Visualising sustainability

“Sustainable Lens: A visual guide” published by NewSplash available through Amazon.

How to convey the essence of sustainability in a few sketched lines?    I’m wading through the net and my bookshelves to find examples of the genre.    I’m looking for schematics of the notion of sustainability itself rather than the underlying science – greenhouse, carbon, meso climate process, ground water,  etc for which there are a zillion diagrams.

The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but if I’ve missed your favourite diagram, leave a link and I’ll add it to the list.   Many of these images are duplicated all over the web, I’ve tried to find original sources (try tineye, is really cool), but again, let me know if I’ve missed something.

In no particular order, here’s 100 125 137 158 179 188 210 255 282 326 361 400 436 475 500600 of what I’ve found.

1. Strong Sustainability

“This model recognises that the economy is a subset of society (i.e. it only exists in the context of a society), and that many important aspects of society do not involve economic activity. Similarly, human society and the economic activity with it are totally constrained by the natural systems of our planet” (NZ PCE quoted by Pam Willams (PhD)

2.   OK, so there was a particular order, the strong sustainability circles had to go before the weaker (but much more common) Venn diagram, 3 circles (or triangles)

This model is very very common (google search sustainability Venn).

“There is some common ground where each of the circles converge, but the main priority in this model is the health of the economy. Economists sometimes refer to this as the weak sustainability model ….. it assumes that the degradation of one group of assets, (environmental, social or economic) can be compensated for by improvement in another and that externalities can be externalised (PRISM and Knight, 2000, cited in PCE, 2002). This weak sustainability model fails to acknowledge the ecological constraints that humans, other species, markets, policies and developments must operate within” (NZ PCE quoted by Pam Willams (PhD)

Venn diagrams coming together and showing changing dominance of sectors in a static animation.

3. Mickey Mouse (OzPolitic)

4. Venn circle with people,   The circle of people give a context (Gerber)

5. Venn circles with each circle labelled (US National Botanic Gardens)

6. Four Venn circles (Halton Hills)

7 Venn 3 with overlaps named (see also WKU)

8. Venn with examples on each sector (Verify). (see also Environmental Planning, Omaha,

9. Venn 3 with callouts Swiss Transport Research Project

10. 3 aspects  held together by shared values (Active Citizenship Toolkit)

11. 3 aspects as a stool (David Lock) “three legged stool”

12. More complex 3 legged stool (Italian Architecture)

13. Stool with a broken leg (perhaps intentional?) from Willoughby City Council

14. Venn 3 within a context (Curtin Centre for Developmental Health)

15. 3 aspects making whole “globe” (ProLogis)

16. Four Pillar (Jon Hawkes incorporates four interlinked dimensions: environmental responsibility, economic health, social equity, and cultural vitality >>)

17. Ken Stoke’s mindmap – Cross between 3 circles and concentric circles (animated)

18. Four well beings. The different forms of well-being as interconnected. Overall well-being, which it places at the centre, is enhanced when all four areas are given equal weight, are interdependent, and are able to move efficiently around the centre (NZ Cutural Well-Being).

19.  Four factors integrated with level of engagement (Pegasus)

20. 3 circles in system (IR3S)

21. Business as a system (Interface)  Prototypical company of 21st Century (cf typical model of 20th), and the damaging links that need to be eliminated.

22. 6 factor compass (ThyssenKrupp Steel)

In this concept, effectiveness and efficiency are central to all decisions and actions. Effectiveness means offering our customers the products and services they need in the required quality and at competitive prices. To remain successful in the market long term, we must achieve this through excellent productivity with an optimal balance of expense and income. Efficiency is represented symbolically as the opening angle of the equal-sided compass. The opening angle and the length of the legs determine the area circumscribed by the compass. The larger this area, the greater the latitude for a sustainable corporate policy. The degree of efficiency and effectiveness is the dominant factor.

23. Pathway (Eatwelldogood)

24. Anderson’s (Interface) pathway:  Seven fronts of Mount Sustainability

25. Societies Diagram from Daniel Montano

26. 3 aspects with 3 dimensions and at different scales (Green Innovations)

27. Scope (from UN via open-sustainability)

27. Organisational constructions (Auckland)

There are many aspects to be considered if Auckland is to become a truly sustainable city. The Local Government Act 2002 makes reference to the ‘four well-beings’: social, economic, environmental, and cultural, but we need to break these down to a larger number of distinct themes in order to define tangible and achievable goals and targets.

28. Organisational construction (Sydney Olympic Park)

29. 7 spoke wheel (Carlson via Rosengren)

30. Sustainable Communities Wheel (Egan review, via Active Citizenship Toolkit).

31. People centred sustainability concepts: Sustainable Livelihoods framework .   (see use and explanation on Chronic Poverty and another example on Practical Action)

32. Medicine wheel (this from Cardinal and Adin via Creative City Network Canada, lots of others- used by PennState Solar decathlon team)

33. Wheel from 350 “every citizen should be a sustainability steward”  (source not cited)

34. Stockport’s Sustainability Wheel

During the sustainability appraisal process each individual proposed policy will be assessed against each of the twenty sustainability objectives.  Commentaries are the most important outcome of the appraisal process. The purpose of the Sustainability Appraisal is to assist the Council in its selection of a preferred option by highlighting the sustainability implications of all development plan options

35. Building sustainability via a wheel with a pie graph  (Packard)

36. Samsung’s wheel is somehow separated inside (3 aspects) and outside (Samsung)

37. Responsibilities of different parts of a sector (Wrap – construction)  – why isn’t “decent housing” a role for the private sector?

38. Web of workstreams (Otago Polytechnic)

39. US Parks Service Guiding Principle of Sustainable Design (Leslie Starr Hart 1994)

40. Seed logo (Geometry of the SeedLogos)

41.  Seed logo integrated with balancing bodywork (Structural integration)  (Geometry of the SeedLogos)

42. Primary cross (Geometry of the SeedLogos)

Sky / Spiritual                   Earth / Material

Mind / Yang / Masculine           Heart / Yin / Feminine

42.  which gives… (Geometry of the SeedLogos)

43. Star Tetrahedron (Geometry of the SeedLogos)

44.  12 Sector Seed Logo (Lipman)

45. Integrated systems Dan Black

 

46. Scale – sustainability is a long term deal (Martens)

“One of the options the policy-maker has—and this is not so far from the current situation—is to go for short-term goals and simple or cheap means of achieving them. In contrast to such an approach, a more pro-active, innovative standpoint can be adopted that pursues longer-term goals, taking into account developments on different levels of scale and in different sectors. Unquestionably, sustainable development demands the latter approach.

To facilitate decision making, sustainability scientists must assist in the task of making concrete both problems and solutions on all relevant temporal and spatial scales. This means that sustainability at the systemic level must be assessed, bringing to bear the following procedural elements: analysis of deeper-lying structures of the system,projection into the future, and assessment of sustainable and unsustainable trends.Evaluation of the effects of sustainable policy and the design of possible solutions through sustainable strategies also belong here.

47. Business operations from Environ

48. Aesthetically applied to seafood (found here, by Ray Troll and Terry Pyles for NOAA Fisheries)

49. Systems and timescales (Eucognition)

“show the different time-scales that relate to the goal-oriented and autonomous agency of a system, and the life cycle of its adaptation to the environment”… “Sustainability is guaranteed by an evolutionary process that underlies the actual behaviour of natural systems, and which is analysed at a different time-scale. It is for this reason that the sustainability of human technological and social systems is not guaranteed by a close coupling with the environment. The analysis of life cycle becomes therefore an essential component to determine the adaptive value of human activity.”

50. UK government: Securing the future – five key  themes

51. Representation of issues with sustainable lens, NZ gender imbalances

52. IDEO’s lifecycle

53. Paper cycle (from Boise “culture of sustainability)

54. Product labelling (here because it represents a flow rather than checkboxes) (Nathan Shedroff)

55. Product pathway comparison (unsustainable, unsistainable with recycling, sustainable)  from Tech

56. Social-eological perspective for products, especially role of persuasion (Aaron “The value of sustainable development“)

57. UK energy flow (pdf) (many other Sankey diagrams)

58. Monash fuel cycle

59. Global Effects (Beechenhill Farm)

60. FAO fisheries kite

61. Integration of sustainability into business (Ecosteps)

62. Business opportunity (Treehugger)

63. Decision filter (Pumicestone Institute)

64. Enterprise process though sustainability lens from SustainCommWorld

65. GreenCanary’s process.

66. Government process (NZ) “walking the talk”

67. Management helix  for sustainable organisation (Natural Edge)

68. Factors influencing sustainability (Hopkins)

69. Sustainability on a “prosperity continuum” (Muskegon County)

70. City rankings (Sustainlane)

71. Sustainable design as organism Guiding Principle of Sustainable Design (Leslie Starr Hart 1994)

72. Limits to growth graphs

73. Ecological footprint

74. Footprint illustration (NZ Ministry for the Environment)

75. Integrity at core (University New Hampshire).

76. Personality enneagram within spheres (Blake)

77. Human-ecologic interchange (Washington State University)

78. Action at different levels (Ecosteps)

79. Sun (wheel really) Carillion

80. House at centre (Icology: Empowering individuals to end poverty)

This is our vision of the world: Universal access to quality, affordable and ecologically sound housing solutions.

81. Life cycle (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

82. Simply sustainable business model (NZ Ministry for the Environment)

83. Simplified flows (from Christain Science Monitor, John Kehe)

84. Human values journey (Robinson and Goleby)

85. Balance between society and environment (Taylor after Miller)

86. Organisational consciousness (Hoolenbach, University of Western Cape).

87. Marshall and Toffel apply Maslow to human and natural environment (Goffman: Defining Sustainability, defining the future)

88. Sustainability science (Kyoto)

89. Invisible values (Horiba investor relations)

90. Integrated ecological-economic worldview

O’Connor‘s image of non-ecological economic worldview

91. O’Connor‘s image of Daly (Beyond Growth)

92. O’Connor‘s Integral Economic worldview

93 Resource funnel (The Natural Step)

94. More complex funnel

95 Natural Step System Conditions

96. Natural Step System Conditions

97. Natural Step System Conditions (again)

98. Criteria flower (Steve Henry and Mark Jackson’s arrangement of Edwin Dzaskefki’s design criteria)

99. Capital and carrying capacity (from Colorado College, or here in Italian, neither sourced)

100. (no significance in number!)  Computing Impact (Forum for the Future’s Connected: ICT and sustainable development)

101. Country positioning (rom Colorado College, not sourced)

102. Development sprials (UNESCO)

103. Bottled water (Green Earth Beverage)

104. Sustainable infrastructure (Hokkaido University)

105. Widening engineering framework (University Cambridge Centre for Sustainable Development) (Note the cost/time/quality at the centre – “pick two you can’t have all three”)

106.  Complexity of Sustainability in China

(Financial) impact flow chart, Natsuko Kikutake NoBoundaries via Zones of Emergency

107. Poverty linkages interactive from Density Design

Who are the poor? Poverty is neither a number nor an index. It cannot be reduced to a line that divides those who are above and those who are below, establishing a unique space for social exclusion. Poverty is a multidimensional and complex phenomenon.

