Uncertainty, Sustainability and Change

This article offers an exploration of con- nections between sustainability, risk and uncertainty. Global environmental change and human sustainability are characterized as the challenge of managing change in dynamic systems rid- dled with uncertainty. A number of disciplines and intelle&ual traditions, including systems thinking, risk and ecology, are surveyed briefly as sources to inform an approach to this challenge. Approaches to managing risk and un- certaintv are discussed, a typology of resilience constructed,. and- an aooroach to sustainabilitv defined. The ~. . discussion is based on -the three imperatives of constant change, ever- present uncertainty and ignorance, and an Increasingly stressed lnter- dependency between humans and the biosphere.

The authors are with the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, GPO Box 4, Canberra City, 2601 Australia.

This article is an outcome of the Fun- damental Questions Program at the Cen- tre for Resource and Environmental Stu- dies, Australian National University. It

contim.& on page 263

Uncertainty, sustainability and change

Stephen R. Dovers and John W. Handmer

Resolve the chimera of free choice while we Steadily become what we believe, The discrete ego is our fatal fallacy Hamlet dispensing his ‘to be or not to be’ And by the lantern of the finite mind Set out to discover only what we find! Nature’s cruel version of Kant’s double-bind. Lawrence Durrell’

The 21st Century will be one of massive change at local, national and global levels. The key challenge for science and society will be coping with this change in the most effective manner possible.

Within a continually evolving and increasingly interdependent global system, nations will be confronting environmental, social, political and economic changes that will put to the test their abilities in policy formulation. A greater demand on both the social and the natural sciences, for information to support and guide policy, will emerge. The task nations face will be compounded by the fact that their own particular challenges, in more and more cases, can no longer be dealt with in isolation but must be placed in the context of global environmental change and of the global economy. The challenge of coping with change in the coming century is unprecedented in human history. The reasons for this have been discussed in documents such as the Brundt- land Report,2 and can be summarized as follows:

0 The scale of the environmental changes which face us are far greater than ever before, affecting the biosphere as a whole and, in the opinion of many, threatening the life-support systems upon which human societies rely.

0 Human society is now realizing that the great issues of the day are not separate, but are closely interrelated, and that issue-by-issue approaches are often no longer viable.

0 The paradox that, while our understanding, knowledge and tech- nical power continue to increase, we face greater uncertainties

0959-3780/92/040262-l 5 0 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

continued from page 262 draws upon the authors’ address to the XVII Pacific Science Congress. The authors thank those who made comments at that point. Suggestions by D.I. Smith, an anonymous reviewer for this journal, and Ken Mitchell are appreciated.

‘L. Durrell, ‘Grand Canal’, in Caesar’s Vast Ghosr: Aspects of Provence, Faber and Faber, London, 1990, p 134. world Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 1987. 3S. Soyden and S. Dovers, ‘Natural resource consumption and its impacts in the Western world: Impacts of increasing per caoita consumotion’. Am&. Vol20. 1992. pp63-89. . “For example, R. Norgaard, ‘The case for methodological pluralism’, Ecological Eco- nomics, Vol 1, 1989, pp 37-57. 5For examde. M. Ridlev. ‘The edae of ignorance: h survey of sdience’, ThsEco- nomist. 18 February 1991 (Supplement). %Vorld Commission on Environment and Development, op cir, Ref 2, p 43.


than we have previously: as our ability to change our environment magnifies, so has the scale of the unintended and unpredictable impacts on the biosphere.

Also, it might be said that the world can be seen now as an increasingly occupied environment with less ‘spare capacity’, meaning that any environmental disturbance will tend to result in greater human and ecological costs, especially as more marginal environments are utilized.

An obvious note of caution here is that, although the emphasis is on the global community, there are many very different human communi- ties. A number of clear divisions exist, the most obvious being between industrialized and third world countries, most notably the particularly poor countries. Further divisions - whether geographical, ecological, social, political or economic - are both possible and endless. The desired outcome is not one sustainable society, but many different sustainable societies.

In terms of sustainability, some societies are capable of exporting many of their problems to other, usually much poorer, countries. The extent to which nations often admired for their environmental management and human development have either off-loaded dirty or resource- intensive activities or pollution elsewhere, or are reliant upon offshore basic extraction, needs further investigation.3

The relationship between humans and environment must change - this is now the central challenge for humanity. In saying this it is recognized that there is not necessarily a sharp dividing line between humans and the environment. Two imperatives for the sciences emerge, on which our ability to meet this challenge hinges. The first is the need for greater integration across the sciences; for an era of interdisciplinary endeavour. This is not only a proposal in academia,4 but one repeated in the international media.5 The second is for strong interaction between science and policy, so that the true nature of the problems of environment and development can be appreciated and acted upon by decision makers and the community.

This article examines some of the background to these imperatives, seeking a framework within which to consider them, and searches for areas where relevant, and perhaps shared, approaches exist or are emerging. To head down an effective path to face the great issues of the next century, we need a framework that can answer these imperatives, that can ensure an integrated and effective response to the challenge of change. It is no accident that the concepts of sustuinabifiry and sustainable development have emerged in the late 20th century as critical components of intellectual and policy debates. imperfectly understood as yet, sustainable development (or ecologically sustainable develop ment as it is officially known in Australia) is the prime candidate for such a framework - one which can integrate issues of humans and environment, and which can accommodate the interplay of the many disciplines necessary for this integration.

The framework of sustainability

The idea of sustainability, as currently used, is based on the moral principle of intergenerational equity. The standard terminology and definition in circulation at present is that of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)? Sustainable development is

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE December 1992


Table 1. Checklist: the constituent issues of sustainability.

(1) Resource depletion and degradation Loss of biological/genetic diversity

in wild species and ecosystems in domesticated species

Land resources (esp soils) Water resources Fisheries Forests and timber Energy resources Mineral resources

(2) Pollution and wastes Atmospheric and climate change Air pollution Marine pollution Pollution of inland waterways Land and soil pollution

(3) Society and the human condition Population growth Food security and hunger Shelter Rapid urbanization Health and disease Lack of skills, education and empowerment Debt, trade and poverty War, security and the military industry Environmental refugees

‘For general coverage of the notion of sustainability, see W. Clark and R. Munn, eds, Sustainable Developmenl of the Bios- phere, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridae. 1986: M. Redclift. Suslainable De- velo&?enr: Exploring the Contradicfions, Methuen, London, 1987: World Commis- sion on Environment and Development, op tit, Ftef 2; R. Turner, ed, Sustainable En- vironmental Management: Principles and Practice, Bellhaven. London, 1988; D. Pearce, A. Markandya and E. Barbier, Blueprint for a Green Economy, Earth- scan, London, 1989; S. Dovers, ‘Sustaina- bility in context: An Australian perspective’, Environmental Managemenf, Voi 14, 1990, pp 297-305. ‘L. Caldwell, ‘Political aspects of ecologically sustainable development’, Environ- mental Conservation, Voi 11, 1984. pp 133-143; J. Martinez-Aiier, Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment and Society, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1987; P. Christensen, ‘Historical roots for ecological economics - biophysicai versus allocative approaches’, Ecological Economics, Vol 1, 1989, pp 17-36. ‘E. Lazsio, The Systems View of the World: the Natural Philosophy of the New Development in the Sciences, Brazilier. New York, 1972, pp 14-15.

development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The WCED, like many others, clearly places intragenerational equity alongside concern for the future as inseparable tenents of sustainability. Inherent rights of non-human species (interspecific equity) are also promoted by many groups and individuals.’

While sustainable development has found a place high on the global agenda only in the past few years, the historical roots of the concept of sustainability and related concerns are diverse and deep.s This indicates precisely the value of the concept as the basis of a framework within which to develop responses to the change and uncertainty of the next century - what we now call sustainable development has evolved as an integrative, ‘umbrella’ concept under which a complex array of interrelated issues can be gathered. Table 1 gives one iteration of the constituent issues of sustainability.

The first two categories in Table 1, between which there is some overlap, are those issues traditionally associated with resources and environment. Notions of sustainability have brought these issues into consideration together with the human and societal issues in the third category - an unprecedented integrative leap.

The scale and range of these issues is daunting, and, to some, may be reason enough to despair of the usefulness of the concept. However, over recent decades, these issues have become more and more serious, and it has become increasingly apparent that none can be dealt with in isolation - that they are interdependent parts of a greater whole, and that whole is the overarching and problematic question of the relationship between humans and nature; and between humans and humans. An approach to the issues which is not fundamentally integrative will fail.

The problem with sustainable development has been often enough stated. As currently defined, it is so broad and generically applicable that its inherent vagueness renders it inoperative, and open to conflict- ing interpretations. Indeed, the notion has become a vector for ideolo- gy. The quest for an ‘operative’ definition is producing a voluminous literature, much of which consists of rewording and restating the essential moral principle. However, the emergence of a convenient definition which was found agreeable by all players would be an indication that the definition was inadequate, as the concept is too fundamental to be captured so easily. Initially, we should seek to identify key principles which support and expand a loose, value-based definition such as that above, and that could strengthen a definitional approach. Many such principles are easily apparent, and the literature is scattered with partial iterations. However, a useful approach is to consider intellectual traditions which appear to have something to offer us in facing the imperatives of the future: uncertainty, sustainability, and change.

Convergence and systems

There are many intellectual traditions and disciplines where one could start this search, but for some basic propositions, systems science and general systems theory are logical places to begin. Simplistically, such thinking emerged following the realization that there were pressing challenges which could not be met purely by continuing increasing efforts in specialization and reductionism. Laszlo puts it thus:9



A systems science can look at a cell or an atom as a system, or it can look at the organ, the organism, the family, the community, the nation, the economy, the ecology as systems, and it can view even the biosphere as such. A system in one perspective is a subsystem in another. But the systems view always treats systems as integrated wholes of their subsidiary components and never as the mechanistic aggregate of parts in isolable causal relations.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a founder of general systems theory, points out

that systems theory is:”

. . . a broad view which far transcends technological problems and demands, a reorientation that has become necessary in science in general and in the gamut of disciplines from physics and biology to the behavioural and social sciences and to philosophy.

But he notes that, although intended to operate against over- specialization, systems science can lapse into yet another of many academic specialties. This is an important point, as many have taken a systems view as inviting more and more detailed numerical analysis of particular biophysical subsystems. Valuable as this may be, our concern here is for the general propositions of a systems view. These can be stated, simplistically, as follows:

0 The phenomena which we seek to understand comprise complex sets of elements existing in interrelationship and interdependency; that is, they are overwhelmingly systems phenomena. In view of this, analytical approaches and methodologies are demanded which are appropriate to such complex problems. Such approaches will necessarily be of a more integrative nature.

The value of these propositions is taken as axiomatic here. In the context of applying systems theory to problems of sustainability and change, another proposition can be:

0 Given the reality of the impacts of humans on the biosphere and their dependency upon the systems of the biosphere, in facing issues of sustainability and change, approaches which deal solely, or even in the main, with physical or biological systems will be inadequate. Human and natural systems are profoundly linked, and in the context of sustainability no such thing exists as a purely human or purely environmental system or problem.

This last proposition is consistent with systems theory. The issue of the supply of resources from a biophysical system cannot effectively be analysed without considering the human demands which drive the supply, and the political, economic and institutional systems wherein that demand arises.

It is important to recognize that what is termed ‘systems thinking’ does not arise solely in, nor should be applied to only the biological or physical sciences or biophysical problems (‘hard’ systems approaches). Systems theory has been applied to problems in the social and management sciences in an often less quantified way, dubbed ‘soft’ systems approaches. In a comprehensive coverage of the background to these applications, Checkland notes that the methodologies for applying

‘OL. von Bertalanffy, General Systems systems thinking to social systems are shaped by attributes which Theory: Foundations, Development, Ap- distinguish these from the ‘hard’ physical or biological systems.” These plicetions, Braziller, New York, 1968, p vii. “P. Checkland, Systems Practice, Sys-

attributes include complexity (the fact that the ‘parts’ of the system,

terns Thinking, John Wiley and Sons, New people, are active participants and thus that the systems can change as a York, 1981. result of experiment and prediction); frequent non-repeatability that

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE December 1992 265


‘%on Bertalanffy, op cif, Ref 10. 13See, for example, H. Barrows, ‘Geogra- phy as human ecology’, Anna/s of the Association of American Geographers, Vol 13, 1924, pp 1-14; F. Sarjent, ed, Human fcobgy, North Holland Publishing, The Hague, 1974; A. Rambo, Conceptual Apjroaches to Human Ecology, Research Reoort 14. East-West Environmental Poli- cy ‘Institute, East-West Centre, Honolulu, HI, 1983; S. Boyden, Western Civilization in Biological Perspective: Patterns in Biohistory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987. %. Helling, ‘Resilience and stability of ecofogical systems’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol 4. 1973, pp 1-21. ‘SG. Conway, ‘The properties of agroecosystems’, Agricultural Systems, Vol24, 1987, pp 98-l 17.

plagues analysis; and the related difficulty of generating laws which have any longevity in explaining system behaviour.

While these axiomatic propositions arise from systems theory, that intellectual tradition is not their sole source, nor their primary source. Indeed, the development of general systems theory was spurred partial- ly by the occurrence of similar concerns across many seemingly unre- lated disciplines.12 It is useful to note a few of the many disciplines and traditions where not dissimilar propositions can be found. The following brief survey is a preliminary attempt, commenting on ecology and risk theory, and merely noting several others.

Ecology

The first obvious candidate is ecology, not surprisingly for a discipline whose basic charter is to explore the interactions between organisms, and between them and their environments. At any level, ecological inquiry will implicitly take cognizance of interrelatedness, and in some ecological work this is paramount. Recent forays into what has been termed ‘political’ or ‘social’ ecology are relevant in their insistence on the inseparability of ecological and societal systems (although often not in their delivery of an accompanying theoretical or analytical basis). Of greater relevance is the field of human ecology, which stresses the same messages, but has a stronger and longer-standing intellectual history. l3

The most appropriate source within mainstream ecology is within the area of ecological systems, particularly that dealing with the concept of resilience in populations and ecosystems. In a seminal work in this area, Holling defined resilience, as opposed to stability, as the ability to absorb changes to key variables and parameters and persist. The relevance to problems of sustainability and change is evidenced in the following extract:t4

A management approach based on resilience . . . would emphasise the need to keep options open, the need to view events in a regional rather than a local context, and the need to emphasise heterogeneity. Flowing from this would be not the presumption of sufficient knowledge, but the recognition of our ignorance; not the assumption that future events are expected, but that they will be unexpected. The resilience framework can accommodate this shift of perspective, for it does not require a precise capacity to predict the future, but only a qualitative capacity to devise systems that can absorb and accommodate future events in whatever unexpected form they might take.

This approach is taken further by Conway,” who defines four properties of agroecosystems; properties which can generally be applied to any system with which we might be concerned. The four properties are productivity (system output); stability (constancy of production of output); sustainability (system ability to maintain output following disturbance); and equitability (evenness of distribution of output). Conway’s ‘sustainability’ can be taken as synonymous with the term ‘resilience’ as it is used by others. These properties, in whatever chance or designed configuration, define the behaviour of the system, and are useful categories with which to discuss the management or influence of human-ecological systems. They can allow a more rigorous focus on the nature of our expectations of what the required outputs of a managed system might be. It must be stressed that these are properties and not goals: for example, a demand for a high degree of constancy of system output over time may in some situations be an ill advised goal from a

266 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE December 1992

“T. O’Riordan and S. Rayner, ‘Risk management for global environmental change’, Global Environmental Change, Vol 1, 1991, pp 91-108. “C. P&row, Normal Accidents, Basic Books. New York. 1984: C. Hood and M. Jackson, ‘The new public management: a recipe for disaster’, in D. Parker and J. Handmer, eds, Hazard Management and Emergency P/an&g, James and James, London, 1992, pp l&125. “K. Hewett. ed. lnteroretations of Calam- ify, Allen and ‘Unwin, Winchester, MA, 1983. IsA point rarely explicitly recognized, but noted by M. Common, ‘Discussion’, in M. Common and S. Dover% eds, Moving To- wards Global Sustainability: Policies and Implications for Australia, Centre for Con- tinuing Education, Australian National Uni- versity, Canberra, 1991, p 223.

Uncertainty sustainability and change

sustainability standpoint. This would be the case, for example, with a wild fish stock the size of which is dependent on an exogenous factor, such as rainfall, and which thus fluctuates over time.

It is logical that this approach has roots in agroecosystem theory, as these are prime examples of managed ecosystems, or mixed human- ecological systems, and thus share basic characteristics of form and function, although perhaps not of scale, appearance or human purpose, with many other systems which fall into the realm of sustainability concerns.

Such thoughts focus attention on changing systems, which of course is what natural, human and mixed systems tend to do, and which is the basis of many problematic contemporary human and ecological issues. Following this, one focus must be on a critical aspect of coping with or managing a changing system - the uncertainty of the direction or scale of change, and by definition our ignorance of this.

Risk

In this light, another source to inform an approach to sustainability is risk theory. This connection has also been made by O’Riordan and Rayner . l6 Arising from work in the area of natural hazards and disasters, and human-induced risks, this field is concerned essentially with the nature of (often catastrophic) change, the avoidance of such, and human responses to it when it does occur. There is obvious relevance here for the question of sustainability.

