Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment: New Challenges Require New Thinking

Sustainable development is an emergent feature. Sustainability is a moving-target that we should chase to make the world better over time. It is not a static goal nor a number to be increased or decreased (Hjorth and Bagheri 2006; Bagheri and Hjorth 2007a). Sustainability is more of a quality issue, like justice and freedom. Sustainable development is a process, not a product.

The hallmarks of the engineer have been a measuring stick and a slide rule (today replaced by computers). Engineers tend to define and solve problems in ways that can be measured and calculated. They often try to express sustainability in terms of a number, a sustainability index. However, in changing, complex and uncertain contexts such as water resource problems, abstract indices (e.g., reliability, water use/water availability ratio, and water stress) can be of little help, or even mislead. Identifying sustainable solutions for this type of complex problems requires a holistic understanding and approach (Simonovic 2009; Mirchi et al. 2012).

There is a growing understanding that sustainability is not a static end-state but rather an emerging, albeit complex, process with new notions coming along as people discuss possible solutions and new ways to apply and evaluate them (Mitroff and Linstone 1993; Bossel 1999; Veeman and Politylo 2003; Meadows et al. 2004). Limited understanding of such emergent order has, as yet, caused sustainability to have minimal influence on mainstream theory and practice in management and strategy (Kurtz and Snowden 2003). This editorial calls for a new focus.

Understanding the ground truth is essential to develop sustainable solutions. Often, we jump too fast into trying to forecast, predict, and solve the issues without having a comprehensive understanding of the problem. The result has been many unintended consequences today, caused by “brilliant” solutions in the past.

Water resources are complex systems comprised of natural, social, political, and physical subsystems that dynamically and continuously interact (Veeman and Politylo 2003; Madani and Mariño 2009; Simonovic 2009; Gohari et al. 2013). Part of the art of water resource systems analysis is determining where to draw the boundary and identifying the system to analyze given the available resources (time, money, data, and talent). Poorly chosen boundaries can result in “smart” solutions that are associated with a range of undesirable impacts and unintended consequences (Mirchi et al. 2010). The sustainability debate makes it quite clear that traditional water management focused on water development without consideration of social and ecosystem impacts is no longer sufficient. Unfortunately, this does not indicate a common understanding of the sustainability concept (Hjorth and Madani 2013).

As time goes by and experience accumulates, we often understand, expect, and invest in our system as it was, rather than as it might become. A conservative bias is built in and gives us confidence (Douglas 1966). So, we increasingly face situations where assumptions about how the world works are invalid or suboptimal, yet our tools and procedures assume these assumptions and past operations hold true (Guijt 2008).

While we have a tendency to always welcome technical solutions, we have to respect the fact that sustainability belongs to the class of “no technical solution problems” (Hardin 1968). While sustainable development can benefit from systems tools, sustainability is not a simple optimization problem with a unique Pareto-optimal solution set. We need to learn as we go searching for sustainability, an effort in which we will, most probably, be making some mistakes.

We frequently aim for an optimal solution. Computing power may help in some contexts, but is often less central for managing people and knowledge (Kurtz and Snowden 2003). Truly optimal design is usually unavailable to mere mortals. In a complex world, populated by individuals with diverse interests and tastes, and enmeshed in uncertainty about the future, far too many alternatives exist; the number of combinations of potential actions is far larger than what analysts could ever analyze, even with space-age computer assistance (Ostrom 2005). In a world with uncertainty and many stakeholders, it is essential to understand the perspectives of potential users. Global objective functions often lose meaning with competing interests (Madani 2010). What is optimal for Peter may not be that for Paul or Mary.

Instead of trying to develop the “correct” definition of sustainability we need to develop processes and tools that help us navigate toward the moving sustainability target that we have not yet been able to (and may never be able to) define. However, we should note that the lack of a “unique” and “measurable” definition of sustainability is not a reflection of our intellectual disability.

Ever since the Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development in 1987 (WCED 1987), the global scientific community has struggled to incorporate the concept into everyday planning and management in operational terms (Berke and Conroy 2000; Veeman and Politylo 2003; Hjorth and Bagheri 2006; Bagheri and Hjorth 2007b). Admittedly, sustainable development is something of a moving target, but there are some fundamental tenets that remain constant. This has not been fully appreciated and sustainable development has tended to become a meaningless cliché rather than a meaningful paradigm for development. Development is a process of directed change whose definition must include both the process goals and the means to achieve these. However, the debate has been heavily burdened by a helter-skelter mixing of fundamental goals and operational means (Lélé 1991).

Both the meaning and objective of sustainable water management have been contested due to different interpretations and expectations. Indeed, the lack of common understanding makes individuals compete to interpret the central issues on the basis of their preferences for action. The more important the issue, the more people seem to pull it toward the domain where they feel most empowered by their individual capabilities and perspectives (Kurtz and Snowden 2003). However, if the concept of sustainable development can be redefined to fit any purpose, it becomes meaningless in practice, or even counterproductive. Some people relate sustainability to the state of a system and see sustainability as a fixed ideal or target which the system should maintain or move toward. Such reductionist thinking neglects feedback and interactions between system components, treats the whole as the sum of the parts assuming that knowing everything about the parts automatically leads to understanding the whole, and neglects changes in human objectives and natural conditions with time. Still others think that the solution to the sustainability problem is technological or computational.

Sustainability is about the whole society (system of systems) and not about one sector (e.g., water, ecosystem, or economy) within the society. Thus, smart and successful water management is a necessary, but not sufficient precondition for sustainable development. Other major systems in the society must also be sustainable. The kind of water management needed for sustainable development is best promoted through participatory (shared-vision) planning and by collaborative, trust-based decision-making based on a common sense of urgency. Such management is not easily established, but it is perfectly doable.

We need to understand that sustainability is not achieved without internalizing what we have traditionally considered as externalities (e.g., environment, economy, politics, and society). Sustainable development is not about making each system within society sustainable separately, as the sum of sustainable pieces is not necessarily sustainable. Organizing multiple agencies to work together can lessen problems with decision-makers pursuing their own narrowly defined interests and contribute more to sustainable water management. Of course, the required integration is not an easy task, but complexity does not justify our current disaggregating problem-solving approaches.

“The duty imposed by sustainable development is not to bequeath to posterity any particular thing ... but rather to endow [the next generation] with whatever it takes to achieve a standard of living at least as good as our own [in their own minds] and to look after their next generation similarly” (Solow 1993). Occasional problems from business cycles or natural variability can be accepted or accommodated. Occasional droughts and floods are normal aspects of most water resource systems and do not necessarily indicate unsustainability unless they threaten long-term prosperity.