108. Earth systems (Global Envrionmental Centre, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point )

109. Force field analysis model (Stuart Hill, after Lewin)

110. Venn Diagram as a web (Gutierrez, Sustainable Development Paradox)

111. Pattern Map (Conservation Economist)

112. 4 agendas for design (Design Issues Databank)

115. New paradigm (extension of time/cost/quality) Augenbroe and Pearce

116. Sustainable construction in a methodological framework, consisting of three main axes: System (boundary), Process (actor) and Aspect (sustainability). Augenbroe and Pearce

117. Systems approach (Bossel) (Interacting nested systems)

118. Factors affecting housing sustainability (Daniell et al ANU)

119. Anishinaabe Perception of Social-ecological Environments (Davidson-Hunt and Berkes)

121. Consequence analysis (AirQUIS)

122. Dimensions (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency)

Evolution in environmental decision-making have defined circumstances in which more time (CIA) more space (RIA) or more systemic depth (SEA) is required. With each increase, the task (shown by the box) gets bigger and more cumbersome. Sustainable development requires ongoing, integrated and systemically complex analyses, and the task is both large and complex

123. Maori Tertiary Framework (NZ Minstry of Education)

124. Sustainability/Vulnerability (google caches to here, http://www.sustainablefoodlab.org but traced beyond that).

125. Holistic and fragmented worldviews (from Morgan, 2004b after Roberts, 2001, src: David Rei Miller, Western and Mäori Values for Sustainable Development)

126. Mauri model (Morgan, 2004a src: David Rei Miller, Western and Mäori Values for Sustainable Development)

There is thus a need for a decision-making tool that can be used at the Western-Māori interface, which is where most local government projects are developed. The mauri model developed by Kepa Morgan of Mahi Maioro Professionals is a set of assessment criteria similar to the Hellström model. It uses terms from Western science and mātauranga Māori that may be considered analogous. Corresponding to the four aspects of sustainability (environment, culture, society and economy) are four levels or spheres: the environment, hapu, community and whānau

127. Permaculture design principles (Tippett, Holocene)

128. Permaculture design principles (widely used…here, also here)

129. Barry Law’s waka prow

130. Sustainability Practitioner (Leith Sharp – ex Harvard?  via  World is Green)

131. Deisgn process Wever and vanKuijk

Four design strategies
We provide a typology of four user-centered design strategies for inducing sustainable behavior.

• Functionality matching: adapt a product better to the actual use by consumers and thereby try to minimize negative side effects;
• Eco-feedback: the user is presented with specific information on the impact of his or her current behavior, and it is left to the user to relate this information to his or her own behaviour, and adapt this behaviour, or not;
• Scripting: creating obstacles for unsustainable use, or making sustainable behaviour so easy, it is performed almost without thinking about it;
• Forced functionality: making products adapt automatically to changing circumstances, or to design-in strong obstacles to prevent unsustainable behaviour.

The four strategies are supported with examples from packaging, automotive and consumer electronics.

132.  sustainability governance and reporting from Maggie Lawton.

133. similar space from Workspace (pdf of seven key principles)

134. Sustainability on different dimensions (Ecosteps)

135. Sustainability Tree (Ecosteps)

136. Sustainability related to brand value (Oliveira and Sullivan reported on Environmental Leader)

137. Mindmap from Natarajan Ishwaran and Rob Bernard

Here’s more diagrams to explain sustainability (earlier post, 1-137).

138. 5 mindsets

• Earthly – focusing on the interplay between environmental and developmental agendas in the short- and long-term both globally and locally;
• Analytic – based on ‘systems thinking’ and encompassing assessment, planning and management;
• Careful – based on respect for complexity and uncertainty;
• Collaborative – focusing on the interplay of interests, values, cultures and capacities of various actors;
• Action – guiding strategy formation to manage change, continuity and learning for sustainability.

139. 3 aspects mixed with a production cycle (Huhtamaki)

140. Governance and sustainability (Aras and Crowther)

141. Education for sustainable development without the participatory element as “big brother sustainability” Wals and Jickling

142. Assessment tool for cities (Ecostep)

143. Sustainability leadership principles (Mary Ferdig, Sustainability Leadership Institute via Nebraska Sustainability Leadership Workshop)

144. Tragedy of the Commons depicted in system terms (Senge via Warwick).

145. Map of Future Forces Affecting Sustainability (Global Environmental Management Initiative)

An Imperative for Looking Long: The 21st century will test our ability to grasp the future impacts of present choices, but even as we struggle to incorporate future knowledge into our day-to-day decisions, we’re tuning up our bodies and minds and even our cultural frameworks for a much longer view.

146.

Global sustainability related to international business

147. Sustainable farming (DEFRA)

148. City comparison (McKinsey company, in a study on the transition to sustainability for the greater London area (GLA)

149. Scenarios (Gallopin et al via Africa Outlook UNEP)

150. Backcasting (Arising) (see also TNS framework, backcasting process)

151. Pathways to sustainable industrial societies Osamu Saito , Encyclopedia of the Earth (see also principles from Morioka)

152. Pressure state response framework (OEDC via EoE).

153. Framework for environmental and economic accounting (Peter Bartelmus)

154. Resource flows across society set in the context of entropy (Everard)

155. Resource and energy flows within nature’s sustainable cycles and within a theoretical sustainable society (Everard TNS?)

156. Social-ecological system that places the built environment (an artefact) in an overlapping zone between culture and nature, with causation occurring in both directions (Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz in Moffat and Kohler )

157. Spatial scales, aggregation and specific effects (Moffat and Kohler)

158. Cultural, natural and material realms over spatial and temporal scales (Moffat and Kohler)

159. Spectrum of definitions Ken Haggart

160. Balance (Earth Illustrated) (see also Altran)

161. 5 capitals (Sigma project)

162. What, for how long? (National Academy of Sciences 1999)

163. Handprint (Action towards sustainability)

164. Increasing commitment Peter Mellalieu

165. Learning to do values framework (UNEVOC)

166. Commons river (from Barnes’ Capitalism 3.0)

167. Sustainable business value matrix (SustainAbility and UNEP 2001, used in simplified form here).

168. Ecosystem services (from Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, pdf, used in scenarios)

169. The maintenance of Ecosystem services with time, space and interventions (MEA, applied by Pereira to Sistel Portugal)

170. Invisible losses (Turner, in relation to Canadian aboriginal perspective).

171. Self-organising holarchic eco-social systems (Waltner-Toews, see also scale effects).

172. 3 Venn and Strong seen as stages along a continuum (Engineering for Sustainable Development)

173. Ecological footprint/deficit map (Pierce)

174. How many planets? (from UK Interdependence Report) See also WWF One Planet Living

175. Nested adaptive cycles (Holling)

The growth phase we’re in may seem like a natural and permanent state of affairs-and our world’s rising complexity, connectedness, efficiency, and regulation may seem relentless and unstoppable-but ultimately it isn’t sustainable…

I think rapidly rising connectivity within global systems-both economic and technological-increases the risk of deep collapse. That’s a collapse that cascades across adaptive cycles-a kind of pancaking implosion of the entire system as higher-level adaptive cycles collapse, which causes progressive collapse at lower levels.” (Holling in Worldwatch)

(applied to Western Australian agriculture by Allison and Hobbs)

176. Human ecosystem model (Machlis)

The human ecosystem is defined asa coherent system of biophysical and social factors capable of adaptation and sustainability over time. Human ecosystems rest upon a foundation of abiotic and biotic factors taken as base conditions: a solar-driven energy system obeying thermodynamic properties, biogeochemical cycles of high constancy, landforms and geological variation of great complexity, the full genetic structure of life including biophysical properties of homo sapiens. The base conditions limit, constrain, influence and occasionally direct many human ecosystem processes. Boundaries can be spatially identified through ecological transition zones, administrative and political boundaries, or more fine-scaled analysis of sharp perturbations in system flows

177. Steady state economy (in comparison with standard growth model) Herman Daly. Summary from SANZ.

The Standard (Growth) Economy diagram is equivalent to the Triple Bottom Line and Mickey Mouse models. It assumes the possibility of evergrowing cycles of production and consumption without considering the role of the supporting ecosystem, thus establishing the belief that there are no biophysical limits to growth of the economy.

By comparison, the Steady State Economy diagram represents stabilised population and consumption. Resource throughput and waste disposal remain roughly constant, the scale of economic activities fits within the capacity provided by ecosystems, there is fair distribution of wealth, and allocation of resources is efficient.

178. Integral framework (Wilber’s integral quadrats, used by Barrett Brown) applied by Winton (in Br0wn).

179. Brown’s 15 elements of Ecovillage living

180. The Barometer of Sustainability (ICUN)

The Barometer of Sustainability is the only performance scale that measures human and ecosystem wellbeing together without submerging one in the other. The Barometer’s key features are:
• Two axes, one for human wellbeing, the other for ecosystem wellbeing. This enables each set of indicators to be combined independently, keeping them separate to allow analysis of people-ecosystem interactions.
• The axis with the lower score overrides the other axis in the analysis. This prevents a high score for human wellbeing from offsetting a low score for ecosystem wellbeing, or vice versa. This approach reflects the view that people and the ecosystem are equally important and that sustainable development must improve and maintain the wellbeing of both.

181. ‘The Egg of Sustainability’ (Robert Prescott-Allen, in IUCN, 1995)

182. Red triangle/Green Circle (from SustainAbility Gearing Up).

These high friction worlds are represented by the red triangle: low levels of trust increase friction in the system, with different sectors fighting (or ‘scapegoating’) each other.

183. Mapping environmental problems by management and revsersibility (UNEP Geo4)

184. Global environmental outlook framework (UNEP Geo4)

Net gains in human well-being facilitated by the social and economic sectors have, however, been at the cost of growing environmental changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people

185. Shrinking Earth (UNEP Geo4)

186. Sustainability Asymptogram (Onwueme and Borsari – Proquest link)

100 percent sustainability is a perfect state that is practically unattainable by anybody or any system. No matter how good a person or system is, there is always a sustainability deficit that cannot be overcome, as entropy affects living systems and their physical habitats without exceptions. This means that there is always room for improvement. Different persons or systems are located at different levels on the curve, with larger or smaller sustainability deficits, but with deficits all the same.

187. Meadows’ framework (after Daly). (Balaton Group)

I see the triangle as saying there’s no way human ends can be realized without healthy, functioning natural and economic systems

188. Ecosphere as a mail sorter (Collins)

Imagine all of Earth’s chemistry as a mail sorter’s wall of letter slots in a post office, with the network of compartments extending toward infinity (see the bottom figure, next page). Each compartment represents a separate chemistry so that, for example, thousands of compartments are associated with stratospheric chemistry or with a human cell. An environmentally mobile persistent pollutant can move from compartment to compartment, sampling a large number and finding those compartments that it can perturb. Many perturbations may be inconsequential, but others can cause unforeseen catastrophes, such as the ozone hole or some of the manifestations of endocrine disruption. Most compartments remain unidentified and even for known compartments, the interactions of the pollutant with the compartment’s contents can usually not be foreseen, giving ample reason for scientific humility when considering the safety of persistent mobile compounds.

 

189.   Sitra Sustainable Wellbeing Model (in Cook 2018)

190.  Dominant and Life-affrming guiding metaphors (Glasser 2018)

The Cognitive, Agricultural, and Industrial Revolutions were adventitious. They were not planned or designed; they happened spontaneously and gradually.  Driven by System 1, they were the result of our species’ unconscious opportunistic tendencies and ostensible biases towards perceived short-term beneft, self-interest, and silver bullets (leaping to innovative solutions before we really understand the problem we think we are trying to solve or whether the solution is really better than the status quo). Later, the acceleration of unfettered, decontextualized economic and technological growth further enshrined anthropocentrism, individualism, exploitation of humans and nature, and swelled
inequity.

Our coming of age as a species, the Sustainable Well-being Revolution, is about taking responsibility for the awesome powers that we stumbled into.

191. Capitalist system (IWW poster, see also)

192 Cause and effect diagram (Fishbone or Ishikawa diagram, instructions). This from Stephen Hinton.

193 Road depends on where you start (Jo Johnston)

194 Realms (Baudot via Ford)

 

195 Global footprint versus Human Development Index (WWF via Oildrum)

196 Sequence of world systems 1949, 2007, 2030, 2050 (Charles Hall via Oildrum)

197 Node diagram (Isaksson and Steimle, img)

198 Human life project (young child version, also young adult and adult). (Jennifer Ranville, overview)

199 Cycles in Sustainable Economy (Carana).

200 Creating sustainable value framework (Hart and Milstein via Brinq)

201 360 model (Hollingworth)

202 Zoom zoom to make the tree grow (Mazda)

Mazda is working towards a sustainable future that brings continued happiness and excitement to people in a global society, by developing vehicles that never fail to excite, visually capture the customer’s heart, and provide a fun driving experience that keeps bringing them back to Mazda.

203 Diagram of Everything Living (Gurdjieff see also Ray of Creation)

204 Four capitals (on a tree) University of Vermont Gund Institute for Ecological Economics

205 Pattern Dynamics (Tim Winton)

Through his work as a sustainability educator Tim recognised the need for a common ‘language’ in sustainability. PatternDynamics is a set of symbols representing the organizing principles of the natural world.

206 First Nations Ecology (First Nations Development Institute – can’t find original, this via)

207 Mind map (many variants, this “Intention to sustain” Touchedbyamoose, see also)

208 Four Dimensions of intelligence (TLC Solutions)

The four dimensions are based on the concept of dimensions of space and time, where the use of predominantly one dimension leads to a one-dimensional form of leadership. The more we are able to utilise additional dimensions, the greater depth we develop and implement as leaders. The fourth dimension is absolutely critical – the dimension of time. Most people can be a great leader at a single point in time, but what makes a great leader over time, sustainably, is the fourth dimension.

209 Self organising success (Mike Bell, Wisdom Meme)

All self-organising systems rely on the interconnectedness of eight design elements (or energies) for their survival and growth:

210 Child rights ecology model (ex UN Convention Rights of the Child, David Ortiz via Open University).

211 Steps to Ecology of Mind (Gregory Bateson via Poe)

212 Spaceship

Spaceship Earth was so extraordinarily well invented and designed that to our knowledge humans have been on board it for two million years not even knowing that they were on board a ship

there are no passengers on Spaceship Earth Fuller (1965 in Vallero 2005. 367)

(see also representations of cabin ecology research)

213 Permatopia (Mark Robinowitz)

214 Industrial Bubble (Geoff Brown)

215 Five Earths of the Bible (Lamb and Lion Minstries)

The first earth was the one created in the beginning (Genesis 1:1). It was perfect in every respect (Genesis 1:31). But because of Man’s sin, God placed a curse upon the earth (Genesis 3: 17-19).

The fourth earth — the millennial earth — will be very different from the present earth. The earthquakes that will produce it will be the most severe in history. Most important, the curse will be partially lifted, making it possible for Man to be reconciled to nature and for nature to be reconciled to itself. The wolf will dwell with the lamb because the wolf will no longer be carnivorous. The nursing child will play with the cobra because the cobra will no longer be poisonous (Isaiah 11:8).

But Satan’s last revolt at the end of the Millennium will leave the earth polluted and devastated (Revelation 20:7-9). Thus, at the end of the Lord’s reign, God will take the Redeemed off the earth, place them in the New Jerusalem, and then cleanse the earth with fire (2 Peter 3:10-13).

216 Change Map (Clare Graves, Beck and Cowan via eman8) See also Spiral dynamics (image)

217 Sustainability mapped as megatrend (Richard Watson). Higher res.

218 Deformation of Pentagram (Di Castri via Savchenko)

219 Ecology, Equity, and Economy Triangle by McDonough and Michael Baungart From the book, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by William McDonough and Michael Baungart

220 Alden Dow’s A way of life cycle (“Alden B. Dow Midwestern Modern” by Diane Maddex)

221 Puzzle (from Affluenza.org)

222 Puzzle Slide (Henry Fiddler)

213 Social zones of sustainability (Confronting Change)

224 Mimetic feedback influence model ( Gutirrez from Girad) (imitation role as motivator)

225 Pattern of Sustainability (Joanne Tippet, dissertation)

226 River system health. Triangle has flows, processes, and is in context of larger scale. Vugteveen et al. (2006).

227 Continuum of human impacts and normative valuation of quality. For river condition Vugteveen et al. (2006).

228 Entrepreneurship (Tilley and Young)

229 Accounting cube (Forum for the Future)

230 Niche transitions (Schot and Geels)

231 Venn diagram with sustainability as integration (cf intersection) Schalange

232 “Sustainability is a relational principle” (Sandelands and Hoffman)

233 Triangle (sort of) in transition (Said, Malaysian construction firms IJOrgInnovation 2:336 ).

234 Prism (Puhakka et al, Scandinavian tourism)

235 Markets (O’Riordan after Anderson)

236 Navajo Hooghan (developed by Navajo Flexcrete, O’Neill et al.)

The Hooghan is highly symbolic of the Navajo’s spiritual understanding of the interconnectedness of all things through all time. A visitor enters the Hooghan from the East, the direction in which the door of the Hooghan always faces. East is the direction of the sunrise, which begins the day and is symbolic of the beginning of life. The visitor moves clockwise through the four quadrants. The first quadrant belongs to the Mother, who represents work and wealth, which is passed through maternal inheritance. The Father and, when he visits, the Medicine Man, occupy the south-west quadrant. The Father ties the families and clans together through marriage. The Medicine Man is a vehicle for the fundamental beliefs and values of the Diné. The north-west quadrant is for the Children, whose basic needs must be taken care of by the Father and Mother. The north-east quadrant is where the visitor ends and where Visitors gather when in the Hooghan. The Navajo consider all of life to be integrated and sacred, thus the entire structure is the ‘Spiritual’ whole. The Hooghan thus embodies all of the aspects of life.

237 Strategic life-cycle management (SLCM)—sustainability principles as system boundaries. (Principles are Natural Step, Ny et al)

238 Belief–Action–Outcome Framework (Melville after Coleman)

We introduce an additional antecedent, organizational structure, as well as an additional outcome, behavior of organization (Figure 2). In this way, we account for dual socialization (individual psychic states are shaped by social structure (link 1) and organizational structure (link 1′)) and dual outcomes (combined individual action may improve organizational (link 3′) and environmental (link 3) performance)…

239 Lifestyle balance (Matusaka and Christiansen)

240 Ethical frameworks (and surely a golden snitch). Laszlo et al.

241 Integrative triangle applied (Kleine and von Hauff)

242 Integrative triangle applied to institution (Kleine and von Hauff)

243 Integrative triangle: levels and tendencies (Kleine and von Hauff)

245 Integrative triangle as an assessment tool (Kleine and von Hauff)

246 Harmonic and conflict relationships on Integrative triangle (Kleine and von Hauff)

247 Wilbur’s holon (Kira and Eijnatten)

248 Organisation, development and human resources (Jabbour and Santos)

249 Causal loop diagram: Qualitative system dynamic (effects of changes in municipal wastewater management, Guest et al.)

250 Pocket knife (as part of quality process management, Goel)

251 Logically vivid system (Dinga)

252 Interactions between disciplines required for sustainability as gears and layers. Relationship of protectiveness of ecological health layer, requires several tiers (here shown as gears) (Using buffer lands, Burger)

253 Continuum of interest (Hemant Puthli)

254 Stock of environmental quality (tourism sites, Johnston and Tyrrell)

255 Circles stacked and in a graph of time and space (Japan for Sustainability)

256. Imperatives (Scottish Government attributes Irish EPA, but I can’t find)

257. Triangle with explicit balance (INAP)

The balance point at A, which weighs the social and economic more heavily than the environmental, is equally acceptable as the point of balance at B, which weighs the environmental more heavily. The most suitable point of equilibrium can be identified only through an integrated consultative process involving all stakeholders.

258. Aims of Environmental Education (NZ Government)

259. Future generations (Australian Government Intergenerational Report)

260. Three circles in one (espdesign)

261. Stool gives a short shrift (Storck)

262. Spring (KÖVET Association for Sustainable Economies)

263-266 Systemic mapping of strategic dilemmas (Anthony Judge for Intersectoral Dialogue in preparation for Earth Summit).

To explore and illustrate new possibilities, the focus of the exercise described here is on identifying “strategic dilemmas· underlying debates on Earth Summit issues. These are the dilemmas which reflect such seemingly irreconcilable concerns as safeguarding watercourses versus exploiting essential hydro-electric energy reserves. The assumption is that the set of these local (namely issuespecific) long-term dilemmas may offer clues to new patterns of global (namely inter-sectoral) strategies and bargains.

The intention was to obtain suggestions for inter-sectoral images which could best capture the Earth Summit insights and empower people to move forward in new ways.

There was a concern to move beyond the traditional text representation of the challenges of inter-sectoral dialogue and to endeavour to open up new possibilities by portraying sectoral and issue relationships in two and three-dimensions.

Pattern of strategic dilemmas in table form designed to code and organize strategic dilemmas of sustainable development. Sustainable development is a function of the pattern as a whole rather than of its components.

263. Table of strategic dilemmas

(A checklist of sectoral declarations) fails to respond to the need to raise the level of debate by offering a global (inter-sectoral) context for specific bargains, checks and balances. Such checklists, like Agenda 21, are effectively overwhelming. They encourage simplistic attempts to identify “the most important problem” whose solution it is hoped will magically transform all the others.

(The table) is one attempt to respond to this situation by showing how different social functions,understood as strategic opportunities, interfere with each other to engender a pattern of strategic dilemmas.

Example code groupings

264. Network of bargain areas

The traditional tabular presentation (of the table) is itself a conceptual trap. It encourages a very mechanistic approach to the pattern of dilemmas, reinforcing tendencies to much-contested forms of “linear thinking”. The linearity may be deliberately challenged by allowing the information to be encoded or projected onto a network. In this exercise the network has been deliberately chosen to facilitate comprehension of global properties of the pattern of strategic dilemma.

The 6 hierarchical structures below may be viewed as caricatures of a set of currently competing world views. In each, the dominant function (from the table) tends to distort or suppress the operations governed by the recessive functions (in much the same way as the gene for brown eyes masks the expression of the “blue eyes’ gene). The challenge of sustainable development is to interweave the functional contributions so that all are both expressed and constrained under appropriate circumstances.

265. Representation of issue arenas on icosadodecahedral net

Globally patterned network (see Figures 3A and 3B) chosen to be compatible with the set of strategic functions (in a previous table). The areas can then be used to signify issue- specific bargain arenas. The network is thus a globally organized network of local bargain arenas (where global and local are understood in a functional rather than a geographical sense).

The systemic coherence of the network pattern of Figure becomes clear when it is seen how the 2-dimensional network may be folded around the surface of a sphere in 3 dimensions. This establishes the functional globality of the pattern of bargain arenas and the associated strategic dilemmas.

Further insights into how local bargains may interlock may be obtained by considering the tensegrity structures which illustrate the principles by which spherical structures can be rendered self-sustaining in practice. Tensegrity structures are effectively patterns of sustainability.

This approach points to new policy possibilities in which the degree of global consensus required is reduced to a minimum (in a design sense) by localizing the patterns of disagreement. In this way disagreement no longer acts globally — tearing apart the global community. Rather it is locally confined and understood as a long-term strategic dilemma on which ·consensus· can only be achieved in the short-term. Sustainability thus lies at the global level not at the local level.

266. Two columns of bargaining areas

These may be understood as simpler (3-valent) and more complex (5-valent) bargaining arenas around specific concerns.

…a tentative indication of the significance of each code is given here (not all shown here) . The codes appear in two columns. The left hand column indicates a development-focused application of the strategies. The right hand column indicates an environment-sensitive application of the strategies.

267. Prism of health and sustainability (Parkes et al.)

270. Trajectory of environmentally responsible design (NZ Ministry for the Environment)

This figure illustrates that ‘Conventional practice’ and ‘Green/high performance design’ both fall beneath the bar of sustainability. This is because they are still degenerating ecosystems and human health. ‘Sustainable design’ can be thought of as neutral. This is because it neither causes ecosystem degeneration, but nor does it contribute to positive outcomes. ‘Restorative design’ and ‘regenerative design’ are regenerative systems and are above the bar of sustainability. This is because they have positive ecological and community outcomes. As design moves from conventional, to green, through sustainable and onto restorative and regenerative, less energy is needed. A conventional design can be thought of as relating to a fragmented system. Green or high performance as well sustainable design solutions tend to focus on new techniques and technologies. Restorative design takes into account the whole system, and regenerative design encompasses a full understanding of living systems (including humans).

