Advertisement

Strong Sustainability as a Frame for Sustainability Communication

  • Konrad Ott
  • Barbara Muraca
  • Christian Baatz
Chapter

Abstract

The term sustainability has enjoyed great success, but at the cost of overextending its meaning to the point of trivialization. There is such an overabundance of definitions, concepts, models and political strategies that it is not clear anymore whether the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ still bear any meaning. The theory outlined in this chapter counters these tendencies by identifying more precisely the normative field that constitutes the very core of the sustainability concept, while avoiding a too narrow understanding. It points out the ethical presuppositions as well as the requirements for a theoretical framework of a consistent and discursively justified concept of sustainability. This rectifies the vagueness of the term as currently used and offers new possibilities for sustainability communication.

Keywords

Strong sustainability Weak sustainability Ethics Philosophy Natural capital 

References

  1. Biesecker, A., & Hofmeister, S. (2009). Starke Nachhaltigkeit fordert eine Ökonomie der (Re)Produktivität. In T. von Egan-Krieger, J. Schultz, P. P. Thapa, & L. Voget (Eds.), Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit: Ausbau, Anwendung und Kritik (pp. 169–192). Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  2. Daly, H. E. (1997). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon.Google Scholar
  3. Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Faber, M., & Manstetten, R. (1998). Produktion, Konsum und Dienste in der Natur: Eine Theorie der Fonds. In F. Schweitzer & G. Silverberg (Eds.), Selbstorganisation (pp. 209–236). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  5. Frankfurt, H. (1987). Equality as a moral ideal. Ethics, 98, 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gowdy, J., & McDaniel, C. (1999). The physical destruction of Nauru: An example of weak sustainability. Land Economics, 75, 333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grey, W. (1996). Possible persons and the problem of posterity. Environmental Values, 5, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grunwald, A. (2009). Konzepte nachhaltiger Entwicklung vergleichen – aber wie? Diskursebenen und Vergleichsmaßstäbe. In T. von Egan-Krieger, J. Schultz, P. Thapa, & L. Voget (Eds.), Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Ausbau, Anwendung und Kritik. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  11. Held, M., & Nutzinger, H. G. (Eds.). (2001). Nachhaltiges Naturkapital: Ökonomik und zukunftsfähige Entwicklung. Frankfurt/M/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  12. Muraca, B. (2010). Denken im Grenzgebiet: prozessphilosophische Grundlagen einer Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Freiburg/München: Alber.Google Scholar
  13. Norton, B. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nussbaum, M. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ott, K. (2004a). Noch einmal: Diskursethik. In N. Gottschalk-Mazouz (Ed.), Perspektiven der Diskursethik (pp. 143–173). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  16. Ott, K. (2004b). Essential components of future ethics. In R. Döring & M. Rühs (Eds.), Ökonomische Rationalität und praktische Vernunft: Gerechtigkeit, ökologische Ökonomie und Naturschutz (pp. 83–108). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  17. Ott, K. (2009). On substantiating the concept of strong sustainability. In R. Döring (Ed.), Sustainability, natural capital and nature conservation (pp. 49–72). Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  18. Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2008). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  19. Ott, K. & Voget, L. (2007). Ethical dimension of education for sustainable development. Education for Sustainable Development, 1. Retrieved 18 Dec 2009, from http://www.bne-portal.de/coremedia/generator/pm/en/Issue__001/Downloads/01__Contributions/Ott__Voget.pdf.
  20. Paech, N. (2006). Nachhaltigkeitsprinzipien jenseits des Drei-Säulen-Paradigmas. Natur und Kultur, 7, 42–62.Google Scholar
  21. Parfit, D. (1987). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  22. Partridge, E. (1990). On the rights on future generations. In D. Scherer (Ed.), Upstream/downstream: Issues in ethics (pp. 40–66). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Potthast, T. (2005). Umweltforschung und das Problem epistemisch-moralischer Hybride. In S. Baumgärtner & C. Becker (Eds.), Wissenschaftsphilosophie interdisziplinärer Umweltforschung (pp. 87–100). Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  24. Rawls, J. (1973). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tugendhat, E. (1993). Vorlesungen über Ethik. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  26. Unnerstall, H. (1999). Rechte zukünftiger Generationen. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  27. von Egan-Krieger, T. (2005). Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit und die deutsche Waldwirtschaft der Zukunft. Diploma thesis, Greifswald University, Greifswald.Google Scholar
  28. von Egan-Krieger, T., Schultz, J., Thapa, P. T., & Voget, L. (Eds.). (2009). Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental EthicsErnst Moritz Arndt University of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  2. 2.University of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations