Journal of Sustainability

Journal of Sustainability http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?blogId=1 Journal of SUSTAINABILITY: exploring new ways of living green. Regular features include lifestyle ideas, interviews, avant-garde architectural drawings, fiction, poetry, and popular-level educational and informational articles. Article subjects include: food co-ops and food sheds; ecological design of lifestyles, homes, communities and regions; psycho-social critiques; complexity and postmodernism; cutting edge technologies; public policy, such as new approaches to managing natural resources or international development; and exploring the meaning of “sustainability” in terms of lifestyles, society, law, psychology, and more. editors 2010-01-28T15:46:35Z Introducing a Simple Qualitative Comparative Dichotomy Approach to State and Clarify Sustainable Development and Sustainability Related Concepts and Issues: References http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=81&blogId=1 By Lucio Muñoz*   *Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher/Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada. E-mail: <a href="mailto:munoz@interchange.ubc.ca">munoz@interchange.ubc.ca</a> References Adams, W. M., 2001.  Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. Second Edition. Routledge,    New York, NY, USA. Agyeman, J. and B. Evans, 1996.   Editorial.  In: Local Environment.  Vol. 1 No. 1, February. Brown, D.(2002). Insatiable is Not Sustainable. Prager, London. Desai, U., 1998.  Ecological Policy and Politics in Developing Countries: Economic Growth, Democracy, and Environment.    State University of New York Press. Goodland, Robert, 1997.  Biophysical and Objective Environmental Sustainability.  In: Sustainability and Global Environmental     Policy: New Perspectives.  Andrew K. Dragun and Kristin M. Jakobsson(Eds).  Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Gove, P.B., 1965.   Webster's Third New International Dictionary of English Language. G. & C. Merriam Co.  Sprinfield,   Massachusetts.  USA. P. 618. Jones, T., 1996.  Local Authorities and Sustainable Development: Turning Policies Into Practical Action Through Performance Review-A Case Study of London Borough of Hackney.  In: Local     Environment.  Vol. 1 No. 1, February. Lopez, A.(1995) Estrategias para el Desarrollo Sostenible:  America Latina.  Union Mundial para la Naturaleza(UICN). McLaren, D., 1996.   Enduring Decisions: Evaluating Environmental Impacts for Sustainability Planning.  In: Local Environment.     Vol. 1 No. 1, February. Muñoz, Lucio, 2003.  Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21, GDS, IIG, Spain Muñoz, Lucio, 2009.  Beyond Traditional Sustainable Development: Sustainability Theory and Sustainability Indices Under Ideal Present-Absent Qualitative Comparative Conditions, Mineria Sustentable, REDESMA, Vol.3(1), March, La Paz, Bolivia. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), 2001.  The DAC Guidelines: Strategies for Sustainable Development/Guidance for Development Co-operation. Paris,  France. O'Riordan, T., 1988.  The Politics of Sustainability. In: Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and Practice.  Chapter 2. Edited by R. Kerry Turner.  WestView Press. Boulder, Colorado. Pearce, David, 1993.  Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan.   Pinfield, G., 1996.  Beyond Sustainability Indicators. In: Local    Environment. Vol. 1. No. 2. June. Ragin, C., 1987.  The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond the Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies.  University of  California Press. Ragin, C., 1994.  Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method.  Pine Forge Press. Rudel, T. and J. Roper, 1996.  Regional Patterns and Historical Trends in Tropical Deforestation, 1976-1990: A  Qualitative Comparative Analysis.  In: AMBIO.  Vol. 25. No.   3, May 1996. Sedjo, R. A., A. Goetzl, and S. O. Moffat, 1998.  Sustainability    of Temperate Forests.  Resources for the Future.  Washington,    D.C. Voisey, H., C. Beuermann, L. A. Sverdrup, and T. O'Riordan, 1996.    The Political Significance of Local Agenda 21: The Early Stages of Some European Experience.  In: Local Environment.      Vol. 1 No. 1, February. Williams, L., 1996.   An Emerging Framework for Local Agenda 21.     In: Local Environment.  Vol. 1 No. 1, February. World Bank(WB), 1998.  Evaluation and Development: Proceedings of the 1994 World Bank Conference.  Operation and Evaluation Department. World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED), 1987.  Our Common Future.  London, Oxford United Press. P. 43. Upton, S., 2002   Road Blocks to Agenda 21: A Government Perspective. In: Earth Summit: A New Deal. Felix Dodds(Ed). EarthScan, London.   copyright 2010 Lucio Muñoz and the Journal of Sustainability Issue 2 Number 4 2010-01-28T12:54:02Z editors Introducing a Simple Qualitative Comparative Dichotomy Approach to State and Clarify Sustainable Development and Sustainability Related Concepts and Issues, Part 2 http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=80&blogId=1 By Lucio Muñoz* *Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher/Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada. E-mail: <a href="mailto:munoz@interchange.ubc.ca">munoz@interchange.ubc.ca</a> (continued) iii) Comparing sets of forces between development models               By comparing the combination of forces underlying the development processes of different areas or localities, we can gain an insight into their similarities and differences.  For example, considering the two following models: Di = Abc; where Di = development conditions in locality "i" Dj = aBc; where Dj = development conditions in locality "j"             The above models indicate that the development conditions in locality Di are different from those of locality Dj: in locality Di, societal forces(A) are dominant and in locality Dj, economic forces(B) are the active ones.  In other words, locality Di follows socialist goals and locality Dj follows capitalist goals.  However, the two localities are similar in that in both of them the environment(c) is assumed to have a passive role, and must accommodate to either societal or economic goals.  Hence, similarities and differences can be helpful into providing insight into patterns of active or passive dominant roles across localities and areas.  For example, if regional development(RD) were made up of development conditions in those two localities, the following holds:    RD = Di + Dj = Abc + aBc = c(Ab + aB).                 The above regional development(RD) model indicates that the environment(c) is the common passive factor at the regional level.  Hence, the implementation of environmental policies could be a common policy in both localities.  And perhaps this common policy could be implemented without much discourse if social and economic goals in this region can be balanced out successfully. For example, if there are win-win situations in social and economic terms, locality Di and locality Dj should be expected to see an incentive and take action in implementing a common environmental policy like global warming or a ban on pesticides. The ABC development model based on qualitative dichotomies i) The ABC development model D = A + B + C             The above model simply says that there is development(D) when social factors(A) or economic factors(B) or environmental factors(C) or any combinations of them are present as active forces.  One implication of this development model is that each set of forces are sufficient for development to take place, but not necessary.  For example, if the economy(B) has the dominant role, development(D) will take place whether or not social factors(A) or environmental factors(C) are active or not.  ii) The ABC anti-thesis development model d = abc             The above anti-thesis development model indicates that there is no development(d) when all three factors are absent or passive at the same time.  iii) The ABC optimal development model   D^* = ABC                                                                            The above expression indicates that development is optimal when all three types of forces are present and have an active role at the same time.  The main implication of this expression is that the active presence of these three factors at the same time is a sufficient and a necessary condition for optimal development to take place.  In other words, if one or two of these three factors is passive, development can not be optimal. iv) The different faces of development(D)             The formula to find the different faces or types of development using dichotomy rules is the following:  D = 2^n  - 1 ;  Where 2 means two choices, active and passive                                 n = number of forces or factors                                 1 = the anti-thesis development model             A direct application of the above formula to the ABC development model leads to the following: D = 2^3  - 1 =  8 - 1 =  7  faces             The above means that 7 different types of development models or of faces of development are possible, which are described below: D1 = Abc =  Social factors(A) are active only D2 = aBc =  Economic factors(B) are active only D3 = abC =  Environmental factors(C) are active only D4 = ABc =  Socio-Economic factors are active only D5 = AbC =  Socio-Environmental factors are active only D6 = aBC =  Economic-Environmental factors are active only D7 = ABC =  All three factors are active at the same time v) The different personalities of development             Based on the concept of optimal model of development mentioned above, development has two personalities: 1) an optimal personality when all factors are present in an active form as in model D7; and 2) a non-optimal personality when at least one factor has a passive role as in models D1 to D6.  In other words, from all the above seven models only D7 is an optimal model of development reflecting the characteristics of true sustainability or strong sustainability. vi) The different faces of sustainable development(SD)             Based on the definition of sustainable development(SD) used in this research, it includes all models of development, which do not have all three factors active at the same time.  This means that sustainable development(SD) in this view is the same as non-optimal development because it includes all models where at least one factor has a passive role.  Hence, sustainable development is not optimal development.  On the other hand, one implication of the above discussion is that sustainable development is not unique and it reflects sustained states of development.  The six different faces of sustainable development are listed below: D1 = SD1 = Abc =   Deep socio-centric development model                                   Society goals are dominant D2 = SD2 = aBc =   Deep Market-centric development model                                   Economic goals are paramount D3 = SD3 = abC =   Deep eco-centric development model                                   The environment only matters D4 = SD4 = ABc =   Socio-economic development model                                    Social and economic concerns matter D5 = SD5 = AbC =  Socio-ecological development model                                   Social and ecological concerns matters D6 = SD6 = aBC =   Eco-economic development model                                    Ecological and economic concerns matters             One of  the implications of the above six models is that sustainable development(D) allows for development to take place in the absence or passive presence of one or two factors, which make it a term consistent with the concept of weak sustainability described above in which system-system dominance is present, and capital substitutability widely promoted.  Notice that in all sustainable development models the passive or inactive factors are used to sustain all active factors.  As a result of the above it can be concluded that sustainable development is not optimal development.              On the other hand, each of the six models above indicates sustainable development reflects forms of development that can be sustained or that sustainable development refers to any form of sustained development.  The two most well known sustainable development models are D2 and D6.  Model D2 is known as the neo-classical model of economic development, where the society and the environment are used to sustain economic growth programs.  Model D6 is known as the eco-economic development model, the dominant paradigm today, where society is used to sustain eco-economic development programs.  On the other hand, a socialist country would reflect model D1; deep ecology would reflect model D3; countries seeking to balance social and economic goals would reflect model D4; and countries seeking to pair social and environmental goals would reflect model D5. vii) The unique face of sustainability             Based on the definition of sustainability(S), it takes place only when all three factors or forces driving the development system play an active role.  