Volume 11 Issue 2 Journal Editor Winter 2015 Maurie Cohen ...d20nn6mxpbiih2.cloudfront.net/sspp-journal/SSPP-vol11.2.pdf · Mark Altaweel, Arika Virapongse, David Griffith, Lilian

Published online ● http://sspp.proquest.com ● email:

[email protected]

Volume 11 ● Issue 2 Journal Editor

Winter 2015 Maurie Cohen (New Jersey Institute of Technology)

Managing Editor

ISSN: 1548-7733 Brie Betz

Articles

A typology for complex social-ecological systems in mountain communities Mark Altaweel, Arika Virapongse, David Griffith, Lilian Alessa, & Andrew Kliskey, University College

London, United

Kingdom…………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

Sufficiency in social practice: searching potentials for sufficient behavior in a consumerist culture Melanie Speck & Marco Hasselkuss, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy, Germany…14

Closing the food loops: guidelines and criteria for improving nutrient management

Jennifer McConville, Jan-Olof Drangert, Pernilla Tidåker Tidåker, Tina-Simone Neset, Sebastien Rauch,

Ingrid Strid, & Karin Tonderski, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden…………………………33

Forum on Sustainability and the Library

Introduction to the Forum on Sustainability and the Library Amy Forrester, University of Tennessee, USA……………………………………………………………44

Archival adaptation to climate change

Eira Tansey, University of Cincinnati, USA……………………………………………………………….45

Growing our vision together: forming a sustainability community within the American Library

Association Beth Filar Williams, Madeleine Charney, & Bonnie Smith, Oregon State University, USA……...………57

https://medium.com/sustainability-science-practice-policy/a-typology-for-complex-social-ecological-systems-in-mountain-communities-9bb73852c6c6#.hn1s22uox

https://medium.com/sustainability-science-practice-policy/sufficiency-in-social-practice-searching-potentials-for-sufficient-behavior-in-a-consumerist-4891976dd55f#.56dj7lvps

https://medium.com/sustainability-science-practice-policy/closing-the-food-loops-guidelines-and-criteria-for-improving-nutrient-management-54cfd466ab1a#.40cm02k7f

https://medium.com/sustainability-science-practice-policy/introduction-to-the-forum-on-sustainability-and-the-library-4c4edd9f7ebe#.18c298kgk

https://medium.com/sustainability-science-practice-policy/archival-adaptation-to-climate-change-3f245c06d9c0#.rfkipaj0t

https://medium.com/sustainability-science-practice-policy/growing-our-vision-together-forming-a-sustainability-community-within-the-american-library-2946af1248f7#.7legpkpzf

https://medium.com/sustainability-science-practice-policy/growing-our-vision-together-forming-a-sustainability-community-within-the-american-library-2946af1248f7#.7legpkpzf

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy http://sspp.proquest.com

2016 Altaweel et al. CC-BY Attribution 4.0 License. Fall 2015 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 1

ARTICLE

A typology for complex social-ecological systems in mountain communities Mark Altaweel1, Arika Virapongse2, David Griffith2, Lilian Alessa2, & Andrew Kliskey2 1 Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London, WC1H 0PY UK (email: [email protected]) 2 Center for Resilient Communities, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844 USA (email: [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]) Effective and standardized assessment of social-ecological systems is crucial for supporting increased resilience of human communities and for developing adaptation strategies. However, few analytical frameworks exist to assess the social-ecological resilience and vulnerability of different landscapes. To help fill the gap in this literature, we inves-tigated the utility of a conceptual social-ecological systems typology by assessing 21 mountain communities in the western United States. Our results show that larger cities or urban areas are generally more resilient than smaller communities, but the variation is not particularly notable. Resilience differences are found most often among com-munities of different population sizes. In our sample, no community was deemed to be highly vulnerable to social-ecological change. More broadly, development of standardized social-ecological systems typologies can be applied toward accommodating unique environmental niches while allowing for cross-comparisons among regions on a broader continental scale. KEYWORDS: classification, local communities, montane environments, ecosystem resilience, environmental sociology

Introduction

Classification of social-ecological systems is an

important first step for identifying and assessing fac-tors that affect resilience and vulnerability of commu-nities and their resources (Alessa et al. 2009; Ostrom, 2009; Ostrom & Cox, 2010) and determining poten-tial interventions, such as those intended to enhance a system’s resiliency (Cumming et al. 2005). A social-ecological system (SES) consists of human and bio-physical components that are interconnected and linked through complex system feedbacks and de-pendencies (Berkes et al. 2003). Mismatch in the scales of SESs, in whole or in part and ranging from community- to landscape-level systems, is often an obstacle to comparative studies (Cumming et al. 2006; 2013). Existing typologies focus on SESs at such a broad level that it is not clear if unique quali-ties of environmental niches and community specific-ity can be easily addressed (e.g., Alessa et al. 2009; Ostrom, 2009; Ostrom & Cox, 2010). Information derived from large-scale studies is often not informa-tive when assessing community resilience in specific regions, such as mountainous areas that are varying and complex landscapes characterized by large bio-physical gradients and great fluxes in resource quality and quantity. Without robust tools to comparatively assess the resilience of communities located in spe-

cific types of landscapes, it remains a challenge to sustainably manage available valuable natural re-sources and the social and environmental changes that are expected in the near future.

Typologies of SESs have been developed as practical tools that can be used to classify SESs by applying information generated through conceptual models and existing datasets. By testing such concep-tual models in the real world, typologies can help identify key characteristics, drivers, and dependen-cies within and among systems (Blair et al. 2014; Buergelt & Paton, 2014). Typologies allow for stand-ardized characterization by using specific metrics, so that characteristics (e.g., vulnerability to environmen-tal change) can be compared among communities and management decisions and planning can be conduct-ed with greater standardization. Standardizing the metrics used to assess SESs makes possible scaling up from community to landscape levels so that cross-comparisons can be conducted at broader scales. As an analytical framework, SES typologies are effective in contrasting communities located in specific land-scapes with shared biophysical features (e.g., moun-tains) as well as among landscape types (e.g., moun-tains and coastal areas) on much broader scales. To develop such a tool, existing SES typologies must be examined and refined in accordance with specific landscapes (e.g., Alessa et al. 2009; Ostrom, 2009).

Altaweel et al.: Typology for Mountain Communities

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://sspp.proquest.com Fall 2015 | Volume 11 | Issue 2

2

This article’s main goal is to evaluate the resili-ence of mountain-system communities using a modi-fied version of the “Messy SES” typology (Alessa et al. 2009) and to offer recommendations for further development of typologies as a framework. The unit of analysis used to characterize SESs is a community and its associated resources. We apply the typology in this study to evaluate the resilience of 21 mountain communities located in the western United States. Based on our analysis, we offer recommendations for how the SES typology can be further refined for use in specific types of landscapes. With more enhance-ment and development, such typologies can be valu-able for conducting cross-comparisons among differ-ent landscapes so that assessments of SESs can occur on a continental and global scale. Background Why Typologies?

Human-environmental interactions are integral components of interconnected, large-scale systems—the “ecological macrosystem” (Brondizio & Chowdhury, 2013; Heffernan et al. 2014). Such mac-rosystem processes, for instance climate change, have been linked to accelerating rates of natural disasters, economic crises, and livelihood vulnerabilities (Alley et al. 2003; Skoufias, 2003). To improve social pre-paredness for large-scale change, scientists have for-mulated high-level frameworks to address communi-ty resilience in practice, such as toolkits that enable resilience self-assessment (e.g., U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, 2015). Offering a more region-specific framework, typologies provide a template for researchers and managers to systematically identify resilience/vulnerability levels for communities in a comparable and scalable manner.

The most challenging aspect of developing an SES typology is to identify appropriate social, bio-physical, and integrated metrics for capturing resili-ence or vulnerability, as well as finding accessible long-term datasets to support such metrics. Typolo-gies for community-level resilience have focused on aspects of social metrics, such as change in settle-ment structure, institutions, and livelihoods (Carney, 1998; Berkes et al. 2003; Krausmann et al. 2008). They also can investigate relationships among stake-holders, decision makers, and sociocultural values regarding economic concerns (Wallace, 2007; Reed et al. 2009). Biophysical metrics used in typologies have included presence of different ecosystems, land-cover change, and availability of ecosystem services (Adger et al. 2002; de Groot et al. 2002; Lambin et al. 2003). Integrated metrics include activities of rural landholders and land use (Emtage et al. 2006; Nuissl et al. 2009). To address community-level adaptation

and resilience, different social scales (e.g., individual to community level; Buergelt & Paton, 2014), rela-tionships between governance and ecosystem ser-vices (Ostrom, 2005; 2009), and community size and resource connectivity (Alessa et al. 2009) are as-sessed and included in typologies. The applied typol-ogy considered here studies the heterogeneity that exists across SESs in their given landscapes by inves-tigating different SES elements. Mountain System Communities

Mountain SESs require special attention because of their position in the upstream-downstream gradi-ent, unique ecosystem characteristics, changing hu-man demographics, effects on resource and manage-ment decisions, and cultural and political aspects. As the location of intensive exploitation or as the source of renewable and nonrenewable resources—such as timber, minerals, and water—mountainous regions and their associated watersheds are critical for most societies (Messerli et al. 2004; Winkler et al. 2007; Emelko et al. 2011). As in other systems, mountain-based human communities are subject not only to pressure from macro-environmental drivers such as climate change, but also from human-driven factors such as population growth/decline, economic devel-opment, migration, and urbanization. In contrast to other types of SESs, however, extreme biophysical gradients within mountain landscapes can create unique vulnerabilities to disturbance, availability of ecosystem services, and patterns of ecological and natural-resource exploitation (MtnSEON, 2015).

Considered unique and understudied from eco-logical and biogeographical perspectives (Beniston, 2003), mountain landscapes are defined by high-contrast biophysical and ecological characteristics, such as steep physical gradients (e.g., elevation, pre-cipitation, temperature), ecotones (abrupt ecological transition zones), and highly varied ecosystems and physical characteristics (Haslett, 1997; Gardner & Dekens, 2007). Mountains have extreme and varying topographies along a large continuum; for example, consider the differences between Snowdon in Wales (high precipitation, heavily forested, anciently vol-canic, and standing 1,085 meters) and Mount Kili-manjaro in Tanzania (dry, sparsely forested, many endemic plants, actively volcanic, and standing 5,149 meters). Extreme, but local, spatial heterogeneity also differentiates mountains from surrounding lowland areas, so that mountainous regions are often defined according to relative prominence (vertical differentia-tion from surrounding landscapes). For example, the town of Browning, Montana (USA) is considered to be on the “high plains” at 1,334 meters; this can be contrasted with Mount Rogers in Virginia (USA), identified as a mountain at 1,746 meters, and the



3

aforementioned Snowdon in Wales, unquestionably a mountain at only 1,085 meters.

High-contrast biophysical characteristics also subject mountain landscapes to hazards that are unique or more pronounced than in other landscapes. For example, landslides, avalanches, flash floods, forest fires, and extreme cold events are characteristic of mountain SESs, but largely absent from lowland temperate regions where most of the world’s popula-tions resides (Gardner & Dekens, 2007; Hewitt, 2014). Due to the great biophysical, microclimatic, and ecological variability of mountain areas, their ecosystems are reservoirs for biodiversity and highly vulnerable to global change. Prominence and separa-tion of peaks by lowlands with inhospitable biophysi-cal characteristics results in many mountains acting as ecological “sky-islands,” with unique fauna and flora that are susceptible to environmental and cli-mate change and physically unable to migrate to more suitable habitat as conditions change (Holycross & Douglas, 2007). Mountains also serve as refuges for many endangered species, such as large carnivores (Weaver, 2001). Global climate change is predicted to have greater effects on mountain ecosys-tems, and other high-latitude ecosystems, than on most landscapes (a prediction that is actually begin-ning to occur) (Kullman, 2004).

