Dear Farzaneh

There is a contradiction embedded in the concept of "sustainable development". "Sustainable" means, can be continued indefinitely. "Development" is an intensification of human use of the site. By definition, this intensification cannot continue indefinitely because the biophysical earth is limited.

Most writings on this subject avoid confronting the contradiction. By claiming that we can continue to develop and convert the earth's landscapes and natural resources into built forms indefinitely, and still be "sustainable", business and politicians can claim that "we can have it all". In other words, they can avoid confronting the reality that most countries' economic systems are following an unsustainable trajectory that is leading towards irreversible climate change and the collapse of many life-support systems such as fisheries and water supplies.

I will give one example to demonstrate my point. The final text of Australia's National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development written in1992 read that the economic, social and environmental systems must be in "balance". This allowed the Commonwealth and all state governments to sign up to the policy which is still in force. But the whole concept of the economic and social and environmental systems being separate domains is nonsense. The economic system is a social construct, and society is entirely dependent upon the flow of life support services from the natural environment.

Most professional architects and planners accept the concept of sustainable development and it has probably led to some improvements in professional practice. It has been a trigger to remind practitioners to take account of environmental, amenity, and cultural considerations when proposing built development. However, a far more radical transformation of the economy across the globe is going to be necessary if human civilisation is to survive. For this reason, the concept of sustainable development has been a distraction and has probably done more harm than good.

The attached paper by Richard Sanders explains my point.

Hope this helps.

Hi Farzaneh,

I have found this article to be a great review of many issues related to your question. It is still fairly current with a lot of great references.

Pickett, S. T. A. et al. 2011. Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress.

- Pete

Dear Farneh,

this book has several articles on it: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9789048198665

The book Climate Change and Sustainable Urban Development in Africa

and Asia is an outcome of a policy seminar on Climate Change, Housing

and Liveable Cities in Africa and Asia which was held between 25th and

27th June 2009 in Singapore. It was under the auspices of the United

Nations Centre for Regional Development and the Singapore Institute of

Planners. The Book is made up of 14 chapters which systematically

synthesize vast evidences in a logical and coherent manner to tell a

compelling story of the impact of climate change on urban centres in

Africa and Asia, whilst offering some pragmatic and thoroughly

scrutinised thoughts for policy reforms in the two regions.

does that help?

best regards

Johannes

Dear Farzaneh,

Chek the following link. There are a number of articles which address topics close to what you're seeking I guess:

https://homepage.univie.ac.at/Rainer.Maderthaner/Eurokonferenz%201.pdf

Best,

Aryan

Dear Farzaneh,

For very recent Information on the concept itself I recommend a closer look into the ratification process of the new urban agenda. 

https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/

For a general overview on potentials within the implementation of a people-oriented planning approach I recommend the book "Cities for people" by Jan Gehl

http://gehlpeople.com/shopfront/cities-for-people-2010/

And for an insight on the interrelation of urban development and transport development I recommend the work of Jeff Kenworthy. The presentation linked below compares the transport systems of different city typologies....

http://future-megacities.org/fileadmin/documents/El-Gauna_Symposium/13-JeffreyKenworthy.pdf

Best regards,

Matthias

It may reduce climate change vulnerability if town and state governments finally start implementing strategies and action plans, made by thousands professionals over World. 

You may find several answers or possibilities in research done on the topic. You can look at my page on Google Scholar. search by name. My site is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2MZfZXEAAAAJ&hl=en

you can also google your keywords on google scholar search bar and find several other authors working in the field.

Dear Farzaneh

There is a contradiction embedded in the concept of "sustainable development". "Sustainable" means, can be continued indefinitely. "Development" is an intensification of human use of the site. By definition, this intensification cannot continue indefinitely because the biophysical earth is limited.

Most writings on this subject avoid confronting the contradiction. By claiming that we can continue to develop and convert the earth's landscapes and natural resources into built forms indefinitely, and still be "sustainable", business and politicians can claim that "we can have it all". In other words, they can avoid confronting the reality that most countries' economic systems are following an unsustainable trajectory that is leading towards irreversible climate change and the collapse of many life-support systems such as fisheries and water supplies.

I will give one example to demonstrate my point. The final text of Australia's National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development written in1992 read that the economic, social and environmental systems must be in "balance". This allowed the Commonwealth and all state governments to sign up to the policy which is still in force. But the whole concept of the economic and social and environmental systems being separate domains is nonsense. The economic system is a social construct, and society is entirely dependent upon the flow of life support services from the natural environment.

Most professional architects and planners accept the concept of sustainable development and it has probably led to some improvements in professional practice. It has been a trigger to remind practitioners to take account of environmental, amenity, and cultural considerations when proposing built development. However, a far more radical transformation of the economy across the globe is going to be necessary if human civilisation is to survive. For this reason, the concept of sustainable development has been a distraction and has probably done more harm than good.

The attached paper by Richard Sanders explains my point.

Hope this helps.

Hi Farzaneh,

in my opinion the concept of sustainable development needs to embrace new types of money in order to help people to improve their quality of life and solve serious socioecological problems. You can find more details in the ebook "New Money for Sustainability" and the following short video courses http://courses.sustainability.school/course/index.php

All the best

Ranulfo

http://courses.sustainability.school/course/index.php

Why would you only be concerned with climate vulnerability in urban areas? 

As Marie Antoinette kind of said, "Let the farmers eat cake."

Dear Farzaneh, I think your question is interesting, from my standpoint the sustainable development alone can not contribute to reducing vulnerability to climate change, it is simply a conceptual framework that help us to aspire to an alternative economic development model, however, the weakness of this concept is that it does not give answers or solutions to serious problems such as climate change, not even the economy itself, is simply an aspiration to a goal at most, as Geoff Eduard there are contradictions within the concept, development versus sustainability become incompatible by not delving deeper into the forms of consumption, production, organization, distribution. It is interesting to analyze the positions of strong and weak sustainability, where you can appreciate the limits that have as human beings to be part of the ecosystems and as the most predatory species. There is literature on the physical and social vulnerability related to natural events, studies of climate change by cities, in my case as the work in Mexico I have some studies that if you like I can share. regards

Hi Farzaneh,

I would like to suggest you the following article. It deal with issues related to your question. You can also find a lot of great references.

Fusco Girard, Luigi. "The regenerative city and wealth creation/conservation: the role of urban planning." International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 6 13.2-4 (2014): 118-140.

My Opinions:

The first step is reducing carbon emissions replacing the vehicles using petroleum products. Use of biofuels and renewable energy can support reduce emission level. The important part is greenery development. more trees than buildings and houses, if we plant trees 100 times more than exist population in urban areas can  mitigate air pollutants. Planned intervention with green economy, waste management, sewage management are the other options. Any development should be designed to pose double benefit for humans health. 

I can add taht the step two would be  planting trees in a city. I suggest you look into very interesting project in Paris:

Mille arbres à Paris, projet emblématique de la capitale de demain

Ramesh,

People who are allergic to tree pollen aren't going to be very happy with your attempt to benefit their health.

As my predecessors have already written, "sustainable development" is an impossible idea, this has to be said frankly. So, you have to determine more precisely what is your scope. Vulnerability is a very vague notion: for the poor? For the women? In respect to heat? To pollution? to illnesses?, and so on.

And so on for "quality of life". This depends on what you so qualify... A swimming-pool for everybody (it is not so farfetched, as it is a reality for many Americans)? A good education system? A life in a closed protected area? A lot of vegetation? Drinkable water at the tap? Growing your own food? Many night clubs around? As you immediately see, the notion is not the same for everybody!

Asking a question like yours is possible when you are dealing with politics and ideology, i.e. where imprecise notions are necessary to reach a common adhesion, but they cannot be of any scientific interest. If you want to do go work, you have to define clearly the ideas you manipulate.

Geoff and Bernard have a explained their thoughts in a very precise, critical and academic manner. I passed a quick look at the paper sent by Geoff, an excellent one.

I feel that the concept of Sustainable Development has taken over by pure capitalist approach and dealing it as a commodity. Sustainability and Sustainable Design is not an added feature nor a milk to our coffee, its an integrated and deep rooted approach. By Capitalist approach I mean various types of legislation based on particular certification issued by private enterprises. For instance many certifications primarily (almost totally) rely upon embedded energy while it shall equally consider embodied energy as well. By this way we will be able to reduce transportation, maximize local industry (in many countries the cottage/small industry) and bring social balance through economic uplifting of the locals.

Now the GREEN product produced in a few countries are going all over the globe reducing the buying power of masses and increases transportation costs. It also is killing local manufacturers/ craftsmen/small & medium industry.

Moreover I would advocate the municipalities to develop their master plans including Greenery Master Plan and Lighting Master Plan.

Balance is the key as Geoff mentioned. I support both gentlemen's arguments as well.

Gratitude!

Sustainable urban development planning is a multi-dimensional issue involving not just the environmental land use planning but long-term maintenance and management of developments and development patterns. The inability of various experts on the multi-dimensional issue to present a robust approach is perhaps the greatest challenge to meaningful political action. We live in a world of give-and-take, yet we all want to eat our cake and have it.

See this publication. Krueger, R. & Buckingham, S. (2012). Towards a ‘consensual’ urban politics? Creative planning, urban sustainability and regional development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36, 3, pp. 486 – 503.It gives detailed insights for you to consider.

I recommend you read the article I attached, it is an enlightening case study empirical that can help.

Regards

Santiago

In the course of China's rapid population growth, the residential model has undergone significant changes. It has been proved that this change in residential behavior has successfully met the challenges of social-environmental change. The current model of residence derives from the modernist theory, the internal self-sufficiency and closeness of the family makes the lack of necessity of community interaction, the public space can not effectively correspond to the diverse and urgent needs of the residents (it seems that these spaces can only be used for leisure and watch). The consequence is the reduction of social capital, improper use of living space. There has been little research into the patterns of residential patterns in the history of rapid population growth or aggregation.

If you are interested in legal framework, you can read the new french "proposition de loi portant adaptation des territoires littoraux au changement climatique". And in Spain (my country) I would dare recommend you my paper "La consolidación del principio de desarrollo territorial y urbano sostenible en la última década" (The consolidation of territorial and urban sustainable development as a legal principle during the past decade). But I'm afraid they are only available in french and spanish, respectively.

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/dossiers/adaptation_territoires_littoraux_changement_climatique.asp

https://www.academia.edu/30959605/La_consolidación_del_principio_de_desarrollo_territorial_y_urbano_sostenible_en_la_última_década_The_consolidation_of_territorial_and_urban_sustainable_development_as_a_legal_principle_during_the_past_decade_

As sustainable development takes into account the needs of the future, focusing on resource efficiency, as well as lifecycle energy and resource use, costs, waste, etc, this directly affects the urban environment. The built  environment  is probably the most influencing agent for climate change, as the needs and demands of it affect the agents of climate change. Unless we can come up with sustainability in the design of future cities, the planet is doomed.

http://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-climate-change/jcc170015

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319074248_An_Innovative_Model_for_Engagement_of_Rural_CitizensCommunity_of_Bangladesh_with_Climate_Change

Article An Innovative Model for Engagement of Rural Citizens/Communi...

A very good discussion touching on major contradictions of the idea of sustainable development. We cannot eat the cake and have it.

With regards to urban sustainability I think that here the challenges are especially with the urban poor, aspects around urban transportation and the pollutuion of urban waterways. To solve the challenges of urban poor will enhance their consumption levels which contradicts th eideas of SD.

We cannot realize that many resources are limited and then continue as they were not. We cannot agree that polluting our world is dangerous and should not happen and then act as no new knowledge has entered our brain. We cannot realize that private transportation unchecked causes a lot of challenges (GHG emission, land conversions to roads), but promote such private transportation a sit is good business and build roads, and roads, make existing roads broader and wonder when private traffic increases.

However, we also cannot tell people that they should not do this. For long all this were either seen as the side-effect of progress (pollution/ degradation/land use changes), which people willingly accepted and got much for it. Part of it was also the way to progress (private transportation as enhancement of freedom).

We cannot tell people that this should be no more achieved. Those who have not reached these standards have a right to reach them, unless those who live at these standards are willing to reduce and meet on equal levels.

I think that much positive change can be achieved by avoiding unnecessary waste. To be aware of the dangers must necessarily include that change one’s own behaviour and this should start to make changes that would not result in reduction of living standards. We do not need to have a one-use plastic bag for each our shopping, which is the case still in many countries. We can buy energy saving bulbs, etc, etc. However, in addition to this we also need to realize that sustainable development can only mean to find new ways, to leave business as usual. This refers to how we live, how our social systems are structured and how our economies work. I see little that right now has a chance to become mainstream. It also would mean to revert economic philosophies entirely. Economic though is how to get bigger and bigger (in production, consumption and as such resource use). It is not asking what is needed for a good life, and advertisement / marketing tell us that all the new gadgets are needed for a good life. I doubt that I need all the latest, but like I said the econo9mic philosophies at place makes it an absolute necessity that many people think then need the latest gadgets and buy them. I see no right to tell people that this is wrong. They have the right and if they would not do it then our economies would collapse.

I see a right to say there should be no unequal distribution of resources and benefits. I argue against poverty and I say it is inhumane to allow far too many people living in extreme poverty. While doing this I speak in favour of enhancement of living standards and this in our understanding means also the enhancement of resource use. To remove extreme forms of poverty would mean to convert some 800 millions of Indians into consumers and many hundreds on millions Chinese, Indonesians, Brazilians, etc…..

Finally I have a right to say that standards in so-called developed countries are too high and must be reduced. I do not condemn such standards, but they are just not sustainable. Or like M.K Gandhi has expressed it when he said that according to his idea everybody should be allowed to live in palaces, but only in case everyday can achieve living in palaces. So the question of sustainability is not to prevent others to improve, but to bring down level of resource use by those who have extremely high levels to lower levels and meet with those who lack behind on middle ground.

I doubt that this is enough, but as it was highlighted above any consumption has impacts and many resources are limited as life itself has limitations, both what life of individual, species and systems is concerned. The life of Planet Earth is limited as it is the solar system and the universe.

I am surely not fatalistic when I say it won’t matter, if these ends come a couple of million years earlier than it would be if we would be more sustainably. It indeed would not matter, but at the same time I try to live sustainably, try to live in a way that social polarization becomes smaller. This is as the way we live has implications for the world around us today. This is very real for people, and not for an unimaginable future. Still my concern is also for an imaginable future. To develop a real strategy of how this can be achieved is impossible as there are too many who do not want to change. Maybe it must be that things become really so bad that the urge to change enhances. I am certain that humankind can change, human creativity is enormous, and at one time change will become an essential thing and it will happen. I do not say that will make the world more just or sustainable……..

A very good discussion touching on major contradictions of the idea of sustainable development. We cannot eat the cake and have it.

With regardds to urban areas I feel that develeoping countries' biggests challenges ar ethe urban poor, urban transportation and the pollution of urban water ways.

We cannot realize that many resources are limited and then continue as they were not. We cannot agree that polluting our world is dangerous and should not happen and then act as no new knowledge has entered our brain. We cannot realize that private transportation unchecked causes a lot of challenges (GHG emission, land conversions to roads), but promote such private transportation a sit is good business and build roads, and roads, make existing roads broader and wonder when private traffic increases.

However, we also cannot tell people that they should not do this. For long all this were either seen as the side-effect of progress (pollution/ degradation/land use changes), which people willingly accepted and got much for it. Part of it was also the way to progress (private transportation as enhancement of freedom).

We cannot tell people that this should be no more achieved. Those who have not reached these standards have a right to reach them, unless those who live at these standards are willing to reduce and meet on equal levels.

I think that much positive change can be achieved by avoiding unnecessary waste. To be aware of the dangers must necessarily include that change one’s own behaviour and this should start to make changes that would not result in reduction of living standards. We do not need to have a one-use plastic bag for each our shopping, which is the case still in many countries. We can buy energy saving bulbs, etc, etc. However, in addition to this we also need to realize that sustainable development can only mean to find new ways, to leave business as usual. This refers to how we live, how our social systems are structured and how our economies work. I see little that right now has a chance to become mainstream. It also would mean to revert economic philosophies entirely. Economic thought today is how to get bigger and bigger (in production, consumption and as such resource use).

It does not help asking what is needed for a good life, and advertisement / marketing tell us that all the new gadgets are needed for a good life. I doubt that I need all the latest, but like I said the economic philosophies at place makes it an absolute necessity that many people think then need the latest gadgets and buy them. I see no right to tell people that this is wrong. They have the right and if they would not do it then our economies would collapse.

I see a right to say there should be no unequal distribution of resources and benefits. I argue against poverty and I say it is inhumane to allow far too many people living in extreme poverty. While doing this I speak in favour of enhancement of living standards and this in our understanding means also the enhancement of resource use. To remove extreme forms of poverty would mean to convert some 800 millions of Indians into consumers and many hundreds on millions Chinese, Indonesians, Brazilians, etc…..