Hence, sustainability(S) is equivalent to optimal development since: D^* = S = ABC = D7                         The sustainability model indicates that development is sustainable only if it is optimal development.             By comparing the sustainability model and the different sustainable development models, we can conclude that sustainable development is not sustainability, and that both are different forms of development.  Sustainable development is non-optimal development while sustainability is optimal development. This is true because sustainability(S) does not take place when factors have passive roles. Therefore, sustainability is a term consistent with the concept of strong sustainability described above in which system-system dominance does not exist.  However, sustainability in the above model is maintained by internal system adjustments in response to the dynamic processes taking place in the other systems.  As a result of the above, the sustainability model can be called the socio-eco-economic development model.  Finally, the sustainability model can be used to indicate how close or far the different sustainable development models are from optimality. For example, by determining the optimality gap or sustainability gap, the distance between specific sustainable development models and sustainability, we can assess how far we still need to go to achieve optimality. Conclusions             There are seven specific conclusions that can be derived from the above analysis: a) Development has 7 different faces; b) Sustainable development and sustainability are two different personalities of development; c) Sustainable development is not unique as it reflect all forms of sustained development; d) Sustainable development is not optimal development; e) Sustainable development is not sustainability; f) Sustainability is consistent with the concept of strong sustainability; and g) The resulting sustainability model can be used to understand optimality gaps or the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of optimal development.             There are five general conclusions that can be stated: a) The proposed ABC development model based on qualitative comparative dichotomy variables provides a simple way to state all the possible types of development; b) Sustainable development models can be seen as different development paths toward sustainability; c) The sustainability model can be used to determine how close or far sustainable development models are from optimal development; d) A better understanding of the different types of development models being pursued often at the same time would facilitate planning, monitoring, and evaluation activities at the local/regional level; and e) Sustainable development reflects all forms of sustained development. copyright 2010 Lucio Muñoz and the Journal of Sustainability Issue 2 Number 4 2010-01-28T12:47:40Z editors Introducing a Simple Qualitative Comparative Dichotomy Approach to State and Clarify Sustainable Development and Sustainability Related Concepts and Issues, Part 1 http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=79&blogId=1 By Lucio Muñoz* *Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher/Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada. E-mail: <a href="mailto:munoz@interchange.ubc.ca">munoz@interchange.ubc.ca</a> Abstract            The planning, monitoring, and evaluation of local/ regional development projects and programs has become more difficult as the result of several sources of confusion related to the dynamic interaction of different development paradigms and their sometimes contradictory objectives.  Unclear development related concepts also complicate efforts directed at comparing and classifying those local/regional projects and programs.  One way of clarifying the confusing issues raised above may be by addressing the following questions: Which are the different faces of development? Which are the different personalities of development?; Is sustainable development unique?; Is sustainable development optimal development?; Is sustainability sustainable development or Is sustainable development sustainability; and Is sustainability consistent with the concept of strong sustainability? The simple qualitative comparative analytical tool presented in this paper is described in such a way as to provide an answer to the above mentioned questions from a system analysis point of view.  Introduction           The planning, monitoring, and evaluation of local/regional development projects and programs becomes more difficult as the result of several sources of confusion related to the dynamic interaction of different development paradigms and their sometimes contradictory objectives.            Some of the situations created by this confusion are: a) It is possible to develop sets of indicators/assumptions, which are consistent with a particular sustainable development paradigm, but not with sustainability.  This raises issues related to the comparability of different local projects and programs as they may reflect different paradigms; b) It makes it more difficult to develop local indicators/assumptions consistent with regional conditions as the local sustainable development model may be different than the regional model.  This brings out issues related to the integration and the holistic handling of local-regional problems; and c) It makes the inclusion of equity and social justice issues in these indicators/assumptions less transparent. This indicates issues related to the fairness of local/global programs.             Pinfield(1996) indicates that the sustainability indicators developed by the Department of the Environment in the UK came out to be mainly an environmental set. Jones(1996) suggests that the disagreements on what sustainable development means actually complicate the implementation of this concept and the promotion of sustainability at the local level.  Hence, unclear concepts may affect the operability of development strategies, regardless of paradigms, including the well-accepted strategy of thinking globally acting locally.  Agyeman and Evans(1996) regard the above strategy as one of the most important original strategies of the international ecological movement.            They also affect the effectiveness of strategies based on the confusing concept of sustainable development such as Agenda 21.  Upton(2002) points out that the main limitation of Agenda 21 is that it means different things to different people. Besides this, it was pointed out in 2003 that Agenda 21 indicators and methodologies were put together and implemented to deal with sustainability issues in the absence of sustainability theory; and one possible theoretical and practical way to correct that situation was suggested(Muñoz 2003).  Therefore, clear concepts are needed to induce clear action, transparency, and to facilitate the monitoring of activities at all levels, from personal to global. Below, some concepts are revised briefly in order to establish or identify some of the sources of the above mentioned confusion. i) What is development?         Development is defined as “a gradual advance or growth through progressive changes” and to develop is defined as “to expand by a process of growth”(Gove 1965). Therefore, development can be seen as the process by which existing economic, social, and environmental capital or any combination of them can be used in such a manner to achieve progress gradually;  for example, the use of social capital to achieve social progress or the use of social capital and environmental capital to achieve economic progress.           Hence, development can take the form of social development, environmental development or economic development or of any combination of them.  In other words, development can take place even in the absence of some types of development.  However, the concept development is in practice usually used in the context of meaning exclusively economic development, which is the traditional paradigm. Desai(1998) points out that this traditional model of economic growth does not considers ecological values to be important to economics or economic development. Under this traditional view, social and environmental resources are at the disposal of economic forces for sustaining and supporting the production of goods and services for the market place.  In summary, development has many meanings, which is the first source of confusion. ii) What is sustainable development?           WCED(1987) defines sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".  The problem with this definition is that all types of development can be considered sustainable if they meet the development needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own development needs. Under this view, economic development, social development, environmental development or any combination of them could be sustainable development.  For example, development that meets the environmental development needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own environmental development needs is sustainable according to the definition, and it is, therefore, sustainable environmental development.            A definition of sustainable social development or sustainable economic development can be derived in a similar fashion. Hence, sustainable development can take different forms depending on the type of development paradigm it represents. And its ability to take different forms or meanings appears to be the factor responsible for the wide acceptance of the World Commission on Sustainable Development's concept. Adams(2001) indicates that the sustainable development paradigm became quickly accepted and popular because it permitted the fitting of different development ideas or adjustments. However, the concept of sustainable development is more often used in practice in a context meaning sustainable economic development or environmentally friendly economic development, which is the dominant paradigm today.  This is the result of adjusting the traditional economic development paradigm mentioned above to reflect today's environmental concerns or eco-economic view of development.           Hence, from this view, sustainable development relates to the idea of maximising economic growth subject to ecological constraints or of finding win-win situations.  The above indicates that the expression sustainable development actually means sustained economic development. In short, the concept of sustainable development has several meaning depending on the person or group presenting the argument, which is the second source of confusion. iii) What is sustainability?           The concept of sustainability came as a way of clarifying the confusing nature of the term "sustainable economic development" as academics started arguing in stronger terms that the traditional economic development model did not account for environmental and social externalities, and hence, it was not sustainable.  In the case of developing countries, Desai(1998) describes the different ecological concerns challenging the traditional view of economic development.            Given the different concerns left out, sustainable development is not equal to optimal development because it refers to a sustained state, not a balanced state. Sedjo et al(1998) indicates that there is a general understanding that sustainability refers to balancing ecological, social, and economic concerns in such a way so as to accommodate those same concerns in the future.  Hence, sustainability refers to the notion that development should account for all economic, social, and environmental concerns at the same time now and in the future.  This notion of development implies that sustainability reflects the optimal process of development.            However, commonly in theory and in practice sustainability is used in a context meaning sustainable development. For example, Pinfield(1996) theoretically defines sustainable development as the interception of three aspects: community development, ecological development, and economic development.  Lopez(1995) indicates that sustainable development strategies are processes that are cyclical and participative; that are based on planning-action approaches; and which are aimed at improving the quality of life through maintaining a balance between the economic, social, and environmental goals of development.  Other academics used those concepts as equivalent.  For example, Williams(1996) uses the term sustainable development and sustainability when describing the guiding principles of the local agenda 21 process apparently as if they mean the same.  Sedjo et al(1998) considers the definition of sustainable development as put forward by the Bruntland Commission as one that best represents the modern concept of sustainability. For others, sustainable development deals with the integration of social, economic, and environmental objectives in the present in ways that it does not compromise future needs(OECD 2001), which is practically a sustainability concept.  Definitions and uses like those above make the concept of sustainable development equivalent to the concept of sustainability, and these types of situations are the third source of confusion.  iv) What is weak and strong sustainability?           Two well-known and accepted concepts related to sustainable development are weak sustainability and strong sustainability.  Weak sustainability refers to the notion that we have the responsibility of passing to future generations an equal amount or higher of the capital stock we have now regardless of the form.  Strong sustainability refers to notion that the different components of the capital stock(man-made, human, and natural) are not substitutes of each other so that an equal amount or higher of each of them must be transferred to future generations.           To ease the extremes positions of the above two terms, Pearce(1993) breaks sustainability into four concepts: very weak sustainability, which allows for extensive substitution; weak sustainability, some substitution of non-critical natural capital allowed; strong sustainability, no substitution, system approached, and zero economic and population growth; and very strong sustainability, no substitution, reduction of economic and population growth.           WB(1998) also provides the following four types of sustainability: weak sustainability, which refers to maintaining total capital per capita intact or increasing without regard to its composition and different types of capital are treated as substitutes; sensible sustainability, which refers to the existence of substitutability too between the different types of capital, but it also recognises they are also complementary and there are some concerns about the final composition of the capital stock; strong sustainability, which requires maintaining each type of capital intact separately, but allows for some substitutability within each type of capital; and absurdly strong sustainability, which allows for zero depletion of non-renewable and renewable resources, and only allows for the harvesting of the over mature portion of the renewable stock.  McLaren(1996) calls the weak version of sustainable development where ecological capacity can be traded off against growth or development "false sustainability" and he calls the strong version of sustainable development where ecological capacity can not be traded off "true sustainability".           Apparently, all the above concepts are based on quantitative value measurements of the capital stock to be transferred to the next generations, but we should keep in mind that it may be possible to leave a better quality economy, a better quality environment, and a better quality society even if the size of man-made capital, human capital, and natural capital decreases if the increase in its qualitative value more than compensate the quantitative decrease.  The better the quality of the stock of capital we leave, the higher the socio-eco-economic benefits that future generations will receive.  As constraints to quantitative growth become more and more binding, qualitative growth will become an attractive venue.  Goodland(1997) indicates that the transition from quantitative growth to qualitative growth is already under way. While the above concepts are widely used and cited, it is not clear how they specifically relate to the concept of sustainable development or to the concept of sustainability or to both, which is the fourth source of confusion.          The need to clarify the above sources of confusion           Some people may benefit by the use of unclear concepts, which may explain the apparent resistance to state clearly as the goal of development “sustainability”, instead of sustainable development. As the sustainability debate is now basically about shaping its deep meaning(Brown 2002) or structure, then ways to differentiate it from other forms of development are desirable. The need to ensure theory-practice consistency when dealing with sustainable development and sustainability issues has been recently stressed(Muñoz 2009).  Hence, there is a need to develop frameworks that could be helpful to aid in the dissipation of this conceptual confusion; and that can uncover clearly the different types of development process possible, and their main characteristics and assumptions. This way, planning, monitoring, and evaluation programs can be more efficiently designed and carried out.  Moreover, clear concepts allow for clear comparability and classification of development programs actually being implemented at the local and regional level. The author believes that one way of clarifying the development issues raised above may be by addressing the following questions: Which are the different faces or types of development? Which are the different personalities of development?; Is sustainable development unique?; Is sustainable development optimal development?; Is sustainability sustainable development or Is sustainable development sustainability; and Is sustainability consistent with the concept of strong sustainability? The simple qualitative comparative analytical tool presented in this paper is described in such a way so as to provide an answer to the above mentioned questions from a system analysis point of view.           Several academics have addressed some of the questions mentioned above, not from the three system model points of view, but from the sustainable development point of view(see Pierce 1993; WB 1998).  The practical and theoretical difficulties of developing sustainability models have been recognised since about 1987 when the inclusion of environmental and social concerns on developments models became binding.  O'Riordan(1988) in his article "The Politics of Sustainability" summarises most of the scepticism about modelling sustainability and its actual implementation. However, the search for ways to break this theoretical/practical modelling block continues, and below there is a detailed description of one more of such honest attempts. Objectives           This paper has the following objectives: a) To introduce a simple qualitative comparative dichotomy approach that can be used to state all possible types of development; and b) To use this framework to provide ideas that may help clarify concepts such as development, optimal development, sustained development, sustainable development and sustainability by pointing out their different paradigm structures and differences. Methodology           First, the qualitative comparative terminology used in this paper is listed.  Second, some operational concepts and rules relevant to the ideas presented here are discussed. Third, The ABC development model based on qualitative comparative dichotomies is introduced and used to highlight a) the structure of development when there are no components in active form and when all of them are in active form; b) the structure of the deferent faces and personalities of development; c) the structure of the different faces of sustainable development; and d) the structure of the unique face of sustainability.  And finally, some relevant conclusions are provided. Terminology          The qualitative comparative dichotomy terminology used in this paper is listed below. Notice that this terminology is consistent with terminology commonly used by Qualitative Comparative Researchers(See Ragin 1987, 1994; Rudel and Roper 1996; Muñoz 2003, 2009).  In this paper, if a characteristic is said to be dominant, then it has an active role in system dynamics, and it is represented by a capital letter.  On the other hand, if a characteristic is said to be dominated, then it has a passive role in system dynamics, and it is represented by a lower case letter.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A  =  Indicates that society plays an active role                   D = Development a  =  Indicates that society plays a passive role                    SD = Sustainable development B  =  Indicates that the economy plays an active role          S = Sustainability b  =  Indicates that the economy plays a passive role          RD = Regional development C  =  Indicates that the environment plays an active role    Di = Development in community “i” c  =  Indicates that the environment plays a passive role     Dj = Development in community “j”                                                                                                 d = Anti-thesis development model                                     D* = Optimal development SDk = Sustainable development type “k”                            Dk = Development type “k” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRIVATE Operational concepts           To facilitate the presentation of the methodology used to derive the answers to the above questions, the different concepts and ideas used in this paper are described in detail below. i) Defining development, sustainable development, and sustainability           Development(D) is a holistic and systematic process resulting from the dynamic interaction of three components: the society(A), the economy(B), and the environment (C).  Figure 1 below describes development(D) as a system driven by changes in social(human), economic(market), and environmental (ecological) values, qualitative or/and quantitative values. <a id="res_112" href="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/ART5F1.JPG"><img src="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/previews-med/ART5F1.JPG" border="0" /></a>                Figure 1 also indicates the following: society is at the center of the system; the economy separates society from the environment; and the environment supports both the economy and society.   Among a few of the implications of the systematic structure of development(D) in Figure 1 are the following: if humans were to disappear from the face of the earth, there would be no economy, and the environment would possible recover through natural processes; if there is no formal economy, then society would interact with the environment directly; if the environment were to be completely degraded, polluted, and exhausted both the formal economy and society would collapsed; and both society and the economy have an environmental footprint, and therefore, a maximum and an optimal scale.           It can be seen that under this view of dominant/active role vrs dominated/passive role , development(D) takes place when at least one of the three components of the system shown in Figure 1, society, economy, and environment, has or plays an active role.  If all components of the system in Figure 1 have a passive role, then there is no development(d).  Sustainable development(SD), on the other hand, takes place when at least one of the three elements of the system indicated in Figure 1, society, economy, and environment, has or plays a passive role or is used to sustain the system.  Sustainability(S) takes place when all the three components of the system pointed out in Figure 1 have or are playing an active role at the same time.  Weak sustainability is found when there is system-system dominance while strong sustainability is found when there is not system-system dominance. One example would be having society(A) and the economy(B) in Figure 1 in dominant/active form; and the environment(c) in passive form, this is weak sustainability as there is system-system dominance. And therefore, true sustainability is strong sustainability as under true sustainability, there is no system-system dominance. In the case, society(A), economy(B), and environment(C) in Figure 1 are in dominant/active form we have true sustainability, then there is no system-system dominance; and therefore there is strong sustainability; ii) Combination of forces within development models           The combination of individual forces allows for expressing situations of conjunctural causality, which are underlying development processes(D).  For example, considering the following model:       D = Abc ;                                 The above model indicates that in this type of development, social forces(A) are paramount while economic forces(b) and environmental forces(c) have a passive role.  It assumes that changes in the economy and in the environment have no impact on society; and that society has the economy and the environment at its disposition to achieve social goals and needs. And hence, this is the sustained social development model-(Capital letters indicate an active role and lower case letters indicate a passive role). (continued) copyright 2010 Lucio Muñoz and the Journal of Sustainability Issue 2 Number 4 2010-01-28T12:33:14Z editors Beware the Green Shirts: The War of Tatsoi http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=78&blogId=1 By Amrit, <a href="mailto:Amrit@JournalofSustainability.com">Amrit@JournalofSustainability.com</a> My issue with tatsoi started, as well-intentioned things often do, earnestly and with true commitment. In my neighborhood, for 18 dollars a week I can get a large bag of seasonal organic produce from the local CSA group. I can even go on the internet and look up what Farmer John or Farmer Allison is harvesting up this week, and I can put on my worn leather jacket and trek over there with my nylon Hello Kitty grocery bag. For 18 dollars a week I can contribute to some honest social change. Of course, I have to pay in advance for several months of produce and I get no say in what produce I get. But I figured, that’s how social change works, collectively, and sometimes it’s like being 8 again; you have to eat what they give you.   It’s not like at my mother’s house there was much variety. She had two jobs and two kids and no man around much and we relied mostly on food stamps. So, after the free cheese ran out, we ate a lot of white bread and tomato sauce for dinner. We grew bloated on macaroni and cheese from the carton. Left to her own devices my mother had a way of reducing food to its simplest elements that today’s techno-foodies would have envied. While she lacked a dehydrator, or even a liquid nitrogen set-up, she did have a spectacular vintage turquoise wall oven. When set at 450 degrees it could vaporize a meatloaf, reducing it to a quarter of its original size in the pan, while creating a moat of viscous grease around it. To accompany the meatloaf we had “special” fries which mother removed from the freezer and dumped into a straight-sided aluminum pan of boiling Wesson oil. Then she went over to the neighbors for a cigarette or to borrow some lunch money. The fries desiccated in the pot and became more and less than fries. They became the outline of fries. The essence of fries. They were the color of cedar and when we bit into them they shattered and were hollow, the insides have gone somewhere else to eat. So as kids, we actually craved salads. By seventh grade it became apparent that one of us had to learn to cook and that one was me. My mother gladly surrendered the kitchen, the food stamps, and the remaining grocery money, and went over to the neighbors to drink freeze-dried coffee and chain smoke. Back then I cooked with a passion that lack of funds and hunger supplied. I borrowed cookbooks from the library and read them like novels and I spent a lot of time with other people’s mothers watching them cook. Back then most people still cooked everyday. My great aunts who were holocaust survivors and great hoarders of food taught me to bake. So by ninth grade I was a pretty decent cook. We ate soups and pasta, and stir-fries and, most lovely of all, fresh vegetables and salad nearly every day. Salad that we drowned in Wish-Bone Italian dressing because it was exotic and cheap. And we mopped it all up with three-for-a-dollar loaves of Italian bread that was really just longer fatter white bread with a slick of oil on top, but we were well fed and had some control over what we ate. Over parts of the next 10 years I would cook for my living, first as a short order chef in a very bad part of town where I actually saw someone’s brains get blown out at close range and then later at a crazy diner in New England where I made the largest Danish pastry known to man. “It’s our trademark!” the insane owner would exhort. “Make “em bigger” as I dumped cheese filling into each helmet-size Danish with an extra large ice cream scoop. I worked that job for two years until exhausted from the night shift and wanting to finish school, I went to work at a hospice where I never went near the kitchen. But for all these years I have cooked passionately for my friends and family and my interest in food, food that tastes like it was meant to, food that was cleaned and cooked with attention and love, has never wavered. I still cook every day. In 2008, when the CSA came to town I was intrigued. The thought of doing good only outweighed by my insatiable appetite for greens made it seem so inviting, so cool, but still I hesitated. Maybe it’s me, my anti-social tendencies, or maybe it’s because I really didn’t want to join anything at all ever again, after being ejected from the Young Communist League for being an “eclectic cynic” in 1980. I was buying my produce from the local co-op, as I needed it, and it was organic and well priced. But there was this girl, woman actually, and she sort of seduced me, and then I ended up taking over her share of the CSA when the next enrollment came around since her produce was rotting in her fridge and she felt guilty. She ate mostly cold cereal with milk. I should have seen the end in that. Since I cooked every night, she figured I’d be better off with her share. That way she could eat at my house even more. I wrote her a check and bought her out, after which she was pretty much gone from my life, except for dinner parties and an occasional near suicidal emotional meltdown. My first week at the CSA was seemingly benign. I came home from work, went for a run, and at 5:30 I walked over to the CSA headquarter and signed in. I had that weird feeling I always get when surrounded by well meaning academics and tarted up vegans, like I need to tell a raunchy joke or eat a big Mac. Everyone looked very lean, scary lean, and even the farmers seemed, well, kind of sophisticated. I followed the  on the chalkboard at the entrance and I picked up my collard greens, my mustard greens, my potatoes, my green chili, my mizuna, my mixed greens, my onions and a giant Hubbard-y looking squash so big I could barely carry it home. I planned to dice the squash that night and roast it with sea salt and then bag it up and freeze it to use all winter in pasta or soup. Everything looked great. Then came the last item, something I had never seen before, called tatsoi. It came with an instruction sheet, a bad sign, I thought. Then I walked over to the trade table where you can trade something you don’t want for something else you do want. It was piled neck high with tatsoi. They even offered to let me have some extra, so I took another bunch. It looked like a cross between mustard greens and spinach and I figured, “What the hell? It’s free.” But tatsoi was like an exercise in going against all your instincts. Like when you meet someone and you just don’t like them or even want to like them but your monkey mind says “You don’t have any reason not to like Jane…I mean other people like her”, but when Jane smiles all you see are bared teeth and you want to run away. That was tatsoi for me. It was Jane without teeth. I walked home in the dusk feeling self righteous and participatory. Holding my huge Hello Kitty sack of produce and my miraculous squash, I was mildly euphoric. Then, I tried to fit it all in the refrigerator. I left the tatsoi out. We regarded each other in the waning light. I don’t need instructions to cook food. I usually just ‘get’ food with an intuitive knowledge but I had a sneaking feeling, actually a miserable upload of anxiety regarding tatsoi. I just didn’t ‘get’ tatsoi. So I read the instructions. And I cooked the bitch in good olive oil and even so she tasted like something you’d scrape of the hull of a boat. I love greens: collards, chard, mustard and dandelion. I crave and eat them all the time. But this was something different, not really a green, more like a foaming slime. I poured on some soy and I braved it down. And then quickly it came back up. I tossed the first bunch, literally, and then I went on-line to see where I had gone wrong. It could not be that anything that grew in the ground could be this revolting. I had no previous experience with anything this slimy that was not first blended at high speed. Week after week, it seemed there was a pile of rejected tatsoi on the trade in table at the CSA and week after week my fellow do-gooders shamefully whispered how nauseating the tatsoi was and wondered why was it so ubiquitous. Finally, one night I wrote to the CSA asking if they would take supporters preferences into account before they planted next year’s crop given that like the parsley in that old joke, nobody actually ate tatsoi. It seemed a shame to see huge piles of it going to waste each week. The next morning there was a reply in my email box from the CSA. I had a bad feeling even before I opened the email. But when I opened it was like watching a bad 1950’s documentary with that stentorian voice-over narration. I could just hear Farmer John who wrote on behalf of the CSA, and whom I assumed was really a tenured professor. Instead of a reply I had gotten back a lecture on crops and farming. Now, it is notoriously difficult to assess tone in an email, but this one rang with sarcasm and patronage. It was didactic beyond endurance, but even worse, it was smug. Smug in that politically hectoring way that made me want to drive a Hummer over him. Mr. John informed me that crops actually grow, you know, as in the ground, over time, so the farmer, at the mercy of “mother nature”, (just like a woman), had to actually, you know, plant the tatsoi in advance and so, could not account for the fickle preferences of the supporters and further, we should learn to like tatsoi because tatsoi was environmentally sound and a sustainable desert crop and no one else had complained and maybe, he implied, I needed professional help. Perhaps a hysterectomy. Foolishly, with the heart and hope of an aging leftist I wrote him back explaining that even though crops actually grow in the ground, you know, that there was always, like next year, you know, and perhaps our preferences could be taken into account since it was like, you know, COMMUNITY supported agriculture, after all. I attached a picture of the mountain of tatsoi on the reject table that I took with my cell phone. I stopped short of attaching a photo of the last tatsoi I had puked up.  I told him that I was nearly 50 years old and that I did not have to boost my “farm cred” by eating swill that no pig would choke down and I resigned from the CSA. I felt relief, no more smug academic pseudo-farmers, no more 25-pound Hubbard squash to dismember, and best of all no more paternalistic lecturing from “Farmer” John. But I was wrong. In the morning, and for several mornings after, I received hate mail from Farmer John, analyzing my political commitment, my logic, and my future role in the greening of America. He wrote me until I blocked his mail, but not his grinding hectoring voice from my memory. So now, when I think of tatsoi, I think of all the older men in my life who told me what I want and how I want it. How I should feel and how I should express myself. It’s always “If only you said x, if only you did y, I could hear you”, but the truth is the Farmer Johns can’t hear me anymore than the tatsoi can lying there evilly green and mucosal on the stainless steel table. Proving after all, that there really are some things that you just can’t choke down. Copyright 2009 Margo Donaldson and the Journal of Sustainability Issue 2 Number 3 2009-12-25T11:18:20Z editors The Voices of Solar: Marlene L. Brown http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=77&blogId=1 By Rose Marie Kern, rmk@swcp.com ”I was surprised by the lack of respect for women in the trade.” Marlene Brown is an Electrical Engineer and a Senior Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Labs.  Winner of the 2009 American Solar Energy Society’s “Women in Solar” award, she is a past President of the New Mexico Solar Energy Assn. as well as the New Mexico Solar Energy Industries Association and contributes many hours promoting renewable energy technology as a career choice for women. Marlene first studied energy systems in an interdisciplinary program at the Evergreen State College in Washington State.  After graduating she became an Energy Auditor in Massachusetts.  “Unfortunately, I discovered that middle and upper class people didn’t really care about saving energy. “ <a id="res_111" href="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/Marlene4.jpg"><img src="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/previews-med/Marlene4.jpg" border="0" /></a> She moved to Washington, D.C. and began working with low-income families.  Here her efforts paid off as she saw her work make a difference in the poorer communities. But Marlene was restless and wished to continue learning and growing in new directions. On vacation in Jamaica, she met a man who made the field of solar energy come alive, and told her of the Colorado Mountain College in Carbondale, Colorado, where she could study PV.  She took a two-week course there over the summer, liked Colorado and the course so much that she moved there and earned a certificate in Energy Efficient Building Technologies. She started working in the construction field, but was surprised at the lack of respect she noted for women in the trade.  Going to work for Zomeworks in Albuquerque, she went back to school at UNM and TVI (now called CNM), eventually getting her Master’s in Electrical Engineering and her certificate in the electrical trades.  During this time she also began working with the Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF)– an international organization that empowers developing countries and arranges for them to use Solar Energy to bring electricity to villages where lights, radios and consistent contact with the outside world have never been available.  In 1993, SELF hired Marlene to go to Vietnam.  There she trained members of the Vietnam Women’s Union in the basics of Photovoltaics.  Marlene described the adventure. “I trudged or canoed through the jungle to 4 small villages where I installed 100 PV systems in 5 days.”  A glutton for punishment, she repeated this feat two years later in Vietnam and in the Soloman Islands.  Back in New Mexico, Marlene went to work for Sandia Labs.  Though previously familiar with NMSEA, the American Solar Energy Society’s ’98 Solar conference in Albuquerque convinced her to work with the local chapter to forward the education of the public. Marlene teaches coed and women-only classes in photovoltaics several times a year throughout the U.S.  She is convinced that this is a viable and important career field for women. “Renewable Energy technology is further along than ever”, Marlene notes, “and it really has gone mainstream.”  She sites the programs in several California cities and other cities in the U.S. that have made a dramatic difference in the local environments.  She felt that for a long time, politically we lost ground as the government reduced funding for Renewable energy research and development. That has significantly changed since the Obama administration has taken over. “In Europe, RE is automatically rolled into household mortgages.  Here we used to struggle just to get people to understand that they have options. She believes that there are now significant options for people that want PV or solar hot water. “We are finally seeing some significant mechanisms to help finance solar.” Marlene understands how energy affects people’s lives.  She has seen the excitement of the first light bulb ever glowing in remote villages, and she has known the gratitude of people whose every cent counts towards their quality of life. Copyright 2009 Rose Marie Kern and the Journal of Sustainability Issue 2 Number 3 2009-12-25T10:54:31Z editors Language though Occupation http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=76&blogId=1 By Andrés Jennings, drediz2000@gmail.com There is no risk in saying that almost all literate people in the world have taken some kind of foreign language course.  Maybe just in high school, taking a basic Spanish course that was a requirement to graduate, and later remembering only a couple words.  Whether or not one is fluent or has just taken a few basic classes in a foreign language, there is no denying that knowing more than one language is useful. I have been motivated for a few years now to learn new languages.  In college I took classes and studied abroad to immerse myself into the places where the languages where spoken.  For the last few years, I have been living in South America in various countries to learn the other major languages of the Americas:  Spanish, Portuguese and French.  Being a native English speaker, I wanted to provide a service to the people I would be living with so learned how to teach English.  Teaching English was my way to make a living abroad, but it also helped me get in touch with my students, and learn their native language.  After living in Mexico, Ecuador, and Brazil, I managed to come out of South America speaking fluent Spanish and Portuguese.  This was by no means an easy feat, but being totally immersed in the language and culture greatly accelerated the process.  My willingness to learn was key to my success.  Being a teacher allowed me to understand what it was like to help people learn.  Teaching, I found out, requires a lot more talent and energy than most people think.  Being able to speak a language fluently does not necessarily mean you are able to teach it.  Beyond understating the technical rules of a language (i.e. Grammar), a teacher has to know how to manage time, prepare and create appropriate lessons, work to understand the individual needs of their students and above all, have a great amount of patience.  Teachers are leaders.  It was not until I was the teacher standing in front of the classroom that I realized this.  Besides being an international teacher, I have also been an international student.  While living in foreign countries, it has been my personal philosophy to learn the language of the country where I am living.  When you are immersed, everything turns into an interactive language classroom and I took full advantage of it. South America was amazing.  I lived a dream life living and traveling over a four-year period, and learning from the people was easy because they were so open and friendly.  I had experienced great challenges and had learned so much that I was beginning to feel that I wanted to just go home to the United States and start my life there again.  I had conquered my own hopes of learning more languages and experiencing something different so going home sounded really good. I did go home, back to New Mexico where I was born and raised.  Back home, I started to get very comfortable.  New Mexico is a wonderful place to live, and because of its history and people being very rooted in the Spanish conquest of the Americas, my fluency in Spanish was useful.  After a year back home though, I started to get that itch to travel again.  I still felt that I had more to learn and more to see. So, to make a somewhat long story short, I am now living I the Czech Republic.  I have been living here for the last four months and have a job teaching English.  I am living in Prague, one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, and I once again dived head first into the language pool.  The only problem with the Czech language is that the pool is very deep, and there is a current that you have to swim against. In Europe, there are three main types of Languages:  Germanic, Latinic and Slavic.  English is a Germanic language, and the other languages of the Americas are all Latinic.  The Czech language is a Slavic based language.  Other Slavic languages are Russian, Polish, and Slovakian.  In the USA there is virtually no exposure to these languages.  America speaks European languages, but this branch of the language tree has not grown at all in the American Continent.  You may be asking, as my family did when I decided to come to Prague to learn Czech, why would anyone want to learn Czech?  There are only ten million people in the world who speak the Czech language, and there are other Slavic languages that would be more useful to know, like Russian.  The answer comes down to wanting to live in the Czech Republic.  Although I had never been here, I had a few Czech friends that told me it was a great place to live, I could easily get a job here, and they would help me get me off the ground in the first few months.  As an added bonus, the beer in the Czech Republic is some of the best in the world.  My reasoning for learning Czech was that if I know one Slavic language, it would be easier for me to learn another in the future.  Taking a look at what Prague had to offer made the move very exciting for me, and I wanted to give it a try.  I wasn’t the first American to want to try this.            Coming here with the intent to teach English has been the idea of many Americans nice the 1990s.  On November 17th, 1989 the Czech Republic (then known as Czechoslovakia) had a non-violent revolution.  The Velvet Revolution, as it was called, ended Communism that had commanded the territory since 1948.  The protests of more than half a million people around the country sent the Soviets packing, and a new democracy was instated.  With the fall of Communism came new opportunity for the Czech people, and the world became something they could be a part of.  The new world that they became a part of was the Capitalist majority of Europe, and the English language was very useful in that world. The Czech Republic has been occupied by other countries throughout most of its history, and there has always been another language forced upon them by the occupier.  In the last 80 years, the German and Russian languages pushed upon the Czech people, but with the arrival of Democracy to the country, English was not forced upon the Czechs though occupation, but rather by circumstance. The students I teach in the Czech Republic are not like other students I have had before.  First of all, they are all adults.  In South America, most of my students were between the ages of 14 and 30.  Here in the Czech Republic, all my students are over 30 years of age.  The reason for this is because anyone who is under 30 already speaks English pretty well, as it was offered to all Czech students after 1989.  Prior to that date, all Czechs were required to learn Russian or German.  If anyone learned English before 1989, it was because they worked very hard to learn it and were never guaranteed the chance to ever visit an English speaking country.    It has been 20 years since the Velvet Revolution and the Czech Republic is finally coming into its own.  With so much change going on over the one hundred years, it is no wonder that there is a feeling of distance when approaching the Czech people.  It is not to say that the Czech people are cruel and prejudice to outsiders.  Far from it.  The fact is that it is a new thing for the Czech people.  Their history has always been tangled in the web of some other nations interests and being free is a new feeling. The greatest challenge that faces a foreigner in the Czech Republic is to understand the reason for the cold Czech shoulder.  They are a people who have been kept in the dark amongst their own people; they have been controlled by other governments and speak a language that only exists in their country.  Besides these reasons, the greatest cause for their distance is what I like to call the generation gap. The generation gap is the result of the four generations in the Czech Republic living today that have had totally different experiences growing up in the same country.  The oldest generation witnessed the World Wars, German occupation and the destruction of Europe.  The next generation saw the arrival of the Soviet occupation and the dawn of communism in their nation.  Third generation lived the revolution and were the ones who protested for the freedom of their nation and the change that the final generation has lived their entire lives in.  The youngest generation has lived their entire life in the new, capitalist nation the Czech Republic is today.  Between these four generations, there is little commonality.  They have all lived different lives in a very small country and all have had to cope with changes that the other generations did not have to.  Parents don’t understand their grandparents, neither their children, but family is still a very important part of Czech life.  Social life in the Czech republic is very reserved, as a result of people being constantly worried about secret police and public distrust.  Though twenty years have passed, older generations are not easily approachable, even if someone is fluent in Czech.  I have learned from my older students that it is not normal for them to meet people in social settings.  Many of them find a foreigners approach to social behavior refreshing.  As a Czech, if you got out to a typical pub or bar, and try to start a conversation with a complete stranger, there will most likely be a response of curiosity as to why you are trying to speak to them.  Social politeness is not as prevalent in Czech society and to behave in such a way, as a Czech would be abnormal.  Young people in the Czech republic are a bit more open to a public social courtesy, but it is usually in response to the initial action taken by a foreigner.  Being a young man in Prague, I figured it would be easy to make friends in such a metropolitan city, but it has been harder than in any other country I have been to.  I don’t want to make the Czechs seem unapproachable, but it has become apparent to me that there is particular etiquette to approaching Czech people.  Social inconsistency is perhaps the greatest cause of this.  In South America, there are many social problems, poverty and misery, but there has been consistency there over the last one hundred years.  Czechs have been exposed to so many different ways of life, that the last twenty years has not had too much of an impression.  However, the future looks bright here.  Czech xenophobia will become a thing of the past as new generations are born here.  Though it cannot be pinpointed in a specific way, there is a difference in how the youngest generation is living.  So far, the last one hundred years have been very unsustainable in regards to Czech culture and exposure to the rest of the world, but there are changes coming here. Participating in the 20th anniversary of the Czech Revolution on November 17th 2009 was very inspiring.  The Czech people were united again, as they were 20 years ago.  There was a strong sense of national identity and unity among the different generations that I had not seen before.  There was a positive energy and a good sense of community.  This lead me to think about what the Czech Republic will look like in 2029.  