The biophysical and geographical characteristics of mountainous landscapes contribute to pronounced cultural, socioeconomic, and political diversity and significance for these regions. Mountain ecosystems, especially in Europe, have been modified, molded, and tended by self-organizing and self-regulating cultures at the fringes of larger polities and societies (Rescia et al. 2008). Due to historical patterns of for-est use and resource extraction in many mountainous regions of the world, mountain landscapes and asso-ciated communities experience (and in some instanc-es engage in activities that directly cause) more de-forestation, related flooding, and extreme erosion than comparably sized lowland SESs (Gibon et al. 2010). Mountain ranges have been used to define political frontiers between nations (Stoddard, 1991), and the enforcement of law and effective governance by states is typically weaker in mountainous regions (Ratner, 2000). Often, in mountainous areas minority groups are isolated (e.g., India), natural resources are heavily exploited (e.g., logging and mining), and military conflict persists (e.g., Afghanistan, Yemen; Blaikei & Sadeque, 2000). In addition, mountains regularly serve as sacred sites of cultural importance and these features have been correlated with higher biodiversity (Anderson et al. 2005). As a result of different or unique characteristics for mountain sys-tems and communities, researchers and stakeholders have suggested specific guidelines for protecting the

biological and cultural diversity of these regions (Wild et al. 2008).

Mountain systems are critical for understanding watersheds and their connectivity from high elevation to the sea (Kaneshiro et al. 2005). This importance is exemplified in the ancient Hawaiian managed land-scape, or ahupua’a, a land division stretching from upland mountains to the near shore that formed the basis for agro-ecological management and acted as a foundation for local cultural and political economies (Kamehameha Schools, 1994; Kliskey et al. 2009). In temperate environments, mountain-to-sea connectivi-ty has been extended to icefield-to-ocean linkages, given changes in elevation and moisture, similarly highlighting the critical roles of downstream connec-tivity, transitions, and gradients for mountain land-scapes in entire watersheds (O’Neel et al. 2015). Methods Analytical Approach

We use the “Messy SES” typology as a starting point to assess community-level resilience in the western United States mountain system (Alessa et al. 2009). Resilience and vulnerability are designated as two ends of a continuum in this typology, which em-phasizes community size, resource use, and commu-nity connectivity, acknowledging that SESs are inher-ently difficult to categorize or assess (Folke, 2006). In comparison to the SES typology proposed by Ostrom (2005; 2009), Alessa et al. (2009) requires fewer proxies, so it is more manageable in practice. Our analysis assessed the Alessa et al. (2009) typolo-gy to improve its utility for providing information helpful to making management and community-planning decisions. The unit of analysis in our study is a community, defined as an area and population associated with an organized and commonly gov-erned collection of households.

To assess the typology, we first selected 21 com-munities from the western mountainous region of the United States (Intermountain and Rocky Mountains) as a sample group (Figure 1). We defined a moun-tainous region as a landscape with significant promi-nence, sloping terrain, valleys, and human communi-ties. We studied communities located in such land-scapes in the states of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, with pop-ulation sizes ranging from 204 people (Washtucna, Washington) to 663,900 residents (Denver, Colora-do).

We next considered the eleven resilience proxies used in Alessa et al. (2009) and their relevance to our mountain-system communities (see the next section). Resilience proxies are diversity, distance, retention, distribution, persistence, collectivism, variability,



4

substitutability, communication, and risk. We identi-fied specific metrics for each proxy (Table 1), based on the availability (e.g., open source, freely available) of quantitative datasets. Where possible, we identi-fied both social and biophysical metrics for each proxy. Metrics that were only available at large scales (e.g., state level) were scaled down to the community level based on population proportions. In other words, we took the state-level data and applied it to the community.

After all data were collated, we calculated the range for each metric for the sample group. We then divided the range into three parts (Table 1, column “Metric Defined”). Qualitative identifiers were given for each part (e.g., low, middle, high) to describe their relationship to the metric. These identifiers were then assigned numeric values that reflected the met-ric’s contribution to resilience. For most metrics, the transformation was 1 = low, 2 = middle, and 3 = high. Some categories, with more quantitative data that allowed for fine-scale treatment, also apply 0.5 intervals. For other metrics, an inversion was needed. For example, “distance to freshwater” was considered 1 = high, 2 = middle, and 3 = low, as a shorter dis-tance to water is associated with higher resilience. After all results were described numerically, data in each proxy were averaged. We then translated the averages into categories A, B, and C (resilient to vul-nerable, respectively), where the bottom-, middle-, and top-third of averaged results correspond to A‒C categories, respectively. Resilient communities (A) are those which are most likely to withstand disturb-

ance, transitional communities (B) respond unevenly to disturbance, and vulnerable communities are those least able to resist the negative effects of disturbance (c.f. Alessa et al. 2009).

Size (i.e., population) is considered separately from the proxies (Alessa et al. 2009), because the scale of social organization is a strong discriminator with respect to environmental change and response (Wilbanks & Kates, 1999; Marston, 2000). Size of-fers the opportunity to scale resilience assessments for cross comparisons among communities. For ex-ample, the number of residents is associated with aggregated benefits (e.g., tax revenue) and costs (e.g., resource use; Dasgupta, 1995). In mountain regions, size is particularly important because the human-carrying capacity is often limited by topography. Small communities are often located in canyons or on sloped land, with larger population concentrations situated in valleys or at the edge of mountainous are-as (Cohen & Small, 1998).

Our analysis defines community size by estimat-ed population, ranging from small (3 < 2,500), me-dium (2 = 2,500‒50,000), to large (1 > 50,000) ac-cording to the United States Census Bureau’s (2010a) urban-rural classification for towns (data are collect-ed from U.S. Census, 2015a). The resilience classifi-cation (A, B, or C) is combined with the size classifi-cation (1, 2, or 3) so that nine different categories for community resilience are possible (i.e., Types 1A‒3C).

Figure 1 Location and elevation of sample communities.



5

Proxies and Metrics for the Typology The eleven proxies considered in the typology

are intended to capture a range of social-ecological factors affecting community-level resilience and vul-nerability (Alessa et al. 2009). Proxies address com-ponents of vulnerability including root causes (e.g., factors that produce unequal distribution of resources among people), dynamic pressures (e.g., processes and activities such as environmental change), and unsafe conditions (e.g., spatial location and the built environment; Wisner et al. 2004). We evaluated the

proxies according to: 1) relevance to mountain sys-tems and 2) metrics and available datasets to inform the proxy. Table 1 lists the specific proxies that we applied. A total of nineteen metrics and eighteen dif-ferent sources for datasets informed our typology. Table 1 also indicates the thresholds of metrics em-ployed to evaluate communities by identifying the range within the sample group (column “Metric De-fined”). We identified relatively informative metrics and good quality datasets for most proxies. Data were all derived from free, publicly available sources on

Table 1 Descriptions, definitions, and datasets for metrics used for each proxy.

Proxy Metric Metric Description1 Metric Defined2 Data Set Citation

Diversity Industry diversity

Range across percent of participation of top three industries of the town (%)

High (3) < 5, Medium (2) 5–10, Low (1) > 10, Range: 0‒15

U.S. Census (2013a)

Diversity Biodiversity Biodiversity of plants, fungi/lichens, animals, by state (number of species)

Low (1) < 6,915, Medium (2) 6,915‒7,827, High (3) > 7,827; Range: 6,003–8,739

Nature Serve (2013)

Distance Ocean distance

Distance from the ocean (km) Low (3) < 603, Medium (2) 603‒1,107, High (1) > 1,107; Range: 100‒1,510

Google Earth (2015)

Distance Water distance

Distance from main water source for community use (km)

Low (3) < 60, Medium (2) 60‒115, High (1)> 115; Range: 5‒170

Google Earth (2015); community websites

Retention Renewable energy use

Energy used from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro, geo, biomass) by state (%)

Low (1) < 34, Medium (2) 34‒67, High (3) > 67; Range: 0‒100

USDOE (2013)

Retention Recycling activity

Number of people per recycling center (individuals/center)

Low (3) < 10,374, Medium (2) 10,374‒20,748, High (1) > 20,748, communities with no centers identified as “high”; Range: 0‒31,122

RecyclingCenters.org (2015)

Distribution Airport distance

Distance to international airport (km) Low (3) < 258, Medium (2) 258‒503, High (1) > 503; Range: 13‒748

Travel Math (2015)

Distribution Conduits available

Connection points to Interstate highways (Number of connection points)

Google Earth (2015) Google Earth (2015) Range: 0‒5

Persistence Establishment age

Founding year for community (year) Older (3) < 1,863, Medium (2) 1,863‒1,880, Young (1) > 1,880; Range: 1,847‒1,896

Wikipedia (2015)

Collectivism Union affiliation

Employed and salary workers with union affiliation by state (%)

Low (1) < 9, Medium (2) 9‒14, High (3) > 14; Range: 4.60‒18.40

BLS (2014)

Collectivism NGO participation

Number of people per NGO by community (individuals)


IRS (2015)

Variability Precipitation range

Range in precipitation record per year (inches)

Low (1) < 20, Medium (2) 20‒30, High (3) > 30; Range: 9.4‒41.7

Western RegionalClimate Center (2015)

Variability Population change

Change in community population from 1990 to 2015 (%)


City Data (2015)

Directionality Export-import difference

Difference between exported and imported goods by state (US$)

Low (3) < 8,944, Medium (2) 8,944‒23,774, High (1) > 23,774; Range: ‒5,887‒38,605

U.S. Census (2015b)

Substitutability Commuting activity

Change in daytime population due to commuting, by county (%)

Low (1) < 5.2, Medium (2) 5.2‒16.1, High (3) > 16.1; Range: ‒5.7‒27

U.S. Census (2010b)

Substitutability Growing days Number of growing days for cultivated plants per year by state (days)


Farmer’s Almanac (2015)

Communication Internet access

Percent of people with computer and Internet access, by community (%)


U.S. Census (2013b)

Risk Social Vulnerability Index

Vulnerability measurement 1‒4 Low (1) < 1.33, Medium (2) 1.33‒2.66, High (3) > 2.66; Range: 1‒3

HVRI (2013)

1 Qualitative description of metrics, including the scale of the dataset and unit of analysis (in parentheses). 2 Quantitative categorization of the metric, including a qualifier describing the town’s metric in relation to the sample group (low to

high); numeric designation describing the metric’s contribution to the town’s resilience (in parentheses, 1: negative, 2: neutral, 3: positive); and range of actual values within the sample group.



6

the Internet. Diversity (the first of the eleven proxies), which

considers a community’s varying access to both local and distant resources, is a measure of a community’s social and biophysical options for meeting livelihood needs, such as mechanisms for accessing resources (e.g., livelihood activities) and availability of re-sources (e.g., timber, energy deposits). Economic di-versity, such as the presence of different industries, helps to inform how communities might adapt to shifts and stresses arising from evolving economic circumstances (Chapin et al. 2004). Diversification promotes livelihood security by helping households overcome crises and abrupt change (Shackleton & Shackleton, 2004). Similarly, biophysical diversity, such as biological, ecological, and natural resource diversity, offers a great range of options and alterna-tives for communities to be more adaptive to change (Adams et al. 2004, Reyers et al. 2012). In mountain systems, diversity is linked to distance and distribu-tion and provides different options for livelihood strategies.

