Sustainability and Public policy goal

How should sustainability be defined in policy-making? What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal? How do you include the public or experts (and which) into a policy framework that includes sustainability? How would this framework look like? How would you take a long term view to include sustainability, if politicians and voters look for short term results?


As stated by Goodland in “The Concept of Environmental Sustainability”, when developing a public policy the term sustainability should be broadly defined to include 3 components, these are social, economical and environmental sustainability. Defining each component of sustainability may help organize “the action required approaching global sustainability in real life.” It must be noted also, that environmental sustainability is “a prerequisite for social sustainability” (Redclift); the only realistic way of attaining a policy goal of sustainable development is that poverty has to be reduced before tackling the problem of environmental quality.

It is believed that defining sustainability with these 3 components, a triangle of actions is fostered so that one or all are tackled according to the community’s existing conditions. For example, social sustainability may be achieved by exhibiting behaviors such as tolerance and diversity acceptance. Economic sustainability must be a goal of all members of the community, independently of their race or gender. This component of sustainability may be achieved by accepting that different groups of diverse members of the community may be allocated, depending on their needs, different resources, however the net consumption of the community is zero in relation to principal; which results in achieving environmental sustainability.

The problem in defining sustainability in such a way, is that by integrating social, environmental and economic sustainability, and wanting to achieve sustainable development without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Solow, 1991), the policy may be valuing “future” in a depreciative manner. Policy goals may want to correct an existing problem, but having a futuristic view of it, may be impossible to grasp or define.

By utilizing the Mountain Association for Community Development (MACED) definition of sustainability we involve public choice. Public choice is included, according to MACED, for sustainability involves the capacity to make developmental choices which respect the relationship between economy, ecology and equity. Citizens, therefore, have a choice in defining how to utilize their community’s resources and the timing and output desired. It must be recognized that the public, by stating their choice, are taking a long-term cultural, economic and environmental health view, which translates into a long term approach that requires a participatory process requiring consensus on the “best” use of resources. This is stated as long-term for most of the development actions must “live” for more than 10 years to be successful.

I would include experts that may be able to define indicators that measure the use and output of the community’s resources, and that are able to provide insight in the 3 components of sustainability. The framework that defines such a policy decision would look as a platform that includes actions of in all three sustainability areas (social, economical and environmental) with performance measurements tied to all three. The framework would also define short term achievable target measures, and long term indicators. By framing the policy in such a way, you provide short term visible measures that may indicate success to politicians and voters (in the short term perspective they need), as well as provide actions that allow for sustained sustainability (long term view).