Will these people continue to develop their sense of community and sustain their current direction of openness and diversity that is prevalent in the youngest generation? The future will tell.  There are many ex-patriots living in the Czech Republic and the Czech people are traveling more to other countries and living abroad more and more.  International experience is a new thing to the Czechs, but there is a desire for it.  As with all things in life, perfection comes with practice and the more Czechs get to travel, the better they will be at it, and at opening up to visitors and new residence to their country.  Sustaining their culture will be deeply rooted in their language as the future brings more and more languages to this part of the world.  Of course, knowing the language is key.  Unfortunately, learning how to speak Czech feels a bit like wanting to jump the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle.  It sounds really exciting and challenging, but even if it is possible, it is a long way to go to get to the other side.  There is also no point in stopping half way once one has already taken the jump.  The challenge is great, but the rewards seem to be worth the trouble.  It has always been an important part of my philosophy as a language teacher to also be a language student of the host country that I am living in.  Prague is the first place I have been to where there I have seen a clear bridge to the other side if the canyon, but the bridge is English.  One can live for years in the city and not learn how to speak Czech.  Perhaps “live” is not the best word to use in this case, so lets say, “survive” instead.  I have come across many English teachers here that I have not learned to speak the native language and they don’t seem the least bit bothered.  There are areas in Prague that cater to English, and it is a city where English is in high demand.  If you want to learn Czech living in Prague, it takes a lot of effort.  Most young people can speak English and if you start speaking to them in broken Czech, they won’t want to waste their time speaking to you in their language if they can just speak to you in English.  They want to practice their English and take advantage of the fact that you are a native speaker.  Only the most daring and hard working students can come out on top with the Czech language. In many ways, learning the Czech language is the best way to explain how Czech people approach anyone who is occupying their country.  If you want to be accepted, then you have to earn your place and play by the rules that govern Czech culture.  It’s a long and hard process, but once you are in, you are in forever.  They have been occupied by different countries, and have had foreign languages forced upon them throughout most of their recent history.  When a foreigner makes the effort to learn their language, Czechs are very impressed.  Not many people jump over the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle.  Copyright 2009 Andrés Jennings and the Journal of Sustainability   Issue 2 Number 3 2009-12-25T10:50:09Z editors The Voices of Solar: Mark Chalom & Betty Tsosie http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=75&blogId=1 By Rose Marie Kern, <a href="mailto:rmk@swcp.com">rmk@swcp.com</a> ”The People living in the Government homes on the reservation always get sick, but we don’t, we have been very healthy.”   <a id="res_106" href="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/Tsosie.jpg"><img src="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/previews-med/Tsosie.jpg" border="0" /></a> Mark is a Passive Solar Architect living in Santa Fe.  Betty Tsosie, his wife, is a silkscreen artist from Santa Clara Pueblo. Mark has been a long time NMSEA member. Betty designs the artwork for NMSEA’s T-Shirts. Mark Chalom grew up in upstate New York where early on he developed a love for both sculpture and architectural design.  “Someone told me that architecture paid better” and so, with New England practicality, he set his course toward sculpting the structures that we live in.  He heard of the innovative theories of structure being taught at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, and braved the winter ice storms and summer thunderstorms to earn his degree in architecture.  He studied with Bruce Goff, a visionary who examined ways of implementing radical new design concepts.  “This was an age where the geodesic dome homes and inflatable structures were introduced.  It was also a time where older, traditional building materials such as adobe were resurrected and re-examined for use in modern construction.” In 1974, Mark traveled to New Mexico to join a host of out-on-the-edge architectural geniuses who were exploring the boundaries of passive solar cooling and heating.  He met and worked with Bill Lumpkins, Doug Balcomb, Peter Van Dresser, and Bill Yanda among others.  As part of the “Sundwelllings” team, he researched the potential for marrying integrated passive solar design with the construction technologies and materials used in New Mexico. Betty Tsosie grew up living close to the land.  A quiet, graceful woman, Betty exemplifies both the creativity and practicality of her native American heritage.  A silkscreen artist, and member of the Santa Clara Pueblo, she grew up here in the southwest, in a small village environment. Betty worked in the computer center at Los Alamos Laboratories as a young woman. Becoming fluent with the computer’s capabilities became a valuable factor later when, after meeting Mark, she allowed her artistic nature to guide her current career choice. Betty grew up in an adobe house where, once a year, her mother would shovel dirt onto the roof.  She learned sustainable living techniques for drying food and collecting herbs.  She was at home in the Pueblo one day when her brother, Jonathon, brought home a young, enthusiastic architect.  They had been working together at Ghost Ranch on the Sundwelling Project. Mark and Betty quickly developed an admiration for each other’s abilities.  They married and built the first of several passive solar homes.  Their son, Matthew, has always had the advantages of a sustainable living environment. Betty feels that these homes have been one reason for their family’s very good health. “In the government houses built on the Pueblo, the children were always getting sick, but we’ve always been healthy.” Mark’s sculpting background is evident in the graceful, strong lines of the beautiful homes he creates. All of his houses contain passive solar features with a blending of materials and textures.  He enjoys it when a client calls and tells him that his home has provided “the best winter I’ve ever spent.”  Betty’s artwork can be seen on her website:<a href="http://www.tewatees.com/">www.tewatees.com</a>  Learn more about solar architecture from Mark’s website:  <a href="http://www.markchalom.com/">www.markchalom.com</a> Author Rose Marie Kern is past president of the New Mexico Solar Energy Association and a principal director of Solar Ranch.  <a href="http://www.rosemariekern.com/">www.rosemariekern.com</a>. Copyright 2009 Rose Marie Kern and the Journal of Sustainability Issue 2 Number 3 2009-11-28T17:56:46Z editors FUNdraising Events – a Good Option for a Slow Economy http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=74&blogId=1 <a id="res_107" href="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/NMSEA%20Tent.jpg"><img src="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/previews-med/NMSEA%20Tent.jpg" border="0" /></a> By Rose Marie Kern, rmk@swcp.com One of the basic conditions of being human is the desire to make our world a better place.  Most people begin by improving their personal environment, then at some point in their lives they see something that just does not sit right with them, and they feel strongly enough that they want to do something about it.  So they join other like-minded individuals and search for ways to change the situation.   Thus are non-profit organizations born.    There are over 1.4 million non-profit organizations in the United States.  Whatever an organization wants to accomplish, it requires thought, time, and money.  Unless the organization has managed to recruit a benevolent millionaire into its membership, the most challenging portion of this equation is the money. In a recessed economy, non-profit organizations cannot depend upon “soft money” such as grants, and must find more creative methods of forwarding their goals. Today’s struggling economy presents a window of opportunity for alternative methods of accumulating working capital. A very powerful tool is a fundraising event.  A well thought out and executed fundraiser rallies excitement amongst the membership and provides a vehicle to increase membership.  Of course, the first question you have to ask is whether event fundraising is right for your organization, and if so, what size event do you have the personnel and time to run?  The next question is how much money do you need?  This requires a hard look at how your group wants to promote its purpose.  If you only need $500 for the team’s uniform shirts you can get away with an event that takes place over a few hours and has little to no upfront cost.  A car wash and/or a bake sale may be all that is needed. <a id="res_108" href="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/Positive%20Energy.jpg"><img src="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/previews-med/Positive%20Energy.jpg" border="0" /></a> Raffles are a popular option and can be designed for large or small scale operations.  Keep in mind that most states have rules concerning how many and what type raffles can be held annually.  These involve getting something people want donated, then putting out publicity and printing tickets. The time line is longer – usually at least 4 months - because you want to reach the most people possible. Perhaps you want to run a theme dinner aimed at raising at least $10,000 after expenses.  An event of this type, being run by people who have jobs and families, will require a minimum of four, and preferably six months of planning and execution.  Same goes for a one day sports event such as a walk-a-thon.   Running educational workshops and seminars also take a four to six month time period – mostly for proper advertizing. All events require enthusiasm, and most of them require some upfront costs.  For larger events your organization may be able to get support and funding from local businesses. Be sure that the businesses you work with are also well aligned with your purpose.  Having a gun shop support a wildlife preserve may seem strange to the general public. Remember, a lot of your credibility as an organization lies in public perception.             Once you have settled on the type of event you want to run, create a budget – and stick to it.  Build in a 10% miscellaneous category to handle unexpected expenses.  If you are able to score some sponsorships you can have a “wish list” of extras for the event – or you take the extra money and keep it in the organization’s coffers to use towards furtherance of your goals. <a id="res_109" href="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/Prine.jpg"><img src="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/previews-med/Prine.jpg" border="0" /></a>            Two considerations are of primary importance – the date, and the location.  Don’t just arbitrarily set the date based on when everyone in your group happens to be in town and free.  Look closely at the day and time of your event – is it in conflict with anything else in the community that could impact your success?  Is the date you are thinking of having an “Community Idol” talent show the same day as the local college homecoming game?  Does it conflict with major holidays?  Does it possibly compliment those holidays?  How about having a corned beef and cabbage dinner on St. Patrick’s day?             Who is your audience?  If you want to woo senior citizens, it had better be a morning or afternoon event – many of them do not like to drive after dark.  Sunday mornings are a bad time for an event in most communities, but Sunday afternoons are usually very good for family events. <a id="res_110" href="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/top%20bar%201.jpg"><img src="http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/gallery/1/previews-med/top%20bar%201.jpg" border="0" /></a>            Another important aspect of the event is the location.  Is your event going to take place indoors or outdoors?  Or both?  Hopefully you can get the location donated – some possibilities are senior citizen’s centers, local schools, church community rooms.  If a strip mall has had empty storefronts for awhile, they may take the tax deduction and let you use one – of course they don’t want the space tied up any more than a month ahead in case a renter shows up.  Or perhaps they will let you set up a tent in a little used portion of their parking lot figuring that it will bring customers to their other stores.             