• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• AU close
• CH close
• University of Queensland close

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

Integrating renewable energy into public space is becoming more common as a climate change solution. However, this approach is often guided by the environmental pillar of sustainability, with less focus on the economic and social pillars. The purpose of this paper is to examine this issue in the speculative renewable energy propositions for Freshkills Park in New York City submitted for the 2012 Land Art Generator Initiative (LAGI) competition. This paper first proposes an optimal electricity distribution (OED) framework in and around public spaces based on relevant ecology and energy theory (Odum’s fourth and fifth law of thermodynamics). This framework addresses social engagement related to public interaction, and economic engagement related to the estimated quantity of electricity produced, in conjunction with environmental engagement related to the embodied energy required to construct the renewable energy infrastructure. Next, the study uses the OED framework to analyse the top twenty-five projects submitted for the LAGI 2012 competition. The findings reveal an electricity distribution imbalance and suggest a lack of in-depth understanding about sustainable electricity distribution within public space design. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research.

Integrating renewable energy into public space is becoming more common as a climate change solution. However, this approach is often guided by the environmental pillar of sustainability, with less focus on the economic and social pillars. The purpose of this paper is to examine this issue in the speculative renewable energy propositions for Freshkills Park in New York City submitted for the 2012 Land Art Generator Initiative (LAGI) competition. This paper first proposes an optimal electricity distribution (OED) framework in and around public spaces based on relevant ecology and energy theory (Odum’s fourth and fifth law of thermodynamics). This framework addresses social engagement related to public interaction, and economic engagement related to the estimated quantity of electricity produced, in conjunction with environmental engagement related to the embodied energy required to construct the renewable energy infrastructure. Next, the study uses the OED framework to analyse the top twenty-five projects submitted for the LAGI 2012 competition. The findings reveal an electricity distribution imbalance and suggest a lack of in-depth understanding about sustainable electricity distribution within public space design. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research.

The concept of resilience is a crucial part in crafting visions of desirable futures designed to withstand the widest variety of external shocks to the system. Backcasting scenarios are widely used to envision desirable futures with a discontinuous change from the present in mind. However, less effort has been devoted to developing theoretical frameworks and methods for building backcasting scenarios with a particular focus on resilience, although resilience has been explored in related sustainability fields. This paper proposes a method that helps design backcasting scenarios for resilient futures. A characteristic of the method is to delineate “collapse” futures, based upon which resilient futures are described to avoid the various collapsed states. In the process of designing backcasting scenarios, fault tree analysis (FTA) is used to support the generation of various risk factors and countermeasures to improve resilience. In order to test the effectiveness of the proposed method, we provide a case study to describe resilient energy systems for a Japanese community to 2030. Four expert workshops involving researchers from different disciplines were organized to generate diversified ideas on resilient energy systems. The results show that three scenarios of collapsed energy systems were described, in which policy options to be taken toward achieving resilient energy systems were derived.

The concept of resilience is a crucial part in crafting visions of desirable futures designed to withstand the widest variety of external shocks to the system. Backcasting scenarios are widely used to envision desirable futures with a discontinuous change from the present in mind. However, less effort has been devoted to developing theoretical frameworks and methods for building backcasting scenarios with a particular focus on resilience, although resilience has been explored in related sustainability fields. This paper proposes a method that helps design backcasting scenarios for resilient futures. A characteristic of the method is to delineate “collapse” futures, based upon which resilient futures are described to avoid the various collapsed states. In the process of designing backcasting scenarios, fault tree analysis (FTA) is used to support the generation of various risk factors and countermeasures to improve resilience. In order to test the effectiveness of the proposed method, we provide a case study to describe resilient energy systems for a Japanese community to 2030. Four expert workshops involving researchers from different disciplines were organized to generate diversified ideas on resilient energy systems. The results show that three scenarios of collapsed energy systems were described, in which policy options to be taken toward achieving resilient energy systems were derived.

Abstract The earth’s climate is changing, with global warming attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions driven by economic and population growth. Human systems and ecosystems vary in their exposure, mitigation and adaptive capacity, and vulnerability to various forms of climate change. Once mitigation and adaptation efforts have been exhausted, vulnerability remains. Data compiled by the University of Notre Dame covering over 100 nations in 2016 were used to construct a new composite climate change vulnerability index that features endogenously generated weights to aggregate vulnerability indices across six vulnerable sectors. These weights have the potential to inform policy aimed at allocating resources to reduce the cost of limiting vulnerability. The new composite vulnerability index, whose weights differ across sectors and across nations, is compared with the Notre Dame vulnerability index, which uses weights equal across sectors and constant across nations. Although the two indices agree on the identity of the most vulnerable nations, there is a statistically significant difference between the two indices. In addition, a nonparametric statistical test failed to reject the null hypothesis that one sectoral index could be deleted from the composite index without significant loss of information. This also has potentially important policy implications.

Abstract The earth’s climate is changing, with global warming attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions driven by economic and population growth. Human systems and ecosystems vary in their exposure, mitigation and adaptive capacity, and vulnerability to various forms of climate change. Once mitigation and adaptation efforts have been exhausted, vulnerability remains. Data compiled by the University of Notre Dame covering over 100 nations in 2016 were used to construct a new composite climate change vulnerability index that features endogenously generated weights to aggregate vulnerability indices across six vulnerable sectors. These weights have the potential to inform policy aimed at allocating resources to reduce the cost of limiting vulnerability. The new composite vulnerability index, whose weights differ across sectors and across nations, is compared with the Notre Dame vulnerability index, which uses weights equal across sectors and constant across nations. Although the two indices agree on the identity of the most vulnerable nations, there is a statistically significant difference between the two indices. In addition, a nonparametric statistical test failed to reject the null hypothesis that one sectoral index could be deleted from the composite index without significant loss of information. This also has potentially important policy implications.