Distance refers to the physical distance to essen-tial resources (e.g., water, goods, trade). For example, communities located near headwaters have great po-tential for environmental impact on downstream communities. Mountain communities are often iso-lated; steep gradients can cause distribution of re-sources to be more sensitive to change than in more homogeneous topography. Climate change, for ex-ample, is expected to affect mountain regions by making some natural resources either physically more distant, scarce, or no longer available (Hope, 2014). Therefore, distance is linked to the proxies of topography, diversity, and distribution.

Retention is defined as efficiency in resource utilization, such as through renewable and recycled materials. In mountainous regions in the western United States, renewable natural resources that con-tribute directly to livelihoods include, but are not lim-ited to, arable soil, trees and plants, fish and game, and wind for power generation. More varied and nu-merous renewable resources provide long-term secu-rity for mountain communities (Forman, 2008). Secu-rity can be measured based on how much renewable energy or how many resources are used in a commu-nity, including the capacity and infrastructure for recycling resources. Retention is linked to distance, as isolation can drive higher retention or prevent re-cycling of materials through lack of infrastructure.

Distribution is a measure of a community’s level of connectivity to a broader economy, such as through transportation conduits. In terms of infra-structural resilience, a community with easy access to highways, major airports, and rail interconnections is

more resilient than an isolated community (Cutter et al. 2010). Strong connections to surrounding com-munities and a broader region enhance community resilience by allowing more access to resources and emergency aid while being responsive to external factors or shocks.

Persistence is measured based on a community’s previous history in facing threats and overcoming and adapting to social-ecological stresses (Assche & Lo, 2011). Historical records can form a baseline indicat-ing how effectively communities have dealt with social-ecological stress in the past. For mountain communities, this is particularly important for antici-pating and adapting to natural threats, such as floods. This proxy helps to measure a community’s experi-ences recovering from major ecological disturbances such as pine-beetle infestations. As a metric for per-sistence, community age can be informative, with historical memory being preserved through records and traditional, generational knowledge.

Collectivism represents how community-driven processes and institutions, such as governmental, pri-vate, and public organizations, respond to social-ecological change (Buduru & Pal, 2010). This char-acteristic indicates how well communities are able to respond to endogenous or exogenous stresses through local cooperation and systems of organization. A high number of community-based programs and in-stitutions [such as labor-union affiliation and the presence of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)] relative to population can determine if organizational systems enable resilience. High levels of collectivism help to shape more rapid and flexible responses among communities through such processes as adap-tive governance (Folke et al. 2005).

Variability refers to the consistency of environ-mental factors and resource availability for a commu-nity over time. Environmental variability, for ex-ample, has been identified as an important determi-nant of community vulnerability in traditional agri-cultural systems throughout the world (Altieri, 2004). Variability can be measured in several ways: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), for ex-ample, has used change in precipitation, river dis-charge, and air temperature over a minimum of 30 years to monitor environmental variability. In moun-tain systems, variability is often determined by the location of a community along different gradients (e.g., elevation, location in watershed, slope). As cli-mate change begins to have greater effects on spe-cific landscapes over the next century, variability in environmental factors such as precipitation is ex-pected to increase, greatly affecting agriculture and other activities (Beniston & Stoffel, 2014).



7

Directionality refers to the input or output of re-sources due to trade or environmental change. Some mountain communities are more self-sufficient due to local natural resources (e.g., timber), but industrial goods and services needed to capture more value from these resources may be outsourced to other lo-cales. For example, a mountain-ski town imports goods and services to earn revenue through visitors to the resort, gaining resources. A mining town, on the other hand, may extract and export natural resources (removing resources). Directionality informs how (negative or positive) communities are able to accu-mulate resources that promote resilience and adapta-tion related to proxies of distance, distribution, and retention (Carpenter & Brock, 2008).

