Advertisement

Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 597–610 | Cite as

The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice

  • Makena Coffman
  • Karen Umemoto
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Regional sustainability planning Triple-bottom-line Framing Trade-offs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments.

References

  1. Baker, S. (2005). Sustainable development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bruff, G., & Wood, A. (2000). Making sense of sustainable development: Politicians, professionals, and policies in local planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18, 593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffman, M. (2008). Oil price shocks in an island economy. Annals of Regional Science. doi:  10.1007/s00168-008-0271-6.
  5. Dale, A. (2001). At the edge. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dryzek, J. (2005). The politics of the earth (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ehrlich, P. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  8. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gunder, M. (2006). Sustainability: Planning’s saving grace or road to perdition? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hawaii Tourism Authority. (2005). 2005 Survey of resident sentiments on tourism in Hawaii. Hawaii: Market Trends Pacific, Inc. & John Knox & Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Healey, P., & Shaw, T. (1993). Planners, plans, and sustainable development. Regional Studies, 27(8), 769–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Jabareen, Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 179–192.Google Scholar
  15. Jepson, E. (2001). Sustainability and planning: Diverse concepts and close associations. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(4), 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jepson, E. (2003). The conceptual integration of planning and sustainability: An investigation of planners in the United States. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21, 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordan, A. (2008). The governance of sustainable development: Taking stock and looking forwards. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jun, M. J. (2006). The effects of Portland’s urban growth boundary on housing prices. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kidd, S., & Fischer, T. (2007). Towards sustainability: Is integrated appraisal a step in the right direction? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lumley, S., & Armstrong, P. (2004). Some of the nineteenth century origins of the sustainability concept. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6, 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Sneddon, C. (2000). Sustainability in ecological economics, ecology and livelihoods: A review. Progress in Human Geography, 24(4), 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. State of Hawaii. (2007a). Hawaii 2050 sustainability plan: charting a course for Hawaii’s sustainable future, draft plan. Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  27. State of Hawaii. (2007b). Hawaii 2050 sustainability plan, informational website. Retrieved April, 2008, from www.hawaii2050.org.
  28. Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  29. United Nations. (1987). Our common future: The world commission on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban & Regional PlanningUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations