Variants and a couple of precursors

Posted on October 8, 2010


A few more for the collection.   Some variants and a couple of precursors.

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).