Sustainable Development? The Importance of Elevating Equity in Sustainability Efforts.

Since the word “sustainability” has entered our lexicon, it’s conceptually become like a popular, professional athlete: the fame and status sound good, a lot of people desire the result, but very few know what it truly takes to achieve and maintain.

Sustainable development, a derivative of this wide-sweeping concept, has become a catchphrase in the twenty-first century planning profession. Similar to other popular ideas like “smart cities” and “zoning reform,” sustainable development is now the desired outcome for almost every new planning project, be it a single-lot redevelopment or a regional economic plan.

But what exactly is “sustainability”? Why is its meaning elusive and ill-defined? What does sustainable development look like in planning practice?

For starters, the concept has no globally agreed-upon definition; therefore, its precise parameters are up to interpretation. Sustainability is often associated with the “three E’s” (environment, equity, and economy), but it can be hard to know how all three E’s are prioritized, achieved, and/or balanced among other competing factors, especially given sustainability’s reach in nearly every market of the global economy. Thus, “the word ‘sustainability’ is so overused that sometimes it means nothing, especially when so many new comprehensive plans and private-sector projects are all claiming to be models of sustainability” (emphasis added; Feiden and Hamin, 2011, p. 2).

A common interpretation of “sustainable development” comes from the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission (1987), which states: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Feiden and Hamin, 2011, p. 3). This vague definition isn’t prescriptive on purpose, but its fuzziness has had long-lasting implications for the achievement of the third (and often missing) pillar of sustainability: equity.

Professor of planning and policy development Scott Campbell sounded the alarm for this misstep nearly 26 years ago in a highly regarded journal article that appeared in the Journal of the American Planning Association. In that seminal piece, Campbell (1996) cautioned planners (and those generally interested in the sustainability of the planet) to avoid the trap of the “economy” vs. “environment.” There’s still equity and justice we must consider, if we want to achieve the most complete definition of sustainability.  

To quote Campbell (1996): “To classify contemporary battles over environmental racism, pollution- producing jobs, growth control, etc., as simply clashes between economic growth and environmental protection misses the third issue, of social justice” (p. 297).

A visual aid accompanies the message that Campbell attempts to convey: The Planner’s Triangle. I’ve included an updated version of the original triangle below and would like to point out the “conflicts” that span the sides of the shape. Campbell (1996) acknowledges that even the two conceptually benign points on the triangle (environment and equity) are at odds when any development that can enhance one’s quality of life risks disturbance of the natural environment.

Since that article, a quarter-century has passed, and intentional conversations of just-filled sustainable development are finally bubbling to the surface. Lisa E. Schweitzer (2016) observed, due to a subsequent lack of just-filled sustainability-planning conversations in the twenty years since Campbell’s (1996) report, “The question becomes whether justice is integral to the discussion or whether justice is assumed, placed in the background, and never really developed” (p. 377).

I would argue that for many traditional planners, the equity or justice pillar in the Planner’s Triangle had been left for others to “hold up.” Planners, much like any organized profession, have tended to identify in siloed categories. Planning institutions encouraged students to select the “role” they’d hope to play: the equity planner, the advocacy planner, the transportation planner, the environmental planner, and so forth. Perhaps we’re just now arriving at a time when students are encouraged to become a three-triangled “sustainability planner.”

Incredibly, the conversation for just-filled sustainable development continues, even beyond the planner’s realm. Youth-led, BIPOC-owned organizations like the Intersectional Environmentalist continue to advance equity and justice into everyday environmental conversations, pushing back on old (and often racist) tropes of what it means to care for “the environment.” Organizations like IE subscribe to a relatively simple mantra: protect the planet and its people. This call to action, to prioritize both people and the natural world in which we live, can certainly become a rallying cry for all planners – even those who do not self-identify as a “sustainability planner.”

In the wake of pressing environmental challenges, we as planners must “take up” all three pillars of the proverbial Planner’s Triangle, centering the environment, the economy, and equity in our various projects, programs, and policies. This includes addressing the climate crisis, already a global-scale crisis of inequality, within the lens of climate justice. Planning for the most vulnerable populations, many of whom have contributed historically negligible amounts of the greenhouse gases now causing planetary warming, is a responsibility that we as sustainability-minded planners must have, if we want to safeguard a livable planet for future generations.

Isn’t that what sustainability, at its core, is all about? “In its simplest form, sustainable progress means making sure that our actions today will provide us with the kind of life we want to live in the future” (emphasis added; New Jersey Future in PAS Report 565). To plan for truly sustainable communities inherently means that we plan for equity as a core component, not as a tertiary benefit. To plan for equity thus necessitates that we understand and learn how justice impacts each and every one of our communities, and how justice has either been hindered or helped by previous planning efforts.

Advancing social justice in addition to correcting environmental injustices and planning for a just economic recovery helps us stand at the center of Campbell’s (1996) lauded triangle, pushing us one step closer as a profession to achieving just-filled sustainable development. While we might not land directly in the center of the triangle at every given moment, it sure beats standing on any of the outside edges attempting to retrofit what, by its geometric structure, is an already balanced shape.

References:

Campbell, S. (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3). 296-312, DOI: 10.1080/01944369608975696

Feiden, W. M. and Hamin, E. (2011, July). Assessing Sustainability: A Guide for Local Governments. American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service, Report 565.

Intersectional Environmentalist. (2022). Retrieved at: https://www.intersectionalenvironmentalist.com/

Schweitzer, L. E. (2016). Tracing the Justice Conversation After “Green Cities, Growing Cities.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(4). 374-379, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1214538