Advertisement

Overcoming Sustainability Displacement: The Challenge of Making Sustainability Accessible in the Here and Now

  • Angus Morrison SaundersEmail author
  • Michael Hughes
Chapter
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

Sustainability displacement is the idea that the achievement of sustainability is shifted to some other place and future time rather than being delivered in the here and now. The growing use of environmental offsets is a key example of this phenomenon that is explored in this chapter. Sustainability displacement through use of environmental offsets is problematic because limitations, unknowns and complications mean there is no guarantee of achieving the desired goal. Based on a literature review and illustrative case studies, we present both theoretical and practical examples highlighting the problems with operationalizing sustainability in the context of individual development activities. We introduce a sustainability framework that includes the dimensions of ‘here and now’ and ‘there and then’ to make explicit the trade-offs in time and space. We conclude with reflections on the issues with sustainability displacement and the advantage of conceptualising sustainability in a simple but integrated and holistic fashion that provides a useful foundation for university teaching and research in sustainability.

References

  1. Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Stoeglehner G (2013) Designing an effective sustainability assessment process. In: Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Howitt R (eds) Sustainability assessment pluralism, practice and progress. Routledge, London, pp 231–244Google Scholar
  2. Brown P, Lant C (1999) The effect of wetland mitigation banking in the achievement of no-net-loss. Environ Manag 23(3):333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brownlie S, King N, Treweek J (2013) Biodiversity trade-offs and offsets in impact assessment and decision making: can we stop the loss? Impact Assess Proj A 31(1):24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman K (2016) Complexity and creative capacity: rethinking knowledge transfer, adaptive management and wicked environmental problems (Routledge explorations in environmental studies). Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cuperus R (2004) Ecological compensation of the highway impacts: negotiated trade-off or no-net-loss? Strapatz, DelftGoogle Scholar
  6. DLWC – Department of Land and Water Conservation New South Wales (2001) Offsets, salinity and native vegetation: Discussion Paper. DLWC, Sydney. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/salinity/offsets.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2016
  7. Dybas CL (2011) Ripple marks. The story behind the story. Oceanography 24(4):8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. George C (1999) Testing for sustainable development through environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 19:175–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson R (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Proj A 24(3):170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson R (2011) Application of a contribution to sustainability test by the Joint Review Panel for the Canadian Mackenzie Gas Project. Impact Assessment Proj A 29(3):231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson R (2013) Avoiding sustainability trade-offs in environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj A 31(1):2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson R, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G (2005) Sustainability assessment criteria, processes and applications. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Glasson J (1999) Environmental impact assessment—impact on decisions. In: Petts J (ed) Handbook of environmental impact assessment, Environmental impact assessment: process, methods and potential, vol 1. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 121–144Google Scholar
  15. Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (1999) Introduction to environmental impact assessment: principles and procedures, process, practice and prospects. UCL Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (2012) Introduction to environmental impact assessment, 4th edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Government of Western Australia (n.d.) Pilbara Conservation Strategy, Government of Western Australia, Perth. Available: https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/pilbara-conservation-strategy
  18. Grace W, Pope J (2015) A systems approach to sustainability assessment. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Bond A (eds) Handbook of sustainability assessment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 285–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hacking T, Guthrie P (2006) Sustainable development objectives: why are they needed and where do they come from? J Environ Assess Policy Manag 8(3):341–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes N, Morrison-Saunders A (2007) The effectiveness of environmental offsets in EIA – practitioner perspectives from western Australia. Impact Assess Proj A 25(3):209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kemess North Copper-Gold Mine Project Joint Review Panel (2007) Kemess north copper-gold mine project joint review panel report September 17, 2007. http://www.carriersekani.ca/images/docs/lup/Kemess North JPR Report Complete 2007.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2016
  22. Lamorgese L, Geneletti D (2015) Equity in sustainability assessment: a conceptual framework. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Bond A (eds) Handbook of sustainability assessment, research handbooks on impact assessment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lele SM (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev 19(6):607–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maron M, Hobbs RJ, Moilanen A et al (2012) Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol Conserv 155:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Middle G (n.d.) Issues in the use of offsets. http://www.garrymiddle.net/issues-in-there-use-of-offsets/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016
  26. Middle G, Middle I (2010) A review of the use of environmental offset as a policy mechanism in the environmental impact assessment process (EIA) in western Australia. Impact Assess Proj A 28(4):313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) (2002) Breaking new ground: mining, minerals and sustainable development: the report of the MMSD project. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J (2013) Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment. EIA Rev 38:54–63Google Scholar
  29. Newsome D, Hughes M (2016) Understanding the impacts of ecotourism on biodiversity: a multi-scale, cumulative issue influenced by perceptions and politics. In: Geneletti D, Lamorgese L (eds) Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 276–282Google Scholar
  30. O’Riordan T (2000) The sustainability debate. In: O’Riordan T (ed) Environmental science for environmental management, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 29–62Google Scholar
  31. Ortolando L, Shepherd A (1995) Environmental impact assessment. In: Bronstein DA (ed) Environmental and social impact assessment. Wiley, Chichester, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  32. Pope J, Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A (2015) A conceptual framework for sustainability assessment. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Bond A (eds) Handbook of sustainability assessment, research handbooks on impact assessment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 20–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pope J, Bond A, Hugé J, Morrison-Saunders A (2017) Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. EIA Rev 62:205–215Google Scholar
  34. Rajvanshi A, Brownlie S, Slootweg R, Arora R (2011) Maximizing benefits for biodiversity: the potential of enhancement strategies in impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj A 29(3):181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rundcrantz K, Skärbäck E (2003) Environmental compensation in planning: a review of five different countries with major emphasis on the German system. Eur Environ 13(4):204–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith MD (2007) A review of recent NEPA alternatives analysis case law. EIA Rev 27(2):126–144Google Scholar
  37. Steinemann A (2001) Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. EIA Rev 21(1):3–21Google Scholar
  38. Turner R, Redmond A, Zelder J (2001) Count it by acre or function—mitigation adds up to net loss of wetlands. In: Kate K, Bishop J, Bayon R (eds) Biodiversity offsets: views, experience and the business case. Insight Investment, Cambridge, pp 5–16Google Scholar
  39. Verheem R, Draaijers G (2006) Experiences on sustainability assessment in The Netherlands, The Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rob_Verheem/publication/267399927_Experiences_on_Sustainability_Assessment_in_the_Netherlands/links/545c8c3b0cf2f1dbcbcb4d85.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2016
  40. Voisey’s Bay Mine and Mill Environmental Assessment Panel Report (2005) http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=0a571a1a-1&xml=0a571a1a-84cd-496b-969e-7cf9cbea16ae&offset=2&toc=show. Accessed 21 Nov 2016
  41. Walker S, Brower A, Theo Stephens R, Lee W (2009) Why bartering biodiversity fails. Conserv Lett 2:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weiss JA (1982) Coping with complexity: an experimental study of public policy decision-making. J Policy Anal Manag 2(1):66–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams CC, Millington AC (2004) The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable development. Geogr J 170:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ScienceEdith Cowan UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Environmental and Conservation SciencesMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Research Unit for Environmental Science and ManagementNorth West UniversityPotchefstroomSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations