500th! diagram of Sustainability (may just be the tip of the iceberg)

I keep finding more. Probably should stop looking.

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

483. Balancing matrifocal and patrifocal (Lietaer 2019)

All over the world we live by patrifocal (“have”) values and neglect the matrifocal (“give”) side of balance, as we can see in our dealings with education, the elderly, people in need of care and with each other.

484.  Future of business is though a funnel (Aditya Birla Group)

 

 

485. Sustainable Livelihoods Framework  (Gonsalves and Mohan 2011)

486.  Voronoi pattern  (Kumar)

Sustainability is an impact network. Today people are alert with resource depletion and energy usage, as they are conscious of their survival, individually and socially. So, when society becomes sustainable the individual will, and vice versa.

487.  Summary of Club of Rome in Borromean rings  (Anthony Judge 2018)

The variant is adapted from the logo of the International Mathematical Union. The reasoning behind this choice of logo could be seen as a challenge to any global strategic presentation for humanity. How could the dimensions of the new report be represented succinctly as a challenge — if not a puzzle inviting a collective response?

 

488.  12 aims of sustainable tourism (UNEP/WTO 2005) 

489. Pillars cubed (Envision, UKassel)

490.  Sustainable -[ Development (Lele 1991)

491. Venn pillars (or game controller?) (Dirk Pons, text from Saving Iceland)

To give you some idea as to the factors that need balancing while attempting to achieve economic and environmental sustainability, I have included below a model entitled, ‘The Three Pillars of Sustainability.’ At the top of the pillars’, the conflict of values we are discussing here become abruptly apparent.

 

492.  Positive environments (Corral-Verdugo and Frías-Armenta 2016)

This new representation includes, besides the set of reciprocal relations among the elements of the model, a component of temporal sustainability denoted by the unidirectional influence of factors during the initial time point on the positive environment at a subsequent time. Therefore, this final model broadens the description of the series of events and interrelations produced in a positive environment and  extends it to various points in time. Double arrows indicate the reciprocal interactions between factors (identified as circles). According to this representation, a PE, at initial time point ‘‘a’’ is able to promote, both, human well-being and the practice of sustainable (i.e., pro-social and pro-environmental) behaviors while, in reciprocity, human well-being and sustainable behaviors contribute to the integrity of a PE. Sustainable behaviors also affect and are instigated by a conserved environment and the experience of well-being. The one-sided arrows departing from sustainable behavior, human well-being, and environmental conservation, pointing to a positive environment in a subsequent time ‘‘b,’’ indicate the flow of time and the maintenance of the PE.

493. Green pedagogy (University College for Environmental and Agrarian Pedagogy)

494. Pareto’s the best? (Mattson 2019)

The sustainability space, defined by the three pillars of sustainable design; economic, environmental, and social sustainability. The shape within the space, represents the set of feasible design alternatives, and the region shaded darkly represents the optimal tradeoff surface, or more formally the Pareto frontier. We seek Pareto solutions because they represent the best that can be feasibly achieved.

 

495.  Ecosocialist shell (Quincy Saul 2018)

496. Rocket of dynamic sustainability (Bostrom 2014)

Instead of thinking about sustainability as is commonly known, as this static concept that has a stable state that we should try to approximate, where we use up no more resources than are regenerated by the natural environment, we need, I think, to think about sustainability in dynamical terms, where instead of reaching a state, we try to enter and stay on a trajectory that is indefinitely sustainable in the sense that we can contain it to travel on that trajectory indefinitely and it leads in a good direction.

An analogy here would be if you have a rocket. One stable state for a rocket is on the launch pad: it can stand there for a long time. Another stable state is if it’s up in space, it can continue to travel for an even longer time, perhaps, if it doesn’t rust and stuff. But in mid-air, you have this unstable system. I think that’s where humanity is now: we’re in mid-air. The static sustainability concept suggests that we should reduce our fuel consumption to the minimum that just enables us to hover there. Thus, maybe prolong the duration in which we could stay in our current situation, but what we perhaps instead should do is maximize the fuel consumption so that we have enough thrust to reach escape velocity.

497. Framework for ecojustice education (Bentley 2010)

I offer a concept map in Figure 1 of this proposed framework for ecojustice education. The graphic illustrates the foundations of epistemology on the one corner of the triangle
and of our situated ecosystem context on the other, both focused on the apex, the teaching-action component, which is the outcome of a cultural-ecological analysis process.

I have labeled the bottom left corner of the graphic “The Sacred Unknowable” because Martusewicz, Lupinacci,  and Schnakenberg emphasize such a space in their argument that scientific knowledge will be incomplete. This corner could just has well have been labeled, “The Nature of Science” (NOS). The NOS, properly understood, includes the proposition that scientific knowledge is ultimately limited.

 

498. Cake-based systems model (Halcrow via Pearce et al. 2012)

 

499.  I know an old elephant who swallowed a tuna. (Webster 2018)

There is a well-known folk tale about six blind men who go to see an elephant. Each man touches a different part of the animal, so each believes the elephant to be a different type of creature. Rather than pooling their knowledge to create a complete picture, they argue, and, as John Godfrey Saxe puts it, “Though each was partially in the right…all were in the wrong.” This fable is now a cliché because humans so often get embroiled in ideological disputes, arguing not over facts per se, but over interpretations of facts as shaped by their own values, preferences, and prior beliefs. Science is supposed to settle disputes over the elephant, but for complex socioecological systems like fisheries, we are asking the blind men to describe a whole zoo—or perhaps an aquarium—with its human visitors and caretakers as well, a difficult task even for those who are willing to cross ideological or disciplinary divides.

500.  We may have just seen the tip of the iceberg  (Murray 2019)