Finally I have a right to say that standards in so-called developed countries are too high and must be reduced. I do not condemn such standards, but they are just not sustainable. Or like M.K Gandhi has expressed it when he said that according to his idea everybody should be allowed to live in palaces, but only in case everyday can achieve living in palaces. So the question of sustainability is not to prevent others to improve, but to bring down level of resource use by those who have extremely high levels to lower levels and meet with those who lack behind on middle ground.

I doubt that this is enough, but as it was highlighted above any consumption has impacts and many resources are limited as life itself has limitations, both what life of individual, species and systems is concerned. The life of Planet Earth is limited as it is the solar system and the universe.

I am surely not fatalistic when I say it won’t matter, if these ends come a couple of million years earlier than it would be if we would be more sustainably. It indeed would not matter, but at the same time I try to live sustainably, try to live in a way that social polarization becomes smaller. This is as the way we live has implications for the world around us today. This is very real for people, and not for an unimaginable future. Still my concern is also for an imaginable future. To develop a real strategy of how this can be achieved is impossible as there are too many who do not want to change. Maybe it must be that things become really so bad that the urge to change enhances. I am certain that humankind can change, human creativity is enormous, and at one time change will become an essential thing and it will happen. I do not say that will make the world more just or sustainable……..

A very good discussion touching on major contradictions of the idea of sustainable development. We cannot eat the cake and have it. With regardds to urban areas I feel that develeoping countries' biggests challenges ar ethe urban poor, urban transportation and the pollution of urban water ways. We cannot realize that many resources are limited and then continue as they were not. We cannot agree that polluting our world is dangerous and should not happen and then act as no new knowledge has entered our brain. We cannot realize that private transportation unchecked causes a lot of challenges (GHG emission, land conversions to roads), but promote such private transportation a sit is good business and build roads, and roads, make existing roads broader and wonder when private traffic increases. However, we also cannot tell people that they should not do this. For long all this were either seen as the side-effect of progress (pollution/ degradation/land use changes), which people willingly accepted and got much for it. Part of it was also the way to progress (private transportation as enhancement of freedom). We cannot tell people that this should be no more achieved. Those who have not reached these standards have a right to reach them, unless those who live at these standards are willing to reduce and meet on equal levels. I think that much positive change can be achieved by avoiding unnecessary waste. To be aware of the dangers must necessarily include that change one’s own behaviour and this should start to make changes that would not result in reduction of living standards. We do not need to have a one-use plastic bag for each our shopping, which is the case still in many countries. We can buy energy saving bulbs, etc, etc. However, in addition to this we also need to realize that sustainable development can only mean to find new ways, to leave business as usual. This refers to how we live, how our social systems are structured and how our economies work. I see little that right now has a chance to become mainstream. It also would mean to revert economic philosophies entirely. Economic thought today is how to get bigger and bigger (in production, consumption and as such resource use). It does not help asking what is needed for a good life, and advertisement / marketing tell us that all the new gadgets are needed for a good life. I doubt that I need all the latest, but like I said the economic philosophies at place makes it an absolute necessity that many people think then need the latest gadgets and buy them. I see no right to tell people that this is wrong. They have the right and if they would not do it then our economies would collapse. I see a right to say there should be no unequal distribution of resources and benefits. I argue against poverty and I say it is inhumane to allow far too many people living in extreme poverty. While doing this I speak in favour of enhancement of living standards and this in our understanding means also the enhancement of resource use. To remove extreme forms of poverty would mean to convert some 800 millions of Indians into consumers and many hundreds on millions Chinese, Indonesians, Brazilians, etc….. Finally I have a right to say that standards in so-called developed countries are too high and must be reduced. I do not condemn such standards, but they are just not sustainable. Or like M.K Gandhi has expressed it when he said that according to his idea everybody should be allowed to live in palaces, but only in case everyday can achieve living in palaces. So the question of sustainability is not to prevent others to improve, but to bring down level of resource use by those who have extremely high levels to lower levels and meet with those who lack behind on middle ground. I doubt that this is enough, but as it was highlighted above any consumption has impacts and many resources are limited as life itself has limitations, both what life of individual, species and systems is concerned. The life of Planet Earth is limited as it is the solar system and the universe. I am surely not fatalistic when I say it won’t matter, if these ends come a couple of million years earlier than it would be if we would be more sustainably. It indeed would not matter, but at the same time I try to live sustainably, try to live in a way that social polarization becomes smaller. This is as the way we live has implications for the world around us today. This is very real for people, and not for an unimaginable future. Still my concern is also for an imaginable future. To develop a real strategy of how this can be achieved is impossible as there are too many who do not want to change. Maybe it must be that things become really so bad that the urge to change enhances. I am certain that humankind can change, human creativity is enormous, and at one time change will become an essential thing and it will happen. I do not say that will make the world more just or sustainable……..

A very good discussion touching on major contradictions of the idea of sustainable development. We cannot eat the cake and have it.

With regardds to urban areas I feel that develeoping countries' biggests challenges ar ethe urban poor, urban transportation and the pollution of urban water ways.

We cannot realize that many resources are limited and then continue as they were not. We cannot agree that polluting our world is dangerous and should not happen and then act as no new knowledge has entered our brain. We cannot realize that private transportation unchecked causes a lot of challenges (GHG emission, land conversions to roads), but promote such private transportation a sit is good business and build roads, and roads, make existing roads broader and wonder when private traffic increases.

However, we also cannot tell people that they should not do this. For long all this were either seen as the side-effect of progress (pollution/ degradation/land use changes), which people willingly accepted and got much for it. Part of it was also the way to progress (private transportation as enhancement of freedom).

We cannot tell people that this should be no more achieved. Those who have not reached these standards have a right to reach them, unless those who live at these standards are willing to reduce and meet on equal levels.

I think that much positive change can be achieved by avoiding unnecessary waste. To be aware of the dangers must necessarily include that change one’s own behaviour and this should start to make changes that would not result in reduction of living standards. We do not need to have a one-use plastic bag for each our shopping, which is the case still in many countries. We can buy energy saving bulbs, etc, etc. However, in addition to this we also need to realize that sustainable development can only mean to find new ways, to leave business as usual. This refers to how we live, how our social systems are structured and how our economies work. I see little that right now has a chance to become mainstream. It also would mean to revert economic philosophies entirely. Economic thought today is how to get bigger and bigger (in production, consumption and as such resource use).

It does not help asking what is needed for a good life, and advertisement / marketing tell us that all the new gadgets are needed for a good life. I doubt that I need all the latest, but like I said the economic philosophies at place makes it an absolute necessity that many people think then need the latest gadgets and buy them. I see no right to tell people that this is wrong. They have the right and if they would not do it then our economies would collapse.

I see a right to say there should be no unequal distribution of resources and benefits. I argue against poverty and I say it is inhumane to allow far too many people living in extreme poverty. While doing this I speak in favour of enhancement of living standards and this in our understanding means also the enhancement of resource use. To remove extreme forms of poverty would mean to convert some 800 millions of Indians into consumers and many hundreds on millions Chinese, Indonesians, Brazilians, etc…..

Finally I have a right to say that standards in so-called developed countries are too high and must be reduced. I do not condemn such standards, but they are just not sustainable. Or like M.K Gandhi has expressed it when he said that according to his idea everybody should be allowed to live in palaces, but only in case everyday can achieve living in palaces. So the question of sustainability is not to prevent others to improve, but to bring down level of resource use by those who have extremely high levels to lower levels and meet with those who lack behind on middle ground.

I doubt that this is enough, but as it was highlighted above any consumption has impacts and many resources are limited as life itself has limitations, both what life of individual, species and systems is concerned. The life of Planet Earth is limited as it is the solar system and the universe.

I am surely not fatalistic when I say it won’t matter, if these ends come a couple of million years earlier than it would be if we would be more sustainably. It indeed would not matter, but at the same time I try to live sustainably, try to live in a way that social polarization becomes smaller. This is as the way we live has implications for the world around us today. This is very real for people, and not for an unimaginable future. Still my concern is also for an imaginable future. To develop a real strategy of how this can be achieved is impossible as there are too many who do not want to change. Maybe it must be that things become really so bad that the urge to change enhances. I am certain that humankind can change, human creativity is enormous, and at one time change will become an essential thing and it will happen. I do not say that will make the world more just or sustainable……..

Sustainable development centrally address the issues of adverse impacts for the developmental projects. Effective mitigation of adverse impacts can help to reduce the potential impacts of the particular environment or ecosystem. As the theory says that the continue fallen drops of water may makes the river, same like this sustainable and environmental friendly development of the human kind interventions might be quite helpful to address the issues.