SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 23

UNDERSTANDİNG SUSTAİNABLE DEVELOPMENT: AMBİGUİTY AND CONFLİCT

Fikret MAZI
Pages
321–331
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In order to settle down this interpretation debate, I propose a heuristic scheme in which the most basic perspectives are introduced while at the same time listing the basic weaknesses in this interpretation procedure, so as to clarify the inherent paradox in sustainability

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The shibboleth of global environmental politics today, sustainable development has got a variety of implications and definitions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Some of these definitions and interpretations overlap, whereas some of them openly contest and conflict with one another.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In order to settle down this interpretation debate, I propose a heuristic scheme in which the most basic perspectives are introduced while at the same time listing the basic weaknesses in this interpretation procedure, so as to clarify the inherent paradox in sustainability
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma · Belirsizlik · Sonuçsuzluk

Abstract

The shibboleth of global environmental politics today, sustainable development has got a variety of implications and definitions. Some of these definitions and interpretations overlap, whereas some of them openly contest and conflict with one another. This controversial nature of the term turns it into an overarching discourse which becomes a parameter with many other derivatives for all developmentrelated discussions. Having too many definitions and therefore being ambiguous and unclearly defined, the politics of sustainable development is moving towards futility, or in other terms complete inefficiency. In order to settle down this interpretation debate, I propose a heuristic scheme in which the most basic perspectives are introduced while at the same time listing the basic weaknesses in this interpretation procedure, so as to clarify the inherent paradox in sustainability

Özet

Bugünkü küresel çevre politikasının sloganı haline gelen sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın birçok anlam ve tanımı bulunmaktadır. Bu anlam ve tanımların bazıları örtüşürken diğerleri açık bir biçimde birbiriyle çatışmakta ya da bir diğerini reddetmektedir. Terimin tartşmalı doğası terimi merkezi bir söylem haline dönüştürmüş ve kalkınmayla ilgili bütün tartışmalarda birçok türevi de olan bir parametre haline getirmiştir. Çok çeşitli tanımlara sahip olduğundan belirsizleşen ve tanımı zorlaşan sürdürülebilir kalkınma sonuçsuzluğa, diğer bir deyişle de topyekün başarısızlığa doğru ilerlemektedir. Çalışmada, bu yorumlama tartışmasını oturtmak ve sürdürülebilirliğin kendi içindeki paradoksu netleştirmek adına, yorumlama sürecindeki temel sorunların belirlenmesi kaydıyla,temel bakış açılarının takdim edildiği analitik bir şema sunulacaktır

🔖

Cite This Article

MAZI, F. (2022). UNDERSTANDİNG SUSTAİNABLE DEVELOPMENT: AMBİGUİTY AND CONFLİCT. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 23, 321–331. https://ajindex.com/articles/493463

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1992). “Some notes on a working visit to South Africa”. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 231-233.
  2. Aguirre, B. E. 2002. “Sustainable Development as Collective Surge”. Social Science Quarterly 83(1):101-118.
  3. Albala-Bertrand, J. M. (1994). “Review Article. Development from within: Toward a Neostructuralist Approach for Latin America by Osvaldo Sunkel(ed)”. Journal of Latin American Studies, Cambridge University Press. 26(3): 788-789.
  4. Asafu-Adjaye, J. (2005). “Envronmental economics for non- economists: techniques and policies for sustainable development”. Singapore; River Edge, N.J.: World Scientific, 2nd ed. Barbier, E. B. (1987). “The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development”. Environmental Conservation 14 (2):101- 10. Bourdeau, P.(2004). “The man−nature relationship and environmental ethics”. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 72 (1-2): 9-15.
  5. Cahill, M. (2001). “Social Policy and the Environment”. The Gilredge Press,
  6. Brighton. Cahill M and Fitzpatrick, T.(2001). eds. Environmental Issues and Social Welfare. Blackwell, Oxford. 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):296-310.
  7. Christoff, P.(1996). “Ecological modernization, ecological modernities”. Environmental Politics, 5(3): 476 – 500. Cobb, C., Halstead, T. and Rowe, J. (1995). The Genuine Progress Indicator:Summary of Data and Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Redefining Progress. Cole, M. A. (2007). “Economic Growth and the Environment.” In Atkinson, G., Dietz, S. and Neumayer, E. (eds.) Handbook of Sustainable Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.240-253.
  8. Common, M. and Perrings, C. (1992). “Towards an Ecological Economics of Sustainability.” Ecological Economics 6(1): 7-34.
  9. Coomer, J. C. (1979). “The nature of the quest for a sustainable society”. In Coomer, J.C. (ed.), Quest for a Sustainable Society. Pergamon Press,
  10. New York. Costanza, R. and Daly, H. E. (1992). “Natural Capital and Sustainable Development”. Conservation Biology, 6(1): 37-46.
  11. Costanza, R. 1994a. “Environmental Performance Indicators, Environmental Space and the Preservation of Ecosystem Health”. In Global Change and Sustainable Private (and Infrastructure”. International Political Risk Management.(pp.75-99)
  12. The Brave New World, World Bank. in Moran(ed), In Theodore H. Jacobs, M. (1999). “Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept”. In A. Dobson(ed.), Fairness