‘Risk’ is a general term applied to a vast range of intellectual activity. This ranges from mathematical assessments in engineering and economics, through work examining individual and organizational attitudes and behaviour by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and geographers, to the work of linguists, philosophers, those studying popular culture, and the political economy of hazards. Some research focuses on clearly defined events, other work on living with hazards, and much on hazard creation. Despite this divergent activity, thinking is evolving in certain directions. One of these directions is an emphasis on the need for changes in the structure and culture of organizations, government and society, if we are to deal better with the hazards of the natural environment and of our technology.” In saying this, it is recognized that the principal ‘natural’ hazards are largely human creations.18 Human activity can escalate the magnitude of ‘natural’ events; or, in the case of global environmental change, create them. The impact of these events and changes can be seen largely as a function of the vulnerability of the affected society. Vulnerability is itself a reflection of the global social structure. It will be expressed in the amount and type of damage, and, perhaps more importantly, in the ability to recover from the damage.

Such insights can be counter-balanced by aspects of our intellectual and policy traditions which appear to promote extreme individuality, but which also remove responsibiity from individuals for their actions. The idea of the sovereignty of individual choice is so basic to the culture of the industrialized West that it is a critical factor. It is a fundamental assumption of neoclassical economics and of much policy formulation, and it arose not coincidentally around the same time in Western history as the ideal of democratic institutions based on universal suffrage.” Blind acceptance of the idea, or simply a failure to recognize its basic role in our cultural systems, can lead to the fallacious belief that our



“ti.A. Simon, Models of Man: Social and Rational, John Wiley, New York, 1957. *‘R.W. Kates, Hazard and Choice Percep- tion in Fkwd Plain Management, Depart- ment of Geography Research Paper 78, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1962. =E.S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufac- turing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon. New York. 1988. 23M. Douglas, How institutions Think, Syracuse Universitv Press, Svracuse, NY, 1686. 24Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups, Final Repotis, 9 volumes, Australian Government Pub- lishing Service, Canberra, 1991. *% Fri, ‘Questions that seem important’, Resources, No 107,1992, pp 15-17.

economic, political and social systems are the sum of individual prefer- ences. The reality is not so simple. For one thing, individuals behave completely differently according to the case. Thus an individual may relentlessly pursue individual profit and freedom on the one hand, but on the other hand may vote for an iron-fisted government to deal with, for example, law and order, national defence or environmental hazards in a collective manner. Many environmental and human development problems reveal tensions between individual ‘rights’ and the collective interest.

Individual sovereignty may be severely circumsc~bed by a wide range of factors. The exercise of truly free choice requires, in the absence of all other constraints, complete information, and this is a prerequisite for the much-disputed notion of the rational economic individual. As none of us is, or ever can be’, omniscient, this condition cannot be satisfied - a point refined by Simon in his concept of ‘bounded rationality’.*’ Simon’s work was one of the starting points of behavioural studies in hazards research.*l

There are many other pervasive influences over individual sovereignty, including culturally enforced modes of behaviour. These may be hard to discern as they may include much that is judged not relevant, taboo or dangerous by media, political or scientific institutions. Herman and Chomsky argue forcefully with respect to the American media,** and the arguments may apply elsewhere as well. Mary Douglas reviews much of the debate and suggests that institutions largely guide how we think about society. 23 They determine, or attempt to determine, what we learn about, what the mass media deal with, what is socially acceptable, what is lawful, what is safe or too risky, what is science, and so on. The Australian government’s recent Ecologically Sustainable Development prodess evidenced this, where the structure of the process and the sectors dealt with closely mirrored existing institutional demarcations.24

These influences, and many others such as available finance, restrict individual freedom and choice in practice. However, in some societies strong counter-currents exist. The Bill of Rights of the United States of America, and the land tenure and common law systems of many countries, emphasize individual rights and freedoms rather than social responsibility. The assumption that individual choices can be fully informed and that their sum will equal social good can run deep. The much-vaunted collapse of centrally planned economies has given many a reason to re-affirm this belief. In the context of the environment, and confusing the individual human being with the individual nation, Fri comments that:25

. . . the very nature of a global, open, market-driven economy confers primacy on individual choice . . . ~ndividuai choice means that a nation can determine for itself the value of its endowment of natural and environmental resources. . . if all these choices are fully informed and freely made, it is hard to quibble with the outcome. In particular, that the result may be a degree of environmental degradation that some would deplore seems to me hardly reason enough to prefer an alternate form of social organization.

It has not been shown that the primacy of individual choice equals social good, or greater sustainability. A need for fundamental change can be argued concerning the sovereignty of the individual. We might consider how a system which asserts individual success through maximizing consumption of resources, and which stresses competition for those


=Hewitt, op cif, Ref 18, p 9. *‘T. O’Riordan, ‘Hazard and risk in the modem world: Political models for programme design’, in J. Handmer and E. Penning-Rowsell, eds, Hazards and the Comnx~bc&on of Risk, Gower, Aldershot, 1990, pp 293-302. =C. Flavin. ‘Slowing global warming’, in L. Brown, ed, Stale of the World 7990, W.W. Norton, New York, 1990, pp 1638. =L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, ‘The political amplification of risk’, in J. Handmer and E. Penning-Rowsell, eds, Hazards and the Communicafkm of Risk, Gower, Aldershot, 1990, pp 7Q-94.

uncertainly, susrainablllty and change

resources, can satisfy goals of global equity and resource conservation. Regardless of the intellectual arguments it has clearly failed to do this.

Hewitt takes this argument further, asserting that much hazards research, being of a technocratic nature, serves primarily to confirm the power of major institutions, that technology and science together are:26

. . . a creature of the most powerful, wealthy and centralised institutions. Such, of course, is the style adopted most widely by dominant organisations of government, business and culture today . . . There is little hope of doing much about that.

Such institutions are most likely to be interested in perpetuating the status quo and thus their own existence within it. More serious from our perspective is that the risk profession itself may function to reassure the public and decision makers that society as it is currently structured has the capacity to deal with threats. Risk is dealt with by technocratic institutions as a discrete entity, quite separate from the social and political factors which underly it. Risk has been colonized and institu- tionalized. This is reflected in the very substantial differences between ‘official’ assessments of risk, usually couched in terms of probabilities, and assessments made by those actually bearing the risk. Just as many in the more ‘numerical’ sciences insist that risk is an objective function, and that it is the perception of risk and the ‘irrational’ thinking and behaviour of the ‘public’ that is the problem, so have many social scientists ignored the interplay between humans and natural and technological systems. Thus some of these scholars see risk as merely a reflection of the distribution of power in society.27 Power defines the strength of the choices that can be fulfilled, either by an individual or a nation.

Much recent literature on risk communication, in particular from the USA, is explicitly directed at reassuring a reluctant public that a particular technology or activity is safe: that the specialists have the situation well in hand. Thus organizations under attack, such as the chemical or nuclear industries, may look to the risk profession to legitimize their activities. The nuclear industry has been a major player here - more recently it has found greenhouse predictions useful for expounding the virtues of nuclear as opposed to fossil fuels.28

But we should not blame only our institutions for such selective use of science. The supremacy of technology is a cornerstone of the industrialized world. Wilkins and Patterson observe that although the US mass media analyse disasters as ‘events’ and search for the guilty parties, rarely if ever is the need for the technology, or the trade-offs involved in its use, questioned. 29 For most of us, it is very comfortable to hand our responsibility for risk management to some other group. Perhaps we have little choice given the present structure of society. These aspects of dealing with more narrowly defined risk can be equally applied to a broader risk set which encompasses global environmental change.

Unfortunately, adjustment to some sustainable state is likely to be difficult if the hazards are defined discretely and are thus treated in isolation by the professionals while the rest of society laments its lack of power, and assumes no responsibility.

Resilience: managing risk and uncertainty

A strong thrust of modern science-based hazard management has been to reduce or eliminate uncertainty, and to maximize control over the



Table 2. A typology of societal resilience.

30M. Smithson, ‘Managing in an age of ignorance’, in J. Handmer, M. Smithson, B. Geurin and B. Dutton, eds, New Perspec- tives on Risk, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian Nation- al University, Canberra, pp 39-65. 31 Ibid. 32J.W. Bennett and K.A. Dahlberg, ‘Institu- tions, social organizations, and cultural values’, in B.L. Turner, ed, The E&h as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere Over the-Past 300 Years, Cambridge University Press. Cambrfdae. 1990, DD 69-66. 33J dees, NatGai Res&~~es: Allocation, Ec&omics and Policy, Methuen, London, 1985, p 397.

Resilience Type 1: resistance and maintenance This is characterized by resistance to change. A management system of this type will do its utmost to avoid change and uncertainty, and enormous resources will be expended in maintaining the status quo. Threats will be identified and anticipatory mechanisms put in place. Where proper reaction would threaten the status quo, appeals to ignorance are common: these are often expressed through calls for more information, and an insistence upon inaction because of uncertainty. A society totally reliant on Type 1 responses may be poorly equipped to deal with unexpected shocks or thresholds of change.

Resilience Type 2: change at the margins This is characterized by incremental change - change which does not challenge the basis of our societies, but which may lead to changes in emphasis at the margins. Where substantial change occurs, it usually serves the interests of the powerful elite, not necessarily those of the general population or the immediate environment, and rarely of the biosphere.

Resilience Type 3: openness and adaptability This approach reduces vulnerability through a high degree of flexibility. Its key characteristic is an ability to change basic operating assumptions, and thus institutional structures, and adopt new ones. Of course, through history this has happened, but usually only in a slow and painful way. An adaptable society would be open to the possibility of moving in a new direction quickly and relatively painlessly.

natural environment.30 An important part of this process has been to ignore uncertainty, to treat it as irrelevant. Some risks are anticipated, and planned for; again to reduce uncertainty. Yet uncertainty will always exist, whatever data gathering and analysis exercises can be accomplished.

Recognition that additional knowledge will not by itself provide all, or even the main, answers, means that in effect we have to learn how to manage in ignorance. 31 Rather than put all our energy and faith into attempting to reduce uncertainty, or ignoring it, we have to develop strategies to reduce the impacts of uncertainty and change. Like natural systems, human systems need to be flexible enough to cope with uncertainty and unanticipated shocks. They must be capable of respond- ing positively to problems widely perceived as constituting a threat to human existence, such as ozone depletion, toxic wastes, the enhanced greenhouse effect, AIDS, land degradation, loss of biodiversity, and so on.

Some lessons are emerging. Basically these emphasize the need to maintain an ability for rapid change, and ideally this would cater for the prospect of substantial or even revolutionary change rather than only the incrementalism and marginal change which has served Western societies so well this century.32 As Judith Rees has pointed out:33

The economic growth machine may not be efficient or equitable, may not allow full employment, or be sensitive to the environment, but it has shown a remarkable capacity to maintain the flow of inputs necessary to ensure its continuation.

This is one type or level of resilience. But there are others which may be more important in terms of human ‘survival. Here, we identify a continuum of three types of resilience: Type 1, characterized by resistance to change, and maintenance of the status quo; Type 2, characterized by incremental adjustment or change at the margins; and Type 3, characterized by flexibility and openness in response to change (see Table 2).

The current debate over correct policy responses to the spectre of an enhanced greenhouse effect illustrates this range of possible approaches well. Those who claim that nothing should be done until further evidence is acquired are using Type 1 arguments, and are in radical disagreement with those who state that the potential risks are great


Vncenainty, sustainability and change

enough to demand profound changes in our societies and their patterns of production and consumption (Type 3), who are, essentially, advocat- ing radical change because of uncertainty. In between, are various shades of incrementalism, clustered generally around the Toronto carbon dioxide reduction targets (Type 2).