271. Triangle showing factors, on ‘geographic space” ( Nijkamp modified by Dourojeanni)

272. Diverse hierarchical levels and limits of universal lawlessness (Gasto et al 2009)

The core problem of sustainability is given by not respecting the highest hierarchical levels, exceeding their limits of universal lawfulness. A good decision must be sound in each and all of the hierarchical levels.

273. Focus point of four hierarchical dimensions (Gasto et al 2009)

…relate the contiguous pairs of the four fundamental hierarchical dimensions with four acting axes. Between the local and the anthropocentric are the stake-holders, or civil society, directly managing the phenomenon. Territory governance arises between the anthropocentric and the global context. This scheme sets the properties and demands of the ruled system (natural and anthropogenic) and the provisions that the ruling system must have (anthropogenic) to give control to the territory (Jentoft, 2007). It also states that the general functions of the ecosystem has to be considered for such effects as the maintenance of zones destined to control greenhouse gases, the regulation and purification of waters, and the conservation of culture. The maintenance and application of global international agreements is centered on the relationship between the ecocentric axis and the globalization of human actions. Whatever the nature of the human actions, they must be conditioned by restrictions of ethical and aesthetical nature, which are located between the local and ecocentric axes. If these factors are not satisfied, system sustainability deteriorates.

In this context, human presence constitutes an integral part of all ecosystems; its actions are relevant in global impact and deterioration (McDonnell and Pickett, 1993; Vitousek et al, 1997; Lubchenco, 1998). The focal point is the center of divergence from where the position of confluence of the different hierarchical axes intervenes in the human actions and the social agent’s decision-making are established. Therefore, the natural and cultural generic restrictions are integrated into the territorial restrictions. As a result, new illicit spaces appear, because the solution can be contained in the inner legal space of one of the systems, but outside of other systems.

274. MAIN prism (Kain 2000, in Keiner) (an abstraction of World Bank’s four capitals model and CSD’s social, economic, environmental, institutional).

Mind, Artefact, Institution and Nature in order to relieve the prism from the burden of expressions as social and economic, which are judged to be more confusing than explanatory. The environmental dimension (nature) comprises all natural capital, which may be subdivided into stocks of non-renewable and stocks of renewable resources. The economic dimension (artefact) stands for all man-made material assets such as buildings and roads. The social dimension (mind) should be perceived as the awareness of the individual subject (worldview, knowledge, and experience). The institutional dimension concerns the organization of our society and the relation between people.

275. Never-ending triangle of sustainable development (Välimäki 2002, in Stanners et al. 2007).

276. Daly empty versus full world (Daly 2001, selected essays 2007).

277. Conceptual framework within which the territorial, temporal, and personal aspects of development can be openly discussed (Seghezzo 2009)

278. Roots of the modern view of sustainability (Kidd 1992, in Bell and Morse 2008)

279. Venn diagram with feedback loops (DEFRA Estuary Guide 2009)

280. Spatial systems framework (Niu et al 1993).

281. Linkages between ecological, social and cultural systems (Ingold 1980).

Not strictly sustainability, but interesting as 1980 exploration of dynamics of relationships between social and ecological systems. Used to explore different models of utlisation of reindeer (hunting, pastoralism, ranching), despite similar environment and ecology in Artic tundra.

282. Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (World Conservation Strategy 1980)

The strategy saw conservation as a means to achieve social and economic objectives, and social and economic constraints as barriers to achieving conservation objectives (elements are on the same page, nearly integrated as what we now know as sustainability).

283.  Circles of sustainability     (McCarthy and James wiki)

The Circles of Sustainability approach is explicitly critical of other domain models such as the triple bottom line that treat economics as if it is outside the social, or that treat the environment as an externality. It uses a four-domain model – economics, ecology, politics and culture. In each of these domains there are 7 subdomains.

284. Sustainable Food Systems (3 circle Venn diagram with food supply chain) (Institute of Food Science and Technology 3keel Richard Sheane)

IFST (highlighted on the figure above):

1. Resource risks and pressures: The food system is dependent on the natural environment and at the same time is causing significant environmental impacts

2. Healthy sustainable diets: There is a need to deliver good human and environmental health outcomes from the food system at the same time

3. Circular economy and sustainable manufacturing: The current economic model of “take-produce-consume-discard” is unsustainable

4. Novel production systems and ingredients: There are opportunities for developing new farming and manufacturing technologies to deliver sustainable nutrition

5. Decent work and equitable trade: The livelihoods and working conditions of the 1+ billion people who work in the food system need to be improved

6. Transparency, traceability and trust: New software and data can help drive improvements in food system sustainability and strengthen consumer trust

285.  Hire wire act. (Thinkup construction)

286.  Sustainable Livelihoods Framework   http://www.glopp.ch/B7/en/multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf

“…The framework depicts stakeholders as operating in a context of vulnerability, within which they have access to certain assets. Assets gain weight and value through the prevailing social, institutional and organizational environment (policies, institutions and processes). This context decisively shapes the livelihood strategies that are open to people in pursuit of their self-defined beneficial livelihood outcomes.” (Kollmair et al., 2002)

287. Window of viability on top of a hill. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation)

289.  Strong sustainability bullseye linked to Landscape Sustainable Science (and design-in-science paradigm, Huang et al 2019).

290. Principles on a three pillar triangle (Penn State after Gagnon, see also Alkadd et al. 2016)

Those principles placed in the center of the diagram combine all three aspects of sustainability to a certain degree and hence their implementation would benefit all societal, environmental, and economic stakeholders.

291.   Aidan Davidson’s atom (2008).

In my efforts to think and act through paradox in search of sustainability, the much-maligned idea of ambivalence has been of great help. Conversely, I have found unhelpful the Venn diagrams routinely used in sustainability texts to depict overlapping sets of cultural, social, economic and environmental concerns. I offer, then, with usual caveats about simplification, the metaphor of atomic structure as a potentially more interesting heuristic device.

Imagine principles of sustainability as a tightly aggregated nucleus around which orbit only loosely aggregated goals of sustainable development. The small area of agreement established by the ideal of sustainability is nonetheless sufficient to bind together a wide constellation of diverse sustainable development objectives. These objectives orbit in varying relations of proximity and stability to sustainability ideals, establishing a large field of contestation. Just as the cohering of positively charged nucleus and negatively charged electrons produces the elemental character of an atom, so too the ambivalent coupling of ideals and practices is the defining, coherent strength of the quest for sustainability. And just as the great majority of space within an atom is empty, composed not of matter but rather of potential trajectories for movement and interaction of matter, so too is the value of debate about sustainable development not to be found in fixed definitions and assertions. It is to be found in the movement and interaction of ideas and interests on retrospective questions of the future.

292. Butterfly (Ellen MacArthur Foundation)  (OK, not strictly sustainability).

circular economy is regenerative and restorative by design

293.  Spider diagram with explicit “transformation” dimension (Wilhelm and Wydler 2014). (After Wals and Corcoran Sustainability as an Outcome of Transformative Learning 2006).

In these spaces, three dimensions can be distinguished: a systemic, a normative and a procedural dimension (with the focus on the transformation of a system). These dimensions enable more technically-oriented sustainability assessment tools to be translated into socio-political decision-making processes.

294.  Social-ecological transition and work    (Bottazzi 2019)

Idealistic view of a social-ecological transition to contributive economy and contributive justice policies. Contributive economy (TB1) is based on intrinsically motivated collaboration between multiple contributors to create positive externalities. Contributive justice policies (TB2) promote a transformation of the conception of work to be considered as a value in itself and not just a mean of production. Both TB1 and TB2 principally seek to generate human capabilities as a main outcomes of socio-economic processes (TB3), leading to an improvement of workers’ autonomy, sufficiency and wellbeing (TB4). As a result, workers are able to produce their own knowledge and become more self-aware as they have more time for reflexivity, are driven by intrinsic motivations and increase their sociability and their capacity to generate social-ecological innovation. Worker’s autonomy also positively influences citizenship engagement (TB5), leading to emancipation, accountability and public engagement, supporting in return contributive justice policies (TB2). Raising awareness for social-ecological issues allows for more responsible production and consumption (TB6), supporting in return the contributive economy (TB1). TB5 and TB6 are both direct drivers of ecological resilience (TB7) that in return influence peoples’ well-being.

295.  Culture is taking over the petri dish. (Duxbury 2016)

296. Somebody ate a piece of the pie.  (a brainstorm around sustainable textiles)

297.  Rejection of Venn, then alternative…Venn.  (Tyler Caine, Intercon 2014)

The three-circled diagram strikes me more as conciliatory to the boundaries of an existing system rather than aspirational towards the creation of a new one. After all, it was the old system that has got us to this point in the first place. The tenants of sustainability should migrate beyond the green circle to frame the entirety of the system. There are degrees of balance that can encompass each circle, all of the circles and all of the circles interactions with each other so that the growth of one does not have to come to at the cost of another.

298. Neste’s “core of strategy“  (eg renewable jet fuel)

299. Flying boxes. Why? beats me.  (SmileTemplates)

300. Kate Raworth’s Doughnut 

Humanity’s central challenge in the 21st century is to meet the human rights of all people within the capacity of Earth’s life-support systems. In other words, we need to get into the doughnut: the safe and just sweet spot between social and planetary boundaries

301.    Rodrigo’s rods and inner-tubes (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008)

(existing models, Venn, Daly etc) However, they all suffer from being highly anthropocentric, compartmentalised, and lacking completeness and continuity. These drawbacks have reduced their acceptance and use by more advanced sustainability scholars, researchers and practitioners. This paper presents an innovative attempt to represent sustainability in three dimensions which show the complex and dynamic equilibria among economic, environmental and social aspects, and the short-, long- and longer-term perspectives.

302. Pillars with identity, quality and efficiency between (Kyelou and Ierapetritis 2019)

303.  Living principles framework roadmap (AIGIA)

The Living Principles for Design framework is a catalyst for driving positive cultural change. It distills the four streams of sustainability—environment, people, economy and culture—into a roadmap for sustainable design that is understandable, integrated, and most importantly, actionable

304.  Sustainable design ecosystem (AIGIA)

305. Anna Krachey’s  Design thinking 

306.  We’ve had an impossible triangle before, but I couldn’t resist this architectural version.

307.  Nature-based solutions (IUCN 2019)

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits

308. SDGs and value creation (Integrated Reporting)

309.  Venn in a triangle in a circle (The Centre for Liveable Cities Liveability Framework)

310.  What’s social sustainability?  I dunno either. (More than Green)

(part of animation that turns these triangles into buildings and map squares).

311.  SDGs as a…

(there a lot of variations.  Other than this bike, I’m including the coloured blocks or wheel of the SDGs only if it adds substance to the diagram or model).

This for example, would not make it onto the post (except as a counter example, obviously)

Although it is useful as a visual shorthand for sustainability: (Slovenian Development Strategy)

312.  Whereas this use of the SDGs adds value by showing that sustainability is an holistic and a transformation (J. Lokrantz/Azote, Stockholm Resilience)

313.  SDG Wedding Cake: mapping of SDGs to Strong Sustainability model  (Rockström,  see also Teebweb)

314. Systematic inclusive approach and equilibrium of strategic orientations  (Slovenian Development Strategy)

315. Cultural Materialism:  Triangle with different take on pillars (Lyngaas 2016)

316.  Hero’s journey (Shari Welsh) (after Joesph Campbell’s Monomyth).

317. Structural sustainability principles as a bubbly Venn diagram (Bofylatos and Spyrou 2016)

A framework to deconstruct and frame the cognitive space associated with sustainability has been proposed in Bofylatos et al 2012. This framework was based around the notion of “structural principles of sustainability”, the six principles selected after a long bibliographical review attempted to frame the cognitive space in which sustainability will emerge. Those are: holistic, local, safe, cyclic, socially acceptable, and rational in the use of energy and materials (Bofylatos 2013) through this process we were able to visualize sustainability as the point of intersection of a Venn diagram with six objects (the principles identified). This frames the problem space in which we speculate sustainability will emerge

318. PRiSM Principles (Green Project Management)

319. Forms of Sustainable Value Creation Patterns (Carroux 2017 and Lüdeke-Freund 2108)

“A sustainable business model pattern describes an ecological, social, and/or economic problem that arises when an organisation aims to create value, and it describes the core of a solution to this problem that can be repeatedly applied in a multitude of ways, situations, contexts, and domains. An SBM pattern also describes the design principles, value-creating activities, and their arrangements that are required to provide a useful problem-solution combination.”

(like a soil texture triangle, this representation assumes a 100% sum – where increase in one aspect must have a decrease the other two).

320. I had to include this because it is so bad.  Not only is it a Venn diagram, but in trying to pimp it up for display, they’ve broken it even more – sustainability is at the intersection of all three pillars, not just economic growth as this image points to (Slidegeeks)

321.  Dimensions in SDGs  – and a hint of origami (European Commission)

322.    Hugs. Inequality as link between society and biosphere. (Hamman via Tilman)

We employed a social-ecological systems framework and identified pathways that link inequality and the biosphere. Our review finds that most research has focused only on one-directional linkages between inequality and the biosphere. We highlight examples where bi-directional and cross-scale linkages are present. Such systems call for approaches that consider the complex feedbacks and dynamics of inequality that are present at the nexus of society and the biosphere.

323. Capital interactions (Hill 2015)

324. Intergenerational sustainability.  Lozano introduces time by repeating a Venn diagram.

The figure depicts the integration of the economic, environmental and social aspects, and how these keep the same weight in respect to each other from one generation to the next. Abstractly, the picture shows the stable and non-diminishing use of resources (economic, human and natural).

325.  Time tube.  Lozano (2008) considers a Strong Sustainability model as 1st Tier Sustainability Equilibrium (flow around a circle), which can then be stretched over time.  Where the tube and the time-line diverge and the shape forms a cone is a “disequilibrium in the time dimension.  Lack of long-term perspective”.

326. One Ring to rule then all. Lozano (2008)

The final step involves the interactions of both equilibria into a Two Tiered Sustainability Equilibria (TTSE). This is achieved by inter-relating the First tier sustainability equilbiria (FTSE) in dynamic change processes through time, passing from the inter-generational to the holistic  perspective. In this case the FTSE may not be the same today and in the  future. In the TTSE all aspects including the time perspective interrelate,  or example the economic aspects of today with the economic aspects of the future, but also with the environmental aspects of the present and the future, as well as with the social aspects of the present and the future. These interactions occur with all the other aspects of the present and the long-term, which make the cylinder
suffer a metamorphosis into a doughnut shape by imploding in the direction of the time axis (Fig. 15), for this to occur time needs to bend. In the TTSE sustainability issues lie inside the doughnut and are in perennial movement inter-relating with other issues, continuously rotating in the two axes shown in the figure.

327. 23 Honey bee practices (Avery and Bergensteiner 2007)

328. Regenerative system sketch (from Mang and Haggard 2106).

329.  System of mind (Bill Reed 2007)

We have the opportunity and imperative to evolve our thinking and practice in a way that can contribute to regenerating our planet. Slowing down the processes of degradation, while essential, is insufficient; regenerating the evolving resiliency and matrix of life in each place is the other half of achieving a sustainable condition – in fact it’s the easier and less expensive half if we only shift the purpose of design and the process of thinking this way. This nature of work will require us to think more and more like living systems and embrace a whole systems mind and design process in order to wholly participate in the system of life. The role of architecture and development will be dramatically enriched and positive – plus it’s just plain, powerfully, good fun.

330.  Phases and process of regeneration (Mang and Reed 2012)

Figure 4 depicts the three phases – Understanding/Conceptualizing Right Relationship to Place, Designing for Harmony, and Co-evolution – that emerged as essential to this methodology, and the three developmental processes – Growing Stakeholder  Partnerships, Living Systems Thinking, and Integrative Developmental Processes – that are key to creating and sustaining the holism required to make this an evolutionary spiral, growing systemic capacity as it actualizes a project

331. Levels of ecological strategies (Mang and Reed 2012)

A number of ecological strategies for sustainability were developed during the 1980s and 1990s that were organized around the core set of philosophical, theoretical and scientific  concepts that underlie the ecological perspective of reality. All were aligned around a commitment to net positive goals for the built environment, and to integrating human structures, processes and infrastructures with natural living systems to that end. They differed in the systemic scope they encompassed, falling into four broad categories along a spectrum of comprehensiveness.

332.  Essential Living Processes framework (Mang and Reed 2012)

This framework was developed by Regenesis for setting overarching project aims to guide the design and construction process. It is based on the six critical processes that enable living  systems to support the evolution of life. They include the ability to provide the material structuring that forms the basis for life processes— nourishment, shelter (habitat), and the generation and exchange of resources for growing and evolving more life. Because humans cannot be separated out from any living system, the factors go beyond the material factors—the outer landscape of a place. They also include the “inner landscape” that sources our spirit and will and drives us to cherish and protect the places we inhabit. They include the ability of a living system to create a sense of identity and foster belonging through its culture, to support meaningful and contributory lives, and to invoke the spirit and inspiration that sustains caring.  The framework enables setting aims and goals (and later developing indicators and measuring systems) for how the processes generated by the project support ecological, economic and social health in each of the six areas. The interrelationship of these processes and how they cross  ecological, societal, and economic arenas is graphically represented

333. Permaculture ethics  (Jasmine Dale Permaculture Design Companion)

334. 8 shields mentoring 

Patterns of historic trauma around the world have contributed to a massive loss of culture and a loss of the legacies of ancient wisdom traditions that support future generations living in harmony with each other and the natural world. The collective grief from this widespread loss has resulted in a mass amnesia, and the breakdown of intergenerational mentoring communities.

Join a global movement of support in the best practices of cultural mentoring, nature based mentoring, designing for peace, healing grief, and community building.

335.   Transformation through social connection (David Gershon. Empowerment Institute, Christine Valenza)

335.   Colourful permaculture. (various, can’t find original).

337. Another permaculture (I’ll stop now), I’m particularly interested in how this one represents economy as a cyclic flow (google image, not linked and no hits from tineye).

338.  Te Whare Tapa Wha (Mason Durie)

Māori health expert Mason Durie developed the whare tapa whā model of health in 1982. Encapsulating a Māori view of health and wellness, it has four dimensions: taha wairua (spiritual health), taha hinengaro (mental health), taha tinana (physical health) and taha whānau (family health). Different parts of a wharenui (meeting house) represent each dimension.

339. Vision 2050 (WBCSD 2012) Road Map

Note the “road” into time (the y-axis) uses a personal aging metaphor “turbulent teens” with action rows described accordingly.

The pathway and its elements neither prescribe nor predict, but are plausible stories the companies have created by “backcasting”, working back from the vision for 2050 and identifying the changes needed to reach it.

We see two timeframes: the Turbulent Teens, from 2010 to 2020, and Transformation Time, from 2020 to 2050. The Turbulent Teens is a period of energy and dynamism for the global vision of sustainability. It is a formative decade for the ideas and relationships that will take place in the 30 years to follow.

From 2020 to 2050, the traits formed during the first decade mature into more consistent knowledge, behavior and solutions. It is a period of growing consensus as well as wrenching change in many parts of society – climate, economic power, population – and a time for fundamental change in markets that redefines values, profits and success.

340.  Vision 2050 roadmap mural (Bob Horn)

341. System diagram as a machine (Density Design Working like clockwork) (see also biodiversity as Sankey).

342. Unstable unsustainable constellations of the Three Domains (Joanna Broehnert 2018 after Vandana Shiva).

343.  Four becomes three – four pillars including function of society gets reduced to people, environment and business when measured (Empower).

344.  Modern Day Slavery (Global Sustainability Network)

345. Scottish National Performance Framework (image with measures)

It is 10 years since the Scottish Government launched our world-leading National
Performance Framework. It sets out a vision of national wellbeing for Scotland and charts progress towards this through a range of social, environmental and economic indicators. The Framework changed how we do government in Scotland. The focus shifted to improving outcomes and how our actions will improve the quality of life for the people of Scotland. This approach to government in Scotland has now been given a statutory basis in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

346. Keyword network (Alto Data Analytics, original).

Alto Data Analytics collected 72 million data points from 3.2 million comments and 1.7 million interactions created by 1.3 million authors across Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, forums, blogs, news and other digital sources in English and Spanish.

The interconnection of the key themes revealed adjacent narratives such as gender, hunger, sustainable cities, the circular economy and how blockchain technology is impacting the environment. The data visualisation shows zero waste is closely connected with the discussion around sustainable cities, the circular economy, sustainable investing and how blockchain is related to renewable energies in the context of technological impact.

347.   Navigating the Structure of Research on Sustainable Development Goals (Martin Szomszor)

…shows that there is a dual focus across the research landscape. The majority of papers are published in Environment, Agricultural and Sustainability Science (on the left hand side) or Health and Healthcare (on the right hand side).

However, transdisciplinary research is an important theme of our report. You can see many small research areas, such as Water Supply and Sanitation, Poverty and Inequality or Education, Interprofessional Teaching and Volunteer Services, joining the two large domains in the centre of the map. The most diverse clusters in terms of interdisciplinary content are Sustainable Agriculture and Transgenic Crops, Physical Activity and Health, and Ecotourism and Fair Trade.

These transdisciplinary topics are often of policy interest because they represent opportunities to use knowledge from one area and apply it in another

348. Symbiosis in Development – recognizes the need to investigate systems in context, time and space simultaneously. (Tom Bosschaert, Except Integrated Sustainability)

349. Symbiosis in Development  (Tom Bosschaert, Except Integrated Sustainability)

“Sustainability is a state of a complex, dynamic system. In this state a system can continue to flourish without leading to its internal collapse or requiring inputs from outside its defined system boundaries.

Applied to our civilization, this state is consistent with an equitable and healthy society, as well as thriving ecosystems and a beautiful planet.”

350.  And because I had the Scottish version, here’s the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act

351.  Ear ye Ear ye.  Not sure what this is about (Ardea used it, citing Getty Images).

352.  Positioning sustainable development in education within two force fields (Jickling and Wals 2008)

353.  Sustainable development actors from Philippine Agenda 21 (note, no actor for environment, several links to PEDA but website gone link)

354.  Sustainable pathways (between SDGs and Planetary Boundaries) (WBGU, this version Nakicenovic)

This version has the grey “overarching narrative” and makes “targets” explicit.

355. Clustered SDGs on The world in 2050 (TWI2050) framework  (via IIASA)

The World in 2050 [TWI2050] framework for Sustainable Development Pathways (SDP) of attaining the SDGs within Planetary Boundaries by 2050. The SDGs are universal, holistic and inter-dependent, thereby indivisible. The indicative clustering of the SDGs proposed here, has the sole purpose of emphasizing the inter-dependence between human wellbeing, world development and Earth system stability.

356.  Harnessing digital finance for sustainable development (UN Environment). So wait, the financial sector isn’t connected to the real economy?  And how does it impact sustainable development?

357. Force-field analysis (applied to land reclamations)

358. Sustainable Community Based Resource Management (Kyushu University).

359.  Sustainability Forces Wheel (Winston 2010)

The way I picture using this framework is to “spin” the wheels and match up the forces. In this way, executives can think through what the combinations mean for an industry or company.

Along the outside run the big sustainability challenges we face as a species — these are the issues that society increasingly expects business to deal with and help find solutions for.

These issues affect companies directly of course, but importantly they also pass through a prism of magnifiers.

In the third wheel I’ve placed key stakeholders that pose questions about a company’s social and environmental performance.

360.  Integrating hybridity and business model theory in sustainable entrepreneurship (Davies and Chambers 2108)

361.  Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework (Hahn et al. 2015)

While the three sustainability dimensions form the backbone of our framework and cut  across all other dimensions of our framework (see Fig. 2), we argue that a full  understanding of tensions in corporate sustainability requires a more fine-grained analysis that further extends and specifies the economic–environmental–social triad.

To capture the sources and characteristics of tensions in corporate sustainability, we distinguish three additional dimensions—(1) level, (2) change, and (3) context—that further specify tensions between economic, environmental and social aspects. Combining these three dimensions with the economic–environmental–social triad results in our analytical framework

362.  Distributive justice as basis for intergenerational sustainability  (Vasconcellos Oliveira 2018)

Each of the targets was benchmarked against the principles of equalitarianism, prioritarianism, and sufficientarianism. The results are grouped by goal (showing) predominance of egalitarianism (egalitarianism is the distributive justice
theory that states that societal burdens and benefits (e.g., wealth, income) should be divided equally among all citizens. This falls on the postulate that all human beings are equal in worth and in moral status. When egalitarianism is applied to future generations, the result is the obligation of distributing equally the burdens and benefits among present and future people [35]) in subjects like peace, justice and institutions (Goal 16), and in quality and education (Goal 4).

363. Three prongs (but not your usual pillars, instead it’s the interaction of potentials) (Yuliya Rashitovna Gainullina)

In our opinion, it should be understood that the functioning and development of the economic system is only the consequence of the functioning and development of human potential. The functioning of the ecological and economic system, in our opinion, shall be interpreted as the consequence of the efficient investment activity and use of investment resources. The functioning of the ecological and social system is a derivative of the living standard of human and society, processes of creation and development of all types of novelties and innovations.

Studying the three-pronged concept of the sustainable economic development, its derivative can be formulated and at the same time the sustainable development, according to Figure 4, will be understood as a balanced interaction of the human potential, innovation and investment systems of the functioning of the economy of the country.

364. Push-pull model – Drivers for the incorporation of sustainable development into business practices  (Brent and Premraj 2007).

365.  Push-pull model applied (Harijono Djojodihardjo) Note, I try to avoid diagrams about specific applications (in this case Space Technology), but I think this one adds a unique modelling approach to our understanding of sustainability itself

An upstream-downstream (or push-pull) model illustrating the relevance for sustainable development of Space Technology within a local cultural background

366. Lifestyle impacts   (link to larger, SPREAD 2050)

367. Pillars stacked into an um… pillar of systems (Cities as sustainable system Xuemei Bai 2016)

368.  Tension and Wisdom (Sasse-Werhahn 2018)

369.  Mindfulness  (Wamsler in Brossmann 2018)

A framework for systematizing and analyzing the interlinkages between mindfulness and sustainability from the individual to the global scale (Fig. 1). These aspects are culturally shaped and include: (1) subjective well-being; (2) activation of (intrinsic/ non-materialistic) core values; (3) consumption and sustainable behavior; (4) the human–nature connection; (5) equity issues; (6) social activism; and (7) deliberate, flexible, and adaptive responses to climate change. The framework thus supports the understanding that mindfulness can be seen as a key concept to politically sensitizing people and organizations to the consequences of unquestioned structures and power relations.

The mindfulness-sustainability framework can broaden the spatial horizon and help to understand impacts on (distant) communities that might be incongruent with declared values. Understood in this way, mindfulness is no longer a concept that only addresses cognitions and cognitive schemes, but also fosters a sense of appropriate or just behavior (cf. Senghaas-Knobloch 2012). It, therefore, bridges the gap between individual and global scales and wider socio-political structures.

370. Social Sustainability Framework (Design for Social Sustainability: A framework for creating thriving new communities)  (Woodcraft 2011)

The Young Foundation has developed a framework containing four elements
that are essential to build new communities that will be successful and sustainable in the long term. These are: amenities and social infrastrucutre; social and cultural life; voice and influence; and space to grow. While all four elements are needed in every new community (alongside good housing, high quality public buildings and spaces, local economic opportunities and design that supports pro-environmental behaviour) social success and sustainability cannot be prescribed in the same way that the standards for green building or environmental sustainability can.  A more flexible approach is needed that leaves room to reflect local circumstances and the diverse nature of every community and its individual residents.

371.  Value creation in sustainable dynamics model  (Stark and Lindow 2017)

The Sustainability Dynamics Model for the first time ever enables the visual and
qualitative capabilities for showing the interdependencies and causal effects of
value creation solutions (e.g. as part of sustainable product development and sustainable manufacturing) with the major systems of the three sustainability dimensions of environment (planet/earth), economy (enterprises) and society (individual).  At this point, in time the Sustainability Dynamics Model exists at a foundational level in order to allow high level and principle trade-off discussions and qualitative reasoning.

The Sustainability Dynamics Model (SDM) is an instrument for describing the direct and indirect effects of value creation solutions on the three dimensions of sustainability and vice versa. Since value creation solutions are the key elements they become the central focus of the model. The three dimensions of Sustainable Development (environment, society and economy) actually represent systems of their own and evolve around the value creation solution

The effect of a value creation solution on the dimension systems of sustainability
can be defined as an inside-out effect. Even so, cause and effect vary with different value creation solutions and their impact on sustainability, among other factors. The
Sustainability Dimension Model allows an opposite contemplation, which is called
an outside-in effect.

The direct and indirect effects along the Sustainability Dynamics Model can be
defined as inside-out effects and outside-in effects. These effects can be either
observed when the model is read from the inside (sustainable value creation) to the
outside (sustainable dimension systems,) or, vice versa, from the outside the inside.

372.   Value Creation Factors treat pillars as dimensions (Bonvoisin 2017)

373. Value mapping tool  (in Evans et al. 2017, Yang 2017, Bocken 2014, Yang’s thesis 2015)  (including “value uncaptured”)

(Also some interesting looking cards).

374.  A tree.   just because.  It’s really a graphical index to Synovation‘s services, but I like it.

375.  Sustainability as part of sociotechnical innovation system of impact and time scales  (Gaziulusoy and Brezet 2015)

376. Another tree. This time here because of the depth of learning dimension (Valley 2017)

378.  City Resilience Index (based on Arup’s Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine).

(text from Adams 2018)

As its circular form suggests, in addition to detailing the “strengths and weaknesses” of a given city, the CRI provides a holistic framework in which certain causal relations across the various indicators can be identified.

While both the SPeAR and the CRI are reflexive tools for assessment, a crucial difference between the two is how each locates a particular temporality in regards to the crisis it aims to address. In the case of the SPeAR model, its role is clearly preventive: it works as a framework to improve upon “business-as-usual” practices of urban design by demonstrating how the ecological footprint of a given scenario can be lowered and energy use mitigated.

Unfortunately, the world surpassed Peak Sustainability in 2005 when the big gamble of staving off climate change with lackluster campaigns of better-than-business-as-usual development was confronted with the very visible effects of climate change.

378. 1000 year sustainability (Mouri 2014)

379.1000 year sustainability (2) (Mouri 2014)

Conceptual diagram of a socio-ecological system for millennial-scale sustainability development, which is influenced by spatial and temporal variations, and the relationship between human and economic activity, and environmental issues

380. Transition to sustainable (water) (Johannessen and Wamsler 2017)

A conceptual model for the process of transition into a more sustainable and hazard-resilient state of urban water. Here, all three levels of resilience need to be taken into account (socioeconomic, external hazards, and social-ecological scale) so that focus on resilience at one level does not compromise the sustainability of another (1-2), where enabling and disabling factors for human agency (3) influence the process of social learning, monitoring, and memory (4). Actors need to navigate uncertainty through prioritization and diversification (5). When thresholds of risk awareness and action capacity are reached (6), measures are put in place, and/or a reorganization occurs (7) and the system makes a transition.

381. Chemical pyramid (Heintz 2014)

382.  Typology of business sustainability   (Dyllick and Muff 2016)

383.  Circle model  (Muff 2017)

The real challenge here is the need for an integrated approach of the three key challenges that are need to be overcome when shifting from “inside‐out” to “outside‐in” perspective in order to truly solve the SDGs. It is helpful to consider these three challenges as three different dimensions of engagement as referred to when discussing global responsibility: the “I – we – all of us” (see Figure 2). There is the individual level that addresses the leadership dimension discussed as the third challenge (the “I”), the group level addresses the organizational dimension identified as the second challenge (the “WE”), and the Grand Challenges or issue‐related challenges reflects the larger societal dimension of the first challenge (the “ALL‐OF‐US”). These three dimensions are interconnected and interdependent. Wanting to change one dimensions often implies the necessity to change and amend the others. It is important to work with tools that are designed so that they address not only each challenge individually but enable a further three‐dimensional transformation across all three challenges.

384. Move the dots with your eyes.  The circles show the rate of change in dynamic management.  No idea what the dots are.  (NOAA fisheries and climate change 2019)

The strategy involves first assessing the risk and vulnerability of species, habitat, management approaches and human communities to climate-induced changes. Second, scientists, resource managers, fishing industry members and others evaluate how the existing suite of management measures would perform under different climate and socioeconomic scenarios and identify gaps in institutional capabilities, jurisdictional relationships and funding. And third, they define the optimal combination of management measures and approaches to facilitate adaptation and resilience.

• Fixed Measures. Developed, implemented and revised over longer timeframes, every ten years or more. Examples include: restrictions on areas where different fishing gear can be used, aggregate harvest limits (catch limits for groups of species), fishing moratoria and marine protected areas.

• Adaptive Measures. Account for annual or multi-year variability of resources and include quota-based fishery management, rotating closure areas or seasonal closure areas that are adjusted annually or periodically (less than five years).

• Dynamic Measures. Used during the fishing year to minimize socio-economic consequences with the help of environmental and ecological forecasts and nowcasts that include real-time input from fishermen. These include in-season adjustments to fishing quotas or areas or continuously updated maps of bycatch high-risk areas.

385.  Sustainability in Digital Futures (Towards our common digital future. German Advisory Council on Global Change)

Three Dynamics of the Digital Age. The chart shows the positive case of the Dynamics being successfully contained through goals and design. All three Dynamics are already emerging in parallel today, albeit with different levels of intensity, so there is no strict chronological sequence involved. Each Dynamic consists of different subpaths pointing in different directions. The name given to each Dynamic reflects the priorities for action required in each case. The texts beneath the figure give keywords on the potential (upper row) and risks (lower row) of the three Dynamics.

386.  Normative compass  (Towards our common digital future. German Advisory Council on Global Change )

Normative compass for the Great Transformation towards Sustainability in a digitalized society. The transformation can be achieved by interaction and a balance between the following three dimensions: ‘Sustaining the natural life-support systems’ (N): Comply with planetary guard rails and avoid or solve local environmental problems. ‘Inclusion’ (I): Ensure universal minimum standards for substantive, political and economic inclusion. ‘Eigenart’ (E): Recognize the value of diversity as a resource for successful transformation and as a condition for well-being and quality of life. Up to now, human dignity has been the WBGU’s implicit normative starting point. It cannot be realized without the three compass dimensions, but, as a result of numerous challenges, it is becoming an increasingly explosive issue in the Digital Age. For this reason, the WBGU explicitly names the inviolability of, respect for and the protection of dignity as an aid to orientation in the context of the Transformation towards Sustainability.

(Eigenart translates from German as a peculiarity or individuality, or “individual character”)

387. Theory of Ecologic Transition: a dynamic towards sustainable development (Fernandes 2012)

In effect, by reconciling the elements of profit, innovation and conservation in what is necessarily an unstable equilibrium, reducing assaults on the environment as far as possible (Figure 1), the question of sustainability extends the concept of solidarity. Solidarity is understood here to mean equity, among both the various populations and the individuals of which they are composed, and among the current agents of development and future generations. These thus gain a significant status in the wider issue of discussion on the viability of the Earth, the common homeland of a Humankind that is increasingly considered in its global sense.

388. Mapping approaches (Hopwood 2005)

389. Dynamic sustainable management (Solablity)

In order to remain profitable, companies need to anticipate future trends and risks, both internal (in terms of operational management) and external (in terms of market, regulatory, and technology developments) – and this is what sustainable competitiveness is about. Sustainable management means integrating all the “non-financial” factors that have indirect financial impacts. Sustainable management is not a revolution – it is a natural evolution of management approach and paradigms in an increasingly complex business environment.

390. Sustainable Self (Murray 2011)

391. Wellbeing and hazards (in Tuuli Hirvilammi).

392.  Decoupling – impacts and resources  (UNEP 2011)

393. Industrial Ecology (University Leiden)

Our department ‘s research aims to support the ecological transformation of society and environment towards sustainability. The research subject is Industrial Ecology in its broadest definition, covering environmental systems analysis, and incorporating the social and economic aspects required for sustainability analysis. System analysis involves the development and application of concepts, methods and models.

394.   Sustainable Innovation (Nadi Choucair)

395. Influence diagram of SDGs (Lim et al. 2018)

Influence diagram of the SDGs: illustrating links among the SDGs. Some goals have been split into subgoals to facilitate more precise mapping. Arrows highlight where one goal is likely to have an impact on another goal. The arrowhead represents the goal that is impacted. There is no value attached to the type of impact (i.e., it could be a positive or negative impact). The arrows just illustrate that a relationship exists.

396. Overarching directions (Lim et al. 2018)

Required relationships among the seven overarching directions to orient the SDG system toward the sustainable development end goal: at the core, a stable resilient Earth system (OD3) is the foundation for thriving lives and livelihoods (OD2). This influences and is influenced by a sustainable economy (OD 7). Innovation and education (OD6) are required to facilitate integration across the economic, social, and ecological components of sustainable development and to develop mechanisms to simultaneously advance all three components. This is mediated and regulated by an overarching enabling framework (OD1). To achieve the sustainable development end goal intragenerational (OD4) and intergenerational (OD 5) equity need to be included in the implementation of all other ODs, including OD1. Intragenerational equity (OD4)  contributes to future intergenerational equity (OD5).

397.  Aligned holistic thinking (DiVito and Bohnsack 2017)

(text via Smart City Innovation Lab 2017)

Researchers…explored the paradox of sustainable entrepreneurs that are oriented on one side towards entrepreneurial growth and on the other side towards sustainable development. Furthermore, they give an insight into sustainability decision making and how entrepreneurial orientation effects sustainability decision tradeoffs.

The singular profile suggests that in making sustainability decision tradeoffs there is a conviction to prioritizing one sustainability dimension above the others. Firms using this kind of singular sustainability decision making are bound by their values and strictly adhere to their principles. Further, they are mission-driven rather than profit-driven and extend theory by showing that sustainable entrepreneurs are more risk taking and proactive individuals and firms. They for example accepted lower profitability or growth compromising the economic dimension. According to the data the focus was on the social dimension like in the following example.

“[We] produce in the Netherlands because I want to be sure about the working conditions. We could produce elsewhere and it would be cheaper [but we don’t want to].”

Flexible decision making accepts greater compromising between the three sustainability dimensions, uses an ordered prioritization and corresponds to high innovativeness and proactiveness.

The holistic profile integrates all three sustainability dimensions, uses an aligned prioritization and corresponds to high proactiveness and risk taking.

398. Singing in the rain.  (Ashrafi 2018)

399. Double-coin quadruple helix (Kolehmainen 2016, via Boyes 2018)

400.  Transformation Mindset (Mann et al. 2018)

401. Metamap (Ray Maher, Samuel Mann et al. 2018)

MetaMAP is an interactive graphical tool which supports collaborative investigation and design for achieving SDGs. It helps diverse users to integrate their thinking, understand sustainability challenges holistically, and develop well-integrated solutions. In brief, the structure and application of the MetaMAP framework help users gain insight by seeing relationships among parts of the natural environment, built environment and society across multiple spatial and temporal scales. It provides an inclusive framework to help people from different backgrounds integrate their diverse perspectives on sustainability issues into a common understanding. Armed with this holistic perspective, guided process help users to identify points of leverage and design well-integrated sustainability initiatives.

402. Satellites (Stilianakis et al. 2005)

Conceptual model for sustainable development, including environmental health and air pollution. This frame-work for the science/policy interface and  policy building includes three different perspectives: ecology, economy and human /social. Their dynamic interaction includes institutional and actor elements, and ultimately leads to decision-making on a target quality of life

403.  Minor’s Sustainability Framework

405. 5 pillars wrapped in scenarios and technology  (Prosuite)

406. SSS Bubbles – Sustainability, Science, Society. (McGill)

407. ChildFair State tree (Children England 2018)

The diagram shows how we see the ‘branches’ of the welfare state informed by a child-centred version of Maslow’s five needs, and fed by the ‘roots’ of a sustainable economy and environment, and authentic democracy and human rights.

Our inquiry will involve testing the branches of the current welfare state to see how well they deliver on children’s need for home, safety and security, love and belonging, health, and purpose – and how new policies and practices could be designed and structured to enable them to do this better.

408.  Ball and cup (Steffen et al. 2016)

409. Ball and Cup over time (Steffen et al. 2016)

A ball-and-cup depiction of a regime shift. The cup on the right represents a stable basin of attraction (the Holocene) and the orange ball, the state of the Earth System. The cup on the left and the pink ball represent a potential state (the Anthropocene) of the Earth System. Under gradual anthropogenic forcing, the cup becomes shallower and finally disappears (a threshold, ca. 1950), causing the ball to roll to the left (the regime shift) into the trajectory of the Anthropocene toward a potential future basin of attraction. The symbol í µí¼ represents the response time of the system to small perturbations.

410. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene (Steffen 2018)

Stability landscape showing the pathway of the Earth System out of the Holocene and thus, out of the glacial–interglacial limit cycle to its present position in the hotter Anthropocene. The fork in the road in Fig. 1 is shown here as the two divergent pathways of the Earth System in the future (broken arrows). Currently, the Earth System is on a Hothouse Earth pathway driven by human emissions of
greenhouse gases and biosphere degradation toward a planetary threshold at ∼2 °C (horizontal broken line at 2 °C in Fig. 1), beyond which the system follows an essentially irreversible pathway driven by intrinsic biogeophysical feedbacks. The other pathway leads to Stabilized Earth, a pathway of Earth System stewardship guided by human-created feedbacks to a quasi-stable, human-maintained basin of attraction. “Stability” (vertical axis) is defined here as the inverse of the potential energy of the system. Systems in a highly stable state (deep valley) have low potential energy, and considerable energy is required to move them out of this stable state. Systems in an unstable state (top of a hill) have high potential energy, and they require only a little additional energy to push them off the hill and down toward a valley of lower potential energy

410.  Ball and cup sustainable option (A)  (Steffen et al. 2016)

The scenario in Figure  6a is broadly consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2015 Paris climate targets and is based on rapid and deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and a radical turnaround in human exploitation of the biosphere. In this scenario, we assume that the climate is significantly warmer than that of the Holocene, but remains in more intense interglacial conditions with most of the Antarctic ice sheet intact; here the intensity of an interglacial is defined by a range of indicators representing different aspects of the Earth System (e.g., proxies for insolation, astronomical parameters, maximum CO2 and CH4 concentrations, global average surface temperature anomaly.  In this putative state of the Earth System, biodiversity does not decline much with respect to current conditions.

411.  (enough of the balls and cups. How about…) A fractal tree.  (Balgojevic 2015).

Tree of multidimensional sustainability”: conceptual dynamic model of a sustainable society based on cybernetic systems and fractal models.

412. Threats or opportunities (Schulte and Hallstedt 2018)

413. Chassis framework  (Calfresh Schools)

414. 9 economies (Matrix-Q)

415. Matrix-Q’s timeline.  Where we are and where we think we are.(Matrix-Q)

416. Convergence of epistemological currents of sustainability (Cisneros 2015)

417.  Ribbons!  (Australian Sustainability Curriculum Framework)

418. Tropophillic (Sustainable Systems International)

Tropophilia is the ability to thrive on uncertainty and chaos, i.e., going beyond resilience and antifragility.

419. Triple Responsibility of an Enterprise (S = Subject of Responsibility)  (Schüz 2016)

420.  Model of Sustainable Corporate Responsibility (SCR)  (Schüz 2016)

421. Schwartz values extended to sustainability (Education for Sustainability on outer ring)  (src)

422. Quintuple Helix.  Triple helix of innovation (government + education + industry) + society (quadruple) plus environment. (Carayannis 2012 who lists lots of other versions).

423. Triple helix (innovation’s govt, uni & industry) stemming from Barbier’s Venn (econ, eco, soc) (Scalia 2018)

(why? surely not just because the both have three and you can extrude a sort-of-helix from the intersection?) OK, is explained here…

In Fig. 1, focus is on interaction among the three dimensions represented as a ‘helix’ whose dynamic changes over time modifying the dimensions of the spheres by impacting on economy, environment and society. The model focuses on
the interaction between the roles and actions of key actors that are responsible of relevant effects on the three dimensions of sustainability. In particular:

Intersection between society and environment: ‘governing’ actors, typically policy makers, but also associations and other organizations capable of influencing government decisions, are responsible for defining rules and constraints to comply with when using the resources that are available within the general environment; hence, in this area, the set of necessities as what is necessary to protect the  equilibrium of the three dimensions of sustainability, is defined;
Intersection between society and economy: ‘thinking’ actors, typically the scientific, academic and education world leading the knowledge creation processes, given
the set of available resources, on the one hand, and the defined rules and constraints, on the other hand, are responsible of defining/creating the possibilities in terms of all the possible evolutionary paths of development that can be followed;
Intersection between economy and environment: ‘economic’ actors, starting from all the possible development trajectories identified by the thinking actors, selects those
more feasible and profitable to develop effective solutions, so complying with the necessity of harmonizing the social, economic and environmental dimensions of
sustainability (effectiveness).

424. Bounded economy of capabilities for flourishing  (Jackson 2012)

425.  Bounded Population-Economic-Ecological System for Sustainable Human Development (Adapted from Jackson by Gutiérrez 2016)

There are three sets of feedback loops: human development, human adaptation, and industrial mitigation. The human development loops (yellow arrows) improve gender equality and other human capabilities, and guide the allocation of income/commodities generated by the economic system. The human adaptation loops (red arrows) drive ecological investment so as to enhance the sustainability of ecosystem services. The industrial mitigation loops (green arrows) improve the productivity of energy and other resources by using “industrial engineering” methods. The working hypothesis is that mitigation loops are helpful as long as their operation is subservient to, and do not interfere with, the human development and human adaptation loops.

The convergence of gender balance, energy balance, and sustainability emerges from gender imbalance and energy imbalance jointly driving human civilization toward unsustainability. Many other factors are involved, but gender and energy imbalances are the most pervasive, and balancing them would have a neutralizing effect on all the other factors that conspire against a sustainable human society. If the transition from consumerism to sustainability is to be attained in a timely and civilized manner, i.e., before it is too late and minimizing violence as much as possible, balancing gender relations and energy flows would be the best (perhaps the only?) way to go.

426.  Future world human system further enhanced to show self-correcting environmental and financial management loops (Gutiérrez 2016)

Based on “present world system” (based on Fey and Lam, #427)

427.  Ecocosm Paradox (Fey and Lam 1999)

Both population and per capita consumption have positive feedback loops that force them to grow.  Population growth is driven by a natural reproduction loop (upper right) and a biotechnology loop that extends life expectancy (middle right).  Per capita consumption growth is caused by technology loops (middle left) reinforced by world economics and government action loops (far left).

These major loops arise in our society from human needs and motivations (bottom).