Small community airports can make good outdoor locations, some of them have empty hangers or other space for indoor meetings as well.  Community theaters may be able to work with your organization and provide space.  County fairgrounds are also good choices.             A key component to any fundraising event is setting out a reasonable timeline from the very beginning.   Working backwards from the event date, schedule your event committee and volunteer meeting dates.  By what date should the site be confirmed? List when to place orders you need for various items such as flyers. Set dates for media releases and poster hanging.  If you will require reservations, what is the cut off date?               Publicity can be as simple as making a big poster that says “Car Wash $5” and having a kid hold it up on a street corner, or it can take on a life of its own.  There are a wealth of cheap publicity options some of which are available free to non-profit organizations. The most inexpensive method includes sending media releases to local newspapers and public service announcement (PSA) to radio and TV stations.  Call the station’s community relations person in advance to inquire as to how long a PSA should be.  Most of them prefer 10 second, 30 second and 60 second options.              One of the most important things to remember when working with your volunteers is that these people, whether they are members or people who are helping because they are friends of members, is to thank them.  Ensure that they know how much their contribution makes a difference.  Thank them loudly and often.             Above all, when operating a Fundraising Event, make sure it is something your members will enjoy participating in.  After all, the first three letters are FUN! Rose Marie Kern is the author of “FUNdraising Events! – A Guide for the Small to Medium Non-profit Organization”.  For more information go to <a href="http://www.fundraisingevents-rmk.com/">www.fundraisingevents-rmk.com</a>   Copyright 2009 Rose Marie Kern and the Journal of Sustainability Issue 2 Number 3 2009-11-28T17:49:39Z editors An Assessment of Renewable Energy Corporation http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=73&blogId=1 by George Marinakis, <a href="mailto:George@JournalofSustainability.com">George@JournalofSustainability.com</a> Renewable Energy Corporation’s (REC) strategy is to achieve market penetration and profitable growth through a cost-efficient manufacturing base, or what they refer in their various Annual Reports (2004-2008) as “cost leadership through industrialization.”  They intend to achieve this market penetration and cost-efficient base in part by vertically integrating and decentralizing. REC comprises three loosely-coupled business segments organized around products and product stages.  REC is present throughout the solar industry “value chain”: “[w]e are excelling across the value chain, building on our unique position as the most integrated solar energy company in the world” (2006 Annual Report, emphasis added).  Their “strategic decision” was to focus on the “upstream part of the business” (i.e. raw materials; 2004 Annual Report), though REC is also present downstream.  In 2005 REC reorganized into three business segments: REC Silicon and REC Wafer on the upstream side, and REC Solar on the downstream side (It also owns 33.3% of Sovello in Germany).  REC states that “[w]e invest in R&D across all divisions, functions and activities,” (Annual Report 2006), which apparently means that R&D is also decentralized.  The benefit of vertical integration is that access to solar grade polysilicon makes REC less vulnerable to supply chain volatility, facilitates control of quality and value across the supply chain, and lowers production costs (2008 Annual Review).  Decentralization facilitates a narrower focus and higher specialization by each business segment, which is important given REC’s emphasis on technical advances (discussed below).  On the downside, REC’s particular implementation of decentralization must introduce shipping costs, because REC makes Silicon in the USA but makes wafers in Norway and Singapore and modules in Norway and Sweden. REC Silicon and REC Wafer both have external customers, and as a vertically intergrated company they also supply REC Solar.  REC Silicon produces silane gas and polysilicon, and operates plants in Moses Lake, Washington and Butte, Montana.  REC Wafer produces multicrystalline wafers and monocrystalline ingots, and operates in Norway and is building a plant in Singapore.  Silane gas is used to deposit amorphous silicon onto glass and other surfaces.  Above 420 °C, silane decomposes into silicon and hydrogen, allowing it to be used in the chemical vapor deposition of silicon (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silane">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silane</a>).    Polycrystalline silicon, or polysilicon, is used in wafer form to make solar cells which are then combined into photovoltaic modules (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystalline_silicon#Polysilicon">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystalline_silicon#Polysilicon</a>).  Growth in the global solar industry is generally limited by the availability of solar grade polysilicon.  According to Wikipedia (Id.), “[o]nly twelve factories are known to produce solar-grade polysilicon in 2008,” and REC was one of them.  Market penetration is not the problem here; staying competitive is (discussed later). REC Solar produces and markets cells, modules and systems, and operates in Norway and Sweden.  REC Solar forms a relatively small part of their company, but for now it makes a disproportionate profit. In 09Q2 REC Solar had a property, plant and equipment carrying value of 1510M NOK (1 Norway Kronor = 0.175 USD), compared to 4874M NOK for REC Wafer and 11515M NOK for REC Silicon; but in 09Q2 REC Solar had 426M NOK in revenues, compared to 929M NOK for REC Silicon and 1525M NOK for REC Wafer. REC also intends to achieve market penetration and a cost-efficient base through “lean manufacturing” as inspired (their word) by the “Toyota model,” i.e. “making all operations simple and all decision-making unambiguous” (2004 Annual Report).  This cost improvement process calls for constantly evaluating overall factors (the supply chain, product portfolio, planning horizon), continually improving their administrative systems and their competence, and ensuring a proper level and quality of staffing.  We’ll see this message again from the new President & CEO who was appointed April 2009. REC is also investing in new technology and capacity.  REC believes that the solar industry is maturing, and therefore its focus is shifting “from innovation to industrialization” (Annual Report 2004).  Regarding the use of silicon solar cells, REC implicitly believes that we are in the early stages of the technology diffusion s-curve, because rather than focusing on disruptive technologies (“innovation”) they are focusing on incremental improvements (“industrialization”): they are simply trying to more effectively manufacture existing solar technology.  However, their position on manufacturing processes is the opposite: they are ready to embrace disruptive-type manufacturing improvements.  REC is particularly betting on Fluidized Bed Reactor (FBR) technology.  FBR deposits silane gas onto particle surfaces that are hundreds of times larger than the rods used by the current technology, the so-called Siemens reactors.  REC acquired core compentencies (such as the FBR) through partnerships.  FBR was developed by Solar Grade Silicon LLC (SGS), which was a Joint Venture between REC and Advanced Silicon Materials LLC (ASiMI; a subsidiary of the Japanese industrial group Komatsu Ltd.).  In 2005 REC acquired SGS and AsiMI, the latter company providing REC with silane and polysilicon technology.  Moreover, in line with its industrialization strategy, REC is enlargening its facilities.  For example, REC Silicon increased its production of polysilicon by 8% from 2007 to 2008; REC Wafer increased its production of multi-crystalline wafers by 15% from 2007 to 2008; and REC Solar intends a 300% increase in production of solar cells from 2008 to 2011, and a 500% increase in production of solar modules over the same time frame.  REC Wafer (formerly ScanWafer) governs its technology choices with view to industrialization and scalability.  They use systems that can be operated in parallel and continuously, thereby increasing operational efficiency (e.g., by 70% in one case).  They introduced the recycling of production consumables and of slurry, which reduced costs 40%.  They are also structured (physically and organizationally) to systematically share competence,e.g., to promote commitment and accountability each shift is responsible for the entire production string.  REC Solar (formerly ScanCell and ScanModule) reduces cost by close and long-term cooperation with equipment suppliers and through highly-focused technology development and sales contracts; and by the Toyota model (cost effective and competitive manufacturing process, with continuously improving results). As of 09Q2 REC’s overall position had not changed, but that might not last. The solar industry has been under heavy competition from the rest of the electricity industry since well before 1997 when REC was founded, and REC entered the market with a long-term plan to keep reducing costs.  REC’s stock dropped from a five-year high of $399 in September 2008 to $6-$12 since December 2008, but as of 09Q2 its revenues were still growing.  Then on October 2, 2009, REC announced that because the market for solar wafers would remain weak in 2010, it was forced to re-negotiate 2010 contracts (Bloomberg).  Its shares dropped 8.6% to $8.  On 8 October 2009, Jefferies cut the recommendation on REC to "hold" from "buy", as they no longer consider REC to have a considerable upside (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX).  We can expect a very interesting 09Q4 report and perhaps strategic changes in 2010. REC acknowledged that subsidies supported most of the demand in 2008, and that solar power has been supported by incentives in major markets (Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, California) (Annual Report 2008).  REC does not pretend that unsupported demand is driving the market, though they claim that “[o]ver the next few years, the PV market will transition from being primarily driven by incentive systems to being increasingly driven by commercial factors” (2007 Annual Report).  This may be happening sooner than REC expected.  REC acknowledged a sharp reduction in demand in 2009 due in part to the significantly lower incentive caps in Spain (2009 Quarterly Reports).  In Germany, the CDU-FDP, which favors cutting solar subsidies  (Racanelli, Vito (September 28, 2009) Merkel, yes, but still murky [online] Available: <a href="http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125391744219642281.html">http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125391744219642281.html</a> (October 5, 2009)), just won 48.2% of the election.  Is REC up to the demands of this new subsidy environment? REC Silicon and REC wafer weathered the global economic downturn by having the capacity to take advantage of the the increased demand from decreased prices.  Though global growth of PV systems in 2008 “was limited by supply side factors such as the tight availabilty of solar grade polysilicon,” as of June 1, 2009, spot prices for polysilicon had halved since January (Groom, Nichola and Negishi, Mayumi (June 1, 2009) Falling Silicon Prices Pressure Thin-Film Solar  [online] Available: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5505NT20090601">http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5505NT20090601</a> (October 5, 2009)).  Prices in solar panels are dropping and are expected to drop even further (Isensee, Laura (August 21, 2009) Solar Panel Prices to Slide into Next Year  [online] Available: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE57K46Y20090821?sp=true">http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE57K46Y20090821?sp=true</a> (October 5, 2009)).  By 2009 Q2 REC enjoyed a revenue growth of 9% since 2008 Q2, due to the larger output from the larger facilities and higher external sales from the upstream side (i.e. REC Silicon and REC Wafer; Second Quarter Report 2009). The other silver lining (besides increased demand) of the drop in polysilicon prices is that their competitor First Solar’s thin-film solar panels, made with little or no polysilicon, are no longer competitively priced as against polysilicon-based panels (Groom and Negishi); in fact First Solar might switch over to polysilicon (Groom and Negishi).  On the other hand, China already makes polysilicon at much less than 1 Euro per watt (REC’s 2010 cost roadmap goal), though one wonders  about the quality; and Thermal Technology LLC is making furnaces capable of producing solar-grade silicon at a cost lower than competitive processes.  Given the competition, REC needs to deliver on their 2010 cost roadmap.                 REC Solar’s ride through the economic downturn was a different story.  Like other solar panel manufacturers (Philips, Matthew (9/21/2009) Solar Burnout [online] <a href="http://libproxy.unm.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44194092&site=ehost-live&scope=site" target="_blank">http://libproxy.unm.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44194092&site=ehost-live&scope=site</a> (October 5, 2009); Newsweek , 9/21/2009, Vol. 154 Issue 12, p17-17, 1/3p), REC Solar now has warehouses full of overpriced panels (Second Quarter Report 2009).  In the second quarter of 2009 they were unable to reduce module inventory levels, and module prices had dropped 35% (Second Quarter Report 2009).  Their 09Q2 revenues had dropped 33% from the 08Q2 but were up 10% from 09Q1.  Since April 2009 they had been operating well below capacity, had laid off 180 people (out of 700) and had no plans to increase capacity.  Nevertheless, in 09Q2 they were continuing constructing a new module plant in Singapore.  REC is perhaps encouraged by REC Solar’s disproportionate contribution to corporate profits (discussed above). And it gets worse.  According to their 2008 Annual Report, REC believes supply will exceed demand in 2012.  How will REC meet the challenge of decreased subsidies and excess supply?  By being able to offer solar-generated electricity at grid-parity prices.  They are working towards this target through an ongoing cost reduction program.  Their “2010 cost roadmap,” announced in 2004 and on-track as of 2008, seeks to halve production costs per watt of a module (using a 2005 benchmark) down to 1 Euro per watt (2008 Annual Review), by improving its entire “integrated PV value chain.”  This involves both an increase in efficiency through new technology (incremental improvements), and an increase in capacity to produce and sell more (increasing revenues and perhaps market share).  REC Silicon is using FBR technology to increase the energy efficiency of polysilicon production; and producing polysilicon capable of making solar cells having a higher output.  REC Wafer is producing thinner wafers (in 2008 they were first in the world to cut a 50 micron wafer from an ingot) by using a new patented sawing process.  REC also cites their “strong” IP portfolio, comprising 60 patents granted and 150 patents pending, covering the key technologies (silane gas production, FBR technology, wafer sawing, and more) that are helping it reduce costs (2004-2008 Annual Reports).  Yet given China’s current ability to manufacture at less than 1 Euro per watt, REC’s cost roadmap may not be adequate, competitively speaking.  Can REC outcompete China with manufacturing facilities in Scandinavia and the US? REC does not believe the adverse environment will continue.  Despite decreased subsidies, REC is betting on a mid- to long-term increase in demand due to governmental regulation and/or policy (2008 Annual Report).  They cite UN projections of a quadrupling of annual carbon emissions as something that will make a decreased carbon footprint attractive.  According to the Wall Street Journal, “analysts” agree with REC’s assessment: “Analysts say demand for solar products is increasingly driven by governmental concerns about global warming. As governments look for ways to reduce dependence on heavily polluting sources such as fossil fuels, they have launched a wave of subsidies on solar products, which analysts say will sustain demand in coming years.” (Spencer, Jane (October 25, 2006). Sun Hasn't Set On Solar Shares In U.S. and Asia. Wall Street Journal)  Such an assessment should be tempered with the fact that solar-generated electricity accounts for less than 0.1% of the world's electricity supply, even after taking into account a 30% annual growth in the industry over the past five years.  Is this a ceiling on demand, or room for growth?  Does it matter, given China’s cost position?  And is the really the extent of REC’s market research--a UN projection?  Apparently so. In April 2009, REC replaced the President and CEO.  The newcomer promised to “work hard to reinforce our business model for lean production, through best practice benchmarking” (2008 Annual Report).  That is a message of continuity, not change. Regarding the recession he noted that REC had a “large contract base” and that it had expanded into new geographical markets, both of which provided a “strong platform for growth” provided they continue with cost reductions through continuous improvements of production processes and technological advancements.  Again, this is the same plan as through the previous four years.  It will be interesting to see his response to the events of October 2009 as discussed above.   copyright 2009 Journal of Sustainability     Issue 2 Number 3 2009-11-07T17:15:33Z editors 2009 Business Report to the Readers http://journalofsustainability.com/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=72&blogId=1 By George Marinakis, George@JournalofSustainability.com   “The Media is a faceless leader in America.” Prof. Scott Taylor, UNM Anderson School of Business, attributed to Prof. Suresh Srivastva, Case Western University   Up ‘til now, the Journal of Sustainability has been in a test marketing mode.  We had a lot to figure out. - Who was our target market?  Or better yet, was there a market for a sustainability magazine, and if there was, who would our readers be? -What was our role?  Our mission?  Our business model?  Would we be agenda-driven, or news driven, or something else? -What makes us different from existing magazines?  Should we be another National Geographic?  A Mother Earth News?  Solar Today?  Home Power?  A policy magazine?  A news magazine? A newspaper?  -Who would write for us?  How would we compensate them? - How would we finance the enterprise?  Should we reorganize as a not-for-profit and seek grants?  Should we charge for subscriptions, or pay for it by advertising?  How do we get advertising without widespread distribution, and without glitzy graphics? -What sort of brand are we building?  Where are we taking it?  Where is it taking us? I’ll talk about these in turn: Target Market Over the last two years of publication, we have discovered some interesting things about you: You read folksy how-to articles more than serious policy or opinion articles by a factor of at least 3-to-1 in the short term and at least 5-to-1 in the long term. You read folksy how-to articles more than interviews by a factor of at least 3-to-1 in the short term and at least 10-to-1 in the long term. Nevertheless, many of you still read the serious policy/opinion articles, the interviews, the poetry and fiction.  We intend to continue with this mix. What you like to read still surprises us.  People would tell us we needed more photos, but photo essays are not especially popular.  “Sustainability in Greece” gets 2X to 3X the reads as the average piece, and it has no photos.  I think what we really need is good graphic design.  Articles by people in organizations sometimes get a lot of hits.  We wonder whether the organization is driving readers to the article.  But our interview of Bill McKibben has a readership well below average.  Until we get a better idea of what you are looking for, we will continue to cover a diverse subject matter. Our Mission We now understand that media plays a leadership role in America, and you are looking to us for leadership.  We get it.  Look for more of it from us in upcoming issues. We tried from the outset not to be agenda-driven, but it was not clear to us what we would be instead.  We thought of ourselves as something like “Foreign Affairs,” but we also ended up publishing pieces that belonged in “Wired.”  We were described by one reader as a “green” New Yorker magazine.  Our model was a Shakespeare play: something for everybody, at every level.  Nevertheless some said we were too intellectual, too hard to understand.  And that still didn’t answer the question of the scope of the subject matter. We tried to publish a wide variety of perspectives on sustainability.  One difficulty is finding writers.  We will discuss that below.  The other difficulty is identifying the scope of subject matter.  We will now use our leadership role as a touchstone for the scope of subject matter. We thought about becoming more a news service, but we found that few people wanted to send us press releases.  Corporations (for-profit and not-for-profit) like to post their press releases on their websites, but they don’t send them out to the rest of us.  Among those that did,they mainly comprised announcements of events, which suggested to us that we really needed a public events calendar.  In any case, there really isn’t a lot of sustainability news out there.  Sustainability is much more than clean tech or green tech, and there are already plenty of news sources for technology.  We wanted to democratize the movement, so we enabled comments in the articles, but that just got us spammers (even with Captchas enabled).  We decided instead to introduce a Wiki, focusing on sustainability.  A “Sustendium” if you will.  I am beginning to notify professors that it would be a great source of homework assignments, i.e., assign students to write in the Sustendium.  So far, neither the Webcalendar nor the Wiki has gotten any attention, but we think that is a result of our poor splash page, so we are adding a web portal (discussed below). Our Difference We commit to you to remain uncensored.  We don’t agree with everything we print and we don’t want to. We are not all about you and your precious lifestyle.  We are not all about selling you non-toxic face creams, or non-toxic house paints.  Our goal is to teach you how to lessen your impact on the world, not to teach you how to lessen the impact of the world on you.  Our by-line has been “exploring new ways of living green,”  not “exploring new non-toxic products for your pampered lifestyle.”  The key concept is “social responsibility” or “civic duty.” Our Writers Getting publishable articles was harder than we thought it would be.  Journalists want to be paid, but without advertising we can’t afford to pay them, and in any case journalists generally do not have the education or background to write the sort of cutting edge articles that would be of interest to you.  We are not a news magazine. Corporations (for-profit and not-for-profit) like to be interviewed, but don’t even try getting stories.  They are too busy writing content for their own websites. People running organic farms etc. are not generally competent writers, either by training or talent.  The solution is for us to interview them and to write the articles ourselves, but we are too busy making a living in our day jobs.  We could do so for a fee, or in exchange of an advertising contract with us, but that would ruin our neutrality and credibility.  Who would have thought that such a situation would be a barrier to the marketplace? Nevertheless, we continue to receive some great articles from some great writers.  We hope to attract more to us, as we change our look and feel with the web portal. Our Financing We will remain free to readers for the present.  That means we are going to have to introduce in-page advertising.  We are also considering an online store (see below). Our Brand Brands are used to sell stuff.  Problem is, the Journal is all about voluntary simplicity.  We want you to buy less stuff, not more stuff.  But it is not that simple, because we also want you to change what you are buying.  We’d like to introduce an on-line store, maybe specialized as a holiday gift store.  We also have some great ideas for chic furniture design, championing simple green elegance. The blog format for the articles works for us, because it requires zero graphic design, and we have not budget for graphic design.  We’d like a more traditional magazine format, with more variety on each page.  We’ll see what we can do.  Our look and feel needs work. But let’s get back to our brand. How do we define the marketplace to our advantage?  That is an ongoing project, a work-in-progress.  Stay tuned. So where do we go from here? In our next phase, our goal is to become your default page in your web browser.  To that end we’re installing a web portal, making it easier to see what’s new in the Journal, the Wiki and the Webcalendar.  We’d really like to upgrade the look and feel, but we don’t want to lose our grassroots identity.  Too many web pages look alike, even though they look professional. One thing we’re considering is focusing on growers’ markets, both as sources of stories and as distribution centers for hard copy.  We envision running in-depth stories on the microeconomics of organic farms, on craftspersons, on persons harvesting the wilds. As discussed above, look for us in upcoming issues to step up to our leadership role.  We expect the same from you, through the articles that you send us. As always, we are open to your ideas and comments.  Let’s look forward to a great 2010 together.   copyright 2009 Journal of Sustainability Issue 2 Number 3 2009-10-23T19:01:53Z editors