Policy responses, or cultural adaptations, have been broadly defined by Boyden as either antidotul or corrective.34 Antidotal measures deal only with the symptoms (eg taking aspirin to relieve a stress-induced headache, fitting catalytic converters on cars, or building bunds to combat sea level rise). Corrective measures seek to address the root cause of a problem (eg removing oneself from the conditions of stress, reducing automobile dependence, or reducing greenhouse gas emissions to halt climate change and thus sea level rise). Corrective responses would be more likely to emerge from a Type 3 approach. Antidotal measures, as responses less likely to disturb fundamental system parameters, are more consistent with Types 1 and 2.

Adaptability may of course be both positive and negative, both in terms of the environment and human welfare: a major societal change could turn out to be maladaptive. A paradox is that a society reliant on Type 1 or Type 2 responses may find it difficult to adapt to totally different circumstances. This is because its strength lies in the maintenance of its basic assumptions and institutional structures. Within these structures, Type 1 and 2 responses seek to optimize available resources to maximize return in terms of desired production and consumption. Intentional spare capacity in the system, as a contingency in the face of change, is not favoured. This characteristic, and the fact that the constraint set operated within is being redefined following the raising of the sustainability goal, question the appropriateness of optimization (a basic assumption in our society) when pursuing sustainability-resilience.

Societal institutions often exhibit the characteristics of Type 1, while parts of the general population may not. Splits like this may be particularly common in some industrializing countries, where much of the rural sector has changed little while the major urban areas have industrialized quite rapidly. No one society would ever exhibit only one type of approach, although at an institutional level a clear preference may be discernible. The three approaches should be seen as a continuum of three levels, each with validity in different circumstances, and in which the next level subsumes the previous one. Use of Types I and 2 responses, where appropriate, is assumed in an acceptance of Type 3.

Initial resistance is often a sensible reaction, as is marginal change. This depends upon the circumstances. What is not sensible, given the reality of interdependent, dynamic systems in a setting of ever-present uncertainty and constant change, is an approach that does not accept that the possibility of adaptation through more profound change may have to be entertained.

It is interesting to compare this typology to the three ‘ideal-typical positions’ of O’Riordan and Rayner, which concentrate on describing extremes of perception of the nature of environmental change rather than response types..‘” Their ‘sustainable development’ is clearly Type 2, and their ‘prevention’ would be comparable to Type 3 responses. Interesting from a terminological point of view is that their ‘adaptation’ (of the biosphere to humans, rather than the converse) equates here

%oyden, op cit. Ref 13. with Type 1, or resistance. 350’Riordan and Rayner, op tit, Ref 16. Some traditional societies were open, and adaptable to change. But



Ecological economics (as represented by the international society and journal of that name). As opposed to resource or environmental economics, which apply existing approaches to ‘new’ problems, ecological economics seeks a revised economic formulation whidh is consistent with ecological realities. To do so, its few practitioners are addressing the basic assumptions and tenents of economic thought. This emerging field is concerned explicitly with the theoretical basis of sustainability (more so perhaps than any other), and within it there is considerable attention given to the problems of complex, uncontrollable ecological-economic systems.39 Ecological economics is fundamentally revolutionary, but nonetheless rooted in the tradition and approaches of economic and ecological thought.

=K.A. Wittfwel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative %tudy of Total Power. Yale Universitv Press. New Haven. CT. 1967. 37Smithson, op dit, Ref 30. world Commission on Environment and Development, op tit, Ref 2, p 15. -See, for example, C. Perrings, Economy and Environment: A Theoretical Essay on the Interdependence of Economic and En- vironmental Systems, Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 1987; M. Com- mon and C. Perrings, ‘Towards an ecological economics oi sustainability’, Ecolo- aical Economics. Vol6. 1992, DD 7-34. %ee P. Ekins, ed, The Living .!%onomy: A New Economics in the Making, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1986; J. Robert- son, Future Wealth: A New Economics for the 27st Century, Cassell, London, 1990.

history is littered with examples of societies that failed to adapt to environmental change and perished - most notably the great ‘hydraulic civilizations’.36 These are relevant as their massive investment in fixed infrastructure and strong social control are also characteristic of modern, industrial societies.

If we are to cope with and adapt to unpredictable change, then we need to alter our fundamental approach to ignorance. At present our decision-making systems tend to ignore uncertainty, and even punish the recognition of it. 37 Instead, management and policy, and the science which attempts to inform it, must explicitly acknowledge the impossibil- ity of avoiding ignorance, and proceed with due humility in the face of too complex systems and system behaviour. The paradox is that this humility must be reconciled with the arrogance needed to make decisions in spite of incomplete knowledge, driven by the urgency of global environmental degradation.

Changes of this sort represent sharp departures from present arrangements. Ecological imperatives strongly suggest that such a departure is demanded. A central question is whether such changes are possible in the face of the constraints represented by the values and institutional arrangements which support the status quo. This is very much open to debate. As the WCED pointed out in the case of that most basic resource, energy, we are dealing here with ‘new dimensions of political will and institutional cooperation’.38

Other sources

In the preceding section, systems thinking, ecology and risk theory were examined briefly for their potential to assist in developing an approach to sustainability. Some other areas where familiar propositions are to be found may be noted briefly.

‘New Economics’. Perhaps more correctly termed the New, Green Political Economy, the so-called ‘New Economics’ repeats the messages of integration, the interdependence of human and natural systems, and the dual concern of inter- and intragenerational equity.40 This area is not dissimilar to the social and political ecology mentioned earlier, and reflects aspects of development studies, social theory, human ecology, and other influences.

Development studies. Much work in this area stresses that humans and environment are linked, that economic activity is dependent upon


41See, for example, Dag Hammerskjold Foundation, What Now: Another Develop- ment, The Foundation, Uppsala, 1975; S. George, How the Other Half Dies: The Real Reasons for World Hunger, Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1976; Brandt Commission, North-South: A Programme for Survival, Pan, London, 1969. 4%Vorld Commission on Environment and Development, op tit, Ref 2. ?3ee, for example, J. Ashton, The New Public Health, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1966; University of Edinburgh, Research Unit in Health and Behavioural Change, Changing the Public Health, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1969. “An excellent coverage of this area is provided by various contributors in JR and J.G. Engel, eds, Ethics of Environment and Development: Global Challenge; Inter- national Rtkponse, University of- Arizona Press. Tuscan. AZ. 1990. 45Penow, op tit, Ref 17. 46N. Pidgeon, B. Turner and D. Blockley. ‘Hazard management and safety culture’, in D. Parker and J. Handmer, eds, Hazard Management and Emergency Planning. James and James, London, 1992, pp 243- 264.


ecological factors and vice versa, that human well-being is not measur- able only by the yardstick of income, and that the entire development challenge is political, institutional and organizational in nature.41 It is an outstanding feature of the current global discussion on sustainable development that the intragenerational equity concerns of much work in development is so strongly featured, and can be in great part attributed to the WCED taking on this tradition of concerns.‘*

Environmental health. The ‘new public health’ clearly places the health of humans as closely connected to their environment. and promotes a more holistic approach to health and medicine which is cognizant of lifestyle factors and the impact of diet, air and water quality, etc, on well-being.43

Environmental ethics. The message is emerging from environmental ethics that the science, economics and policy of sustainable development cannot be divorced from the ethical and moral concerns of intergenerational, intragenerational, and inter-specific equity, and the human and cultural bases of these concerns.44

Organizational theory. Within the broad area of risk, organizational theorists have provided several directions. The work summarized by Perrow is the most widely known.45 It deals with the interactions between and within systems which, by design or default, have to deal with risk. A key issue concerns the degree of dependence and ‘coupling’ between elements of such systems. Among other things, Perrow shows that in many modern high-technology systems, the potential for serious accidents is ‘designed in’. Pidgeon and colleagues pick up some of this thinking in their work on ‘safety culture’.4” They argue that many organizations should be imbued with a culture of safety just as much, say, as a culture of profit-making. This takes us straight into the issues of corporate and government ethics and responsibilities - issues that are likely to be stressed during the 1990s and beyond, and which are basic to a discussion of sustainability.

A degree of convergence of thinking is discernible across all these disparate areas of intellectual endeavour. Some within these disciplines would doubtless express surprise at such a claim of convergence, but there appears to be some basis for the claim, even if only hinted at in this brief exposition. Perhaps such convergence should be expected, given that various fields of study are increasingly confronted with the same pressing issues - issues which are undeniably systemic in nature. It is not surprising that researchers recognizing a set of problems from the viewpoint of different disciplinary perspectives should voice similar concerns. An imperative for greater integrative efforts in informing policy would appear to exist.

This convergence is, as yet, more to do with a common recognition of the nature of the problems, rather than reaching agreement as to approaches or solutions. The issue here is that the complex problems faced expose gaps in traditional disciplinary approaches. Integrative endeavours within a broader framework are evidently required. Some of this apparent convergence may be expressed in a few general principles that can inform an approach to sustainability, the best candidate for such a framework.


Uncertainty, swrainability and change

Discussion: approaching sustainability

We believe that the challenge of establishing a sustainable pattern of development can be characterized as a problem of managing change in complex, poorly understood systems. From this, a series of genera1 principles to inform our approach to this challenge can be formulated.

The first principle is the need for a sysrems approach: accepting and designing approaches which suit the axiomatic proposition that the sustainability problem is a whole-system problem. Sectoral or single- issue approaches are clearly inadequate. To avoid equating a systems approach with endless subsystem modelling, some degree of definition of relevant systems is therefore demanded. This would be cognizant of:

0 Attention must be paid to the total system, both human and natural subsystems, and to the interrelationships between them. Thus we are not concerned with simply resource sectors and particular ecosystems, but also with political, economic and policy- formulation systems. Here, human systems include the people themselves, and also their various societal arrangements (for example, cultural associations, legal frameworks, energy production and supply systems, or capital markets).

0 In the final analysis, the desired or required outcome of our concern about sustainability is the maintenance of the health needs of both humans and of the biosphere. Also, when we speak of human health needs, these are not material only, but include intangible or non-physical needs.47 The persistence of the species and achievement of human health and well-being are prime ends of human endeavours, not those means which we use at present, such as material consumption or economic growth, which are so powerful a part of our culture that they can be confused as ends.

0 When dealing with a particular subsystem which concerns us, there are always linkages with other subsystems. These linkages are both spatial and temporal, as we face countless interlocked systems behaving in an interdependent and dynamic fashion over time. For example, in dealing with global sustainability, we may look in particular at small and/or open economies, and assess their current sustainability in an international economic setting characterized by increasing interdependence. Is it sustainable to be reliant on uncontrollable exogenous factors or inputs (such as resource imports, or aid) for system continuance? And what effect does increased economic interdependence have on the ability of such smaller players to move independently towards greater sustainability, given that such a move could be seen as threatening to more powerful parts of the system? Similarly, if we consider a biophysical system which supplies resources into a human system, our analysis will not be usefully complete without factoring in the human demands which drive that system, and the way in which they evolve over time, or the institutional system through which emerges our resource management policies. By definition, this discussion would indicate the relevance of both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’

47A fuller discussion and classification of systems methodologies. tangible and intangible human health needs is given by S. Boyden, S. Dovers A systems approach thus demands recognition of interrelatedness and and M. Shirlow, Our Biosphere Under Threaf: Ecological Realities zd Austra-

complexity, and an exploration and confrontation of what that might

lia’s Opportunities, Oxford University entail for endeavours in both science and policy. Press, Melbourne, 1991, pp 4246. One implication is that a society which is information-rich and


-0~ cit. Ref 24. 4eFrom S. Dovers, ‘Diverse and resilient approaches to sustainable development’, in R. Harding, ed, Proceedings. EcopoMs V Conference, Sydney, 4-7 April 1991, University of New South Wales, Sydney, pp 225-232. And following C. Holling. ‘The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change’, in W. Clark and R. Munn, eds, Sustainable Lkvelop- ment of the Biosphere, Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 1986, pp 292- 317; Conway, op tit, Ref 15.


information-sensitive is necessary in order to cope with the task of managing complex, interrelated systems, not only in the traditional physical science sense of gathering and analysing data, but also in the political and policy senses of the open flow and active use of information. This implies a change of profound magnitude from the current situation, where too little distinction is drawn between information, usable information, and using information. A further and critical point here is that information confers power, so the control of and access to information becomes an important factor in maintaining power structures, and determines who can comprehend the situation and respond to change. The media, the state, organized religion, firms, unions, and technological and scientific elites play important roles in this.

However, contrary to our continuing build-up of information, also increasing are the uncertainty and our resulting ignorance in the face of increasing risk. This demands a certain humility in the first instance, and then a concentration on embedding recognition of uncertainty and ignorance in both scientific and decision-making cultures. This will be a difficult task for both the most reactive and the most radical in our society. In Australia, this has been embodied in the (as yet poorly defined) ‘precautionary principle’, a basic tenent of the federal government’s Ecologically Sustainable Development process.48 Interpretations of this principle in Australia have ranged from a justification for delaying decisions, through bemusement, to a justification for swift and radical response (the last might be called ‘ecological conservatism’).

Given a whole-system approach, and the absence of any hope for complete information (or for its use in much decision making even if it existed), system-wide factors and indicators should be a priority, both in terms of understanding system behaviour and identifying policy options with effective generic potential. An example here might be that, following a recognition of energy and money as basic system ‘curren- cies’, and the former as a prime indicator of societal load on the environment, energy taxation seems a logical area for exploration when assessing policy instrument choice for sustainable development.

The above principles are simplified, and. much more detail could (and should) be developed. But for now they can serve as a basis for thinking about a more operational and robust approach to sustainability. Such an approach would, if adequate, be potentially useful in the face of the inherent vagueness which pervades the sustainability debate.

Adhering to the principles outlined above, we can attempt to construct, not a definition of, but rather a ‘definitional approach’ to sustainability and sustainable development, and thus to the challenges of global change:4’

Sustainability is the ability of a human, natural or mixed system to withstand or adapt to endogenous or exogenous change indefinitely. Sustainable development is therefore a pathway of deliberate change and improvement which maintains or enhances this attribute of the system, while answering the needs of the present population.

This is essentially a restatement of the moral principle of intergenerational equity, but a restatement which is explicit in its cognizance of the systemic nature of the issues of sustainability. An important aspect here is the explicit separation of sustainability as a difficult and distant goal, and sustainable development as a variable process of moving towards that goal. They are not the same thing.



From a human point of view, system survival in this physically determinist sense must be matched with the imperative of meeting the needs of the components of the system (people) in the present (intragenerational equity). A clear focus in this regard is the real nature of human needs, and both the ecological costs and distributional implications of their fulfilment. Human needs go beyond physical survival:

there are both tangible and intangible needs, which in combination contribute to the totality of human health and well-being.

As an approach to coping with change, and moving towards sustainability, this is based on abandoning the generally fruitless search for stable systems (which assumes high levels of information and system and subsystem control in the face of low levels of change), towards evolving resilient systems capable of adaptation. This might be termed“proactive resilience’ as opposed to the more traditional ‘reactive resilience’, which does not adapt to change, but resists change other than at the margins. Our Type 3 resilience implies a preparedness to be either proactive or reactive, depending upon the circumstances, whereas Types 1 and 2 resilience entertain more reactive responses only.

An acceptance of this approach would have significant implications for policy choice, and for any inquiry which supports such choice. Single answers to issues become objects of suspicion, and so the emphasis would necessarily be on the search for multiple- or shared-source responses, and the multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral work that these would require. Moreover, in the face of recognized uncertainty and complexity, policy formulation processes, and the research that supports these, must be open to the possible need for unexpected or unconventional responses to issues. The emphasis becomes the development of an ability to manage a range of possible directions. Should preparedness for this become widespread, the resolution of policy conflict might be transformed profoundly.

Such needs have been recognized by O’Riordan and Rayner and called ‘institutional pluralism’ and ‘scientific pluralism’.50 The latter corresponds to Norgaard’s ‘methodological pluralism’.51 A relevant question here is at what point social and institutional diversity might offer diminishing returns, scattering attention and promoting lowest common denominator responses, and only ensuring continuance of that small subsystem by accident suited best to the post-change situation.

Again, the question arises of how far from present reality such a future would be. It is apparent that the distance is immense. Values and institutional arrangements have evolved in the absence of an apprecia- tion of the interdependencies of the human and non-human worlds. Overcoming these constraints to change will be very difficult.

500’Riordan and Rayner, op tit Ref 16. 51Norgaard, op cif, Ref 4.

The approach presented here is based on an acceptance of three realities: constant change; ever-present uncertainty and ignorance; and an increasingly stressed interdependency between humans and the biosphere. These three realities are the imperatives for policy makers in the future. By definition they are also the imperatives for science, to which policy makers will turn for much of the support for their decisions. If science relies on the existing toolkit of ideas and approaches which gave trusty service from the Enlightenment, through the Industrial Revolution, and saw us into the Information Age, then it will fail the urgent demands of policy as society seeks a sustainable relationship between human and environment, and between human and human.


Uncertainty, Sustainability and Change

Documents

australian

cambridge

general systems

global environmental

systems theory

intragenerational

policy formulation

ecological