8
et al., 2009). Additionally, climate change interacts with the stresses on ecosystems in many ways, and
is a main cause of concern particularly because climate change accelerates natural habitat destruction,
overexploitation and the increase of invasive species (Staudinger, 2013; Brook, Sodhi, &
Bradshaw, 2008).
In 1988, Wilson warned that global biodiversity, defined as the variation of all life on earth and the
ecological complexes in which they occur, faced an unprecedented threat from habitat loss and other
anthropogenic stressors (Leadley et al., 2010). Since then efforts were made to introduce conservation
measures to classify and preserve global biodiversity before it was lost forever. Unfortunately, biodiversity change is of such a large and accelerating magnitude that despite worldwide conservation
efforts, rates of species extinctions are currently up to 1000 times greater than natural background
rates (Chapin et al., 2000; Diaz, Fargione, Chapin, & Tilman, 2006; Parmesan, 2006). Biodiversity is
fundamental to ecosystem structure and function and underpins the broad spectrum of goods and
services that humans derive from natural systems (Chapin et al., 1997; Naeem, 2009; Walther, 2010).
As such it is in our own interest to consider alternative options for supporting a sustainable ecologicalhuman integration system, where decisions are made in relation to the planning and design of the built
environment that acknowledge that humans are part of nature, rather than above it.
1.5 Sustainability, Ecological Systems, and Climate Change
The word ‘Sustainability’ has become a ‘buzz’ word, applied to basically every aspect of our modern
world—in economics, business, social structures, politics, and the environment. The attempt is to
achieve the possibility of balance and permanence in the world. The concept of sustainability, as
defined by the Brundtland Report, has been described by Van der Ryn as bias towards anthropogenic
and utilitarianism that is based on a technical approach for the better management of the non-human
world for its continued existence (Van der Ryn & Cowan, 1996, p. 5). Under various different definitions, sustainable development seeks to minimise pollution rather than achieve the regenerative outcomes of clean air, water and soil. It is clear that the focus of the sustainability discourse is on
‘minimising’.
There is a global desire to achieve sustainable outcomes and provide a better world for society.
Many governments and organisations worldwide have set in place policies, value statements and
visions, trying to instil a sustainable future for their citizens. In 2015, all the United Nations Member
States adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), claiming that these are the world’s
best plan to build a better world for people and the planet by 2030 (UN, 2019) (Fig. 1.4).
However, we need to be aware of the mainstream status quo, where the standard approach for sustainability is merely superficial. Very disturbing assumptions are lurking behind the general vision of
sustainability under a system of sustainable management (Van der Ryn & Cowan, 1996, p. 7). In his
argument around the narrow- minded views on sustainability in this world, Van der Ryn and Cowan
(1996) critiques this common approach of sustainable development and argues that it is in essence is
a ‘technological sustainability approach’ with no substance. David Orr (1992) noted that the more
urgent and best consideration is the ‘ecological sustainability’ approach. If ecological sustainability is
applied to solutions for future outcomes, it is a very different vision of outcomes for society than the
standard ‘sustainability’ approach:
Ecological sustainability is the task of finding alternatives to the practices that got us into trouble in the first
place; it is necessary to rethink agriculture, shelter, energy use, urban design, transportation, economics, community patterns, resource use, forestry, transportation, the importance of wilderness, and our cultural values (Orr,
1992, p. 24).
This approach by Orr provides the fundamentals for us to regenerate our environment, and as
argued by Christopher Alexander, we need to consider the ‘deep sustainability’ that addresses the core
of our culture, environment and our human connection to nature.
1 The State of the Planet: From Anthropocene Dominant to Regenerative-Adaptive Futures
et al., 2009). Additionally, climate change interacts with the stresses on ecosystems in many ways, and
is a main cause of concern particularly because climate change accelerates natural habitat destruction,
overexploitation and the increase of invasive species (Staudinger, 2013; Brook, Sodhi, &
Bradshaw, 2008).
In 1988, Wilson warned that global biodiversity, defined as the variation of all life on earth and the
ecological complexes in which they occur, faced an unprecedented threat from habitat loss and other
anthropogenic stressors (Leadley et al., 2010). Since then efforts were made to introduce conservation
measures to classify and preserve global biodiversity before it was lost forever. Unfortunately, biodiversity change is of such a large and accelerating magnitude that despite worldwide conservation
efforts, rates of species extinctions are currently up to 1000 times greater than natural background
rates (Chapin et al., 2000; Diaz, Fargione, Chapin, & Tilman, 2006; Parmesan, 2006). Biodiversity is
fundamental to ecosystem structure and function and underpins the broad spectrum of goods and
services that humans derive from natural systems (Chapin et al., 1997; Naeem, 2009; Walther, 2010).
As such it is in our own interest to consider alternative options for supporting a sustainable ecologicalhuman integration system, where decisions are made in relation to the planning and design of the built
environment that acknowledge that humans are part of nature, rather than above it.
1.5 Sustainability, Ecological Systems, and Climate Change
The word ‘Sustainability’ has become a ‘buzz’ word, applied to basically every aspect of our modern
world—in economics, business, social structures, politics, and the environment. The attempt is to
achieve the possibility of balance and permanence in the world. The concept of sustainability, as
defined by the Brundtland Report, has been described by Van der Ryn as bias towards anthropogenic
and utilitarianism that is based on a technical approach for the better management of the non-human
world for its continued existence (Van der Ryn & Cowan, 1996, p. 5). Under various different definitions, sustainable development seeks to minimise pollution rather than achieve the regenerative outcomes of clean air, water and soil. It is clear that the focus of the sustainability discourse is on
‘minimising’.
There is a global desire to achieve sustainable outcomes and provide a better world for society.
Many governments and organisations worldwide have set in place policies, value statements and
visions, trying to instil a sustainable future for their citizens. In 2015, all the United Nations Member
States adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), claiming that these are the world’s
best plan to build a better world for people and the planet by 2030 (UN, 2019) (Fig. 1.4).
However, we need to be aware of the mainstream status quo, where the standard approach for sustainability is merely superficial. Very disturbing assumptions are lurking behind the general vision of
sustainability under a system of sustainable management (Van der Ryn & Cowan, 1996, p. 7). In his
argument around the narrow- minded views on sustainability in this world, Van der Ryn and Cowan
(1996) critiques this common approach of sustainable development and argues that it is in essence is
a ‘technological sustainability approach’ with no substance. David Orr (1992) noted that the more
urgent and best consideration is the ‘ecological sustainability’ approach. If ecological sustainability is
applied to solutions for future outcomes, it is a very different vision of outcomes for society than the
standard ‘sustainability’ approach:
Ecological sustainability is the task of finding alternatives to the practices that got us into trouble in the first
place; it is necessary to rethink agriculture, shelter, energy use, urban design, transportation, economics, community patterns, resource use, forestry, transportation, the importance of wilderness, and our cultural values (Orr,
1992, p. 24).
This approach by Orr provides the fundamentals for us to regenerate our environment, and as
argued by Christopher Alexander, we need to consider the ‘deep sustainability’ that addresses the core
of our culture, environment and our human connection to nature.
1 The State of the Planet: From Anthropocene Dominant to Regenerative-Adaptive Futures