Advertisement

Environmentalist

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 243–254 | Cite as

Ecological design criteria for a sustainable Canadian society

  • D. Scott Slocombe
  • Caroline Van Bers
Article

Summary

The purpose of this paper is to develop specific ecological design criteria for a sustainable Canadian society. Ecological design criteria complement socio-political ones which have also been developed by the Sustainable Society Project at the University of Waterloo. The criteria derive from an evaluation of the major areas of human activity and interaction with the natural environment in light of our knowledge of ecological systems and resource management. The criteria, like the Sustainable Society Project as a whole, are an attempt to suggest needed, feasible, medium to long-term changes in human activities to comply with the ecological and socio-political limits and constraints that must be recognized in order to achieve societal sustainability. The specific design criteria identified here are not the only ones possible, desirable, or necessary — a complete and certain list is inherently impossible. But the design criteria developed here are illustrative of the kinds of changes that are necessary to achieve sustainability.

Keywords

Human Activity Environmental Management Resource Management Natural Environment Nature Conservation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aberley, D.C. 1985. Bioregionalism: A Territorial Approach to Governance and Development of Northwest British Columbia. Unpublished MA thesis, SCARP, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  2. Bird, P.M. and Rapports, D.J. 1986.State of the Environment Report for Canada, 263 pp. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  3. Bossel, H. 1987. Viability and sustainability: matching development goals to resource constraints.Futures,19(2), 114–128.Google Scholar
  4. Boyden, S., Millar, S., Newcombe, K. and O'Neill, B. 1981.The Ecology of a City and its People: The Case of Hong Kong, 437 pp. ANU Press, Canberra.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, B.J., Hanson, M.E., Liverman, D.M. and Meredith, R.W.Jr. 1987. Global sustainability: toward definition.Environ. Management,11, 713–719.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, L.R.et al. 1984. TheState of the World. Annual. W.W. Norton and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, R.A. (ed.). 1983.Natural Systems for Development: What Planners Need to Know. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Chapman, M.P. 1982. The mature region: building a practical model for the transition to the sustainable society.Technological Forecasting and Social Change,22, 167–182.Google Scholar
  9. Dryzek, J.S. 1987.Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, J.E. 1989. Decision-making for sustainable development: selected approaches to environmental assessment and management.EIA Review,9, 337–366.Google Scholar
  11. Gélinas, R. and Slaats, J. 1989. Selecting Indicators for State of the Environment Reporting. (Draft). SOE Reporting Branch, CWS, Environment Canada, Tech. Report Ser. No.8, 25 pp..Google Scholar
  12. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons.Science,162, 1243–1248.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffman, R. 1986.Overview of the Socio-Economic Resource Framework (SERF). Working Paper 86-03-01, Structural Analysis Division, Statistics Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  14. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1980.World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland.Google Scholar
  15. Lerner, S. 1990. Socio-Political Design Criteria for a Sustainable Canadian Society. Sustainable Society Project Working Paper No. 3, Department of Environment and Resource Studies, Waterloo.Google Scholar
  16. Liverman, D.M., Hanson, M.E., Brown, B.J. and Meredith, R.W.Jr. 1988. Global sustainability: toward measurement.Environ. Management,12(2), 133–143.Google Scholar
  17. Meier, R.L. 1984. Energy and habitat: designing a sustainable urban ecosystem.Futures,16(4), 351–371.Google Scholar
  18. Pestel, E. 1989.Beyond the Limits to Growth: A Report to the Club of Rome. Universe Books, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Polunin, N. (ed.). 1986.Ecosystem Theory and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Rambo, A.T. 1983.Conceptual Approaches to Human Ecology. East-West Centre Research Report No.14, Honolulu.Google Scholar
  21. Rapport, D.J. and Friend, A.M. 1979.Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Statistics: A Stress-Response Approach. Statistics Canada Occasional Paper, Cat.11-510, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  22. Ravetz, J.R. 1986. Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete science with policy implications. In: Clark, W.C. and Munn, R.E. (eds),Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, pp.415–432. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. Report on Business. 1989. The business outlook.Report on Business,6(1), 141–151.Google Scholar
  24. Robinson, G. 1988.The Forest and the Trees: A Guide to Excellent Forestry, 257 pp. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Robinson, J.B, Francis, G.R. Legge, and Lerner, S. 1990. Defining a sustainable society: values, principles, and definitions.Alternatives,17(2), 36–46.Google Scholar
  26. Robinson, J.B and Van Bers, C. 1991. Exploring a Sustainable Future for Canada. Paper prepared for the conference of the Toronto Chapter of the IEEE Society On Social Implications of Technology. Ryerson Polytechnic Institute, Toronto. 21–22 June, 1991.Google Scholar
  27. Staples, L.et al. 1988. Mining the popular wisdom: Yukon 2000 brings a fresh approach to northern economic development.Northern Perspectives,16(2), 32 pp..Google Scholar
  28. Statistics Canada, Structural Analysis Division. 1986.Human Activity and the Environment: A Statistical Compendium. Supply and Services, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  29. Wall, G. (ed.). 1989.Outdoor Recreation in Canada. Wiley, Toronto.Google Scholar
  30. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987.Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. WRI and IIED (World Resources Institute and International Institute for Environment and Development). 1986.World Resources. Bi-Annual. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science and Technology Letters 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Scott Slocombe
    • 1
  • Caroline Van Bers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations