The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice
Sustainability principles are at the forefront of regional planning. In Hawaii, the movement toward “sustainability” gave way to revisiting the State Plan. This paper uses a case study of the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan (Hawaii 2050) to illustrate how adopting popular notions of sustainability, without critical examination of how the respective policy frames diverge or interrelate, can lead to “tautological traps.” In the case of Hawaii 2050, the “triple-bottom-line” (embedded within sustainable development) became the dominant sustainability frame during the solicitation of public input and was thus used to guide the planning discourse. The application of triple-bottom-line concepts at the level of policy and planning led to a process that polarized economic and environmental interests. While the goals of sustainable development and the use of triple-bottom-line concepts are useful for planners, we argue that they should be applied within the parameters of ecological sustainability in a US regional context, lest resulting plans continue to allow the momentum of development to override ecological concerns.
KeywordsRegional sustainability planning Triple-bottom-line Framing Trade-offs
We would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments.
- Baker, S. (2005). Sustainable development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Berke, P., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. APA Journal, 66, 21–33.Google Scholar
- Coffman, M. (2008). Oil price shocks in an island economy. Annals of Regional Science. doi: 10.1007/s00168-008-0271-6.
- Dale, A. (2001). At the edge. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
- Dryzek, J. (2005). The politics of the earth (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ehrlich, P. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
- Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
- Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Hawaii Tourism Authority. (2005). 2005 Survey of resident sentiments on tourism in Hawaii. Hawaii: Market Trends Pacific, Inc. & John Knox & Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Healey, P., & Shaw, T. (1994). Changing meanings of ‘environment’ in the British planning system. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 19(4), 425–438.Google Scholar
- Jabareen, Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 179–192.Google Scholar
- Meadows, D., Randers, J., Meadows, D., & Behrens, W. (1974). The limits to growth, a report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York, NY: Universe Books.Google Scholar
- Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- State of Hawaii. (1981). Hawaii State Plan: Where does Hawaii go from here? State Planning Division, Department of Planning and Economic Development. Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
- State of Hawaii. (2007a). Hawaii 2050 sustainability plan: charting a course for Hawaii’s sustainable future, draft plan. Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
- State of Hawaii. (2007b). Hawaii 2050 sustainability plan, informational website. Retrieved April, 2008, from www.hawaii2050.org.
- Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (1987). Our common future: The world commission on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar