Discussion Prompts
Each model views sustainability from a different perspective. As the concept of sustainability is multidimensional, there are several metaphors characterizing it. For instance, Funnel model provides a general perspective of sustainability claiming that the modern activity of humans affects the environment at greater level comparing with the time when technological development was not that pervasive. The Intersecting Circles framework has more detailed perspective of sustainability showing how each branch of human activity influences the environment. In this case, the humans can introduce sustainable solutions in each of these areas in order to decrees the carbon footprint. Nested Circles model is similar to the previous framework, yet, it fosters the restriction of human activity within social and economic areas that may help people to revitalize and renew the potential of environment. Finally, the Quadrants model managed to provide the most detailed approach to understanding the interaction between the human activity and the environment showing what actions have to be implemented in each area that will restore the environment. It is possible to say that the Funnel and Nested Circles models makes me feel pessimistic regarding the future, as it is easy to see that the technological progress was made by exploiting the environmental potential, for example, the energy it requires and the waste it produces. At the same time, Intersecting Circles and Quadrants frameworks promote adequate use of environmental resources and fosters actions that will help this planet to survive. Intersecting Circles Model is the one that is the most correct, as it shows the interaction between the areas of human activity and its relation to the environment.
Critical component
The main problem discussed by Valeria Monno and Emilia Conte in the article is the problem of urban development in terms of sustainable solutions (Monno and Conte 51). According to the authors, “the environmental crisis and the impacts of climate change on urban environment have also highlighted limits of existing evaluation systems like adaptive capacities, ecosystems, and external factors” (Monno and Conte 52). The most valuable information provided by the article is the assessment of the modern evaluation system of sustainable development in the urban areas. Specifically, the authors question the standardized assessment of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions without taking into account the climate change, the needs of citizens, and the financial support the sustainability solutions require The main mission and vision of the article correspond with the adequate measurement of the human needs and finding balance between the needs of the citizens and the environment. According to the article, the harsh restrictions will not work for the majority of inhabitants and may jeopardize the entire mission of environmental sustainability. Instead, the authors propose to use the technological advantage and invest to the sustainable solutions that will not restrict human activity, which is the main purpose of the article. The evaluation of the article did not find any bias.
At the same time, despite the fact that the authors proposed to use the financial resources effectively, they did not take into account the costs of the innovational solutions, which tends to be more expensive. For instance, it was previously revealed that it is more difficult to equip the poor neighborhoods with the innovational sustainable solutions due to lack of money and low acceptance of such solutions in these regions (Sharifi and Murayama 77). Therefore, the proposition of innovate in urban planning is a plausible proposition, yet it is not sustainable in terms of cost effectiveness in certain areas. The article did not contain any confusing information, thus there were few inconsistencies, including cost effectiveness and relevance of the sustainable decisions in urban setting.
Works Cited
Monno, Valeria, and Conte, Emilia. “Sustainability in the Built Environment: Integrating Scales of Action and Evaluation.” European Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 4, no. 2, 2015, pp. 51-67.
Sharifi, Aria and Murayama, Anna. “A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 38, 2013, pp. 3-87.
