Planning distinguishes us as human. Our unique mental abilities enable us to conceive of possible futures, consider alternate directions for realizing preferences, and intentionally manipulate behaviours to attempt attainment of projected outcomes. On personal and social levels, when considering futures of minor or major significance, using formal or informal procedures, planning underlies human action. Since the advent of group hunting schemes and the purposeful tending of agricultural crops, planning has been an essential aspect of our interaction with the natural environment. As such, it is - and continues to be - a relevant factor for the continued persistence of our species.
Knowledge - especially at the level indicated by the variety and complexity of traditional, local and scientific knowledge systems - is also a unique human attribute. Our complex mental abilities, coupled with our physical characteristics and dexterity enable us to learn through communicated rather than direct experience, and to build up knowledge by storing information symbolically.
Although informal and 'primitive' planning techniques persist, the process now tends to involve considerably more complex factors and systems, especially in western industrialized societies. In these societies, the dominant paradigm has allowed and created an expert driven, control approach to planning, especially within bureaucracies and institutions. Based on the western scientific knowledge system, the dominant paradigm has advocated belief in the ability to fully understand, predict, and manipulate natural systems. The apparent success of such an approach is evidenced by "progress:" urban centres, supermarket food, TVs, and a wealth of recreation and leisure opportunities.
As we shift into a more industrialized and information dependent culture we have become desensitized to, and detached from, the natural environment. We continue, however, to be biophysically dependent on natural systems. "Despite the artistic pretensions, sophistication and many accomplishments of humankind, we owe our very existence to a six inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains" (Unknown). "Progress," however, appears to have an increasingly negative impact upon those natural features and processes that are essential to our persistence. Declining biodiversity, hampered ecosystem processes, changing global climate, and decreasing arable land are all indicators that imply negative consequences for our species.
These fundamental concerns need to be addressed. Yet current planning approaches, primarily based on an ability to predict and control future system states, may be unable to cope. The social factors generating these negative influences tend to involve large, complex, intractable interactions between natural and social systems and include far-removed and cumulative impacts of the latter on the former. We have limited methods and abilities for understanding and coping with issues of this type and scope. The complex synergistic potential of these interacting systems precludes the surety upon which our social systems have come to depend. Our dilemma is that we continue to rely on the natural systems for sustenance, but also on the social interactions that have, and are, generating negative impacts. We consequently require methods for attempting to understand the fundamental changes inherent in natural systems and the influence of human impacts. More importantly, we must attempt to understand the fundamental change inherent in human social systems and the complex synergistic potential in, and among, these systems. We must understand these in order to appropriately alter and manage human activities. In particular, we must deal with the paradox that planning approaches of the past have brought us to our current position, including our position with respect to the planning approaches we use. I will argue that the outcomes, negative or positive, arise because of the approaches taken and directions pursued, not despite them.
An integrating theme used through this discussion is sustainability. While defining and explaining this concept are problematic, understanding sustainability as a system property minimizes these difficulties. Sustainability refers to the ability of a system to persist. Conflict and confusion arise through considering systems of many different types and scales without regard for their different sustainabilities. The normative position taken in this thesis is the need to sustain the human species at some level above pure subsistence, an objective that may currently be threatened. Given this concern, there is a need to consider the potential for planning to cope with such challenges. In so doing, it is essential to recognize planning for what it is - an inherently normative, and typically ethical, activity: normative because it is prescriptive; ethical because it involves the welfare of others. I draw attention to these points in order to stress their importance; however, they are not the focus of this thesis. Instead, I simply set the normative direction, by articulating concerns regarding sustainability at the outset and returning to consider further implications throughout the thesis.
The starting point for this thesis is the question: What should we do? In particular, how should planning attempt to cope with the uncertainties involved in attempting to guide our collective actions to ensure human sustainability? To respond, however, I find it essential to consider a more fundamental, underlying question: How do we, and how should we, frame our thinking about planning for sustainability? Do we approach understanding from a position that acknowledges the uncertainties and complexities in natural and social systems? What lenses and heuristics do we use for looking at and understanding the world? Do we have concepts and models that allow for the complexities that exist? The discussion in this thesis is focused on these latter questions. In particular, I emphasize development of heuristics that present different ways of looking at the world. When considering the issue of planning for sustainability, I believe they present more appropriate heuristics than those typically in use.
To address these questions regarding ways of thinking and of understanding natural-social interactions and planning possibilities, I turn to recent systems thinking. Since its development in the 1930s, general systems theory has provided a broad, cross-disciplinary approach to understanding. It has been fruitful for generating integrative models and frameworks. Recent developments in systems theory in regard to chaos, complexity, self-organization, and self-production provide new avenues for understanding complexity and uncertainty in both natural and social systems.
My primary thesis concerns the existence of sympoietic (collectively produced) systems.** I define these as complex self-organizing systems lacking spatial and temporal boundaries. They have cooperative synergistic characteristics and must be identified by the continuing interactions among components. In particular, I make a distinction between sympoietic and autopoietic (self-producing) systems. The key distinction - relating to the lack/presence of self-defined boundaries - gives rise to a variety of other characteristics significant for understanding both natural and social systems. I establish these system descriptions as heuristics, emphasizing that both types should be viewed as lenses rather than as absolute, precise realities. In contradiction, however, since our understanding of reality is a process of negotiation filtered through interpretive lenses, I believe that sympoietic systems exist. In addition, I believe the concept provides a more realistic interpretation of the intractable natural and social systems described on the preceding pages. Many of the 'environmental' crises we face today result from using inappropriate lenses to gain understanding. In consequence, inappropriate understandings are used to design planning and management approaches. A more appropriate understanding may help improve planning and management.
The most obvious difficulty that arises when characterizing systems without boundaries is a question of how to identify them. To address this difficulty, I turn to concepts from self-organizing systems theory. My premise is that systems must be defined by the factors generating them, rather than by their boundaries. The focus must be on relationships and linkages rather than on components. While much of self-organizing systems theory is discussed in the context of natural systems, many authors also apply these concepts to social systems. I too propose this to be a relevant and valid extension. In consequence, recognizing the importance of self-organization and the distinction between the two system types may contribute toward improved understanding and the generation of new directions for planning.
The system concepts discussed in this thesis, and their implications, are relevant to planning in three ways:
I believe the systems concepts discussed in this thesis provide possibilities for learning to cope with the concerns set forth earlier.
Our society, on both general and academic levels, has become increasingly reductionist and specialized, focusing on particulars to the neglect of comprehensive themes and general consequences. Many issues and concerns are so big and basic they are ignored or rationalized out of existence. While specialized approaches are essential, there is a critical need for broad integrative approaches. I write in pursuit of the latter. We need to generate linkages between individual action and global consequences, between reductionist and holistic understanding, and between natural and social sciences. The systems approach advanced in this thesis puts forward a tentative conceptual map for doing these types of integration.
The purpose of this thesis is threefold:
The rationale and logic behind this thesis, however, arise in reverse sequence. The basic concern is for sustainability - of social systems and, consequently, natural systems. I believe planning, as both a general human activity and an institutionalized process, is fundamental to our interaction with the natural environment and our ability to act sustainably. Many current approaches, however, seem to lack the capacity to cope with the difficulties and complexities we face. Systems concepts provide a means for critiquing planning from a perspective that addresses some of these difficulties. Beyond this, the nature of systems thinking provides some potential for developing new directions. To cope adequately with these complexities, however - especially the self-organizing and recursive tendencies - systems concepts must be developed further. In particular, I believe there is a need to shift the focus from defining complex systems as bounded entities to defining them by their complex interactions and the relations among their components.
To cover the ground it is necessary to cover a range of concepts - each key to the discussion, but many of which are the subject of contentious debate. Such debates surface, particularly, in regard to definitional issues. The lack of consensus arises from variations between common and 'scientific' definitions, and from variations among application of the terms within different disciplines. The latter arise from various theoretical explanations of similar phenomena, and from varying weights applied to different aspects of the concept or definition. The 'harder' sciences emphasize the need for precision regarding concepts and their definition, although this does not by any means remove the contentious debate. Within the 'softer' sciences, recognition is given to the potential advantage of ambiguity for generating discourse (e.g. Morgan 1983), as I will argue regarding the notion of sustainable development. As Yanow (1996, p 19) states: "interpretations are more powerful than 'facts.'" Such ambiguity can, however, cause difficulties. The intent of this overview is to briefly identify the key concepts and issues, and some key problems, in order to highlight these difficulties. Each of these concepts and issues will be addressed in the following chapters. A glossary is provided for reference.
In this section I outline the considerations that influenced me to pursue research regarding complex systems and planning. I then outline the methods applied and articulate the assumptions under which I am working.
Hear the roaring vastness of a great valley or the sigh of wind in the treetops, or the eternal thunder of breakers on the shore. Then go back and speak to the world from your heart. (R. Stoltman)
Perhaps most fundamental to the origin of my inquiry is a love of, and respect for, the natural environment. This is coupled with a curiosity and drive to understand underlying issues. These interests led me into studying sciences: biology, ecology, forestry. Conservation concerns, however, kept pulling me toward the social sciences. Understanding natural systems seemed to have little to do with conserving or protecting them. The complexities of tree-stand dynamics, intricacies of cell metabolism, and marvels of photosynthesis provided little leverage for understanding or influencing the negative and increasing impact our species has on the natural environment - and the inexorable quality of this impact.
Studies in conservation allowed me to move toward the 'softer' sciences: sociology, philosophy, economics. Relinquishing the conventional scientific method suited my desire to dig down and understand fundamentals about natural-social interactions from a more philosophical perspective. Yet the disciplinary divisions continued to get in the way. Pursuits at both ends seemed inadequate for coping with the difficulties we face, so I dug deeper for other possibilities and approaches.
While writing my undergraduate thesis, I stumbled onto complex systems thinking, and in particular the concepts of self-organization, self-production, complexity, and chaos. These concepts fit with the logical, rational side of my thinking, but simultaneously satisfied my intuitive side. They offered possibilities for considering the patterns, linkages and underlying currents I perceive that seem difficult to capture in conventional analyses.
'Systems' thinking is relevant to 'systems' of any type, yet, even these systems concepts did not quite accommodate my concerns. The subject of my B.Sc. thesis - sustainability in ecosystems - arose from a concern for our penchant to manipulate forests and protected areas as if they were isolated entities. These networking ecosystems were being treated as if they were singular, isolated, self-producing bounded entities - autopoietic systems (Maturana and Varela 1980). In contrast, I suggested the notion of sympoiesis to provide a concept that more accurately reflected the reality I perceived (Dempster 1995).
My graduate studies have focused on developing and defending the concept of sympoiesis and considering its relevance to planning. Development and defense of the concept have focused on two avenues. The first is to establish the contrasting characteristics of autopoietic and sympoietic systems. The second is to pursue the stated potential of using self-organizing systems theory for conceptualizing systems without recourse to boundaries.
While it is possible to construct such concepts and arguments so as to be internally consistent, the question of whether they have any relevance to the 'real world' is essential: do they have power of explanation and understanding? For this I turned toward a case study approach on a cursory level developing a methodology and applying it to the systems of concern for Point Pelee National Park (Dempster 1997). Aspects of that study are carried through in this document, though here a broader scale of consideration and other examples are used.
The systems concepts provide a direction that satisfies my need for broad cross-disciplinary synthesis, but at the same time provide direction for digging deeper into the intricacies and interconnections of complex systems. In addition, they hold a pragmatic advantage. My concern for conservation has pressured me into a critique of planning, which I see as fundamental to our interaction with the natural environment. Systems thinking not only provides potential lenses for viewing the world around us, but provides frameworks for developing approaches to plan and make decisions. New concepts may provide new lenses and new approaches.
I believe the autopoietic-sympoietic distinction provides a particular perspective on the world that is worth exploring to its full extent, but I do not believe it provides the only or even a better approach than others that have been described. Its value lies in its difference, an understanding of which has required an autopoietic approach to research. The next step will be to take the concepts and perspectives articulated in this thesis and link them to other approaches.
This thesis is primarily synthetic. Rather than concentrating on a specific topic or case study, my emphasis is on bringing together concepts and examples from diverse disciplines. Discussing these systems concepts has high integrative potential. Even though the systems perspective itself is quite focused, it allows me to draw from a wide range of examples.
This thesis represents a stage in continuing research. I poise at this point, to articulate and describe the patterns and influences as I understand them in the hopes that this may provide insight for others as well as generate questions from others that will, in turn, provide insight for me. I believe the concepts I discuss provide promising links for connecting across levels and across disciplines, and as such can aid the move toward planning for sustainability.
As we are supposed to live in the age of analysis, it may well be wondered whether there is any room left, except in the cemeteries of ideas, for philosophical syntheses. The author's opinion is that analysis, though necessary, is insufficient - except of course for destruction. The ultimate goal of theoretical research, be it in philosophy, science, or mathematics, is the construction of systems, i.e. theories. Moreover these theories should be articulated into systems rather than being disjoint, let alone mutually at odds.
Once we have got a system we may proceed to taking it apart. First the tree, then the sawdust. And having attained the sawdust stage we should move on to the next, namely the building of further systems. (Bunge 1983, p v)
My method is synthetic, although perhaps somewhat eclectic and focused. It arises from the basic root of science: to develop a hypothesis based on observation and then test it, gathering arguments in its defense. The hypothesis pertains to the existence and usefulness of the concept of sympoiesis. The difficulty is in testing it. As with many aspects of social science, the nature of the subject of study precludes experiment. The scope of investigation I wish to cover makes gathering primary empirical data through standard survey, interview, participant observation, or in-depth case study techniques difficult. I turn to synthesis, rather than the standard analytic approach. Figure 1.1 provides a schematic of my research, which can be separated into two basic sections: developing the concept of sympoiesis, and critiquing the process of planning. These should not be interpreted as totally separate areas, however. Nor should the illustration be taken as indicative of a neat chronological progression. The complexities and novelties of the concepts developed and covered required many iterations.
The precedent to which I liken my approach the most is Rawls' 'reflective equilibrium' - movement back and forth between general and particular, particular and general, to arrive at a place where there is a sense of balanced understanding. This is a philosophical 'method' developed to determine that which is just. Wenz (1988) argues that this process is no different than the process of scientific inquiry. To use Bunge's metaphor, it is a matter of moving from tree to sawdust and back to tree again. Bontekoe (1996) describes the hermeneutic circle, a mode of inquiry that underlies science as well as other approaches more typically associated with hermeneutics, as representative of similar reiterative processes. In particular, Bontekoe notes a recursive cycle between parts and whole, involving integration and contextualization that gradually leads toward comprehension. As illustrated by the double-arrows in Figure 1.1, such recursive processes were followed in research for this thesis, which relies solely on literature research and reasoned argument. The approach is recursive - conclusions inform original positions, as well as the process. The following describes the key questions asked through this research and the subject areas of literature covered.
Figure 1.1 indicates four basic questions that guided the research and the primary areas of literature used. In all cases literature research followed two basic routes. First was the standard approach: searches on particular keywords and references from relevant papers. The second approach was more serendipitous, involving the habit of scanning the library shelf next to the source I sought and thumbing through journals in search of interesting titles. While not wholly efficient, this research method has been important and valuable.*
I make an important caveat regarding the literature covered: in many cases I have relied on secondary sources - admittedly less preferable than primary sources. The catch in doing cross-disciplinary research is that one must cross disciplines. (I use cross-disciplinary as opposed to inter- and trans- disciplinary, each of which would reduce, though not eliminate, the difficulties.) I fully acknowledge the need to return to original sources. When I have done so, I have always appreciated the richness and detail not found in the secondary work.
My emphasis in this thesis, however, has been integration - I choose a wide scope at the expense of depth. Due to this approach, I make a second important caveat regarding citations: those listed throughout the text represent the source from which I gathered information. In many cases these do not reflect the originators of the concepts or ideas. This caveat is relevant to both the systems concepts and to planning considerations. In regards to the first, I have picked up the theoretical discussion on self-organization and complexity at its midpoint, and carried forward. In regards to planning, I have also relied on more recent works.
My continuing research will focus on following these threads in both directions: backward, investigating the classic works, and forward, weaving my work together with other work arising from similar backgounds. In a sense, this thesis lays out a research direction, briefly illuminating a variety of areas, rather than focusing in depth on any particular area. As Nelson (1997, pers. comm.) has pointed out, the resulting document is a more 'scholarly' than 'scientific' work. It takes a more philosophical approach, articulating a wide variety of ideas based on synthesis and reasoned argument rather than taking a more 'scientific' approach involving experiment and analysis.
Key questions
The starting question is quite straightforward: What to do? The question arises from a pragmatic concern regarding sustainability. Yet the direction taken in response delves into issues at both pragmatic and epistemological levels. In considering an answer it becomes apparent that we must also face the question: How do we conceptualize reality? How do we think? In particular, how do we think about the systems of concern to planning and the process and role of planning itself? These questions lead to the four lines of questioning, illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Key questions regarding sympoietic systems
1) What are sympoietic systems? Can systems without boundaries be explained? Are they (theoretically) possible? If not, what theories need to be developed to explain them? Are there factors involved in the processes governing them that can be identified? How do they work? What are their characteristics? How do they differ from autopoietic systems? Are they different than self-organizing systems? How?
Literature research focused on two interconnected areas: complex, self-organizing, and related systems theories, and autopoiesis. This aspect of the research primarily led to articulation of sympoietic system characteristics and explanation of their behaviour. This formed the basis of Chapter 2, which describes systems concepts.
Critical to this first stage of research was the development of a methodology for conceptualizing complex systems. Description and application of this methodology are presented in Dempster (1997). The methodology primarily arose from these theoretical concepts.
2) Do sympoietic systems exist? Is there evidence for them? Are there similar concepts used to describe systems? Do people describe systems, and their characteristics in ways that are easily interpreted as sympoietic?
Literature review in this area included some of the theoretical literature noted above, with associated examples and applications. However, the review also covered general literature - basic ecology to basic sociology - to determine if the concepts could be used to explain system behaviour as described by authors not using a systems approach. My approach to understanding was to apply the conceptualizing methodology to a variety of different system types in different situations. Both the methodology and the systems concepts were adjusted through this reiterative, learning process. Information and ideas from this literature and the conceptualizations were integrated with the basic theoretical concepts, providing empirical 'evidence' to illuminate workable and problematic areas. Results of this aspect are included in both Chapters 2 and 3.
Key questions regarding planning
The concepts developed in the first stage of research were used to critique planning, but also to consider possible improvements. Two key areas of questioning, then, directed the research, although both areas relied primarily on theoretical considerations. I took the position that sustainability, as outlined below, should be the objective of planning.
3) Do our planning approaches cope with the systems described? Have they? Can they? Do we conceptualize the systems of concern to planning in a manner that allows us to understand and cope with their complexities? Are there approaches that accommodate the uncertainties involved - planning approaches that do not rely on prediction? Can planning be adaptable and flexible? Do planning approaches integrate any of the new systems thinking?
4) How can and should our planning approaches cope with the systems described? Are any of the newer planning models appropriate? What needs to change to make planning appropriate? Is there a way to determine what kind of planning should be applied in any given situation? Can the system types illustrate different approaches and possibilities?
To address these areas, my literature research primarily focused on planning theory, with varying degrees of linkages or connections to more pragmatic considerations. As in the first part, however, further examples and applications were also used. Considerations regarding the methodology and subsequent understandings were again important. Exploration of the implications and possibilities for planning that arise from the systems concepts was an iterative process that involved re-evaluation of these concepts as well. The discussions and considerations arising from these two lines of questioning are reported in Chapters 4 and 5.
The practice of writing entails analyzing [yet] writing has rarely been considered a methodological issue. Once we move, however, to a world in which multiple, even incommensurable meanings are the rule and social science is not seen as mirroring reality, "writing up" itself becomes, if not a form of research as data collection, a form of research in its presentation or representation of data. Writing practices themselves are, in this view, "ways of worldmaking." In presenting the researcher's view of policy and agency actors' views of their world, research narratives construct that world... And yet, authors are not alone in worldmaking. Readers share this responsibility. (Yanow 1996, p 52)
Yanow, who discusses policy analysis, makes a point relevant for this thesis. I have a dual purpose in writing. First, I wish to explain concepts that I believe have scientific merit as a systematic means for explanation and prediction power (except, of course, that the latter is to predict that prediction is very, very, very erratic and hence, effectively impossible). Second, I wish to describe these concepts in such a manner as to make them understandable and usable. Here, again, is the paradox of reality vs. interpretation. While I believe these concepts present accurate representations of reality - they are also interpretive lenses - heuristics for allowing people to see systems from a particular perspective. In light of my second intent, the process of 'writing up' becomes critical. Not only am I (unavoidably) involved in the process of worldmaking through the language and assumptions that underlie my writing, but my thesis in itself is an attempt to articulate a particular way of worldmaking. The view taken is relevant to the view proposed. Demeritt (1994, p 30) states that "through their writing then, historians exercise considerable power over the objects they represent... This process is never innocent." I would restate this for any researcher, including myself: "through their writing then, researchers exercise considerable power over the concepts they represent. This process is never innocent." Text always involves interpretation.
For me, the process of writing is critical. Through articulation and explanation, as much as through comparison with empirical observations and theoretical constructs, the concepts are defined and take shape.
No researcher is free of personal and cultural bias. Assumptions colour and influence the nature of one's 'reality,' the questions deemed worthy of asking, the procedures applied, and the interpretation of findings. Since they rely on basic assumptions, discussion and explanation are most effective when the assumptions are clearly articulated. Mine are noted in this section. Although I believe many of them reflect relatively 'standard' positions, the nature of the issues discussed makes their articulation relevant.
The notions set forward in this thesis both arise from and determine these assumptions.
There is no single reality, but rather multiple realities, and what is represented depends on one's position in the field of negotiation. The ethnographer's text cannot legitimately claim to represent the truth about the other, or even a particular and limited truth about the other. It is not about the other at all. It is about an ongoing process of negotiating reality. (Bird 1987, p 258)
There is a gradation, then, from direct observation to interpretive meaning. For all intents and purposes, however, our interpretations are as 'real' as reality: tables are, ecosystems are, the universe is. But these interpretations change, more so at the ends: extreme scales and social constructs. In addition, the social construction of reality becomes a concern and multiple perceptions and interpretations are easily conceivable.
Finally, I believe my personality is relevant to this research also. Competent at the arts of compromise and negotiation, and interested in searching for underlying interests, positions, and feelings, I see continua where some see oppositions, linkages where some see boundaries, undercurrents where some see ripples on the surface. The development of sympoiesis, the emphasis on underlying factors governing systems, and the emphasis on continua reflect these tendencies. In addition, I tend to control life by letting it take its course and appreciating the outcomes, I tend to focus on what is without loosing sight of what may be, I tend to focus on the big picture rather than details, and I tend to be comfortable with uncertainty and contradiction. These tendencies are reflected in my approach, interpretations, and recommendations.
In addition, my sense of system is born of life experiences, in particular, from time spent in the outdoors - walking through west-coast rainforests towering above me and teeming with life and in the rugged alpine where life hangs on in tiny patches. In addition, experiences of social systems include the intricacies of volunteer organizations and a strong group of long-time friends. These are systems defined by their connections and relations - perceptions and experiences that are relevant to the development and articulation of the concepts in this thesis.
At its most basic, sustainability is a system property. Simply expressed, "a sustainable system is one which survives or persists" (Costanza and Folke 1996, p 19), it reflects the ability to "keep up or keep going" (Random House 1990). Such simplicity, however, is not apparent in the current debate surrounding the concept:
The very term "sustainability" has a wide variety of applications and connotations... a diversity that extends to the underlying assumptions and principles used in discussion of and proposals for sustainability. (Fautin 1995, p v)
Sustainability appears to be accepted as the mediating term designed to bridge the gulf between 'developers' and 'environmentalists.' Its beguiling simplicity and apparently self-evident meaning have obscured its inherent ambiguity. (O'Riordan 1988 in Dixon and Fallon 1989, p 74)
During the environmental movement of the 1960s the notion of sustainability gained popularity, becoming "part of the political rhetoric" in the 1980s (Dixon and Fallon 1989, p74). The latter was heightened after publication of Our Common Future (WCED 1987) which popularized the notion of "sustainable development." As many have noted, sustainable development is a problematic and paradoxical concept (e.g. Dovers and Handmer 1992, Daly 1994, Holling 1995). It can provide advocates on both ends of the development-environment debate a rallying cry for justifying their preferred actions or policies. This leads to considerable confusion and conflict. Yet, by its very paradoxical, ambiguous nature, the concept has offered a focus, unearthing the linkage between development and environment. Subsequent debate has not resolved these tricky issues, or generated a sound operational concept, but it has brought the debate into the public and policy arenas, drawing unexpected players in to sit at the same table.
Throughout the relevant (and now copious) literature, sustainability and sustainable development are often used interchangeably - even within the same document (see Dixon and Fallon 1989,
Pezzey 1992, Holling and Sanderson 1996 as examples). Box 1.1 lists a variety of definitions. I follow Dovers and Handmer (1992, p 275) in stating that the two concepts are different - or at least can (and should) be usefully so defined.
Sustainability describes a goal that is "indisputably desirable" (Dixon and Fallon 1989, p 73), yet the vagueness which allows many to agree with the concept, also makes it virtually impossible to operationalize. As noted, I believe the discussion is useful in and of itself, but I also believe that there is hope for making the concepts more useful. In particular, I note two considerations. First, despite the broad interpretations, there are common attributes which I discuss below. The debate surrounds the priority, weighting, and degree of expression of these attributes of sustainability, rather than the attributes themselves.
Second, making a distinction between sustainability and sustainable development can assist in coping with the definitional morass. In essence, I abandon sustainable development to the contentious, paradoxical definition, leaving it to play a role in continued debate as a mediating concept between development and sustainability. Sustainability, should be recognized as a different concept, based on a systemic definition related to persistence. As a system property, sustainability is a relatively simple concept. Debate results from applying it to a wide variety of systems of varying scale, type, and complexity without acknowledging these variations or their interconnected and interdependent nature. Clarifying these differences can go a long way to making the concept useful. In particular, I will make note of these differences regarding autopoietic and sympoietic systems in Section 2.2, 2.4 and 4.4.
Figure 1.2 illustrates the range of sustainability definitions, indicating my use of the term. For this thesis, I will use system sustainability to refer specifically to the persistence of particular systems. I also use the term sustainability in a general sense, without reference to a specific system. In these cases I intend it to refer to the continuation of natural conditions conducive to persistence of the human species. By such a definition, I emphasize our dependence on natural systems, but avoid the contentious issues surrounding quality of life. I agree, however, that persistence at some level above pure subsistence is preferable, and that the two - environmental and social sustainability - are intricately interconnected.
To cover the breadth of discussion regarding sustainability, I rely on a few review articles and fora (Dixon and Fallon 1989, Pezzey 1992, Costanza 1995, Fautin 1995), in addition to the other sources cited in this section.. The mere existence of such collected works attests to the presence, importance and debatability of the concept and provides interesting cross-disciplinary perspectives. Most authors provide a brief basic definition, rounding it out with a more involved explanation. From these discussions, the following basic attributes of the concept arise.
To understand the following two attributes it is essential to understand that either implicitly or explicitly, sustainability is primarily discussed as an anthropocentric concept. Even when reference is made to sustaining ecological processes, persistence of nature is rarely what is meant. Concern is for persistence of the human species and persistence of the ecological processes necessary to meet such an objective. This bias leads to recognition of ecological interconnections and the value-based implications of the concept.
As a system property, sustainability is relevant for any system and can be more easily discussed without the value bias implicit in concern for human persistence. It must ultimately be recognized as a function of interaction between a system and its environment.
For simplification, I distinguish three elements of sustainability: system maintainability and adaptability and environmental change. The first refers to a systems' ability to remain undamaged, maintaining its identity despite changes in the environment.
Adaptability refers to a systems' ability to change itself in order to accommodate surprising environmental changes. This parallels Conrad's (1993, p 3) definition: "by adaptability I mean the ability to continue to function in the face of an uncertain or unknown environment."
The third element of sustainability is external to the system and includes the speed, degree and scope of environmental change. System sustainability is a result of balance between all three elements. It is suggested here, and will be defended below in Section 2.2 that the balance between the two system characteristics is critical and typically involves a tradeoff. If a system is highly adaptable, it needs to put less effort into maintaining the status quo. If it is not very adaptable, it must put much effort into maintenance.
Considering the basic attributes and systemic elements of sustainability and the wide variety of systems for which we may have an interest in ensuring it, there should be little surprise that the discussion surrounding the concept is so confusing and full of conflict. I believe it arises from two sources. First, discussions occur at cross-purposes: "sustainability" is used in reference to the persistence of systems of different types and scales without attention to their different sustain-abilities. This recognition is implied by Dixon and Fallon (1989) and Robinson et al. (1990). For example the balance among the three elements will be different for a local community, a nation, and for our species as a whole. The balance will also be different if "social system" is interpreted from an economic, ethical, or ecological perspective. Second, the weighting applied to the different elements varies. Some authors place higher emphasis on adaptability, or - more specifically - on different types of adaptability (e.g. flexible responses vs. technological solutions). In addition, the significance and importance of the third element, environmental change, is open to question. Unless articulated, these variations cause confusion, and when they are articulated, often cause conflict.
The three elements of sustainability relate to the attributes noted in the preceding section. The first two elements - maintainability and adaptability - correspond to a systems' contribution to its own persistence (i.e. not necessarily human persistence). Ecological interactions are implicit in the interplay between system and environment. The discussion in Chapter 2 of this thesis, especially Section 2.2 focuses on system characteristics, leading ultimately to consideration of these three elements of sustainability for different types of complex self-organizing systems. For human systems, planning must be understood as a key factor regarding our maintainability and adaptability - our contribution to our own persistence.
Since we are a thinking and social species dependent on continual, predictable biophysical inputs, we tend to emphasize maintainability and rely on manipulating our interaction with our environment. In particular, we become concerned about its sustainability in order to ensure our sustainability. Since we can perceive our environment and conceive of future states, the environmental change element of sustainability can be further separated into predictability and changability. As with adaptability and maintainability, these also involve tradeoffs. If we have little ability to predict future system states, we hope for small incremental changes. If we can, with ease and certainty, predict future states of the environment, we have less concern about the speed, degree, and scope of change since we will have more potential for preparing and planning for such change. Seen in this light, much of our current difficulty can be recognized as having placed too much emphasis on maintenance, assuming predictability and low levels of environmental change. We now recognize the need for adapting, due to the recognition of uncertainty and the potential for a high degree of environmental change, the latter brought about, in part, due to our emphasis on the former.
The "problem" to be addressed by this thesis has many faces - open any newspaper; review the State of the World Series (e.g. Brown 1997); read a book that has "sustainability" or "sustainable development" in the title. Any of these, and many other sources, will illustrate the different aspects and guises of the "problem." The very basics are itemized by the attributes of sustainability noted above: lack of inter- and intra-generational equity, stressed social systems, threats to ecological services and processes, and pushing the limits of natural systems on a global level. While persistence of at least some members of the human species is likely certain for many generations into the future, the quality of life for these people is questionable. Implicit in these aspects is the one central, and most problematic issue: what should we do about it all? This latter question is, of course, the real issue, and the reason I have turned to planning.
Due to our complex human capacities, which enable consideration of the future, planning provides us with a useful tool for generating sustainable human activity. It plays a fundamental role regarding the balance among the elements: maintainability, adaptability, and environmental change. Especially with regards to our interaction with the natural environment, planning has tended toward a control oriented, expert driven process relying on comprehensive information and predictable systems. The changes currently happening lead me to question whether our planning systems are appropriate for promoting the type and degree of adaptability that now appears to be necessary. I believe we need to change our approaches. These changes must include new ways of looking at and understanding the world, new types of planning systems appropriate for the current circumstances, and new recognition of the role planning plays regarding the possibility for attaining human sustainability.
The defining characteristic of planning, as a discipline and activity, is that it is intentionally prescriptive. Whereas other disciplines and activities may generate recommendations, entail reactive responses, or inadvertently cause particular outcomes, planning directs its focus toward the future, purposely designing behaviours, actions, and structures in order to create particular outcomes. It is therefore inherently normative. The notion of planning as the link between knowledge and action provides an apt description. Our species has been planning for millennia with an ever changing repertoire of knowledge, action and linkages resulting from an ever changing set of circumstances, environments and technologies. The importance of recognizing planning as a critical linkage between natural and social systems should also be recognized. Our dependence on natural systems should not be underestimated. The currently dominant paradigm has encouraged an approach to planning dependent on the ability to predict and control future system states. Increasing negative environmental impacts, the outcomes of such planning efforts, are causing concern. The fundamental uncertainties, ignorance and indeterminacies inherent in natural and social systems are becoming difficult to ignore.
By being proactive instead of reactive, planning creates directions from which arise unexpected structures and outcomes. While I do not advocate the possibility of fully understanding these, I suggest that understanding based on a different perspective may give suggestions as to what direction to look at and reinforce the need to develop adaptive approaches.
The changing circumstances that generate such concern include a wide array of problematic issues. Perhaps most important is a critical change in the scale of our influence - we now generate impacts on a global scale. Coupled with our sheer numbers and the complexity of our social and institutional systems this indicates a need for change since the environmental changes occurring are not necessarily conducive to persistence of the human species. This change must incorporate new approaches to planning reflecting different knowledge, different action, and different linkages. The systems concepts developed in this thesis provide a tool to critique planning that also has the potential to suggest fruitful directions to pursue.
** The spelling of 'sympoiesis' here is different from that in the hard copy of my thesis. My initial spelling - 'synpoietic' has been altered to account for more 'correct' linguistic considerations. (With thanks to Ted Creese for noting the difference.)
*1 It was this research technique that introduced me to the whole area of complex systems. I was attracted to a book entitled "Complexity" when searching for something different. One could argue that I should develop better catalogue/computer search techniques, but it is hard to give up an approach that has, and continues to be, so rewarding. Conclusions of this thesis will claim such techniques as valid.