing activity,
seen in the eighteenth century for North Sea herring. Social changes affecting diets
also play upon fisheries one way and the other. The demand for salted herring led to
increased exploitation generally in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, but there
were times of declining per capita consumption (1650–1750) that tempered demand.
Furthermore, changes in the distribution and abundance of herring occurred for
“natural” causes, as for example in the period 1815–1850 (Poulsen 2006). Market
factors, wars, and environmental changes also seem to have been dominant causes
for change in the productivity of other important fisheries, such as the Newfoundland
salt cod fishery (Rose 2007).
Were these transitions toward sustainability? At least on a fairly large scale, it
seems as if Thomas Huxley was at least 80% right at the 1883 National Fisheries
Exposition when he dismissed as “unscientific” the complaints of fishermen about
how other fishing boats were destroying the stocks. He stated that “[a]ny tendency
to over-fishing will meet with its natural check….This check will always come into
operation long before anything like permanent exhaustion has occurred” (quoted in
Kurlansky 1998:121–122). Many of the world’s fish stocks have proved amazingly
resilient as long as the level of fishing mortality stayed relatively low, and thus what
might look at a historical distance like transition could very well be simply shift
from one more-or-less sustainable system of resource exploitation to another. Future
research should, however, look at fisheries for slow-to-reproduce whales and other
marine mammals, slow-growing and long-lived fisheries, and endemic and highly
specialized tropical species, which would be more vulnerable to overexploitation
and could, in theory, yield accounts of positive transition, although the literature
available to us at this point in time seems to indicate otherwise (Jackson et al. 2001;
Schipper et al. 2008). Future research could also examine shifts in cultural factors,
ranging from food proscriptions to consumer tastes and bioethics, as they have
affected fisheries transitions. The linkages may not be obvious: a decline in the
availability of “bush meat” (e.g., large primates) in some tropical regions, linked to
large-scale conservation measures, appears to have increased demand for fish, add-
ing to pressures on West African fish stocks (Brashares et al. 2004).
More generally, research has yet to be done on the question of how urbanization,
industrialization, patterns of employment and unemployment, and so forth have
affected marine fisheries. The overall pattern of rising coastal populations does not
bode well for coastal fisheries, given increased demand and likely increases in
effort. A growing literature on poverty and fisheries (e.g., Béné et al. 2007) shows
close and mutual interaction between fisheries decline and poverty, decline being
both cause and effect of poverty. Economic development could both alleviate pov-
erty and create more alternatives to fishing, helping to reverse downward trends in
coastal fish stocks. However, all of this is predicated on close associations between
fishing effort and local populations and economies, whereas the reality in many
parts of the world is that fishing effort in a region can have as much to do with con-
ditions elsewhere, the “leakage” discussed in the forest transition literature. Thus,
for example, The Ecologist recently reported activists’ claims that increased fish
“piracy” or illegality and overfishing are destroying the livelihoods of coastal fishing
groups in Africa in order to provide fish that compensates for declining fish stocks
in European Union waters (Ecologist 2011).
Fishery Transitions: Protected Areas and Regulatory

Interventions
In many tropical countries, the creation of forest preserves and national parks helped
to slow down the depletion of forests, enabling the “inflection point” or transition to
begin when substantial forested areas remained. In contrast the creation of marine-
protected areas has been of minor scale until very recently, representing less than
0.7 or 0.8% of the world’s oceans by 2010 (World Database on Protected Areas
2009), and very little of that fully protected from harvesting. Of course, there are
other sources of closure, including those created for military purposes or because
of public health concerns due to pollution, and the effects of these on fish stocks
should be examined. The creation in 2006 of extremely large marine reserves in
tropical and subtropical waters, including the 139,000 miles−2 (361,400 km−2)
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the northwest Hawaiian Islands

and comparably large areas in the Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam
may be similar to the case in forest transition. However, some of those areas are in
waters that have not suffered extreme degrees of depletion as yet.
The more evident fishery recoveries or transitions are associated with intentional
interventions by the state, reflecting the evolution of “resource management” expertise
and missions on the part of governments. In relation to the forest transition literature,
government interventions into marine fisheries management would be considered
“latecomer” efforts, building upon prior experiences and the evolution of scientific
and administrative capacities. The science and practice of marine fisheries manage-
ment took shape at the end of the nineteenth century and in the first half of the twenti-
eth century (Smith 1994) but its effectiveness was constrained by the geopolitics of the
oceans, whereby all but narrow coastal bands of the sea were open access international
waters, subject only to difficult-to-enforce international management regimes.
Fisheries that occur farther offshore, especially those that take place beyond the 200
nautical mile (370 km) zone of extended national jurisdiction are far more prone to
“tragedies of the unmanaged commons” (Hardin 1994) due to the great difficulties
involved in international environmental management, given the sovereignty of indi-
vidual nations and weakness of international institutions (Young 1994).
In the mid-1970s the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea led to
claims of 200-mile limits of exclusive economic or fisheries jurisdiction throughout
the world (Burke 1994), enabling the expansion of science-based management to
encompass a huge portion of the species-rich coastal fishing grounds of the world.
Capacity for management varied, of course, favoring the wealthier nations and
regions of the world, leaving the poorer ones to rely on international aid and on
local, customary, and informal management regimes (McGoodwin 1990; Dyer and
McGoodwin 1994). North Sea herring offers a case showing the emergence of more
rapid responses with time and experience. After World War II the fishery expanded
rapidly, with technological changes in fish finding and harvesting and increased
demand from recovering European economies. In the 1970s the stock declined pre-
cipitously but nothing was done until 1978, when the fishery was closed to harvest
just before the herring stocks might have become extinct. Recovery was very slow.
In the mid-1990s decline occurred again due to high fishing mortality, but this time
management actions were adopted early enough to enable the fish stock to recover
within a few years (Simmonds 2007).
As noted earlier, globally some of the crustacean fisheries have shown marked
increase in recent years, and we would be remiss in ignoring the account of the
American lobster (Homarus americanus), which appears to be as extreme a case of
positive transition as the Atlantic cod was one of depletion. Fig. 5 shows ups and
downs through the early 1940s, followed by sustained catches and a recent boom
in catches.
Downturns in catches in the State of Maine, accounting for most of the Gulf of
Maine fishery, led to legislature and industry acceptance of more stringent man-
agement measures (Acheson 2003, 1997), which may have played a role in the
transition to a strong fishery. Tempering this account, like so many others, are
Fig. 5 Gulf of Maine lobster landings, 1880–2008
high levels of uncertainty bolstered by recognition of complexity in marine

coastal ecosystems. The American lobster “transition” could be reinterpreted as
the outcome of a variety of cumulative and synergistic effects involving sea
urchins, cod, herring, and human interactions with each. For example, the rise of
a sea urchin harvest alleviated sea urchin pressure on kelp beds, which recovered
and provided habitat for lobsters and other species. Overfishing of cod and other
large predators removed predator pressure on young lobsters, and loss of cod
fishing opportunities led many fishermen to concentrate instead on lobster
(Acheson and Steneck 1997).
Less well understood but recognized are the roles of environmental factors in the
timing and extent of recovery of fish stocks that governments seek to manage by
restraints on fishing. The extent and timing of recovery of North Sea herring stocks
and the cod stocks of Newfoundland have been diminished and slowed by environ-
mental factors that may include changing water temperatures and predation (Hislop
1996; Rose 2007; May 2009), although it is difficult to pinpoint the precise causes.
In the introduction to this chapter, we referred to the possibility that transitions
may be affected by biophysical features of the systems involved. It does seem that
fisheries transitions are harder to assess than forest transitions. At the simplest
level, they are harder to see, as fish remain underwater until caught and fishing
activities often take place far from points of observation. Consequently, in marine
fisheries, transitions to more sustainable systems can take a long time to be visible
or may not be visible at all. They also may be short-lived. In multi-dimensional
highly motile fluid media, fish populations have high levels of variability and
unpredictability.
The good news can be unexpected as well as hard to explain, making it difficult
to assess whether management was the cause, a problem magnified by the com-
mon pool characteristics of fisheries relative to forests, the latter being more eas-
ily divisible as well as observed. Something that appears to be on a downward
trend can suddenly emerge as a strong resource, as happened in the 1960s with the
so-called “gadoid burst” in the North Sea (Simmonds 2007). Similarly, salmon
fisheries are notorious for variability and unpredictability; for example, the 2010
Fraser River salmon fishery may be the best in almost a century, following upon 3
years of serious decline (Bernton 2010). This poses another order of difficulty for
fisheries transitions: how can one evaluate whether or not a regulatory interven-
tion works and convince people that it is worthwhile to support it when there are
so many “unknowns” at play? The term “faith-based” has been applied to criticize
some applications of fisheries science (Hilborn 2006), but it is also true that much
of fisheries management must be accepted on the basis of faith that somehow it
should work.
Fishery Transitions: Incentives and Property Rights
Our introduction noted the recognition of human incentives as significant driving

forces in forest transitions. This is true for fisheries as well but may work out differ-
ently. Open-access conditions are widely understood to create dis-incentives for con-
servation and stewardship, instead promoting competitive behavior for short-term
goals. Although the creation of 200-mile limits enabled coastal states to claim terri-
tories at sea, in general it is logistically difficult to create boundaries around marine
resources, a first step toward controlling access and creating more exclusive property
rights, which provide incentives inherent in ownership and enable the use of market
forces in regulation. The development of bounded units of control over marine
resources is also restricted in marine systems by the high mobility of both prey
(especially the finfishes) and predator (the fishers), as well as the variety of habitats
needed to support the various life-history stages of many if not most fish species.
Consequently, there has been relatively little use of the tools of property rights for
fishing grounds and fishes comparable to those of land and tree tenure (Fortmann
and Bruce 1988), and this constitutes a major difference between forests and fisheries.
However, the situation is changing through both the privatization of fishing rights
and strengthening of local community engagement in fisheries management.
Recognition of the dis-incentives for stewardship inherent in a situation of few
property rights led to the creation of quasi-property rights in fisheries from about
1980 to the present in major industrialized nations, closely linked ideologically with
neoliberalism. With economic rather than biological goals in mind but recognition
of the interactions between them, economists have long argued and worked for the
implementation of individual transferable quotas (ITQs) in fisheries management

(Squires et al. 1995; Grafton et al. 2006). ITQs are analogous to cap-and-trade pro-
grams in emissions control: rights to percentages of an overall quota are assigned to
entities (individuals, businesses) who are able to trade them in order to achieve
efficiencies while accepting restrictions on amounts overall. The economic benefits
of ITQs are self-evident, as they have corrected tendencies in fisheries toward over-
capitalization. It is less obvious that they assist in transitions toward sustainability.
Examining a large number of cases worldwide, Costello et al. concluded that
fisheries collapse was much less likely with ITQs than without (Costello et al. 2008;
Costello and Kaffine 2008), lending credence to the notion that this form of privati-
zation too could help with the transition to more sustainable fisheries. However,
other studies that examined a wider range of variables concluded that such gains
were in effect dependent on the workings of government regulation combined with
property-related incentives (Branch 2009; Chu 2009; Essington 2010).
More simply, without a quota that has scientific and political legitimacy and
credibility, as well as monitoring and enforcement inputs from government, ITQs
cannot be effective either for economic or biological purposes, and privatization
comes at significant social and administrative costs (McCay 1995; Young and
McCay 1995). However, there are other forms of property rights that may play a
role in fisheries transitions whereby social groups of various dimensions and kinds
claim territorial or other rights and are engaged in regulating their fisheries, often in
concert with government agencies, in forms of community-based resource manage-
ment that have counterparts in community forestry movements throughout the
world.
The American lobster fishery transition (Fig. 5) owes success in some part to the
informal territories established and defended by local groups of lobster fishers; their
territorial actions combine with other industry-driven measures such as minimum
and maximum sizes and avoidance of egg-bearing lobsters to provide the basis for
what appears to be high sustainable fishing, including a history of transition from
hard times (Acheson 1997, 2003; Acheson and Steneck 1997). Informal territorial-
ity has been complemented in recent years by regional management zones to help
implement fisher-led controls over effort in the fisheries.
Transition to sustainable fishing along a remote coast of northwestern Mexico
also depends on local community engagement and property rights. Small coop-
eratives of the Vizcaino Peninsula of Baja California, Mexico, hold official long-
term concessions for valuable species, mainly abalone and lobster, in demarcated
territories off their shores. Although the state is involved in the management
regime, its success has as much to do with the incentives and capacities for moni-
toring and enforcement made possible by the concessions, as well as trial-and-
error experience with near collapse (Ponce-Díaz et al. 2009). Similar efforts in
Chile have led to nationwide restructuring of coastal benthic fisheries, and as
observed in other cases, increased awareness of and capacity for the kinds of
changes in fishing activity that can support transition (Schumann 2007). There
are many other instances of community-based property rights contributing to sus-
tainable fisheries (Pinkerton and Weinstein 1995), including coastal Japan. In
Japan as elsewhere, the outcomes are not predictable given the uncertainties
inherent in marine ecosystem dynamics as well as human socioeconomic systems
(Takahashi et al. 2006).
Large-Scale Fisheries Transitions: US Fisheries
It is possible to identify specific fisheries around the world that show signs of transi-
tion from overfished to healthier status. The European Union nations have a long
and worthy history of fisheries science and management, and some successes, but
transitions to sustainability have been plagued by political difficulties within the
union, stemming in part from a requirement about quantitative sharing of catches
among nations, the so-called Common Fisheries Policy (Daw and Gray 2005). With
an equally long and substantial history of fisheries science, the United States has
emerged as a much stronger case of fisheries transition, less hampered by jurisdic-
tional issues despite evolving a complex system of regional and state-federal gover-
nance since the 200-mile limit of 1977.
Evidence for a large-scale transition, not just for individual species, comes from
the 2010 government report on the status of the marine fish stocks under jurisdiction
of the federal management system (3–200 n.m.). The National Marine Fisheries
Service uses a “fish stock sustainability index” (FSSI) to measure performance of
230 key fish stocks; it increases as stock assessments improve, “overfishing” is
ended, and “overfished” stocks are rebuilt to the level deemed to provide maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) the legal goal.1 The index increased greatly from 2000 to
2009 (Fig. 6), a 60% increase in 9 years (National Marine Fisheries Service 2010).
Fig. 6 Fish stock sustainability index (FSSI), United States, 2000–2009
1
More information about the FSSI can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/
SOSmain.htm.
“Overfishing” and “overfished” are key technical terms for indicators that require action. A stock
that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate above the level that provides for
the maximum sustainable yield. A stock that is overfished has a biomass level below its prescribed
biological threshold (NMFS 2010:3).
Put another way, only 23% of the 203 fish stocks—or fish stock complexes—for
which indicators are available were overfished in 2009. There were, however, 317
fish stocks, or stock complexes, for which assessments had not been done or been
possible, and there was substantial regional variation. Some regions, like the Mid-
Atlantic, show virtually no overfished stocks and impressive records of restoration
from overfished status; others have many overfished stocks and fewer cases of
improvement. In contrast, regions like the Pacific coast have numerous overfished
stocks but none currently being fished as levels that are deemed overfishing, and
therefore can be construed as in the process of restoration.
As might be expected, given the international nature of most of the fishing that
takes place for them, the “highly migratory” tunas, marlins, sharks, etc. that are the
responsibility of the federal government are in poor condition by these standards,
both “overfished” and subject to “overfishing.” Also in trouble by these measures
are subtropical complexes of the South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, as
well as many of the groundfish of New England.
Despite such problems, the United States appears to be at a major “inflection
point,” moving toward overall restoration of fish stocks. This conclusion is supported
by a recent widely publicized interview with Dr. Steven Murawski, a highly
respected fisheries scientist. He was quoted as declaring that as of 2011 no U.S.-
managed stocks would be defined as overfished:
“The projected end of overfishing comes during a turbulent fishing year that’s
seen New England fishermen switch to a radically new management system. But
scientist Steve Murawski said that for the first time in written fishing history, which
goes back to 1900, “As far as we know, we’ve hit the right levels, which is a mile-
stone. And this isn’t just a decadal milestone, this is a century phenomenon,” said
Murawski, who retired recently as chief scientist at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service” (Anonymous 2011).
Fisheries Transition at Larger Scales: Environmental Leakage
Environmental “leakage,” where strong controls over fishing effort in one place
come at the cost of intensified harvesting pressure in other places, is evident and
likely quite high in fisheries as it is in forest situations. The United States, for exam-
ple, is increasingly dependent on seafood imports, and not only from neighbors like
Canada but also increasingly on seafood harvested by Asian nations, inside and
outside their territorial waters. The sustainability of their practices calls for greater
scrutiny, as does the wider problem of illegal, unreported, and unidentified (IUU)
fishing, which is a major impediment to the achievement of sustainable world
fisheries, respecting neither national boundaries nor international attempts to man-
age high sea resources (FAO 2010). The EU’s dependence on imports has also
increased, as has its direct and indirect engagement in fisheries off the coasts of
other nations, particularly Africa, as noted earlier.
Other “leakage” takes place through the activities of predatory fishing fleets and
buyers, “roving bandits” that by-pass or violate the rules developed locally or act
too quickly for the formation of effective local responses. This is true in fisheries as
it is in logging. It has been enhanced not only by the globalization of markets but
also by the transnational or highly fluid nature of the harvesters, as seen in the recent
history of both sea urchin and live aquarium fish trades (Berkes et al. 2006).
Fisheries Transition at Global Scales: Eco-certification
The use of eco-certification of fisheries to identify and encourage the continuation

of sustainable fisheries or the end of unsustainable ones is one counter to IUU, “rov-
ing bandit,” and other global fishery problems. It builds upon rising consumer con-
cerns about ecological sustainability and health, and as such is an “ecological
modernization” strategy. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a “latecomer”
institution modeled on earlier forest eco-certification programs. The MSC became
an international nonprofit organization in 1999 and began relying on third party
firms to assess marine fisheries against environmental and institutional criteria for
sustainability. In 2009 it was estimated that fisheries at one or another stage of
assessment accounted for about 7% of the world’s annual wild harvest (MSC 2009),
and the percentage has grown since. As of 2010 there were 96 certified fisheries as
well as 131 undergoing assessment by a third party and untold others undergoing
pre-assessment within the MSC (www.msc.org), as well as uncounted others within
competing eco-certification organizations.
Certification has been criticized as “green-washing,” favoring already successful,
large-scale capitalist ventures. Similarly to the experience in forest certification, all
but one of the first 42 fisheries to be certified were from developed nations (the
“North” including Australia). Moreover, some were at a very large industrial as well
as geographic scale such as the Alaskan pollock fisheries, although others were
much more localized and less capital-intensive such as the Scottish Loch Torridon
creel fishery for the lobster-like nephrops (Nephrops norvegicus). An exception to
the developed nations trend was the Baja California, Mexico, red rock lobster
(Panulirus interuptus) fishery, the first artisanal-scale and developing fishery to be
certified (certification is a costly process), helped considerably by efforts of the
World Wildlife Fund as well as the fishery’s own concession-based system of co-
management between local fishing cooperatives and government, referred to earlier
in this chapter (McCay and Weisman 2007).
The MSC is frequently criticized for being too lenient in its standards in the
effort to expand the scope of certification (Greenpeace USA 2009), but the assess-
ments are carried out by independent bodies that employ highly qualified scien-
tists, and the criteria are stringent. Therefore, although there are acknowledged
problems with certification, it seems reasonable to use certification as one indica-
tor that a fishery is being managed sustainably. It is a possible indicator of tran-
sition when combined with information about the longer history of the fishery.
The scope of MSC certification is slowly expanding, aided by food retailers

seeking to serve consumers concerned about the sources of their food, and other
sources and forms of certification are emerging. The MSC system not only recog-
nizes sustainable practices and viable systems of management but encourages and
requires improvement, and thus bears watching. Certification of aquacultured
fisheries is also expanding.
Discussion and Conclusions
Fisheries transitions might be expected to occur more often and earlier in the coastal
fisheries, which are usually within the boundaries of national jurisdiction, as com-
pared with offshore and highly migratory fisheries. The coastal fisheries often have
long histories of exploitation, which provide the possibility for episodes of trouble
and trial-and-error responses that may lead to sustainable outcomes. Offshore
fisheries are troubled by challenges in international management as well as particu-
lars such as the technical difficulties involved in monitoring what is happening far
from shore and strategies such as using flags-of-convenience to avoid stringent gov-
ernment regulation.
Fishery transitions in recent times have been facilitated by the capacity to create
and enforce boundaries and some forms of property rights, but the state and its role
in fisheries transitions is important. Strong states, with political commitment to
fisheries, access to scientific knowledge that allows reasonable decisions to be made
in the face of the high degree of uncertainty typical of marine systems, and fairly
good institutions for effective participation of resource users in knowledge creation,
rule-making and monitoring, seem critical to fishery transitions in recent decades.
Tools for improving the sustainability of marine ecosystem services, such as regu-
lating fisheries and creating truly effective marine-protected areas (a matter we have
not had space to address here), are meaningless without strong financial, political,
and legal support on the one hand, and effective outreach to and inclusion of affected
groups on the other.
Finally, there is hope. The United States is experiencing a transition toward more
sustainable coastal fisheries. Transition is happening elsewhere as well. A recent
analysis of trends by a prestigious group of scientists found that “After a long his-
tory of overexploitation, increasing efforts to restore marine ecosystems and rebuild
fisheries are under way” (Worm et al. 2009). In half of the ten ecosystems examined,
the average exploitation rate had recently declined; in seven of them the exploitation
rate was estimated to be at or below the rate predicted to achieve MSY. At an indi-
vidual fish stock level, the results were less sanguine: 63% of the fish stocks assessed
require rebuilding and some are on the verge of collapse. Well-known regulatory
tools are available, but two major issues remain: international fleets and the lack of
alternatives to fishing in many poorer regions.
What are the key differences if any between fisheries and forests that seem to
affect the likelihood, timing, form of transition to sustainable and recovered condi-
Table 1 Characteristics of fishery and forest transitions

Characteristics Fishery transitions Forest transitions
Historical onset Late twentieth century, early twenty- Early twentieth century
first century
Biological reserves Small-scale creation and spread, Extensive creation, 1950–
1990s—<0.8% gazetted, 2010 2000, ca. 10% land surface
Deliberate cultivation 27% of the world’s foodfish production ~5% of world’s forests in
in 2007 came from aquaculture 2000
Role of the state Wild fisheries: public resources, Extensive recently in Asia,
extensive formal role of the state, less so elsewhere. Private
variable effectiveness; international property and communal
fisheries issue; recent development property extensive in many
of privatized and community-based domains, with much
management to complement state remaining as state or
power; privatized property rights public property
slow to emerge
Leakage Appreciable and growing, United States, Appreciable, growing in
European reliance on imports from extent, but not so much as
Asia, etc.; illegal and unreported to nullify all environmental
fisheries; scale thought to be major benefits of forest
impediment to global sustainability transitions
tions? Table 1 sums up some of the contrasts we see between fishery and forest
transitions which may be used to guide further exploration of the topic. The historical
onset of fishery transitions is clearly much later than that of forest transitions, and
there is cross-over, the “latecomer” effect operating in the application of science-
based resource management and measures such as protected areas and eco-
certification. Nation-states often became involved in forest management earlier, and
the skills, missions, tools used eventually surfaced in fisheries management in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The transition tool of setting aside large
areas for protection and restoration, as biological reserves or protected areas is found
in both cases, again, later for fisheries than for forests, and at a far smaller scale for
fisheries. The transition tool of deliberate cultivation—planting trees, farming fish,
and shellfish—has a very long history in fisheries as in forestry, but in fisheries it has
expanded greatly in the past 2 decades, particularly in the last 10 years, now account-
ing for about 27% of the world’s foodfish production (FAO 2009).
A key difference is that fisheries—at least wild capture fisheries—are less prone
than are forests to being treated as private property, which means that they have
longer histories of being treated as open-access or informally-enclosed systems.
The greater difficulty imposing exclusive and long-term property rights in fisheries
in contrast with forests, whether state, private, or communal, also means that even-
tual transition depends not only on the abilities of local communities and user groups
to control activities—facilitated by the ability to create boundaries or exclusive
fishing rights—but also on the role of the state, which retains responsibility for
public property. The difficulties are logistical, but they have also been moral and
political, as progressive tightening of access to land-based resources increased the
value of having freer access to the seas, and many nations have enshrined the free
rights of citizens to the seas in their charters (this also poses challenges to protected
area management).
Another key point of difference is that a large component of the world’s fisheries
takes place beyond or straddles national boundaries, subject only to informal user-
group and weak international jurisdiction. Forests are always within the boundaries
of a nation-state, although the effectiveness of that state in extending its controls and
exerting some regulatory protection varies greatly in time and space. Furthermore,
forested ecosystems often straddle the boundaries between two or more nations,
and, like distant oceans, can be effectively beyond successful monitoring and
enforcement. In both instances, environmental “leakage” is a serious issue, whereby
the benefits of transition in one place may be outweighed or even nullified by the
costs of extraction and other activities elsewhere. For both forests and fisheries, we
offer cautious optimism.
The fluidity and multi-dimensionality of the marine environment, the high vari-
ability of marine ecological communities and oceanographic dynamics, the large
scope and taxonomic complexity of the world’s oceans (Worm et al. 2009) bear
mention. It may be that marine ecosystems have been buffered somewhat from
human activities until recently in part because of remoteness of some from human
settlement and activity and in part because some of them—e.g., the northern tem-
perate systems and upwelling systems, as well as species such as lobster—have
shown tremendous productivity and resilience. Consequently, the transitions for
ocean fisheries—movement of people to other activities, setting aside areas and
species for special protection, adoption of effective regulations on harvesting—have
been later than those for forests.
For both fisheries and forests, we offer cautious optimism. The major goal of this
article was to generate interest in furthering the comparison and, in particular, exam-
ining the conditions for successful transitions to sustainability. We have taken a very
simple approach, asking whether there are signs and signals of transition in fisheries,
as in forests, of transition to more sustainable systems. A next step is to carefully
analyze causes and correlates of transitions and failures of transition. This topic is
now also one concerning vulnerabilities and resilience in the face of climate change
and the many ecological, social, and political ramifications of climate change.
Consequently, the idea of transition, while still valuable, may have to yield way to
“transformability” (Walker et al. 2004), just as the old natural resource notions of
“maximum sustained yield” so central to both forest and fisheries management must
be replaced with more adaptive and precautionary ways of coping with dynamic
natural systems.
Acknowledgments This work is based on numerous projects of the authors, supported by the
New Jersey Sea Grant College Program, the National Science Foundation, and the New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station. We are grateful to the editors and to anonymous reviewers for
useful suggestions.
References
Acheson JM (1997) The politics of managing the Maine lobster industry: 1860 to the present.
Human Ecol 25:3–27
Acheson JM (2003) Capturing the commons: devising institutions to manage the Maine lobster
industry. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH
Acheson JM, Steneck RS (1997) Bust and then boom in the Maine lobster industry: perspectives
of fishers and biologists. N Am J Fish Manage 17:826–847
Anonymous (2011) Is overfishing ended? Top US scientist says yes. Associated Press. http://www.
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlaWeLkS0t__O2_fChxd-Ty6w3qA?docId=f808b
e18d5cc48d58ab923de17d7a604. Accessed 9 Jan 2011
Baird RC (2012) Sustainable coastal margins: challenges of tempo and mode for the policy domain.
In: Weinstein MP, Eugene Turner R (eds) Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and
the urban environment. Springer, New York
Béné C, Macfadyne G, Allison EH (2007) Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to
poverty alleviation and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 9251056641, Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome
Berkes F, Hughes TP, Steneck RS et al (2006) Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources.
Science 311:1557–1558
Bernton H (2010) Fraser River whopper sockeye salmon run even bigger. Seattle Times, 1 Sept
2010. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012777922_salmon02m.html. Accessed
5 September 2010
Branch TA (2009) How do individual transferable quotas affect marine ecosystems? Fish Fisher
10:39–57
Brashares JS, Arcese P, Sam MK et al (2004) Bushmeat hunting, wildlife declines, and fish supply
in West Africa. Science 306:1180–1183
Burke WT (1994) The new international law of fisheries; UNCLOS 1982 and beyond. Clarendon
Press, Oxford
Chu C (2009) Thirty years later: the global growth of ITQs and their influence on stock status in
marine fisheries. Fish Fisher 10:217–230
Costello CJ, Kaffine D (2008) Natural resource use with limited-tenure property rights. J Environ
Econ Manage 55:20–36
Costello CJ, Gaines SD, Lynham J (2008) Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science
321:1678–1681
Daw T, Gray T (2005) Fisheries science and sustainability in international policy: a study of failure
in the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. Mar Policy 29:189–197
Dyer C, McGoodwin J (1994) Folk management in the world’s fisheries: lessons for modern
fisheries management. University Press of Colorado, Boulder
Ecologist (2011) Illegal European fishing contributing to poverty and piracy in Africa. The
Ecologist, 20 April 2011. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/852417/illegal_
european_fishing_contributing_to_poverty_and_piracy_in_africa.html. Accessed 9 January 2012
Essington TE (2010) Ecological indicators display reduced variation in North American catch
share fisheries. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:754–759
FAO (2009) FAO yearbook: fisheries and aquaculture statistics 2007. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i1013t/i1013t.pdf.
Accessed 11 October 2010
FAO (2010) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2010. Food and Agriculture Organisation,
Rome
Fischer-Kowalski M, Rotmans J (2009) Conceptualizing, observing, and influencing social-
ecological transitions. Ecol Soc 14, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/. Accessed 7
June 2010
Fortmann L, Bruce JW (1988) Whose trees? Proprietary dimensions of forestry, Rural studies
series. Westview Press, Boulder
Gerschenkron A (1962) Economic backwardness in historical perspective: a book of essays.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Goldburg R, Naylor RL (2005) Future seascapes, fishing, and fish farming. Front Ecol Environ
3:21–28
Grafton RQ, Arnason R, Bjørndal T et al (2006) Incentive-based approaches to sustainable
fisheries. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:699–710
Greenpeace USA (2009) Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) fisheries
certification program. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/assessment-of-
the-msc/. Accessed 20 July 2009
Hardin G (1994) The tragedy of the unmanaged commons. Trends Ecol Evol 9:199
Hilborn RW (2006) Faith-based fisheries. Fisheries 31:545–555
Hilborn R (2007) Reinterpreting the state of fisheries and their management. Ecosystems
10:1362–1369
Hislop JRG (1996) Changes in North Sea gadoid stocks. ICES J Mar Sci 53:1146–1156
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH et al (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of
coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–637
Kurlansky M (1998) Cod: a biography of the fish that changed the world. Penguin Books,
London
Lebel L (2005) Transitions to sustainability in production-consumption systems. J Ind Ecol
9:11–13
Marine Stewardship Council (2009) Net benefits: the first ten years of MSC certified sustainable
fisheries. http://www.msc.org/business-support/net-benefits. Accessed 19 August 2010
Mather A (2007) Recent Asian forest transitions in relation to forest transition theory. Int Forest
Rev 9:491–502
Mather A, Needle C (1998) The forest transition: a theoretical basis. Area 30:117–124
May A (2009) The collapse of the Northern Cod. Newfoundland Quart 102. http://www.mun.ca/
harriscentre/reports/nlquarterly/NQ_article_Vol_102_No_2.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2010
McCay BJ (1995) Social and ecological implications of ITQs: an overview. Ocean Coast Manage
28:3–22
McCay BJ, Weisman W (2007) Greening the red rock lobster: ecolabeling and control in a Mexican
fishery. In Paper presented to annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association,
November 27 to December 2, 2007, Washington, DC (Session anthropology and sustainability:
issues, outcomes and experiences in Mexican fisheries and coastal communities, organized by
Maria Cruz Torres)
McGoodwin JR (1990) Crisis in the world’s fisheries: people, problems, and policies. Stanford
University Press, Stanford
Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010) Forest transitions, trade, and the displacement of land
use. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:20917–20922. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014773107
National Marine Fisheries Service (2010) 2009 status of U.S. fisheries. 2009 report to congress,
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/
sos_full28_press.pdf. Accessed 2 September 2011
National Research Council (1999) Our common journey: a transition to sustainability. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC
Naylor RL, Burke M (2005) Aquaculture and ocean resources: raising tigers of the sea. Ann Rev
Parmanne R (1999) Herring fishery in the Bothnian Sea (southern Gulf of Bothnia) and the North
Sea: similarities and differences. Boreal Environ Res 3:321–328
Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard A, Froese R, Torres L (1988) Fishing down marine food webs.
Science 279:860–863
Pinkerton E, Weinstein M (1995) Fisheries that work: sustainability through community-based
management. The David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver
Ponce-Díaz G, Weisman W, McCay BJ (2009) Co-responsabilidad y participación en el manejo de

pesquerías en México: lecciones de Baja California Sur. Pesca Conserv 1:1–9
Poulsen B (2006) Historical exploitation of North Sea herring stocks—an environmental history of
the Dutch herring fisheries, c. 1600–1860. Dissertation, Southern Denmark. English summary.
http://hmapcoml.org/news/documents/HistoricalexploitationofNorthSeaherringstocks
EngSumBoP.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2010
Rock M, Murphy JT, Rasiah R et al (2009) A hard slog, not a leapfrog: globalization and sustain-
ability transitions in developing Asia. Technol Forecast Soc Change 76:241–255
Rose G (2007) Cod: the ecological history of the North Atlantic fisheries. Breakwater Books, St.
Johns
Rudel TK (2010) The human ecology of tropical regrowth. J Sustain Forest (in press)
Rudel TK, Hooper L (2005) Is the pace of social change accelerating?: latecomers, common lan-
guages, and rapid historical declines in fertility. Int J Comp Sociol 46:275–296
Rudel TK, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Xu J, Lambin E (2005) Forest transi-
tions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environ Change 15:23–31
Sandin SA, Smith JE, DeMartini EE et al (2008) Baselines and degradation of coral reefs in the
Northern Line Islands. PLoS One 3:e1548
Schipper J, Chanson JS, Chiozza F et al (2008) The status of the world’s land and marine mam-
mals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322:225–230
Schumann S (2007) Co-management and “consciousness”: fishers’ assimilation of management
principles in Chile. Mar Policy 31:101–111
Simmonds EJ (2007) Comparison of two periods of North Sea herring stock management: success,
failure, and monetary value. ICES J Mar Sci 64:686–692
Smith TD (1994) Scaling fisheries: the science of measuring the effects of fishing, 1855–1955.
Speth JG (1992) The transition to a sustainable society. Proc Natl Acad Sci 89:870–872
Squires D, Kirkley J, Tisdell CA (1995) Individual transferable quotas as a fisheries management
tool. Rev Fish Sci 3:141–169
Takahashi SB, McCay BJ, Baba O (2006) The good, the bad, or the ugly? Advantages and chal-
lenges of Japanese coastal fisheries management. Bull Mar Sci 78:575–591
Walker BH, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transform-
ability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9:5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/
iss2/art5. Accessed 11 June 2010
World Database on Protected Areas (2009) World database on protected areas. United Nations
Environment Program. Explore the world database on marine protected areas. http://www.
wdpa-marine.org/#/countries/about. Accessed 7 June 2010
Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N et al (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem
services. Science 314:787–790
Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK et al (2009) Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325:578–585
Young OR (1994) International governance: protecting the environment in a stateless society.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Young MD, McCay BJ (1995) Building equity, stewardship, and resilience into market-based
property rights systems. In: Hanna S, Munasinghe M (eds) Property rights and the environment:
social and ecological issues. The World Bank, Washington, DC
Part IV
The Ecology of Cities
The global phenomenon of human migration to cities, combined with the observation
that most megacities (populations exceeding 10,000,000) are situated on coasts and
estuaries, makes the ecology of cities an open frontier for sustainability science
research, education, and outreach. This theme will focus on the emergence of urban
coastal research integrated with the social sciences and humanities.
There is growing opportunity to extend and integrate knowledge of the urban
center combining an ecological lens with social and economic understanding at dif-
ferent scales governing the flows and cycles of critical resources. Moreover, Pickett
and Cadenasso (2006) note that all ecosystems inhabited by humans should be
“modeled to include individuals as well as the social aggregations they generate or
influence.” They suggest further that “it is perfectly reasonable to incorporate such
factors and processes into ecosystem” and pose the questions:
1. How do the spatial structures of socioeconomic, ecological, and physical features
of an urban area relate to one another and how do they change with time?
2. What are the fluxes of energy, matter, human built capital, and social capital in
an urban system; how do they relate to one another; and how do they change over
the long term?
3. How can people develop and use an understanding of the metropolis as an ecologi-
cal system to improve the quality of their environment and to reduce pollution to
downstream air, watersheds, and coastal environs?
In short, what are the institutional arrangements, constraints, and opportunities
out there that test our mettle as scientists (natural, social, and economic)?
The concept of urban ecosystems as regions (landscapes) also lends credibility to
the boundary between planning and ecology. It recognizes that the human populace
must have “access and responsibility for the distributed resources and amenities
upon which they depend” (Pickett and Cadenasso 2006). The authors note further,
“watersheds, floodplains, large natural areas, connecting corridors, green buffers,
green water management infrastructure, and recreational parks and playgrounds are
all parts of the kind of patches that must be planned for, appropriately arranged and
phased in as urban regions grow and change.”
246 The Ecology of Cities
While the knowledge of nature in cities sets the foundation for addressing
ecological processes, it is not sufficient for understanding how those processes ulti-
mately become a function of the feedback dynamics associated with interactions
among social, ecological, and economic drivers. Like it or not, humans are here to
stay, and we need to “wedge sustainability” into our own consciousness, as well as
engaging the public and decision-makers to this reality (Coontz 2007).
References
Pickett S, Cadenasso M (2006) Advancing urban ecological studies: frameworks, concepts, and
results from the Baltimore ecosystem study. Austral Ecol 31:114–125
Coontz R (2007) Wedging sustainability into the public consciousness. Science 315:1068–1069
Cities as Dissipative Structures: Global Change
and the Vulnerability of Urban Civilization
William E. Rees
Abstract Techno-industrial society and modern cities as presently conceived are

inherently unsustainable. This conclusion flows from the energy and material
dynamics of growing cities interpreted in light of the second law of thermodyna-
mics. In second law terms, cities are self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium dissipa-
tive structures whose “self-organization” is utterly dependent on access to abundant
energy and material resources. Cities are also open, growing, dependent subsystems
of the materially-closed nongrowing ecosphere—they produce themselves and grow
by feeding on energy and matter extracted from their host ecosystems. Indeed, high-
income consumer cities are concentrated nodes of material consumption and waste
production that parasitize large areas of productive ecosystems and waste sinks
lying far outside the cities. The latter constitute the cities’ true “ecological foot-
prints.” In effect, thermodynamic law dictates that cities can increase their own local
structure and complexity (negentropy) only by increasing the disorder and random-
ness (entropy) in their host system, the ecosphere. The problem is that anthropo-
genic degradation now exceeds ecospheric regeneration and threatens to undermine
the very urban civilization causing it. To achieve sustainability, global society must
rebalance production and consumption, abandon the growth ethic, relocalize our
economies and increase urban-regional self-reliance, all of which fly in the face of
prevailing global development ideology.
Keywords Sustainable cities • Ecological footprint • Alternatives • Second law

of thermodynamics
W.E. Rees (*)

School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia,
6333 Memorial Road, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
248 W.E. Rees
H. sapiens: Unsustainable by Nature and Nurture
Sometime in 2009 the number of people living in urban regions reached 3.4 billion,
equal to 50% of the total human population. Already the greatest mass-migration of
people in history, the pace of urbanization is accelerating—the United Nations proj-
ects that urban populations will increase by an additional 2.9 billion the next 4
decades (UN 2009). In other words, the world’s cities are expected to add more
people in the coming 40 years than had accumulated on Earth in the entire history
of H. sapiens up until 1957! Urban population growth will exceed the anticipated
increase in total human numbers (2.3 billion) as cities absorb the equivalent of
global growth while drawing significantly from rural populations. All such projec-
tions, of course, assume a more or less “business-as-usual” scenario that the prevail-
ing global cultural narrative of progress-with-growth will continue to play out
smoothly and without interruption. They ignore potential potholes on the road to
urban utopia stemming from the increasing impact of human economic demands on
critical biophysical life-support systems.
This paper poses an alternative interpretation of the prospects for the world’s
cities, great and small. The future will not unfold as a steadily improving extension
of the past; the uninterrupted urbanization of humanity cannot be taken for granted.
Cities are facing ecologically uncertain times. Indeed, the very expansion of cities
increases their exposure to hazards associated with self-induced global ecological
change.
This outcome is not due to any fault of cities per se (cities actually have significant
potential sustainability advantages over lower-density settlement patterns). Rather,
my starting premise is that our entire resource-intensive industrial culture is inher-
ently unsustainable. Indeed, I have argued elsewhere that unsustainability is an
inevitable emergent property of the systemic interaction between contemporary
global society and the ecosphere and that the symptoms are steadily worsening
(Rees 2008, 2010). This implies that any scenarios or plans based on simple projec-
tions of prevailing trends are likely to founder.
The proximal roots of this conundrum spring from today’s global development
paradigm. The growth-oriented beliefs, values, and assumptions underpinning
contemporary economic models and consequential “environmental” behavior are
fundamentally at odds with the biophysical laws and dynamics governing vital eco-
systems and geophysical systems. It is, therefore, difficult to envision any politi-
cally acceptable reform of the prevailing paradigm that would produce a sustainable
relationship between the modern human enterprise and nature. As matters stand, the
global human enterprise is in a state of overshoot. Aggregate energy and material
consumption and waste production exceed the regenerative and waste assimilation
capacities of the ecosphere. This happens despite the fact that over three billion
people—almost half the human family—remain in poverty living on less than $(US)
2.50 per day.
The distal roots of unsustainability are deeply intractable. The ecologically
dysfunctional behavior of modern society is shaped by the complex interplay of
Cities as Dissipative Structures: Global Change and the Vulnerability… 249
both innate (i.e., genetically influenced) predispositions and socially-constructed

cultural narratives. It does not help that both sets of drivers operate mostly subcon-
sciously. People are generally unaware of the quiet “whisperings” of their genes
(or deny their existence) (Barrash 1979). Nor are they conscious that they are acting
out of various socially-constructed beliefs and ideologies acquired automatically
simply by growing up in a particular culture (Grant 1998; Rees 2002). Human (un)
sustainability is a truly “wicked problem.”
The biological contribution to this conundrum derives, in part, from the most
basic of Darwinian survival strategies: unless constrained by negative feedback,
H. sapiens, like all other species, will expand numerically to fill all accessible
habitats and consume all available resources (Ponting 1991; Fowler and Hobbs
2003). Of course, in the case of humans, “availability” is defined by contemporary
technology and there can be little doubt that human technological ingenuity accounts
for much of our species’ unparalleled success in the material struggle for existence
(Rees 2010).
The socio-cultural element is somewhat more complex, in part because there is
actually a second layer of nature–nurture interaction at play. On the one hand,
humans are obviously capable of acquiring virtually any set of cultural norms. On
the other, they are naturally predisposed to adopting the beliefs, narratives, and
behavioral norms of the particular culture in which they are raised. (Shared
meaning is essential for group cohesion and for personal and cultural identity.)
Thus, while different societies subscribe to markedly different foundational myths,
religious doctrines and grand cultural narratives (not to mention disciplinary para-
digms and political ideologies), the “social construction” of such unifying cultural
norms is a universal property of human societies (Berger and Luckmann 1966).
This observation is no mere curiosity—it is shared myths, models, and narratives
that give shape and direction to a society’s economic and political life and deter-
mine how its members “act out” in the natural world (Grant 1998). The critical point
here is that, while the need for socially-constructed meaning is yet another vessel
cast from our genes, the specific contents of our shared “stories” are determined by
socio-cultural context.
Some social scientists may question the role of innate predispositions in human
population dynamics, economic expansionism, and tendency to over-consume.
Such doubters, however, are obliged to provide an alternative explanation of the fact
that: (1) released by technology from negative feedback (disease, starvation,
resource shortages), the human population exploded super-exponentially beginning
in the nineteenth century and is only beginning to level off; (2) humans have come
to have the widest geographical range of any mammalian species (no habitable
landmass remains unsettled by humans and even the most uninhabitable of Earthly
environments, save the bottom of the sea, have semi-permanent human outposts);
(3) even the popular press has been forced to acknowledge evidence of “peak oil,”
“peak phosphorus”—indeed, “peak everything” (Heinberg 2007). It is worth noting
here the world’s increasing anxiety that some nations, particularly China are stock-
piling or withholding from markets various minerals essential to today’s high-tech
electronic lifestyles. To bring matters closer to home, anyone concerned about fiscal
250 W.E. Rees
deficits, the national debt, or even his/her own credit card (im)balances has direct
empirical evidence of the human propensity to use up available resources—and then
some! All such observations are consistent with Fowler’s and Hobbs’ (2003)
conclusion that, in material terms, H. sapiens is a true outlier species. Modern
H. sapiens’ demands on our supportive ecosystems typically dwarf those of 95
ecologically similar species by one or two orders of magnitude!1
There will be less questioning of the facts that humans routinely “socially con-
struct” their effective realities (Berger and Luckmann 1966) and that global society
has spent the past half-century purposefully constructing an economic reality based
on perpetual material growth. The governing elites of the market democracies have
persuaded or cajoled virtually the entire world into adopting a common myth of
uncommon power. All major national governments and mainstream international
agencies are united in a vision of global development and poverty alleviation
centered on unlimited economic expansion fueled by open markets and more liber-
alized trade (Rees 2002). Supporting (or rationalizing) this core narrative is a criti-
cal secondary myth: that human welfare can be all but equated with ever-increasing
material well-being (i.e., perpetual income growth).
In short, the world community is currently enthralled with a global development
myth that echoes the expansionist “whisperings” of our genes. And who would deny
that the expansionist vision has been the principal dynamic lending “shape and
direction” to economic political life everywhere for at least the past half century? It
is this vision that provides the context for our assessment of prospects for cities in
the twenty-first century.
The City as Biophysical Entity
The word “City” means different things to different people. Wikipedia defines the
city as “a relatively large and permanent settlement” and, somewhat circularly, as
“an urban settlement with a large population.” These are fairly typical of definitions
by people who think in geographic or demographic terms. Then again, architects
and urban designers think of cities as areas dominated by elements of the “built
environment”; anthropologists and sociologists see the city as a hotbed of artistic,
cultural and political activity; engineers regard cities as intensely concentrated
nodes in a global network of transportation, communication and related infrastruc-
ture, and Jacobs (1969) famously described cities as the “engines of national eco-
nomic growth.”
1
Even preagricultural humans significantly altered energy and material flows through ecosystems
by virtue of large per capita energy demands and group living. This necessarily affected biodiver-
sity. As Diamond (1992) writes: “For every area of the world that paleontologists have studied and
that humans first reached within the last fifty thousand years, human arrival approximately coin-
cided with massive prehistoric extinctions.” Pimm et al. (1995) estimate “that with only Stone Age
technology, the Polynesians exterminated >2,000 bird species, some ~15% of the world total.”
There is no disputing these and other definitions of the city—the city is all of
these things. The problem is that even the most inclusive definitions are incomplete,
whether in urban reference works or standard dictionaries. What is missing from
most traditional popular and academic descriptions is any appreciation of the city as
a complex ecological entity subject to thermodynamic and other biophysical laws.
This omission is perversely illogical. Cities increasingly help to define the human
ecological niche. They comprise the major habitat of the dominant species on the
planet and make unmatched biophysical demands on the ecosphere. In short, cities
have become a critical structural, functional, and spatial expression of human eco-
logical reality. It is the more remarkable, therefore, that the very concept of cities
as ecological entities remains below most people’s cognitive radar.
The reasons for this perceptual gap are no doubt complex but certainly related to
modern humanity’s general sense of alienation from nature. So-called “Cartesian
dualism” has created a nearly impermeable psychological barrier between all things
human and the natural world. To make matters worse, modern technology and
urbanization itself tend to widen the gap and foster the illusion that humanity is
decoupling from nature. Even well-educated people do not generally think of them-
selves as ecological or even biological entities until forced to by health or related
“environmental” problems. By extension, modern urbanites see cities and the urban
world as polar opposites to wilderness and the natural world; they have been forced
to contemplate the biophysics of cities only by global change.
Cities: Quintessential “Dissipative Structures”
Perhaps the most fruitful way to reassert the city’s de facto connectedness to the rest
of nature is through far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic theory. The starting point
for this approach is the second law of thermodynamics, i.e., the entropy law.
In its simplest form, the second law states that any spontaneous change in an
isolated system—a system that can exchange neither energy nor material with its
environment—increases the system’s “entropy.” This is a technical way of stating
that things naturally tend to wear out and run down. With each successive change,
an isolated system loses potential; it becomes more randomly structured and dis-
ordered, energy dissipates, concentrations disperse, and gradients disappear.
Eventually, the system reaches “thermodynamic equilibrium,” which is a state of
maximum local entropy in which nothing further can happen.
Of course, many complex real-world systems, ranging from newborn infants to
cities, to the entire ecosphere, are neither isolated nor sliding toward equilibrium.
The ecosphere, for example, is a highly-ordered self-organizing system of mind-
boggling complexity, multi-layered structure and steep gradients as represented
by millions of distinct species, differentiated matter, and accumulated biomass.
Over geological time, its biodiversity, systemic complexity, and energy/material
flows have been increasing—i.e., the ecosphere has been moving ever further
from equilibrium. Indeed, this phenomenon may well be the measure of life.
252 W.E. Rees
As Prigogine (1997) asserts, “distance from equilibrium becomes an essential

parameter in describing nature, much like temperature [is] in [standard] equilib-
rium thermodynamics.”
Scientists long thought that living systems were exempt from the second law
because they gain in structural mass and functional complexity over time. This is
not the case—all systems are subject to the same processes of entropic decay. (There
are no known violations of the second law.) The paradox dissolves only when we
recognize that all living systems, from cellular organelles to entire ecosystems, and
from cities to the ecosphere, are open systems that freely exchange energy and
matter with their host “environments.”
Most critically, some systems biologists now describe living systems as existing
in overlapping nested hierarchies in which each component system (“holon”) is
contained by the next level up and itself comprises a chain of linked subsystems at
lower levels. This organizational form is the basis for “SOHO” (self-organizing
holarchic open) systems theory (see Kay and Regier 2000). Each subsystem or
holon in the hierarchy grows, develops, and maintains itself by extracting usable
energy and material (negentropy) from its host “environment” one level up. It pro-
cesses this energy/matter internally to produce and maintain its own structure/
function and exports degraded energy and material wastes (entropy) back into its
host. In short, living organisms maintain their local level of organization as
far-from-equilibrium systems at the expense of increasing global entropy, and
particularly at the expense of the entropy of their immediate host system (Schneider
and Kay 1994, 1995).2 They are called “dissipative structures” because all self-
organizing systems survive by continuously degrading and dissipating available
energy and matter (Prigogine 1997).
What has this to do with humans and where do cities fit into this discussion? Like
the ecosphere, cities are self-organizing far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures.
Cities, however (indeed, the entire human enterprise), are open, growing, dependent
subsystems of the materially closed, nongrowing finite ecosphere. Thus, while the
ecosphere evolves and maintains itself by feeding on an extra-terrestrial source of
energy, and by continuously recycling matter, cities grow and maintain themselves
by feeding on the rest of the ecosphere and ejecting their wastes back into it. In other
words, cities can grow and increase their internal order (negentropy) only by
2
Renegade economist Georgescu-Roegan (1971a, b) was among the first to understand the
implications of the second law for the human economy. Starting from the fact that all economic
activity must draw low entropy resources out of nature and dump useless high entropy waste back
in, he reasoned first that “…in a finite space there can be only a finite amount of low entropy and,
second, that low entropy continuously and irrevocably dwindles away.” He further speculated that
since modern humans are unlikely to practice restraint in their use of resources, nature and human
nature may combine to ensure that “…the destiny of man is to have a short but fiery, exciting, and
extravagant life…” (Georgescu-Roegen 1975). This view naturally remains controversial with
opponents relying on resource substitutions and human technological ingenuity to defeat such
second-law pessimism.
Table 1 A “second-law” comparison of human-less and humanized ecosystems

Ecosystems without humans Humanized ecosystems
Grow and evolve by assimilating, degrading, Dedicated to economic processes involving the
and dissipating high-grade solar energy extraction, processing and consumptive
(exergy) through photosynthesis and evapo- degradation of fossil exergy and other
transpiration material “resources” that have accumulated
in the ecosphere, including biomass and
nonhuman species
Anabolic processes (bio-production) exceed Catabolism (destructive dissipation) exceeds
catabolic processes (respiration and anabolism (production of artifacts and
dissipation) manufactured capital)
Available energy and matter (biomass and other Resource stocks are depleted and dissipated;
resource gradients) accumulate; species biodiversity and structural complexity
proliferate, ecosystems differentiate, decline; ecosystems unravel and simplify
complexity increases
Waste heat dissipates off-earth; the entropy of Waste heat dissipates off-earth; material wastes
the solar system and the universe increases (often toxic) accumulate in the ecosphere;
ecosystems lose functional integrity; the
entropy of ecosphere (and ultimately the
universe) increases
“disordering” the ecosphere and increasing global entropy. Table 1 includes a

comparison of unexploited ecosystems with “humanized” ecosystems that are
structured and redirected to supporting urban culture.
There is nothing inherently unsustainable about either the SOHO hierarchy or
cities themselves, despite the dysfunctional relationship between contemporary
urban culture and the ecosphere. Ecosystems can self-produce indefinitely empow-
ered by solar energy. Anabolism marginally exceeds catabolism in the nonhuman-
ized ecosphere, and so biomass accumulates and natural sinks (the recycling process)
are capacious. In short, net primary production by producer species (mostly green
plants) has always been more than adequate to sustain the world’s entire comple-
ment of consumer organisms, including preindustrial humans. Critical problems
have emerged only recently with the constantly rising demand and the excessive
scale of the human enterprise. Far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic theory thus
provides a simple double-barreled criterion for global sustainability: the human
enterprise must not persistently consume more than nature produces, nor generate
more waste than nature can assimilate (with a generous allowance for the thousands
of other consumer species with whom we share the planet).
That said, the dynamics of perpetual throughput growth obviously contain the
seeds of potential pathology. The increasingly urban human enterprise is thermody-
namically positioned within the SOHO hierarchy to consume and dissipate the
ecosphere from the inside out (Rees 1999). Indeed, the accelerating pace of human-
induced global ecological change suggests that humanity is already a dangerously
parasite on its planetary host. It does not help that the spatial separation of city-
dwellers from the distant ecosystems fueling their consumer lifestyles blinds them
254 W.E. Rees
to the worst eco-thermodynamic consequences of over-consumption and excessive

pollution.3 Wealthy urbanites may experience a world of burgeoning cities and
expanding economies, but it is also a world of depleting resources, degraded land-
scapes, declining biodiversity, dying oceans, green-house gas accumulation, and
climate change. Because of the sheer scale of human demand, wealthy cities are
now as much the engines of global ecological decay as they are the “engines of
national economic growth” (Table 1; Box 1).
Box 1 Dissipating the Ecosphere

The human enterprise is a global thermodynamic system that produces itself
and grows by converting nature and its products into more humans and their
cultural artifacts. To fuel this process, the world economy necessarily dissi-
pates prodigious quantities of energy and matter. According to the US Energy
Information Administration, the world consumed an astonishing 495 × 1015 Btu
(522 × 1018 J) of energy in 2007 (EIA 2010). Liquid fuels, mostly petroleum,
accounted for the largest share, equivalent to about 35% of the total, or
173 × 1015 Btu (183 × 1018 J). (In 2007, the world extracted an average of
85,899,740 barrels of oil daily for a total of 31.4 billion barrels that year.)
Coal and natural gas together account for most of the rest of global consump-
tion and about half of total energy use 245 × 1015 Btu (258.3 × 1018 J).
Only a small fraction of the material flows and high-quality (low-entropy)
energy processed through the economy are actually incorporated into useful
goods and services because of unavoidable thermodynamic and mechanical
inefficiencies and such factors as the declining quality of mineral ores. The
economic process dissipates a vastly larger quantity of energy and material
back into supportive ecosystems as low-grade heat and useless waste, includ-
ing climate-forcing carbon dioxide. The combustion of petroleum products
alone dissipated over 11 billion metric tons (tonnes) of carbon dioxide—
containing three billion tonnes of carbon—into the atmosphere in 2007.
Raw energy, of course, is merely a means to an end. Humans use energy to
access, transport, and process all the other resources required or demanded by
modern civilization. The total material waste-load is enormous. The World
Resources Institute analyzed some of world’s richest, but most efficient coun-
tries, and found that material waste output from economic production ranges
from 11 tons per person per year in Japan to 25 tons per person per year in the
United States. When so-called “hidden flows” are included—flows resulting
(continued)
3
For example, as much as a third of pollution and landscape degradation in China is attributable
to manufacturing for blissfully unaware consumers in the wealthy cities of North America,
Europe, etc.
Box 1 (continued)
from economic activity that do not actually enter the production process, such
as soil erosion, mining overburden, and earth moved during construction—
then the total annual waste output increases to 21 tons per person in Japan and
86 tons per person in the United States (WRI 2000). That was already
86,000 kg (198,598 lb) every year for every man, woman, and child in the
United States in the 1990s; per capita solid, liquid, and gaseous discharges
are still increasing in the United States and almost everywhere else. The
bottom line? The aggregate displacement of materials makes humanity the
single most significant biological and geophysical force changing (mostly
degrading) the planet. Growing the human enterprise necessarily increases
global net entropy.
Cities as Ecosystems
Modern humans have been forced to seriously consider their role as ecological
agents only by the deepening “environmental crisis.” An important by-product
of this awakening is a growing interest in the notion of cities as ecosystems
(e.g., Register 2006). The curious student will discover that there is even a relatively
new journal Urban Ecosystems.
The concept of “urban ecosystem” remains ill-defined and ambiguous, as might
be expected this early in the transition. To some analysts, humans are only inciden-
tal to the real story. Most natural scientists studying “urban ecosystems,” cast the
city mainly as an unnatural habitat for other species. To them, the urban ecosystem
consists of the assemblage of nonhuman organisms in the city and the purpose of
their inquiries is to determine how these species have adapted to the structural and
chemical characteristics of the “built environment.” Thus, the majority of papers in
Urban Ecosystems focus on the impacts of urbanization on nonhuman plants and
animals, or on remnant “natural” ecosystems within the city.
This emphasis on other species’ adaptations to an “alien” urban environment is
perfectly legitimate, but it also poses an absurdist paradox. After all, it is H. sapiens
that created “the city” and this most human of artifacts is clearly the most structur-
ally remarkable habitat of any animal species on the planet. Moreover, the economic
activities to satisfy the material demands of wealthy urbanites have become the
major drivers of global ecological change. Surely, these realities should refocus
attention on humans as the dominant ecological actor in all the world’s cities. Not
to recognize H. sapiens as the keystone species of the urban ecosystem is a major
cognitive lapse (and yet another consequence of Cartesian dualism, which fosters
the perceptual separation of people and all things human from the natural world.
256 W.E. Rees
On the other hand, those who do acknowledge that humans are ecological
beings would be wrong if they think of the “the city” per se as comprising a
human ecosystem. It is doubtlessly true that every city is a complex system
(or perhaps “complex of systems”) and that cities represent an ecologically criti-
cal component of the human ecosystem. Even if everyone lived in town, however,
this would not qualify “the city,” as presently conceived, as a functional human
“ecosystem.”
We will briefly explore the ecosystem concept itself to understand this second
paradox. Odum (1971) emphasized that ecosystems should be characterized more
in terms of structural properties and functional relationships than by gross morphol-
ogy. He defined “ecosystem” as any biotic community interacting with its physical
environment such that the flow and dissipation of energy results in a defined trophic
(feeding) structure, the emergence of biodiversity, and characteristic material
cycles between the living and nonliving components. In short, a functionally com-
plete ecosystem consists of a self-sustaining assemblage of living species existing
in complementary relationships with each other and their physical environs.
Thermodynamically speaking, ecosystems are complex, quasi-independent, self-
organizing, far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures that continuously (re)gener-
ate themselves from simple inorganic chemicals (water, carbon dioxide, nitrates,
phosphates, and a few trace minerals) that are continuously recycled, using high-
quality available energy (exergy) from the sun.
Clearly, by these definitions, no modern city qualifies as a complete human
ecosystem. To achieve this standard, a city would have to include a sufficient com-
plement of producer organisms (green plants), macro-consumers (animals, includ-
ing humans), micro-consumers (bacteria and fungi), and abiotic factors to support
its human population indefinitely. As matters stand, some defining elements are
missing from cities altogether or are insufficiently abundant to maintain the system’s
functional integrity. Consider, for example, that the largest and functionally most
important components of urbanites’ supportive ecosystems—the assemblage of
organisms producing their food, fiber and oxygen; and most of the micro-consumers
that complete their nutrient cycles—are found mostly in so-called rural “environ-
ments” scattered all over the planet.
Significantly, the distancing of urban consumers from the productive compo-
nents of their de facto ecosystems (distant agricultural and forest lands) inhibits
the replenishment of soil organic matter and the recycling of phosphorus, nitro-
gen, and other nutrients and contained in household and human wastes. These are
typically washed out to sea (where they contribute to the emergence of anoxic
marine “dead zones”). In effect, urbanization transforms local, integrated, cycli-
cal human ecological production systems into global, horizontally disintegrated,
unidirectional, throughput systems (Rees 1997). Ironically, the resultant continu-
ous leakage of nutrients from farmland in shipments of food to cities threatens to
undermine organic agriculture even as its products gain ground in the urban
marketplace.
To summarize, in spatial, structural, and functional terms, cities as presently

conceived are, at best, incomplete “heterotrophic” ecosystems. They are nodes of
intense energy/material consumption and waste generation entirely dependent for
their survival on the productive and assimilative capacities of complementary pro-
ducer ecosystems located at great distance from the cities themselves (see Box 2).
Urbanization thus creates a dramatic shift in city-dwellers’ spatial/psychological
relationships to the land, but there is no corresponding change in eco-functional
relationships. Indeed, far-from-decoupling people from nature, urbanization gener-
ally increases their per capita “load” on cities’ supportive ecosystems. Failure to
understand the basic facts of urban human ecology will doom our quest for sustain-
ability and increase cities’ vulnerability to global ecological change.
Box 2 The City as Human Feedlot

On a crude but illustratively useful level, “the city” is the human analogue
of a livestock feedlot (Rees 2003). Industrial feedlots, like cities, are densely
populated by a single macro-consumer species such as cattle (or pigs, or
chickens). However, the fields that produce fodder for feedlot animals may be
hundreds of kilometers distant from the feedlot operation. Also missing from
feedlots are adequate populations of micro-consuming decomposers. Thus,
like cities, feedlots have separated the functionally inseparable, short-circuiting
even the possibility of within-system decomposition and nutrient recycling.
Feedlots thus generate vast quantities of manure containing vital nutrients that
are often not re-deposited on range or cropland for nutrient recycling, but
rather are disposed of inappropriately, contaminating the atmosphere, soils,
and surface and subsurface waters at great distance and over large areas.
Sound familiar? Since feedlots are, in effect, subsystems of the human urban
industrial system, and constructed from the same paradigmatic framing, it is
not surprising that they are eco-structurally similar to cities.
The Human Ecological Footprint
If cities constitute only a small fraction of the total urban human ecosystem, then it
seems logical to ask “just how big is the whole?” Specifically, the first question of
urban ecology should be “what is the total productive ecosystem area, inside and
outside the political boundaries of the city that is effectively appropriated to sustain
its human population?”
This kind of question is answerable using ecological footprint analysis (Rees
1992; Wackernagel and Rees 1996). An extension of energy and material flows
258 W.E. Rees
assessment (Haberl et al. 2004), eco-footprint analysis (EFA) starts from a

comprehensive inventory of the annualized energy and material flows generated by
the subject population to feed, clothe, house, transport and otherwise maintain
and grow itself. EF analysts also quantify the flows of critical wastes, particularly
carbon dioxide. The next step is to convert each significant material flow into the
corresponding area of productive land and water ecosystems required to produce
(or assimilate) it. Thus, the ecological footprint of a specified population is formally
defined as:
The area of land and water ecosystems required, on a continuous basis, to produce the
resources that the population consumes and to assimilate (some of) the wastes that the
population produces, wherever on Earth the relevant land/water is located (Rees 2006).
The size of a population’s eco-footprint (EF) generally depends on four factors:

population size; average material standard of living (i.e., the EF reflects consump-
tion); productivity of the land/water base; and the efficiency of resource harvesting,
processing, and use at the time of the analysis. In other words, EFA provides an
area-based snap-shot of a study population’s demand on the ecosphere at the time of
the analysis—technological change can affect any of these factors and would be
reflected in subsequent EF studies.4
Whether its members are aware of it or not, every population imposes an “eco-
logical footprint” on the planet. A moment’s reflection reveals that population
EFs constitute mutually exclusive appropriations of nature—the bio-capacity used
by one person or population is not available for use by another. Bottom line: all
human sub-groups are competing for access to the finite area of productive ecosys-
tems on earth.
A population’s ecological footprint represents much of the biocapacity or “natural
capital” required to meet that population’s consumptive and assimilative demands.
However, EFA obviously does not capture all human ecological impacts. Various
wastes such as ozone-depleting chemicals or the toxic chemical residues accumulat-
ing in our food chain, for example, cannot be converted into a corresponding eco-
system area. Also, the method assumes that land and waterscape are being used
sustainably which is obviously not the case. In short, EFA provides a conservative
estimate of the human load on ecosystems.
Table 2 ranks a selection of high- to low-income countries according to their
per capita EFs. Domestic bio-capacities and overshoot factors are also given. To
facilitate comparison, national EF and bio-capacity data have been converted to
their equivalents in standardized global hectare (gha; hectares of global average
productivity).
4
For fuller details of the method, including inclusions, exceptions and limitations, see Rees (2006),
WWF (2008, 2010), and www.footprintnetwork.org/atlas.
Table 2 The eco-footprints, bio-capacities, and overshoot factors of selected nations (estimated
from 2007 data in WWF 2010)
GDP per capita
(in 2010
international Per capita Per capita domestic
Country dollars)a eco-footprint (gha) bio-capacity (gha) Overshoot factor
World 10,700 2.7 1.8 1.5
United States 47,284 8.0 3.8 2.1
Canada 39,057 7.0 15.0 0.5
The Netherlands 40,765 6.1 1.1 5.5
France 34,077 5.0 2.7 1.9
United Kingdom 34,920 4.8 1.5 3.2
Malaysia 14,670 4.8 2.6 1.8
Japan 33,805 4.7 0.7 6.7
Hungary 18,738 3.0 2.3 1.3
Mexico 14,430 3.0 3.5 0.9
Brazil 11,239 2.9 8.9 0.3
Thailand 9,187 2.3 0.6 3.8
China 7,519 2.2 1.0 2.2
Indonesia 4,394 1.2 1.4 0.9
India 3,339 0.9 0.5 1.8
Malawi 827 0.8 0.8 1.0
Bangladesh 1,572 0.6 0.4 1.5
a
US dollar equivalent purchasing power in the United States (data from IMF 2011)
Wealthy, mainly urban, consumers clearly impose a larger average load on the
ecosphere than do the mainly rural population. The citizens of wasteful high-income
countries, like the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, have average EFs
ranging from 6 to over 10 gha, or up to 18 times larger than the EFs of the mainly
rural citizens of the world’s poorest countries such as Afghanistan and Bangladesh.
European countries and Japan typically have per capita EFs in the 4–6 gha range.
China is fairly representative of the emerging economies which show rapidly
growing EFs currently in the range of 1.5–3 gha. These data reflect the growing
global income gap; the richest 20% of the human family consume more than 75%
of the world’s income; the poorest 20% subsist on just 1.5% of the world’s income
(Shah 2010).
The final column of Table 2 shows each country’s “overshoot factor.” The over-
shoot factor is the ratio of the national average eco-footprint to per capita domestic
bio-capacity. Countries with overshoot factors larger than one impose a greater
burden on the ecosphere than could be supported by their domestic ecosystems.
That is, these countries are at least partially dependent on trade and on exploitation
of the global commons to maintain their current lifestyles. The Netherlands and
Japan, for example, use the ecological services of 5.5 and 6.7 times as much pro-
ductive land/water elsewhere in the world than is contained within their respective
borders. All countries in overshoot are running “ecological deficits” with the rest of
the world.
260 W.E. Rees
Those few countries with overshoot ratios less than 1 (e.g., Brazil, Canada) seem
to have ecological surpluses and could therefore still theoretically live within their
“natural incomes.” But they only seem to have surpluses because any extra bio-
capacity is generally being traded away (or appropriated by pollution) to cover
the ecological deficits of other countries. The agricultural, forestry, fisheries, and
carbon sink surpluses of Canada, for example, serve a large export market. One
consequence is that production for trade contributes proportionately to the
ongoing degradation of that nation’s soils, forests, and fish stocks (Kissinger and
Rees 2009).
Ominously, the world as a whole is in a state of overshoot (Table 2). Human
demand exceeds Earth’s regenerative capacity by about 50% (WWF 2010). We are
living, in part, by depleting and dissipating as waste, the enormous stocks of poten-
tially renewable natural capital (fish, forests, soils, etc.) that have accumulated in
ecosystems over millions of years. Continuing in this vein, we can interpret the
eco-footprint in thermodynamic terms, as the minimal area of natural photosyn-
thetic “solar collector” needed to regenerate the biomass and chemical energy
equivalents of the useful resources and fossil energy that any study population
consumes and dissipates.
The Ecological Reach of Global Cities
As might be expected, the eco-footprints of cities are virtually all a deficit. Urban
populations are almost totally dependent on rural peoples, ecosystems, and life-
support processes increasingly scattered all over the planet (Rees 1992, 2003;
Girardet 2004; Wackernagel et al. 2006; Newman and Jennings 2008). Of course,
the urban–rural relationship temporarily benefits both parties—cities provide
markets for the products of the countryside and technologies that can improve
rural living, for example. But, while rural populations have survived historically
without cities, the ecological dependence of modern urbanites on “the hinterland” is
absolute. There can be no urban sustainability without rural sustainability.
So, just how heavily does a typical modern city tread on the global countryside?
Despite methodological and data-quality differences,5 urban eco-footprint studies
invariably show that the EFs of high-income cities exceed their geographic or
political areas by two to three orders of magnitude. For example:
• Assuming they are typical Canadians (per-capita EF = 7.0 gha), the 600,000
citizens of my home town, Vancouver, effectively occupy an ecosystem area
5
Urban eco-footprints are more difficult to estimate than national EFs. National EFs are based on
data routinely collected by government statistical agencies and international (e.g., UN) organiza-
tions, but no such agencies monitor trade across municipal boundaries. In the absence of original
local data-gathering capacity, city EFs can be based on the national per capita estimate adjusted for
local variations in income, energy sources, lifestyles, etc.
outside the municipal boundaries that is 368 times larger than the city’s 11,400 ha.
Even the metropolitan population of 2.2 million, living at lower average densi-
ties, has an extraterritorial eco-footprint 55 times larger than the metropolitan
region’s 2,787 km2.
• Folke et al. (1997) estimated that the 29 largest cities of Europe’s Baltic region
require the bio-capacity of forest, agricultural, marine, and wetland ecosystems
that is 565–1,130 times larger than the area of the cities themselves.
• Warren-Rhodes and Koenig (2001) showed that the almost seven million people
of Hong Kong (EF = 5.0–7.2 ha/capita) have a total eco-footprint of 332,150–
478,300 km2. Thus, Hong Kong’s eco-footprint is 303 times the total land area of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (1,097 km2) and 3,020 times the
built-up area of the city (110 km2).
• With a population of 33 million and assuming the Japanese average per capita EF
of about 4.7 gha, the Tokyo metropolitan region has a total eco-footprint of
155,100,000 gha. However, the entire domestic bio-capacity of Japan is only
about 89,000,000 gha (2007 data).6 In short, metropolitan Tokyo alone, with only
26% of Japan’s population, lives on an area of productive ecosystems 1.7 times
larger than the nation’s entire terrestrial bio-capacity!
These data show, first, that in energy and material terms, contemporary cities
are entropic black holes sweeping up the productivity of a vastly larger and
increasingly global resource hinterland (and, necessarily, spewing an equivalent
quantity of waste back into it). Second, a footprint analysis provides a conserva-
tive estimate of the scale of true (i.e., complete) human urban ecosystems. Both
the consumptive built-up core and the vastly more extensive supportive country-
side are essential components of the whole—is there any logical reason why the
lifeless parking lot at the mall is more legitimately a part of the urban ecosystem
than are the farm- and forest-lands dedicated to sustaining the city’s human inhab-
itants? Third, an EFA underscores the fact that no city or country can achieve
sustainability on its own if it is part of a SOHO hierarchy operating unsustainably.
Vancouver, Hong Kong, and Tokyo might strive to become exemplars of compact
urban design and sustainable lifestyles but, if the extra-urban ecosystems upon
which they are dependent fail, so would our model cities. Given the increasing
global entanglement of nations, the best any national or urban subsystem can
attain independently is a state of quasi-sustainability. “Quasi-sustainable”
describes that level of economic activity and energy/material consumption per
capita which, if extended to the entire system, would result in global sustainability
(Rees 2009). In 2010, quasi-sustainability implied a per capita eco-footprint of
about 1.8 gha which represents an equitable share of global bio-capacity (Table 2).
Using my own country as an example, Canadians would have to take steps to
6
The terrestrial area of Japan is only about 37,770,000 ha but Japan’s terrestrial ecosystems are
considerably more productive than the world average. This increases the country’s bio-capacity to
about 89,000,000 gha.
262 W.E. Rees
reduce their average eco-footprints by 74% (from 7.0 to 1.8 gha per capita) to
meet the quasi-sustainability standard! Bangladeshis, on the other hand could
increase their material consumption by 200% (both cases assume stable popula-
tions and sustainable use of natural capital).
Global Change and the Vulnerability of Cities
The EFA suggests a fourth and more ominous set of implications for the future of
cities. Trade and accelerating globalization have historically assured the abundant
supplies and uninterrupted flows of the energy and other material resources required
to grow the modern metropolis. But this raises an awkward question in an era of
global change: just how secure is any city of millions, or even a relative “town” of
100,000, if resource scarcity, shifting climate, or geopolitical unrest threaten to cut
it off from vital supplies? Several accelerating trends driven by population growth
and explosive urbanization suggest that this is no idle question. Here are four
examples:
Land and soil degradation. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates
that feeding an anticipated population of 9.1 billion people “would require a 70%
increase in global food production between 2005–2007 and 2050. Production in the
developing countries would need to almost double” (OECD-FAO 2010). While
there is significant debate over prospects for agriculture, achieving increases of this
magnitude may be difficult. Erosion rates resulting from the conventional tillage-
based agriculture still dominant in the world today average an unsustainable 10–100
times greater than rates of soil production, erosion under native vegetation, and
long-term geological erosion (Montgomery 2007). One study suggests topsoil is
currently being eroded 16–300 times faster than it can be replaced (Barrow 1991).
Severe and very severe land degradation due to agricultural activities affects
1.2 billion ha (about 35% of all severely degraded land). The total area presently
under arable use is only slightly greater than this at about 1.4 billion ha (FAO 2000).
About 300 million hectares of cultivated land—enough to feed almost all of
Europe—has been lost to production, and we are still losing five to seven million
hectares annually (FAO 2000; SDIS 2004). So far, part of the impact of land and
soil degradation on production is unnoticed because we have managed to substi-
tute fossil fuel for depleted soils and landscape degradation—but that may be about
to change.
Peak oil and the costs of energy. As the “second law” reminds us, available
energy is prerequisite for everything. The first permanent human settlements can be
traced to the dawn of agriculture and surpluses of food energy; modern mega-cities
are very much the product of abundant cheap fossil energy. The explosion of human
populations and urban accumulations of manufactured capital would not have been
possible without fossil fuels; raising the urban human enterprise ever-further from
equilibrium requires increasingly prodigious quantities of energy (Box 1). Oil is
also the major driver of the green revolution. Mechanization, diesel-powered
irrigation, the capacity to double-crop, and agro-chemicals (fertilizers and pes-

ticides) made from oil and natural gas account for 79–96% of the increased yields
of wheat, rice, and maize production since 1967 (Conforti and Giampietro 1997;
Cassman 1999).
For all these reasons, various analysts have argued that the peaking of global
crude output could pose a greater challenge to geopolitical stability and urban
security than any other factor (Duncan and Youngquist 1999; Laherrere 2003). It is
significant then, that in November 2010, the International Energy Agency (IEA)
acknowledged for the first time that conventional oil production has already
peaked—in 2006. Remarkably, and with no explanation, the agency goes on to
suggest in its central “New Policies Scenario” that oil supplies will continue to
increase and still be the mainstay of the global economy in 2035, although more
than half of the anticipated supply will come from oil fields “yet to be developed
or found” (IEA 2010)! Meanwhile, it is not entirely a coincidence that as 2011
and economic recovery get under way, oil prices are rising toward $US 90 a barrel
and world food prices are again approaching the disastrous high reached in 2008. Of
course, with every up-tick in food prices millions more people join the billion
already calorically malnourished. If current trends continue, a return to food export
restrictions and price riots is likely. In addition to shrinking the supply and explod-
ing the price of food, “peak oil” could have an enormous impact on urban transpor-
tation, urban form/structure, and the future size of cities. Wither urban security?
Duncan (2001) argues that in the absence of viable substitutes for petroleum, the
life expectancy of industrial civilization is only about 100 years; i.e., from 1930
to 2030.
Global climate change. Some analysts see human-induced climate change (in
part, a product of fossil fuel combustion and the entropic dissipation of carbon diox-
ide into the atmosphere) as the greatest threat to urban civilization. The concentra-
tion of atmospheric carbon dioxide reached 390 ppm at the end of 2010, which was
39% above the preindustrial level of 280 ppm, and the rate of increase is rising.
Other greenhouse gases are climbing at a faster pace. Even modest resultant
increases in the global heat balance could permanently change the spatial coinci-
dence of suitable climate regimes and arable soils, thus negatively affecting food
production. It would also alter the historic availability and spatial distribution of
water that have long-shaped human settlement patterns and the geography of devel-
opment, in general. By some accounts, climate change could bring the world to the
edge of anarchy (Schwartz and Randall 2003; CSIS 2007). Washington’s Center for
Strategic and International Studies suggests that human-induced climate change
could end peaceful global integration as various nations contract inwardly to con-
serve what they need—or expand outwardly to take what they need—for survival
(more on this below). In the event of “severe climate change,” corresponding to an
average increase in global temperature of 2.6°C by 2040 (now deemed to be increas-
ingly likely), major nonlinear changes in biophysical systems will give rise to major
nonlinear socio-political events. Shifting climate will force internal and cross-border
migrations as people abandon areas where food and water are scarce. People will
also flee rising seas and areas devastated by increasingly frequent droughts, floods,
264 W.E. Rees
and severe storms. Dramatic increases in migration combined with food, energy,
and water shortages will impose great pressure on the internal cohesion of nations.
War is likely and nuclear war is possible (CSIS 2007).
Before dismissing such disaster scenarios as alarmist, consider just some of the
extreme weather events of 2010 (WMO 2010). To provide context, note that the
January to October period was the warmest in the instrumental record, and that
2010 as a whole is in a virtual three-way tie with 1989 and 2005 as the warmest year
since 1850. Warming was especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the
Arctic including Arctic Canada with average temperatures running 1–3°C above the
long-term mean. Seventeen countries recorded their highest-ever record tempera-
tures. Here are some of the more notable extreme weather events of 2010:
• Several parts of Eurasia recorded exceptional heat-waves with the most extreme
heat centered over western Russia. The July mean temperatures in Moscow
were 7.6°C above normal, making it the city’s hottest month by more than 2°C.
The city reached 30°C or above on 33 consecutive days (compared to 0 days
above 30°C in the summer of 2009) and a new record high of 38.2°C was set on
29 July. About 11,000 excess deaths in Moscow alone were attributed to the
extreme heat. The Russian grain crop was reduced by a third, prompting the
government to restrict exports. This had an immediate effect on global food
prices and, therefore, on import-dependent populations.
• Parts of the Northern Hemisphere had an abnormally cold winter. Central Russia
experienced the greatest temperature anomalies (4°C below normal), but the
most unusual conditions were on the western periphery of Europe, where Ireland
and Scotland both experienced their coldest winter since 1962–1963. The United
States had its coldest winter since 1984–1985.
• While western Russia baked, an exceptional monsoon brought Pakistan its worst
flooding in history. Over 20 million people were displaced, more than 1,500
people were killed, and large areas of Pakistan’s agricultural land were inun-
dated. In terms of numbers affected, the UN rated the flood as the greatest
humanitarian crisis in recent history. By contrast, north-eastern India and
Bangladesh “enjoyed” their driest monsoon season since 1994.
• Other regions also suffered heavy rains and flooding in 2010. In Indonesia, at
least double the normal monthly rainfall fell each month from June to October in
Java, the islands east of Java, and in southern Sulawesi. The May–October period
was the wettest on record for northern Australia with rainfall 152% above
normal. Averaged over Australia, the spring was the wettest on record. (Australia’s
travails continued into the New Year with massive flooding in Queensland cover-
ing an area of the size of France and Germany combined, displacing hundreds of
thousands, and destroying much of the state’s grain crop.) Germany had its wet-
test August on record; Bursa (Turkey) had its wettest January–October on record
(1,152 mm, 132% above normal); in South America, November brought
Colombia its most severe floods in more than 30 years.
• Other regions suffered severe drought. Yunnan and Guizhou provinces in China
had their lowest rainfalls on record during the period from September 2009 to
mid-March 2010 with totals 30–80% below normal. Pakistan experienced

drought in the early months of 2010 before the onset of record monsoon floods.
An unusually dry July–September in north-western Brazil sharply reduced
stream-flow in many parts of the Amazon basin. The Rio Negro, a major Amazon
tributary, fell to its lowest level on record. The UK had its driest January–June
period since 1929 (and the list goes on—see WMO 2010 for details).
Recent results from climate scientists suggest that such extreme events may
well become the norm as GHG emissions accelerate. Anderson and Bows (2008)
argue that “an optimistic interpretation of the current framing of climate change
implies that stabilization [of green house gases] much below 650 ppmv CO2e
[carbon dioxide equivalents] is improbable.” This is partly because, in order to
stabilize at 650 ppmv CO2e, the majority of OECD nations will soon have to begin
decarbonizing at rates in excess of 6% per year and there is virtually no possibility
of this happening (even though it would simultaneously help to address looming
petroleum shortage). Note that atmospheric GHG concentrations of 650 ppmv
CO2e imply a catastrophic 4°C increase in mean global temperature, cf., the mere
2.6°C increase assumed in CSIS’s already horrific “severe climate change” sce-
nario. Other models suggest that a 4°C warming would be sufficient to convert
much of the United States, Southern Europe, China, India, Africa, and South
America into uninhabitable wastelands (see Vince 2009), displacing hundreds
of millions of people and jeopardizing prospects for maintaining any form of
civilization.
Schwartz and Randall (2003) set out to “imagine the unthinkable” in studying
the security-related implications of shifting global climate. They created a seem-
ingly extreme climate change scenario based on fairly abrupt shifts in historic
weather patterns which “although not the most likely, is plausible.” Given the accel-
erating pace of change, one wonders whether events have elevated the probabilities
from merely plausible toward “possible” or even “likely.”
Can Urban Societies Adapt? (Do We Have a Choice?)
[Thermodynamics]…holds the supreme position among the laws of nature… If your theory
is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is
nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation (Eddington 1929).
Urban civilization necessarily exploits its supportive ecosystems to produce

itself and grow. The consumption by human enterprise, however, has now surpassed
the regenerative capacity of the ecosphere. Continued growth in energy and material
throughput will inevitably accelerate the pace of fisheries collapse, biodiversity
loss, land and water degradation, resource scarcity, marine eutrophication (ocean
dead zones), greenhouse gas accumulation, climate change, etc. In short, humans
are destructuring and dissipating critical resource ecosystems, polluting most
others, and disrupting life-support functions essential to our own survival. For all
266 W.E. Rees
the wishful thinking of politicians, growth economists, and other techno-optimists,

there is no escape from the second law of thermodynamics—beyond a certain point,
further growth in the human enterprise can occur only at the expense of the entropic
dissipation of the ecosphere.
Resource scarcity and degraded landscapes have always led to civil strife and
war. Global civilization is, therefore, in double jeopardy, for nothing is more
vulnerable to rapid ecological change and potential geopolitical chaos than world’s
cities.
Humans self-describe themselves as having certain unique qualities, including
high intelligence, the ability to reason and think logically, the capacity for forward
planning, and a sense of compassion for other people and even other species. It is
clear, however, that other factors hold sway when debate turns to policies to
ensure sustainability. Political decision making, particularly at the national and
global levels, is governed by instincts rooted in primitive tribalism, suspicion of
others, narrow short-term self-interest, the felt need to protect one’s socio-politi-
cal status, and unwavering allegiance to continued material economic growth, all of
which are expressed through competitive economic and military saber-rattling. This
ensures that the age-old “march of folly” by governments (Tuchman 1984) tramples
reason underfoot in the crusade for an ecologically secure future. One need look no
further than the failed climate negotiations at Copenhagen in 2009, and Cancun in
2010, for recent proof that the pace of ecological change consistently outpaces the
political response.
Not surprisingly, both public and private sector urban planning applications are
also falling short of the mark. Such popular “sustainability” strategies as smart
growth, the “new urbanism,” green buildings, and urban densification create the
illusion of progress while doing little to reduce our ecological footprints (Rees
2009). Usually, they do not even establish sustainability targets or establish moni-
toring programs, and none focuses directly on personal consumption habits.
These are critical lapses—wealthy nations should be taking steps to shrink their
per capita material consumption and carbon emissions by up to 80%. If a given
sustainability project or proposal does not result in significant, permanent, and
absolute reductions in material throughputs, then it is part of the problem.
On the positive side, a growing number of mainly civil society organizations,
such as Bioregional7 and the Transition Movement (Hopkins 2008) do recognize the
need for reducing energy and material use.
It seems fair to ask in the circumstances, what humans might achieve if inclusive
intelligence and logic were allowed to play a more substantial role in the quest for
local and global sustainability. For example, might we be able to reorganize cities
better to avoid global change and adapt to unavoidable change when it comes?
A comprehensive discussion of policy responses is beyond the scope of this paper,
but I can provide the skeleton of one possible resilience-based scenario.
7
See http://www.bioregional.com/ and http://www.oneplanetliving.org/index.html.
Planning for Urban Resilience: The Eco-Regional City State
The climate crisis won’t be solved by changing light bulbs and inflating your tires more,
planting a tree and driving a little less. It’s going to require a truly fundamental shift in how
we build our cities and live in them (Register 2009).
To begin, we must agree on the factual basis of our dilemma. The data are clear
that ecological degradation, including climate change, is accelerating. The sustain-
ability-related problems of both first and third world cities are well documented
(e.g., Marcotullio and McGranahan 2007; Martine et al. 2008). Regrettably, the
official responses have tended to side-step the data and ignore scientific understand-
ing. Sustainability policies and poverty reduction based on economic efficiency and
technological substitutions have, if anything, exacerbated the problem by lowing
costs and otherwise encouraging consumption and material growth especially in
rich countries that do not need it. Meanwhile, the chronically impoverished are left
unsustainably even further behind (Shah 2010). Solving these problems requires
that we rewrite our dominant cultural narrative.
As a first step, society must come to accept that the era of unconstrained popula-
tion and economic growth on a finite (and considerably diminished) planet will
come to an end, either because we end rationally it or because nature ends it chaoti-
cally. Even climate scientists Anderson and Bows (2008) suggested that achieving
the necessary rates of emissions reductions would require “a planned economic
recession.” Second, we must accept that gross socio-economic inequity (as reflected
in EFA) is morally unsustainable and, if unattended, will undermine efforts to
achieve ecological sustainability. Third, the global community should come to real-
ize that for perhaps the first time in history, individual and national self-interest have
converged with humanity’s collective self-interest. Remember, no nation can achieve
sustainability in isolation—the first-class suites on the Titanic sank just as quickly
and as deeply as the steerage cabins.
How might the forgoing fundamental precepts affect our conceptualization of
and planning for sustainable cities? Some ecologically sensitive goals/guidelines
for sustainable urbanism include:
• Establishing an appropriate special scale for “urban” governance. Complexity
theory suggests that, while regional-scale human community-associated ecosys-
tems and watersheds are theoretically manageable, larger systems are less so
(predictability gives way to uncertainty and surprise at larger scales).
• Implementing a rigorous population policy. The human population should be
controlled safely below each planning region’s average carrying capacity, and
with due consideration of the global context.
• Initiating steady-state economic planning to maintain energy and material
throughput within the regenerative capacity of supportive ecosystems.
This, in turn, requires:
• Taxation and income policies supportive of greater social equity and life-quality—
e.g., appropriate social safety nets to assist needy families through the transition
268 W.E. Rees
to a sustainable economy. Gross inequity undermines population health and is

politically destabilizing (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009).
• Self-governance at the urban-regional level, including control over as much as
possible of the local land and resource base.
• Mechanisms to collectively manage land, ecosystems, and other resources vital
to sustaining the community. (This will require stinting customary private prop-
erty rights).
• Policies to enhance self-reliance. Planning regions need not necessarily be
materially self-sufficient, but ideally they should also not become dependent on
trade for vital supplies. A reasonable guiding principle might be: Trade if neces-
sary, but do not necessarily trade.
In ideal circumstances (i.e., if we could start over knowing what we do now), we
would design human settlements as bioregional urban-centered city-states. (Existing
provinces and “states” are redundant in an urban world.) The overarching ecological
goal of such transformative urban planning would be to reconstruct the nature–city
relationship, and to convert it from a host-parasite to a mutual partnership.
Consistent with the previous guidelines, essential elements of eco-city planning
include:
• Redefining the role of globalization and relocalizing regional economies.
• Reconceiving “the city system” as a complete human ecosystem (this is the
ultimate in bio-mimicry).
• Consolidating as much as possible of the city’s de facto “eco-footprint” (its sup-
portive hinterland) within the natural eco-region surrounding the urban core.
• Supporting the population as much as possible on regional resources and ecosys-
tems, thus reducing reliance on trade goods. Citizens would have an incentive to
husband their local ecosystem’s sustainably because their lives depend on it.
• Rethinking and reengineering “the city,” to convert it from a resource-depleting
throughput system, to a self-sustaining circular-flows ecosystem. For example,
animal and human domestic wastes would be treated and recycled on the eco-
region’s farm-and-forest lands, improving soil quality, reducing the need for
artificial fertilizers, and simultaneously reducing ground and surface water
contamination.
• Densification of the urban core in ways that spatially reintegrate workplaces with
living space. The goal would be to facilitate the city taking full advantage of the
economies of scale and agglomeration economies that confer on well-designed
high-density cities a substantial “sustainability multiplier” (Rees 2003) (e.g.,
reduced per capita demand for occupied space and transportation; greater
potential for recycling, reuse and remanufacturing, electricity co-generation and
district heating/cooling; expanded opportunities for co-housing, tool-sharing,
and other activities that reduce material demand).
• Implementing economic and social planning policies that facilitate reducing
residents’ ecological footprints to a globally equitable 1.8 ha per capita. This
would achieve “quasi-sustainability” and is technically possible, while actually
improving individual and community well-being (Rees 2010).
• Creating multiple-redundant energy/water/food sources and related redundant

infrastructure that are not fossil fuel dependent. In particular, sustainable cities
should buffer water and food supplies from short-term climate vagaries (e.g.,
crop failures, drought, flooding) by engineering substantial storage capacity.
In this context, it is encouraging to see the emergence of handbooks for urban
sustainability explicitly oriented to treating cities as ecosystems (Register 2006;
Newman and Jennings 2008). What the world needs now is a number of strategically-
placed demonstration projects of the eco-city state concept at work.
Epilogue
I am under no illusion that anything like the forgoing proposal will be quickly
implemented anywhere. To accomplish this feat requires a complete revisioning of
contemporary society’s conceptualization of cities, flies in the teeth of a prevailing
world development paradigm based on efficient material growth through global
economic integration, and demands a total break from the premises and behaviors
that dominate geopolitics.8 Nevertheless, the human enterprise is in peril and urgent
responses are necessary. Since the transition to a sustainable urban society would
take decades in the best of circumstances, there may be some virtue in adding radi-
cal ideas to the mix of potential solutions under debate.
Meanwhile, in the absence of a globally-coordinated adaptive strategy for
urban survival, some countries are reacting to the crisis in novel, if potentially coun-
terproductive ways. For example, in response to land scarcity, the run-up in food
prices in 2008 and restrictions imposed by some governments on food exports,
many overpopulated import dependent countries (e.g., China, Saudi Arabia, Libya,
South Korea) began acquiring large tracts of foreign land in mostly poor, developing
countries to sustain populations back home. The International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) claims that foreign investors sought or secured between 37 and
15–20 million ha (49 million ac) of farmland in developing countries between 2006
and mid-2009 (cited in The Economist 2009). Cotula et al. (2009) documented a
total of 2,492,684 ha (6,156,930 ac) of approved land acquisitions from 2004 to
early 2009 in just five African countries, Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Mali,
and Sudan.
In the short term, these land purchases may seem to be a rational response to
overpopulation, land shortages, food-insecurity and growing resource competi-
tion. It even reflects a growing sense that greater self-reliance (a major goal of my
8
One must also ask how we could accommodate urbanized nations that are deeply in ecological
debt. Remember Tokyo and Japan? Globalization has enabled that country to grow and run such a
large ecological deficit that it would be impossible to create a viable bioregional “City State of
Tokyo” even if we could ignore Japan’s other 95 million inhabitants and had access to the entire
country! (Other mega-cities and their home states face similar problems).
270 W.E. Rees
eco-city state proposal) may not be such a bad idea after all.9 Distant land-lease
arrangements, however, are ultimately doomed to failure if they merely facilitate
additional growth in the importing country (which cancels any initial benefit), or
if the now even-more-dependent country is cut off from external sources by
permanent climate change, international strife, or protests by citizens of the host
country (who may ultimately discover they need their domestic lands for their own
purposes).10
What is the “bottom line?” We live in interesting times that demand dramatic
approaches to the problems of city and urban vulnerabilities. It is at least possible
that debating proposals for urban sustainability will produce a hybrid solution that
actually works. If we succeed, society will have once again succeeded in “complexi-
fying” in response to an unprecedented challenge, and ensuring the survival of
global civilization at least until the next challenge comes along.
It is also conceivable that the challenge is insurmountable—that it defies our
institutional capacity to respond, that people are simply so disillusioned by the fail-
ures of their governing elites that no effective response is possible, or that any
response we do make is overwhelmed by the pace of change. In these circumstances,
the implosion of global civilization is a real possibility (which event would at least
serve to validate Tainter’s observation that “what is perhaps most intriguing in the
evolution of human societies is the regularity with which the pattern of increasing
complexity is interrupted by collapse…” (Tainter 1988, 1995)). Indeed, periodic
collapse may be a natural phenomenon of overmature and brittle systems that we
can at best delay, but not avoid indefinitely (see Gunderson and Holling 2002).
Whatever the merits of this hypothesis, this is clearly no time to repress truly out-
of-the-box solutions to modern H. sapiens’ truly out-of-the-box predicament.
References
Anderson K, Bows A (2008) Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emis-
sion trends. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 366(1882):3863–3882. doi:10.1098/
rsta.2008.0138
Barrash D (1979) The Whisperings within—evolution and the origin of human nature. Penguin
Books, New York
Barrow C (1991) Land degradation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality. Doubleday, Garden City
Cassman KG (1999) Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: yield potential, soil
quality, and precision agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96:5952–5959
9
That said, the example of Tokyo illustrates that some form of trade will be necessary even as the
balance tilts toward greater self-reliance.
10
There is already a precedent. In April 2009, a military-backed popular uprising toppled the
government of Madagascar when the citizenry learned their leaders had entered a long-term
lease agreement for much of their nation’s farmland with the Daewoo Corporation of South
Korea. Madagascar’s new government canceled the agreement.
Conforti P, Giampietro M (1997) Fossil energy use in agriculture: an international comparison.

Agric Ecosyst Environ 65:231–243
Cotula L, Vermeulen S, Leonard R et al (2009) Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural
investment and international land deals in Africa. IIED/FAO/IFAD, London/Rome. ISBN 978-
1-84369-741-1
CSIS (2007) The age of consequences: the foreign policy and national security implications of
climate change. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington. http://www.csis.
org/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf
Diamond J (1992) The third chimpanzee. Harper Collins Publishers, New York
Duncan RC (2001) World energy production, population growth, and the road to the Olduvai
Gorge. Popul Environ 22:503–522
Duncan RC, Youngquist W (1999) Encircling the peak of world oil production. Nat Resour Res
8:219–232
Eddington AS (1929) The nature of the physical world. Macmillan Company, New York ([re]
Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2005)
EIA (2010) International energy outlook 2010. Energy Information Administration, US Department
of Energy
FAO (2000) Land resource potential and constraints at regional and country levels. Food and
Agriculture Organization (United Nations), Rome, Italy
Folke C, Jansson A-M, Larsson J et al (1997) Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio
26:167–172
Fowler C, Hobbs L (2003) Is humanity sustainable? Proc R Soc Lond B 270(1533):2579–2583
Georgescu-Roegan N (1971a) The entropy law and the economic problem. Distinguished lecture
series no 1. University of Alabama, Department of Economics, Alabama
Georgescu-Roegan N (1971b) The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge
Georgescu-Roegen N (1975) Energy and economic myths. South Econ J 41:347–381
Girardet H (2004) The metabolism of cities. In: Wheeler S, Beatley T (eds) Sustainable urban
development reader. Routledge, London
Grant C (1998) Myths we live by. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa
Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and
natural systems. Island Press, Washington DC
Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann J et al (2004) Progress toward sustainability? What the
conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use
Policy 21:199–213
Heinberg R (2007) Peak everything—waking up to the century of declines. New Society Publishers,
Gabriola Island
Hopkins R (2008) The transition handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience. Green Books,
Totnes
IEA (2010) World energy outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris. Executive summary
at http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/weo2010sum.pdf
IMF (2011) World economic outlook database (April 2011). International Monetary Fund,
Washington, DC
Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. Vintage Books, New York
Kay J, Regier H (2000) Uncertainty, complexity, and ecological integrity. In: Crabbé P, Holland A
et al (eds) Implementing ecological integrity: restoring regional and global environment and
human health (NATO science series IV: earth and environmental sciences), vol 1. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 121–156
Kissinger M, Rees WE (2009) Footprints on the prairies: degradation and sustainability of
Canadian agricultural land in a globalizing world. Ecol Econ 68:2309–2315
Laherrere J (2003) Forecast of oil and gas supply to 2050. In: Paper presented to ‘Petrotech 2003—
New Delhi’. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/Petrotech090103.pdf
Marcotullio P, McGranahan G (eds) (2007) Scaling urban environmental challenges—from local
to global and back. Earthscan, London
272 W.E. Rees
Martine G, McGranahan G, Montgomery M, Fernández-Castilla R (eds) (2008) The new global

frontier—urbanization poverty and environment in the 21st century. Earthscan, London
Montgomery D (2007) Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:13268–
13272. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0611508104
Newman P, Jennings I (2008) Cities as sustainable ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC
Odum EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology. WB Saunders, Philadelphia
OECD-FAO (2010) Agricultural outlook 2010–2019. Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris
Pimm SL, Russell GJ et al (1995) The future of biodiversity. Science 296:347–350
Ponting C (1991) A green history of the world. Sinclair-Stevenson, London
Prigogine I (1997) The end of certainty: time, chaos and the new laws of nature. The Free Press,
New York
Rees WE (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics
leaves out. Environ Urban 4:120–130
Rees WE (1997) Is ‘sustainable city’ an oxymoron? Local Environ 2:303–310
Rees WE (1999) Consuming the earth: the biophysics of sustainability. Ecol Econ 29:23–27
Rees WE (2002) Globalization and sustainability: conflict or convergence? Bull Sci Technol Soc
22:249–268
Rees WE (2003) Understanding urban ecosystems: an ecological economics perspective.
In: Berkowitz A et al (eds) Understanding urban ecosystems. Springer, New York
Rees WE (2006) Ecological footprints and biocapacity: essential elements in sustainability assess-
ment. In: Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H (eds) Renewables-based technology: sustainability
assessment. Wiley, Chichester
Rees WE (2008) Human nature, eco-footprints and environmental injustice. Local Environ
13:685–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830802475609
Rees WE (2009) The ecological crisis and self-delusion: implications for the building sector. Build
Res Inform 37:300–311. doi:10.1080/09613210902781470
Rees WE (2010) What’s blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition and denial. Sustain Sci
Pract Pol 6:13–25. http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html
Register R (2006) Ecocities: rebuilding cities in balance with nature (revised edition). New Society
Publishers, Gabriola Island
Register R (2009) Cities can save the earth. Foreign policy in focus. http://www.fpif.org/articles/
cities_can_save_the_earth. Accessed 12 May 2009
Schneider ED, Kay JJ (1994) Complexity and thermodynamics: toward a new ecology. Futures
26:626–647
Schneider ED, Kay JJ (1995) Order from disorder: the thermodynamics of complexity in biology.
In: Murphy MP, O’Neill LAJ (eds) What is life: the next fifty years. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Schwartz P, Randall D (2003) An abrupt climate change scenario and its implications for United
States national security. Report prepared for the US Defense Department, Washington. http://
www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
SDIS (2004) Disappearing land: soil degradation. Sustainable Development Information Service,
Global Trends (World Resources Institute), Washington, DC
Shah A (2010) Poverty facts and stats (citing World Bank Development Indicators 2008). http://
www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Tainter J (1988) The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tainter J (1995) Sustainability of complex societies. Futures 27:397–404
The Economist (2009) Outsourcing’s Third Wave (21 May 2009)
Tuchman B (1984) The march of folly. Alfred Knopf, New York
UN (2009) World urbanization prospects: the 2009 revision. United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division, United Nations, NY
Vince G (2009) Surviving in a warmer world. New Sci 201:29–33
Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth.
New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island
Wackernagel M, Kitzes J et al (2006) The ecological footprint of cities and regions: comparing
resource availability with resource demand. Environ Urban 18:103–112. doi:10.1177/
0956247806063978
Warren-Rhodes K, Koenig A (2001) Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications
for sustainable development. Ecol Econ 39:347–359
Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level—why greater equality makes societies stronger.
Bloomsbury Press, New York
WMO (2010) 2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001–2010 warmest 10-year period. Press
Release No 904 (2 Oct 2010). World Meteorological Organization, Geneva http://www.wmo.
int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_904_en.html
WRI (2000) Weight of nations: material outflows from industrial economies. World Resources
Institute, Washington, DC
WWF (2008) Living planet report 2008. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland
WWF (2010) Living planet report 2010. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland
A Mathematical Description of Urban
Metabolism
Christopher Kennedy
Abstract A comprehensive, yet simple, model of the urban metabolism is described

using approximately 25 closed-form equations. The equations represent essential
interrelationships between the major components of metabolism—materials, water,
nutrients, energy, and contaminants. The model expresses the role of infrastructure
in the urban metabolism through parameters such as per capita floor space and the
density of transportation infrastructure which, as part of a city’s material stock,
influence the flows of energy and/or water flows through the city. The density of
transportation infrastructure is found to be a potentially universal parameter, with a
value of 0.10 km ha−1, which is relatively invariant between cities. The model also
includes other parameters which, although having more variation, are independent
of climate, city size, population, and other unique characteristics of cities. These
other parameters include: material intensities, per capita floor space, intensity of
water use for cooling, leakage rates for water distribution systems, heating and cool-
ing intensities of buildings, and utilization rates for transportation infrastructure.
Keywords Urban metabolism • Material stock and dynamics • Infrastructure

• Sustainability
Introduction
The notion of the urban metabolism is central to understanding and addressing

many of the issues of resource flows and environmental impacts associated with
cities, i.e., the sustainability of cities. Analogous to the metabolism of organisms,
“cities transform raw materials, fuel, and water into the built environment, human
C. Kennedy (*)
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
35 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 1A4, Canada
276 C. Kennedy
biomass and waste” (Decker et al. 2000). Following Wolman’s (1965) application to
a hypothetical US city of one million people, about 15–20 comprehensive urban
metabolism studies of actual cities have been undertaken worldwide (Kennedy et al.
2011). Such studies have quantified the flows of materials, water, nutrients, and
energy through cities, including associated contaminant emissions.
In many cases, the urban metabolism concept has been used to underpin an
accounting framework, rather than as a mathematical model per se. This point needs
clarification. A study of urban metabolism essentially involves application of the
method of material flow analysis (MFA) to cities (Baccini and Bader 1996; Brunner
and Rechberger 2004). MFA researchers have developed substantial mathematical
models, e.g., employing differential equations and matrix algebra, to describe the
flows of one or more materials, sometimes with associated energy flows, through
countries, regions, and occasionally cities. With the possible exception of studies of
Vienna and a region of the Swiss Lowlands (Baccini 1987; Hendricks et al. 2000),
however, mathematical MFA models have not been applied in a comprehensive
analysis of urban metabolism. As a result, the studies of urban metabolism that have
sought to quantify all or most of the material, water, nutrient, energy, and contami-
nant flows through cities have mainly become large data collection exercises.
A wide variety of mathematical models have been used in the detailed study of
individual components of urban metabolism (Fung and Kennedy 2005). If we
move beyond the aggregated (non-spatial) MFA models, we find that there is, for
example, a large class of spatially disaggregated land-use/transportation models
(Wegener 1995) that have the potential to simulate transportation energy use and
emissions. Other detailed studies have modeled the spatial distribution of nutri-
ents in urban watersheds (Costanza et al. 2002), or residential green house emit-
ting activities (VandeWeghe and Kennedy 2007). Some of the large, complex
spatially disaggregated models such as UrbanSim (Wadell 2002) are perhaps pro-
gressing to a point where they can mathematically model many aspects of urban
metabolism.
The more modest objective of this paper is to describe the urban metabolism in a
comprehensive, yet mathematically simple form. Essentially, the urban metabolism
will be described by approximately 25 closed-form equations. While aiming at sim-
plicity, the mathematical model needs to be sophisticated enough to:
1. Represent essential interrelationships between the various components of metab-
olism—materials, water, nutrients, energy, and contaminants—especially with
regard to how growth in the material stock; i.e., infrastructure, impacts the other
components.
2. Develop metabolism parameters in such a way that it is possible to separate the
effects of city size, climate, population density, and other unique physical char-
acteristics from remaining parameters that reflect the intensity of material and
energy use. Such mathematical form may be useful for either fairly comparing
cities accounting for differences in unique characteristics or, in the absence of
reliable data, help with estimating the components of metabolism for cities with
incomplete data.
3. Assist with developing consistent data standards for urban metabolism studies.
A Mathematical Description of Urban Metabolism 277
Although not undertaken here, the model has a potentially wide range of applica-
tions in efforts to develop sustainable cities. These include scenario development
and long-term planning, in which the model could support estimation of greenhouse
gas emissions, or urban ecological footprints. The parameters of the model may also
be used to make comparisons between cities, thereby promoting learning of sustain-
able city strategies. Given its simplicity, one of the particular strengths of the model
is the ease with which it might be combined with other macrourban models; e.g.,
macroeconomic models, to assess or guide urban sustainability. The focus of this
paper, though, is on the mathematical foundations.
The mathematical model is developed using the systems boundary shown in
Fig. 1. The urban system is defined so as to include peri-urban areas, aquifers below
the city, and the urban atmospheric boundary layer above. Fig. 1 broadly depicts the
annual inflows, I, annual outflows, O, and the storage, S, of the main components of
the urban metabolism. Also included are annual internal fluxes, Q, e.g., between
surface and subsurface parts of the urban system, and the internal production, P, of
food by urban agriculture. More detailed description of the metabolism is added in
the subsequent equations.
OE
SM
IE
OW
IW
OM
IM PF
IF
SW
QW
Fig. 1 Urban systems boundary broadly showing inputs (I), outputs (O), internal flows (Q), stor-
age (S), and production (P) of materials (M), water (W), energy (E), and food (F). Greater detail is
described by the mathematical equations developed in the text
Materials
Material Stock
The stock of materials in a city is an appropriate starting point to describe the

metabolism because the quantities and properties of buildings and other infrastruc-
ture substantially determine other components of the metabolism. A subcomponent
278 C. Kennedy
of the material stock, for all materials of type m, in structures, s, may be expressed
s
by SM, m
. The total material stock is then:
s
SM = åå SM, m (1)
s m
The range of material types considered could vary from a few to many, depend-
ing on the issue at hand. A concise categorization scheme based on the EUROSTAT
(2001) methodology considers four types of materials: biomass, metals, non-metal-
lic minerals, and fossil fuels.
The structure is included as a superscript recognizing that most of the anthropo-
genically placed materials in cities are bound up in the buildings and physical infra-
structure systems. At the broadest level, there are essentially two types of urban
structures: buildings and linear infrastructure, and I shall just develop an example
equation of each type. A more detailed classification for structures would be: resi-
dential buildings, commercial/institutional buildings, industrial buildings, transpor-
tation infrastructure, drinking water infrastructure, and wastewater/sewer
infrastructure. The determinants of the material stock may be quite different for
various structures.
The stock of materials in residential buildings, rb, may be expressed by:
rb rb rb
SM, m = P· f ·iM, m (2)
where
P is the population of the city or urban region; f rb is the per capita floor space for
rb
residential buildings [m2 person−1]; and iM,m is material intensity [tons m−2 of floor
space]. Floor space per capita is sometimes used as a measure of standard of living.
Average values vary from 8 m2 per capita in African cities to 34.5 m2 per capita for
cities in industrialized countries (Flood 1997). The material intensity of residential
construction can vary depending on the material used. Bergsdal et al. (2007), for
example, report intensities of ~0.6 t m−2 for concrete and 0.11 t m−2 for wood in
Norwegian residential homes (Table 1). In the Netherlands, where wood construc-
tion is less common, Müller (2006) reports an intensity of 2 t m−2 for concrete. The
parameters of (2) might thus be expected to vary between cities in different
countries.
Table 1 Material intensity of residential construction

Material and location Year Intensity (t m−2) Source
Concrete in Dutch housing construction 2000 ~2.0 Müller (2006)
Concrete in Norwegian housing construction 2000 ~0.6 Bergsdal et al. (2007)
Wood in Norwegian housing construction 2000 0.11 Bergsdal et al. (2007)
An equation similar to (2), i.e., based on per capita floor space, can be used for
commercial/institutional buildings and possibly industrial buildings. Alternatively,
it may be useful to define the ratio of materials in other buildings relative to residen-
tial buildings.
The stock of material in linear transportation infrastructure may be given by:
ti
SM, ti (3)
m = A · rti · iM, m
where
A is the area of the city [km2]; rti is the density of transportation infrastructure
ti
[km km−2]; and iM,m is material intensity [t km−1 of linear transport infrastructure].
Clearly, greater detail can be added here, e.g., distinguishing between road and rail
infrastructure. There is also a hierarchy in urban road systems from local roads,
to main arterials roads, to urban expressways. These differ significantly in their
densities and material intensities as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Material intensity of linear infrastructure

Category Material Intensity
Roads (Finland; Saari et al. 2007)
Connecting road (7.1 m wide) 2.97 Mt km−1
Regional road (7.1 m wide) 2.22 Mt km−1
Class I main road (10.0 m wide) 5.93 Mt km−1
Motorways (2 × 11.75 m wide) 30.55 Mt km−1
Storm drainage (Taipei, Huang and Hsu 2003)
Arterial pipes 6,490 t km−1 sand/gravel
998 t km−1cement
Branch pipes 1300 t km−1 sand/gravel
200 t km−1cement
Sewerage (Taipei, Huang and Hsu 2003)
Arterial pipes 6,430 m3 km−1sand/gravel
1,446 t km−1cement
Branch pipes 480 m3 km−1sand/gravel
122 t km−1cement
Flood prevention (Taipei, Huang and Hsu 2003)
Dike/levee 1,35,000 t km-1 sand/gravel
20,770 t km-1cement
Bank protection 90,000 t km-1 sand/gravel
13,850 t km-1cement
Urban transportation infrastructure also includes non-linear elements. The stock

of materials in structures such as bridges and stations might, however, be averaged
in with the linear transportation elements. Other structures such as airports and main
railway stations can be included as special forms of institutional buildings.
The stock of materials in other linear infrastructure systems may be expressed in
a similar form to (3). Indeed, since water and sewer systems generally underlie
roads, the densities of such systems might be approximately the same. Further data
on material intensities for water and sewer infrastructure are given in Table 2.
280 C. Kennedy
Material Dynamics
Material stocks, SM, in cities are generally increasing (Brunner and Rechberger
2001; Kennedy et al. 2007) clearly indicating that the inputs, IM, exceed the outputs,
OM, in the material budget equation:
dSM (4)
= I M - OM
dt
Dynamic MFA models have been developed to solve the budget equation with
applications to materials such as concrete and timber for residential buildings in
Switzerland (Müller et al. 2004), Holland (Müller 2006), and Norway (Bergsdal
et al. 2007). Outflows are dependent on the distribution of material life time in
stock, LM, and the historical inflow IM (Müller 2006):
t
Om (t ) = ò LM (t , t ¢)I M (t ¢)d t ¢ (5)
t0
Current and future material inflows are essentially then determined by changes
in the stock required to provide for changes in population, changes in level of ser-
vice, and to replace outflows.
The interaction between population, level of service, and material use are well
described by Müller (2006). The main/key effects can also be seen by differentiat-
ing (2) and (3):
rb
dSM, m dP rb rb df rb rb di rb
= f iM, m + P iM, m + Pf rb M, m (6)
dt dt dt dt
ti
dSM, m dA
ti
= iM, mrI
(7)
dt dt
Equation (6) shows that increases in materials in the residential building stock
can occur due to changes in per capita floor space and material intensity, as well as
population growth. Change in per capita floor space has been significant. From the
1940s/1950s to 2002, the average single detached house in the United States
increased from 1,100 ft2 (102 m2) to 2,340 ft2 (218 m2). Moreover, while house
floor space more than doubled, the shrinking of family sizes resulted in living area
per family member increasing by a factor of three (Wilson and Boehland 2005).
Less is known about how material intensity may have changed with the increases
in floor area.
Equation (7) shows that the accumulation of materials in linear infrastructure
systems depends on the density of infrastructure, its material intensity, and the rate
at which the urban area, A, is increasing over time. Data for 22 world cities from
1980 to 1990 show that urbanized areas were increasing at rates varying between
Table 3 Rates of change of urbanized areas (1980–1990) and density of transportation infrastruc-
ture (1990) for 22 cities. Calculations based on data from Kenworthy et al. (1999)
Min. Max. Mean St. Dev.
Urbanized area, 1980 (ha) 11,695 3,87,951 1,06,002 1,04,276
Urbanized area, 1990 (ha) 12,872 4,10,380 1,21,250 1,13,331
Rate of change of urbanized area (ha year−1) 27 3,851 1,524 1,316
Rate of change of urbanized area (% year1) 0.19% 3.75% 1.60% 1.03%
Density of transportation infrastructure, 1,990 (km ha−1) 0.075 0.157 0.104 0.022
The cities are: Amsterdam, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton,
Frankfurt, Hamburg, Houston, Jakarta, London, Melbourne, Perth, Portland, San Diego, San
Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Vancouver, and Vienna
0.19 and 3.75% per year (Table 3). An analysis of the same dataset indicates that the
density of transportation infrastructure is relatively consistent between cities, with a
mean of 0.104 km ha−1 and a standard deviation of 0.022 km ha−1. These values are
for 1990, but were found to be essentially the same for 1980. Material intensity has
been assumed to be constant in differentiating (3), but this assumption could be
relaxed if this parameter is changing over time.
Consumables
Beyond the large quantities of construction materials, which become bound up in

urban infrastructure systems, there is a wide range of other material goods which
have relatively short life spans in the urban metabolism. The list is vast and includes
items such as food (discussed in the next section), paper, packaging, electronic
goods, and household furnishings. Some of these enter cities and are deposited as
solid waste within weeks; others may remain in the metabolism stream for decades.
Browne et al. (2009) compared the relative rates of inflows and outflows in the
urban metabolism for consumables and capital equipment in different economic
sectors. The material budget (4) can be used to model any particular material good,
component or substance in the urban metabolism.
Water
Although the flow of water through a city can, in principle, also be understood as
just another type of material flow, there are good reasons for developing specific
equations for water. First, the inflows and outflows are far greater than any other
materials in magnitude (Wolman 1965; Kennedy et al. 2007). Second, they include
both natural and anthropogenic components. Third, while changes in storage of
water can be significant over the duration of rainfall events, they are often relatively
insignificant in the context of annual flows; i.e., there is no change in storage from
282 C. Kennedy
year to year. One exception to this last point, however, has to do with the groundwa-
ter levels in aquifers below cities. Thus, water has some unique characteristics
within the urban metabolism.
Natural Water Balance
The natural water balance for a city can be described by:
I W,precip + I W,pipe + I W,sw + I W,gw = OW,evap + OW,out + DS W (8)
where
I W,precip is natural inflow from precipitation, dew, and hoar frost; I W,pipe is water piped
into the city;
I W,sw is the net surface water flow into the city, e.g, accounting for rivers flowing
through;
I W,gw is the net ground water flow into city aquifers;
OW,evap is evapotranspiration;
OW,out is water piped out of cities, where it has not been expressed within the net
surface water flow term above. This term would apply when the outflow from
wastewater or stormwater systems is outside of city boundaries;
DS W is the annual change in water stored within the city. This term may be close to
zero unless there are changes to groundwater level below the city or changes in the
amount of water stored in surface reservoirs within city boundaries.
Anthropogenic Water Use
The water used for human consumption in cities may come from several of the
inflow terms in (8): (1) it could be captured in city reservoirs following precipita-
tion, (2) be pumped into the city, or (3) be withdrawn from rivers, lakes or ground-
water sources within the city. From a consumption perspective, the annual
anthropogenic water use QW in cities has two components:
QW = QW,D + QW,L (9)
where
QW,D is water demanded for end use and QW,L is losses in the water distribution
system (including leaks within buildings). The water demanded for end-use typically
base
has a constant base component, mainly for indoor use, QW,D , and a seasonal compo-
nent, which reflects the increases in water for outdoor use during hotter days. Thus,
base
QW,D = QW,D + CDD·iWcooling (10)
where
cooling
CDD is cooling degree days for the city [°C.d] and iW is the intensity of water
3 −1
use for cooling [m °C ].
There is some variation in the amounts of water used by cities. Reviews of urban
metabolism studies, mainly in developed cities, show that the annual urban water
use varies between 50 and 200 t per capita (Kennedy et al. 2007). The relative sizes
of base and seasonal components might also vary between cities. For example, in
Toronto, the base demand of approximately 480 ML in 2001 was 90% of the total
demand of 535 ML (Sahely and Kennedy 2007, Sadiq 2003). Given an average
CDD of 370°C.d year−1 (over 18°C; from http://www.degreedays.net), this indicates
cooling
that iW is close to 0.15 ML°C.d for Toronto.
Losses from the water distribution system can be related to the density of linear
infrastructure by:
QW,L + A · rti · l (11)
where
l is the annual leakage rate per length of linear infrastructure, including losses from
pipe breaks. A range of complex factors underlie water losses and pipe breaks,
including material properties, soil properties, age, and operational factors (Kleiner
and Rajani 2002).
The annual volume of wastewater treated, QWWT, for a city is:
QWWT = QWWE + QWWF + QINF (12)
The volume of wastewater generated QWWE is what enters the sewer system (sani-
tary and/or combined, as applicable) from end users. This volume is usually less
than the volume of clean water supplied, due to consumptive losses, i.e., human
consumption, and watering of gardens. Consumptive losses in Toronto, for example,
are of the order 20–25% (Sahely and Kennedy 2007). For the remaining terms in
equation (11), QWWF is the annual volume of wet weather flow that enters the waste-
water treatment plant via the combined sewer system or inflow and infiltration; and
QINF is the annual volume of water, known as base infiltration, which enters the
sewer systems during dry weather.
Urban Aquifers
A budget equation for the subsurface system can be developed based on the change
from virgin conditions (Zhang and Kennedy 2006, Bredehoeft et al. 1982). In
absence of the city, the groundwater budget equation is:
QW,R0 + I W,gw = QW,D0 (13)

284 C. Kennedy
where
QW,R0 is natural recharge and QW,D0 is the natural surface discharge. The net natural
groundwater flux (as given for (8)) would also be that under virgin conditions.
As the city develops, surface features changes and ground water is pumped from
the aquifers, the equilibrium condition is disturbed and natural recharge and dis-
charge change. The incremental ground water budget equation is then
DS W,gw = DQW,R 0 + QW,ar + DI W,gw - DQW,D0 - QW,gwpump (14)
where
DSW,gw is the rate of change in ground water storage in the system [L3 T−1];
DQW,R0 is the change in natural recharge from virgin conditions [L3 T−1];
DQW,D0 is the change in natural discharge from virgin conditions [L3 T−1];
QW,gwpump is the net pumping rate of the city [L3 T−1];
DIW,gw is the change in net groundwater inflow [L3 T−1].
The other term in (14), QW,ar is net anthropogenic urban recharge [L3 T−1], which
includes: leakage from water mains, net leakage from sewerage and stormwater
systems in sewered areas; returning groundwater by irrigation and gardening;
infiltration by artificial recharge; seepage through septic systems in unsewered
areas; and seepage from industrial facilities. An example demonstration of (14) to
the aquifers below Beijing is given by Zhang and Kennedy (2006).
Energy
Energy flow is the ultimate measure of the urban metabolism. The magnitude of
energy flows for heating and cooling are typically related to climate, but other compo-
nents of urban energy use can be linked back to the shape and form of a city, reflected
by its infrastructure systems and hence material stocks. Energy flow is also similar to
water in the metabolism in that it has natural and anthropogenic components, and typi-
cally has negligible change in net storage from a year-to-year perspective.
Anthropogenic Energy Use
The anthropogenic energy consumed by a city, IE, can be expressed by:
I E = I E,buildings + I E,transport + I E,industry + I E,construction + I E ,water pumping + I E,waste (15)
Equation (15) has three major components: the energy used by buildings; trans-
portation and industry; and three typically minor components: energy use for con-
struction, water supply (pumping and treatment), and waste management. Energy
used for industrial processes is likely quite industry specific, so is not expanded
further here.
The energy used in buildings can be further expressed as:
I E,buildings = I E,heating + I E,cooling + I E,light and appl. + I E,water heating (16)
with components for space heating, cooling, lighting and appliances, and water
heating.
The heating and cooling energy for buildings can be given by:
I E,heating = å
building type
HDD·iE,heating ·P· f (17)
I E,cooling = å
building type
CDD·iE,heating ·P· f ·cp (18)
where
HDD = heating degree days [°C.d];
CDD = cooling degree days [°C.d];
iE,heating = heating intensity [J.m−2.°C−1.d−1];
iE,cooling = cooling intensity [J.m−2.°C−1.d−1].
Equations (17) and (18) link building energy use back to material stocks (2)
through the floor area per person, f.
The effect of climate is captured by the heating and cooling degree days, with
the heating and cooling intensity values providing a measure of the thermal prop-
erties of the building stock. A study of ten global city regions by Kennedy et al.
(2009) has shown that heating degree days correlate well (R2 = 0.70) with energy
used for heating and industrial use in cities. Cooling degree days is perhaps not
so good at explaining energy used for cooling on cities, because humidity is also
an important factor. Glaeser and Khan (2008) showed, however, that household
electricity use in US cities rises with average July temperatures. Using data for
residential homes for Boston and St. Louis from Wilson and Boehland (2005),
example values for heating intensity and cooling intensity are estimated to be of
the order 0.05 MJ m−2 (°F.day)−1 year−1, and 01 m−2 (°F.day)−1 year−1, respectively
(Table 4).
286 C. Kennedy
Table 4 Calculation of heating and cooling intensities for representative residential homes in
Boston and St. Louis (based on energy modeling data in Table 3 of Wilson and Boehland 2005;
HDD and CDD from National Climatic Data Centre 2001 http://ggweather.com/ccd)
House Heating Cooling Heating intensity Cooling intensity
size energy energy (MJ m−2 HDD (MJ m−2 HDD
City (m2) (MJ) (MJ) year−1) year−)
Boston (HDD: 279 g 77,015 20,045 0.049 0.093
5,630°F day; 139 g 36,925 13,715 0.047 0.127
CDD: 777°F day) 139 p 50,640 12,660 0.065 0.117
St. Louis (HDD: 279 g 64,355 30,595 0.049 0.070
5,630°F.day; 139 g 30,595 21,100 0.046 0.097
CDD: 777°F.day) 139 p 42,200 22,155 0.064 0.102
p = poor; g = good
Transportation energy use can be subdivided into surface passenger, surface

freight aviation, and marine components:
I E,transport = I E,passenger + I E,freight + I E,aviation + I E,marine (19)
The first of these components will be considered further. Energy used for surface
passenger transportation can be expressed by:
1 (20)
I E,passenger å ·P·rI ·h·e
r
mode p
where
rP = average population density [km−2];
rI = density of transportation infrastructure [km km−2];
h = utilization of infrastructure [veh-km km−1];
e = fuel efficiency [J veh-km−1].
Equation (20) is useful in several respects. First it recognizes the reciprocal rela-
tionship between transportation energy use and population density (Newman and
Kenworthy 1989). Second the product of the first four terms within the summation
equals vehicle-kilometers traveled (VKT), which is sometimes used as a sustain-
ability indictor for urban transportation. Third, there is a link back to the material
stock (3) through the density of transportation infrastructure.
The usefulness of (20) to explain variation in urban transportation energy use
between cities has been explained elsewhere (Roux et al. 2010), but a brief analysis
can be given using data for the same 22 cities as in Table 3. As previously explained,
the density of transportation infrastructure, rI, has a relatively low standard devia-
tion. There is greater variability, however, in the utilization of infrastructure, h, by
automobiles, which for the same set of cities has a mean of 1,630,000 [km km−1] and
a standard deviation of 630,000. The fuel efficiency, e, for automobiles has a mean
of 4.9 MJ veh-km−1 and a standard deviation of 1.3 MJ veh-km−1. Thus, most of the
variation in per capita energy use by automobiles in cities can be explained by road
utilization rates and vehicle efficiency, as well as population density, rP.
Surface Urban Energy Balance
A further equation which describes energy in the urban metabolism is that for the
surface energy balance (Douglas 1983):
I E,S + I E,F + I E,I = OE,L + OE,G + OE,E (21)
where
I E,S = Rate of arrival of radiant energy from the sun
I E,F = Rate of generation of heat due to combustion and dissipation in machinery
I E,I = Rate of heat arrival from the earth’s interior
OE,L = Rate of loss of heat by evapotranspiration
OE,G = Rate of loss of heat by conduction to soil, buildings, roads, etc.
OE,E = Rate of loss of heat by radiation
Food and Nutrients
An equation for the flow of food in the urban metabolism can be adapted from equa-
tions developed by Codoban and Kennedy (2008) for neighborhood metabolism.
These include the mass of food and consumed water that are used in human metabo-
lism, as well as waste products from the food stream.
I F + PF + I W,Kit = OF,RetFW + OF,ResFW + OF,Met + OF,S (22)
where
I F = mass of food and packaged drinks imported to the city;
PF = mass of food and packaged drinks produced in the city, for internal
consumption;
I W,Kit = mass of kitchen water used during food preparation or drunk during meals;
OF,RetFW = mass of retail food waste produced by grocery stores and restaurants;
OF,ResFW = mass of residential food waste going to landfill, compost, or organic waste
collection;
OF,Met = mass of carbon and water lost via respiration and transpiration in residents
metabolism;
OF,S = mass of feces and urine exported to sewerage system.
288 C. Kennedy
This equation for food in the urban metabolism can also be expressed in terms of
energy content:
I E,Food + PE,Food = OE,RetFW + OE,ResFW + OE,Met + OE,S (23)
where
I E,Food = energy in food and packaged drinks imported to the city;
PE,Food = energy in food and packaged drinks produced in the city, for internal
consumption;
OE,RetFW = energy in retail food waste produced by grocery stores and restaurants;
OE,ResFW = energy in residential food waste going to landfill, compost, or organic
waste collection;
OE,Met = energy used in residents metabolism;
OE,S = energy in feces and urine exported to sewerage system.
Food is clearly a special type of material in the urban metabolism, because of its
provision of human sustenance. Rather than study the entire mass flows of food,
some researchers have alternatively focused on specific nutrients in the urban
metabolism, which can also have inorganic forms; see for example Nilson (1995),
Baker et al. (2001) or Forkes (2007).
Urban Contaminants and Wastes
Many types of contaminants or wastes are produced within the urban metabolism—
and can mix between streams of the metabolism before being emitted in solid, liq-
uid, or gaseous forms. Air contaminants are derived in particular from energy use,
via combustion of fossil fuels, depending on the technologies employed. Aqueous
contaminants arrive from the entry of materials and nutrients into the water system,
varying in composition and concentration between stormwater and wastewater.
Solid waste is similarly produced by the material and nutrient streams. Other con-
taminants, e.g., organic solvents or polybrominated flame retardants, can partition
in complex ways between different streams.
No further equations to describe contaminant flows will be given here. This is in
part due to the complexity and wide variation in the type of contaminants, but also
because the fundamental streams of metabolism that gives rise to contaminants have
already been described; the contaminants are flows of materials, water, and nutri-
ents as described by the equations above. While these equations provide a basis
from which to mathematically describe contaminants flows, further parameters may
be required for several reasons. First, the technologies used for treatment, separa-
tion, or recycling play a role in determining contaminant or waste levels. Second,
for some contaminants, particularly those in stormwater, the surface areas of build-
ings, roads, and other surfaces are important for determining loadings (Hodge and
Diamond 2010). Surface areas have not been reflected in the equations above, but
have been considered in an urban metabolism context by Deilmann (2009).
An example of how one class of contaminant—greenhouse gas emissions—relate

to the urban metabolism can be given. Table 5 shows the type of data required in
conducting a GHG inventory for a city. This data includes quantities of energy con-
sumed, waste generated, and where applicable materials produced within the city—
all of which can be determined using the equations, or notation, in this paper.
Table 5 Components of urban metabolism that are required for the inventorying of GHG emissions
for cities and local communities (Table 2, from Kennedy et al. 2011)
Components of urban metabolism Preferred units
Total electricity consumption GWh
Consumption of heating and industrial fuels by each fuel type (e.g., natural TJ for each fuel
gas, fuel oils, coal, LPG—includes fuels used in combined heat and type
power plants).
Total consumption of ground transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, other) Million liters for
based on sales data. each fuel type
Volume of jet fuel loaded onto planes at airports within the boundary of the Million liters
city/urban region.
Volume of marine fuel loaded onto vessels at the city’s port (if applicable). Million liters
Tonnage and composition of landfill waste (% food, garden, paper, wood, t and %
textiles, industrial, other/inert) from all sectors; and percentage of
landfill methane that is captured
Tonnage of solid waste incinerated (if applicable) t
Masses of steel, cement, and other materials or chemicals produced in the t
city causing non-energy-related industrial process emissions.
Conclusions
This paper has broadly provided a mathematical model of urban metabolism, along
with example data for pertinent model parameters. Its main contribution is an inte-
gration of mathematical descriptions of urban processes from different fields (e.g.,
MFA, hydrology, transportation) into a common mathematical form. Of particular
interest are parameters such as the per capita floor space, f, and the density of trans-
portation infrastructure, rI, which are first defined in relation to the material balance
of the city, but then contribute to the description of energy and/or water flows in the
city. These parameters help to reflect the important role that infrastructure serves in
determining the metabolism of cities.
The density of transportation infrastructure is of further interest because the pre-
liminary analysis suggests that it is relatively consistent between cities. For a sample
of 22 cities, the density of transportation infrastructure had a mean of 0.104 km ha−1
with a relatively small standard deviation of just 0.022 km ha−1. This suggests that it
may be a universal parameter for all cities.
The model also includes other parameters which, while having more variation,
are independent of the climate, city size, population, and other unique characteris-
tics of cities. These parameters include: material intensities, per capita floor space,
290 C. Kennedy
intensity of water use for cooling, leakage rates for water distribution systems,
heating and cooling intensities of buildings, and utilization rates for transportation
infrastructure. A few of these parameters may possibly be new, or are at least
rarely used.
Acknowledgement The author thanks the anonymous reviewers of this work.
References
Baccini P (1987) A city’s metabolism: towards the sustainable development of urban systems.
J Urban Technol 4:27–39
Baccini P, Bader H-P (1996) Regionlar stoffhaushalt: erfassung, bewertung and steuerung.
Spektrum, Heidelberg
Baker LA, Hope D, Xu Y et al (2001) Nitrogen balance for the central Arizona-Phoenix (CAP)
ecosystem. Ecosystems 4:582–602
Bergsdal H, Brattebø H, Bohne RA et al (2007) Dynamic material flow analysis for Norway’s
dwelling stock. Build Res Inform 35:557–570
Bredehoeft JD, Papadopulos SS, Cooper HH Jr (1982) Groundwater—the water-budget myth.
Scientific basis of water resource management, studies in geophysics. National Research
Council, National Academy Press, Washington
Browne D, O’Regan B, Moles R (2009) Assessment of total urban metabolism and metabolic
inefficiency in an Irish city-region. Waste Manage 29:2765–2771
Brunner PH, Rechberger H (2001) Anthropogenic metabolism and environmental legacies. In:
Munn T (ed) Encyclopedia of global environmental change, vol 3. Willey, UK
Brunner PH, Rechberger H (2004) Practical handbook of material flow analysis. CRC Press, Boca
Raton
Codoban N, Kennedy CA (2008) The metabolism of neighbourhoods. ASCE, J Urban Plan and
Devel 134:21–31
Costanza R, Voinov A, Boumans R et al (2002) Integrated ecological economic modeling of the
Patuxent River watershed, Maryland. Ecol Monogr 72:203–231
Decker H, Elliott S, Smith FA et al (2000) Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem.
Ann Rev Energ Envir 25:685–740
Deilmann C. (2009) Urban metabolism and the surface of the city. In: German annual of spatial
research and policy, guiding principles for spatial development in Germany. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg
Douglas I (1983) The urban environment. Edward Arnold, London
EUROSTAT (2001) Economy-wide material flow accounts and derived indicators. A methodological
guide. Statistical Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Belgium
Flood J (1997) Urban and housing indicators. Urban Stud 34:1635–1665
Forkes J (2007) Nitrogen balance for the urban food metabolism of Toronto, Canada. Resour
Conser Recy 52:74–94
Fung M, Kennedy CA (2005) An integrated macroeconomic model for assessing urban sustain-
ability. Environ Plann B 32:639–656
Glaeser EL, Khan ME (2008) The greenness of cities: carbon dioxide emissions and urban devel-
opment. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 14238. Aug 2008
Hendriks C, Obernosterer R, Müller D et al (2000) Material flow analysis: a tool to support envi-
ronmental policy decision making. Case studies on the city of Vienna and the Swiss lowlands.
Local Environ 5:311–328
Hodge E, Diamond M (2010) Sources, fate and effects of contaminant emissions in urban areas
(chapter 6). In: Harrad S (ed) Persistent organic pollutants. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex
Huang S-L, Hsu W-L (2003) Material flow analysis and emergy evaluation of Taipei’s urban
construction. Landscape Urban Plan 63:61–74
Kennedy CA, Cuddihy J, Engel YJ (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. J Indust Ecol
11:43–59
Kennedy CA, Steinberger J, Gasson B et al (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions from global cities.
Environ Sci Tech 43:7297–7302
Kennedy CA, Pincetl S, Bunje P (2011) The study of urban metabolism and its applications to
urban planning and design. J Environ Pollut 159(8–9):1965–1973
Kenworthy JR, Laube P, Newman P et al (1999) An international sourcebook of automobile depen-
dence in cities, 1960-1990. University Press of Colorado, Boulder
Kleiner Y, Rajani B (2002) Forecasting variations and trends in watermain breaks. J Infrastr Syst
8(4):122–131
Müller D (2006) Stock dynamics for forecasting material flows—case study for residential housing
in The Netherlands. Ecol Econ 59:142–156
Müller D, Bader H-P, Baccini P (2004) Long-term coordination of timber production and con-
sumption using a dynamic material and energy flow analysis. J Ind Ecol 8:65–87
Newman P, Kenworthy J (1989) Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US cities with
a global survey. J Amer Plan Assoc 55:24–37
Nilson J (1995) A phosphorus budget for a Swedish municipality. J Environ Manag 45:243–253
Roux S, Derrible S, Kennedy CA (2010) Urban transportation infrastructure and its influence on
energy use. Unpublished material
Sadiq WA (2003) Impact of climate change on the water demand of Toronto. Unpublished MA Sci
Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto
Saari A, Lettenmeier M, Pusenius K et al (2007) Influence of vehicle type and road category on
natural resource consumption in road transport. Transp Res, Part D 12:23–32
Sahely HR, Kennedy CA (2007) Integrated systems flow model for quantifying environmental and
economic sustainability indicators: case study of the city of Toronto urban water system. ASCE
J Water Resour Plan Manag 133:550–559
VandeWeghe J, Kennedy CA (2007) A spatial analysis of residential greenhouse gas emissions in
the Toronto census metropolitan area. J Ind Ecol 11:133–144
Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation and envi-
ronmental planning. J Amer Plan Assoc 68:297–314
Wegener M (1995) Operational urban models: state of the art. J Amer Plan Assoc 60:17–29
Wilson A, Boehland J (2005) Small is beautiful: U.S. house size, resource use and the environ-
ment. J Ind Ecol 9:277–287
Wolman A (1965) The metabolism of cities. Sci Am 213:179–190
Zhang L, Kennedy CA (2006) Determination of sustainable yield in urban groundwater systems:
Beijing, China. ASCE J Hydrol Eng 11:21–28
Urbanization, Local Government, and Planning
for Sustainability
Robert W. Taylor
Abstract Local governments are in a unique position to manifest and implement

the practices of sustainability. They possess a decision-making apparatus that
allows sustainability practices to be readily implemented; they are the institutions
closest to the people and whose decisions reflect on developing the holistic health
of the community, meaning that the goals of equity, economy and environmental
quality must all be satisfied equally; and they are the institutions that are most
directly accountable to the people. This chapter discusses the origins and principles
of sustainability planning for cities, various strategies for implementation, and
concludes by providing a case study of a sustainability plan for the city of Manila,
Philippines.
Keywords Urban sustainability • Sustainability metrics • Urban planning • Manila,

Philippines
Introduction
Today, nearly 50% of the world’s population lives in cities. By 2030, this percentage
will increase to 60% and cities of the developing world are expected to absorb 95%
of this growth as a result of rural to urban migration, transformation of rural settle-
ments into urban ones, and natural population increase (Fig. 1). Although compris-
ing only 3% of the earth’s land area, cities consume 75% of global energy, create
80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and intensely concentrate industry, people,
materials and energy (Davis 2008; Schulz 2002).
R.W. Taylor (*)

Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07093, USA
294 R.W. Taylor
Fig. 1 Growth of global urban population 1950–2030. Source: Urban Settlement: Data, Measures,
and Trends, Harvard School of Public Health, December 2007
Asia alone will add an additional 1.5% people to its urban regions by 2020 (ADB
2001). This wave of urban expansion, lead by China and India, is restoring Asia to
the global prominence that it enjoyed before the European and North American
industrial revolution. Nearly 2.5 billion Asians will live in cities by 2025, account-
ing for almost 54% of the world’s urban population (Dobbs and Sankhe 2010).
Without proper management planning, cities constitute a major environmental
hazard. Yet, cities also possess great opportunities for sustainability. Their compact
settlement pattern provides economies of scale that can encourage resource and
energy efficiency. With people living closer together, public transit can be encour-
aged, critical infrastructure such as sewers, roads, and electricity can be minimized
resulting in more efficient land and material use. Also, cities encourage innovation
and resource efficiency. Building construction, renewable energy advances, and
innovative waste management can be successfully adopted. In New York City, for
example, global greenhouse gases per capita are just one-third of the US average
(Glaeser 2009; Owen 2009).
Sustainability planning is a relatively new approach to local government man-
agement that seeks to integrate urban planning with the principles and practices of
sustainability. It is not designed to replace urban master plans since the objectives
and approaches taken by sustainability planning are different. First, sustainability
planning recognizes the unique characteristics of the local community in crafting
sustainable strategies. Second, it utilizes considerable capacity building through
Urbanization, Local Government, and Planning for Sustainability 295
stakeholder engagement, often assessing local stakeholder needs and desires through
an inclusive “collaborative” approach. In this process, it seeks advice on existing
and potential sustainability initiatives from a wide variety of local stakeholders.
Third, it uses sustainability issues mapping as a tool to assess the major environ-
mental, social and economic risks to the local community, including adaptive
responses to climate change and natural disasters. Fourth, it delineates practical and
cost-effective programs for sustainability, those that can be easily implemented,
while recognizing the need for long-term strategies. Fifth, it discusses “best prac-
tices” in sustainability and utilizes a sustainability plan as an effective reporting
document. Sixth, it advocates a funding or financial strategy that can lead to suc-
cessful implementation. And lastly, it provides a mechanism for continuity and
monitoring of sustainability strategies (Evans and Sunback 2005; Leitman 1999;
Newman and Jennings 2008; Moore 2010; Taylor and Carandang, 2010).
Sustainability and Cities
The notion of sustainability has emerged as a major advocacy to deal with issues of
environmental degradation. The publication of Our Common Future by the World
Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development
or sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (WCED 1987)
Sustainable Development became central to the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The
profile of cities was raised through Agenda 21, which recognized the importance of
urbanization to sustainability and called for a Local Agenda 21 lead by local
authorities (Ravetz 2000; Leitman 1999). Sustainability was further linked to
urbanization through a key United Nations Report issued in early 1996 that laid out
the blueprint for the Habitat II City Summit held later that year in Istanbul (UNCHS
1996). This report further tied the principles of Agenda 21 to urbanization, particu-
larly the problems associated with the rapid urbanization of mega-cities in develop-
ing countries. A second United Nations Report was issued in 2001 that broadened
the scope of sustainability to include the social, political and economic impacts
of globalization and a greater emphasis on issues of poverty and social justice
(UNCHS 2001).
The urban implications of sustainability have been widely debated by various
scholars (Romaya and Radoki 2002). Some have emphasized an urban systems
approach that seeks to determine the levels of socioeconomic, demographic, and
technological output that can reinforce an urban system and maintain its long-
term survival (Nijkamp 1990). Others have sought to use it as an approach to
replace traditional modes of urban planning with sustainable urban management
(Weiland and Hilty 1998). In this idea, urban sustainability includes the “minimi-
zation in the use of nonrenewable resources, the achievement of the sustainable
296 R.W. Taylor
use of renewable resources, staying within the absorptive capacity of local and
global waste absorption limits and meeting basic human needs” (Choguill 1993).
Others have sought to distance the concept of urban sustainability from sustainable
development whereby urban sustainability means “strong sustainability,” empha-
sizing ecological objectives over economic ones (Satterwaite 1997). And lastly,
urban sustainability has meant to some a strictly social dimension, incorporating
notions of equity, empowerment, accessibility, and participation (Basiago 1999).
Because they are heterotrophic, meaning that they are ecosystems that do not
capture sufficient energy to meet their own needs, some argue that cities can never
be sustainable. Most sustainable ecosystems are autotrophic, ones that capture
sufficient energy for their needs. Sustainability planning for cities, however, cen-
ters on strategies, policies and programs by which cities can become more “pho-
tosynthetic,” or closer to autotrophic ecosystems (McDonough and Braugart
2002). Also, sustainability planning is largely a response to and a modification of
modernist and postmodernist planning styles. It holds at its core an ecological
worldview. Modernist planning, instead, relies on a rational, comprehensive view
of urban development that emphasizes reliance on the efficiency of technological
solutions. The horizontal development of twentieth century cities is often the
result of the extensive use of one such technology, the automobile, to provide
maximum mobility and metropolitan reach. Postmodernist planning tends to
emphasize pluralism and localized cultural traditions. Decision-making models
for modernist planning are unitary and for postmodernist planning decentralized.
Although sustainability planning incorporates some of the characteristics of both
these approaches, it holds a distinctly ecological worldview. While recognizing
pluralism, sustainability planning is centered on systems-thinking or the intercon-
nection of people, values, things, events and resource use (Sterman 2012). As a
planning mode, it uses communication and education to help evolve public under-
standing; advocacy planning to achieve shared goals; and incentives and mandates
to implement agreed upon strategies (Wheeler 2004).
The basic premise of this paper is that cities provide solutions for a sustainable
world, not problems. They possess the three major attributes necessary for success-
ful sustainability: financial capital, human capital, and social capital. Two basic
models for urban sustainability can be delineated. The first is the “Urban Metabolism”
model (Fig. 2) that recognizes how resources and materials flow through an urban
system and leads to both human productivity and waste outputs (see Kennedy 2012).
The model also utilizes an eco-footprint measurement instrument as a way to deter-
mine successful or failed processes and public policies. A second model specifically
dedicated to sustainable urban planning emphasizes the concept of the tensions of
the “dual mandate” (Fig. 3) (Roe and van Eeten 2001).
CITY-REGION ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM
SOURCES
ECOLOGICAL Health
FOOTPRINT Employment
INPUTS
Income
Urban Metabolism Model Education
MATERIAL FLOWS Livability
Energy, Minerals, Biomass Housing
Leisure activities
CITY-REGION METABOLISM Accessibility
STOCKS Urban design
POSITIVE
URBAN FEEDBACK Resource Dynamics of
CORE Inputs Settlements
NEGATIVE
REGIONAL HINTERLAND FEEDBACK Land Transportation priorities Solid waste
Water Economic priorities Liquid waste
Food Cultural priorities Waste Toxics Sewage
OUTPUTS - WASTE Recycled Energy Outputs Air pollutants
Building Material GHG
SINKS Other resources Waste heat
Oceans, Air, Land Noise
Fig. 2 Urban metabolism model. Source: Roe and van Eeten (2001)
URBAN SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING PROCESS MODEL
Urban Social Capital

Natural Capital
Sustainability Plan
URBAN ECOSPHERE URBAN ANTHROPOSPHERE

• Demography
• Ecosystem Dynamics USP Planning Process • Economic Systems
• Biogeochemical Cycling
• Biomes and Productivity • Local Characteristics • Decision-Making Systems
• Disturbance • Assessing Stakeholder Perspectives • Land Use & Management
• City-Region Metabolism • Assessing Local Risks • Built Environment
• Establishing Implementation
Strategies
Natural Ecosystem Drivers Human Ecosystem Drivers

• Flow of Materials • Cultural Values & Perception
• Flow of Energy • Institutions & Organizations
Tensions of the
• Flow of Information • Flow of Information
Dual Mandate
Fig. 3 Urban sustainability planning process model
These are the tensions or conflict points between the intersection of human
ecosystem drivers and natural ecosystem drivers. For instance, all human
modifications of the environment produce environmental disturbance. The ques-
tions of trade-off and whether benefits are sufficient to accommodate costs need to
be determined, assessed, and communicated through a collaborative, consensual
process. A successful sustainability plan must satisfy or accommodate numerous
drivers and constituencies.
298 R.W. Taylor
Approaches to Sustainability Planning for Cities
A number of existing sustainability planning approaches can provide suitable guides

for cities. There are four basic approaches to urban sustainability planning (Table 1):
vision-based, strategy-based, performance-based, and stakeholder-based. Vision-
based approaches tend to emphasize guidelines, benchmarks, measures of city qual-
ity, and best practices in sustainability. An example of this approach is the Melbourne
Principles that established ten objectives which cities must meet to progress toward
sustainability. Other examples include the technical assistance by ICLEI (Local
Governments for Sustainability), SustainLane’s ranking of US cities based upon
their capacity to attain prescribed measures of city quality, the American Society of
Landscape Architects’ “Sustainability Sites Initiative”, and the Center for Natural
Resources Defense Council’s “City Grid—Smarter Cities.”
Table 1 Approaches to urban sustainability planning

Approach Characteristics Examples
Vision-based Vision statements Melbourne Principles
Technical assistance ICLEI Technical Guidelines
Establishing guidelines and “Sustainable Sites Initiative” American
benchmarks Society of Landscape Architects
Measures of city quality “SustainLane” US City Rankings
Best practices and innovative “City Grid—Smarter Cities” Center for
solutions Natural Resources Defense Council
Strategy-based Management plan City of Steamboat Springs “Sustainability
Policy and strategy plan Management Plan”
City-government directives City of Rockville, “Strategy for a
Sustainable Rockville”
Ontario, Canada Sustainable Design
Guidelines and Toolkit
Makati Environmental Management Plan
Performance-based Point-based standard Florida Green Local Government Standard
Mostly voluntary Sustainable Jersey
Public image enhancement LEED for Neighborhoods
Stakeholder-based Inclusive stakeholder Aiming for Sustainability in Manila—De
engagement La Salle University
Educational and awareness Enhancing Urban Sustainability in
driven Clearwater, Florida, University of
Grassroots based South Florida
A second approach is strategy-based which emphasizes management plans and

is often commissioned by city governments. This approach tends to provide specific
strategy plans that deal with immediate problems facing cities or establish a detailed
planning process by which cities can undertake sustainability planning. Examples
of the former are the City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado’s “Sustainability
Management Plan,” and the City of Rockville, Illinois’ “Strategy of a Sustainable
Rockville.” An example of the latter is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s
(AMO) “sustainability toolkit” for Ontario, Canada municipalities (Fig. 4; Bendle

Group 2006; Ontario Model 2007; Makati Model 2009).
Tool 1: Making the Case for Sustainability

Tool 2: Structuring a Sustainability Planning Process
Tool 3: Defining Sustainability
Tool 4: Capacity Building
Tool 5: Assembling Baseline Data
Tool 6: Creating a Vision and Identifying Priorities
Tool 7: Preparing an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan
Tool 8: An Option to ICSPS: Adopting an Adaptive Management/Learn-by-Doing Approach
Tool 9: Engaging the Stakeholders
Tool 10: Adopting Sustainability Indicators, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
Tool 11: Institutionalizing Sustainability
Tool 12: Securing Funding/Other Support for Sustainability Initiatives
Tool 13: Making the Links and Creating Value: Capital Investment Plans & Sustainability
Fig. 4 Ontario, Canada sustainability toolkit. Source: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports, 2008–2009
What makes the AMO toolkit an effective planning tool is that the Canadian
Federal Gas Tax provides monies for investment in infrastructure that “achieves
cleaner air, water and lower greenhouse gases”. With this incentive in place, Ontario
communities can make use of the toolkit to develop a sustainability plan that can
leverage infrastructure investment.
A third approach to sustainability planning emphasizes performance-based plan-
ning models. This approach measures sustainability practices very precisely through a
point-based system. Examples are LEED for Neighborhoods (www.usgbc.org/leed/nd);
Sustainable Jersey ( www.sustainablejersey.com ); and the Florida Green
Local Government Standard (www.foridagreenbuilding.org/local-governments). This
approach is undertaken voluntarily by the city and certified by an outside third party.
The benefits of undergoing this elaborate and detailed process are to generate a
certified public awareness or eco-labeling of the sustainability practices of these cities.
It is the approach that generates the most public image enhancement for a city.
The fourth approach is stakeholder-based. While all sustainability planning
approaches recognize the importance of stakeholder engagement, few utilize it as a
basic strategy to provide community education and awareness on sustainability
practices and to engage the community is actually becoming a part of the plan.
Examples are the “Enhancing Urban Sustainability in Clearwater, Florida” plan of
the University of South Florida and the De La Salle University plan for Manila,
Philippines, Aiming for Sustainability in Manila (Taylor and Carandang 2010, 2011).
The stakeholder-based approach holds that in sustainability planning, the collabora-
tive process is often the most important part of the plan. Even if strategies are not
implemented, the process can stand alone as a plan. The process of gathering infor-
mation from the community on perceptions, goals, problems, and engaging the
community through workshops and other public forums are basic to achieving
sustainability.
300 R.W. Taylor
Lastly, sustainability planning ultimately depends on strategies for implemen-

tation. There are three basic types: voluntary, market incentive, and regulatory
(Table 2). Most sustainability planning is voluntary with implementation strate-
gies based on community education or public image enhancement. Often the
plan is the major vehicle for community awareness of sustainability practices
and potential projects in the community. Also, the creation of performance-based
plans usually results in the implementation of sustainability practices. A second
implementation strategy uses market-based incentives. This is based on a secure
funding source, usually derived from government funding or large corporate or
foundation donors. An example of a successful incentive that links the plan to
implementation in the Ontario model where dedicated gas taxes are used to
incentivize municipalities to develop sustainable infrastructure improvement
projects. The third and last implementation strategy is regulatory. Examples are
the use of zoning ordinances and building codes to insure sustainable practices
such as energy and water conservation, and laws to maintain open space standards
and reduce impervious land use.
Table 2 Implementation strategies for urban sustainability planning

Implementation strategy Characteristics
Voluntary-based Established and financed by stakeholder groups; inclusive,
educational, and emphasis on wider view of the civic community
Financial incentive-based Funded through various established funding mechanisms, such as a
tax dedicated to certain performance criteria, i.e. Ontario
Program
Legislative-based Based upon specific regulatory requirements that establish criteria
for zoning and building codes; also used as a tool to encourage
fast-tracking of development projects
Source: Taylor (2010)
Can Cities Be Made Sustainable?
The scholarly literature on the belief that cities are really sustainable is mixed. For
instance, Bugliarello (2006) discusses the virtues of cities as places to implement
sustainability. He notes that cities concentrate human population, resource and
material use, and economic activity. They exhibit certain advantages: their compact-
ness, creativity, and diversity of design can promote equitable and just distribution
of amenities and resources; the degree and ease of contact and mobility can contrib-
ute to a more livable habitat; and integrated mixed use communities and high-density
urban living can shrink per capita ecological footprints by reducing energy and
material needs. Further, he describes the paradigm of the city as biological, social
and machine, complex in nature and involving three basic components and their
interaction with the environment. It is biological in sense that it encompasses
humans and other species that together strive to a balance while sharing of same
resources, exposed to heightened exposure to microbiological threats in dense urban
environments. Organizations, businesses, the city government, ethnic and informal

social groups, and families form the social component. At the same time, presence
of structures, vehicles, and other artifacts can be said to represent the machine com-
ponent of cities (Justus and Taylor 2011).
Wood (2007) is representative of writers who believe that not all cities can
become sustainable. He notes that although cities in the developing world face
great challenges—climate change, loss of biodiversity, and land degradation, they
still continue to emphasize traditional unsustainable designs. He believes that
developing countries lack the political will and are unable to consider sustainable
solutions. Sometimes, sustainable issues are perceived as secondary to more
“urgent” needs such as HIV/AIDs and drought and food insecurity (not seen as
related to sustainability). Also, developing countries often heavily prioritize economic
growth ahead of other concerns, i.e., environmental considerations.
Urban sustainability is often an idea or concept neither well understood nor sup-
ported by majority populations in both developed and developing countries. There
needs to be a discourse change to one that encourages greater reciprocal opportunity
and perceived mutual advantage for all “eco aware” citizens. Synergistic urban life-
styles that are desirable, attainable, maintainable and reproducible—better known
as “meta design planning”—is needed by today’s high dense cities. “Eco” cities can
be developed through a strong consensus that is inclusive of the business commu-
nity, consumers, politicians, educators, bankers, and developers. Through collabo-
ration, we can thus envision future designs, coherent and multilayered in nature,
between wider groups of professionals working with urban planners and designers
to create future sustainable cities (Justus and Taylor 2011).
One of the best arguments for sustainability planning for cities has been made by
university professor and community planner Wheeler (2004). He discusses how cities
can move to sustainability by emphasizing compact urban design, preserve open space,
adopt alternatives to automobile use, and implement building codes that emphasize
energy conservation and efficiency. He indicates that sustainability is indeed achievable
in cities. One way is through environmental planning where cities create management
plans for watersheds to protect and restore ecosystems. Another way is by reducing
consumption levels and waste generation, and by adopting eco-friendly designs that
reduce packaging and emphasize local production. Also, cities that reduce energy con-
sumption and invest in alternative sources are more likely to achieve sustainability.
Wheeler notes four ways that cities can move toward sustainability. First, as
mentioned above, to foster environmental planning that emphasizes watershed man-
agement. Second, to create a land use policy that preserves agricultural land on
urban peripheries, maintains open space and greenways within cities, and advocates
compact mixed use development that reduces vehicular use and promotes a sense of
place and community. Third, to design transportation plans aimed at reducing vehi-
cle dependency by improved transport alternatives, e.g., pedestrian and bike paths,
new public transit options, car share programs, and revised street designs. And
fourth, to increase both affordable housing and energy efficient buildings through
codes that emphasize solar energy use and energy conservation.
302 R.W. Taylor
An argument that is skeptical of cities to achieve sustainability is presented in the

work of urban geographer Ooi (2009) of Nanyang Technological University. She
shows that the challenges of rapid urbanization in emerging Asian economies is
making it difficult for these cities to meet the basics of sanitation, water supply and
housing, not to mention the more lofty goals of sustainability advocates. Professor
Ooi points out the many challenges of cities in developing countries to include sus-
tainability into their development agendas. She discusses how rampant urbanization
has created resource depletion, air and water quality pollution, traffic congestion,
poor sanitation and lack of housing. Extensive migration of rural people to urban
areas in search of jobs has caused the mushrooming of informal settlements in cities
with poor sanitation and health issues. Also, the lack of integrative or multi-sector
policy at all levels of government compounds the challenges that these cities face.
Sustainable Cities in the United States and Britain
In the United States, sustainability planning for cities has largely targeted adapta-
tion policies for climate change. In the absence of strong federal policy to address
climate change, local governments have taken on the responsibility to deal with the
issue and have often used sustainability plans as their main policy and planning
instrument. A “Living Cities” survey taken in 2009 found that four out of five cities
surveyed reported that sustainability was among their top five priorities (www.liv-
ingcities.org). It is also found that over 75 cities have, or will have soon, a detailed
plan on how to reduce greenhouse gases, generally calling for a 10–20% reduction
within the next 5–10 years. But their report also noted that cities were slower at
addressing sustainability issues such as expanding mass transit, promoting green
jobs, and improving the energy efficiency of existing building stock.
Portney Kent (2005) contends that at least 41 cities in the United States have begun
sustainable city programs that are believed to effectively improve their livability. He
highlights programs such as smart growth, increased bicycle ridership, integrated pest
management, urban gardens, composting, local energy generation, and recycling and
waste reuse. These programs are designed to move a city toward sustainability. Cities
such as Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon have been recognized as leaders in
urban sustainability. These cities, like all cities that encourage sustainability, have a
common theme. It is the role of public participation at the grass-roots level and rec-
ognition of broader civil society, particularly Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)
in helping to shape and implement city programs. Fundamental program elements
vary from city to city, but successful programs incorporate benchmarks that measure
progress toward sustainability over time (Justus and Taylor 2011).
Chicago is perhaps one of the best examples of an American city moving toward
a concrete program of adapting to climate change, one of the key objectives of urban
sustainability. They have used thermal radar to spot the city’s hottest spots so that
pavement can be removed and vegetation placed on urban rooftops (Kaufman 2011).
Their program of climate change adaptation revolves around the belief that Chicago
will experience much hotter summers and 35% more precipitation in winter and
spring and 20% less rain in summer and fall. This will significantly alter Chicago’s
micro-climate and increase its vulnerability to ecological and financial risks. As a
solution, Chicago is preparing new street design which utilizes permeable pave-
ment, underground urban storm water runoff storage tanks, drought-resistant plants,
and Spartina grasses for filtering pollutants and salts used on winter roads (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5 Chicago’s Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP). Source: Retrieved from New York Times,
May 23, 2011
Throughout the world, scholars and activists are seeking ways to measure and
determine whether their country’s cities are moving toward sustainability. In the
United Kingdom, the Manchester City Region estimates that the cost of doing noth-
ing about climate change will cost the North-West region of England about four
billion USD in 10 years. It seeks through its long-term strategic plan to alter its
historic industrial heritage and to move Manchester from red brick to green brick.
David Aeron-Thomas et al. in Sustainable Cities Index: Ranking the Largest 20
British Cities (www.forumforthefuture.org) have measured the progress toward
sustainability of the largest British cities across three broad areas: environmental
performance, quality of life, and “future proofing”; i.e., how will these cities address
304 R.W. Taylor
key future issues. They developed a rating system that is based on 13 indicators
across these three broad areas—a set of indicators that were derived from publically
available data and where local governments have the power to improve the sustain-
ability of their cities (Table 3). Hence, their measurement system is both viable and
meets a common-sense approach to evaluating urban sustainability. An interesting
methodological conclusion was to place less emphasis on surveys and more on
developing indicators based on quantifiable data from public sources. Also, they
moved away from the concept of measuring green business, a vague and difficult
concept for local governments to access and motivate, to the notion of an urban
green economy, and what that urban green economy would look like and how local
governments can produce a set of policies to enable it. They successfully integrated
resilience thinking—to what extent are cities able to adapt to changing demands
brought about by external factors—into their sustainability criteria through the use
of the concept of “future proofing.” In all, while establishing a viable methodology
they showed in their study that British cities have moved away from a north–south
divide on sustainability and while their ecological footprint is decreasing, it is not
decreasing at a rate that is sustainable over the long term.
Table 3 Criteria for measuring urban sustainability in British cities

Sustainability area Indicator Criteria for measurement
Environmental Air quality Annual mean background concentrations of
Performance Ecological footprint nitrogen oxides
Household waste Hectare of land per capita for services, food,
Biodiversity housing, transportation, and consumables per
capita
Household waste collected per capita
Percentage of local biodiversity sites that have
undergone conservation management in the
last 5 years
Quality of life Life expectancy from Measure of health and longevity
birth Measurement of green space per 100,000
Green spaces population
Transport Number of minutes spent per person per month
Unemployment traveling to city services
Education Number of benefit claimants as a percentage of
working age population
Percentage of working age population with
education or equivalent
Future proofing Local Government A measurement of existing or future commitment
commitment to to climate adaptation or mitigation strategies
climate change
Economy Number of business start-ups per 100,000 people
Recycling Percentage of household waste recycled or
Food composted
Number of plots of land in local food production
Source: Retrieved and modified from www.forumforthfuture.org
Sustainability Planning for Cities in Emerging Economies
While sustainability planning is relatively advanced in the developed economies of

Europe and North America, it is a new and somewhat untested planning regime for
emerging economies. As stated previously, most future urbanization will occur in
Asia and other emerging regions of the world (Fig. 6; Global Compact Cities
Program 2010). These regions bear similar characteristics in terms of higher amounts
of environmental degradation, lower per capita incomes, higher rates of poverty and
greater exposure to the effects of climate change. But, a case can be made that sus-
tainability planning will produce more significant benefits with less cost to the cities
of these emerging economies. The key areas that sustainability planning can provide
support are disaster management, climate change, environmental degradation and
natural resource loss, poverty, and effective service delivery.
Fig. 6 Future urbanization will occur mostly in developing countries. Source: Urban Settlement:
Data, Measures, and Trends, Harvard School of Public Health, December 2007
Climate change or weather-related risks are one of the major drivers for sustain-
ability planning. The major vulnerabilities to cities are weather-related changes due
to global warming including rising sea levels and intensity and frequency of rainfall.
Since most major cities are located in coastal environments, sea-level rise has
increased local storm surges and flooding events (Manila Bulletin 2010). Global
temperature increase has resulted in temperature extremes that put vulnerable urban
populations like the elderly and the poor at risk. Also, cities are affected by the
“urban heat island effect,” which is the process by which man-made surfaces and
306 R.W. Taylor
limited green spaces in cities produce higher temperatures than in surrounding rural
and forested areas. This compounds the effects of global temperature increase in
cities and requires adaptive planning solutions. Also, the effects of climate change
places undue stress on rural and coastal environments that result in increased migra-
tion to the city, causing social tension and environmental problems.
There are three broad risk management strategies for climate change: protection,
mitigation, and adaptive strategies. Protection strategies aim at developing expen-
sive solutions, e.g., seawalls. Mitigation strategies are directed at larger national
strategies, e.g., replacement of fossil fuel dependence in electricity productions to
renewable energy. And lastly, adaptive strategies that are smaller, more cost-effective,
and are most likely to be implemented at the local community level, such as natural
drainage systems, green building programs, etc. Sustainability planning for cities
tends to emphasize adaptive strategies for climate change risk (Claudio 2010).
A second risk is environmental degradation and natural resource loss.
Sustainability planning views the urban system as an ecosystem. In an ecosystems
model, cities minimize their ecological footprint by reducing their external inputs of
energy and materials by encouraging local production and use, and decreasing out-
put of waste through local resource use reduction, greater efficiency, and reuse and
recycling. Sustainability planning develops strategies to accomplish these goals
(Rees and Wackernagel 1996).
A third risk is poverty. The migration of poor people to cities as a result of
climate change increased opportunities, and more services is placing increased
stress on the social fabric and environmental conditions in cities. The relationships
and interactive causation processes between social, environmental, and economic
are evident in poverty. Increased migration produces a stress on housing availability
that increases the presence of informal settlements that have significant environ-
mental impacts, i.e. location close to vulnerable sites, sewage and drainage, etc.
Sustainability planning requires the development of strategies to reduce poverty
through livelihood projects and strategies that will then impact informal housing
location and environmental pollution.
A fourth and last risk for sustainable planning to address is lack of adequate
revenue sources for service delivery. Without a secure and reliable funding or rev-
enue source, sustainable strategies cannot succeed. Hence, the development of an
effective sustainable management plan for local governments requires the introduc-
tion of creative financial mechanisms and instruments and the integration of finance
into the other sectors of the plan, i.e. housing, economy, equity, and environment.
Sustainability Planning: Manila, Philippines Case Study
An example of the potential effectiveness and some of the difficulties in engaging

in sustainability planning in emerging economies is demonstrated through the
development of a sustainability management plan for the city of Manila, Philippines
(Taylor 2005; Taylor and Carandang 2010, 2011). The city of Manila (Fig. 7) has
Fig. 7 GIS map of City of Manila and Metro region. Source: Amy Ferdinand, MSU
the highest population density of any major city in the world, which theoretically
can be a positive characteristic associated with sustainability if used as tool for
public transportation. Also, the city of Manila resides largely at sea-level and the
Philippines as a region has major exposure to the effects of climate change.
According to the 2007 census, Manila has a population of close to 1.7 million
occupying a land area of only 38.6 km2. It comprises one of the 17 local govern-
ment units of Metro Manila with a population of roughly 12 million. The city of
Manila is also the capital of the Philippines.
The city of Manila is the old central business district and cultural center of the
metropolis. It consists of 16 geographic and six legislative districts (Fig. 7). There
are 897 barangays, the smallest unit of city government, which roughly coincides
with a neighborhood unit and has its own political designation. Located at the
confluence of the Pasig River and Manila Bay, Manila developed first along the river
and waterfront area and spread outward from the geographical districts of Escolta,
Quiapo, and Santa Cruz. The Spanish heritage is manifested in Fort Santiago and
Intramuros, the old walled city, which has the feel and ambiance of an old European
medieval city. The areas around Roxas Boulevard in Ermita and Malate bear testa-
ment to the American period and the Burnham Plan, one of the first examples of
sustainability planning in the Philippines (Taylor 1994). In the last decades of the
twentieth century, Metropolitan Manila expanded outward as new population
308 R.W. Taylor
centers developed in Makati, Ortigas, Quezon City, and Alabang. Also, spurred on
by the desire for less expensive housing in more rural–suburban locations, people
moved further out into the surrounding provinces of Cavite, Rizal, Laguna, and
Bulacan. All of these events have had a significant impact on the city of Manila, and
are reflected in its land use changes. Presently, Manila has become less industrial
and more residential. This has been the result of a steady inward migration of poor
people into the city and the natural increase of an existing low-income population.
In 2009, the City of Manila engaged a local university to develop a sustainability
management plan. The plan, a set of recommendations, was based on a broad cross
section of stakeholder inputs (Fig. 8) based on a series of interactive workshops.
This planning approach emphasized capacity building through social learning that
builds the skills, knowledge, and institutional structures necessary for sustainabil-
ity to be implemented (Friedman 1987; Putnam 1993). It is a collaborative approach
whereby diverse stakeholder groups are assessed according to their perception of
community assets, problems, and for information on existing and potential sustain-
ability initiatives. This process can reveal if there are any discrepancies between
city elites and neighborhood locals on what constitutes successful sustainability
practices. Indeed, in the Manila plan, it was revealed that although all agreed that
Fig. 8 Stakeholder map. Source: Taylor (2010)

actions needed to be taken to promote sustainability, there were major differences

in priorities and vision. The locals tended to emphasize more “people-based” issues
while the elites were more concerned about environmental and economic issues.
This difference in perception and overall vision can be a significant deterrent for
effective implementation of sustainability policies, practices, and projects.
A key component of any sustainability planning process is to map out the key
challenges that a city confronts. This process takes on a number of forms, but basi-
cally consists of a matrix cross-referencing challenges analyzed against a number of
categories such as issues, sources, and opportunities. Some of the major challenges
facing cities are climate change, water budgets, land use, and air quality. An example
of a Sustainability Issues Map (SIM) using this approach is provided in Table 4.
Table 4 Sustainability issues map (SIM) for cities

Challenges Issues Sources Opportunities
Climate change Reduction of greenhouse Power utilities, business Launch eco-efficiency
gas emissions, sea and household efforts targeting
rise, and coastal operations, energy use and
vulnerability transportation related GHG
emissions
Water Water supply, water Business and household Launch efforts to
quality, wastewater runoff, hospital waste, conserve, reuse
treatment, storm leaky supply pipes, water, and educate
water runoff, overuse residents on these
flooding practices
Land Waste management, Household and business Launch programs to
brownfields, land consumption, subdivi- reuse land, adopt
use, urban design, sion development and compact urban
built environment sprawl design, and reduce
waste
Air Air pollution, air quality Transportation, power Launch public transit
plants program
Source: Taylor (2010)
The Manila Plan assessed the risks to land, air and water ecologies and pro-
duced a set of recommendations. For air ecology they were to: establish a carbon
credit program, develop a green building program, develop an energy conservation
program, develop a photovoltaic solar panel installation program, and establish a
transit improvement program. For water ecology, it was to: continue the Pasig
River Rehabilitation Program, establish waterfront buffer areas, implement natural
drainage systems, create a rainwater harvesting program, and establish a water con-
servation program. And for land ecology, it was to: develop a land-recycling pro-
gram for obsolete industrial sites, restore old buildings for adaptive reuse, establish
a strategic implementation program for waste recycling, turn barangays into urban
villages, and establish a greenways program.
The Manila Sustainability Plan was presented to the Mayor’s office in 2009. It is
presently being considered for implementation. The report advocates five strategies
310 R.W. Taylor
for successful sustainability programs, projects, and initiatives. First, it promotes

the use of the Manila local governmental unit as the most effective organization to
implement sustainability initiatives. They possess a decision-making apparatus
whereby sustainability plans can be enforced; they are closest to the people for
community consensus; and their success is determined by bringing environmental,
economic, and social equity into equilibrium. The Local Government Code in the
Philippines has devolved power to the local governments thereby providing them
the necessary capacity to lead in sustainability. Second, the City needs to create an
interdepartmental committee, an office, agency, or ombudsman whose sole respon-
sibility is to implement sustainability initiatives. The stakeholder groups highly
support this strategy and it can be combined with a sustainability educational cam-
paign to educate people about energy and water use. Third, the City needs to col-
laborate with a local university to establish a “City of Manila Monitoring Station”
that monitors social, economic, and environmental health utilizing a Geographical
Information Mapping System at the barangay level. This community-based resource
would be geared to work with the barangays to ameliorate their problems and initi-
ate sustainability projects. Fourth, the city needs to stimulate and encourage the
development of public–private partnerships that revolve around sustainability.
These partnerships can be initiated by community-based cooperatives, NGOs, or
private businesses, but need to work closely with barangays and City agencies. And
lastly, Manila has very little land available for development. Hence, sustainability
initiatives need to emphasize the reuse or recycling of land that is environmentally
contaminated, under-utilized, or vacant. A major program needs to be implemented
that identifies these sites, and proposes strategies to place them back into productive
use, perhaps utilizing new technologies that emphasize resource efficiency. It is also
important to recognize that local stakeholders advocate community designs that
promote mixed-use development and the more intense use of land. These strategies
are all designed to make their community more sustainable.
A key component to successful sustainability planning for any city but particu-
larly for cities in emerging economies is to create a financing component to the
Plan. In the Philippines many responsibilities and services have devolved from
the national government to the cities, but revenue capacity has not often followed
this decentralization of power. As a result, Philippine cities direct most of their
national monetary transfers to well-established nondiscretionary city services,
leaving little funding for sustainability projects or actions. Hence, one of the key
goals of a sustainability plan is to seek out creative funding strategies. In the
Philippines, creative financing strategies are local revenue bonding, development
impact fees, transfer of development rights, special assessment districts and tax
increment financing, real estate investment trusts, microfinance, and public–
private partnerships.
A number of barriers to sustainability exist in cities like Manila. First, while
there is a general recognition of the concept of “sustainability,” there is little under-
standing of how the concept relates specifically to people and their communities.
Second, there needs to be a steady supply of trained personnel to implement sustain-
ability and a specific office that spearheads these initiatives. Third, there needs to be
better communication between city officials and the neighborhoods as to what needs
to be done. Often, there are contrasting visions of sustainability. And finally, many
sustainability initiatives cannot withstand political change. Often successful pro-
grams initiated by one city administration are canceled in mid-stream by an incoming
administration. Also, valuable data are lost or misfiled in governmental transition
which affects the capacity of planners to construct important benchmark or perfor-
mance indicators.
Conclusions
Sustainability planning is the next frontier for cities. Local governments or cities are
the best organizations to manifest and implement sustainability. They possess a
decision-making apparatus that allows the sustainability practice to be readily
implemented; they are the institution that is closest to the people and whose deci-
sions reflect on developing the holistic health of the community, meaning that the
goals of equity, economy and environmental quality must all be satisfied equally;
and they are the institution that is held most directly accountable to the people.
While corporate sustainability is an admirable pursuit, corporations as a vehicle for
sustainability are limited by the demand for short-term profitability. The local
government sustainability plan is the best mechanism to advance sustainability as
it constitutes a strategic planning approach with the following characteristics: a high
level of stakeholder participation, short-term actions to solve priority issues, a long-
term vision, and an ongoing monitoring system.
Western cities are a bit ahead of their sister cities in the developing world in
adopting this new planning regime, although cities like Curitiba, Brazil and Bogota,
Columbia are leaders in their own right. Yet, uniform cross-regional limitations to
implementing sustainability in cities can be observed. The most pressing is that too
much emphasis is placed on the initial plan and much less emphasis on the fol-
low-up or in the process of implementation. This is generally a reflection of the
inability for sustainability plans to establish their own revenue base. This needs to
change for sustainability to be a meaningful pursuit. Cities must develop more cre-
ative financing sources for sustainability projects and political leaders need to have
the political will to create the necessary incentives through zoning, bonding, build-
ing codes, impact fees, and land use plans.
References
ADB (Asian Development Bank) (2001) Asian environmental outlook 2001. ADB, Manila
Basiago A (1999) Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and
urban planning practice. Environmental 19:145–161
Bugliarello G (2006) Urban sustainability: dilemmas, challenges and paradigms. Technol Soc
28:19–26
312 R.W. Taylor
Choguill C (1993) Sustainable cities: urban policies for the future. Habitat Int 17:3
Claudio C (2010) Climate change adaptation. Business World, June 15
Davis C (2008) Monthly update: urbanization and environmental sustainability, Earthtrends, World
Resources, February
Dobbs R, Sankhe S (2010) Comparing urbanization in China and India. McKinley Quarterly,
July
Evans J, Sunback T (2005) Governing sustainable cities. Earthscan, London
Friedman J (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton University
Press, Princeton
Global Compact Cities Programme (2010) Sustainable cities, vol 1. United National global com-
pact, Executive summary, p 6
Justus F, Taylor R (2011) Introduction, Are cities sustainable? In: Taylor R (ed) Taking sides:
clashing issues in sustainability. Mc-Graw Hill, New York
Kennedy C (2012) A mathematical description of urban metabolism. In: Weinstein MP, Eugene
Turner R (eds) Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and the urban environment.
Springer, New York
Kent P (2005) Civic engagement and sustainable cities. Publ Admin Rev 65:579–591
Leitman J (1999) Sustaining cities. McGraw Hill, New York
Manila Bulletin (2010) (Environment and Nature B-10 Section), UN warns of mega-disasters due
to extreme weather conditions. Tuesday, June 8
McDonough W, Braungart R (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North
Point Press, New York
Moore S (ed) (2010) Pragmatic sustainability. Routledge, London
Newman P, Jennings I (2008) Cities as sustainable ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC
Nijkamp P (1990) Sustainability of urban systems. Averbury, Aldershot
Ooi GL (2009) Challenges of sustainability for Asian urbanization. Curr Opin Environ Sustain
1:187–191
Owen D (2009) The green metropolis. Penguin Group, New York
Putnam R (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University
Press, Princeton
Ravetz J (2000) City-region 2020. Earthscan, London
Rees W, Wackernagel M (1996) Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable and
why they are a key to sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16:223–248
Romaya S, Radoki C (eds) (2002) Building urban settlements: approaches and case studies in the
developing world. ITDG Publishing, London
Satterwaite D (1997) Sustainable cities or cities that contribute to sustainable development. Urban
Stud 34:1667–1691
Schulz V (ed) (2002) Urbanization and transition to sustainability. International human dimen-
sions program on global environmental change. FRG, Bonn
Sterman JD (2012) Sustaining sustainability: creating a systems science in a fragmented academy
and polarized world. In: Weinstein MP, Eugene Turner R (eds) Sustainability science: the
emerging paradigm and the urban environment. Springer, New York
Taylor R (1994) The best of Burnham: the Philippine plans. Plann Hist 16:14–17
Taylor R (2005) Beneficial urban sustainability in Asia: the metro-Manila Philippines experience.
In: Feng H, Yu L, Soleki W (eds) Urban dimensions of environmental change—science, expo-
sures, policies and technologies. Science Press, Montclair
Taylor R, Carandang J (2010) Sustainability planning for Philippine cities. De La Salle University,
Yuchengco Center, Manila
Taylor R, Carandang J (2011) Sustainability and redevelopment in the City of Manila, Philippines.
Human Ecol 23:14–21
United Nations Center for Human Settlements (UNCHS) (1996) An urbanizing world: global
report on human settlement. Oxford University Press, New York
UNCHS (2001) The state of the world’s cities report. Haitat, Nairobi
United States Asian Environmental Partnership (1999) Place-based public policy in southeast
Asia: developing, managing, and innovating for sustainability. USAEP, Washington, DC
Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint. New Society Publishers, Gabriola,
British Columbia
WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Weiland U, Hilty L (1998) Sustainable urban management: opportunities and risks of information
technology. In: Hamm L, Muttagu S (eds) Sustainable development and the future of cities.
ITDG Publishing, London
Wheeler S (2004) Planning for sustainability: creating livable, equitable and ecological communi-
ties. Routledge, London
Wood J (2007) Synergy city; planning for a high density, super-symbiotic society. Landscape
Urban Plan 83:77–83
Internet Sources
Bendle Group (2006) Sustainable management plan: City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
Steamboat Springs, Colorado, www.steamboatsprings.net; retrieved January 12, 2009
Glaeser E (2009) Help the environment, stay in the city, www.dcexaminer.com; retrieved January
8, 2008
Kaufman L (2011) A city prepares for a warm long-term forecast. New York Times, retrieved May
22, 2011
Living Cities (2009) Green cities: how urban sustainability efforts can and must drive America’s
climate change policies, www.livingcities.org; retrieved May 5, 2009
Makati Model (2009) Sustainable development in Makati: environmental management plan, http://
cityriskpedia.com; retrieved May 8, 2009
Ontario Model (2007) Ontario community sustainability report, http://pubs.pembina.org/reports;
retrieved May 10, 2009
Sustainable Cities Index (2010) www.forumforthefuture.org; retrieved July 12, 2011
Climate Change, Globalization, and the Double
Exposure Challenge to Sustainability: Rolling
the Dice in Coastal New Jersey
Robin Leichenko
Abstract Climate change and globalization present significant challenges for

sustainability. Both processes enhance connections across space and time, such that
actions taken in one part of the world have increasingly visible impacts in other
parts of the world. The processes also magnify risks and uncertainties, exacerbate
vulnerabilities, and undermine resilience to many types of shocks and stresses. This
chapter explores how climate change and globalization are together influencing sus-
tainability in urbanized coastal zones with particular emphasis on coastal New
Jersey. While urban coastal zones have long confronted a multitude of development-
related stresses including reductions in quantity and quality of freshwater flow into
estuaries, destruction and degradation of wetlands, and dredging and development
of harbor areas, climate change and globalization represent new and interconnected
sources of stress. Under climate change, altered temperature regimes, shifts in the
variability and seasonality of precipitation, increases in the frequency and magni-
tude of extreme events, and sea level rise are together transforming the environmen-
tal baseline of coastal areas. At the same time, processes of globalization are
contributing to growth of coastal tourism, intensification of coastal property invest-
ment, expansion of port facilities and shipping traffic, and changes in the availability
of public funds needed to manage these complex, coupled systems.
Keywords Coastal zones • Vulnerability • Economic impacts • Multiple stresses

• Sustainable development
R. Leichenko (*)
Department of Geography, Rutgers University, 54 Joyce Kilmer Avenue,
Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
316 R. Leichenko
Introduction
Within the emerging field of sustainability science, there is general recognition that
large-scale processes of environmental and economic change play a critical role in
the sustainability of coupled human–environment systems (Adger 1999; Adger
et al. 2009; Turner 2010; Wilbanks and Kates 2010). There is also growing interest
in exploring how economic and environmental changes interact to influence sus-
tainability efforts within cities and urbanizing areas (Seto et al. 2010; Ernstson et al.
2010; Leichenko et al. 2010). Yet relatively limited attention has been directed
toward understanding how two of the most transformative processes of the current
era, namely climate change and globalization, are jointly influencing sustainability
within specific regions and sectors (e.g., O’Brien and Leichenko 2000; O’Brien
et al. 2004; Eakin 2006; Leichenko and O’Brien 2008; Silva et al. 2009). Both
processes provide new opportunities, but they also create new risks and uncertain-
ties and exacerbate vulnerabilities to many types of shocks and stresses (Leichenko
and O’Brien 2008). These new risks and uncertainties are compounded by spatial
and temporal tele-connections created by both processes, such that actions taken
in one part of the world or during one time period have increasingly visible impacts
in other parts of the world or at other times (Adger et al. 2009; Leichenko and
O’Brien 2008).
This chapter explores how climate change and globalization are together
influencing sustainability in urbanized coastal zones, with particular emphasis on
coastal New Jersey. While urban coastal zones have long confronted a multitude of
development-related stresses including reductions in quantity and quality of fresh-
water flow into estuaries, destruction and degradation of wetlands, and dredging and
development of harbors, climate change and globalization represent new and inter-
connected sources of stress. Under climate change, altered temperature regimes,
shifts in the variability and seasonality of precipitation, increases in the frequency
and magnitude of extreme events, and sea level rise are together transforming the
environmental baseline of coastal areas. At the same time, processes of globaliza-
tion are contributing to the growth of coastal tourism, intensification of coastal
property investment, expansion of port facilities and shipping traffic, and changes in
the availability of public funds needed to these manage these complex, coupled
human–environment systems.
The “double exposure” framework developed by Leichenko and O’Brien
(2008) is used to examine how climate change and globalization are creating new
sustainability challenges in New Jersey’s coastal zone. The double exposure
framework provides a generalized approach for investigation of the interactions
between global environmental and economic changes, focusing on ways that
these interacting processes spread risk and vulnerability over both space and time.
As such, the framework is reflective of broader efforts by sustainability scientists
to enhance understandings of vulnerability and adaptation, including factors
influencing the resilience of communities, regions, and socioecological systems
to shocks and stresses associated with processes of global change (e.g., Turner
et al. 2003; Eakin and Luers 2006; Polsky et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2007; Berkes
Climate Change, Globalization, and the Double Exposure Challenge to Sustainability… 317
2007; Acosta-Michlik et al. 2008; Eakin and Wehbe 2009; Eriksen and Silva
2009). Key questions emerging from this body of work include the mechanisms
that create feedbacks between processes of economic and environmental change,
how tele-connections create new risks and uncertainties across space and time,
and how to identify strategies to promote adaptation and resilience under condi-
tions of rapid socioeconomic change (Adger et al. 2009; Leichenko et al. 2010).
The next part of the chapter describes how climate change and globalization
are contributing to rapid transformation of urbanized coastal zones throughout the
world. The basic elements of the double exposure framework are used to describe
how the framework may be applied to assess how interactions between the globaliza-
tion and climate change affect sustainability across many types of coupled human–
environment systems. Insights from the double exposure framework are then used
to consider how globalization and climate change are together affecting coastal
New Jersey. The chapter concludes by arguing that the emergence of new types of
intersections and interactions between globalization and climate change create
both opportunities and challenges for sustainability and calls for new research on
combined responses to both processes.
Climate Change, Globalization, and Urbanized Coastal Zones
Coastal areas are home to a growing proportion of the world’s population. Currently
more than half of all humans live within 200 km (120 miles of a coast; UN 2006),
and coastal population growth is substantially outpacing that of inland areas due to
both in-migration from inland regions and high rates of natural population increase.
Coastal populations include approximately 618 million people (i.e., nearly one
tenth of the world’s population) living in locations with an elevation of less than
10 m above sea level (McGranahan et al. 2007). While the residents of low-lying
coastal areas are primarily concentrated in low and lower-middle income countries
of Asia including large countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam,
Indonesia and Egypt, as well as in small island nations such as the Bahamas,
Surinam and Guyana, they also include large numbers of residents in many higher
income countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, and the United States
(McGranahan et al. 2007).
Coastal development is deeply interwoven with these global patterns of urban-
ization. Coastal areas are home to the majority of the world’s largest cities. Among
the 25 largest megacities—those with a population of over ten million people—16
are located in coastal areas. Among cities with populations over five million, 65 cities
worldwide have some portion of their settlement area location in a coastal area with
an elevation of 10 m or less (McGranahan et al. 2007).
Within the United States, coastal population patterns mirror those at the global
level. Of the 60 cities within the United States with populations greater than
300,000, 20 have land area with elevations at or below 6 m and connectivity to the
sea (Weiss et al. 2011). Six of the ten largest cities in the United States are among
318 R. Leichenko
this group, including New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, San Diego,
and San Jose. The population of US coastal cities is likely to increase substantially
over the next several decades due to both natural increase and current patterns of
population in-migration from other parts of United States and other parts of the world.
As discussed next, international migration is an important facet of globalization
in coastal areas.
Globalization and Coastal Zones
Globalization may be understood as a shift in scale of economic activity, such that

markets for goods and services that used to be local and regional in scope now
extend across international borders. Globalization is also commonly associated with
“space–time” compression, whereby improvements in transport and communica-
tion technologies have reduced the time and costs associated with the movement of
goods, people, and ideas across space, effectively “shrinking” the world (Harvey
1990; Leichenko and O’Brien 2008). Along with technological innovations, greater
economic, political and cultural integration under globalization is also facilitated by
policies advocating free market approaches to economic activity. Key metrics of
globalization including rising levels of international trade and investment, financial
flows, international migration, and homogenization of cultural practice and prefer-
ences across nations, all of which are facilitated by widespread access to television,
increasing availability of high-speed internet connections, and proliferation of cell
phones and related mobile technologies. While globalization is frequently associ-
ated with rising standards of living and expanded opportunities for individual con-
sumption, it has also implicated rising levels of income inequality both within and
across nations, and it has become a major driver of increased energy, material usage
worldwide. These “negative externalities” of globalization present significant barri-
ers to efforts to achieve a sustainability transition.
Activities in coastal zones both reflect and play an important role in many facets
of globalization. International migration has dramatically increased the population
of many coastal cities. Growth of international trade has meant expansion of ports
and growth of manufacturing facilities in coastal zones. Over the past 2 decades,
shipping ports have been upgraded and expanded in many coastal cities in order to
handle larger container ships, a process which often entails significant change to
coastal landscapes including armored shorelines, land reclamation from the sea, and
dredging and deepening of harbors. In addition to new berthing areas for vessels,
these new developments provide living space for port workers, storage space for
unloaded materials, and land for expanded intermodal transportation to facilitate
shipment of goods both for export and to inland destinations. Export processing
zones for manufacturing goods now dominate coastal areas in southern China,
Indonesia, the Philippines, and elsewhere.
Globalization has also contributed to intensification of coastal property devel-
opment worldwide. The property construction boom that started in the late 1990s
and ended with the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008 was facilitated by
globalization of finance, which contributed to increased availability of low inter-
est rate loans (i.e., “cheap” money). These loans helped spawn developments
within many high amenity coastal areas (Leichenko and Solecki 2005; Leichenko
and Solecki 2008). While much of the new development in coastal areas consists
of residential properties, the globalization of tourism has also had a major influence
on coastal landscapes in many countries. The tourism sector in many countries is
increasingly dominated by large, multinational firms (Hjalager 2007). These
firms cater to international tourists through construction of large hotel complexes
and development of beaches and recreational facilities in warm weather coastal
zones throughout the world.
Climate Change and Coastal Areas
The vulnerability of coastal areas is well-recognized within the climate change lit-
erature (Adger et al. 2005; McGranahan et al. 2007; Neumann et al. 2010; Nicholls
et al. 2011; Weiss et al. 2011). Two of the most significant climate-related threats to
coastal areas include sea level rise and increased frequency and magnitude of coastal
storms. By the end of this century, global sea levels are projected to approach or
exceed 1 m (compared to 1990 levels) (Overpeck and Weiss 2009; Vermeer and
Rahmstorf 2009). Some of this increase is likely to be attributed to the thermal
expansion of oceans, and some is linked to the melting of glaciers and ice on land
(Alley et al. 2005). There is also growing recognition of the possibility of substan-
tially larger increase in sea levels as the result of the melting of the Greenland and
West Antarctic Ice Sheets (Nicholls et al. 2008). While the magnitude of the increase
will be varying spatially, those populations living in low-lying coastal areas will be
particularly vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise.
Climate change is also expected to influence the magnitude and frequency of
coastal extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tropical cyclones (Knutson
et al. 2010). These events, which already represent major threats to coastal areas in
both tropical and mid-latitude regions, are likely to be exacerbated by increased storm
surges associated with sea level rise. While wetlands, coral reefs, and coastal ecosys-
tems often buffer coastal regions from such extremes, absorbing much of the energy
and impact, land use changes in many regions have led to large-scale reductions in
wetlands, beaches, and other protective features (Leichenko and O’Brien 2008).
Importantly, climate change will occur in the context of intense development and
environmental degradation. In conjunction with sea level rise, another climate
change-related threat in coastal areas concerns freshwater supply and water quality.
Many coastal areas are already experiencing significant water shortages and water
quality problems due to lack of freshwater supplies, salt-water intrusion in aquifers,
inadequate reservoirs, and other constraints. Increased temperatures, reduced pre-
cipitation, sea level rise, or increased variability of rainfall water as the result of
climate change are likely to exacerbate these and other water resource problems.
320 R. Leichenko
For many coastal regions, the impacts associated with both climate change and
globalization are not limited to populations residing within and around these areas,
but also reverberate to other areas as the result of various types of economic link-
ages and social and political connections. The next section describes a framework
for assessing the overlapping impacts and reverberating effects of both climate
change and globalization.
The Double Exposure Framework
Despite widespread recognition of the linkages between climatic change and economic
activities, research on connections and interactions between climate change and
globalization remains limited. The majority of research on climate change emerges
from the physical or ecological sciences, with emphasis on dynamics of the atmo-
sphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. In contrast, studies of globalization tend to
emphasize political, economic, and cultural phenomena such as liberalization of
trade, formation of transnational commodity chains, and emergence of a global
mass media. Although much globalization research addresses environmental issues,
this literature does not typically consider how globalization influences or interacts
with larger processes of climate change. As a consequence, critical linkages, feed-
backs, and synergies between globalization and climate change often receive
insufficient attention.
The double exposure framework (O’Brien and Leichenko 2000; Leichenko and
O’Brien 2008) provides a general, conceptual approach for analysis of many types
of interactions between environmental change and globalization. One important
difference between the double exposure framework and the other sustainability
approaches cited earlier is that other frameworks generally do not take into account
the potential interactions between climate change and other global change pro-
cesses, particularly the outcomes of multiple processes interacting across space and
time. There is also relatively little recognition within other frameworks of how the
two processes together transform the context in which people and places experience
and respond to changes of many types. Many frameworks stress the importance of
context for explaining differential outcomes, vulnerability and resilience, yet the
frameworks seldom recognize the extent to which the context itself is dynamic,
dramatically changing as the result of both global environmental change and glo-
balization. Within the double exposure framework, changing contextual conditions
may affect exposure and responses to future global change processes, resulting in
new patterns of vulnerability and new challenges for sustainability and social and
ecological resilience (Leichenko and O’Brien 2008).
The double exposure framework’s point of departure is that multiple global
change processes are occurring and interacting both simultaneously and sequen-
tially creating either negative or positive outcomes for individuals, households, com-
munities, firms, and industries. Within the framework, global environmental change
and globalization manifest as either gradual or sudden changes (i.e., stressors or

shocks) that have differential effects across a particular exposure frame. Depending
on the focus of the research, an exposure frame might be a spatial, political or eco-
logical region, an economic sector or a network of institutions. Exposure results in
measurable outcomes, which may, in turn, affect the processes as well as the context
in which future changes are experienced.
In each case, exposure to global change processes is influenced by the character-
istics of the change (e.g., direction, rate, magnitude, intensity, and spatial extent)
and by factors in the contextual environment (e.g., institutional, economic, social,
political, biophysical, cultural, and technological conditions). Responses, which
may include actions taken either in anticipation of or following from exposure, are
conditioned by factors in the contextual environment, as well as by the individual
attributes of each affected actor (e.g., education, values, beliefs, cognition).
Outcomes depend on both the degree of exposure to each global process and on the
actions taken by the affected individuals or other actors.
Processes of climate change and globalization are represented as partially over-
lapping triangles in the double exposure framework (Fig. 1). These processes mani-
fest in a specific contextual environment, portrayed as an oval. The extent or
magnitude of exposure to the processes is depicted as the intersection between the
triangles and the oval. An arrow leading from the contextual environment to a square
representing outcomes symbolizes responses to the processes. Outcomes are
depicted as separate from the contextual environment to emphasize that any outcome
reflects measurable conditions at a specific point in time.
Fig. 1 A schematic of the

double exposure framework
(adapted from Leichenko and
O’Brien 2008; Leichenko
et al. 2010)
322 R. Leichenko
The framework incorporates dynamic linkages between the components.

Processes may alter the contextual environment, responses may affect the processes,
outcomes may affect responses, and so forth. Dynamics are also incorporated in the
framework through recognition that processes and outcomes are often reflexive.
Within the figure, the arrow leading from responses and outcomes back to the
process triangles depicts these types of circular linkages, which are termed “feed-
backs.” Although the figure focuses on a single exposure frame, it is important to
note that outcomes and responses that occur within one exposure frame may have
widespread influence on other exposure frames across space and time.
The double exposure framework articulates a number of potential pathways
of interaction between the two processes (Leichenko and O’Brien 2008). The
pathway of outcome double exposure highlights overlapping impacts of both
globalization and climate change on a particular exposure unit, whether it is a
region, sector, system, or social group, showing how the combined effects of
both processes often exacerbate existing patterns of spatial and social inequality
and vulnerability. This pathway identifies what may be referred to as “double
winners” and “double losers.” The pathway of context double exposure shows
how one process can influence the capacity to respond to shocks and stresses
associated with the other process, often leading to negative outcomes. By incor-
porating the temporal dynamics of global change processes, context double
exposure provides insights on how long-term resilience can be undermined by
current changes to the contextual environment. The pathway of feedback double
exposure demonstrates how the contextual changes, responses, and outcomes
associated with either or both processes may contribute to drivers of the pro-
cesses, thereby perpetuating cycles of double exposure and posing challenges to
long-term sustainability. Feedback double exposure also emphasizes positive
synergies between the two processes whereby actions made in response to one
process may also contribute to solutions to the other process.
The double exposure framework provides a conceptual tool for investigating
how processes of global change interact to affect sustainability within specific
regions, sectors, and coupled human–environment systems. By emphasizing the
dynamic interactions between processes, responses and outcomes, the framework
aims to elicit new insights and research questions, beyond those associated with
separate analyses of each global change process (Leichenko and O’Brien 2008).
The pathways of double exposure are further illustrated in the next section through
examination of coastal New Jersey.
Double Exposure and Coastal New Jersey
Coastal New Jersey extends from the state’s Hudson River border with New York
in the North to the Cape May Peninsula in the South. Processes of globalization
within coastal New Jersey are perhaps most apparent in northern New Jersey.
Northern New Jersey is home to the Newark-Elizabeth international port facilities,
which are a major component of the Port of New York and New Jersey, the third
largest international port by cargo tonnage and container volume in the United
States (US Army Corp of Engineers 2010). Northern New Jersey also contains the
high-rise office towers of Jersey City, which provide critical back office functions
for New York City’s global financial center, and Newark Liberty International
Airport, a major hub for international travel. Evidence of earlier areas of global
integration is notable in northern New Jersey, including historical rail terminals at
Liberty State Park, the immigration museum at Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.
Each of these historic and cultural landmarks is testament to processes of global
integration during the nineteenth century, and each continues to attract a large and
steady stream of US and international tourists.
Though less apparent, globalization’s reach also extends to the sandy beaches
and shores of central and southern New Jersey. The global visibility of the shore has
increased recently with MTV’s Jersey Shore™ television show. The show’s broad
global viewership has made its stars—“The Situation” and “Snooki”—as well as the
“Jersey Shore” household names throughout the world. The cultural identity of the
Jersey shore, as perpetuated through film and music, of course long precedes MTV:
Atlantic City’s international reputation as a “place to be seen” dates to the 1930s and
the 1973 debut album of Bruce Springsteen, titled “Greetings from Asbury Park
New Jersey” contained iconic songs about New Jersey that later became top hits
both within the United States and internationally. Yet MTV’s television show has
brought renewed attention to and awareness of the Jersey shore, particularly for
younger audiences from distant places.
Though less apparent than the cultural globalization of coastal New Jersey, the
area’s property markets are also deeply embedded in processes of financial global-
ization. As mentioned earlier, the property boom that was facilitated by globaliza-
tion of finance during the past decade helped to accelerate the pace of property
construction in high amenity, coastal regions (Leichenko et al. 2010). Ocean County,
New Jersey, which located approximately 70 miles south of New York City, saw an
increase in housing units between 2000 and 2010 of nearly 12%, nearly double the
rate of increase for the state as a whole during the same period. The largest increases
within Ocean County were concentrated in shore municipalities including Barnegat
and Ocean Townships, where the number of housing units increased by 49.8 and
43.9%, respectively, between 2000 and 2010 (US Population Census 2010).
By the same token, the global financial crisis of 2008 and the economic recession
that followed, both of which were also facilitated by financial globalization
(Leichenko et al. 2010), affected the shore economy in many ways, including decline
in tourism revenue, decline in value of residential and commercial properties, par-
ticularly those built as investment properties for second home buyers and summer
rentals during the hey-day of the recent housing boom, loss of property tax revenue
for municipalities, and loss of jobs, particular in the construction sector. By 2009,
the number of construction jobs in Ocean County had declined by 22.5% in com-
parison with 5 years earlier (New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development 2010).
324 R. Leichenko
While demographic, cultural and economic processes have been the driving
forces for change in coastal New Jersey in recent years, climate change and associ-
ated sea level rise will play an increasingly important role in the future. As noted
earlier, recent estimates suggest that sea levels may rise, may approach or exceed
1 m globally by the year 2100. For southern coastal New Jersey, the effects of global
sea level rise are exacerbated by postglacial land subsidence that affects this portion
of the US eastern seaboard, as well as local processes of subsidence due to ground-
water extraction and other activities.
While coastal storms already occur on a regular basis in New Jersey, such events
are likely to increase in frequency, duration, and magnitude as the result of climate
change. Recent estimates for the New York metropolitan region suggest that by
2080, flood events that currently occur once every 100 years, on average, may occur
once every 15–35 years (Horton et al. 2011). Sea level rise will exacerbate the
effects of these events by creating higher storm surges that will contribute to coastal
and back bay flooding. Other facets of climate change that will affect the flora,
fauna and human populations of coastal New Jersey include more frequent droughts,
and heat waves and changes in seasonality, including an earlier onset of Spring and
more frost-free days overall. These changes will, in turn, affect water supply and
water quality, ecosystem functions, habitat for migratory species, the length of the
summer tourism season, and many other facets of shore life.
Double Exposure Challenges
Globalization and climate change are clearly transforming coastal New Jersey. The
pathways of double exposure highlight some of the key challenges and opportunities
that globalization and climate change are creating for the region.
Outcome Double Exposure
The pathway of outcome double exposure, which focuses on overlapping expo-

sure to multiple processes of global change, can be illustrated via the example of
New Jersey’s coastal tourism sector. In 2008, tourism contributed an estimated
$28 billion to the New Jersey economy. During that year, tourism also generated
$7.7 billion in tax revenue, including $4.5 billion in local and state taxes (IHS
Global Insight 2009). Tourism is the state’s third largest private sector employer,
accounting for more than 400,000 jobs. More than 60% of all tourism revenue in
New Jersey can be attributed to the four counties of central and southern coastal
New Jersey, including Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, and Cape May. Atlantic City,
which, in recent years has hosted 30 million visitors annually, is estimated to
account for about 33% of total tourism expenditure in the state; while the rest of
the shore (Cape May, Ocean, Monmouth counties, and the remainder of Atlantic
county) account for 28% (IHS Global Insight 2009).
The state’s tourism sector has been significantly affected by the recession over
the past 2 years. In particular, the counties of southern coastal New Jersey, includ-
ing Atlantic and Cape May, are dominated by the tourism-based, leisure, and
hospitality sectors. In Atlantic City, casino gaming revenue, which is generated
through slot machines and gaming tables, decreased by 10% between 2009 and
2010, and is expected to decline another 10% during 2011 (Wittkowski 2011).
Losses in gaming revenue, which have been exacerbated by regional competition
from new casinos that have opened in neighboring states, particularly Delaware
and Pennsylvania (Wittkowski 2011), have ultimately translated to 10,000 few jobs
within the gaming sector in Atlantic City in 2010, as compared with 5 years earlier
(Wittkowski 2010).
For Atlantic City and other shore communities loss of tourism revenue overall
due to recession and regional competition has overlapped with a number of costly
coastal storms including “Nor Ida” in November of 2009, which caused damage to
coastal communities well in excess of $100 million (Associated Press 2009; Weaver
et al. 2009), damaging Nor’easters in February and March 2010, and extreme snow-
fall events during December 2010 and January and February 2011. This overlap
between the economic downturn and extreme storm events has created a situation of
outcome double exposure for shore towns, which were financially strapped by the
recession and at the same time must incur significant additional expenses for dune
repair, beach replenishment, snow removal, and other infrastructure maintenance.
Context Double Exposure
The pathway of context double exposure explores transformations in the contex-

tual environment as the result of either or both processes of global change. The
interaction between the two processes may sometime create conditions that
increase vulnerability or undermine adaptive capacity, thereby limiting future
responses to shocks and stresses associated with one or both processes. Reductions
in local public finances due to housing crisis and state reduction in funding for
cities will not only affect the ability to pay for damages from increasingly frequent
extreme events, but will also affect the ability of towns and cities to engage in
adaptation planning and action that will be needed to respond to future climate
change. In the case of Atlantic City, for example, adaptation planning is critical in
order for the city to meet the sustainability challenges associated with climate
change. Located on a barrier island with only one major causeway to the mainland,
much of the city already falls within the 100-year floodplain. Plans for significant
new investment of public funds for boardwalk restoration in Atlantic City, which
are intended to help revitalize the city’s gaming industrial and overall attractive-
ness for tourists, will need to be adjusted to take into account the altered conditions
that result from climate change.
326 R. Leichenko
Feedback Double Exposure
The pathway of feedback double exposure emphasizes the relationships between

the responses and outcomes of one crisis and the drivers of another. In coastal New
Jersey, feedback double exposure is revealed through the connections between
globalization-induced development of the housing sector and patterns of energy
consumption. Much of the new development within Monmouth and Ocean Counties
over the past two decades has drawn new homeowners who commute long
distances, often by automobile, to jobs in Northern and Central New Jersey or
New York. While this type of suburban expansion is an important driver of growth
of transport and residential greenhouse gas emissions, the ongoing contraction of
the housing sector amidst the economic slowdown may present an opportunity to
alter this trend. Such a response, along the lines suggested by proponents of smart
growth and green economy, might include an emphasis on construction of green
buildings, expansion of alternative energy production, and water conservation
(Leichenko et al. 2010). In order to be effective and sustainable at the local level,
however, such efforts must incorporate adaptation planning in order to ensure resil-
ience to future shocks and stresses.
Conclusions
Dramatic economic and environmental changes are underway in locales throughout

the world. Individuals, households, communities, sectors, and regions will be con-
fronted with impacts of these changes, whether it is through shifts in investments
and sectoral upheavals, through alterations in sea level and changes in the frequency
and magnitude of extreme weather events, or some combination of both. The double
exposure framework provides sustainability scientists and others utilizing the
approach a way to move beyond descriptive statements about the scope of change,
and to more fully explain the processes and outcomes and to identify options that
take advantage of new types of synergies between the processes. The three path-
ways of double exposure not only reveal vulnerabilities to multiple stresses, but also
show ways to use the connections to make development more resilient to shocks and
stresses of all types.
For coastal New Jersey, application of the double exposure framework reinforces
the need for sustainability researchers to move beyond compartmentalized studies
of either climate change or economic development, and look at how economic and
environmental changes interact. The framework reveals that economic sectors such
as tourism, though highly adaptable and accustomed to dynamic economic condi-
tions, need to take steps to prepare for dramatic environmental shifts. In order to
meet the sustainability challenge, a key direction for future work will be to identify
ways to build upon the adaptive capacity and innovation potential of coastal indus-
tries and communities to promote resiliency of both coastal economies and socio-
ecological systems.
Acknowledgments Research for this chapter was supported by a grant from the Rutgers
University, Byrne Family First Year Seminar Program. I thank Rutgers students Dumebi Emetanjo
and Jason Hanusey for research assistance, and I thank my colleague Briaval Holcomb for helpful
discussions about the dynamics of coastal tourism in New Jersey. Portions of this chapter were
adapted from an article by Leichenko et al. (2010).
References
Acosta-Michlik L, Kumar K, Klein RJT et al (2008) Application of fuzzy models to assess suscep-
tibility to droughts from a socio-economic perspective. Reg Environ Change 8:150–161
Adger WN (1999) Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in Coastal Vietnam. World
Develop 27:249–269
Adger W, Hughes T, Folke C et al (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science
309:1036
Adger WN, Eakin H, Winkels A (2009) Nested and tele-connected vulnerabilities to environmental
change. Front Ecol Environ 7:150–157
Alley RB, Clark P, Huybrechts P et al (2005) Ice-sheet and sea-level changes. Science
310:456–460
Associated Press (2009) East coast storm damage tops $100 billion. MSNBC.com. http://www.
msnbc.msn.com/id/34016803/ns/weather/. Accessed 19 Nov 2009
Berkes F (2007) Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience
thinking. Nat Hazards 41:283–295
Eakin H (2006) Weathering risk in rural Mexico: climatic, institutional, and economic change.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson
Eakin H, Luers A (2006) Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Ann Rev
Eakin H, Wehbe M (2009) Linking local vulnerability to system sustainability in a resilience
framework: two cases from Latin America. Clim Change 93:355–377
Eriksen S, Silva J (2009) The vulnerability context of a savanna area in Mozambique: household
drought coping strategies and responses to economic change. Environ Sci Pol 12:33–52
Ernstson H, van der Leeuw S, Redman C et al (2010) Urban transitions: On urban resilience and
human-dominated ecosystems. Ambio 39:531–545
Harvey D (1990) The condition of post-modernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change.
Blackwell, Malden
Hjalager A (2007) Stages in the economic globalization of tourism. Ann Tour Res 34:437–457
Horton R, Bader D, DeGaetano A, Rosenzweig C (2011) “Climate Risks.” In New York State
ClimAID: Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in New
York State, C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, A. DeGaetano, S. Hassol, P. Grabhorn, M. O’Grady,
Eds., Annals of the NYAS, Vol. 1244, Issue 1, pp. 16–47. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06331.x.
Accessed 12 March 2011
IHS Global Insight (2009) NJ tourism: holding its own during difficult times. 2009 New Jersey
Governor’s conference on tourism
Knutson T, McBride J, Chan J et al (2010) Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nat Geosci
3:157–163. doi:10.1038/ngeo779
Leichenko R, Solecki W (2005) Exporting the American dream: the globalization of suburban
consumption landscapes. Reg Stud 39:241–253
Leichenko R, O’Brien K (2008) Environmental change and globalization: double exposures.
Leichenko R, Solecki W (2008) Consumption, inequity, and environmental justice: the making of
new metropolitan landscapes in developing countries. Soc Nat Resour 21:611–624
328 R. Leichenko
Leichenko R, O’Brien K, Solecki W (2010) Climate change and the global financial crisis: a
case of double exposure. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(4):963–972. doi:10.1080/00045608.20
10.497340
McGranahan G, Balk D, Anderson B (2007) The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change
and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ Urban 19:17–37
Nelson D, Adger WN, Brown K (2007) Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a
resilience framework. Ann Rev Environ Resour 32:395–419
Neumann J, Hudgens D, Herter J et al (2010) Assessing sea-level rise impacts: a GIS-based frame-
work and application to coastal New Jersey. Coast Manage 38:433–455
New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (2010) Central regional community
fact book: Ocean County edition
Nicholls R, Tol R, Vafeidis A (2008) Global estimates of the impact of a collapse of the West
Antarctic ice sheet: an application of FUND. Clim Chang 91:171–191
Nicholls R, Marinova N, Lowe JA et al (2011) Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a
‘beyond 4°C world’ in the twenty-first century. Philos Trans R Soc A 369:161–181
O’Brien K, Leichenko R (2000) Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change within
the context of economic globalization. Glob Environ Change 10:221–232
O’Brien K, Leichenko R, Kelkar U et al (2004) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors:
climate change and globalization in India. Glob Environ Change 14:303–313
Overpeck J, Weiss J (2009) Projections of future sea level becoming more dire. Proc Natl Acad Sci
51:21461–21462
Polsky C, Neff R, Yarnal B (2007) Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments:
the vulnerability scoping diagram. Glob Environ Change 17:472–485
Seto K, Sánchez-Rodríguez R, Fragkias M (2010) The new geography of contemporary urbaniza-
tion and the environment. Ann Rev Environ Resour 35:167–194. doi:10.1146/annurev-
environ-100809-125336
Silva JA, Eriksen S, Ombe ZA (2009) Double exposure in Mozambique’s Limpopo River Basin.
Geogr J 176:6–24
Turner B (2010) Vulnerability and resilience: coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability
science? Glob Environ Change 20:570–576. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.003
Turner BL II, Kasperson RE, Matson PA et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in
sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8074–8079
United Nations (2006) Atlas of oceans. http://www.oceansatlas.org. Accessed 12 March 2011
US Army Corp of Engineers (2010) Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. http://www.ndc.iwr.
usace.army.mil//wcsc/wcsc.htm. Accessed 12 March 2011
US Census (2000) Census of population. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC
US Census (2010) Census of population. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC
Vermeer M, Rahmstorf S (2009) Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proc Natl Acad Sci
106:21527–21532
Weaver D, Barlos T, Miller, M (2009) N.J. shore towns calculate loss from coastal storm as officials
head to region. PressofAtlanticCity.com http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/
cape_may/article_42e157b2-d2d3-11de-8e67-001cc4c03286.html. Accessed 12 March 2011
Weiss J, Overpeck J, Strauss B (2011) Implications of recent sea level rise science for low-elevation
areas in coastal cities of the conterminous USA. Clim Chang 105:635–645. doi:10.1007/
s10584-011-0024-x
Wilbanks T, Kates R (2010) Beyond adapting to climate change: embedding adaptation in responses
to multiple threats and stresses. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100:719–728
Wittkowski D (2010) Workers feel brunt of Atlantic City casino struggles as work force cut by 20
percent in five years. PressofAtlanticCity.com http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/
casinos_tourism/article_26bf755e-fffb-11df-9b54-001cc4c03286.html. Accessed 12 March 2011
Wittkowski D (2011) Atlantic City casino revenue falls nearly 10 percent in 2010, the fourth year
of declines. PressofAtlanticCity.com http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/
article_02fa0fd6-1cf1-11e0-a05c-001cc4c03286.html. Accessed 12 March 2011
Sustainability Trajectories for Urban Waters
Richard Burroughs
Abstract Improving sustainability trajectories related to the biological health of

urban waters requires enhancing the effectiveness of US nitrogen control programs
for watersheds, cities, and ocean waters. A trajectory consists of identification of
sustainability values, use of science to identify alternative solutions, selection of
means for change, and assessment of results. Nitrogen, a limiting nutrient in most
marine waters, contributes to algal blooms, declining levels of dissolved oxygen, and
changes in biodiversity when it is present in bioavailable and excess amounts. Left
unchecked nitrogen enrichment results in a regional trajectory trending away from
biological sustainability. Its impacts have been observed on local, national, and
global scales. The sustainability trajectory framework provides a novel way to view
success or failure by clarifying values promoted and the means to reach them.
Sequences of decisions related to nitrogen enrichment of New York Bight,
Narragansett Bay, and Chesapeake Bay show that positive ecological trajectories rely
upon the linkage of sustainability targets to authoritative governance techniques.
Keywords Sustainable development • Eutrophication • Sustainability trajectory

• Coastal governance
Introduction
Urban water quality reflects development. Sustaining both environment and

development requires full knowledge of the tradeoffs in play. The dimensions of
sustainability include nature, life support, and human community as well as indi-
vidual, social, and economic needs (NRC 1999). Creating a path for society based
R. Burroughs (*)
Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA
330 R. Burroughs
on an understanding of these tradeoffs may be viewed as the policy process in

action. The fundamental description and application of the policy process has
been treated extensively (Lasswell 1971; Clark 2002; Birkland 2011; Burroughs
2011). In general the policy process is a way of viewing how an issue like urban
water quality is formulated, assessed, and acted upon within society usually
through government. Since environment/development problems are not resolved
by one sequence of formulation, assessment and action, learning, subsequent
reassessment is common practice. The results of repeated sequences of problem
solving affect each of the dimensions of sustainability.
In explaining sustainability science, Kates et al. (2001) focus attention on inter-
actions between society and nature as well as “society’s capacity to guide those
interactions along more sustainable trajectories.” In the context adopted here, sus-
tainability science provides the knowledge necessary to make informed tradeoffs in
the policy process. Sustainable trajectories, proposed by Kates et al. (2001), would
result when program implementation produces positive results along some combi-
nation of the dimensions identified by NRC (1999).
This chapter expands upon sustainability trajectories and applies them to urban
waters and associated systems. In a positive sustainability trajectory, individuals in
a geographic region make decisions and implement programs that assure continuity
and improvement of one or more of the dimensions of sustainability. Trajectories
call forth the sequence of information and actions that direct human behavior in
ways that are beneficial for an identified objective or set of objectives. As will be
explained in greater detail below, the actions that make up a sustainability trajectory
may be viewed in sequence as: identification of a target and societal values related
to it, engaging science to create feasible solutions, selecting and implementing
authoritative means to meet targets, and assessing results (Fig. 1). In practice, sus-
tainability decision-making consists of moving through the sequence of steps
repeatedly as society grapples with both new information from sustainability sci-
ence and new values, which collectively create new targets. A positive trajectory has
the potential to restore biodiversity and ecosystem services while meeting individ-
ual needs, building human communities, and accumulating social capital.
Fig. 1 Sustainability trajectory. Trajectories are cumulative results of iterative decision-making

that result in enhanced or reduced sustainability of linked social and natural systems or discrete
portions of them
Sustainability Trajectories for Urban Waters 331
The flow of nitrogen through agricultural, urban, and suburban environments has
significant impacts on the development of regional economies and on the sustain-
ability of nature and life support systems in coastal waters. The linkages between
land and sea as well as social and natural systems are conclusively demonstrated by
the Mississippi River, which delivers nitrogen from agricultural lands to an oxygen
poor area of the Gulf of Mexico known as the “dead zone” (Turner and Rabalais
2003). As urban and suburban areas grow through human population increase, the
flows of nitrogen in creation and consumption of food and also in air emissions,
fertilizer, and other forms get directed to coastal waters and exact a greater toll on
them. In this situation city metabolism, as originally described by Wolman (1965)
and recently assessed across multiple urban areas (Kennedy et al. 2007; Kennedy
2012), can be managed to soften impacts on adjacent environments. City metabo-
lism consists of all the materials and commodities required to meet the needs of the
inhabitants. Nitrogen metabolism in an urban area focuses on resource consumption
and waste generation related to nitrogen with specific consideration of impacts to
marine waters. Poorly managed nitrogen flows to urban waters of the United States
have resulted in eutrophication in many areas (Scavia and Bricker 2006). Thus, the
flows of resources through urban systems can best be managed with full consider-
ation of downstream impacts in coastal environments (Weinstein 2010). To do so
requires the creation of forward-looking institutional structures that accommodate
sustainability and urban development.
Positing a sustainability trajectory for nitrogen management related to linked
urban–coastal systems in the northeastern United States sets the stage for retrospec-
tively examining decision processes. The ultimate decisions and the means used to
reach them comprise the institutional and organizational setting for sustainable
development. To present and appraise sustainability trajectories for urban waters
I will describe component parts (Fig. 1); assess anthropogenic sources and controls
of nitrogen; describe factors that control trajectories in three locations; and assess
causes for the trajectories observed.
Sustainability Trajectories
In defining sustainability science, Kates et al. (2001) noted the need to guide human–
nature interactions along sustainable trajectories. For the purpose of this analysis
redirecting human activities to pursue a more sustainable trajectory may be consid-
ered by identifying a target, supporting scientific analysis, selecting a means to
reach the target, and assessing results prior to reinitiating this sequence (Fig. 1).
First, a sustainability target and the values surrounding it must be apparent.
Targeting identifies the natural and social system or systems that are viewed to be
unsustainable and establishes the predominant values that shape the desired result.
In this example healthy coastal waters are the sustainability targets and, for the
purpose of this analysis, other values are presumed subsidiary. Fischer et al. (2007)
332 R. Burroughs
envisioned the task of management as returning the biophysical, social, and

economic system to a state that is sustainable. Nesting in this context requires that
human societies and economies fit within the capacity of the earth to support life.
This matter becomes more urgent when an ecological threshold is crossed (Lyytimaki
and Hilden 2007). In coastal waters, species shifts and fish kills signal the penetra-
tion of thresholds. So, in the context of nitrogen flows to urban waters, eutrophica-
tion is one measure of the extent to which a threshold has been exceeded and as
decisions are being made by the society they can be assessed with respect to the
extent they restore nitrogen flows to more environmentally compatible levels. In
concept, societal endorsement of the values surrounding a sustainability target, in
this case healthy coastal waters, will inform multiple decisions.
Second, sustainability science equips society with a variety of means or solutions
that are consistent with the target. Clark (2010) has characterized the main goal of
sustainability science as discovering how to improve human wellbeing while recog-
nizing its ultimate dependence on the natural environment. The challenge extends
across multiple generations and to all of humanity. A transition toward sustainabil-
ity will link goals with changes in human and environmental systems. For nitrogen,
the sustainability goal of healthy coastal waters will require changes in human
behavior such that nitrogen releases decline or their impacts become less burden-
some. Sustainability science can identify technological as well as behavioral alter-
natives to meet this objective.
The third stage of a sustainability trajectory occurs when a governance technique
is selected and implemented. It rests on the previous two steps. Sustainability sci-
ence can provide alternate solutions to reach targets but options only become reali-
ties if adopted and effectively implemented. In this idealized sequence of
considerations, sustainability science provides multiple pathways to reach the tar-
get. By comparing the predicted consequences of each approach, once implemented,
with the predominant values of the affected communities, a solution may be selected.
Solutions rest on technology change like the composting of sludge to biosolids or
biological nitrogen removal (BNR) that reduces levels in effluent discharges. At a
more fundamental level change in human diets, landscape utilization practices, and
energy sources as well as consumption levels will become increasingly important to
achieve sustainability goals. Key to all of these discussions is the political will to
change institutions, which consist of the rules, expectations, and practices that a
society uses to structure its affairs.
Finally, by evaluating the environmental and social results of repeated actions to
control nitrogen one can determine whether the combined outcomes result in a posi-
tive sustainability trajectory in biological, social, or other terms. The ideal is a set of
actions that improve the sustainability trajectory across multiple dimensions of the
concept. Deviations from the ideal trajectory are noted for adjustment in subsequent
sequences of decisions. With actions normed to the ideal trajectory, areas for
improvement can be noted so that all concerned can evaluate subsequent decisions
in the context of sustainability.
Nitrogen in Coastal Regions
During the twentieth century the global nitrogen cycle was substantially altered by
the Haber-Bosch process to produce fertilizer, nitrogen fixation through crop selec-
tion, and fossil fuel consumption (Canfield et al. 2010). Much of this activity is
related to the agricultural food chain (Jordan and Weller 1996). Since most people
live in cities, urban environments are an important focal point for the nitrogen cycle.
Cities are where most food is consumed. This role of nitrogen in city metabolism
was recognized in considering sewage treatment in cities (Wolman 1965) and has
since been assessed across several metropolitan regions (Kennedy et al. 2007).
Since ecological footprints (Wackernagel et al. 2005) incorporate the land and water
that a human population requires to produce resources and absorb wastes, the urban/
suburban areas have both an upstream and a downstream component. The upstream
consists primarily of the agricultural activities necessary to provide the food supply
for the city, which may or may not occur in the same watershed. Downstream activi-
ties, the discharge of nitrogen, extend the footprint of the city to coastal waters.
Assimilative capacity is the amount of nitrogen that can be tolerated without
causing significant damage. Eutrophication indicates that assimilative capacities of
coastal waters have been exceeded.
The transfer of reactive nitrogen from rivers to oceans has grown three- to four-
fold due to human activity. Excess nitrogen unlocks rapid phytoplankton growth,
which leads to respiration and decay, causing low oxygen in coastal waters. The
resulting anoxic or hypoxic zones are marked by much lower levels of oxygen than
would normally be expected (Rabalais and Gilbert 2009). When dissolved oxygen
in the water column drops to less than 2 mg/L, the waters are referred to as hypoxic.
When there is virtually no oxygen available, they are anoxic. These areas are known
as dead zones because many animals commonly found in coastal waters cannot
survive there.
In excess supply, nitrogen destabilizes coastal ecosystems in a variety of ways
(Nixon 1995; Diaz and Rosenberg 2008). Animals living in and on the bottom,
benthos, can be eliminated and secondary production is reduced which denies
significant amounts of food energy for fisheries production. Oxygen decline in the
water column coupled with sediment chemistry changes results in habitat compres-
sion for organisms that would normally be found in the water column or sediments.
In some instances, coastal waters become anoxic and fish kills occur. As a result,
understanding the nitrogen mass balance of a region with attention to anthropogenic
inputs has become particularly important. Assessments of nitrogen metabolism in
urban areas have been completed for Beijing (Han et al. 2011) and Stockholm
(Jansson and Colding 2007) as well as Hong Kong, Phoenix, Bangkok, and Gavle,
Sweden (Kennedy et al. 2007).
In the United States national surveys of eutrophication have been completed
(Scavia and Bricker 2006), and the northeast part of the country has received detailed
attention (Boyer et al. 2002; Howarth et al. 2002, 2006). The anthropogenic inputs
to a watershed include atmospheric nitrogen deposition, fertilizer applications,
334 R. Burroughs
fixation through agricultural practices, and the import or export of nitrogen in food,
in its production, or in animal feed. Other components include river exports to
coastal waters and the amount stored in the region. Within this larger context, much
of the food imported to a coastal city is discharged to coastal waters through sewage
treatment systems. Watersheds of the Northeast vary with respect to the sources of
nitrogen inputs (Boyer et al. 2002). In far northern New England atmospheric depo-
sition, a nonpoint source was dominant. In southern New England import of food
contributed point source discharges from sewage treatment facilities. In the mid
Atlantic region nonpoint, agricultural inputs dominate. A compilation by Alexander
et al. (2001) shows Narragansett Bay and the Hudson-Raritan systems are domi-
nated by point sources while the loads to the Chesapeake are spread across atmo-
sphere, fertilizer, livestock, and nonagricultural nonpoint sources.
The sustainability of biological systems in the watershed, estuarine waters adja-
cent to the city, and adjacent ocean waters are in many instances affected by choices
made concerning nitrogen. As such, these urban waters in close proximity to urban
populations record, for better or for worse, the growth and development of cities. In
addition since the input conditions for urban waters are determined upstream in the
watershed, the ultimate conditions found in the estuary are often influenced by dis-
charges at a distance from it. Furthermore, urban waters flow seaward. So, in sum
nitrogen flows link the watershed, the estuarine waters of the city, and adjacent
coastal marine waters. The sources of nitrogen, technological alternatives for con-
trolling it, and impacts differ by geographic area. This means that constructing a
sustainable trajectory with respect to nitrogen will utilize different governance tech-
niques depending on local circumstances. This chapter examines sustainability tra-
jectories in three different settings to understand whether iterative decision-making
has created new behaviors or institutions to reduce deleterious impacts of nitrogen
in urban settings.
New York Bight
For about a century, a location sited about 12 miles offshore in the New York Bight
served as the repository for most sludge from the New York area. Sludge from sew-
age treatment consists of slurry of nitrogen-rich organic particles and water.
Legislatively mandated increases in wastewater treatment created greater volumes
of sludge (Burroughs 1988). New York practiced ocean dumping of this material for
the longest time and ultimately delivered the largest amount of sludge to US waters.
By 1990 ocean dumping of sludge in the United States had doubled from the early
1970s level to a new total of ten million wet tons per year, and almost all of it was
dumped in New York Bight (Boesch et al. 2001).
In 1970, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality had called for a ban
on unregulated dumping of all materials and strict limitations on disposal of harmful
wastes such as sludge (CEQ 1970). At the time ocean dumping was presumed to be
a small portion of the ocean pollution problem. However, it was a specific source
with an apparent easy solution, cessation of dumping. Guidelines for limitation and
for elimination of ocean dumping emerged from the Convention of the Prevention
of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters or London Dumping
Convention and coupled with the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 set US policy in a direction toward the elimination of a variety ocean dumping
practices (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 New York/New York Bight. After almost two decades of debate, Congress banned ocean
dumping of sewage sludge, eliminating a source of nitrogen to coastal waters
Throughout the 1970s, legal ambiguities coupled with perceived higher costs for
alternatives to ocean dumping joined many municipalities in their opposition to ces-
sation of the practice. New York City was predominant among them. For a number
of years, values, law, and natural science circled ocean dumping without clear reso-
lution. Multimedia management and assimilative capacity shaped these debates.
Multimedia management argued for a scientific assessment that would identify
technical solutions and compare environmental impacts when sludge was placed on
land, in the ocean, or burned with byproducts released to the air. Ideally by compar-
ing impacts in each medium, one could select a solution that minimized total
impacts. The US National Academy of Sciences laid out the possibilities as part of
a review of US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) programs (NRC 1978).
In addition to ocean dumping, two alternatives were assessed in detail. A second
disposal alternative was incineration. However, the emissions from combustion
have proven problematic, and, even with scrubbers, it was apparent many years ago
that sludge incinerators would not meet air quality standards in many geographic
areas (NRC 1978). The third option included various ways of using the material on
336 R. Burroughs
the land. For many years, sludge has been disposed in landfills. This practice has
opened the possibility for contamination of surface or groundwater. Careful design
of approaches makes the practice viable, and many new opportunities for recycling
the nutrients on land are developing.
After the 1977 revisions of ocean dumping law, USEPA interpreted it to prohibit
dumping sludge only to find through a subsequent court decision (City of New York
vs. EPA) that the situation was complex (Moore 1992). Ultimately the court found
that EPA would have to determine if the proposed dumping would cause unreason-
able degradation, whereas EPA had proceeded on the basis that sludge by its com-
position would be unacceptable. Furthermore, the court found that economic and
environmental costs of alternatives to ocean dumping should also be weighed before
reaching a decision. These arguments reintroduced some of the thinking that had
been a part of the earlier NAS report on sludge. The comparative assessment of
environmental impacts and costs awaited definitive resolution.
Concurrently discussion about assimilative capacity, the extent to which the
ocean is an acceptable repository for certain wastes, augmented the multimedia
analysis mentioned above. Assimilative capacity implies both an assessment of
environmental impacts of the process and a determination that the biological impacts
are acceptable to the society. The latter assessment is a value judgment, which
attracted the participation of many interests within the society. Ultimately the
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) supported
continued dumping of sewage sludge in the ocean (NACOA 1981).
In 1984 USEPA designated the 106-mile sewage sludge dump site due East of
Cape May, New Jersey (USEPA 1995). Disposal began at that deep water location
in 1986 when the inshore site in New York Bight was phased out. Disposal of sludge
continued until 1992.
Ultimately the uncertainties about intent were resolved in 1988. Action by the
US Congress came after medical waste appeared on the shores of New York and
New Jersey. Professionals realized that syringes and other materials were not a part
of sewage sludge. However, the apparent level of citizen dismay about the abuse of
the ocean conflated legalized ocean dumping of sewage sludge with illegal disposal
of trash such as syringes. Pressure from tourism and environmental interests cou-
pled with additional legal exchanges was ultimately resolved through unequivocal
legislation. The US Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 made it unlawful to dump
sewage sludge in ocean waters after 1991 without paying a substantial fine. By June
30, 1992 New York, the last US city to ocean dump sludge, stopped the practice. By
2004, sludge generated at the major New York City sewage treatment facilities
was heat dried for land application out of state, and other plants in the metropolitan
region adopted composting (New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation 2006).
Several actions have been taken by coastal cities and the regulatory agencies,
primarily USEPA, in the decades since cessation of sludge dumping at sea.
Eliminating the sea as a final resting place for sludge put further pressure on land at
a time when air pollution regulations all but eliminated incineration. Conversion of
sludge into fertilizer became prominent.
This was made possible by two important transitions. First, toxic contaminants
in sludge have declined due to pretreatment, the requirement that industries remove
contaminants before discharging to the sewers. Pretreatment dramatically lowered
metals and synthetic organic chemicals in the sludge. Sludge that is too high in
these chemicals is not desirable because organisms may assimilate toxins. Secondly,
advances during the 1990s led to composting and other processing techniques that
reduced pathogens after sludge was produced. As the levels of metals, synthetic
organic chemicals, and pathogens decrease, sludge can increasingly be promoted
as a biosolid with many potential applications. By the late 1990s, approximately
6.9 million tons of biosolids were produced annually in the United States, and
about 60% were recycled on land. The USEPA projects that the total amount of
biosolids will rise (USEPA 1999). Typical reuse includes land application, com-
posting, and landfill cover.
Thus, the nitrogen flow formerly directed to New York Bight as sewage sludge
has been stopped through federal legislation and most of the material is now dried
and/or composted and applied to land outside of New York. While this action was
undertaken quite apart from any overt consideration of sustainability, it illustrates
an ability to alter human behavior in ways that benefit coastal waters and recy-
cling. It culminates almost three decades of decisions during which both the
underlying science and the values of society shifted. In the context of sustainabil-
ity trajectories as defined here (Fig. 1), value and target shifts overwhelmed the
more nuanced natural science arguments of NRC and NACOA. In effect Congress
prioritized protection of coastal waters while at the same time air quality regula-
tions limited incineration. Land application in various forms emerged as the alter-
native of choice, and the diversion of sludge away from New York Bight has
resulted in more sustainable coastal waters and potentially more efficient fertiliza-
tion of plants.
Upper Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Nitrogen flows to upper Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island through rivers and direct
discharges by sewage treatment plants. While the circumstances are different—
point source effluent in Rhode Island vs. ocean dumping of sludge in New York—
each raises the question of the capacity and means of the society to make decisions
that result in more sustainable coastal waters.
Wastewater treatment reduces the flow of nitrogen to coastal waters (Mueller and
Anderson 1983; Tchobanoglous and Schroeder 1987; Laws 2000). When the waste-
water enters the sewage treatment plant physical, chemical, and biological processes
reduce pathogens and remove noxious materials. Physical separation reduces the
levels of first inorganic and then organic particles in the waste stream. At the end of
primary treatment, 50–60% of the suspended solids have been removed from the
water. Because these particles, if released to coastal waters, would be degraded by
338 R. Burroughs
bacteria, thereby consuming oxygen and releasing nitrogen in the water, successful
primary treatment reduces some of the problem of hypoxia, or low oxygen, in
coastal waters. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), the use of oxygen in degrading
wastes, is reduced by approximately 35% after primary treatment.
Secondary treatment involves the breakdown of organic particles that remain
in the effluent from primary treatment by creating conditions for bacteria to use
the particles as a source of food. To accomplish this, the secondary treatment
tank is inoculated with sludge containing the bacteria and provided with air to
deliver oxygen for the bacteria. Under these conditions, the large supply of fine
organic particles from primary treatment is degraded. After the bacteria grow,
secondary sedimentation or clarification separates the microbial mass from the
water by allowing the material to settle to the bottom of the tank, where it is
drawn off as sludge. After primary and secondary treatment, 85–90% of the sus-
pended solids have been removed along with a similar amount of the BOD
(Mueller and Anderson 1983). Metals (e.g., copper, nickel, and cadmium) if
present, most commonly reside with the organic particles. Therefore, collecting
the particles as sludge can reduce the metal levels in the liquid waste stream by
as much as 65%.
After secondary treatment and disinfection effluent waters discharged to the
upper Bay still contain nitrogen. Adding nitrogen to marine waters can result in
growth of algae and eutrophication. In upper Narragansett Bay summertime low
dissolved oxygen in bottom waters has been linked with deleterious biological
changes (Saarman et al. 2008; Deacutis 2008). Low oxygen events in bottom waters
appear to be associated with weak neap tides when the water column is well
stratified. These episodic occurrences are also influenced by earlier freshwater flows
and are most common in the mid to late summer. One time series shows dips below
2.0 mg/L but no indication of anoxia (Saarman et al. 2008). Algal blooms and
changes in benthic populations have been attributed to excess nutrient delivery to
Bay waters (Deacutis 2008). Over time the form has shifted to dissolved inorganic
nitrogen, which is readily assimilated by plants, and the amount of benthic regen-
eration has been documented (Fulweiler et al. 2010).
Since nitrogen delivery to the estuary can occur from multiple sources, and the
control of each resulting from different management mechanisms, understanding
sources and pathways are particularly important. When and how to insist on tertiary
treatment of wastewater, one management approach, is a difficult and contentious
activity (Fig. 3). It can also be very costly to implement. Tertiary treatment requires
additional processing time and tank capacity because in the commonly used BNR
process additional anoxic processing is necessary to liberate the nitrogen and release
it as a gas to the atmosphere. Secondary treatment typically removes 10–30% of the
nitrogen in wastewater whereas tertiary treatment can remove 80–95% (Mueller and
Anderson 1983).
Fig. 3 Providence/Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Administrative actions invoking total maxi-
mum daily load (TMDL) coupled with state law ultimately required biological nitrogen removal to
reduce loading to the estuary
The total maximum daily load (TMDL) provisions of the US Clean Water Act
give the federal EPA and states considerable latitude in requiring additional treat-
ment for point sources if a contaminant is deemed in excess in coastal waters
(Houck 2002). The Act recognizes that legally mandated secondary treatment
technology, while positive, may not succeed in raising ambient water quality to a
level suitable for uses that citizens may expect and prefer. In short, the legally man-
dated technology-based approach does not assure all the uses people find desirable.
To address this, section 303(d) of the US Clean Water Act requires identification of
the contaminants responsible for low water quality. The process consists of identi-
fying which low quality waters require attention, noting the load of the suspect
contaminant that can be tolerated, and creating the means to reduce that load. In
coastal waters, where nitrogen is the culprit, the TMDL approach is particularly
important because of its purported role in establishing the total load and amounts of
the contaminant that will be allowed from individual point and nonpoint sources.
Unfortunately, a scientifically sound TMDL has not been completed for the upper
Narragansett Bay nitrogen.
Nonetheless, after a gubernatorial commission reported its analysis in 2004 the
Governor directed a removal of 40–50% of the nitrogen from treatment facilities
discharging to the upper Bay. A state law mandated similar reductions. Nonpoint
sources were not addressed through these actions. Through the Clean Water Act,
the USEPA and state environmental agencies have directed the dischargers to
reduce nitrogen concentrations to 5 mg/L in some cases. Additional reductions may
be considered. This administrative authority stems from the periodic renewal of
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits and reductions required
340 R. Burroughs
by the federal program appear consistent with declarations by the state legislature
and Governor.
Tertiary treatment can reduce the amount of nitrogen in treatment plant
effluents. Narragansett Bay Commission plants will biologically convert nitrogen
in the effluent to nitrogen gas through the BNR process (Water Environment
Federation 2006).
Ultimately through the national pollution discharge permit renewal process, the
two largest sewage treatment plants on Narragansett Bay adopted BNR to meet the
lower nitrogen discharge limit. The sewage treatment plants in question contributed
28% of the total nitrogen load to the Bay in one recent compilation (Nixon et al.
2008). To the extent that nitrogen in effluent from these facilities is responsible for
eutrophication of the upper Bay, this reduction in loading was deemed to ultimately
result in higher water quality and hence a more sustainable estuarine system.
These administrative actions have two consequences on sustainability. First, the
reduction in nitrogen should result in fewer hypoxic events and more sustainable
ecosystems. Second, the costs of reducing nitrogen are spread across many urban
poor in a local economy struggling to recover from a steep recession, which raises
equity issues. In summary, critical institutional changes related to sustainability of
biological systems in coastal waters came through administrative processes under the
US Clean Water Act backed by state law. Implementation rests on BNR technology to
be added at major sewage treatment plants.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
In Chesapeake Bay, nonpoint sources of nitrogen dominate. They constitute a dis-

tinctly different management challenge in geographic extent and governance com-
plexity. Success depends on collaboration among many political units. Addressing
the problem requires altering agricultural and other practices that spread out over
the land portions of a large watershed. Furthermore to be effective, actions must be
coordinated. Regional solutions for watersheds and coastal areas occur when the
involved parties agree on the need to resolve an environmental problem and believe
that a comprehensive management system will ultimately benefit them. In this
multi-jurisdictional setting, problems require new administrative structures. In fact,
the ability to create and implement effective regional control processes is at the core
of enhancing the sustainability of biological systems in the Bay.
For more than two centuries, states abutting the Chesapeake have negotiated
regional arrangements to advance mutual interests. In a 1785 compact, Virginia
gave free access to the Bay for ships headed to Maryland and both states stipulated
that their citizens could navigate the Potomac (Capper et al. 1983). By the early
twentieth century, pollution affecting oysters had been a significant concern for a
number of years. The US Congress authorized a study, and with the assistance of
health officials from both states, reports on the Potomac and the Bay were published
in 1916. Years later in 1963 the Public Health Service initiated a project that spanned
water quality issues for the Susquehanna River and the Bay. It noted the need for a
basin-wide framework for water quality management decisions and called attention
to enrichment of Bay waters as a source of the problems (Capper et al. 1983). The
formation in 1940 and revision in 1970 of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin as well as the creation in 1970 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact
are precursors to the current Chesapeake Bay Commission.
In 1975 the US Congress directed the USEPA to conduct an extensive study of
Chesapeake Bay, which initiated a series of actions concerning the water body
(Fig. 4). At the time many felt that a better understanding of the natural system could
establish a foundation for cleaning up the Bay. Contemporary scientific diagnoses
identified nonpoint sources as the major cause of nitrogen flow to the Bay, and the
work that led up to those conclusions began with the 7-year USEPA study (Boesch
and Goldman 2009; Burroughs 2011).
Fig. 4 Chesapeake Watershed/Bay. Attempts at implementing nonpoint source controls practices

through existing law remain inconclusive after decades
In 1978, the Maryland-Virginia Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory

Commission reinvigorated a bi-state approach to the Bay. Negotiations between the
states over fisheries had extended back many decades. However, this committee
signaled that although the mechanism might be similar, the objective was expanded
to include environmental quality. The Legislative Advisory Commission recom-
mended the formation of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which was established
in 1980. In 1985, Pennsylvania joined Virginia and Maryland on the Commission
and with that change each state had five state legislators serving in addition to citi-
zens and state government officials. The Commission advises the legislative
branches in the states and serves as the legislative arm of the USEPA Chesapeake
Bay Program. The Commission was and is the predominant regional management
body for the bay.
342 R. Burroughs
In 1983 the governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the mayor of the
District of Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the admin-
istrator of USEPA signed a Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Because recently com-
pleted scientific studies of the Bay had shown a decline in the living resources,
observers felt that cooperation among EPA and the states was necessary to fully
address pollutants entering the Bay. The agreement became the foundation of a new
structure that allowed multiple governmental entities to collaboratively address bay/
watershed environmental problems. The agreement established the Chesapeake
Executive Council to oversee activities to improve water quality and living resources
of the Bay. The 1983 agreement also created an implementation committee and
called for a liaison office at the USEPA facility in Annapolis, Maryland (Chesapeake
Bay Program). Following the 1983 agreement, numerous state initiatives were
undertaken to manage land and resources in concert with the regional objectives
(Costanza and Greer 1995).
Over time the Chesapeake Executive Council became committed to restoring
and protecting the Bay and by 1987 selected eight goals to do so. At this point, the
parties had begun the process of identifying activities to restore the Bay.
Furthermore, by seeking to manage the impacts of human population growth and
land development while restoring living resources and habitats, they firmly con-
nected land and sea. Most dramatically they sought to implement “a basin-wide
strategy to equitably achieve by the year 2000 at least a 40% reduction of the nitro-
gen and phosphorous entering the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay” as the means
of reducing hypoxia (Chesapeake Bay Agreement 1987). This objective, which
was not implemented, required a robust program to alter land use and reduce point
discharges.
In 1987 the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program was authorized through changes
in the Clean Water Act, which assured annual consideration for federal funds. In
specific, the law directed that EPA coordinate efforts to improve water quality
through the Chesapeake Bay Program. This action by Congress further legitimized
and empowered the solutions that the scientists and stakeholders from the Bay and
its watersheds had selected. Grants to states would be a primary way of delivering
the program.
In 1992, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was amended to focus on tributaries to
the Bay as a means of implementing the nutrient reductions proposed in 1987. Nitrogen
reductions were to be monitored through the distribution of submerged aquatic vege-
tation. Tributary strategies instead of the TMDL approach in the Clean Water Act
would identify the means to reduce nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay through
use of best management practices (Hassett et al. 2005). Preferred practices included
forest buffers, changes in agriculture, and retention/purification of storm water. In
agriculture fertilization practices can be altered, cover crops can be planted, and
planting may occur with minimal soil disturbance. Furthermore, signatories identified
air deposition of nitrogen as an additional factor that should be considered.
A 2000 agreement affirmed previous goals and in some cases identified actions
required to meet them. The signatories reemphasized land-use practices by setting
goals for permanently preserving from development 20% of the land area in the
watershed and by reducing sprawl by 30% through a variety of means. At that time
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia were participants
and brought with them innumerable county and local governments. Furthermore, an
organizational entity that involved the states and the USEPA, the Chesapeake
Executive Council, had been established. So at a minimum, coordinated manage-
ment on a watershed/bay scale involved seven units at the federal level, four at the
state level, two cross-state and federal coordinating entities, and innumerable county
and local governments.
In 2003, the release of Chesapeake Bay Blues marked a shift to focusing on the
politics of Bay restoration (Ernst 2003). Ernst (2003) reasoned that divided govern-
ments in a system structured to favor economic concerns would favor interest groups
that apply financial and other resources to influence political deliberations. He tar-
geted agricultural industries that are primary contributors of nonpoint source nitro-
gen to the Chesapeake. Given the circumstance where industrial groups were most
powerful, he observed that environmental groups were unable to be effective which
accounted for the impoverished condition of the Bay. In late 2008 a meeting of
scientists, politicians, and policy analysts concluded that voluntary and collabora-
tive structure of the Bay Program was inadequate (Ernst 2010). They advocated a
regulatory program with enforceable measures for controlling nitrogen. The failed
political structure was deemed to be at the core of the problem, and ultimately the
ineffectual tributaries strategy of the 1990s was replaced by a return to the TMDL
approach originally specified in the US Clean Water Act.
In 2009, President Obama ordered seven federal agencies to conduct their activi-
ties consistent with objectives for the watershed by establishing a Federal Leadership
Committee for the Chesapeake Bay to oversee the development of programs and
their implementation (Obama 2009). Chesapeake Bay policy has been redesigned
several times, and the current TMDL requires an additional reduction of the 2009
nitrogen load (USEPA 2010). Point sources had been the principal focus for previ-
ous reductions in nitrogen. Technological solutions to reduce point source nitrogen
loads are available and periodic reissuance of permits under the Clean Water Act
makes regulatory implementation of nitrogen discharges feasible. In contrast, non-
point sources as covered by section 303 of the law rest on far less authoritative
means. The new arrangements target nonpoint sources and are enormously com-
plex. At the federal level those departments or agencies operating primarily on land
(Agriculture, Interior), in coastal lands and waters (USEPA, and Departments of
Defense, Homeland Security and Transportation) and primarily in coastal waters
(Department of Commerce) need to operate in an environmentally coherent manner.
Nitrogen matters were to receive increased attention by the Department of
Agriculture and the USEPA. USDA was to reduce nutrient loads by concentrating
on selected federal programs in priority counties (Executive Order 13508, section
401). This horizontal division of bay and watershed management obligations across
agencies was further complicated by the vertical governance dimension, which
extended management from federal to state, county, and local governments. The
ability to act—even in a limited form—would require substantial political will and
great skill on the part of the administrators.
344 R. Burroughs
Monitoring change has been particularly important with respect to oxygen levels
in bottom waters of the Bay. To reduce hypoxia, action must be taken throughout
the watershed and airshed. So this one measure becomes a way to evaluate both
the ability of the Chesapeake Bay Commission to influence human behavior
and the extent to which the low oxygen problem has been resolved. The results for
the Chesapeake have not been good: agriculture continues to be a significant source
of excess nitrogen. Ernst (2003) found that in the decades after the nutrient problem
was originally noted and attributed to nonpoint sources agricultural interests have
hamstrung efforts to address what he refers to as the Bay’s primary environmental
hazard. This finding amplifies other critiques that found limited restoration of dis-
solved oxygen levels, crabs, oysters, and other Bay systems.
Monitoring the natural environment for over 2 decades indicated little progress
in restoring the Chesapeake (Williams et al. 2010). Chlorophyll-a, dissolved oxy-
gen, and secchi depth, indicators of nitrogen enrichment have shown little improve-
ment. Some have worsened. Fortunately, a reduction of nitrogen loads from sewage
treatment plants in some tributaries have been linked to increasing submerged
aquatic vegetation in those locations (Williams et al. 2010). Various reasons account
for the lack of improvement. Evaluations have pointed to a lack of coordination,
particularly between management of agriculture and suburban development
(USEPA 2006, 2007; US Government Accountability Office 2008). Agriculture
and urbanization of the watershed, targets of the tributaries approach in the 1992
agreement, have proven particularly difficult to address because of lack of political
will. As a result the Bay remains in an apparently stable, yet degraded state (Boesch
and Goldman 2009).
By 2010, a lack of significant water quality improvement and a redefinition of
the problem forced EPA to return to TMDLs as the method for effective implemen-
tation. Originally established under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amend-
ments of 1972, the TMDL process called for states to identify waters where nonpoint
sources were problematic and adopt means to control them. More specifically, the
Act called for the determination of acceptable load by a contaminant and then the
partitioning of that load between point and nonpoint sources with the ultimate goal
of controlling both. In the Chesapeake, the nonpoint source load of nitrogen pre-
dominates. But as Houck (2002) and others have demonstrated, weak authority to
control nonpoint sources has left success in doubt.
In late 2010, the USEPA completed a TMDL plan for the watershed and Bay
(USEPA 2010). The goal of the current Chesapeake Bay TMDL is to reduce the
annual flux of nitrogen to bay waters by 25%. USEPA requires that reductions
identified for each state by the federal government will result in local area targets
consistent with the state limits. To compel success the agency appears willing to
expand coverage of and tighten requirements on point sources, increase federal
enforcement actions, prohibit new discharges, limit grants, and revise federal water
quality standards. Each of these measures may be viewed as a way to offset the
limited authority for nonpoint sources available under the law.
To the extent that the biological sustainability trajectory of Bay waters is deter-
mined by nitrogen reductions, results are inadequate as viewed from almost every
perspective. The Chesapeake is both a science-rich and a conflict-rich situation.

Many of the additional nitrogen reductions will have to come from nonpoint sources.
However, the identified TMDL approach has shown limited success when applied
elsewhere. Furthermore to the extent that both the failed tributary strategy and the
proposed TMDL strategy require voluntary action, the fate of the latter seems prob-
lematic. The importance of nonpoint sources in the Chesapeake coupled with weak
institutional structure to deal with them makes progress toward more sustainable
biological systems in the Bay uncertain.
Conclusions
Sustainability trajectories provide a useful perspective from which to view social

change. The approach requires the consideration of values, choices, solutions, and
most importantly institutions. Trajectories record the net effects, which can be posi-
tive or negative, of repeated choices related to environment and development.
Coastal governance is an iterative process through which issues like nitrogen enrich-
ment are repeatedly revisited. As a result, it is possible to examine the issues that
arise as society grapples with the problem in different places and multiple times.
Sustainability ultimately relies on the ability to create, adopt, and implement new
governance systems with new values and approaches. Information from the natural
sciences about the state of the environment is but one dimension of sustainability,
which goes a long way to explain why it is persuasive in some but not all situations.
Since the goal requires new combinations of actions to advance sustainability and
development, it ultimately rests on new sets of rules. As a result the ultimate test of
a positive sustainability trajectory is the ability of a society to design, adopt, and
implement new ways of governing human behavior that are consistent with the new
goals. Positive sustainability trajectories are built on institutional changes that sup-
port new governance systems. Each of the cases is a test of a region’s ability to cre-
ate new governance systems consistent with sustainability of biological systems in
coastal waters.
In the New York Bight, dumping of sewage sludge elicited growing debate
through the 1970s and 1980s. The discussion revolved around concepts like unrea-
sonable degradation and balancing that were elaborated through increasingly
detailed natural science. However, the underlying values argument could not be
resolved by more detailed understanding of biophysical systems and disputes fre-
quently landed in the courts. As a result dumping practices continued albeit with
modifications. Following the arrival of medical waste at ocean facing beaches in the
New York area, an occurrence which was erroneously linked to sludge dumping in
the public mind, the US Congress acted to ban ocean dumping and more effectively
deal with medical waste. Passage of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 clarified
the values and suspended further dumping of sewage sludge. Since ocean disposal
ceased to be an option, municipalities generating sludge converted more of it to a
biosolid, which could be recycled. Together, the actions could ideally result in more
346 R. Burroughs
sustainable coastal waters and agricultural systems as the nitrogen was transferred
to where its impacts could be positive.
In upper Narragansett Bay, the means for change rested on a combination of new
technology as well as the legal and administrative actions that required its applica-
tion. A variety of sources deliver nitrogen to the upper Bay with the consequence of
low oxygen events occurring usually late summer under specific physical condi-
tions. Through various provisions of the Clean Water Act, federal and state environ-
mental agencies demanded significant reductions of nitrogen in effluents from the
major sewage treatment plants. A combination of administrative agency demands
and state law made nitrogen removal a requirement in advance of convincingly
completing a TMDL analysis for nitrogen in the upper Bay. By selecting BNR
technologies and installing them, sewage treatment plants in the upper bay will soon
be releasing far less nitrogen. This change should reduce episodic oxygen declines
in the upper Bay and may reduce primary production and higher-level production in
the lower Bay. In this setting, administratively mandated technological change sup-
ported by state law will result in more sustainable coastal waters along selected
dimensions.
In the Chesapeake Bay persistent problems with low oxygen have been linked to
nitrogen, most of which comes from atmospheric pollution, chemical fertilizer, and
animal waste. The latter two are tied to the large amount of agricultural production
in the watershed. Utilizing current management techniques for nonpoint sources is
far more difficult, both technically and politically, than controlling nitrogen flows
through point sources. Increasingly elaborate natural science conducted over
decades at costs of hundreds of millions of dollars has refined understanding of the
scientific and technical issues, but it has not resulted in new institutions that sub-
stantially limit nonpoint sources. Since values remain contested, the political will to
create authoritative means to limit nonpoint sources have not been forthcoming. At
present the initiatives to do so rest on a 2009 Executive Order and a more recent
TMDL approach for the Bay. Federal agencies responding to the Executive Order
have limited authority and, at times, the will to address the problem, and in other
settings when the TMDL process has been contested, progress has been limited.
The predominance of nonpoint sources in the Chesapeake makes creating more
sustainable biological systems unlikely unless values are clarified and authoritative
governance systems are created.
Viewing nitrogen flows to urban waters from the perspective of sustainability
trajectories exposes several dimensions of the problem. First, the technological
solutions invoked to date provide solutions that, while useful, are only partial.
Effective control of nitrogen flows will require far more effective means to limit
leakage from agricultural and other uses of the watershed and airshed. Both cost
and equity concerns may limit further nitrogen reductions at point sources.
Additional solutions may lie in changing human diets to be less nitrogen intensive
so that watershed sources are reduced and by changing city metabolism to soften
downstream nitrogen impacts. The latter may include some form of cap and trade.
Second, the relationship between sustainability science and political will faces
major challenges when powerful interests are opposed to change. This is most
clearly illustrated in the conflict between agricultural and water quality interests
in the Chesapeake Bay, but it also occurs elsewhere. Where values are contested
and interests strong, additional information about the environment may not lead to
meaningful action. Third, sustainability trajectories as described here may be
optimized for any of several dimensions that range from the natural to the social
and economic. In absence of accepted and predominant values, trajectories can
become double-edged swords that advance one dimension of sustainability at the
expense of others. In upper Narragansett Bay, the urban poor will pay higher
wastewater treatment bills to improve water quality, which raises equity issues.
Finally, in situations where values are clear and solutions are known, the creation
of appropriate institutions becomes paramount. Ultimately selecting and imple-
menting authoritative means to meet targets determines whether a sustainability
trajectory will be positive or negative. For New York and Rhode Island, legislative
and administrative means to create new governance systems were forthcoming.
The circumstance in the Chesapeake remains uncertain. As matters of sustainabil-
ity before the society become more urgent, institutional design in circumstances
where values remain contested will rapidly grow in importance.
References
Alexander R, Smith R, Schwartz G et al (2001) Atmospheric nitrogen flux from the watersheds of
major estuaries of the United States: an application of the SPARROW watershed model. In:
Valigura R, Alexander R, Castro M et al (eds) Nitrogen loading in coastal water bodies: an
atmospheric perspective. American Geophysical Union, Washington
Birkland T (2011) An introduction to the policy process. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk
Boesch D, Goldman E (2009) Chesapeake Bay, USA. In: McLeod K, Leslie H (eds) Ecosystem-
based management for the oceans. Island Press, Washington
Boesch D, Burroughs R, Baker J et al (2001) Marine pollution in the United States. Pew Oceans
Commission, Arlington
Boyer E, Goodale C, Jaworski N et al (2002) Anthropogenic nitrogen sources and relationships to
riverine nitrogen export in the northeastern U.S.A. Biogeochemistry 57(58):137–169
Burroughs R (1988) Ocean dumping: information and policy development in the USA. Mar Policy
12:96–104
Burroughs R (2011) Coastal governance. Island Press, Washington
Canfield D, Glazer A, Falkowski P (2010) The evolution and future of Earth’s nitrogen cycle.
Science 330:192–196
Capper J, Power G, Shivers F (1983) Chesapeake waters: pollution, public health, and public opin-
ion, 1607–1972. Tidewater Publishers, Centreville
Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987, www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12510.
pdf; last accessed on April 10, 2011
Chesapeake Bay Commission. History of the commission, http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/history.
html; undated, last accessed on April 10, 2011
Chesapeake Bay Program, www.chesapeakebay.net; undated, last accessed April 10, 2011
Chesapeake Executive Council, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/exec.htm; last accessed on April
10, 2011
Clark T (2002) The policy process: a practical guide for natural resource professionals. Yale
University Press, New Haven
348 R. Burroughs
Clark W (2010) Sustainable development and sustainability science. In: Levin S, Clark WC (eds)
Toward a science of sustainability. Princeton University, Princeton
Costanza R, Greer J (1995) The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed: a model for sustainable
ecosystem management? In: Holling C, Light S, Gunderson L (eds) Barriers and bridges to the
renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York
Council on Environmental Quality (1970) Ocean dumping: a national policy. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC
Deacutis C (2008) Evidence of ecological impacts from excess nutrients in upper Narragansett
Bay. In: Desbonnet A, Costa-Pierce B (eds) Science for ecosystem-based management:
Narragansett Bay in the 21st century. Springer, New York
Diaz R, Rosenberg R (2008) Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems.
Science 321:926–929
Ernst H (2003) Chesapeake Bay blues: science politics, and the struggle to save the Bay. Rowman
& Littlefield, Lanham
Ernst H (2010) Fight for the Bay: why a dark green environmental awakening is needed to save the
Chesapeake Bay. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham
Fischer J, Manning A, Steffen W et al (2007) Mind the sustainability gap. Trends Ecol Evol
22:621–624
Fulweiler R, Nixon S, Buckley B (2010) Spatial and temporal variability of benthic oxygen demand
and nutrient regeneration in an anthropogenically impacted New England estuary. Estuar Coast
33:1377–1390
Government Accountability Office (2008) Chesapeake Bay program: recent actions are positive
steps toward more effectively guiding the restoration effort. GAO-08-1033T, Washington, DC
Han Y, Li X, Nan Z (2011) Net anthropogenic nitrogen accumulation in Beijing metropolitan
region. Environ Sci Pollut Res 18:485–496
Hassett B, Palmer M, Bernhardt E et al (2005) Restoring watersheds project by project: trends in
Chesapeake Bay tributary restoration. Front Ecol Environ 3:259–267
Houck O (2002) The Clean Water Act TMDL program: law, policy, and implementation.
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC
Howarth R, Boyer E, Pabich W et al (2002) Nitrogen use in the United States from 1961-2000 and
potential future trends. Ambio 31:88–96
Howarth R, Swaney D, Boyer E et al (2006) The influence of climate on average nitrogen export
from large watersheds in the northeastern United States. Biogeochemistry 79:163–186
Jansson A, Colding J (2007) Tradeoffs between environmental goals and urban development: the
case of nitrogen load from the Stockholm County to the Baltic Sea. Ambio 36:650–656
Jordan T, Weller D (1996) Human contributions to terrestrial nitrogen flux. Bioscience
46:655–664
Kates R, Clark WC, Corell C et al (2001) Environment and development: sustainability science.
Science 292:641–642
Kennedy C (2012) A mathematical description of urban metabolism. In: Weinstein MP, Eugene
Turner R (eds) Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and the urban environment.
Springer, New York
Kennedy C, Cuddihy J, Engel-Yan J (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. J Ind Ecol
11:43–59
Lasswell H (1971) A pre-view of the policy sciences. American Elsevier Publishing Company,
New York
Laws EA (2000) Aquatic pollution: an introductory text, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
Lyytimaki J, Hilden M (2007) Thresholds of sustainability: policy challenges of regime shifts in
coastal areas. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 3:61–69
Moore SJ (1992) Troubles in the high seas: a new era in the regulation of U.S. ocean dumping.
Environ Law 22:913–951
Mueller J, Anderson A (1983) Municipal sewage systems. In: Myers E, Harding E (eds) Ocean
disposal of municipal wastewater: impacts on the coastal environment, vol 1. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981) The role of the ocean
in a waste management strategy. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
National Research Council (1978) Multi-medium management of municipal sludge. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington
National Research Council (1999) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability.
National Academy Press, Washington
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2006) Biosolids management in
New York State, www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/bioreprt.pdf; last accessed on
April 2, 2011
Nixon S (1995) Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future concerns.
Ophelia 41:199–219
Nixon S, Buckley B, Granger S et al (2008) Nitrogen and phosphorous inputs to Narragansett Bay:
past, present, and future. In: Desbonnet A, Costa-Pierce B (eds) Science for ecosystem-based
management: Narragansett Bay in the 21st century. Springer, New York
Obama B (2009) Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration. Executive Order 13508
Rabalais N, Gilbert D (2009) Distribution and consequences of hypoxia. In: Urban E, Sundy B,
Malanotte-Rizzoli P et al (eds) Watersheds, bays, and bounded seas: the science and manage-
ment of semi-enclosed marine systems. Island Press, Washington, DC
Saarman E, Prell W, Murray D et al (2008) Summer bottom water dissolved oxygen in upper
Narragansett Bay. In: Desbonnet A, Costa-Pierce B (eds) Science for ecosystem-based man-
agement: Narragansett Bay in the 21st century. Springer, New York
Scavia D, Bricker S (2006) Coastal eutrophication assessment in the United States. Biogeochemistry
79:187–208
Tchobanoglous G, Schroeder E (1987) Water quality: characteristics, modeling, modification.
Addison-Wesley, Reading
US Environmental Protection Agency (1995) Monitoring, research, and surveillance of the 106-
mile deepwater municipal dump site and environs. EPA, EPA 842-R-95-001, Washington, DC
US Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Biosolids generation, use, and disposal in the United
States. EPA, EPA 530-R-99-09, Washington, DC
US Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Saving the Chesapeake Bay watershed requires bet-
ter coordination of environmental and agricultural resources. EPA, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-
P-00004, Washington, DC
US Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Development growth outpacing progress in watershed
efforts to restore Chesapeake Bay. EPA, EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00031, Washington, DC
US Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Final Chesapeake Bay TMDL. http://www.epa.gov/
reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.html; last accessed on February 4, 2011
Turner RE, Rabalais N (2003) Linking landscape and water quality in the Mississippi River basin
for 200 years. Bioscience 53:563–572
Wackernagel, M, Monfreda C, Moran D et al. (2005) National footprint and biocapacity accounts
2005: the underlying calculation method. www.footprintnetwork.org; last accessed on
December 7, 2011
Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers (2006) Biological
Nutrient Removal (BNR) operation in wastewater treatment plants. McGraw-Hill, New York
Weinstein MP (2010) Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and the ecology of cities.
Sustain Sci Pract Policy 6:1–5
Williams M, Filoso S, Longstaff B et al (2010) Long-term trends of water quality and biotic met-
rics in Chesapeake Bay: 1986 to 2008. Estuar Coast 33:1279–1299
Wolman A (1965) The metabolism of cities. Sci Amer 213:179–190
Part V
Restoring and Rehabilitating Ecosystems:
Return from the Precipice
There are many criteria for restoring degraded ecosystems, but they can be collec-
tively distributed across a spectrum ranging from science-based restoration ecology
to society-based ecological restoration. The differences are not trivial and may lead
to widely varying goals for the restoration effort. Because nature and ecosystems
are historically and culturally contingent ideas, Higgs (1997) also suggests that there
is no one single, fixed, correct restoration for any particular site, although structure,
composition, and function criteria may provide tight guidelines for success of the
project. By Higgs’ standards, the definition of good ecological restoration is rooted
in ecological fidelity, but will also benefit from an expanded context (especially in
setting goals and outcomes) by including societal values (economic efficiency and
social, historical, political, moral, and aesthetic). The cultural element is also criti-
cal, not only because incorporating societal values enhances public acceptance of
restoration and improves its chances of success, but also because virtually all lands
have been influenced by human presence. Thus, the fabric of restoration is at once
driven by ecological criteria (restore ecosystem function), as well as the likelihood
that restoration end points may be something less than pristine, but societally accept-
able. The traditional view of restoration as activities carried out on a site-by-site
basis should give way to one where restoration occurs on a landscape scale and is an
important component of regional planning.
Reference
Higgs ES (1997) What good is ecological restoration? Conserv Biol 11:338–348

Reversing Two Centuries of Wetland
Degradation: Can Science Better
Inform Policy and Practice?
Michael P. Weinstein, Steven Y. Litvin, and Michael G. Frisk
Abstract Perhaps more than any other ecotone, the land–water interface has been
“reclaimed” solely for human uses—living space, ports and harbors, and agricul-
ture—essentially extirpating other goods and services that these ecosystems pro-
vide. Although the importance of ecosystem services associated with wetland
transition zones has been increasingly recognized in the past 60 years, the approach
to “restoration” and “rehabilitation” has largely lacked scientific rigor. The status of
coastal wetland restoration science is discussed herein with specific attention to
design criteria that attempt to restore wetland functions and ecological fidelity.
Methods for better integration of restoration science and practice to inform policy,
and the quantification of restored functions are described within the context of three
case histories.
Keywords Restoration ecology • Linking structure with function • Essential fish

habitat • Case histories
M.P. Weinstein (*)

PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies, Montclair State University, Mallory Hall 116E,
Montclair, NJ 07043, USA
S.Y. Litvin
Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Oceanview Boulevard,
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3094, USA
M.G. Frisk
School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University,
Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
354 M.P. Weinstein et al.
Introduction
It is an open question whether ecosystem management will become a passing fad, an expan-
sion of rigid bureaucratic procedures, or a sustaining foundation for learning to deal with
interactions between people, nature, and economic activities (Holling 1996).
Restoration ecology straddles the interface of sustainability science and the rec-
onciliation of human use of natural resources with the planet’s ability to provide
them. As the debate continues over whether humans have “escaped” the domination
of natural laws or are still subject to them, Cairns (2000) expressed the concern that
no matter how robust the science and technology of restoration ecology becomes,
the science must enjoy societal acceptance of its dependence on ecosystem services
as part of society’s life support system. Unless this acceptance comes about, Cairns
warns that the data will not be collected at the scale necessary to advance the sci-
ence of restoration, and its development in a sustainability science framework will
be hampered.
Restoration ecology also manages for change, fosters biodiversity and empha-
sizes the return of system functions, and goods and services to degraded ecosystems.
An ecocentric framework for restoration is, therefore, an essential component of a
transformation to global sustainability (Jackson and Hobbs 2009). Because humans
dominate virtually all landscapes, the practice partially focuses on restoring ecosys-
tem functions (e.g., flood storage capacity or storm buffering), that are not neces-
sarily a return to “naturalness” (Stanturf et al. 2001; Weinstein and Reed 2005).
The science of restoration ecology also includes a body of theory for repairing
damaged ecosystems (Palmer et al. 1997; Falk et al. 2006) and as these authors
comment “the time is ripe for basic researchers to ask if current ecological theory
is adequate for establishing the principles of restoration ecology.” Yet, as Hildebrand
et al. (2005) note, “the incredible complexity of nature forces us to simplify the
systems we study in order to develop theory and generalities by reducing them to
understandable subsets.” Because ecosystems are inherently dynamic and exhibit
nonlinearities and behavioral surprises, the ability to predict and manage restora-
tion trajectories have been particularly vexing (Mitsch et al. 1998; Anand and
Desrochers 2004; Ruiz-Jaen and Aide 2005). In addition, Hildebrand et al. (2005)
assert that realistic goals should include multiple scientifically defensible endpoints
of functional equivalence. In a thoughtful treatise, Ehrenfeld (2000) offered the fol-
lowing: (a) explicit recognition that no one-size-fits-all, goals have to be developed
appropriately and individually for each project, and (b) that ecologists establish
“probabilistic laws” to define the conditions under which it is desirable to address
landscape-scale ecosystem processes; i.e., to determine the sets of conditions that
mandate particular methods or goals for individual projects. Because wetlands are
hydrologically, chemically, and biologically linked to the landscapes in which they
occur, the “templates” for wetland restoration that comprise the various combina-
tions of climate and hydrogeologic settings in a given geographic region, and cumu-
lative alteration of landscapes therein, are likely the greatest constraint on successful
restoration design (Bedford 1999). In addressing this particular issue, Kentula
Reversing Two Centuries of Wetland Degradation… 355
(2000) described an emerging approach that develops a statistical representation

or “model” of reference sites as the standard for comparison.
There are also questions related to community stability, resilience and persis-
tence; all central to understanding/predicting whether a restored system will be self-
sustaining. A primary challenge for restoration ecologists is to develop tools for
assessing acceptable levels of variability in restored systems, most appropriately in
a regional or landscape context and within some “bound of expectation” (White and
Walker 1997; Weinstein et al. 1997; SER 2004; French 2005).
Thus, the evaluation of restored functions include measures of processes such as
primary or secondary production, but may also reflect considerations of biogeo-
chemical cycling, food web structure, food quality, habitat connectivity, biological
interactions, refuge from predators, keystone species, donor control (Polis and
Strong 1996), microhabitat structure, and access to resources. Many species exhibit
complex life histories that place them in different parts of the landscape at different
times, but their overall success may depend on the quality of specific habitats as
critical “bottlenecks” in their life-history sequence. For example, marine transient
finfish at mid-latitudes are characterized by life-history traits that evoke a “coastal
conveyor belt” with adults spawning offshore and near estuaries, and young spend-
ing their first year of life in various estuarine habitats including tidal wetlands
(Weinstein et al. 2009a). Young-of-year complete the cycle by accompanying adults
offshore during their autumn migration to overwintering grounds. It is likely that the
“quality” of the estuarine habitats, especially tidal wetlands and seagrass meadows
is reflected in the growth and survival of young-of-year marine transients and is a
critical aspect of their successful recruitment to adult stages. Restoration ecology
should embrace these considerations.
Linking Structure to Function: The Salt Marsh Paradigm

and Secondary Production
Teal’s (1962) mass balance model for a salt marsh near Sapelo Island, Georgia was
soon followed by Odum’s (1968) outwelling hypothesis, and as a result, coastal
wetlands and their detrital production were soon being depicted as the “great
engine” driving much of the secondary production of near shore coastal waters (see
also Turner et al. 1979; Weinstein 1981). The fundamental view of a detritus-driven
system was soon challenged, however, by Haines (1979) who recognized that
finfish, as well as, other primary producers (phytoplankton and benthic microalgae)
also contributed substantially to nutrient flux from the salt marsh to open waters.
Haines (1979) commented that the “true” nursery-ground of the estuary “was per-
haps not so much the large open waters and sounds as the salt marshes and narrow
tidal creeks.” She added that the major export of marsh plant production might
occur “not as particulate detritus but as living organisms.” At about the same time,
Weigert and Pomeroy (1981) stated that “our present view of the food web of the
marsh and estuary suggests that the preservation of fisheries depends as much upon
the protection of the smaller tidal creeks as upon protection of the marsh and its
Spartina production.” A year after Haines published her “emerging paradigm,”
Nixon (1980) reviewed the concept of outwelling and concluded that the average
passive export of organic matter (particulate and dissolved) was relatively small,
amounting to between 100 and 200 gC m−2 year−1 for tidal wetlands on the mid-
Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States.
Haines and Nixon’s views stimulated an era of intense research for refining our
understanding of functional links between salt marshes and the estuary/coastal zone.
Thus, the “outwelling” concept (Odum 1968) has become but a single component in
an evolving view of marsh function and the links between primary and secondary
production. Today, the Haines’ view is still undergoing modifications, and we are
slowly unraveling the complexities of nutrient exchange, and the links between pri-
mary producers and the marsh/estuary fauna. The notion of the marsh drainage,
especially the interface between tidal creeks and the marsh plain, serving as eco-
logical “hotspots” (sensu Simenstad et al. 2000), and as a potential refugium from
predators gained popularity in the 1970s (reviewed by Boesch and Turner 1984).
Spartina spp. and many other marsh plants decompose relatively quickly, and this
in situ production may be available to consumers by the end of the first growing
season (Fry et al. 1992; Newell 1993). Benthic microalgae and many phytoplankton
with their high palatability are also readily and efficiently assimilated by many con-
sumers (Currin et al. 1995; Sullivan and Moncreiff 1990). Although progress has
been made in understanding how marshes “work,” we have also learned that the
story is far more complicated than originally thought (Turner 1977; Peterson et al.
1994; Peters and Schaaf 1991; Mallin et al. 1992; Polis et al. 1997; Deegan et al.
2000; Winemiller et al. 2007; Dame and Christian 2008).
Marsh Physiography
From a restoration standpoint, the physiography of the salt marsh is a critical link in
the dynamics and transfer of primary production to consumers. The physiographic
features of the marsh that contribute to primary and secondary production include:
elevation, drainage characteristics and surface rugosity that expands “edge” and
influences the hydroperiod (Kneib 1997; Zimmerman et al. 2000; Larkin et al. 2008);
access to the intertidal marsh for fauna (Rozas et al. 1988); predation refugia (McIvor
and Odum 1988; Beck et al. 2001, 2003); and interspersed standing water for foraging
by resident fishes and wading birds, and resting areas for waterfowl (Rubino 1991).
“Donor Control” and Restoration Planning
Marine transients may also benefit from tidal salt marshes and their production
without directly occupying these habitats. Many are highly mobile, and tend to
cross habitat boundaries in their quest for food and shelter. They are generally not
habitat specialists but are rather opportunistic in utilizing the resources of the
estuarine landscape. Restoration planners should and must, therefore, view resto-
ration goals within the context of the habitat mosaic and the exchange of materials
and organisms between adjacent habitats (e.g., salt marshes and the open waters
of the estuary). Stated simply, salt marshes do not function in isolation when sup-
porting estuarine secondary production, but are integrated components of larger
systems (Weinstein et al. 2005). Moreover, the open waters of the estuary may be
donor-controlled, i.e., they are systems in which the rate of import, availability, or
dynamics of allochthonous resources (such as products of the salt marsh), is con-
trolled by external donor systems rather than by consumers. Indeed, consumers
may be more abundant when supported by allochthonous resources than if
supported solely by the in situ resources of open waters (Polis et al. 1995). The
latter concept is critical in the context of restoration ecology, because failure to
account for trophic subsidies in the open estuary may result in restoration designs
that have negative feedback on the recruitment success of numerous marine
transients.
Childers et al. (2000) captured these concepts in their description of the interac-
tion among estuarine habitats supporting fisheries. Their conceptual model posits
integrated subsystems linked by an overlying water column that mediates func-
tional processes across subsystem boundaries. Nutrient and organic matter flux
associated with the movements of animals, especially juvenile marine transients,
were also recognized as important vectors transcending system boundaries. The
question of whether specific habitats confer disproportionate survival advantage to
young marine transients is still rigorously debated (Beck et al. 2001). In our view,
trophic subsidies to donor-controlled systems may confer survival advantages on
young nekton.
Essential Fish Habitat, Restoration Design, and Higher Order

Metrics of Restoration Success
Restoration efforts can also be evaluated within the context of essential fish habitat
(EFH) by integrating the factors affecting fish survival and well-being during their
life cycle (Able 1999). The degree to which a natural or restored habitat is utilized
is presumed dependent on its value. In restored sites, habitat value is maximized
once it has reached its restoration asymptote (Weinstein et al. 1997). The applica-
tion of EFH to fishery management and restoration design necessitates the analysis
of habitat information in a hierarchical or matrix fashion. At the least informative
level (Tier I), the presence or absence information may be used to infer the potential
value of habitats, albeit with a high level of uncertainty. At increasingly complex
levels, habitat value becomes a function of the relative abundance or density of
individuals at different locations (Tier II). At the next level, growth, reproduction,
and survival rates, if available, are used with the assumption that the habitats
contributing most to productivity should be those supporting the highest levels of

these parameters (Tier III). Finally, production rates can be used to directly relate
species or life stages to types, quantity, quality, and location of essential habitats
(Tier IV). There has been a relatively slow evolution of restoration success criteria
to include the upper tiers of EFH (III and IV).
In the remainder of this chapter, we focus on the integration of life-history strat-
egy and landscape scale considerations in restoration planning based on our previ-
ous research on marine transients and estuarine resident finfish in the Delaware
Bay, and Hudson River estuaries, USA. We adopt, but go beyond the premise intro-
duced by Simenstad and Cordell (2000), that “the fundamental approach we recom-
mend is ‘self-monitoring,’ letting the fish test whether the occupation of a restored
habitat provides residence time, foraging success, or growth equivalent to that
achieved in a comparable reference habitat.” Rather, we address secondary produc-
tion and Tier III and IV EFH parameters as potential endpoints to measure the
outcome and success of restoration practices. The three case histories we present do
not make direct comparisons between reference and restored habitats (although we
have done this), but from a restoration ecology perspective are intended to assist
future wetland restoration designs, not only to consider specific processes, but also
to promote exchange of materials and organisms between the habitat being restored
and the adjacent estuary; i.e., the donor control function of wetlands. Case History
I focuses on the growth and survival of a marsh resident finfish, the common mum-
michog, Fundulus heteroclitus and stresses the deposition of energy reserves for
overwintering survival at the end of the first year (Tier III, EFH). Case History II
uses bioenergetics modeling in a “whole estuary” approach to estimate the nursery
value of estuarine regions comprised of marsh and open waters for young-of-year
weakfish, Cynoscion regalis (Tier III, EFH), and Case History III addresses the
response of macroscale tidal salt marsh restoration within the context of secondary
production of species that depend on these habitats and/or their products (Tier IV,
EFH). Together, the three case histories demonstrate advances in the science of
restoration ecology that go far beyond structural characteristics of degraded and
restored tidal marshes to address the components of functional equivalency of
restored sites.
Case History I (EFH Tier III): Biochemical Condition

of a Marsh Resident Finfish, Fundulus heteroclitus
Carnivorous fishes are reliable indicators of the condition of complex ecosystems

because they are the tertiary link in the food web. Thus, the magnitude of protein
and fat deposition and the level of fat reserves can be used to not only assess the
“degree of well-being” of fishes but can also serve to integrate the overall value of
habitats in their production. Using this premise, we examined the concept of habi-
tat quality for a marsh resident, the mummichog, F. heteroclitus, in relatively undis-
turbed and Phragmites australis-dominated tidal salt marshes along the mid-Atlantic
Coast of the United States. In addition to our earlier work on the trophic spectrum
of this species (Wainright et al. 2000; Currin et al. 2003), an interesting “natural
experiment” was available to us because (1) the species spends its entire life cycle
within the confines of the marsh and has an extremely small home range (Valiela
et al. 1977; Meredith and Lotrich 1979; Teo and Able 2003), and (2) many tidal salt
marshes, particularly those with brackish salinities, are dominated by virtual mon-
ocultures of the invasive variety of the P. australis that is perceived to reduce habi-
tat quality for F. heteroclitus, and general access to the marsh plain by nekton
(Weinstein and Balletto 1999; Saltonstall 2002; Hagan et al. 2007). By adopting a
whole system approach, we essentially had a “captive audience,” one in each of
two isolated marsh complexes located on the Hudson River estuary (Weinstein
et al. 2009b), a polyhaline system dominated by Spartina alterniflora and a meso-
oligohaline system dominated by an invasive variety of P. australis. In addition to
others, the following questions were addressed in our work: (1) were there any dif-
ferences in biochemical condition, principally the deposition of energy reserves, in
mummichogs captured seasonally in the S. alterniflora-dominated “natural” and
the P. australis-invaded salt marshes (Tier III EFH analysis); (2) were any differ-
ences related to size distributions of individuals in the populations; and (3) could
biochemical condition ultimately serve as a success criterion to evaluate the
functional success of wetland restoration?
The Use of Biochemical Condition as a Metric

of Restoration Success
Biochemical condition of individual F. heteroclitus was evaluated on the basis of

triacylglycerol (TAG), free fatty acid (FFA), and phospholipid (PL) composition
and concentration. Other lipid classes such as cholesterol, fatty alcohols, and wax
esters were not examined in detail but were included in the calculation of total
lipid mass. It is generally accepted that the size of lipid stores and their composi-
tion can be used to predict whether a fish is ready to migrate, preparing to over-
winter, or is likely to have future reproductive success (Ackman 1980; Shulman
and Love 1999). Previous results of lipid class dynamic studies in young teleosts
suggest that TAG is the primary form of lipid used in energy storage; therefore,
this lipid class was selected as an important indicator of biochemical condition
(Ackman and Eaton 1976; Lochmann et al. 1995, 1996; Lochmann and Ludwig
2003; Heintz et al. 2004; Weinstein et al. 2010). FFAs and phospholipids, how-
ever, can also contribute to energy metabolism (Ross and Love 1979; Yuneva
et al. 1991; Henderson and Tocher 1987) and may be important in the reproduc-
tive cycle (Ackman 1980). We examined these in individual fish. TAG, FFA, and
PL, all expressed in milligrams per gram dry weight for whole fish was extrapo-
lated from extracted subsamples and converted to total storage quantities by
adjusting to the dry weight of each fish.
Findings and Conclusions
The tradeoffs between energy allocation for growth, reproduction, and the laying
down of sufficient storage reserves for periods of resource scarcity as “competing
demands” in prereproductive organisms living in seasonal environments have been
described by numerous authors (Walters and Juanes 1993; Fullerton et al. 2000; Post
and Parkinson 2001). This is especially important in north-temperate fishes because
experimental and field data suggest that energy availability is often limiting, i.e., fish
in their natural environments tend to grow at less than their physiological optimum
at a given temperature (Post and Parkinson 2001).
Although our comparisons on a dry weight (morphometric; EFH tier II evalua-
tion) basis alone did not detect differences in somatic condition of F. heteroclitus
populations in the two marshes (Fig. 1a), the examination of energy reserves in
these fish after removing the potential confounding influences of the reproductive
cycle and parasitization clearly indicated that significant differences occurred in
TAG and FFAs levels (Fig. 1b).
a
3
Location
Horseshoe Cove
Piermont Marsh
2
Dry Weight (g)
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Standard Length (mm)
Fig. 1 (a) The relationship between length (mm) and somatic condition (dry weight in g) by loca-
tion for mummichogs Fundulus heteroclitus captured in two tidal salt marshes, Horseshoe Cove
and Piermont Marsh on the Hudson River estuary. (b) Total free fatty acids, triacylglycerol (TAG),
and phospholipids vs. standard length (mm) in individual mummichogs (F. heteroclitus) captured
at Horseshoe Cove (H) and Piermont (P) Marshes. All lipid values expressed in milligrams (mg)
b Horseshoe Cove Piermont Marsh

40 40
Total TAG (mg)
Total TAG (mg)

30 30
20 20 Mann-Whitney U
H > P p=0.002
10 10
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Standard Length (mm) Standard Length (mm)
Horseshoe Cove Piermont Marsh

40 40
Total Free Fatty Acids (mg)
Total Free Fatty Acids (mg)
30 30
20 20
Mann-Whitney U
H > P p= 0.05
10 10
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Horseshoe Cove Piermont Marsh

30 30
Total Phospholipid (mg)
Total Phospholipid (mg)
20 20
Mann-Whitney U
10 10 H=P p= 0.215
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Fig. 1 (continued)
Supplementing tier II data with a tier III biochemical condition approach was,
therefore, a more sensitive measure of the condition of individuals produced in
these habitats. This conclusion is supported by Mommsen (1998) who suggested
that a 100 g fish acquiring 1 g of lipid was unlikely to change in length, and although
its weight gain was hardly detectable in the statistical noise, the fish had added a
statistically significant amount of energy.
By focusing on energy reserves, principally TAG, we have been able to demon-

strate that mummichogs residing in a polyhaline S. alterniflora-dominated tidal salt
marsh were better able to acquire energy reserves for reproduction and overwintering
survival than fish residing in a Phragmites-dominated marsh. Thus, Phragmites
invasion and its consequent habitat impacts may be contributing to lower quality
EFH for mummichogs (Weinstein and Balletto 1999; Hagan et al. 2007; Weinstein
et al. 2009b).
Case History II (EFH Tier III): Use of Bioenergetics Models

to Estimate the Nursery Value of Estuarine Habitats,
Young-of-Year Weakfish (C. regalis)
Spatially explicit models of fish growth have been used to measure the quality of
habitats for nekton production in a variety of species and aquatic systems by inte-
grating variability in biotic and abiotic factors across habitats within a bioenerget-
ics framework (Brandt et al. 1992; Brandt and Kirsh 1993; Mason et al. 1995;
Demers et al. 2000; Luo et al. 2001). In this example, a mechanistic growth model,
Fish Bioenergetics 3.0 (Hanson et al. 1997), was applied to a series of habitat
“regions” within Delaware Bay (upper, middle and lower Bay; Fig. 2). Each region
consisted of a marsh to open water gradient, and each had its own set of unique
environmental conditions. While most models estimate growth from environmental
conditions and the availability of prey, the approach adopted here was to estimate
prey consumption from detailed growth estimates in juvenile weakfish that were
recruited to the Bay in 1999 and 2001. The calculated rates of consumption
(“realized” consumption) were compared to those expected if individuals were
feeding at their maximum rate (“optimum” consumption), under ad libitum prey
density. The goal was to understand how temporal and spatial variability in avail-
ability of food resources and temperature regime governed habitat use and value for
juvenile weakfish.
Trawl survey data were used to estimate growth from the changes in the mean
monthly weight of juvenile weakfish (Litvin 2005). A separate model was con-
structed for each cohort identified by length frequency analysis within each Delaware
Bay region/year combination and analyzed for the duration that the cohort per-
sisted. Fixed parameters of the model included prey energy density and the initial
wet weight of individuals within cohorts (derived from the empirical data). The
variable parameters included were: in situ temperature, energy density of juvenile
weakfish and diet composition (shift from specialization on mysids in early recruits
to >90% piscivory in larger individuals; Grecay and Targett 1996; Nemerson 2001).
Fig. 2 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) sampling regions in Delaware Bay comprised of lower, middle
(“mid”), and upper Bay and their associated tidal marshes
We modeled (1) realized consumption, which is estimated prey consumed under in

situ temperature and empirical estimates of growth (“realized growth” derived from
the trawl surveys), (2) optimal growth, which is the theoretical maximum growth
under in situ temperature and ad libitum feeding conditions; and (3) optimal con-
sumption, which is the prey consumed under optimal growth. From these results we
calculated the excess demand, the proportional difference between the cumulative
optimum, and the realized consumption over the period the cohort persisted (which
is a relative measure of the suitability of a given habitat for fish production). The
calculated realized and optimal growth and consumption and excess demand were
compared to determine if food availability, temperature or other factors determined
the production rates of young-of-year weakfish. In addition, these measures were

compared among cohorts, Bay region and years to elucidate how habitat values
varied both spatially and temporally.
Findings
Not surprisingly, the relationship between optimum and realized consumption

varied both spatially and temporally (Figs. 3 and 4). Analyzed in terms of the
cumulative consumption of prey (g individual−1), it is important to note that opti-
mum and realized consumption rates are equal when the slopes of their curves
are equal over a given period. For the first cohort in 1999, optimum consumption
increased steadily over the summer and fall in the middle and lower Bay but
remained flat between days 200 and 240 in the upper Bay, before rising for a
brief period (Fig. 3). The realized consumption in the upper Bay exceeded opti-
mum consumption in the early summer (July) then mirrored optimum consump-
tion until the cohort was no longer detected. The optimum and realized
consumption in the middle and lower Bay regions were approximately equal in
July and August with optimum consumption exceeding realized consumption
during the remaining months. The optimum consumption for cohort 2 quickly
outstripped the realized consumption, except in the lower Bay (Fig. 3). Optimum
consumption in 2001 increased throughout the summer in the lower and middle
Bay for cohort 1, and was followed by a slight decrease in the fall (Fig. 4).
Optimum consumption in the upper Bay rose in June through July, fell in August,
and then increased steadily during the remainder of the growing season. The
realized consumption in all regions fell vastly short of optimum throughout the
season. For the second cohort, the difference between optimum and realized con-
sumption was substantial in the middle, but not the lower, Bay (Fig. 4). The
excess demand (grams prey consumed per individual) for the first cohort varied
substantially between regions and years (Fig. 5). The excess demand in 1999
ranged from −81% (the realized exceeded optimum consumption) through 78%
in the middle Bay, and rose to 131% in the upper Bay, respectively. The surplus
consumption in 2001 was markedly higher (407–505%), with peak values occur-
ring in the upper Bay. This was driven both by changes in the estimated growth
rates in the field (realized growth) and changes in optimum growth which rose
from the upper through the lower bay in both years and was higher in 2001 in all
regions (Fig. 5).
Fig. 3 The relationship between realized (open squares) and optimum (open bullets) consumption
for juvenile weakfish captured in 1999, Delaware Bay, USA. LB, MB, and UB are lower, middle,
and upper Bay, respectively
Fig. 4 The relationship between realized (open squares) and optimum (open bullets) consumption
for juvenile weakfish capture in 2001, Delaware Bay, USA. LB, MB, and UB are lower, middle,
and upper Bay, respectively
Fig. 5 Optimal growth, realized growth, and excess demand for cohort 1 from each Bay region
(lower LB; mid MB; upper Bay UB) for 1999 and 2001
The trends in optimum consumption and excess demand provided insights into the
relative suitability of the different segments of Delaware Bay for juvenile weakfish.
In both years, estimates of optimum consumption suggested that the region with the
physiological conditions most suitable for potential growth varied temporally. In
July and August, optimum consumption estimates were higher in the lower Bay
than those from the middle Bay, and both possessed higher values than the upper
Bay region. This disparity in potential habitat quality dissipated as temperatures fell
through September and October, with the optimal zone shifting to the upper Bay in
the final days modeled. Between years, the differences in the mean estimates of
excess demand (~100% and ~450% for 1999 and 2001, respectively) suggested that
the value of Bay regions for the production of young weakfish was considerably
lower in 2001. While it is difficult to determine if the variability in estimated habitat
suitability between habitats and among years is driven by differences in prey supply,
the expected reduction in juvenile weakfish foraging success due to high turbidity
encountered in oligohaline habitats, or physiochemical considerations not accounted
for in the model (see below), these results parallel the spatial patterns in juvenile
weakfish condition and growth previously reported for this estuary and its marshes
(Grecay and Targett 1996; Paperno et al. 2000; Litvin and Weinstein 2003; Litvin
2005).
Two factors, both attributable to the high river discharge rates in June and July of
2001, likely drove inter-annual differences in habitat suitability (USGS1). Juveniles
recruited to the upper Bay in June through the early fall of 2001 faced increased
physiological stress and lower potential growth rates than those from other regions
1
USGS New Jersey Monthly Streamflow Statistics for Trenton, NJ (Site # 01463500); http://waterdata.
usgs.gov/nl/nwis.
due to the interaction of high temperatures and low salinity (Lankford and Targett
1994; Grecay and Targett 1996; Paperno et al. 2000). In addition, an increase in the
flow rates might have lead to “compression” of the meso and polyhaline regions and
resulted in the increased density of piscivorous marine predators that might nor-
mally be restricted from oligohaline waters (Weinstein et al. 1980; Taylor 1987;
Martino and Able 2003). Therefore, juvenile weakfish moving down Bay in 2001
into meso and polyhaline waters with superior physiochemical conditions likely
faced increased predation risk, relative to low flow years, which in turn might affect
acquisition of prey and growth (Walters and Juanes 1993; Sogard 1997).
A significant purpose of any modeling effort is to identify data needs and sug-
gest future directions for research. We developed several recommendations base on
this work. It is important to examine the interactive effects of temperature and
salinity on the scope of growth to parameterize future bioenergetics models
intended to gauge habitat value for estuarine fish. Knowing the choices in prey,
aside from their energy density may also be important. The variability of postcon-
sumptive constraints based on prey type, known to occur in young weakfish
(Lankford and Targett 1997), were not considered although they may lead to con-
sumption-dependent systematic errors in estimates of growth (Bajer et al. 2004).
Although labor-intensive, obtaining estimates of spatial and temporal variability of
prey from stomach content analysis, and the incorporation of this information into
bioenergetic variables (that represent postconsumptive processes), would further
increase model accuracy. Also, the methods to account for seasonal changes in
habitat utilization patterns, e.g., estimating movements out of marsh habitats and
downstream migration rates as individuals grew (Litvin and Weinstein 2004),
should be accounted for when determining spatially explicit growth. Stable isotope
analyses have demonstrated great utility as “biomarkers” for discerning habitat
utilization patterns in juvenile weakfish and other species from Delaware Bay and
the employment of this technique in conjunction with field measures of length and
weight will improve the accuracy of growth estimates (Weinstein et al. 2000; Litvin
and Weinstein 2003, 2004). These three considerations are also particularly impor-
tant when using bioenergetics models to move beyond the “regional” approach
utilized here to determine the value of specific marsh habitats for juvenile nekton
in the context of the greater estuary. Estuarine and marsh habitats, even those sepa-
rated by small distances, should be expected to have different environmental
regimes as well as abundance and diversity of food resources. For restored marsh
habitats, their position in the restoration trajectory may heavily influence these fac-
tors (Weinstein et al. 2005). In addition, understanding the habitat utilization pat-
terns of species, like juvenile weakfish, potentially using a wide variety of estuarine
habitats is critical to understanding the relative value of marsh habitats for fish
production. For example, the physiochemical conditions in open waters of the Bay
region in 2001 were sub-par, and so the biotic conditions in marsh habitats may
have resulted in higher optimum and realized growth for juvenile weakfish. This
may both increase the value of marsh habits for juvenile fish production in a given
year, and buffer individuals leaving marshes to migrate toward the bay mouth from
the depressed conditions in the open estuary. Together, these two situations would
ultimately increase the relative contribution (per unit area) from marsh habitats to
overall estuarine production. While the exclusion of these considerations does not
preclude the use of the model to help understand the variables governing the dem-
onstrated spatial and temporal stochastisity in the nursery value of estuarine habi-
tats for young weakfish and other species, their incorporation into models would
help to improve both their accuracy and utility as a tool for both ecologists and
natural resource managers.
Case History III (EFH Tier IV): Estimating the Response

of the Delaware Bay Ecosystem to Tidal Marsh Restoration
During the 1990s, 45.5 km2 of wetland habitat were restored in the Delaware Bay
ecosystem to offset mortality caused by power plant cooling water intakes (Teal
and Weinstein 2002). The restoration effort resulted in a 3% increase in marsh habi-
tat (Balletto et al. 2005; Hinkle and Mitsch 2005) and provided scientists with the
opportunity to assess changes to system productivity and structural changes before
and after restoration. A series of baseline and monitoring studies were conducted to
quantify nekton assembly composition and usage of restored and reference marshes
(Kimball and Able 2007; Nemerson and Able 2005; Jivoff and Able 2003; Able
et al. 2008). These studies documented the impact of restoring habitat and demon-
strated that the nektonic assemblage responded favorably to restoration. These
studies, however, did not address overall system productivity and the structural
changes resulting from restoration efforts.
In the following section, we summarize the approach and results reported in
Frisk et al. (2011) who estimated the increment of new secondary production that
resulted in the entire Delaware Bay ecosystem following restoration. Estimating
system-wide impacts required distinguishing between the impacts of restoration
and background variability in spatiotemporal patterns of productivity and ecosys-
tem structure. The latter effort entailed estimating system productivity after restora-
tion and simulating the proportion of biomass that would have been lost if restoration
efforts had not taken place. To achieve this result required the development and
parameterization of a mass-balanced time-dynamic ecosystem model fitted to
observed time series of key species and then simulating a nonrestored system.
Assessing Restoration Using Ecopath with Ecosim
Details regarding the model structure of Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) can be found in
Christensen and Pauly (1992), Walters et al. (1997), and Pauly et al. (2000), and, for
the model presented here, in Frisk et al. (2011). Ecopath was used to develop a
mass-balanced network of trophically-linked biomass pools representing a static
description of the ecosystem from detritus to upper-trophic level species. The Ecopath
model provided the initial parameters used to fit the dynamic Ecosim model to time
series of data for the Delaware Bay ecosystem. Ecosim uses a series of coupled
delay-difference age/size-structured equations to model all species in the system.
The flows between species are linked by both predator and prey consumption rates.
Parameter Inputs
The times series data are derived from long-term biological studies and harvest
records used to estimate biomass and landings and for the development of stock
assessments for key species in Delaware Bay (DNREC 1966–2003; NOAA Fisheries
2011). The demographic and diet data were derived from the literature or inferred
from adjacent systems when necessary.
Measuring Habitat Restoration
Changes to ecosystem structure and productivity following restoration were

reflected in the biological time series conducted in the Bay during 1996–2003.
Therefore, the biomass gains resulting from restoration were captured in a model
fitted to these data. To estimate the lost productivity had restoration not occurred,
a second model was run that assumed a 3% decrease in the available marsh habitat.
This was achieved by fitting the Ecosim model for 1966–2003 and applying
forcing functions to decrease the production rates for marsh meiofauna and macro-
fauna for the years following restoration, 1996–2003. The difference between the
two models’ total system biomass was used to estimate the gains associated with
restoration.
Model development. The modeling approach used 47 functional groups includ-
ing: 27 fish species, 5 invertebrate groups, 4 multi-species benthic groups, 6 multi-
species fish groups, 3 plankton groups, 1 shorebird group, and 1 marine mammal
group (Frisk et al. 2011). The static mass-balanced Ecopath food-web model was
developed for 1966 and served as the initial parameter estimates for the time-
dynamic Ecosim model for the period 1966–2003. The Ecopath model required
estimates of biomass (B), the ratio of production to biomass (P:B), consumption to
biomass (Q:B), ecotrophic efficiency (EE), and diet data for all model groups. The
Ecosim models were parameterized using catch, biological survey, diet, and demo-
graphic data. Time series of biomass (catch per unit effort) for eight species, catch
time series for six species and fishing mortality for five species were fitted in Ecosim
(Table 1).
Table 1 Data used for fitting the Ecosim model included time
series of catch (C), biomass (B), and fishing effort (F) where num-
bers represent the length of time series in years
Species Cfitted Csubtracted B F
American eel 38
Atlantic croaker 38 38 38
Atlantic menhaden 38 38 38
Blue crab 38 38
Bluefish 38 38 38
Clearnose skate 27
Dogfish 27
Horseshoe crab 30
Oyster 38
Spot 38
Striped bass 38 23 38
Summer flounder 38
Weakfish 38 27
White perch 38
Catch was statistically fitted (Cfit) or subtracted from model esti-
mated biomass (Csub). Stock assessments were conducted on
Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, and bluefish providing bio-
mass (CPUE) and fishing effort (fishing exploitation rate). Other
biomass estimates were derived from the DNREC surveys except
striped bass which came from ASMFC (2004)
The catches were subtracted from the estimated biomass for eight key species
that did not have prior estimates of fishing mortality to ensure that the model pro-
duced stock sizes large enough to support the historical fisheries.
Findings
The results of the model runs indicated that restoration resulted in a net gain of
47.7 tons km−2 year−1 in system biomass. The biomass change was seen across a wide
range of species and biomass groups, and had an average percent change of 1.2%,
ranging from 4.3% for macrozooplankton to 1.3% decrease in blue crab (Fig. 6).
Restoration also resulted in 41 species increasing in biomass and four species
showing slight decreases. The decreases likely resulted from food web interactions
with groups that increased. Proportionally, consumer trophic species such as Atlantic
menhaden, resident striped bass, macrozooplankton, and summer flounder showed
the greatest gains.
Biomass (t km2) Percent Change

-0.005-0.003-0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.009 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
Alewife
American eel
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden 0.05
Bay anchovy
Black drum
Blue crab
Blueback herring
Bluefish (adults)
Bluefish (yoy)
Channel catfish
Clearnose skate
ctenophores
Detritus
Dogfish (spiny smooth)
Dolphins
Gizzard shad
Horseshoe crab (adults)
Horseshoe crab (eggs)
Little skate
Littoral forage fish
Macrofauna (benthos) 0.25
Macrozooplankton
Marsh fish
Meiofauna (benthos) 0.41
Mesozooplankton 0.07
Non-reef associated fish
Other flatfish
Oyster (adults)
Oyster (spat)
Phytoplankton 0.20
Reef associated fish
Sandbar shark
Shore birds
Spot
Spotted hake
Striped bass (juv)
Striped bass (res)
Striped bass (mig)
Striped bass (yoy)
Summer flounder
Weakfish
White perch (adults)
White perch (yoy)
Fig. 6 Change in species’ annual abundance resulting from restoration for the period 1996–2003
reported in biomass and percent change, where “yoy” indicates young of the year staged fish, “juv”
is juvenile staged fish, “res” is a resident contingent, and “mig” is a migratory contingent
As with any modeling attempt, ecosystem complexities are not completely cap-
tured in the model structure. Ecosystem models require large amounts of informa-
tion, and the reliability and availability of data varies by species and biological
group. The Delaware Bay model is a compromise among realism, parameteriza-
tion, and data limitations. Estimating restoration impacts utilizing data collected
continually before and after restoration does not allow for direct comparisons of an
ecosystem with and without restoration. Instead, the statistically fitted model was
altered to reflect a simulated no-restoration system to estimate the loss of biomass
had the marsh habitat not been created. The approach allows for a total system
evaluation of restoration; however, the simulation approach may add uncertainty to
the results.
Large-scaled restoration efforts require an enormous investment of time and
money. The success and justification of these efforts should be judged by whether
or not the degraded ecosystems can ultimately be rehabilitated to provide basic
ecological goods and services. In Delaware Bay, researchers conducted numerous
field studies documenting the success of newly created marsh habitat for use by
native species and general production of finfish and shellfish (Kimball and Able
2007; Jivoff and Able 2003; Able et al. 2008). More broadly, Frisk et al. (2011)
were able to show that the overall ecosystem biomass increased including several
important commercial finfish. The results supported previous field estimates and
demonstrated increases throughout the entire food web that were dependent on the
increased marsh habitat. The results from the Frisk et al. (2011) mass-balanced
time-dynamic ecosystem model of Delaware Bay were used to address the follow-
ing questions: (1) Has restored habitat resulted in changes to the productivity of the
ecosystem?; (2) Is there evidence that restoration can impact the structure and health
of the Delaware Bay ecosystem?
The model results indicated that many species increased in biomass including
ecologically important lower trophic groups such as macrofauna, macro-meso zoo-
plankton, and higher trophic groups consisting of striped bass, Atlantic croaker, and
summer flounder. The model estimates indicated that restoration of marsh habitat
resulted in increased biomass throughout the food web. These results, when com-
bined with previous field studies indicated that the restoration of 45.5 km2 of marsh
habitat increased productivity and restored ecologically meaningful amounts of
goods and services to the Bay.
In addition to biomass gains, the model results indicated that restoration has the
potential to alter the structural composition of Delaware Bay, and that there were
slight changes in several ecosystem properties including productivity and system
maturity metrics (see Frisk et al. 2011, for details). This has important implications
for stemming over a century’s loss of wetland habitat. Network analyses indicated
that the Delaware Bay is in an immature state and suffers from decades of nutrient
enrichment and pollution (Sharp 2010). It is encouraging that these model results
indicate that restoration can reduce the impact of long-term alteration of estuarine
ecosystems and potentially increase system maturity. The changes, however, were
slight and even larger-scaled restoration efforts integrated with management
strategies covering the entire drainage basin may be needed to further restore
ecosystem function.
Synthesis
The need for linking restoration ecology, ecological restoration, and sustainability
science are a sin qua non of the global sustainability transition. In this Age of
Humans (Crutzen 2002), they form what Aronson and Vallejo (2006) term our “sur-
vival strategy” where “nonscientists and scientist work together in transdisciplinary
efforts to imagine, develop, test and apply new methods, tools and approaches to the
enormous [sustainability] challenges ahead.” Moreover, managing our life support
systems will require stewardship “from the inside” in ways that recognize our
dependence on, and responsibility to, sustainably manage the systems that we are an
integral part of. Aronson and Vallejo (2006) suggest that restoration projects should
adopt broad suites of relevant, reliable and complementary traits or ecosystem attri-
butes that when combined, reflect the structural and functional dynamics of the
system.
The discipline of restoration ecology has now matured to where knowledge of
natural systems can define a better pathway to the desired restoration outcomes
(Larkin et al. 2008). Whether it is considering individual habitats in a system-wide
integrated framework (Childers et al. 2000; Weinstein et al. 2005), reestablishing
the physiographic heterogeneity (and concomitant physical access) of a salt marsh
that we have set forth above, or other “landscape” features—hydrology/hydroperiod
(Rozas et al. 1988), edge or “critical transition zones” (Baltz et al. 1993; Kneib
2003), drainage density (Kneib 1994, 1997), area of vegetated marsh (and its rela-
tionship to secondary production; Turner 1977; Zimmerman et al. 2000)—and
organism interactions; trophic access (sensu Kneib 2003), predator–prey interac-
tions (Boesch and Turner 1984; Deegan et al. 2000), ecological and engineering
criteria can be combined into a much more quantitative approach to achieving “suc-
cess” (or whatever we choose to call it; Zedler 2007). Despite the current debate
over the issue of attaining habitat equivalency of marsh functions, we agree with
Kneib (2003) that the rubic “build it and they will come” has a degree of validity
with respect to organisms utilizing the restored habitat. Kneib notes that “early indi-
cations suggest that fishes do not discriminate between natural and excavated wet-
land channels,” and that “there should be every expectation that nekton production
from the restored created site has potential to rapidly match that of natural systems.”
But Kneib (2003) also noted that “site-specific bioenergetic and landscape con-
straints [while setting upper limits to production] should guide the development of
realistic expectations and success criteria for marsh restoration designed to enhance
estuarine nekton production.” The simple underlying question then is: yes, we have
restored a marsh, but what kind of marsh have we restored and will it fulfill our
expectations with respect to secondary production goals for targeted species?
What seems clearly lacking in today’s purview is a policy and practice that
goes beyond developing the status and trend inventories for coastal wetlands
(Stedman and Dahl 2008), or the promulgated guidelines for conservation, resto-
ration and management that lack rigorous ecological criteria for meeting design
goals. Clearly, the importance of coastal wetlands as EFH is recognized by
resource agencies: “coastal wetlands provide valuable habitat for the vast majority
of commercially and recreational marine species” (Stedman and Dahl 2008).
Although more than $28 million has been allocated by the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) for habitat restoration (J. Rapp, per-
sonal communication) there seems to be a great paucity of process and function
criteria, in general, and especially at higher levels of EFH analysis. In NOAA’s
“Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats” guidelines for devel-
oping a monitoring plan (Thayer et al. 2003), explicit recognition is given to the
need to develop testable hypotheses to “determine progress toward restoration
goals,” yet the examples given of postimplementation monitoring are large struc-
tural criteria, and no functional criteria are proposed above the level of Tier II,
EFH; i.e., density and composition of organisms. A cursory review of Progress
Reports submitted under the NOAA Restoration Center’s Community-based
Restoration Program (CRP), Progress Report Narrative Formats includes only
biological inventories (restricted at or below EFH, Tier II) and/or topographical/
structural parameters.
We can and must do better. Simenstad et al. (2006) note that “while desirable
functions may result from the structure of ecosystems, it is typically the dynamics
of ecosystem processes that sustain the structure at the landscape scale or in some
cases may even be the underlying mechanism behind the function.” Further, the
relationship between salt marsh restoration and attributed functions is highly
scale-dependent, nonlinear, and dictated by thresholds (Simenstad et al. 2006).
We agree that the long-term performance of a restored site depends on reintroduc-
ing natural dynamics and disturbances into the system (Middleton 1999), also
within the context of life-history requirement of extant flora and fauna. Perhaps
these restoration efforts should be approached as “natural experiments” to be
quantified for their return of desired ecosystem goods and services, and, as
Simenstad et al. (2006) note, be treated in a manner that enables learning from the
results. Performance criteria should include more process-based metrics to help
ensure success.
Virtually all restoration scientists agree that tidal marshes are complex systems
that require the best applications of science and engineering principles (Weinstein
et al. 1997) to achieve the goals of a particular restoration design; especially when
these are systems whose physiographic province affecting virtually every component
of secondary production support is measured in centimeters (Vivian-Smith 1997). As
noted above, the progress we have made in understanding how marshes “work” is far
from complete, and research should not become subordinate to practice in advancing
the goals of restoration. Ongoing research can provide important perspectives on the
results achieved, and will allow us to correct mistakes, and suggest new approaches
for defining success (Kentula 2000).
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to attempt a comprehensive review of the
application of restoration science to the design and success of tidal wetland restora-
tions in supporting secondary production except to say that quantitative studies are
far and in-between in the published literature. A relatively recent review by Borde
et al. (2004) helps make the point. Beginning in 1998, more than 550 citations from
scientific journals, books, technical reports and proceedings were surveyed for
“innovations” in coastal restoration. This effort supported NOAA’s attempts “to
advance the science of restoration ecology” including research on coastal ecosys-
tem structure and function. Although the review of the literature suggested that
restored salt marshes were functioning to increase the growth, production, and resil-
ience of fish populations, there were no specific recommendations to incorporate
these functional criteria into goal setting and success criteria, nor have we seen
inclusion of parameters like EFH Tier III and IV criteria built into restoration plan-
ning. Rather, the authors’ summary of “innovative methods and techniques” to our
knowledge have yet to find their way into NOAA Restoration Center design proto-
cols, monitoring techniques, nor project success. We are not saying it will be easy,
but simply recognizing that is should and must be done.
Finally, we leave the reader with a research approach proposed by Choi
(2004). It serves both as a useful take home message and template for future
progress. In synthesizing the need for a “futuristic approach” to restoration, Choi
proposed that we:
1. Set realistic and dynamic (rather than static) goals for future, instead of past,
environments
2. Assume multiple trajectories acknowledging the unpredictable nature of ecologi-
cal communities and ecosystems
3. Take an ecosystem or landscape approach, instead of ad hoc gardening, for both
structure and function
4. Evaluate restoration progress with explicit criteria
5. Maintain long-term monitoring of restoration outcomes
Of course, we recommend further that these efforts be supported by strong ongo-
ing and fully funded restoration science research!
Acknowledgments Much of our research has been supported by NOAA (Saltonstall-Kennedy,

Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, and Sea Grant), EPA, NJWRRI, the PSEG Corporation (Marsh
Ecology Research Program, and Estuary Enhancement Program), and USGS (State Partnership
Program). This is contribution number ISS-2012-0126 from the PSEG Institute for Sustainability
Studies.
References
Able KW (1999) Measures of juvenile fish habitat quality: examples from a national estuarine
research reserve. Am Fish Soc Symp 22:134–147
Able KW, Grothues TM, Hagan SM et al (2008) Long-term response of fishes and other fauna to
restoration of former salt hay farms: multiple measures of restoration success. Rev Fish Biol
Fish 18:65–97
Ackman RG (1980) Fish lipids, part I. In: Connell JJ (ed) Advances in fish science and technology.
Oxford, London
Ackman RG, Eaton CA (1976) Variations in fillet lipid content and some lipid-iodine value rela-
tionships for large winter Atlantic herring from southeastern Newfoundland. J Fish Res Board
Can 33:1634–1638
Anand M, Desrochers RE (2004) Quantification of restoration success using complex systems

concepts and models. Rest Ecol 12:117–123
Aronson J, Vallejo R (eds) (2006) Restoration ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden
ASMFC (2004) Stock assessment report for Atlantic striped bass: catch-at-length-based VPS, and
tag release/recovery based survival estimation. SBTC Report #2004–4:93
Bajer PG, Whitledge GW, Hayward RS (2004) Wide spread consumption dependent systematic
error in fish bioenergetics models and its implications. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:2158–2167
Balletto JH, Heimbuch MV, Mahoney HJ (2005) Delaware Bay salt marsh restoration: mitigation
for a power plant cooling water system in New Jersey, USA. Ecol Eng 25:204–213
Baltz DM, Rakocinski C, Fleeger JW (1993) Microhabitat use by marsh edge fishes in a Louisiana
estuary. Environ Biol Fish 36:109–126
Beck MW, Heck KL Jr et al (2001) The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine
and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51:633–641
Beck MW, Heck KL Jr et al (2003) The role of nearshore ecosystems as fish and shellfish nurser-
ies. Issues Ecol 11:1–12
Bedford BL (1999) Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the
United States and Southern Canada. Wetlands 19:775–788
Boesch DF, Turner RE (1984) Dependence of fishery species on salt marshes: the role of food and
refuge. Estuaries 7:460–468
Borde AB, O’Rourke LK, Thom RM et al (2004) National review of innovative and successful
coastal habitat restoration. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Coastal Services Center. Battelle Memorial Institute, Sequim, WA
Brandt SB, Kirsh J (1993) Spatially explicit models of striped bass growth rate potential in
Chesapeake Bay. Trans Am Fish Soc 122:845–869
Brandt SB, Manson DM, Patrick EV (1992) Spatially-explicit models of fish growth rate. Fisheries
17:23–35
Cairns J Jr (2000) Setting ecological restoration goals for technical feasibility and scientific valid-
ity. Ecol Eng 15:171–180
Childers DL, Day JW Jr, McKellar HN Jr (2000) Twenty more years of marsh and estuarine flux
studies: revisiting Nixon. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA (eds) Concepts and controversies in
tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Choi YD (2004) Theories for ecological restoration in changing environments: toward ‘futuristic’
Christensen V, Pauly D (1992) Ecopath-II—a software for balancing steady-state ecosystem mod-
els and calculating network characteristics. Ecol Model 61:169–185
Crutzen PJ (2002) The Anthropocene: geology of mankind. Nature 415:23
Currin CA, Newell SY, Paerl HW (1995) The role of standing dead Spartina alterniflora and ben-
thic microalgae in salt marsh food webs: considerations based on multiple stable isotope analy-
sis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 121:99–116
Currin CA, Wainright SC, Able KW, Weinstein MP, Fuller CM (2003) Determination of food web
support and trophic position of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in New Jersey smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), common reed (Phragmites australis), and restored salt
marshes. Estuaries 26(2B):495–510
Dame JK, Christian RR (2008) Evaluation of ecological network analysis validation of output.
Ecol Model 210:327–338
Deegan LA, Hughes JE, Rountree RA (2000) Salt marsh ecosystem support of marine transient
species. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA (eds) Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecol-
ogy. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Demers E, Brandt SB, Barry KL et al (2000) Spatially explicit models of growth rate potential. In:
Hobbie JE (ed) Estuarine science: a synthetic approach to research and practice. Island Press,
Washington
DNREC (Division of Natural Resources and Environmental Control) (1996–2003) Coastal Finfish
assessment survey, annual reports, project F-42-R-8, Dover, DE
Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Rest Ecol
8:2–9
Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB (2006) Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press,
Washington
French PW (2005) Managed realignment—the developing story of a comparatively new approach
to soft engineering. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 67:409–423
Frisk MG, Miller TJ, Latour RJ et al (2011) Assessing biomass gains from marsh restoration in
Delaware Bay using Ecopath with ecosim. Ecol Model 222:190–200
Fry B, Hullar M, Peterson BJ et al (1992) DOC production in a salt marsh estuary. Arch Hydrobiol
37:1–8
Fullerton AH, Garvey JE, Wright RA, Stein RA (2000) Overwinter growth and survival of large-
mouth bass: interactions among size, food, origin, and winter severity. Trans Am Fish Soc
129:1–12
Grecay PA, Targett TE (1996) Spatial patterns in condition and feeding of juvenile weakfish in
Delaware Bay. Trans Am Fish Soc 125:803–808
Hagan SM, Brown SA, Able KW (2007) Production of mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus):
response in marshes treated for common reed (Phragmites australis) removal. Wetlands
27:54–67
Haines EB (1979) Interactions between Georgia salt marshes and coastal waters: a changing paradigm.
In: Livingston RJ (ed) Ecological processes in coastal and marine systems. Plenum, New York
Hanson PC, Johnson TB, Schindler DE et al (1997) Fish bioenergetics 3.0 for windows. University
of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, Madison
Heintz RA, Bonita DN, Hudson JH et al (2004) Marine subsidies in freshwater: effects of salmon
carcasses on lipid class and fatty acid composition of juvenile coho salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc
133:559–567
Henderson RJ, Tocher DR (1987) The lipid composition and biochemistry of freshwater fish. Prog
Lipid Res 26:281–347
Hildebrand RH, Watts AC, Randle AM (2005) The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol Soc
10:19–29
Hinkle RL, Mitsch WJ (2005) Salt marsh vegetation recovery at salt hay farm wetland restoration
sites on Delaware Bay. Ecol Eng 25:240–251
Holling CS (1996) Surprise for science, resilience of ecosystems and incentives for people. Ecol
Appl 6:733–736
Jackson ST, Hobbs RJ (2009) Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Science
325:567–569
Jivoff PR, Able KW (2003) Evaluating salt marsh restoration in Delaware Bay: the response of
blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus, at former salt hay farms. Estuaries 26:709–719
Kentula ME (2000) Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecol Eng
15:199–209
Kimball ME, Able KW (2007) Tidal utilization of nekton in Delaware Bay restored and reference
intertidal salt marsh creeks. Estuar Coast 30:1075–1087
Kneib RT (1994) Spatial patterns, spatial scale and feeding in fishes. In: Stouder DT, Fresh KL,
Feller RJ (eds) Theory and application in fish feeding ecology. University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia
Kneib RT (1997) The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton. Oceanogr Mar Biol
Annu Rev 35:163–220
Kneib RT (2003) Bioenergetic and landscape considerations for scaling expectations of nekton
production from intertidal marshes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 264:279–296
Lankford TE, Targett TE (1994) Suitability of estuarine nursery zones for juvenile weakfish
(Cynoscion regalis): effects of temperature and salinity on feeding, growth and survival. Mar
Biol 119:611–620
Lankford TE, Targett TE (1997) Selective predation by juvenile weakfish: post-consumptive con-
straints on energy maximization and growth. Ecology 1997:1049–1061
Larkin DJ, Madon SP, West JM et al (2008) Topographic heterogeneity influences habitat use of
experimentally restored tidal marsh. Ecol Appl 18:483–496
Litvin SY (2005) Trophic linkages, movements, condition and energetic of a juvenile marine tran-
sient in the Delaware Bay Estuary: implications for the role of habitat in recruitment success.
PhD Dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Litvin SY, Weinstein MP (2003) Life history strategies of estuarine nekton: the role of marsh
macrophytes, microphytobenthos and phytoplankton in the trophic spectrum. Estuaries 26(B):
553–653
Litvin SY, Weinstein MP (2004) Multivariate analysis of stable isotope ratios to infer movements
and utilization of estuarine organic matter by juvenile weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Can J Fish
Aquat Sci 61:1851–1861
Lochmann SE, Ludwig GM (2003) Relative triacylglycerol and morphometric measures of condi-
tion in sunshine bass fry. N Am J Aquacult 65:191–2003
Lochmann SE, Maillet GL, Frank KT et al (1995) Lipid class composition as a measure of nutri-
tional condition in individual larval Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Can J Fish Aquat Sci
52:1294–1306
Lochman SE, Maillet GL, Taggart CT et al (1996) Effects of gut contents and lipid degradation on
condition measures in larval fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 134:27–35
Luo JG, Hartman KJ, Brandt SB et al (2001) A spatially-explicit approach for estimating carrying
capacity: an application for the Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in Chesapeake Bay.
Estuaries 24:545–556
Mallin MA, Burkholder JM, Sullivan MJ (1992) Contributions of benthic microalgae to coastal
fishery yield (comment). Trans Am Fish Soc 121:691–693
Martino EJ, Able KW (2003) Fish assemblages across the marine to low salinity transition zone of
a temperate estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 56:969–987
Mason DM, Goyke AP, Brandt SB (1995) A spatially explicit bioenergetics measure of habitat
quality for adult salmonids: comparison between Lakes Michigan and Ontario. Can J Fish
Aquat Sci 52:1527–1583
McIvor CC, Odum WE (1988) Food, predation risk, and microhabitat selection in a marsh fish
assemblage. Ecology 69:1341–1353
Meredith WH, Lotrich VA (1979) Production dynamics of a tidal creek population of Fundulus
heteroclitus (Linnaeuas). Estuar Coast Mar Sci 8:99–118
Middleton BA (1999) Wetland restoration, flood pulsing and disturbance dynamics. Wiley, New York
Mitsch WJ, Wu X, Nairn RW et al (1998) Creating and restoring wetlands. Bioscience
48:1019–1030
Mommsen TP (1998) Growth and metabolism. In: Evans DH (ed) The physiology of fishes, 2nd
edn. Academic, New York
Nemerson DA (2001) Geographic, seasonal and ontogenetic patters in the trophic dynamics of five
fish species of Delaware Bay, USA. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Nemerson DM, Able KW (2005) Juvenile sciaenid fishes respond favorably to Delaware Bay
marsh restoration. Ecol Eng 25:260–274
Newell SY (1993) Decomposition of shoots of a salt-marsh grass: methodology and dynamics of
microbial assemblages. Adv Microbiol Ecol 13:301–326
Nixon SW (1980) Between coastal marshes and coastal waters—a review of twenty years of
speculation and research on the role of salt marshes in estuarine productivity and water chem-
istry. In: Hamilton R, MacDonald KB (eds) Estuarine and wetland processes. Plenum Press,
New York
NOAA Fisheries (2011) http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html and http://www.
st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/index.html June 1, 2011
Odum EP (1968) A research challenge: evaluating the productivity of coastal and estuarine water.
In: Proceedings of the 2nd Sea Grant conference, Graduate School of Oceanography, University
of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
Palmer MA, Ambrose RF, Poff NL (1997) Ecological theory and community restoration ecology.
Rest Ecol 5:291–300
Paperno R, Targett TE, Grecay PA (2000) Spatial and temporal variation in recent growth, overall
growth and mortality of juvenile weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) in Delaware Bay. Estuaries
23:10–20
Pauly D, Christensen V, Walters C (2000) Ecopath, ecosim, and ecospace as tools for evaluating
ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 57:697–706
Peters DS, Schaaf WE (1991) Empirical models of the trophic basis for fishery yield in coastal
water of the eastern USA. Trans Am Fish Soc 120:459–473
Peterson BJ, Fry B, Hullar M et al (1994) The distribution and stable carbon isotopic composition
of dissolved organic carbon in estuaries. Estuaries 17:111–121
Polis GA, Strong DR (1996) Food web complexity and community dynamics. Am Nat
147:813–846
Polis GA, Holt RD, Menge RA et al (1995) Time, space, and life history: influences on food webs.
In: Polis GA, Winemiller K (eds) Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman
& Hall, New York
Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD (1997) Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecol-
ogy: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:289–316
Post JR, Parkinson EA (2001) Energy allocation strategy in young fish: allometry and survival.
Ecology 82:1040–1051
Ross DA, Love RM (1979) Decrease in the cold-store flavor developed by frozen fillets of starved
cod (Gadus morhua L.). J Food Technol 14:115–122
Rozas LP, McIvor CC, Odum WE (1988) Intertidal rivulets and creek banks: corridors between
tidal creeks and marshes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 47:303–307
Rubino GD (1991) Chronicling geologic processes on a tidal marsh from aerial photography.
Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, Newark
Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured? Rest Ecol
13:569–577
Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites
australis, into North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:2445–2449
SER (Society of Ecological Restoration, International Science & Policy Working Group) (2004)
The SER international primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration
International, Tucson, AZ. http//www.ser.org
Sharp JH (2010) Estuarine oxygen dynamics: what can we learn about hypoxia from long-time
records in the Delaware Estuary? Limnol Oceanogr 55:535–548
Shulman GE, Love RM (1999) The biochemical ecology of marine fishes. In: Southward AJ, Tyler
PA, Young CM (eds) Advances in marine biology, vol 36. Academic, London
Simenstad CA, Cordell JR (2000) Ecological assessment criteria for restoring anadromous salmo-
nid habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecol Eng 15:283–302
Simenstad CA, Hood WG, Thom RM et al (2000) Landscape structure and scale constraints on
restoring estuarine wetlands for Pacific coast juvenile fishes. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA
(eds) Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Simenstad CA, Reed DJ, Ford M (2006) When is restoration not? Incorporating landscape-scale
process to restore self-sustaining ecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecol Eng
26:27–39
Sogard SM (1997) Size selective mortality in the juvenile stage of teleost fishes: a review. Bull Mar
Sci 60:1129–1157
Stanturf JA, Schenholtz SH, Schweitzer CJ et al (2001) Achieving restoration success: myths in
bottomland hardwood forests. Rest Ecol 9:189–200
Stedman S, Dahl TE (2008) Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Eastern
United States 1998 to 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC
Sullivan MJ, Moncreiff CA (1990) Edaphic algae are an important component of salt marsh food-
webs; evidence from multiple stable isotope analyses. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 62:149–159
Taylor ET (1987) Food habits of dominate piscivorous fishes in Delaware Bay, with special refer-
ence to predation on juvenile weakfish. Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, DE
Teal JM (1962) Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology 43:614–624
Teal JM, Weinstein MP (2002) Ecological engineering, design, and construction considerations for
marsh restorations in Delaware Bay, USA. Ecol Eng 18:607–618
Teo SLH, Able KW (2003) Habitat use and movement of the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus)
in a restored salt marsh. Estuaries 26:720–730
Thayer GW, McTigue TA, Bellmer RJ et al (2003) Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal
habitats, Volume One: a framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries and Clean Water
Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457). NOAA Coastal Ocean, Program decision analysis series
no. 23, vol 1. NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD
Turner RE (1977) Intertidal vegetation and commercial yields of penaeid shrimp. Trans Am Fish
Soc 106:411–416
Turner RE, Woo SW, Jitts HR (1979) Estuarine influences on a continental shelf plankton com-
munity. Science 206:218–220
Valiela I, Wright JE, Teal JM et al (1977) Growth, production and energy transformations in the
salt marsh killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus. Mar Biol 40:135–144
Vivian-Smith G (1997) Microtopographic heterogeneity and floristic diversity in experimental
wetland communities. J Ecol 85:71–82
Wainright SA, Weinstein MP, Able KW et al (2000) Relative importance of benthic microalgae,
phytoplankton and detritus of smooth cordgrass (Spartina) and the common reed (Phragmites)
to brackish marsh food webs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 200:77–91
Walters CJ, Juanes F (1993) Recruitment limitation as a consequence of natural selection for use
of restricted feeding habitats and predation risk taking by juvenile fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci
50:2058–2070
Walters C, Christensen V, Pauly D (1997) Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems
from trophic mass-balance assessments. Rev Fish Biol Fish 7:139–172
Weigert RG, Pomeroy LR (1981) The salt-marsh ecosystem: a synthesis. In: Pomeroy LR, Weigert
RG (eds) The ecology of a salt marsh. Springer, New York
Weinstein MP (1981) Plankton productivity and the distribution of fishes on the southeastern U.S.
continental shelf. Science 214:351–352
Weinstein MP, Balletto JH (1999) Does the common reed, Phragmites australis reduce essential
habitat for fishes? Estuaries 22(3B):793–802
mendation for “commerce managed areas”. Rest Ecol 13:174–182
Weinstein MP, Weiss SL, Walters MF (1980) Multiple determinants of community structure in
shallow marsh habitats, Cape Fear River estuary, North Carolina, USA. Mar Biol 58:227–243
Weinstein MP, Balletto JH, Teal JM et al (1997) Success criteria and adaptive management for a
large-scale wetland restoration project. Wetlands Ecol Manage 4:111–127
Weinstein MP, Philipp KR, Goodwin P (2000) Catastrophes, near-catastrophes and the bounds of
expectation: wetland restoration on a macroscale. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA (eds) Concepts
and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Weinstein MP, Litvin SY, Guida VG (2005) Consideration of habitat linkages, estuarine land-
scapes and the trophic spectrum in wetland restoration design. J Coast Res 40:51–63
Weinstein MP, Litvin SY, Guida VG (2009a) Is global climate change influencing the overwinter-
ing distribution of weakfish (Cynoscion regalis, Bloch & Schneider, 1801)? J Fish Biol 75:
693–698
Weinstein MP, Litvin SY, Guida VG (2009b) Essential fish habitat and wetland restoration success:
a Tier III approach to the biochemical condition of the common mummichog, Fundulus
heteroclitus in common reed, Phragmites australis and smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora
dominated salt marshes. Estuar Coast 32:1011–1022
Weinstein MP, Litvin SY, Guida VG (2010) Stable isotope and biochemical composition of white
perch in a Phragmites dominated salt marsh and adjacent waters. Wetlands 30:1181–1191
Winemiller KO, Akin S, Zeug SC (2007) Production sources and food web structure of a temperate
tidal estuary: integration of dietary and stable isotope data. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 343:63–76
White PS, Walker JL (1997) Approximating nature’s variation: selecting and using reference sites
and reference information in restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 5:338–349
Yuneva TV, Shulman GE, Shcepkina AM (1991) The dynamics of lipid characteristics in horse-
mackerel during swimming. Zhur Evol Biochim Physiol 27:730–735
Zedler JB (2007) Success: an unclear, subjective descriptor of restoration outcomes. Restor Ecol
25:162–168
Zimmerman RJ, Minello TM, Rozas LP (2000) Salt marsh linkages to productivity of penaeid
shrimps and blue crabs in the northern Gulf of Mexico. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA (eds)
Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Changing Nature: Novel Ecosystems,
Intervention, and Knowing When to Step Back
Eric Higgs
Abstract Climate change, species invasions, and changes in social practices and
cultural beliefs about nature are creating new ecosystems, some of which have no
apparent roots in the past. The emergence of hybrid (familiar ecosystems with new
combinations) and novel (unfamiliar) ecosystems challenges conventional ecological
restoration practices, which places reliance on robust notions of historical fidelity.
There is an extent to which the science and practice of restoration can be adapted to
cope with significant change and discontinuities, but beyond a certain point, yet
unknowable, it may be necessary to look ahead to emerging practices that blend the
important qualities of restoration with wild or regenerative design.
Keywords Ecological restoration • Novel and hybrid ecosystems • Historical

fidelity • Wild design • Ecological intervention
Intervening in Ecosystems
How do we intervene respectfully in ecosystems under conditions of rapid

change? This is emerging as a central question in sustainability science. The pace
of environmental (e.g., climate), ecological (e.g., species invasions) and cultural
(e.g., treating nature and natural processes as providing services that can be opti-
mized) change is accelerating, and there is the prospect that management based
on conventional historical references, notably ecological restoration, will also
need to evolve. The challenge is knowing when change has exceeded ecological
E. Higgs (*)
School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Social Sciences and Math
Building B243, 3800 Finnerty Road (Ring Road), Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada
384 E. Higgs
thresholds that frustrate conventional approaches, decision points for which at

present we have no solid basis for action. At the same time, it will be important
to know when interventions are critical for the well-being of ecosystems, and
when they are merely meddling. In the words of Kenny Rogers’ immortal lyrics
for The Gambler: “You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em,
know when to walk away and know when to run.” The task ahead is not in any
sense straightforward.
In this chapter, I provide background on recent work in ecological restoration
theory and practice with the aim of (1) emphasizing the importance of historical
knowledge, and (2) describing the challenges that rapid environmental, ecologi-
cal and cultural changes bring to classical restoration approaches and theories.
Over the last decade I have focused on advancing ecological restoration, and in
particular in exploring how our impulse to restore is both an artifact of, and anti-
dote to, life in an advanced technological society. Ecological restoration is pow-
erful because it adds value to ecosystems through community and personal
engagement: people are enlivened through their efforts at restoring ecosystems.
All of this made perfect sense in a world that had not yet grasped the implications
of rapid environmental and ecological change, not to mention fast changing per-
spectives on technology, equity, and financial systems. In combination, these
ecological, environmental and cultural drivers will push some ecosystems out-
side the long-term range of historical variation, and thereby pull out a primary
basis upon which ecological restoration has depended. For other ecosystems,
there is likely to be hybridization between nonanalogue or novel ecosystems and
ones that still rest in historical precedent. Thus, it is a time for assessing how a
world of novel ecosystems will challenge the science and practice of ecological
restoration, and what new approaches are needed. In this respect I argue for a
virtues approach—based on virtue ethics, in which the character of the moral
agent(s) rather than the outcome of an action is the driving force behind moral
behavior—that will point us toward how to think about respectful intervention in
ecosystems, and also to considering what might lie beyond a traditional notion of
restoration.
The prospect of a world of novel ecosystems disturbs traditional views on resto-
ration, and threatens to unsettle how people and natural processes interrelate (Hobbs
et al. 2009). At bottom is the threat that, despite generosity by restoration practitio-
ners and reciprocity between restorationists and ecosystems, restoration will give
way to interventions that magnify human interests at the expense of ecosystems: in
the future will ecosystem services not just be restored, but amplified?; will smart
ecosystems deliver on particular functional and aesthetic goals even more than they
do presently? (Higgs 2003). Even the very term, novel ecosystem, suggests innova-
tion and opportunity. It is difficult to know the extent to which in our lifetimes or
our children’s lifetimes there will be a need to address these nonanalogue or novel
ecosystems. Acting now and understanding the potential consequences of change is
the mark of precaution and diligence, and is at the heart of good sustainability
science.
Changing Nature: Novel Ecosystems, Intervention, and Knowing When to Step Back 385
Ecological Restoration and History
Ecological restoration, “the practice of assisting the recovery of ecosystems that

have been damaged, degraded, or destroyed” (Society for Ecological Restoration
2004), has emerged over the last 20 years as a defining environmental management
practice. The confluence of better ecological science and understanding, and a
pressing realization of the magnitude of degradation and the limits of preservation
of remnant intact ecosystems, has pushed restoration forward (National Parks
Directorate 2007). The scale of projects range enormously. In Victoria, British
Columbia, where I live, there are dozens of small projects focused on recovery of
nationally significant threatened ecosystems defined by the charismatic Garry oak
(Quercus garryana); a combination of backyard homeowner initiatives, volunteer
invasive species removal, nongovernment projects, and government sponsored net-
works and initiatives. The work is hands-on, and people from all walks of life are
involved. There is strong technical and scientific support, but such expertise is not
predominant (Fuchs 2001). At a much larger scale, the restoration of the Florida
Everglades involves teams of specialists organized around a large vision, dozens of
individual projects, and funding at a level not often associated with community-
based projects (Sklar et al. 2005).
The bases of restoration have been formulated in many ways (Hobbs and Norton
1996; Falk et al. 2006). In almost all cases, successful restoration depends on two
keystone concepts (Higgs 2003): ecological integrity and historical fidelity. There
are many ways of describing the integrity (or health) of an ecosystem, but the
essence is that we can determine either directly or through proxy data what a well-
functioning ecosystem should be (White and Walker 1997; Egan and Howell 2001).
Restoration, in the strictest sense, depends on historical knowledge to ascertain eco-
logical integrity. The premise is that ecosystems functioned better at some time
prior to a defined or ongoing disturbance. The goal is, therefore, to return the eco-
system to conditions that existed in the past. Of course, this is a challenging concept
in practice. Historical referents may be difficult or nearly impossible to find. Site or
surrounding conditions may have changed significantly such that reflecting histori-
cal conditions may no longer make sense. Or, it may make more sense to reconfigure
historical conditions, but then allow the ecosystem to shift within a defined range of
historic variation (Duarte et al. 2009). These, and other options, fuse the need for
ecological integrity and historical fidelity.
There are two primary problems with history, or more precisely, historicity (the
quality of being historical), for ecological restoration. First, ascertaining historical
references is painstaking work. Second, environmental and ecological change is
pushing ecosystems outside of historical ranges. The Mountain Legacy Project, an
interdisciplinary applied research project focused on using repeat photography
based on a vast collection of systematic historical topographic survey photographs
from Western Canadian mountains to chart historical conditions and how ecosys-
tems have changed, exemplifies the challenge of using historical knowledge
(MacLaren 2006; Higgs 2008). As part of the Project, Will Roush embarked on a
386 E. Higgs
study of rising treeline ecotone in Kootenay National Park. Using historical and
repeat photographs he ascertained an apparently dramatic elevation in treeline and
change in the density of upper subalpine forests. At the landscape level, and using a
latitudinal gradient of photographs, he showed the Kootenay ecosystem changes
were consistent with other regions in the Canadian Rockies. Intensive fieldwork
focused on disentangling components-level drivers for the change (e.g., microtopo-
graphic conditions; aspect) from constraints-level drivers (e.g., climate). His study
showed conclusively that the dramatic change in forest composition is driven by
climate, a finding that demonstrates potential diminishment of alpine ecosystems
and the difficulty of setting recovery targets given the rates of change (Roush 2009;
Higgs and Roush 2011).
Historical knowledge exacts specific obligations by compelling detailed research
about past conditions that can be used to set goals for ecological restoration. With
changing climate (IPCC 2007), biogeoclimatic envelopes shift beyond particular
limits, species, assemblies and entire ecosystems will shift (Harris et al. 2006). New
niches will open, but some historical niches will fall away. Historical knowledge
will come into play by providing intelligence on long-term ecological characteris-
tics and trajectories, but it will not serve in the same way as a specific guide for
intervention. Indeed, history may play a strong role in the future determination of
ecological interventions because reliable information about continuity becomes
more, not less, critical (Higgs 2012).
Novelty
History has served as the anchor in our understanding of how to respectfully inter-
vene in ecosystems. Peering into the past ecologists could discern the condition of
predisturbance ecosystems and study the sources and effects of degradation. While
the details of the restoration goals were complicated by historical and social contin-
gency, the overall mission remained the same. Now, the development of ecosystems
that differ in pattern and function from those in the past and present is increasingly
understood as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change, globalization of spe-
cies distributions, and changing human activities. Such ecosystems are variously
described as novel, no-analogue, or emerging (Hobbs et al. 2009).1
A novel ecosystem assembles in response to environmental (climate), ecological
(species invasions) and cultural (new attitudes toward nature) drivers, and produce
a distinctive and previously undescribed metastable assembly. All ecosystems are
novel in the trivial sense that there are myriad species assemblies and that these
change constantly. It is also the case that highly contrived ecosystems, urban parks
for instance, are in significant respects novel when they bring together an admixture
of species that have not existed before. An ecosystem is distinctive in these respects,
1
I prefer the term, “novel,” since the implication is that not only are ecosystem components and
processes new but the challenges for ecological restoration are also new.
but this is not the essence of a novel ecosystem. Contrived and heavily managed
ecosystems such as parks and gardens, while distinctive, are not novel in the sense
of an emerging and previously undocumented assemblage (Hobbs et al. 2009).
Relatively stable formations give us the ecosystems that are familiar to human
experience and human time scales. For instance, local Garry oak woodlands arose in
their present configuration several thousand years after the last withdrawal of glacial
ice from southern Vancouver Island. The savannah-like ecosystems that are familiar
in the present arose in response to indigenous land management practices: tilling,
selective harvesting of nutritional plant materials, and prescribed fire (MacDougall
et al. 2004). Thus, what greets the modern eye in greater Victoria (gnarly oaks with
an open understory of shrubs, forbs, and grasses) has adapted over several thousand
years to a wide variety of temperature and precipitation changes. Indeed, change is
a normal quality of ecosystems that are subject to direct and indirect disturbance.
What is distinctive about the present era is the rate and extent of disturbance by
climate-induced effects (e.g., intensifying storm events, elevated temperatures,
changing temperature and moisture patterns) and globalized movement of species
that reshape their new host ecosystems (e.g., Tamarisk in the United States; Kerns
et al. 2009). One can simply turn back the clock to the pre-Holocene or earlier and
find environmental conditions that describe an analog for today’s shifting climate.
However, this stretches beyond the traditional Holocene reference period that guides
much of ecological restoration, and misses the significance of novel ecosystems in
the present Anthropocene Epoch (Crutzen 2002). The pace of change along with the
erosion of historical biogeographic barriers to species movement and intensifying
human activity collide to create ecosystems that are either entirely novel or are rela-
tively stable hybrid formations of historical and novel patterns and functions.
Sitting at the cusp of major changes in climate and intensifying species invasions,
not to mention massive change in the way we think about ourselves and technology
and act on these beliefs (Mau and Institute Without Boundaries 2004; Homer-Dixon
2006), it is difficult to comprehend how ecosystems will unfold in the future, and
how policies and practices will adapt to changing conditions. For example, Stone
et al. (2008) reported on apparently novel interactions between the Turkey oak
(Quercus cerris), native and invasive gall wasps, and two songbird species. The oak
was native to the United Kingdom prior to the last glaciation, but has not been pres-
ent until it was planted ornamentally in the last 300 years; it did not disperse natu-
rally to its former range. The oak has become a reservoir food source for blue and
great tits (Cyanistes caeruleus and Parus major), which are laying eggs earlier in the
season in response to climate signals. The oak also acts as a host for gall wasps
(Hymenoptera: Cynipidae, Cynipini, many of which are also nonnative but migrat-
ing northwards), which provide critical food for the tit population prior to the emer-
gence of traditional food sources. The native and nonnative gall wasps are interacting
in novel ways. There are significant conservation and restoration questions, and
certainly it is not resolved whether the interactions are positive (e.g., securing the tit
population) or negative (e.g., supporting increased invasive insect populations). At
what point does a species become native? Is evidence of analogous multitrophic
interactions detected in the fossil record sufficient to consider these novel interac-
tions historically rooted? Is intervention necessary, and if so, of what kind?
388 E. Higgs
Interactions of this kind will become more common as the lag in ecological
response catches up to environmental change, and more study is done to increase
awareness of novel ecosystems. The case of the Turkey oak is illustrative of the
complexity of these issues, and points to an ambivalence at the heart of emerging
ecosystems. As conditions change significantly, historical ecosystems shift eventu-
ally to novel ecosystems. Along the way, there are conditions that blend novelty and
historicity, and are hybrid. As with most continuous change, the extreme values are
relatively easier to understand; what lies in the middle will cause greater difficulty
in knowing how to respond. At the boundary layer of hybrid and novel ecosystems
is a threshold that limits the degree of practical ecological restoration. Beyond this
point, and the threshold will vary from ecosystem to ecosystem, the conditions are
such that restoration is all but impossible (Hobbs et al. 2009). Recent examples of
salinized former agricultural lands that cannot be practically restored to historic
Jarrah forests in Western Australia point to the difficulties that lie ahead for classical
restoration (Yates et al. 2000). Extremely rare ecosystems, or those with very high
cultural value, may be restored using heroic means (i.e., means beyond which con-
ventional norms would suggest is appropriate effort or expenditure of resources),
but for most practical purposes the restoration to historic conditions would become
more difficult.
Inevitably our cultural values about nature, conservation, and restoration will
change alongside shifting ecosystems. The guidance of history will shift from pro-
viding ecosystems of reference to offering insights about disturbance events and
degradation patterns (Higgs 2012). The focus is shifting also to understanding eco-
systems as providers of services that have direct and indirect human benefits as well
as intrinsic value (Aronson et al. 2007). Ecological intervention, and especially res-
toration, will increasingly be configured as an economic and development impera-
tive. This is apparent already, for example, in the development of ecological services
as an organizing framework for understanding the value of ecosystems (Millennium
Ecosystems Assessment 2005). A greater emphasis on services, for example in the
revised regulation of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (REDD+), demonstrates a focus on processes over composition in the
conservation and restoration of ecosystems aimed at carbon sequestration (Chazdon
2008; UN-REDD Programme 2009; Alexander et al. 2011). Hobbs et al. (2009)
propose that novel ecosystems require different consideration for conservation and
restoration: Is the system capable of maturing along a stable trajectory? Is the sys-
tem resistant and resilient? Is the system thermodynamically efficient? Is the system
providing ecosystem goods and services? Is it providing opportunities for individual
or community engagement?
The social, moral, and ecological challenges thrown up by the arrival of hybrid
and novel ecosystems are difficult to overstate. We have a limited track record of
understanding present and historical landscape (including human systems) and
interpreting species dynamics (Liu et al. 2007). What of the challenges in sorting
out rapidly changing systems? The present values attached to nature are rooted pri-
marily in a place-based and species-based management. A transition to process- and
services-based models of nature will rub uncomfortably against deeply-embedded
models of nature (Cole and Yung 2010). If accepted climate predictions by 2100
occupy even the lower range, there will be places where it is unlikely to prove prac-
tical to hold on to certain species and in some cases to entire assemblies and ecosys-
tems (Hamann and Wang 2006; Wiens et al. 2009). A significant challenge is
knowing how to ascertain when an ecosystem has shifted away from historical ante-
cedents and is functioning as a hybrid or novel ecosystem. The question of when to
intervene will become more difficult, not only because present predictive capabili-
ties will be tested but it is also likely more surprises will emerge. It may also be the
case, although not strictly necessary, that hybrid and novel ecosystems will be
difficult to restore as a consequence of new environmental conditions (e.g., salinized
soils) and species (e.g., trenchant invaders).
Accepting and Resisting Change
The challenges for classical restoration in the face of largely unknown climate
impacts and inexorable and intractable species invasions are enormous. However,
Erika Zaveleta, an ecologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, commented
in a 2009 presentation on resilience and ecosystems, “the fact of change need not
mean that we accept any change.” Understanding human agency in both creating
and resolving problems is vital. The long lag effects of elevated CO2 in the atmo-
sphere make changing climate both inevitable and long in duration. Actions glob-
ally in reducing carbon emissions will help limit long-term consequences, but there
is no scenario that will easily return the background condition to any recent baseline
(IPCC 2007). To make matters more complicated, the response of ecosystems will
vary at all scales working downwards from dynamic global weather patterns and
upwards from site- and micro-site characteristics. We need global and regional
models of climate impacts, but spatial variation will make it difficult to predict with
precision exactly what will result. On east–west ridges in the Rocky Mountains of
Canada, for example, vegetation response on southerly slopes is almost always dif-
ferent than what is found sometimes just a few meters away on the northerly aspect
(Higgs and Roush 2011). Such complications are generally more than can easily be
assimilated with existing models.
The classical view of ecological restoration with its dependence on historical
continuity will be adapted to meet new challenges. The impetus to intervene in eco-
systems to meet defined ecological and cultural goals will remain strong. There are
circumstances where intervention is desirable, either because the ecological condi-
tion supports restoration (or a modified version of it), or social and cultural values
determine that greater investment is worthwhile to achieve desirable objectives.
In Victoria, British Columbia, for example, present climate models suggest by
2050 warmer (3–4°C in winter, 2–3°C in summer) and slightly wetter conditions
(20–30% in winter; unchanged or very little in summer), which will likely continue
to favor the Garry oak dominated ecosystems (Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium
2011). There may well be local conditions that prove too much for the oak, and so
390 E. Higgs
a sensible adaptive approach may be to propagate Garry oaks in locations that favor
appropriate new conditions and shift provenance to sources from further south along
a climatic gradient. Thus, classical restoration will persist as long as climate impacts
remain locally modest and cultural support for legacy ecosystems remains strong.
Intervention of any kind imposes responsibilities best met by a framework that
embeds ethical practices. Such obligations have been met in ecological restoration
by appeal to ecological integrity, historical fidelity, and other important factors such
as public engagement (Society for Ecological Restoration 2004; National Parks
Directorate 2007). With novel ecosystems, the moral landmarks are more difficult
to ascertain, especially under conditions of rapid and disorientating change. The
problem is complicated by the fact that ecological changes are increasingly viewed
through a window of economic and social benefit. Poverty alleviation and develop-
ment goals are vital not only in improving human welfare but also in providing
supportive conditions for ecosystem protection, conservation, and restoration
(Millennium Assessment 2005; Sachs 2005).
An ethical framework that is gaining traction focuses on the virtues required to
achieve a world in which ecosystems flourish. Thompson and Bendik-Keymer (2012)
argue that we need virtues that begin with ecological restoration and at the same time
account for the changes that are anticipated with environmental change. Throop
(2010) for example, proposes the virtues of humility, sensitivity, self-restraint, and
respect for the other; as intervenors in ecosystems we seek to uphold our awareness
that ecosystems are always more complex than we can imagine, they require careful
adaptive interventions, they benefit from always asking what is the least not the most
intervention, and they demand a profound respect as something other than ourselves.
It is not clear as yet whether novel ecosystems will require novel virtues or will sim-
ply reinterpret existing virtues of the kind Throop has proposed (Thompson and
Bendik-Keymer, 2012). Perhaps historicity (defined earlier in this chapter) will
emerge as a new virtue that compels awareness of historical continuities and discon-
tinuities in shaping ecological intervention. There are few anchors in a rapidly chang-
ing world, but the very act of seeking historical knowledge provides an important
prudential consideration and limits on our ambitions.
Wild Design
How best to manifest existing and new virtues in hybrid and novel ecosystems? One
approach is a variant of design practice; wild design (Higgs and Hobbs 2010).
Virtually every form of restoration is an explicit intervention with practical and ethical
consequences. Developing basic approaches to restoration practice (SER 2004) and
detailed principles and guidelines (National Parks Directorate 2007) provide the
outlines of good practice. However, a more explicit overarching model is needed to
situate effective, efficient and engaging restoration practice in a rapidly changing
world. Design, with its deliberative underpinnings and openness to creativity,
provides a starting point (Borgmann 1995; Higgs 2003).
A signal problem with design as a metaphor for restoration is that it gives too
much attention to human interests (see below; section “Problems with Design and
Intervention”). Design arose in the twentieth century in response to needs for better
integrated and higher functioning products, placements, and systems (Buchanan
1992). Extending to landscape design, it became a powerful way of encoding both
aesthetic and practical intentions (Higgs 2003). However, these intentions are
primarily human; can they be otherwise? The essence of wild design extends the
evolution of design to whole systems, and acknowledges that design of ecosystems
is always about both human and natural processes. Thus, a practitioner of wild
design is mindful of ecosystem form and function, and at the same time recognizes
hubris that accompanies too much confidence about deliberate ecosystem interven-
tion (Borgmann 1995).
Wild design fits the practice of ecological restoration well through immediate
acknowledgement of the interplay of human and ecological processes. This reflects
the inclination of restorationists to “listen” well to the ecosystem, and to impose
human intentions to the extent of regenerating ecological integrity in relation to
historical qualities. Wild design is situated at the center of learning and intervention.
We build understanding about places, and we intervene based on this knowledge;
wild design provides a formal conduit for this shift from theory to practice. There
are seven underlying principles: clarity, fidelity, resilience, restraint, respect, respon-
sibility, and engagement (Higgs and Hobbs 2010). The process of wild design
moves from ecological understanding, in which the problem is informed by ecologi-
cal and cultural knowledge, to an understanding of how the general wild design
principles are to be interpreted for a specific place (local characteristics, implemen-
tation, engagement). There is feedback among the three levels (ecological under-
standing, wild design principles, place-specific wild design) to ensure continuous
assessment of evolving values, principles, knowledge, and action.
The seven principles of wild design can also be considered as virtues of ecologi-
cal restoration (Table 1). Indeed, they can also be extended to address ecological
intervention in novel ecosystems. The shift in importance of historical qualities in
the determination of intervention goals places greater weight on both the individual
principles/virtues, and the very idea of a virtues approach to ecological intervention.
A virtues approach to ecological restoration and intervention has a number of advan-
tages. First, virtues hold particularly human practices to knowable standards that
operate across ecosystems and cultures without denying the importance of local
conditions and viewpoints. Second, the exercise of a virtue is always in response to
specific conditions and constraints. For example, the virtue of fidelity demands that
historical qualities be acknowledged and understood in a restoration or intervention
project. In heavily impacted systems subject to rapid change, precise historical ref-
erences may be figurative rather than literal. In a heavily urbanized contaminated
site subject to recovery efforts, the prescription for ecological intervention will bor-
row heavily from historical site qualities for the design even if historical species
assemblies are either unrealistic or very difficult (e.g., a combination of altered soils
and temperature change). The act of understanding history gives us a deeper appre-
ciation of the challenges of intervention, and tends to expand our potential for
392 E. Higgs
Table 1 Adapted from “wild design” (Higgs and Hobbs 2010)

Principle/virtue Guideline Wild design questions
Clarity Clear goals and objectives to Have goals and objectives been established?
ensure the transparency of Have value claims been made explicit?
values, and allow for Are goals and objectives consistent with the
careful negotiation of interests of those concerned with the
differences intervention?
Fidelity Entails careful historical What is known historically about the
research to understand past ecosystem?
conditions of the system, Have all sources of knowledge been
and to assess these explored?
past conditions against What signals in the contemporary ecosys-
present functions, tems can be inferred from historical
structures, and patterns information?
Resilience Ensure autogenic functioning What are the functional requirements of the
is restored to an ecosystem ecosystem?
and that an ecosystem has At what point can the ecosystem be
appropriate resources to autogenic?
cope with external How much continued intervention or
perturbations management will be required?
Restraint Less intervention is better Are the means in place to assess the impact
than more of an intervention?
Is it well understood where the line is drawn
between too little and too much
intervention?
Is precaution central to intervention
strategies?
Respect Interventions are always Are scientists, managers, and concerned
proxies for what we members of the public aware that
believe appropriate to a interventions are simply the best
particular ecosystem present-day approximation of what is
best for the ecosystem, and that the
values underlying these approximations
may shift?
Responsibility Responsibility includes wide Are intervention practitioners properly
knowledge of techniques trained?
and projects, operating Is there a code of practice in place that
according to high ethical guides professional conduct?
standards, and striving to Is it clear that the qualities of the ecosystem
allow ecosystems to come before human interests (although
flourish there is room for human values, too)?
Engagement Strong reciprocal ties are Have people been brought into the process
needed between people of designing the intervention early?
and ecosystems to ensure Is the role of the concerned public
successful and durable substantial?
interventions Who is accountable for the outcome of the
intervention?
Is community support strong and growing?
responsibility, respect and engagement. A virtues approach, including the grouping

of traditional virtues along with the development of new ones, ensures our moral
understanding keeps pace with our intervention in ecosystems.
Problems with Novelty, Design, and Intervention
The apparent diminishment of historical knowledge at the center of ecological res-

toration under novel future conditions gives rise to the science of intervention ecol-
ogy for addressing novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al. 2011), and further underscores
the value of a flexible, adaptable and open process of wild design (Higgs and Hobbs
2010). These three notions—novelty, design, and intervention—should cause us
unease, and there are several reasons for this.
Novelty. For some, the idea of novelty may imply a positive value, and especially in
societies given over to valuing novelty, constant change, innovation, and planned
obsolescence (Frank 1997). The sense that a novel ecosystem is somehow better
because it is new is an anathema to arguments put forward by Hobbs et al.: “Decisions
about how much conservation and restoration investment is appropriate will depend
on shifting cultural values about historic fidelity and ecological integrity, sentimental-
ity about ecosystems of the past, local species diversity, priorities for livelihood and
sustainability (i.e. historically faithful restorations vs. ecosystem services-oriented
projects), and designs for resilience” (2009, p. 604). The term novel ecosystems is
invoked to provoke awareness of an impending cluster of ecosystem management
challenges, not to promote novelty as a positive value.
Underneath a concern about novelty is pervasive pattern characteristic of
advanced technological cultures: the conversion of things that matter into increas-
ingly efficient and effective commodities, including nature and ecosystems
(Borgmann 1984; Strong 1995; Higgs 2003). Of greater concern is the tendency to
separate commodities from their attendant machinery (e.g., the music we hear and
the equipment used to produce it; ecosystem services and the complex processes
that produce them) and thereby increasing the distance between actions and their
consequences. This separation attenuates the moral resolve to do what one might
otherwise do outside of the influence of such devices, and at the same time makes it
more difficult to focus on things that matter (Borgmann 1992). This view also
amplifies Langdon Winner’s earlier observation of a tendency in technological soci-
ety to invert means and ends (e.g., allowing a new computer to reshape one’s
workflow) and thereby producing a condition of “reverse adaptation” (1977).
There is a greater likelihood that once stripped of considerations such as historic-
ity, and fueled by innovations such as ecosystem services, novel ecosystems will shift
increasingly from focal subject to commodity. The revised intent will be on the use
of ecosystems to meet particular ends, whether these are ecological (in the sense of
integrity and history), service delivery, or cultural. There may be greater flexibility in
how we see appropriate end states for ecosystems of the future. Attendant with these
changes is a likelihood that the greater extent that novel ecosystems form part of an
394 E. Higgs
intervention toolkit and become lodged in people’s minds, the more that appropriate
interventions will support novelty. This is consistent with the adoption of many new
technological innovations. Thinking of technology as a pattern—commodification,
comfort with rapid change, and the inversion of means and ends—can be extended
from the paradigmatic instances of technology to less traditional milieux such as
ecosystem intervention. Thus, the development of a refined view of ecological inter-
vention much be understood against the backdrop of technological culture.
Design. Wild design is intended at least in part to address these concerns. Based on
seven principles/virtues (Table 1), the explicit recognition of human responsibility
for human problems allows for a thoughtful approach to ecosystems under stress
and rapid change. Ecological integrity and historical fidelity still matter (the latter in
different ways), but they are joined with other considerations that invoke a relational
understanding of ecosystems. The deliberate recognition of restoration as a design
process invokes responsibility for intervention, and establishes the possibility of a
growing professional commitment to responsible design. However, there are aspects
of design in general that cause concern. Not the least is a recognition that design as
a professional activity grew in lockstep with the evolution of a technological society
(Buchanan 1992). Design, therefore, may be an artifact of technological society and
its existence predicates and furthers technological patterns of belief and action. This
viewpoint is held by Throop and Purdom, who argue for the metaphor of healing
instead of design for ecological restoration (Throop and Purdom 2006).
Design alone, with its technological connotations, falls short of what is needed
(Higgs 2006). However, wild design acknowledges human responsibility and calls upon
ingenuity, creativity, and the seven virtues described earlier in the chapter to rise to the
challenge of novel ecosystems. Healing works as a metaphor, but begs the question of
what is being healed under conditions of rapid change. There is also the risk of ignoring
human agency, which serves to submerge the importance of deliberate action in some
cases, and may also tend to naturalize ecosystems that are significantly co-evolved with
human practices (e.g., in the Global South, where the restoration of ecological
approaches to agriculture is more consistent with long-term ecological patterns).
Intervention. The principle of restraint becomes a key virtue of the future. Knowing
when to leave well enough alone makes it possible to intervene modestly. Of course,
understanding the divide between appropriate and inappropriate intervention is not
either mechanical or straightforward. Cultural variations in belief about interven-
tion, and refining these beliefs through broad conversations and social negotiation
of shared values, will enlarge our understanding. Good intervention, like good eco-
logical restoration, depends on being technically and scientifically proficient as
well as being politically, economically, culturally, and morally aware. Restraint is
perhaps the obverse of courage. Both virtues are needed in a world of novel ecosys-
tems: courage to know when intervention is appropriate; restraint to know when to
step back.
The fact of rapid environmental, ecological, and cultural change compels us to
new ways of engaging or intervening in ecosystems. Recognizing that historically-
centered ecosystems are giving way to hybrid and novel ones suggests that our
practices and ethics must shift, too. The anticipation of change and the development
of robust standards of practice is surely a better approach than a piecemeal post hoc
response. Or, is it? Is it better to hold tight to traditional notions of ecological resto-
ration in the hope of flexibly adapting these practices to meet oncoming challenges?
Will admission of novel ecosystems lead to acceptance, and undermine our con-
cerns about the source of the change?
These questions will only be answered accurately in time. My inclination is to
retain the practice of ecological restoration, with its reliance on historical outlook,
and to adapt flexibly as new challenges are introduced. The emerging science of
intervention ecology will offer bold insights into how best to anticipate and respond
to novel ecosystems. However, a problem with intervention is that it signals a moral
neutrality as regards appropriate outcomes: it is not clear what of many potential
aims are the proper ones for intervention beyond the mere act of intervening. This
stands in distinction to restoration ecology and ecological restoration, both of which
as science and practice function according to the specific moral impetus of getting
a system back to what it resembled (however flexibly this is interpreted). Stripped
of such obvious goals, intervention may fall prey to moral ambiguity. If intervention
is alright, what it wrong with more intervention? And, why not intervene in ways
that maximize ecological productivity and ultimately human goods and services?
Making ecosystems in our own image is something that societies around the globe
have done effectively for thousands of years. The emerging challenge is how not to
do this, but instead to give priority to the wildness of natural processes and at the
same time acknowledge the importance of respectful and restrained human activi-
ties, including restoration and intervention, alongside these ecosystems.
Regeneration Ecology
There may be another way out of this moral ambiguity by conceiving a new science
and practice that invests the insights of ecological restoration but allows for greater
latitude in dealing with rapid change. The science of regeneration ecology and the
broader practice of ecological regeneration may be a more flexible alternative to
restoration (Higgs 2003, p. 129). More than two decades ago, Jordan et al. wrote
about the terminological confusion over restoration ecology, going so far as to sug-
gest an alternative concept, synthetic ecology (Jordan et al. 1987). At that time, the
momentum of restoration was sufficiently strong that it made little sense to invoke
a new term. As the context in which restoration is practiced changes, and quickly,
and especially now that alternative covering terms such as intervention ecology are
proposed, regeneration deserves attention (Hindle 2006).
At the heart of regeneration is the idea of creating something again. Regeneration
ecology can takes parts of its cue from regenerative biology, which uses techniques
in cell and development biology to develop therapies for debilitating human condi-
tions (this analogy is problematic in some respects because regenerative biology
depends on an intensely technological approach). Regeneration ecology would focus
396 E. Higgs
new techniques and insights on ecosystems whether historical, hybrid, or novel.

Ecological regeneration is already used as a term to describe an integrated practice
of natural or ecological design. For example, the Natural Building Network, a
US-based nongovernment organization, supports: “ecological regeneration, social
justice, the building of community and economic opportunity, and the recognition of
indigenous wisdom as essential in creating healthy, beautiful, and spiritually-uplift-
ing habitation for everyone” (Natural Building Network 2011). Regenerative design
is a process-oriented approach to systems design (Lyle 1994), and made popular by
William McDonough and Michael Braungart in the form of cradle-to-cradle design
(2002). Several design firms, such as Biohabitats and Regenesis, have picked regen-
eration as a central organizing principle.
Nature is changing faster than traditional approaches such as ecological restora-
tion can cope, and thus begins a search for new ways of engaging with hybrid eco-
systems and novel ecosystems. A synthesis of ecological restoration, with its
attention to ecological integrity and historical fidelity, and wild or regenerative
design, could result in an emerging science of intervention or regeneration ecology
(and practice of ecological intervention or regeneration), which would join the pan-
theon of sustainability science. Working toward responsible ways of intervening in
ecosystems undergoing rapid change is one of the most difficult challenges that lies
ahead for ecologists and all those engaged with protecting, conserving, restoring,
and managing ecosystems.
References
Alexander, SCR et al. (2011) Opportunities and challenges for ecological restoration within
REDD+. Rest Ecol. 19:683–689
Aronson J, Milton S, Blignaut J (2007) Restoration natural capital: science, business, and practice.
Island Press, Washington
Borgmann A (1984) Technology and the character of contemporary life. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago
Borgmann A (1992) Crossing the postmodern divide. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Borgmann A (1995) The depth of design. In: Buchanan R, Margolin V (eds) Discovering design:
explorations in design studies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues 8:5–21
Chazdon R (2008) Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded
lands. Science 320:1458–1460
Cole D, Yung L (eds) (2010) Beyond naturnalness: rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in
an era of rapid change. Island Press, Washington
Crutzen P (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415:23
Duarte CM et al (2009) Return to Neverland: shifting baselines affect eutrophication restoration
targets. Estuar Coast 32:29–36
Egan D, Howell E (2001) The historical ecology handbook: a restorationist’s guide to reference
ecosystems. Island Press, Washington
Falk D, Palmer M, Zedler J (2006) Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington
Frank T (1997) The conquest of cool: business culture, counterculture, and the rise of hip consum-
erism. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Fuchs M (2001) Towards a recovery strategy for Garry oak and associated ecosystems in Canada:
ecological assessment and literature review. Technical report GBEI/EC-00-030. Environment
Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region
Hamann A, Wang T (2006) Potential effects of climate change on ecosystem and tree species dis-
tribution in British Columbia. Ecology 87:2773–2786
Harris J, Hobbs R, Higgs E et al (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Rest
Ecol 14:170–176
Higgs E (2003) Nature by design: people, natural process and ecological restoration. MIT Press,
Cambridge
Higgs E (2006) Restoration goes wild: a reply to Throop and Purdom. Rest Ecol 14:500–503
Higgs E (2008) Twinning reality, or how taking history seriously changes how we understand
ecological restoration in Jasper National Park. In: MacLaren I (ed) Culturing wilderness in
Jasper National Park: studies in two centuries of human history in the upper Athabasca river
watershed. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Canada
Higgs E (2012) History, novelty and virtue in ecological restoration. In: Thompson A, Bendik-
Keymer J (eds) Ethical adaptation to climate change: human virtues of the future. MIT Press,
Cambridge
Higgs E, Hobbs R (2010) Wild design. In: Cole D, Yung L (eds) Beyond naturnalness: rethinking
park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Island Press, Washington
Higgs E, Roush W (2011) Restoring remote ecosystems. Rest Ecol 19:553–558
Hindle T (2006) The regeneration of nature: an alternative to ecological restoration. PhD disserta-
tion, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Hobbs R, Norton D (1996) Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol
4:93–110
Hobbs R, Higgs E, Harris J (2009) Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restora-
tion. Trends Ecol Evol 24:599–605
Hobbs R, Hallett L, Ehrlich P, Mooney H (2011) Intervention ecology: applying ecological science
in the 21st century. Bioscience 61:442–450
Homer-Dixon T (2006) The upside of down: catastrophe, creativity, and the renewal of civiliza-
tion. Knopf, Toronto, Canada
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III
to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland
Jordan W III, Gilpin M, Aber J (1987) Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological
research. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kerns B, Naylor B, Buonopane M et al (2009) Modeling Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) habitat and climate
change effects in the Northwestern United States. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 2:200–215
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter S et al (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science
317:1513–1516
Lyle J (1994) Regenerative design for sustainable development and design for human ecosystems.
Wiley, New York
MacDougall A, Beckwith B, Maslovat C (2004) Defining conservation strategies with historical
perspectives: a case study from a degraded oak grassland ecosystems. Conserv Biol 18:455–465
MacLaren I [with Higgs E, Zezulka-Mailloux G] (2006) Mapper of mountains: M.P. Bridgland in
the Canadian rockies, 1902–1930. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Canada
Mau B, Institute Without Boundaries (2004) Massive change. Phaidon, London
McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North
Point, San Francisco
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: general synthesis.
Island Press, Washington
National Parks Directorate (2007) Principles and guidelines for ecological restoration in Canada’s
protected natural areas. Parks Canada and the Canadian Parks Council, Ottawa
Natural Building Network (2011) http://nbnetwork.org/about. Accessed 30 July 2011
398 E. Higgs
Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (2011) BC coast climate impacts. http://pacificclimate.org/

resources/climateimpacts/bccoast. Accessed 31 Jan 2011
Roush W (2009) A substantial upward shift of the alpine treeline ecotone in the southern Canadian
Rocky Mountains. MA thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria
Sachs J (2005) The end of poverty: economic possibilities for our time. Penguin Books, New York
Sklar F, Chimney M, Newman S et al (2005) The ecological–societal underpinnings of Everglades
restoration. Front Ecol Environ 3:161–169
Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group (2004) The
SER international primer on ecological restoration. Accessed from http://www.ser.org
Stone G, Van der Ham R, Brewer J (2008) Fossil oak galls preserve ancient multitrophic interac-
tions. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 75:2213–2219
Strong D (1995) Crazy mountains: learning from wilderness to weigh technology. SUNY Press,
Albany
Thompson A, Bendik-Keymer J (eds) (2012) Ethical adaptation to climate change: human virtues
of the future. MIT Press, Cambridge
Throop W (2010) Environmental virtues and the aims of restoration. In: Thompson A, Bendik-
Keymer J (eds) Ethical adaptation to climate change: human virtues of the future. MIT Press,
Cambridge
Throop W, Purdom R (2006) Wilderness restoration: the paradox of public participation. Rest Ecol
14:493–499
UN-REDD Programme (2009) Multiple benefits—issues and options for REDD. UN-REDD
Program
White P, Walker J (1997) Approximating nature’s variation: selecting and using reference informa-
tion in restoration. Rest Ecol 5:338–349
Wiens J, Stralberg D, Jongsomjit D et al (2009) Niches, models, and climate change: assessing the
assumptions and uncertainties. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:19729–19736
Winner L (1977) Autonomous technology: technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought.
MIT Press, Cambridge
Yates C, Hobbs R, Atkins L (2000) Establishment of perennial shrub and tree species in degraded
Eucalyptus salmonophloia (Salmon Gum) remnant woodlands: effects of restoration treat-
ments. Rest Ecol 8:135–143
Knocking on Doors: Boundary Objects
in Ecological Conservation and Restoration
Jac. A.A. Swart and Henny J. van der Windt
Abstract It is often argued that in the fields of conservation and restoration,

research, practice, public perceptions, and societal interests should not only
engage one another but also be integrated in order to guarantee success in the long
term. Moreover, there is need for concepts and practices that are flexible enough
to be acceptable to different parties and still have a common meaning. Such con-
cepts and practices have been labeled “boundary objects.” Here, we describe the
concept of “natural limits” and the practice known as the “hands on the tap
approach” as successful examples of boundary objects introduced into the discus-
sion of gas exploitation in the Dutch Wadden Sea area. While the concept of natu-
ral limits focuses primarily on natural issues, in many restoration projects, societal
issues—for example, protection against flooding—are often of at least compara-
ble importance, especially in highly populated areas where many stakeholders are
involved. The concept of social limits, on the other hand, refers to widely accepted
“limit” values for important societal parameters, for example, safety, agriculture,
and recreation. How these “social limits” can be taken into account is discussed in
relation to a number of Dutch projects, including dune management, the protec-
tion of meadow birds, brook valley restoration, and the introduction of ungulates.
Links between social and natural limits in environmental standard setting are
addressed along with the issue of communication.
Keywords Ecological restoration • Nature conservation • Boundary objects

• Natural and social limits
J.A.A. Swart (*) • H.J. van der Windt

Science & Society Group, Energy and Sustainability Research Institute Groningen,
PO Box 221 9700 AE, Groningen, Netherlands
400 J.A.A. Swart and H.J. van der Windt
Introduction
Conservation and restoration are outstanding examples of discourses that bring

nature and society together. They apply scientific knowledge to a socially sanc-
tioned undertaking, i.e., conserving or restoring natural areas. However, the border
region between nature and society is marked by contrasting views, not only because
different scientific disciplines may be involved but also because various visions of
nature and the relationships between nature and humans play an important role.
Sometimes these views converge, while at other times they diverge and lead to
conflict. In this chapter, we aim to review the border region between nature and
society using the concept of boundary objects.
This concept was introduced by the sociologist Susan Leigh Star and her col-
league James Griesemer to understand how people are able to establish shared
meanings on pivotal issues despite coming from different social worlds (Star and
Griesemer 1989). The authors describe, as an example, the establishment of the
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology in Berkeley, California. Originally, this museum
arose from private collections and was therefore based on popular and amateur
culture. The successful establishment of the museum with a scientific and profes-
sional mission may therefore be seen as an example of the integration of different
knowledge traditions (professional, amateur, and administrative). How did this
occur? According to Star and Griesemer, a central factor was the establishment of
so-called boundary objects which served as an interface between the different com-
munities of practice. Such objects can function in this way because they “are both
plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employ-
ing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites” (Star and
Griesemer 1989).
Boundary objects may have concrete or more abstract forms. For example, a map
may represent both an administrative unit for administrators and a nature reserve for
conservationists. In spite of these different meanings, it may nevertheless function
as a communicative device enabling cooperation and thus as a concrete boundary
object. An example of a more abstract boundary object is the species concept, which
functions as a pivotal unit in biological theories and as a basis for collector’s items
for amateur biologists. As long as the different interpretations do not blockade each
other, boundary objects may facilitate undertakings that require the involvement of
different parties.
Ecological Restoration
Ecological restoration—probably even more so than conservation and preservation—

also faces the challenge of reconciling different perspectives, knowledge traditions,
and interests. Many restoration projects are planned in areas with a history of human
utilization that—from a nature conservation point of view—have been negatively
Knocking on Doors: Boundary Objects in Ecological Conservation and Restoration 401
affected by such activities as agriculture, mining, and water management. Restoration

ecologists must therefore often deal with points of view about natural areas that are
related to former practices. However, here we immediately confront a potentially
important source of conflict with respect to what counts as a negative effect of human
utilization. The answer may differ for different social groups involved in the practice
of restoration: professional ecologists, administrators and officials, amateur natural-
ists, former and current users of the area, and, last but not least, laypeople who aim
to use or enjoy nature. These groups may have different perceptions about what
nature is or should be and whether a natural area has been negatively affected or not
by former practices (Swart et al. 2001; Van der Windt et al. 2007).
A recent example of a powerful clash of perceptions is the conflict over the Dutch
government’s plan to create new salt marshes by flooding formerly reclaimed land
in the Hedwigepolder region of the southwest Netherlands (Nijpels et al. 2008). The
plan was meant as a compensation measure for the loss of natural areas due to the
deepening of the Western Scheldt to guarantee access to the harbor at Antwerp. In
this conflict, local people expressed their admiration for the natural quality of the
current polder landscape and protested strongly against the proposal to flood the
area, which they argued showed a lack of respect for the efforts of their ancestors
who had reclaimed the land from the sea. They even accused conservationists and
restoration ecologists of destroying nature. Ironically, the whole project had been
initiated to increase the natural quality of the area, but clearly only according to the
thinking of restoration ecology professionals and policymakers (Floor 2009).
Other conflicts concerning conservation or restoration that have arisen between
various stakeholders such as farmers, fishermen, and governments were not only
due to the various interests involved but also due to opposing visions of nature
(Worster 1977; Kwa 1987; Swart et al. 2001; Higgs 2003; Swart and Van der Windt
2005; Buijs 2009; Bauer et al. 2009; Drenthen et al. 2009; Runhaar and Van
Nieuwaal 2010). Moreover, it was not only professional ecologists, laypeople, or
stakeholders who differed in their perceptions or attitudes, and who collided on the
meaning of nature. Within the professional community itself individuals also dis-
agreed, as the field of ecology is characterized by different schools of thought, tradi-
tions or paradigms, and policy aims, resulting in different visions of what nature is
or what it should be (Kwa 1987; Swart and Van Andel 2008; Turnhout et al. 2008).
For example, in the Netherlands, the area of Oostvaardersplassen is considered by
ecologists who focus on natural processes as being a valuable, almost completely
natural environment, whereas ecologists who stress biodiversity consider it to be a
rather poor natural area (Kuiters 2005).
Gas Exploitation in the Wadden Sea
It is true that the concept of boundary objects may be considered rather vague, not
to mention that the concept itself might be considered a boundary object! Nevertheless,
the recognition and fostering of such objects, whether they are concrete or abstract,
may contribute to developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting or

colliding practices, as occurs in many restoration and conservation projects.
An example of what appears to be a successful application of a boundary
object is found in the recent history of the management of the Dutch Wadden Sea
(Swart and Van der Windt 2007). This is a shallow sea located on the rim of the
northwest European continent, consisting of tidal flats, salt marshes, and small
islands. The Wadden Sea area is characterized by a fairly high level of primary
production and functions as a nursery for many species of fish. The nearby
islands, salt marshes, and intertidal areas are important resting and wintering
sites for migratory birds.
However, because of its location near such a densely populated country as the
Netherlands, it is highly vulnerable to human exploitation in relation to embank-
ment, nutrient loading, gas exploitation, and fisheries (Weinstein et al. 2007). Since
the late 1960s, in particular, many debates have taken place regarding several types
of exploitation (Wolff 1992, 2000a, b; De Jong 2006; Swart and Van Andel 2008).
In 2004, in response to the continuing debate on the use of the Wadden Sea for gas
exploitation, a committee of politicians was established to develop recommendations
for the sustainable use of the Wadden Sea. The committee argued that humans had
been active in this area for many centuries, and that human use need not and should
not hamper nature protection and nature restoration. According to the committee,
both the impact of human activities on pivotal natural processes and the acceptable
limits of these activities can be determined. In its final report, the committee pro-
posed the concept of “natural limits” for the sustainable protection and develop-
ment of the “Wadden Sea and the preservation of the unique open landscape”
(Meijer et al. 2004).
According to the committee, a natural limit is a framework of limit values for
the most important natural parameters on which there is scientific consensus,
such that if these limits are not exceeded, natural processes will continue undis-
turbed (Meijer et al. 2004; translated). Thus, the concept of natural limits implied
the recognition that beyond a certain level of human impact an ecosystem will
significantly change. The committee applied this concept to the case of gas exploi-
tation in the Wadden Sea. The report recognized that gas exploitation in this area
may have negative effects, especially due to soil subsidence as a consequence of
decreasing gas pressure deep underground, and that exploitation might also lead
to disturbing effects on ecosystem functions through, for example, plant and
transport facilities. Of these issues, the committee considered soil subsidence to
be the most potentially negative effect, but argued that if the natural process of
sedimentation could compensate for soil subsidence, no real adverse impacts
would occur. The committee concluded further that, by taking into account the
expected rise in sea level, subsidence could indeed be compensated for by sedi-
mentation. As a matter of fact, the vision of the committee implied that during the
period of gas exploitation, it was permissible to counteract the process of sea bed
rise that would otherwise occur through natural processes such as sedimentation.
Thus, the proposed natural limit of gas exploitation was “no actual soil subsidence,”
which would be determined by the combination of gas exploitation, sedimentation,

and rising sea level.
It also appeared to be possible to monitor the subsidence effect and control the
level of gas exploitation such that it would not exceed the proposed natural limit.
The possibility of controlling gas exploitation levels in this manner was called
“exploitation with hands on the tap.” The result of the committee’s advice was the
acceptance of gas exploitation in the Wadden Sea by the Dutch government as well
as by most environmental and nature protection groups, under the condition that
part of the expected profit from the gas would be used to fund research and the
protection of nature in the Wadden Sea. This effort concluded a societal debate that
had arisen several times during the last decades. Although the acceptance of the
concrete natural limit of “no soil subsidence” together with the “hands on the tap”
approach was also facilitated by the funding conditions and aided by the economic
power of the gas company, they can also be considered to be successful boundary
objects as they reconciled contrasting views on the acceptability of gas exploration
in the Wadden Sea.
It is important to note, however, that this approach including the concept of natu-
ral limits was not put forward by ecologists but by politicians and policymakers who
were informed by ecologists and other experts on scientific and technical issues
such as sea level rise metrics, sedimentation rates, and subsidence levels through
gas mining activities. Although there is some overlap, we see different roles for the
stakeholders involved: politicians and policymakers focusing on basic conditions
and rules, and scientific experts providing substantiated information on ecosystems,
physical systems, and their limits. Thus, the concept of natural limits and the prac-
tice of the hands on the tap approach were boundary objects for diverse groups. For
the politicians, they were a means of resolving a severe political and societal conflict
about what should be considered protectable nature in the Wadden Sea, functioning
as policy concepts related to the notion of feasibility. For the ecologists and conser-
vationists involved, the concept of natural limits was considered a means to place
limits on what was acceptable from a “scientific viewpoint” framed in relation to
concepts such as resilience and carrying capacity (Dankers et al. 2008). For the gas
company and ministerial policymakers, they were a means of making exploitation
acceptable, as they provided certainty about what was actually possible. For these
stakeholders, the concept of natural limits functioned as a so-called “environmental
utilization space,” which refers to the notion of a sustainable use of natural resources
(Opschoor and Weterings 1994). The natural limit can be considered as the utmost
limit of utilization, taking into account a safety margin, which may still be consid-
ered as sustainable (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the concept of natural limits in relation to the concept of sus-
tainable environmental use. The natural limit represents the utmost level of resource utilization
which would not lead to an unacceptable change in the functioning of the ecosystem. The dotted
line after the environmental utilization space represents a safety margin (After: Swart and Van der
Windt 2007)
That the concept of natural limits and the hands on the tap approach could
successfully function as a boundary object in the case of gas exploitation in the
Wadden Sea was facilitated not only by its flexible meaning to different parties and
because of favorable societal conditions (political and economic power and fund-
ing) but also by the already established conservation aims for the Wadden Sea, since
the Dutch government had decided as early as the 1980s to take “naturalness” as a
starting point for the management of the region (Ministry of VROM et al. 2007).
The concept of natural limits has recently been elaborated in more detail and has
been applied to food availability and bird population dynamics and to the effects of
soil subsidence on the quality of salt marshes, sand flats, mudflats, and intertidal
mussel beds (Dankers et al. 2008; Baptist et al. 2010).
Knocking on Nature’s and Society’s Doors
The negative impact of society on nature has been recognized worldwide and can be
summed up in the saying that society is increasingly “knocking on nature’s door.”
However, in recent decades, a new strategy has developed in relation to this encroach-
ment in the form of ecological restoration (Aronson and Van Andel 2005) that aims
to improve natural quality and extend and create natural areas and reserves.
According to the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), such restoration “initi-
ates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity
and sustainability” (SER 2004).
Because it has an offensive component, restoration may meet more societal resis-
tance than conservation and preservation, which may be considered more defensive
in nature. Ecological restoration attempts to “knock on society’s door,” but in order
to be successful, restoration ecologists must pay serious attention to how society
reacts and find ways to respond. In other words, rather than “natural limits,” “societal
limits” may be the starting point for developing boundary objects that facilitate the
interactions among actors from different social worlds. Inspired by the definition of
the concept of natural limits, we define such social limits as: a framework of limit
values for the most important societal parameters on which there is social and
scientific consensus, such that if these limits are not exceeded these essential societal
processes or conditions will go on undisturbed. We may think of societal limits or
barriers as resulting from considerations about food production, safety, security, and
health, but also from deeply rooted cultural, ethical, and aesthetic considerations.
Connecting different actors also means looking for social consensus. The challenge
is to determine the societal limits and to let them function as boundary objects which
do not appear as barriers but as drivers of ecological restoration and conservation.
An example of a societal barrier is the public fear of flooding by rivers and the
sea, which is especially relevant in a country that largely resides below sea level.
Protection against flooding by rivers or the sea is therefore important and often an
essential condition in restoration and conservation projects. The classic approach in
the Netherlands is dyke and dune fortification. However, in recent decades, the
concept of dynamic coastal management has been successfully applied as an alter-
native in several areas. This approach makes use of sand supplementation and
natural sea currents to move sand to places where it can contribute to flood protec-
tion. As such it may be considered a more natural form of coastal fortification.
Currently, there is scientific evidence demonstrating that this technique ensures very
high levels of security against flooding even in the case of the rising sea levels, and
that it is even better than the traditional method of immobilizing sand volumes in
risky locations (Arens and Overdiep 2008).
Dynamic coastal management also provides opportunities for ecological dune
management and ecological restoration measures such as dismantling formerly con-
structed sand dikes in order to create new habitats within the dune landscape, lead-
ing to greater biodiversity and the occurrence of natural processes. Such
measurements may even contribute to safety, as controlled flooding may result in a
rise of the low lands behind the dunes and dikes through the process of sedimenta-
tion. Ensuring security against flooding can be considered a social limit, and
dynamic coastal management may function as a boundary object as it provides soci-
ety with better flood prevention barriers and restoration ecologists with opportuni-
ties for ecological restoration. The method of dynamic coastal management is
accepted by a number of regional authorities, by most environmental groups, and by
the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment responsible for protecting
the land from encroachment by the sea. In contrast, a number of local communities
still have their doubts (Arens and Overdiep 2008).
Societal barriers may also be rooted in culture and history. The failure to realize
nature compensation in the Western Scheldt, described earlier in this chapter, was
attributed to a cultural mismatch between the national government and restoration
ecologists on the one hand and local stakeholders on the other with respect to what
counts as nature. But there are also cases where such different points of view were
ultimately reconciled; e.g., in the restoration plan for Gaasterland in the Dutch prov-
ince of Friesland, the national government aimed to transform current rural areas
into a more wilderness type of landscape (Kuindersma et al. 2006). Because the
original plan did not account for the significance of the landscape in the region’s
identity, and the local community’s need to decide its own future, it met huge
resistance from local authorities, citizens, farmers, and other local and provincial
stakeholders. In response, the government devised a new plan in which only a small
part of the landscape originally envisaged as wilderness was retained, and in the
remaining areas, nature-friendly agricultural management was introduced and farm-
ers were funded to take responsibility for the management of birdlife and vegetation
to ensure an increase in biodiversity.
Implementation of the new plan also entailed the use of a so-called nature credit
points scheme for measuring nature quality: all relevant organisms, populations,
and landscape types were rated according to this scheme. Based on an agreement
between the parties involved, restoration aims were formulated in terms of these
natural credit points, and it was expected that after a period of two decades, this adapted
plan would produce results similar to the original plan (Kuindersma et al. 2006).
Agricultural nature management using the credit points system thus functioned as a
boundary object. It emphasized the importance of the original landscape and culture
as a social limit, it provided society with an attractive landscape and ecologists and
nature organizations with opportunities to achieve their ecological aims, and it
encompassed the rights of the locals to determine the design of their region’s land-
scape. The plan could only be successful if all of the diverse stakeholders were
involved at all stages of the decision-making and management process, an essential
ingredient for the successful establishment of such a boundary object.
An appreciation of the landscape is not the only element that may function as a
boundary object—an appreciation of certain animals may also function in this way.
An example is the lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) in the Dutch province of Friesland.
There is a strong tradition among farmers and other locals of collecting lapwing
eggs for human consumption (Steenkamp and Rip 1984; Van der Windt 1995). This
is an integral part of the sociocultural tradition of the Frisian countryside and every
year the first lapwing egg found is offered to the highest authorities of the province
(and in former times to the queen of the Netherlands). For most Frisians, the lap-
wing is a symbol of spring, country life, the beauty of the countryside, and a harmo-
nious relationship between humans and nature.
However, some decades ago, it became clear that the lapwing population had
decreased. Conservationists, especially those from other provinces, called for an
end to the egg-collecting tradition and for the creation of lapwing reserves. This
request resulted in a lengthy and heated debate. The non-Frisian conservationists
faced a societal barrier in the practices and attitudes of the Frisian people. Dutch
bird protection legislation and the nature reserve approach were heavily criticized
by the egg collectors. There were uncertainties about the cause of the decline in the
lapwing population. Farmers and hunters, for example, were convinced that it was
not egg collecting but predation by crows and foxes that was the main cause of the
decrease. The solution was also unlikely to be simple. Strict reserves were impos-
sible for several reasons, including their possible ineffectiveness due to the mobility
of the birds. After some time, each of the stakeholders involved took initiatives in
order to reach agreement. One initiative was a study to determine the cause of the
decline of the species; another included an intensive protection program, consisting
of a system of nest protection by the egg collectors themselves, in conjunction with
a restriction of egg collection to specific periods and a flexible system of agricul-

tural nature management by farmers. Thus, rather than becoming a divisive factor,
the lapwing became a boundary object. All of the social groups agreed that the lap-
wing should survive, that nature reserves need not be the only solution, and that the
lapwing would remain a symbol of the Frisian countryside.
Language and World Views
To overcome societal barriers, language is also important, with particular terms

functioning as boundary objects that have different meanings for stakeholders from
various social worlds. As an example, in a large restoration plan for a number of
brook valleys in the Dutch provinces of Groningen and Drenthe (close to the Wadden
Sea), the term “Green River” was adopted as a notion that appealed to all parties
(Van der Windt and Swart 2008). Due to reclamation and canalization in the past,
the brooks were not functioning very well ecologically. Therefore, conservationists,
together with ecologists, recreation organizations, and fishermen created an ambi-
tious restoration plan. Subsequently, the local authorities and farmers also became
involved in the planning process. Eventually, despite the different interests and per-
spectives of the parties, they came to an agreement. For conservationists and resto-
ration ecologists, the term Green River expressed the necessity of creating
possibilities for the migration of fish as well as mammals such as the otter. The term
“green”—and thus not “natural”—was attractive to stakeholders with a recreational
or farming background. In addition, the term “river”—rather than “canal”—opened
discussion on new approaches to the water management of large river beds, which
involved the use of nature rather than fighting against it. Even the local water author-
ity, which had the greatest reservations because of their traditional focus on safety,
agreed to the plan, accepting that safety was guaranteed by its provisions.
Taking world views and language into account may also mean addressing ethical
issues, especially when animals are involved. For example, the introduction of large
herbivores for restoration and conservation goals in the Dutch nature reserve of
Oostvaardersplassen led to an intense debate concerning their fate. The Dutch State
Forest Service had introduced Heck cattle and Konik horses in the early 1990s (Vera
2009) and under minimal management intended that they would “de-domesticate”
and in succeeding generations return to a natural way of life. However, the winters
proved very difficult because of the limited availability of food and the harsh weather
conditions. On several occasions, there was starvation among the animals, leading
to political and public disquiet (ICMO 2006; ICMO2 2010), especially after images
of starving deer and cows were shown on Dutch television.
The public resistance to this form of wild-life management had different sources,
but in all cases the concern involved strong feelings with respect to animal welfare.
Thus, the attitude to animal welfare became an important social barrier to the use of
introduced species in the nature management process. According to the critics,
humans had bred these animals and introduced them into the reserve. On this basis,
they were seen as primarily domesticated animals and to let them starve and die
clearly did not correspond with this status. Moreover, it was argued that their
natural habitat in Oostvaardersplassen had been restricted by fencing and that
natural forces such as predation, for example, did not affect the populations. From
this standpoint, these animals were primarily considered to be under the control of
human beings and thus their responsibility (RDA 2005). The supporters of de-
domestication management meanwhile argued that intervention to prevent starva-
tion would ultimately undermine the self-sufficiency of the population and would
inhibit its capacity to adapt to the natural circumstances. They argued that high
mass starvations also occur in other natural reserves, for example, the Serengeti
reserve in Africa (Vera 2009).
The foregoing conflict can be considered as a clash between zoo-ethical and
eco-ethical approaches. In order to prevent a stalemate, a “care for the wild”
approach was suggested (Swart 2005; Swart and Keulartz 2011), where both wild
and domesticated animals were seen as dependent on their respective environments,
whether natural, human influenced, or somewhere in between. The recognition of
this dependence made it possible to reconcile the different positions and to imple-
ment a form of management that involved monitoring and preventative culling so
that mass starvation could be prevented (ICMO2 2010). The “care for the wild”
approach may therefore be considered as a boundary object in the conflict over the
management of ungulates in the Oostvaardersplassen.
Prying the Doors Open
Whether one starts out from one side or the other of the border between society and
nature, dealing with uncertainty by using flexible and transparent procedures is
essential (Gross 2010). Just as environmental impact assessment procedures are
applied to evaluate the environmental and natural consequences of a policy plan or
program, societal impact assessments might be used to assess the effects of restora-
tion projects on society (Petts 1999). Such an assessment could clarify the impact of
a restoration project on agriculture, landscape, health, safety, the rural economy,
recreation opportunities, and so on, suggesting ways to alter plans in order to mini-
mize the societal impact or to combine the plans with measures that may compen-
sate the adverse effects of ecological restoration. It may also reveal approaches and
solutions that were not considered before.
Flexible socioecological standard-setting procedures are needed to take into
account the uncertainties and the various value bandwidths associated with both
natural and societal parameters. Moreover, it is important that insights into and
information on standards are revealed, communicated, and discussed by all of the
participants involved. In conservation and restoration practices in which so many
different parameters, circumstances, visions, and uncertainties may figure, consensus
building is difficult and requires participative events such as public meetings and
debates, and the understandable representation of benchmarks, conditions, and
limits. The credit points scheme discussed above may function as one such repre-
sentative tool but remains rather abstract.
An example of a rather communicable tool is the so-called AMOEBA approach

used in Dutch policymaking (Ministry of V&W et al. 1989; Ministry of V&W 1990;
Rutgers et al. 2005). AMOEBA is an acronym for “A general Method of Ecological
and Biological Assessment,” and was developed by ecologists in cooperation with
water managers (Ten Brink and Colijn 1990; Ten Brink et al. 1991). The approach
consists of a set of parameters enabling the assessment of the required or desired
ecological quality of ecosystems. Most parameters represent species abundance
(e.g. population sizes). A reference value and a current value are estimated for each
parameter and put into a radar diagram such that the reference values are set in a
circle with a value of 100% and the current values are shown as a percentage of the
reference value for each parameter. Accordingly, all points are connected by a line
for a better visualization. The reference values may be chosen from a particular year
or from another area that functions as an ideal example, or they may be based on
theoretical grounds. The resulting figure can present the current ecological condi-
tion of an area in one glance (Fig. 2).
Fig 2 Example of the Amoeba figure for the North Sea for 1988 (After: Ministry of V&W et al
1989). The parameters represent main elements of the North Sea ecosystem: plants, invertebrates,
birds, fish, mammals, and typical niches. The values of these parameters represent, e.g., population
size, number of breeding pairs, hectares, etc (see Ten Brink et al. 1991 for a more extensive descrip-
tion). In most cases, these values are much too low or high as compared to the reference situation,
which represents the situation around 1930
We believe that the AMOEBA approach can also be used to make the concepts
of natural and social limits more communicable. Using reference values, ecological
science, and practical experience, natural limits can be estimated, distinguishing the
upper and lower values, because the value of a parameter can be either too low or
too high from an ecological point of view (e.g. underpopulation or overpopulation
of a species). Natural limits can thus—taking into consideration the definition cited
earlier in this chapter—be seen as hard bandwidths around reference values for
chosen parameters of an ecosystem. Similarly, we may construct an AMOEBA-like
graphics of the social limits for an area of interest using parameters such as flood
risk, emission levels in industry or agriculture, recreation intensity, or transport
intensity. Accordingly, we can compare the actual values and the natural limits with
social limits. This gives us information on potential conflicts, opportunities, bench-
marks, and trade-offs for the chosen set of parameters.
Of course we must recognize that representation and assessment tools such as the
AMOEBA approach and the credit points system do have shortcomings, for exam-
ple, they do not take into account the possible mutual dependence of parameters.
Moreover, the set of parameters chosen also depends on scientific paradigms, visions
of nature, and specific interests. Thus, every set chosen implies another set of param-
eters that were not chosen. Consequently, the process of determining the assessment
methodology should also be part of the decision-making procedure.
Conclusion
While acknowledging that ecological restoration involves an offensive approach,

the social acceptance of restoration measures cannot be reached simply by stressing
the importance of nature and natural processes alone as ecologists and ecological
restoration projects sometimes seem inclined to do. Rather, they should emphasize
that ecological restoration can also contribute to societal goals. In such cases, resto-
ration goals may function as boundary objects that allow different actors from dif-
ferent social worlds to reach agreement. We have discussed a number of examples
of such boundary objects in this chapter and many more examples can be found in
the current practice of ecological restoration and conservation. For example, con-
cepts of natural capital (Aronson et al. 2007) or paying for environmental services
(Pascual and Perrings 2007) may be considered as boundary objects that are able to
reconcile different social worlds.
The role of these types of boundary objects—linking societal and restoration
goals aims—is especially important in densely populated areas such as Western
Europe and many coastal areas throughout the world (Weinstein et al. 2007). In
these areas, natural limits have to be taken into account from ecological or conserva-
tion points of view, but at the same time the social limits must also be recognized.
It is therefore important to develop representation and assessment tools that may
assist in finding and determining such boundary objects.
Based on our overview, we conclude that boundary objects may vary, from being
more society-based to more science-based, from existing procedures and manage-
ment styles to new terms, from landscapes to species, and from practices to con-
cepts. The establishment of boundary objects is not easy. Sometimes they develop
from conflicts, as in the cases of gas exploitation in the Wadden Sea, dynamic dune
management, and agricultural nature management. Sometimes they simply emerge,
as in the case of the lapwing, while in others they are consciously constructed, as in
the case of the Green River project or the AMOEBA approach. The devising or use
of these tools should not be seen as purely strategic and rhetorical, but must be seri-
ously considered and substantiated by scientific and societal support. This also
requires openness: the willingness to include different types of knowledge and dif-
ferent views, as well as a fair system of checks and balances and transparent plan-
ning procedures. Ecological restoration requires that we take into account societal
conditions and perceptions of nature right from the beginning and not only after
restoration aims have already been determined.
References
Arens B, Overdiep T (2008) Vijftien jaar dynamisch zeereepbeheer op de waddeneilanden [Fifteen

years of dynamic coastal management on the Frisian Islands]. Duin 31:3–5
Aronson J, Van Andel J (eds) (2005) Restoration ecology: the new frontier. Blackwell,
Oxford, UK
Aronson J, Milton SJ, Blignaut JH (2007) Restoring natural capital. science, business, and practice.
Baptist MJ, Dankers N, Bastmeijer CJ et al (2010) User limits or natural limits: can we set limits
to human use, based on a natural functioning of the Wadden Sea? In: Marencic H, Eskildsen K,
Farke H et al (eds) Science for nature conservation and management: the Wadden Sea ecosys-
tem and EU Directives. Proceedings of the 12th International Scientific Wadden Sea Symposium
in Wilhelmshaven, Germany, 30 March–3 April 2009, pp. 193–198
Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M (2009) The change of European landscapes: human-nature rela-
tionships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management
in Switzerland. J Environ Manage 90:2910–2920
Buijs AE (2009) Lay people’s images of nature: comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and
value orientations. Society and Natural Resources 22:417–432
Dankers N, Baptist MJ, Bastmeijer CJ et al (2008) Natuurgrenzen in de Waddenzee: een verken-
ning voor beleid en beheer [Natural limits in the Wadden Sea: an exploration for policymaking
and management] Report C067/08 Wageningen Imares. Texel, The Netherlands
De Jong F (2006) Marine eutrophication in perspective: on the relevance of ecology for environ-
mental policy. Springer, Berlin
Drenthen M, Keulartz J, Proctor J (2009) New visions of nature. Complexity and athenticity,
Springer, Dordrecht
Floor J (2009) Ontpolderen langs de Westerschelde. Invloed van lokale en regionale actoren en
legitimiteitsproblemen in het beleidsproces (2005–2009) [De-reclamation along the Western
Scheldt. The influence of local and regional actors and legitimization factors in the policy
process (2005-2009)]. Master’s thesis Environmental Policy Group (ENP) Wageningen
University. http://edepot.wur.nl/13732
Gross M (2010) Ignorance and surprise. Science, society, and ecological design. MIT, Cambridge
Higgs E (2003) Nature by design. People, natural process, and ecological restoration. MIT,
Cambridge
ICMO (2006) Reconciling nature and human interests. Report of the International Committee on
the management of large herbivores in the Oostvaardersplassen. Wing rapport 018, The Hague,
Wageningen, The Netherlands
ICMO2 (2010) Natural processes, animal welfare, moral aspects and management of the
Oostvaardersplassen. Report of the Second International Commission on management of the
Oostvaardersplassen (ICMO2). Wing rapport 039, The Hague, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Kuiters L (2005) Grote grazers en behoud van biodiversiteit: Na 30 jaar beheerpraktijk nog veel
vragen onbeantwoord [Large herbivores and conservation of biodiversity: many questions still
after 30 years of management]. Vakblad Natuur, Bos en Landschap 2:6–10
Kuindersma W, Molenaar JG, Kolkman G et al (2006) Het experiment Gaasterland [The Gaasterland
experiment]. Wageningen, Alterra
Kwa CL (1987) Representations of nature mediating between ecology and science policy: the case
of the International Biological Programme. Soc Stud Sci 77:413–442
Meijer W, Lodders-Elfferich PC, Hermans LMLHA (2004) Ruimte voor de wadden [Space for the
mud flats]. The Hague, Ministry of LNV
Ministry of V&W (1990) Wadden Aktieplan, discussienota [Wadden Sea Action Plan, discussion
paper], The Hague/Haren, The Netherlands
Ministry of V&W, Ministry of VROM, Ministry of LNV (1989) Derde Nota Waterhuishouding
[Third Policy Document on Water Management]. SDU: The Hague, The Netherlands
Ministry of VROM, Ministry of LNV, Ministry of V&W, Ministry of EZ (2007) Ontwikkeling
van de wadden voor natuur en mens [Development of the mud flats for nature and humans].
The Hague, The Netherlands
Nijpels C, Heip CHR, Hulscher S et al (2008). Wennen aan de Westerschelde. Advies Commissie
Natuurherstel Westerschelde: Alternatieven voor ontpoldering Hertogin Hedwigepolder.
[Getting used to the Western Scheldt. Advice of the Committee on Nature Recovery, Western
Scheldt: Alternatives for the reclamation of the Duchess Hedwige polder] http://www.rijksover-
heid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2008/11/21/wennen-aan-de-westerschelde.html
Opschoor JB, Weterings R (1994) Environmental utilisation space: an introduction. Milieu 9:
198–205
Pascual U, Perrings C (2007) Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodi-
versity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agr Ecosys Environ 121:256–268
Petts J (ed) (1999) Handbook of environmental impact assessment, vol 1, Environmental impact
assessment: process, methods and potential. Blackwell Science, Oxford
RDA (2005) Advies over de wintersterfte 2004-2005 van grote grazers in de Oostvaardersplassen
[Advice about the deaths of large herbivores during winter 2004-2005 in the Oostvaardersplassen].
RDA 05/8. Raad voor Dieraangelegenheden: The Hague, The Netherlands
Runhaar R, Van Nieuwaal K (2010) Understanding the use of science in decision-making on
cockle fisheries and gas mining in the Dutch Wadden Sea: Putting the science–policy interface
in a wider perspective. Environ Sci Pol 13:239–248
Rutgers M, Mulder C, Schouten AJ et al (2005) Typeringen van bodemecosystemen Duurzaam
bodemgebruik met referenties voor biologische bodemkwaliteit [Typology of soil ecosystems.
Sustainable soil use with references for soil quality]. RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
SER (2004) The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. http://www.ser.org/content/
ecological_restoration_primer.asp
Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology. Translations and boundary objects: Amateurs
and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci 19:
387–420
Steenkamp F, Rip A (1984) The meadow birds organize a symposium. In: George Sarton
Centennial, communication and cognition. Ghent, Belgium
Swart JAA (2005) Care for the wild. Dealing with a pluralistic practice Environl Values 14:251–263
Swart JAA, Keulartz J (2011) The wild animal in our society. A contextual approach to the intrin-
sic value of animals Acta Biotheoret 59:185–200
Swart JAA, Van Andel J (2008) Rethinking the interface between ecology and society. The case of
the cockle controversy in the Dutch Wadden Sea J Appl Ecol 45:82–90
Swart JAA, Van der Windt HJ (2005) Visions of nature and environmental sustainability: Shellfish
fishing in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Rest Ecol 13:83–192
Swart JAA, Van der Windt HJ (2007) Hoe hard zijn natuurgrenzen? [How solid are natural limits?]
In: Raad voor Wadden (ed) Natuurgrenzen voor dagelijks gebruik. Advies over de toepassings-
mogelijkheden voor natuurgrenzen. [Natural limits for daily use. Advice on possibilities for the
application natural limits] 2007/03. Raad voor de Wadden, Leeuwarden
Swart JAA, Van der Windt HJ, Keulartz L (2001) Valuation of nature in conservation and restoration.
Rest Ecol 9:230–238
Ten Brink BJE, Hosper SH, Colijn F (1991) A quantitative method for description and assessment
of ecosystems, the AMOEBA approach. Mar Poll Bull 23:265–270
Ten Brink BJE, Colijn F (eds) (1990) Ecologische ontwikkelingsrichtingen zoute wateren
[Ecological development directions for salt water]. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and
Water Management, The Hague
Turnhout E, Hisschemöller M, Eijsackers H (2008) Science in Wadden Sea policy: from accom-
modation to advocacy. Environ Sci Pol 11:227–239
Van der Windt HJ (1995) En dan: wat is natuur nog in dit land? [After all: what is still nature in this
country?]. Boom, Meppel
Van der Windt HJ, Swart JAA (2008) Ecological corridors, connecting science and politics: the
case of the Green River in the Netherlands. J Appl Ecol 45:124–132
Van der Windt HJ, Swart JAA, Keulartz J (2007) Nature and landscape planning: exploring the
dynamics of valuation, the case of the Netherlands. Lands Urban Plan 79:218–228
Vera FWM (2009) Land-scale nature development—the Oostvaardersplassen. Brit Wildl
20:28–36
Weinstein MP, Baird RC, Conover DO et al (2007) Managing coastal resources in the 21st century.
Wolff WJ (1992) The end of a tradition: 1000 years of embankment and reclamation of wetlands
in the Netherlands. Ambio 21:287–291
Wolff WJ (2000a) The south-eastern North Sea: losses of vertebrate fauna during the past 2000
years. Biol Conserv 95:209–217
Wolff WJ (2000b) Causes of extirpations in the Wadden Sea an estuarine area in the Netherlands.
Conserv Biol 14:876–885
Worster D (1977) Nature’s economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sustainability: More About the Toolmaker
than the Tools
R. Eugene Turner
Abstract A sustainable system is not necessarily a high-quality one, but it could

be. We could, for example, “survive” on the desperate edge, as the remnants in a
self-fouled and deteriorating environment. Why won’t a future sustainable system
be just another industrial model of mass efficiency and throughput? Perhaps the
incompatible outcomes are a choice between the sometimes nearly invisible civiliz-
ing aspects of culture nurturing respect, equality, and cooperation on one hand, and
the greed and self-indulgences undermining social tolerance, empathy, and coop-
eration that ends up promoting violence and dehumanization. The human heritage
is subtle, indestructible, and worth nurturing if we want that hospitable sustainable
system. But, assuming that a kind of social osmosis will be sufficient to sustain
justice and fairness is wrongheaded and dismisses the historical examples. A new
cultural narrative is needed to override the maladaptive dissonance preventing for-
mation of sustainable systems. This narrative will be anchored in personal initia-
tives, incorporates an appreciation of our evolved heritage, and is informed by
intentional social learning within groups and occasional social punishment.
Keywords Humane sustainable systems • Cooperation • Altruism • Social learning

• Governance • Societal behavior
Our Heritage
A Talmudic saying: “No one is the owner of his instincts; but controlling them, that is
civilization” (Elie Wiesel, New York Times, 21 May 2011).
R.E. Turner (*)

Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
LA 70803, USA
416 R.E. Turner
When human beings lose their connection to nature, … then they do not know how to nur-
ture their environment healing our society goes hand in hand with healing our personal,
elemental connection with the phenomenal world (Chögyam Trungpa, Founder, Naropa
University).
Imagine looking through the windows of your building and seeing something
move on the prairie—yes, just over there. Maybe you can see the First Nation hunter
put on a wolf or buffalo skin? He crawls for hours through the Blue Stem prairie
under a hot sun collecting cat burrs in his hair, breathing dust, and accumulating
small nicks to his skin as he follows the ambling bison herd (Fig. 1). The hunter
Fig. 1 “Buffalo Hunt in Wolf Masks” by George Catlin (1832) in the upper Missouri River
(Original Painting held in Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC)
wants to be near a skittish 2,000-lb bull that could easily kick the femur out of his
skin, or rumble away with 5,000 other buffalo—all because a hawk screeches. The
hunter might use a bow and arrow at 3 m, or perhaps he puts a short spear through
the animal’s tough underbelly—it is a strong thrust under the ribs and into the soft
heart. He twists and rams it in and out rapidly using both hands, draining the cardiac
pump of its life force. The animal bellows, falls to its knees and then on its side,
heaves a last breath, and stares at the sky. The hunter makes sure that the bull is dead
then gives thanks, and washes in a creek, being mindful of what has just happened.
There is a grassy-dry-matted-furred buffalo-coat smell to the hide as flies land on
the dried blood. The carcass is processed on site. There is food for a week and raw
materials for clothing and tools.
This day was once part of living closely, and deeply, within the natural world.
There are no buffalo herds roaming the Plains today and the trails are straight and
paved. Brick and lumber frame the windows you are looking through. There are
Sustainability: More About the Toolmaker than the Tools 417
electrical wires behind the walls. Was this a mirage? Did it really happen? If it did
happen, then what remains?
Our hominoid ancestors may have been forest dwellers 6–8 million years ago,
and Homo sapiens as early as 200,000 years ago, and most likely originating in
Africa.1 They came to North America 10,000 years ago—that is, about 600–700
generations ago. The senses were used and appreciated to survive, and not just sur-
vive, but to form communities with relationships that could be quite touching. The
Neanderthals, for example, buried their dead in a grave of flowers. People thanked
their animated world for blessings, painted cave walls with graceful imagery
(Fig. 2), and had a sense of proportion and color and design in their clothing and
cook ware. Cloth reminders were hung on trees to recognize spirits in ways that
seem strange to modern people. Yes, survival required hard work and risk and there
were mortalities. Survival happened within the context of the whole set of experi-
ences that were totally dependent on the physical and mental senses. It was fully a
Fig. 2 Three horses facing

each other in a Chauvet Pont
d’ Arc cave painting. The
sensuous lines, shading, and
posture were drawn
30,000–32,000 years BCE.
Source: http://www.
metmuseum.org/toah/hd/
chav/hd_chav.htm
1
Fossil records suggest modern humans emerged in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago,
but their dispersal is thought to have begun about 70,000 years ago and resulted in very little
inbreeding with the Neanderthals. The earliest evidence of modern humans appears in Australia,
dating to about 50,000 years ago.
418 R.E. Turner
world of relationships that evolved from pre-existing relationships with animals and
plants, and of the environment and its inhabitants. We have that legacy in our genes,
our physical potential, and our neural networks. It is a set of pre-requisites inherited
at conception and given potential at birth. It is unavoidably a part of us.
This inheritance should be considered the all of “you,” because we don’t acquire
genetic traits rapidly. At 20 years per generation, our oil-based society of 100 years
is five generations distant from the 5,000 to 10,000 generations since H. sapiens
evolved and a few hundred thousand generations since Homo sp. showed up. Yet we
have such little knowledge of this tethering to our past because of a constant set of
diversions emphasizing a mere part of this inheritance. Our daily connections to the
natural world are covered over so much that most of us don’t know local birds, plant
seasons, where milk comes from, the smell of different kinds of snow, of dirt, or of
silence. We are, it seems, several trophic levels apart from the reality of food source,
food preparation, and how to consume it while being fully present. The separations
may seem to be about the external or physical world, but are carried within the mind
of individuals and groups.
Examples for Individuals
It’s not that we must return to some idyllic or imaginary past, but that we must
appreciate that this heritage is within us, and that it has qualities to respect and nur-
ture. But the nuances of those qualities may seem so invisible in modern life that
they seem to not exist. Here are some examples of how that sometimes-subterranean
legacy is exposed.
Recovery from Gallbladder Surgery
Ulrich (1984) examined the records of different groups of patients who had
undergone gall bladder removal. The first group had a window view of a natural
scene (trees) and the second group looked at a brick wall (Fig. 3). The two groups
received the same post-operative medical attention and lived on the second and third
floors of the same hospital wing. Their rooms were of similar dimensions and had
one window. The first group recovered faster than the second group, with an average
stay in the hospital of 8.0 days, compared to 8.7 days for the group looking at the
brick wall. They received fewer negative evaluations by staff (1.1 vs. 4.0 per patient),
and took fewer painkillers.
Greenness and Psychological Health
Other studies reveal how exposure to natural systems has a restorative effect on
indicators of stress or well-being (Kaplan 1995; Ulrich 2007), including attention-deficit
Fig. 3 The two views of patients undergoing gall bladder removal (Redrawn from Ulrich 1984)
activity (Kuo and Taylor 2004). Ulrich et al. (1991), for example, had 120 subjects
view a stressful movie, and then exposed them to six different natural and urban
settings while monitoring changes in various indices of stress (e.g., blood pressure,
heart rate, muscle tension, skin conductance). Recovery was faster and more
complete when subjects were exposed to natural rather than urban environments.
The natural setting was accompanied by sustained attention. Taylor et al. (2001)
found that inner-city girls (and interestingly, not boys) were positively affected by
the naturalness of the view from their high-rise urban homes. For girls, the variance
in test concentration, impulse inhibition, and delay of gratification was all directly
related to their self-discipline, and 20% of that was related to the naturalness of the
small natural setting near their home.
Examples for Societies
It was only a few hundred generations ago that our ancestors lived without written
communication, having evolved to that state in intimate contact with the natural
world by using all of their senses (Abram 1996) and in intimate social gatherings.
They had to cooperate to survive and so it is easy to imagine that evolutionary pres-
sures are involved to support cooperation and to dissuade maladaptive tendencies.
Children, for example, spontaneously begin to demand fairness/equal treatment for
420 R.E. Turner
others (“pro-sociality”) between 4 and 7 years old, at the same time that their interest
in fairness begins to favor their peers (Fehr et al. 2008). These and other inheri-
tances are expressed in individual and group preferences. Their influence may be
nuanced, for example, as in the innate aversion to unequal rewards for equal work
by monkeys and dogs (Brosnan and de Waal 2003; Range et al. 2009). They may be
complex, like the decisions affecting cooperation or defectors in group dynamics
(Semmann et al. 2003); and they may be subtly hidden in the social matrix like the
changes in altruism as population density rises (Levine 2003). The political behav-
ior of chimpanzees and early human societies suggests that we have evolved to
maximize our interactions at the small-scale, at the personal scale (de Waal 2007;
Boehm 1999). Gandhi (1909) emphasized how the basic goodness and cooperative
nature of people at this personal scale was the history of the world, and that the
written formal history was a thin veneer of exceptions covering over these mostly
invisible daily interactions.
This desire for fairness and equal access is one of the fundamental require-
ments for peaceful cooperation at the personal level and the group level. Wilkerson
and Pickett (2009a, b) have illuminated the dozens of strong relationships between
income inequality and social problems, including mental illness, incarceration
rates, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, obesity, drug abuse, and education perfor-
mance (Fig. 4). The social stratification in income distribution reflects strong
societal differences in material inequities permeating developed and underdevel-
oped countries. The lessons of history are that strong social inequalities cannot be
sustained.
Fig. 4 There are many direct relationships between the scale of income disparity and negative
social attributes that are discussed in Wilkerson and Pickett (2009a, b). This is one example
(Redrawn from http://www.slideshare.net/equalitytrust/the-spirit-level-slides-from-the-equality-
trust)
Contrasting Options
Sustainable systems, or nearly sustainable ones, existed in the New World before
Europeans arrived. They were not static, and obviously did not successfully resist
the more aggressive invaders intent on a growth economy whose wealth was distrib-
uted in a highly stratified society. Their social structure is an example that we might
learn from as we re-invent our governance for the new conditions.
Balinese Rice Farmers
The Indonesian island of Bali has a water distribution network dependent on the
rains whose amount is seasonal and dependent on elevation. J. Stephen Lansing
studied this system for decades and wrote an outstanding summary of the linked
geology, history, culture, and ecology of this resilient landscape as it was chal-
lenged in the modern era (Lansing 2007; Fig. 5). Water is distributed by a sys-
Fig. 5 The cover from Lansing’s book “Priests and Programmers” illustrating a temple up the
mountain that regulates water flow
tem of canals, tunnels, streams, and weirs. The availability of water determines
the number and kinds of crops that are grown and pests. The pests come from
adjacent fields and can be controlled by large-scale withdrawal of their habitat
via drying fields and synchronous planting/harvest rhythms. So there is a kind of
422 R.E. Turner
benefit–cost calculation made to control pests by timely and large-scale water

withdrawal, and having water delivered for the crops. And this balancing was
orchestrated by the temple priests who attentively dealt with the strictly agricul-
tural, as well as the related social issues. To the Balinese, the relationship
between the natural environment and the social environment were interdepen-
dent, and not linear. Effective management required cooperation across all
watersheds, and even beyond. Lansing says that “essentially, water temples
establish symbolic connections between productive groups and the components
of the natural landscape that they seek to control. The natural world surrounding
each village is not a wilderness but an engineered landscape of rice terraces,
gardens, and aqueducts created by the coordinated labor of generations of pre-
decessors. Anthropomorphic deities evoke this residual human presence in an
engineered landscape.”
The very success of the system kept it invisible to the colonial Dutch and then the
post-World War II administrations. They were illuminated to the non-Balinese only
in the early 1970s. It was then that the Green Revolution undercut the traditional
cropping system in a way that resulted in competition for water and unresolved dis-
satisfactions, a patchwork of habitats harboring many pests that were never con-
strained, and poor harvests. The role the intricate and self-sustaining social network
was eventually recognized and re-fortified, and the formerly invisible threads of
cooperation was sanctified by bureaucrats who recognized a system that they could
not do without. The top–down approach control structure was minimized and the
bottom–up and integrated social network it harmed was being restored.
Columbus
The historian Howard Zinn (2003) describes Columbus as an excellent navigator

and a brutal colonialist. He quotes the journals of a Christian priest (Las Casas) who
said the Spaniards “thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of
cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades.” Half of the 250,000
Indians on Haiti died within 2 years from murder, mutilation, or suicide. Las Casas
estimated that “from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war,
slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing
it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it.” Columbus loaded 500
Awarak slaves on the return voyage from the Caribbean, and 200 died on the way.
These cultural atrocities attributed to Columbus were not the exception, of
course. The English spread smallpox in woolen goods given to the Mi’kmaq of
Nova Scotia (circa 1713) and the 24 Nov 1752 reward for their scalps was in effect
for more than 200 years (Paul 2000). What is instructional, however, were the Native
American societies existing in Columbus’s time. The Awaraks had greeted him with
a hospitality not found in Europe. They shared all they had with him, as they did
with themselves. Zinn (2003) writes that: “Columbus and his successors were not
coming into an empty wilderness, but into a world which in some places was as
densely populated as Europe itself, where the culture was complex, where human
relations were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among men,
women, children and culture were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any
place in the world.” And that “they were people without a written language, but with
their own laws, their poetry, their history kept in memory and passed on, in an oral
vocabulary more complex than Europe’s, accompanied by song, dance, and ceremo-
nial drama. They paid careful attention to the development of personality, intensity
of will, independence and flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with
one another and with nature.” Zinn (2003) says that that 2% of the population owned
95% of the land in Europe, at the very time that there were sustainable societies of
fairness and harmony in the New World. This is quite a contrast.
Deganawidah
Not all societies in the New World were in harmony, of course. The transforma-
tive agents that arose demonstrate that fundamental changes could occur within a
generation and illustrate some of the elements that sustain their influence.
Deganawidah was one of these influences. He was born to a Huron woman in
what is now New York circa five centuries before Columbus arrived. The Huron
were a warring tribe then and rejected his message of peace. Deganawidah left
them to begin a pilgrimage that eventually united a confederation of Haudenosaunee
tribes (the Great Iroquois Confederation), which the Huron eventually did join
(Johansen and Mann 2000). Deganawidah was accompanied by Ayowenta2 who
he rescued from both bitterness and cannibalism.3 Red Elk’s description of
Deganawidah’s teachings (http://www.manataka.org/page1639.html) speaks of
the Way of Great Peace, which taught the need for balance within society that
began within the individual. When there was a balance of male/female within the
individual, then peace expands out to the other gender, then to family, and eventu-
ally to other tribes. The tribe was governed as a living system of human con-
sciousness for all, and was not focused on the individual. The decision matrix for
the tribe was complex and inclusive. No individual, gender, or age group made a
decision for the tribe. The males on the war councils could be removed by the
Council of Grandmothers who may have nominated them. Further, the women
made moccasins and so no war would last long without their support. Their gov-
ernance structure and attitudes formed the basis for much of the Constitution of
the United States and the US Declaration of Independence.
2
Ayowenta is the Onondaga spelling of Hiawatha, who is not the imaginary person of H.W.
Longfellow’s poem.
3
Ayowenta is sometimes also known as the “Translator” because of Deganawidah’s presumed
speech impediment.
424 R.E. Turner
Modern Analogues to Work with?
An explicit societal effort is required to overcome those parts of our genetic inheri-
tance that produces undesirable outcomes. The good news is that our inheritance
also includes the indestructibly decent and desirable possibilities to do that. It is not
that there are “bad behaviors” to be pushed away, but that we need to be inquisi-
tively aware of them, lest they become manipulated by omission or active external
influences. Here are two simple examples: (1) my experience in England, at times,
is that people are expected to stand in a line when waiting on a bank teller, at a post
office, or for a ticket. If someone ignores the line to squeeze ahead of others, then
more than one person will tell them quite directly to “queue up,” “take your turn,
mate” or “we all want to get this done, just like you; now get to the back of the line.”
In other countries, there are sharp elbows and no line. It is a stronger social instruc-
tion if more than one individual responds; (2) there is a “social trap” that I use in
class to discuss the social contract. It involves a mattress falling of the roof of a car
blocking the road to the cars behind; the driver carrying the mattress does not realize
that the mattress fell off, and continues on, but the mattress is now blocking the
road. One option for the first driver behind the mattress now lying on the road is to
wait for an opening in the oncoming traffic. This takes time and the traffic logjam in
that lane grows as each driver sequentially finds the mattress blocking the path for-
ward. It only takes one person to move the mattress to the side of the road so that
everyone can continue without further delays.
Viticulture
Vineyards are ecosystems managed for decades. The producers are usually skilled,
but I doubt that most think they know everything about making and marketing wine,
or that there are no more surprises. Many vineyards are more than 100 years old,
and are the result of transplanted expertise whose viticultural roots are perhaps
thousands of years old. These vineyards and others in the world have formal and
informal means to improve the harvest—governmental policies, extension agents,
scientists, accountants, familial apprenticeships, and export–import industries.
Developing and maintaining sustainable systems is hardly so simple or well evolved
as vineyard management. But there are similarities. The interactions must evolve,
there are external influences, and we tend to think of ecosystems as producers of
something. Ecosystem management views are often subsumed by an economic view
of the world, so a product–service relationship may be espoused. I think this is shal-
low view, but it is an influential view. And in the process of selling a product, soci-
ety has often hypocritically promoted its abuse. There is often a great deal of
hypocrisy, for example, with governmental and personal promotion/acceptance of
the well-documented and unhealthy consequences from drinking and smoking for
the consumer and those around them.
Smoking Laws
The present restrictions on smoking in public spaces were difficult and took years
to implement (and are not completely in place) despite an incredible array of
research results, support from health professionals, and angry non-smokers. The
tobacco industry executives did not go to the funerals of our relatives dying from
emphysema. Those that went through the social change might recall the struggle to
minimize the discomfort of telling our smoking friends that they could not smoke in
our homes, or that we would not be able to socialize in “smoky” joints with them.
Parents had to persuade children that it was not a “cool” behavior within the context
of a torrent of advertising saying otherwise. And this was just a change in smoking
laws, which seems like light work compared to what it will take to make the transi-
tion into sustainable systems!
Wetland Protection
Are there good predictors of success (and failure)? For example, what makes for
a successful restoration program when viewed at a societal level? LaPeyre et al.
(2001) addressed both of these questions in an interesting and straightforward
way using a traditional scientific analysis, and with results that non-scientists
might appreciate (Fig. 6). They conducted a statistical analysis of factors
Fig. 6 A statistical analysis of factors influencing wetland protection and management in 90

nations (conventions, area, participation). The stronger the response, the more influence that factor
has on environmental quality (Adapted from LaPeyre et al. 2001)
influencing wetland protection and management in 90 nations. The measure of

success was an amalgam of several indicators of wetland protection, including the
number of RAMSAR sites and when they received designation, the total wetland
area protected, and the percentage of wetland area protected. Various social and
economic factors were examined to see how much they influenced the dependent
variable (wetland protection). The independent variables included national
426 R.E. Turner
indices developed by others on: (1) social capital (e.g., health and education),
(2) economic indicators (economic growth, trade, per capita earnings, invest-
ment), (3) governmental characteristics (various indicators of shared governance
and openness), (4) environmental characteristics (air and water quality, govern-
ment actions in protection treaties, and citizen participation), and (5) land pressure
(primarily agricultural development).
The essential points of what they found are summarized in Fig. 6. The factors
that had a positive influence on the quality of wetland protection and management
were the quality of the environment, the openness and inclusiveness of government,
the quality of the nation’s social development, and, lastly, the expansion of agricul-
ture. A negative influence was the degree of economic capitalization. I interpret
these results as support for the following conclusions. First, the scarcity of wetlands
brings appreciation for their losses and value, so that when agricultural expansion
results in a regression of wetland area, then people and governments tend to respond
with a heightened sense of the need for wetland protection/management. Second,
this response is more likely to occur when citizens appreciate environmental quality
and also have the means of responding. But this favorable response is more likely to
happen when the governmental structure is receptive to these reactions through all
types of interactions, including through local, regional, national, and non-govern-
mental organizations. The negative relationship between wetland protection and
indices of economic capital is due to the pressures for using the wetland area or
capturing the social services of wetlands (a public benefit) for private gain. Greed,
in other words, is not known as being an altruistic social attribute, or, to put it more
benignly, economic activity is an imperfect measure of the general welfare.
My argument is that there are reciprocal interactions between environmental
quality (hence sustainable systems), and the society’s interests or appreciation for
them. If social capitalization is necessary to initiate and sustain environmental qual-
ity, then isn’t there a positive feedback between the health of society and its ecosys-
tem (and I will leave the definition of “health” for the reader to interpret in their own
situation—I am asking only for one to think about it)?
Social Learning and Punishment
Experiments and comparative analyses within and among cultures have unequivo-
cally demonstrated that many individuals will be “fair” in situations when they have
no recognizable benefit in terms of reproduction, food, economics, or status, and
that they will punish unfairness. Perhaps paradoxically, the role of punishment is a
positive influence on cooperation (punishment must not generate significant perma-
nent counter-acting resentment), promotes social learning and supports institutions
governing resources held in common (Sigmund et al. 2010). The drain of free riders
(hitch hikers) is held in check, and the costs of punishment are outweighed by the
increased gains from cooperation (Gächter et al. 2008), but only “if complemented
by strong social norms of cooperation” (Herrmann et al. 2008). Social learning is,
therefore, not entirely dependent on hereditary influences (Henrich et al. 2010).
The Edge of the Precipice
It is not necessary to “go back” in time to be the kind of creature you are. The genes from
the past have come forward to us. I am asking that people change not their genes but their
society, in order to harmonize with the inheritance they already have (Shepard 1996).
This is already a crowded planet and getting warmer. There are 107 million km2
of habitable land on earth and seven billion people. That means that there are 1.53 ha
(3.76 ac) per person. From that 1.5 ha per person come the materials for cell phones,
cars and computers, trucks, cement, etc. The land is where people labor to provide
the beans for a double-latte grande, wheat, flowers, fruits, and fructose. Energy
reserves are dwindling and water is already re-cycled multiple times. If we are going
to build sustainable systems that are desirable, then, based on the examples dis-
cussed, it will not be helpful to stratify the remaining resources further between
haves and have-nots. Doing so is incompatible with our deeply social nature that is
cooperative and that values fairness and equitability. This book is about building
sustainable systems, which is to say that it is about social contracts.
A sustainable system does not have to be a pleasant one, but it could be. The sci-
ence of sustainability brings clarity, and is absolutely essential to understand the
qualities of managing coupled human–natural systems. But why will a sustainable
system not be just another industrial model of efficiency, of mass throughput, and
based on mass survival, but not quality? Can’t a dictatorial social system with a
stratified social structure survive for quite awhile? Or will it eventually fail because
the social contract between individuals is unenforceable? We expect quality in our
sustainable systems, but that will not happen, I think, without a pervasively ubiqui-
tous and conscious effort at the individual level, which is what the Great Iroquois
Confederation—just one example of many—was all about.
The dissociation of the individual from the natural world is continuing (Pergams
and Zaradic 2008) and it has consequences. We can and must acknowledge and
work with that disconnection at the personal level to be helpful working within
society. I am not arguing, however, to recreate harsh environments, but to respect
the human aspects that supported the genetics, or that the genetics gave life to. I
think it a reasonable hypothesis, therefore, that the restoration of a few hectares of
habitat is, potentially at least, also about societal renewal and health. In the process
of restoring ecosystems, individuals and society are re-establishing their relation-
ships with the larger environments they live in, depend upon, learn from, and which
many believe must be nurtured if the much-used term “ecosystem sustainability”
has meaning.
This is not going to be easy and we are working against our evolutionary nature
in some ways. We spent our evolutionary path, for example, trying to find satisfac-
tory food that tastes good. We now have it at every corner, and many of us are
obese. I am not saying to stop eating. We ambled along our evolutionary walk gain-
ing some predictability over food supplies, and now we have the “Dead Zone” at
the end of the Mississippi River created as a result of land use practices in an indus-
trialized agricultural landscape. We can put “culture” back in agriculture. We have
428 R.E. Turner
an irrepressible—or nearly so—interest in procreating. I am not saying that sex is

bad or should be stopped, but that sexual relationships are not automatically isolated
from the love in relationships and the touching and constructive emotional content.
We once lived in humility, and community respect—and it occasionally became
unbalanced. I am not saying that there were not outrageous consequences of unbal-
anced behavior, but to see that there were also times in history, in our culture, in our
life, when things are kinder and gentler. We still have the capability and unbroken
human traits of kindness, dignity, and lightness within that survived the bad times,
and nurtured good behaviors. I am arguing to see these good aspects clearly and to
nurture them actively. Indulgence in ignorance is not a positive attribute, although
it may accelerate economic exchange. We have gone forth and multiplied and now
have dominion over the earth in many ways. Now what? How will the tension
between unbridled individual action (e.g., in economic markets), be resolved to
make space for the necessary and dominate collective agreements (e.g., for climate
change)? It usually seems like addressing that is a huge mystery to me, but that is
not the same as saying it is impossible or undoable or unnecessary. It must include
nurturing the innately human social abilities we all have. But we need a new cultural
narrative to replace existing ones. It means to open some baggage, to know what
is inside, and to be willing to be surprised. The dictums of good behavior and
attributes still apply—and must apply one by one, every day, by every person,
and together.
The Wabash Rule of 22
The movie “Shakespeare in Love” has a scene in which the introduction of

Shakespeare’s newly completed “Romeo and Juliet” is done by Wabash. Wabash is
a nervous character with a terrific stutter and can barely complete a word, much less
a sentence. If the play fails this first performance, then the theater is closed. Wabash
is the edge of a calamity. Henslowe thrusts Wabash onstage where he gathers him-
self in a temporary stutter and then … launches into a brilliant and flawless intro-
duction. He speaks clearly and his sentences flow from one to another with pizzazz
and energy that reveals a sincere joy for the play. The audience gives boisterous
response and the cast is inspired as it explodes into action. William S, however,
expected a disaster and is now confused. He asks Henslowe: “What happened?
Henslowe pauses, and then looks straight at him: “It is a mystery” and then turns to
continue managing the performance.
Entire cultures are now unsure about their human heritage. When we dismiss this
heritage intentionally or by omission, then we won’t have the sustainable planet we
aspire to live in. The reality is that unless we recognize that our common collabora-
tive heritage is sufficient, and that we are whole, then a desirable sustainable system
is not possible. Here is one way to look at it. A social worker in Quebec told me that
there were 22 people compromised by an addictive behavior. The addiction might
be an alcohol, heroin, or sex, and the 22 people were generally those closest to the
addicted person who was unwilling to confront either the addiction its consequences.
We can use the same empiricism to construct what happens when a positive example
ripples through society to reach 22 people in a constructive way. And if one is skill-
ful, then it will be multiples of 22. Our heritage may be a buried mystery, but it can
be partially known, appreciated and nurtured. We cannot know everything, but we
can be part of the theater, participate with enthusiasm, move beyond our fear of
stuttering, and deliver our lines with authenticity and with effect. It may or may not
be a disaster, but it is the only ‘theater’ we have, – our only home, our only life, and
sole opportunity.
Acknowledgments I thank Mike Weinstein for the encouragement here and in previous
collaborations leading up to this effort. I first explored this topic in Matfield Green, KS, at the
2005 Graduate Student Fellowship meeting of the Land Institute (Wes Jackson, Founder). Any
inadequacies found herein, however, are the consequence of being a poor student—a “bug” in
the web of this life, who has been incredibly fortunate to have experienced inspiring examples
in the natural world, benefited from readings, ordinary life with others, and had precious
encounters with profound teachers. Financial support was provided by NSF award DEB-
1008184.
References
Abram D (1996) The spell of the sensuous. Random House, New York
Boehm C (1999) Hierarchy in the forest: the evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge
Brosnan SF, de Waal FBM (2003) Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature 425:297–299
De Waal F (2007) Chimpanzee politics: power and sex among apes. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore
Fehr E, Bernhard H, Rockenbach B (2008) Egalitarianism in young children. Nature
454:1079–1083
Gächter S, Renner E, Sefton M (2008) The long-run benefits of punishment. Science 322:1510
Gandhi MK (1909) Hind Swaraj or Indian home rule. Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad
(Re-published in 1938)
Henrich J, Ensminger J, McElreath R et al (2010) Markets, religion, community size, and the
evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327:1480–1484
Herrmann B, Thoni C, Gachter S (2008) Antisocial punishment across societies. Science
319:1362–1367
Johansen BE, Mann BA (eds) (2000) Encyclopedia of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy).
Greenwood, Westport
Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ
Psych 15:169–182
Kuo FE, Taylor AF (2004) A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:
evidence from a national study. Am J Public Health 94:1580–1586
Lansing JS (2007) Priests and programmers: technologies of power in the engineered landscape of
Bali. Princeton University Press, Princeton
LaPeyre M, Mendelssohn IA, Reams MA et al (2001) Identifying determinants of nation’s wetland
management programs using structural equation modeling: an exploratory analysis. Environ
Manage 27:859–868
Levine RV (2003) The kindness of strangers. Am Scient 91:226–233
430 R.E. Turner
Paul DN (2000) We were not the savages. Fernwood, Halifax

Pergams ORW, Zaradic PA (2008) Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from
nature-based recreation. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:2295–2300
Range F, Horn L, Viranyi Z, Huber L (2009) The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in
dogs. Proc Nat Acad Sci 106:340–345
Semmann D, Krambeck HJ, Milinski M (2003) Volunteering leads to rock-paper-scissors dynamics
in a public goods game. Nature 425:390–393
Shepard P (1996) The only world we’ve got: a Paul Shepard reader. San Francisco Books, Sierra
Club
Sigmund K, De Silaa H, Traulsen A, Hauert C (2010) Social learning promotes institutions for
governing the commons. Nature 466:816–863
Taylor AF, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC (2001) Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner
city children. J Environ Psychol 21:1–15
Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:
420–421
Ulrich RS (2007) Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Res 4:17–23
Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD et al (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban
environments. J Environ Psych 11:201–230
Wilkerson RG, Pickett K (2009a) Income inequality and social dysfunction. Ann Rev Sociol
35:493–511; http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
Wilkerson R, Pickett K (2009b) The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger.
Bloomsbury Press, London http://www.slideshare.net/equalitytrust/the-spirit-level-slides-
from-the-equality-trust
Zinn HA (2003) A people’s history of the United States: 1492-present. Harper Collins, New York
Epilogue: The Challenge of Sustainability:
Lessons from an Evolutionary Perspective
Simon Levin
Abstract The greatest challenge our generation faces is creating a sustainable

future. At the core is maintaining the services ecosystems provide humanity, but
our ability to achieve that objective is made more difficult because ecosystems, the
biosphere, and the socio-economic system with which they are linked are complex
adaptive systems, in which individual agendas translate into global consequences.
For management, that introduces problems of the Commons, and of how to achieve
cooperation in attaining the best possible solutions for the collective good. At the
core are issues of equity, of prosociality, and of the management of public goods and
common-pool resources. Progress has been made in addressing these issues, but
realism argues that new institutional frameworks will be necessary to create a sus-
tainable future for the global biosphere.
Keywords Sustainability • Equity • Discounting • Prosociality • Public goods

• Common pool resources • Commons • Complex adaptive systems
As the chapters in this volume make clear, achieving a sustainable future for our chil-
dren and their children is the central problem facing our societies. Can we grow eco-
nomically without unfairly compromising the options for future generations to make
choices about their lives (United Nations 1987)? Developing a comprehensive frame-
work for answering that question is the first order of business in assessing and achiev-
ing sustainability. How do we measure and aggregate utilities to assess intertemporal
social welfare (Arrow et al. 2004)? Are current patterns of consumption consistent
with sustainability by this criterion, and if not what must we do differently?
S. Levin (*)
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Guyot Hall, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544-1003, USA
432 S. Levin
Sustainability means many things, with different emphases for different people.
It includes the stability of financial markets and economic systems, of reliable
sources of energy, as well as of biological and cultural diversity. At the core, though,
it must mean the preservation of the services that we derive from ecosystems, and
this raises a suite of scientific challenges. What are those services? How do they
depend upon the features of ecosystems? What aspects of biodiversity and ecosys-
tem organization maintain those features? What are the threats to those aspects, and
how do we protect them, within our coupled human–environmental dynamic?
All ecosystems exhibit characteristic regularities in such features as the diver-
sity and distribution of species, the spectrum of sizes of organisms, the balance of
nutrients and stoichiometric ratios, and the flow of energy through the levels of the
trophic web. If these are preserved, the ecosystem can continue to provide the ser-
vices on which humanity depends, even if the identities of the component species
change; when these are lost, the ecosystem is no longer the same in terms of the
services it provides. This has led naturally to a focus on the robustness and resil-
ience of coupled human–environmental systems, and on a search for indicators that
systems are nearing qualitative shifts in character; that is, that they are at risk of
transition into new basins of attraction, for example, from oligotrophic to eutrophic
states (Holling 1973; Levin et al. 1998; Scheffer 2008). Addressing this crucial
challenge is only in its infancy, but it represents an extremely promising and exciting
area of investigation (Scheffer et al. 2009). The unique features of the challenge
arise from the fact that ecosystems and the biosphere, as well as the socioeconomic
systems with which they are interlinked, are complex adaptive systems (CAS),
made up of individual agents that interact with one another locally, changing
behaviors over ecological and evolutionary time, with macroscopic consequences
that feed back to influence individual behaviors (Levin 1998). Sustainability science
must extract the signal from the noise, focusing on those macroscopic features, and
in how they arise and are sustained as the collective consequences of large numbers
of interactions at microscopic scales.
The research agenda for sustainability is by nature interdisciplinary and multi-
disciplinary, leaving no discipline out, from physics and chemistry, biology and
mathematics, to psychology, sociology and economics, to the humanities. How do
we measure the services we derive from ecosystems, and how do we value those
services and aggregate individual utilities to derive measures of social welfare?
How do we assess and maintain the robustness of these services? CAS exhibit a
range of features that pose special challenges; these have been well studied within
individual disciplines, and more recently across disciplines because of the comple-
mentarity of insights that can emerge from interdisciplinary studies (Levin 1998,
2003). Independent of the context, CAS exhibit self-organization; the potential for
multiple stable basins of attraction, with attendant path dependence and hysteresis;
and contagious spread and risk of systemic collapse. Dynamics are played out on
multiple scales of space, time and complexity, with the potential for destabilization
through the dynamics of slow variables. Robustness in such systems depends
on fluctuation and variation, and on a delicate balance of heterogeneity, redundancy,
Epilogue: The Challenge of Sustainability: Lessons from an Evolutionary Perspective 433
and modularity. For coupled human–environmental systems, therefore, a suite of

research challenges present themselves: How do these systems self-organize over
time? What features underlie their robustness and resilience, as well as resistance to
changes that would improve human welfare? Does robustness normally increase
over time, or does system evolution carry with it the seeds of its own collapse? What
are appropriate indicators of the erosion of robustness, and increasing vulnerability
to shocks? The research agenda to address such questions must include the develop-
ment of agent-based and hierarchical models of self-organization, the elucidation of
a statistical mechanics of ensembles of heterogeneous agents, and the description of
emergent macroscopic dynamics.
The challenges already laid out are daunting, but have been at the center of
research in ecology for decades. They will surely occupy the attention of ecologists
for decades to come; but even if we could resolve them completely tomorrow, our
work would have only just begun. Our ability to achieve a sustainable future is
limited not primarily by our lack of understanding of biology or physics or chemis-
try or geology, but rather by a suite of obstacles that relate to psychology, sociology,
economics, behavior and culture. They involve issues of intergenerational and
intragenerational equity, and of the management of public goods and common
pool resources. They inspire a quest to design mechanisms for achieving coopera-
tion in the Global Commons, for example through the establishment and mainte-
nance of social norms and more formal institutions and forms of government
(Levin 2009).
At the core of issues of equity is discounting. We discount our own futures, and
we discount the interests of others. Much of the inaction on environmental issues
like climate change is because of discounting, and associated problems of manag-
ing public goods and the Commons. We need to develop theoretical and empirical
approaches to problems of public goods and common pool resources, combining
game theory and dynamical systems theory on networks to ask how cooperation can
arise among independent agents, and how the emergence of groups, norms, customs
and traditions depends upon and helps maintain prosocial behavior (Levin 2010).
We need also to understand more generally how cooperation arises in natural sys-
tems, and to elucidate the role of leadership and the dynamics of collective deci-
sion-making (Couzin et al. 2005); and then we need to learn how to apply the
insights we derive from other natural systems to human decision-making and the
central questions of sustainability.
One of the greatest achievements of human societies has been the capacity to over-
come competitive inefficiencies, and to find ways to avoid the “tragedy of the com-
mons” (Hardin 1968). Through these advances, humans have organized themselves
into cooperative groups, finding common purpose and laying the foundations for cul-
tures, nations, and to a limited extent a global society. Hardin’s solution to the tragedy
of the commons was “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.” Ostrom (1990, 2009)
has led in explicating a framework and related theory of self-organization that helps
diagnose whether small-scale fisheries will engage in such mutual agreements to
improve their long-run capabilities and the sustainability of their fishery, and her
434 S. Levin
work is inspiring other such studies in a wide range of systems. Such solutions involve
some degree of prosociality toward other contemporary individuals as well as future
generations. How are individual strategies shaped by prosociality, and how does such
prosociality arise?
Intergenerational Equity
A fundamental problem in evolutionary theory is to understand how an organism

allocates resources over its lifetime, balancing growth and reproduction, and trading
off current needs against discounted expected future needs. Since evolution is about
genetic combinations that are most successful in reproducing themselves in future
generations, the problem of intergenerational allocation of resources is a natural
extension—for example how many offspring an individual should have, when she
should have them, and what fraction of resources to invest in each. In evolutionary
theory, it is natural therefore to derive an implied prosociality, measured in terms of
how much an individual values each offspring, and discounted in relation to the
growth rate of the population. Other relatives will be valued as well, at lower levels
of “prosociality”.
This core problem in evolutionary theory has obvious analogues in economics.
Parents plan their expenditures over their lifetimes not only to balance their own
immediate comforts, but also to leave a legacy for their heirs, as extensions of them-
selves. This is known in the literature as the “dynasty problem” (Becker 1976), and
has been the subject of a broad research literature. For the most part, however, this
literature has not dealt adequately with the issue of uncertainty, which is a core topic
in the evolutionary literature, or with the implications of individual allocation deci-
sions for the expanding inequity of wealth within and among societies. For example,
Arrow and Levin (2009) investigate these issues, determining the optimal (wealth)
consumption strategy for an individual in relation to the probability distribution of
offspring, the discount rate, and the effective “prosociality” assigned to each off-
spring. In our simple model, uncertainty can either increase or decrease current
consumption, depending upon the shape of the utility curve. Furthermore, once the
optimal strategy is implemented, the result will be a logarithmic distribution of
wealth, with a variance (inequity) that grows over time at a rate proportional to the
variance in the offspring probability distribution.
Work of this sort is a beginning, but much remains to be done. Data show that the
distribution of wealth is not lognormal, but has a fatter tail. Possible explanations lie
in the increased access wealthy individuals have to high returns on their invest-
ments, in the fact that the number of offspring one has is dependent on wealth, and
in the shape of the utility curve. Certainly, the next decade must see considerable
work in depth on the factors that are contributing to the increasing inequity in the
distribution of wealth within and among populations if we are to make progress in
achieving a sustainable future.
Intragenerational Equity: Public Goods and Common Pool

Resources
Understanding why individuals forgo consumption in order to benefit their chil-

dren, or more generally their kin, is not difficult. The greater challenge, with
hope for humanity, relates to prosociality toward unrelated individuals. What are
the consequences of such prosociality, and how has it arisen? Under what circum-
stances is prosociality sufficient to achieve the collective good, and how may it
be enhanced otherwise to avoid defection from socially desirable behaviors?
Avinash Dixit and I have explored one approach to these questions, beginning
from the basic assumption that every individual can allocate resources selfishly
or to a common pool or public good, and receives a payoff that is a nonlinear
function of investment in self and the total community investment in the common
pool/public good:
vi = y( xi , Z ) - F ( xi + zi ) (1)
Here v is individual utility, x is investment in self, z is investment in the public
good, and Z is the total (or average) community investment in the public good.
F represents a cost function, dependent on the total investment.
Such a representation treats individuals as totally selfish, whereas there is con-
siderable evidence that humans exhibit prosocial behavior toward other individuals,
including nonkin. Therefore, as a second step, we modify (1) to account for that
prosociality, replacing (1) by
vi = y( xi , Z ) - F ( xi + zi ) + g å y( x j , Z ) (2)
j
where g is “prosociality,” the value an individual places on other individuals in its

group. In this simple formulation, all individuals are valued equally, but we modify
this to consider a variety of topologies in which an individual i has a specific proso-
ciality gij for each other individual j. Of particular interest is the situation in which
individuals exhibit prosociality only (or more strongly) toward other individuals
within their own groups; in this case, the model is modified yet again to allow leak-
age of benefits, namely the incidental collateral benefits one might receive from
actions intended to benefit others. In this model framework, one then computes the
Nash equilibrium, which allows computation of the game-theoretic optimal strate-
gies for all individuals in the population.
This is a powerful theoretical framework, but the test of its usefulness is in the
application and testing of it in particular systems. We have therefore begun to apply
the approach to the sharing of grazing lands among Maasai herdsmen, in collabora-
tion with Dan Rubenstein. The sharing of grazing land is an effective strategy for
dealing with uncorrelated variations in rainfall, and hence uncorrelated variations in
land quality. However, the maintenance of sharing arrangements can be difficult to
sustain without agreements (or top–down control), and the robustness of those
agreements to defection is a topic of central interest.
436 S. Levin
Evolution and Emergence of Prosociality
The approaches described above all assume that prosociality exists, and ask what its
consequences are. This is reasonable, because as already mentioned there is consid-
erable evidence, in human and nonhuman populations alike, of prosocial behavior.
It remains a puzzle, however, to understand why prosociality exists. Some of the
explanations are undoubtedly rooted in genetics and in kinship, but prosociality also
arises culturally, among unrelated individuals. Understanding this phenomenon is a
rich area of investigation, including the concomitant emergence and cultural evolu-
tion of groups and institutions that foster prosociality (Axelrod and Hamilton 1981;
Gintis and Bowles 2004; Nowak et al. 2004; Boyd and Richerson 2009; Levin
2009). Prosociality can emerge as a norm of behavior (Fehr 1999; Durrett and Levin
2005; Ehrlich and Levin 2005; Akçay et al. 2009), for example in which individuals
change behavior based on homophilous imitation and other information gained
from neighbors on a social network, and in which rewards and punishments coevolve
with prosociality to stabilize those behaviors.
Ecological systems and socioeconomic systems alike are CASs, and it is their
nature as such that poses unique challenges for management. Just as Adam Smith’s
Invisible Hand does not guarantee a collectively optimal system for the dynamics of
economic resources, nor does a purely free-market approach assure a healthy future
for our environmental systems and the services they provide us. Indeed, it is clear
that the selfish agendas of individuals and nations too often trump the collective
good, leading us to discount disagreeable futures (Levin 1999). Just as for economic
systems, sound stewardship requires a mix of free market and top-down regulation.
New institutions are needed that are flexible and adaptive, like the human immune
system, and polycentric (Ostrom 2009). Finding the pathway to sustainable man-
agement of these CAS is the greatest interdisciplinary challenge of our generation.
Acknowledgment This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 0955699.
References
Akçay E, Van Cleve J, Feldman MW et al (2009) A theory for the evolution of other-regard inte-
grating proximate and ultimate perspectives. PNAS 106:19061–19066
Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Goulder L et al (2004) Are we consuming too much? J Econ Perspect
18:147–172
Arrow K, Levin SA (2009) Intergenerational resource transfers with random offspring. PNAS
106:13702–13706
Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–1396
Becker G (1976) Altruism, egoism and genetic fitness: economics and sociobiology. J Eco Lit
14:817–826
Boyd R, Richerson PJ (2009) Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Philosoph Trans
Royal Soc B 364:3281–3288
Couzin ID, Krause J, Franks NR et al (2005) Effective leadership and decision-making in animal
groups on the move. Nature 433:513–516
Durrett R, Levin SA (2005) Can stable social groups be maintained by homophilous imitation
alone? J Econ Behav Organ 57:267–286
Ehrlich PR, Levin SA (2005) The evolution of norms. PloS Biol 3:943–948. http://biology.
plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-toc&issn=1545-7885&volume=3&issue=6
Fehr E (1999) A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quart J Econ 114:817–868
Gintis H, Bowles S (2004) The evolution of strong reciprocity: cooperation in heterogeneous
populations. Theor Popul Biol 61:17–28
Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–24
Levin SA (1998) Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems
1:431–436
Levin SA, Barrett S, Aniyar S et al (1998) Resilience in natural and socioeconomic systems.
Environ Devel Econ 3:225–236
Levin SA (1999) Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons. Perseus Books Group, Reading
Levin SA (2003) Complex adaptive systems: exploring the known, the unknown and the unknow-
able. Bull Am Math Soc 40:3–19
Levin SA (ed) (2009) Games, groups, and the global good. Springer, Berlin
Levin SA (2010) Crossing scales, crossing disciplines: collective motion and collective action in
the Global Commons. Philosoph Trans Royal Soc B 365:13–17
Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243–1248
Nowak MA, Sasaki A, Taylor C et al (2004) Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability
in finite populations. Nature 428:646–650
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems.
Science 325:419–422
Scheffer M (2008) Critical transitions in nature and society. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Scheffer M, Bascompte J, Brock WA et al (2009) Early warning signals for critical transitions.
Nature 461:53–59
United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development A/RES/
42/187. United Nations Press, New York
Index
A Complex adaptive systems (CAS),

Adaptive management, 107, 180, 181, 185, 66, 432, 436
189, 210, 299 Cooperation, 150–152, 342, 400, 409, 419,
Alternatives, 49, 54, 81, 104, 107, 118, 420, 422, 426, 433
124–131, 133, 167–169, 174, 178, 179,
215, 230, 238, 248, 249, 301, 326, 332,
334–337, 395, 405 D
Altruism, 420 Discounting, 433
B E
Berre Lagoon, 115–119, 123–128, 132, 133 Ecological footprint, 22, 69, 207, 257–260,
Biogeochemical cycles, 141, 142, 145–146, 266, 268, 277, 300, 304, 306, 333
150, 152, 153 Ecological intervention, 386, 388, 390, 391,
Boundary objects, 399–411 394, 396
Ecological restoration, 112–116, 119,
121–123, 125, 126, 136, 190, 192, 193,
C 374, 383–391, 393–396, 400–401, 404,
Carbon, 43–45, 48, 81, 83, 104, 145, 146, 163, 405, 408, 410, 411
164, 166, 167, 169–173, 222, 260, 266, Economic impacts, 47, 82, 88–90, 295
287, 309, 388, 389 Ecosystem-based management, 177–193, 214
CAS. See Complex adaptive systems (CAS) EFH. See Essential fish habitat (EFH)
Case histories, 358–373 Environmental policy, 31, 89, 90, 169, 170,
Climate change, 5, 28, 82, 106, 112, 141, 174, 200
165, 240, 254, 295, 315–326, 386, Equity, 164, 166, 169, 267, 296, 306, 310, 311,
428, 433 340, 346, 347, 384, 433–435
Coastal governance, 345 Essential fish habitat (EFH), 146, 357–376
Coastal urbanization, 207 Eutrophication, 117, 118, 127–129, 131, 145,
Coastal zones, 207, 316–320, 356 146, 265, 331–333, 338, 340
Collaborative planning, 178, 183, 189–191 Evaluation, 8, 9, 12, 85, 136, 188, 299, 344,
Common pool resources, 35, 40, 192, 433, 435 355, 360, 373, 418
Commons, 3, 4, 9, 16, 34–37, 39, 40, 44, 54,
55, 67, 74, 99, 101, 106–108, 130, 150,
186, 192, 210, 212, 213, 231, 233, 235, F
250, 259, 278, 289, 295, 302, 304, 330, Fisheries sustainability, 221, 233, 235
338, 358, 388, 400, 426, 428, 433, 435 Fishery transition, 221–240
and the Urban Environment, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3188-6,
440 Index
Forest transition, 221–240 N

Full world, 99–109 Natural and social limits, 410
Nature conservation, 113, 132, 163, 400
New knowledge, 8, 201, 206
G Normative science, 173
Genuine progress indicator (GPI), 69, 100, Novel ecosystem, 383–396
104, 105, 108
Governance, 10, 13, 81, 87, 101, 106–107,
164, 174, 193, 200–202, 206–210, 215, O
216, 235, 267, 332, 334, 340, 343, Overconsumption, 108, 109, 254
345–347, 421, 423, 426 Overharvest, 141, 142, 148–150,
GPI. See Genuine progress indicator (GPI) 152, 153
H P
Habitat destruction, 142–144, 149, 150 Path dependency, 173, 174
Historical fidelity, 385, 390, 394, 396 Policy and performance, 200, 202, 213
Historical multicriteria analysis (HMCA), 113, Pressure–state–response (PSR) model, 69, 70,
115, 121, 124–133, 136 82–84, 88
Human–nature interactions, 331 Prosociality, 420, 434–436
Human sustainable systems, 427, 428 PSR model. See Pressure-state-response
Hybrid ecosystems, 396 (PSR) model
Public goods, 87, 106, 172, 173, 433, 435
I
Infrastructure, 28, 49, 88, 100–104, 114, Q
129, 162, 171, 200, 207, 209, 212, Quality of life, 80, 100–103, 106, 108,
245, 250, 269, 276–281, 283, 284, 109, 121–125, 133, 136, 200,
286, 289, 290, 294, 299, 300, 207, 303, 304
325, 405
Invasions, 139–153, 362, 383, 386, 387, 389
R
Restoration ecology, 115, 121, 136, 354, 355,
L 357, 358, 374, 376, 395, 401
Landscape-scale planning, 182, 183, 193 Restoring natural capital (RNC), 111–136
Landscape sustainability, 65–72, 74
Limits to growth, 29, 32, 46, 50, 64, 162
Linking structure with function, 355–356 S
Lisbon principles, 101, 107 Second law of thermodynamics, 25, 43, 251,
265, 266
Sequential reference method, 113, 115,
M 121–124, 127, 136
Manila, Philippines, 299, 306–311 Social learning, 159, 308, 426
Markets, 25, 45, 48–50, 52, 101, 102, Societal behavior, 420
105–107, 133, 134, 162–175, 223, 227, Student learning, 14, 17
229, 233, 237, 249, 250, 260, 300, 318, Sustainability
323, 428, 432, 436 frameworks, 92, 202
Material dynamics, 280–281 metrics, 72, 74, 89, 95, 208
Material stock, 276–280, 284–286 trajectory, 329–347
Mediterranean lagoon, 115, 117 Sustainable business practices, 81–84,
Mental models, 23, 24, 26–28, 30, 88, 94
40, 54, 55 Sustainable cities, 200, 267, 269, 277,
Multiple stresses, 326 301–304
Index 441
Sustainable development, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, US Environmental Protection Agency

16, 17, 63, 68, 70, 71, 80, 81, 90, (USEPA), 82, 83, 86, 89–95, 182,
91, 107–109, 115, 162, 163, 295, 335–337, 339, 341–344
296, 331 US National Sustainability Strategy
Sustainable well-being, 101, 102, 105, 106, 108 (NSS), 94, 95
System dynamics, 32, 42, 48, 192
V
U Vulnerability, 9, 247–270, 303, 309, 316, 319,
Urban metabolism, 275–290, 296, 297 320, 322, 325, 433
Urban planning, 266, 268, 294–296
Urban sustainability, 260, 269, 270, 277,
295–302, 304 W
Use-directed research, 8 Wild design, 390–394

2012 Book SustainabilityScience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 Book SustainabilityScience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 Book SustainabilityScience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability Science

ISBN 978-1-4614-3187-9 e-ISBN 978-1-4614-3188-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012937794

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

This book is dedicated to Robert W. Kates,

not solving, environmental problems. The human dimensions of natural resource

Montclair, NJ, USA Michael P. Weinstein

Ayensu E, van R Claasen D, Collins M et al (2003) International ecosystem assessment. Science

Part I Managing the Earth’s Life Support Systems:

From the Unity of Nature to Sustainability Science:

Part II Balancing Ecology and Economy: Natural Capital

The Value of Natural and Social Capital in Our Current

Part III From Science to Policy: Managing the Commons,

“Post-sustainability”: The Emergence of the Social

Part IV The Ecology of Cities

Cities as Dissipative Structures: Global Change

Part V Restoring and Rehabilitating Ecosystems:

Reversing Two Centuries of Wetland Degradation:

Knocking on Doors: Boundary Objects in Ecological

Index ................................................................................................................. 439

James Aronson Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CNRS-UMR

Judith A. Layzer Department of Urban Studies and Planning, MIT, Cambridge,

By focusing on the science–policy interface through a “systems” lens, sustainability

Ayensu E, van R Claasen D, Collins M et al (2003) International ecosystem assessment. Science

Keywords Sustainability science • New knowledge • Use-directed research • Student

Ideas of Sustainability Science

R.W. Kates (*)

The Unity of Nature

Nature Modified by Human Action

Nature Linked to Human Development

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro

NAS-NRC Board on Sustainable Development 1995–99

Beginning in 1995, I served as vice-chair along with William Clark of Harvard

Friibergh Workshop on Sustainability Science

The science and technology needed to develop sustainability is essentially integra-

For a succinct definition of sustainability science, I prefer that of the Proceedings

Major Tasks of Sustainability Science

Fundamental Research on Use-Inspired Problems

Core Research Questions and Themes

Elaborating Human-Environment (H-E) Systems

At the heart of sustainability science are the closely coupled human-environment

Table 2 Models evaluated for integrated sustainability assessment by MATISSE project.

Table 3 Sustainability science research by topic as reflected in

Modeling tools already exist for many of the components of human-environment

Nurturing the Next Generations

Sustainable development is a century-long goal and the best sustainability scientists

ASU School of Sustainability

Readings in Sustainability Science and Technology

There is need for new sets of educational materials as opportunities continue to

Sustainability Science Distributed Graduate Seminar

Moving Knowledge into Action

Perhaps the most challenging task of sustainability science is moving knowledge

Knowledge into Action Challenges

Acting on What We Already Know

As noted in Table 4, we have had a consistent agenda of sustainability challenges

Maine Sustainability Solutions Initiative

From the Unity of Nature to Sustainability Science