Environmental collapse, resource exhaustion, and toxic pollution constraints may create negative loops that will finally stop the growth (small loops in the very middle).

428.  Leverage Points (Fischer 2019 after Abson 2017 after Meadows 1999)

430.  Global Alliance for Humanitarian Innovation (GAHI) scaling framework (Lesley Bourns and Dan McClure 2019)

(strictly, this focusses on the narrow sustainability of innovation interpretation of sustainability.  But McClure describes his work as Humanitarian Innovation, and I think we can learn from this model, I’ll let it through).

The GAHI framework breaks the scaling challenge into four major parts; Value Creation, Difficult Barriers, Sustainability, and Contextual Variation.   Using this model, it is possible to structure and compare much of the one-off learning that has happened since 2015, consolidating progress on a host of different aspects of the scaling challenge:

1.    Define Varied Paths to Scale:  This work can include poorly understood challenges such as scaling product innovations in resource poor environments and scaling complex system solutions.

2.    Solve the Hard Problems:  Some specific barriers to scale are particularly difficult to navigate, such as finding business models when the users of the innovation lack funds.

3.    Integrate Supporting Tools:  There are a growing number of scaling tools for jobs such as assessing scaling readiness.   It should now be possible to see how these overlap with one another, where there are gaps, and how new tools might be developed.

431. Resilience as function of adaptive cycle (Lister 2016)

Resilience has origins across at least four disciplines of research and application: psychology, disaster relief and military defense, engineering, and ecology. A scan of resilience policies (see http://resilient-cities.iclei.org/) reveals that the concept is widely and generally defined with reference to several of the origin fields, and universally focuses on the psychological trait of being flexible and adaptable; having the capacity to deal with stress; the ability to “bounce back” to a known normal condition following periods of stress; to maintain well-being under stress; and to be adaptable when faced with change or challenges. However, the use of resilience in this generalised context begs important operational questions of how much change is tolerable, which state of “normal” is desirable and achievable, and under what conditions it is possible to return to a known “normal” state. In policies that hinge on these broadly defined, psycho-social aspects of resilience, there is little or no explicit recognition that adaptation and flexibility may in fact result in transformation—and thus, require the adaptive and transformative capacity that is ultimately necessary at some scale in the face of radical, large-scale and sudden systemic change.

432.  Window of opportunity for reorganization and new trajectories (In the context of New Orleans)  (Oliver 2013)

433. Four Es of sustainability in engineering  – and their conflicts (Basu 2015)

434. Vision for creating sustainable social-ecological and social-technical system (Beiji 2015)

A vision for creating sustainable social-ecological and social-technical systems a global view of resilience is presented

435. From problematic dichotomies to  interconnectedness (Lehtonen 2018)

Adding to the collection.

436.  Sustainable well-being as two coupled goals (Glasser 2018)

437. Transformative learning for a sustainable future (Laininen 2018)

438. Mmm…Cake. (van Kerkhoff 2013)

Sustainable development framework: three tiers of ultimate goals and four layers of enabling goals. Knowledge governance sits at the dashed line between the two base layers.

439.  The nexus: interlinkages across resources and the SDGs. (Bleischwitz 2018)

The main interlinkages across resource use, such as water being used to produce energy and vice versa. Main resource inputs into the chains of other resources are shown at three main delivery stages, illustrated through different shades of colour: primary production; systems of provision through production, distribution, and consumption; and potential secondary use. The figure describes a five-node approach, but fewer dimensions might be feasible following screening, in order to reduce complexities.

440. Sustainable wellbeing achieved through a Stoic framework.  (Whitling 2018)

eudaimonic pursuits …prize virtue (or the progress towards it) over and even at the expense of comfort

441.  Intenscope  (Kocsis 2014, pdf)

The Intensity Scope…a 2D graphical system is a tool which can be used to highlight and communicate basic consumption–population–sustainability relationships.

To correctly read the plot one should: (1) find the object’s perpendicular projection to the axis in question; and, (2) check the contours of the pyramid to identify the correct intensity proportion (%) for the axis in question.

(Note. Sam doesn’t understand this.  He tried really hard).

442. Environmental Livelihood Security (Biggs 2015)

The conceptual framework for investigating environmental livelihood security (ELS) combines concepts of the water–energy–food–climate nexus with the capitals of the sustainable livelihoods framework to achieve a sustainable balance between natural supply and human demand to ensure ‘environmental livelihood security’ (Source: adapted from Biggs et al., 2014).

444. Environmental Livelihood Security as a circle (Biggs 2015)

The notion of Environmental Livelihood Security (ELS) conceptualises the links
between water, energy, food and livelihoods which need balance to achieve a
sustainable system. External influencing factors such as climate change, population
growth, and governance can all impact upon attaining ELS.

445. White dress (close to be disallowed, is saved by the “effort” dimension making a diagram).  (HuffPost 2015)

446. Sustainable Value Innovation (Orsato 2009)

(note, no chance of positive benefit for environment)

447. Not that. (avoiding #epicfail) (Lloyd-Pool 2013)

448.  Pillars as boundaries (Gardner 1991)

Three of the important boundaries that will shape future agricultural policy emphasizing the few possibilities that may exist that meet universal approval.

Although many production systems may pass the rigors of environmental protection, economic security, and social acceptability individually, few will satisfy all the facets necessary for a successful and sustainable agriculture.

449.  Edward Barbier’s  Venn diagram (1989) The Concept of Sustainable Economic
Development

One basic analytical approach is to view this process as an interaction among three systems: the biological (and other resource) system (BS), the economic system (ES), and the social system (SS).

Original caption:

Sustainable economic development maximises the goals across
the biological and resource system (BS), the economic system (ES), and the social system (SS), as illustrated by the shaded area. In contrast, conventional development approaches maximize only ES goals, and Marxist economies maximizes only ES and SS goals.
Unlike the literal pillars diagram or the three legged stool,

Barbier’s Venn shows that the three pillars are interlinked, interrelated, and inseparable.
Hence, none of these systems can be sacrificed if sustainability is to be maintained.

450. Yamaha’s Sustainability 

451. Turtle (Mino Bimaadziwin Partnership)

452. “Western model” (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina 2016) (unfortunately no comparable model given for indigenous sustainability science).

Western, global-scale sustainability is a function of three systems operating at the individual, societal, and global scales, as well as their linkages and solutions to complex problems

453. Menominee Nation Sustainable Development Institute’s Model (via Dockry 2016)

Six dimensions of sustainable development in the College of Menominee Nation Sustainable Development Institute’s Model. Menominee Autochthony (their profound sense of place and tie to the land) would occupy the center of the model and represent the Menominee cultural value that has allowed them to balance the tensions among the six model dimensions. Other communities using the model can identify their own cultural values that would allow them to balance the tensions among model elements

Illustration of tensions among dimensions in the College of Menominee Nation Sustainable Development Institute’s Model. Tensions are represented anywhere the model dimension’s borders touch. An unlimited number of tensions can be illustrated by placing dimensions adjacent to each other.

454.  Participatory map from Girringun workshop (Robinson et al. 2016)

Example of participatory map created from a sub-group discussion with
Girringun workshop participants. Each branch reflects a core value that trees
provide the Girringun community (e.g. culture), tree roots reflect the knowledge
partnerships that help sustain these values (e.g. partnerships with scientists), clouds reflect attributes that enable these knowledge partnerships to be successful (e.g. social capital) and rocks on the ground represent attributes that present challenges facing  these knowledge partnerships (e.g. one-way knowledge exchange)

455. Sacred Purpose (Rinah Rachel Galper, in Gallery of graphic representations of North American Jewish life by Kenissa Network members)

456. Just Transition (Movement Generation Justice & Ecology Project)

Shifting to managing home in concert with the principles of living systems requires aligning three core strategies: building the new, changing the rules, and moving the resources from an extractive to a regenerative economy. All of this must be done in a way that stops the bad and changes the story. Working with the Our Power Campaign, Movement Generation crafted figure 3-4 to illustrate a strategy framework to shift from an extractive economy to regenerative economies. The just transition strategy  framework gives a way to understand the underlying threads of the current extractive economy and the envisioned threads weaving regenerative economies together.

457.  Mangorewa Kaharoa Te Taumata Trust

458.  Wheel with a hint of a system “Catalyzing A Global Sustainable Economy”  (Capital Missions Company and Tipping Point Network)

460. Coviability of Social and Ecological Systems (Barriere et al. 2019)

461. 3Hs of biocultural ethic (Rozzi 2015)

The “3Hs” of the biocultural ethic coupled with the three core components identified for Earth Stewardship: habitat/ Earth , habit/ stewardship , and co-inhabitants/ stewards

462. Triad of human interest (Chisholm 2015)

463. Catholic Earthcare 

Ecological praxis: A change of heart and mind reflected in action.

464. Integrated assessment  (Lamb 2006)

465. Framework for engineers (Lamb 2006 after Fenner 2006)

Incorporating sustainable development into this traditional framework requires
a move into problem boundaries not normally considered by civil engineers.  This move has been considered by Fenner et al with the development of a framework based upon values, processes and constraints that form a questioning approach within an eight point framework.

466. Politics of Wellbeing (“Wellebing as a Compass”.  Joshua Malkin, via).

467.  Moral compass in High-Climate Change World (Grasso and Tàbara 2019) 

468. Moral compass in time, space and recipients of moral concern (Grasso and Tàbara 2019 after Tàbara 2017)

Situating the moral compass in an extended cognitive and normative system of reference to guide the development of transformative solutions and sustainable governance arrangements in HECC worlds

469. Is it a bird? Is it a plane.  Yes, it’s a bird.  Sustainable Tourism in Picton and the Marlborough Sounds (e-Ko Tours)

470. Sustainable growth through a reinvented sampo yoshi approach (Itochi Corporation, Japan).

 

471. Conceptual understanding of the construction companies with the spectrum of sustainability concepts  (Wilkinson 2012)

472. Sustainability oriented service innovation (Calabrese 2018)

473. S 3-Sustainability as Service Science Model (Wolfson 2012)

 

474. Sustainability as a component of resilience (Marchese 2018)

The more sustainable system loses less critical functionality, and recovers quicker in response to economic, environmental, and social disturbances.

475. Common concepts connecting sustainable development and global change to
urban infrastructure resilience (Shaker et al. 2019).

 476. Summary of Club of Rome in tetrahedron  (Anthony Judge 2018)

Mapping of Come On issues onto 3-tetrahedra compound
(12 vertices=”unsustainable trends”; 18 edges=”strategies”)

 

477. Leadership (Shriberg and MacDonald 2013)

Figure 1 shows the evolution of leadership theory over time, as well as the recent emergence of environmental leadership. The concept of sustainability embodies a different, more integrative approach to leadership, visually represented as the bridge between environmental and traditional leadership theory. Given the “wicked” nature of sustainability-related problems and solutions, leadership for sustainability is more than the application of traditional leadership theory and environmental leadership to sustainability. Therefore, institutions of higher education have a novel and difficult task to prepare students to become sustainability leaders.

 

478.   Taking the tree’s perspective:  “Branching through sustainable supply chain management theories: the tree perspective” (Ahmed et al. 2016)

479. Overlapping wiggles (Manila Water)

480.   Circles, plates and pointy cones (Sustainable Urban Planning, George Washington University)

481.  How long?  (Colocousis et al. 2015)

Social, economic, and ecological dimensions of sustainability as they relate to temporal sustainability. Distance from center indicates the rough likelihood that issues related to each will bear directly on the temporal endurance of socioecological systems

482. Transparency (Tasdemir and Gazo 2018)

True sustainability could only be achieved through full transparency, which requires ultimate collaboration of stakeholders throughout a supply chain. Although focusing solely on intra-organizational (within the walls) sustainability has potential to generate favorable outcomes, in the long-term, sustainable improvement will start to stagnate and inefficiencies will reoccur due to a lack of collaboration and transparency

Ultimate objective should be achieving global level inter-sectoral sustainability through highest possible transparency and collaboration