Substitutability measures a community’s range of available resource options and gauges its ability to adapt under social-ecological stress by having access to redundant and multiple social-ecological resources (Folke et al. 2005). Metrics to inform this proxy can include the availability of nearby work opportunities (e.g., percentage of local residents that commute to jobs) and growing days for agricultural and cultivated plants.

Communication relates to a community’s ability to access knowledge to help promote resilience and adaptation, which can be in the form of mass media or social networks that spread ideas (Vogel et al.

2007). Quantifying the population’s level of access to the Internet and other communication (e.g., libraries, archives) informs this proxy.

Risk is important for determining how likely it is that communities will be affected by disturbance events (e.g., flooding, economic crisis, or disease out-break). Depending on their specific location, higher elevation communities may experience major shocks such as shifts in the quantity and timing of precipita-tion due to climate change, while lower elevation communities may be less affected. Meaningful risk metrics for mountain systems include predicted change in precipitation and snowpack, which can increase due to storm events. Distance from contami-nation sources, such as elevation and location along a watershed gradient, can affect pollution spread (Briggs, 2003). While ambient temperature generally varies with altitude and latitude, variation in meteoro-logical conditions due to climate change is expected to be inconsistent across time and space. The Social Vulnerability Index (HVRI, 2015) is a useful meas-urement of risk that considers susceptibility to envi-ronmental hazards by categories such as race, ethnici-ty, and age, as different cohorts may have greater risk due to socio-economic status.

Based on an SES science approach, all of the proxies inform and affect each other through feed-back loops. However, some proxies are more closely

Table 2 Values of the resilience proxy measures for the 21 sample communities, including size and analysis results. Resilience level category ranges are as follows: A = 3.0–2.4; B = 2.3–1.7; C = 1.6–1.0.

Community / Proxy Siz

e

Div

ersi

ty

Dis

tan

ce

Ret

enti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Per

sist

enc

e

Co

llec

tivi

sm

Var

iab

ility

Dir

ecti

on

alit

y

Su

bst

itu

tab

ility

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

Ris

k

Ave

rag

e o

f re

silie

nce

pro

xies

Res

ilien

ce

leve

l

Res

ilien

ce

Ty

pe

Denver, CO 1 2.5 2 2 3 3 2 1.5 3 3 2 2 2.4 A 1A Colorado Springs, CO 1 2.5 1 2 2.5 3 1.5 1 3 1.5 3 3 2.2 B 1B Durango, CO 2 2 2 2 1.5 1 2.5 2 3 1 2 3 2 B 2B Berthoud, CO 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.5 1 3 1.5 2 3 2.1 B 2B Orofino, ID 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 2.5 3 2 2 2 2.3 B 2B Salmon, ID 2 1.5 2.5 3 1 2 2 2 3 1.5 2 2 2.1 B 2B Blackfoot, ID 2 2 2.5 3 2 2 1 1.5 3 1 2 2 2 B 2B Boise , ID 1 1.5 2.5 2 1.5 3 1.5 1 3 1.5 1 2 1.9 B 1B Butte, MT 2 2.5 2.5 2 1.5 1 2.5 2 3 1 1 2 1.9 B 2B Arlee, MT 3 2 2.5 1 1 2 3 2 3 1.5 1 1 1.8 B 3B Tigard, OR 1 3 3 3 2.5 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2.5 A 1A Vale, OR 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 2.3 A 3A Medford, OR 1 2.5 3 3 2 1 2.5 1.5 3 1.5 1 2 2.1 B 1B Monticello, UT 3 2.5 2 2 1.5 1 1 2 3 1.5 2 1 1.8 B 3B Salt Lake City, UT 1 2.5 2.5 2 3 3 2 2 3 2.5 2 2 2.4 A 1A Washtucna, WA 3 2 3 2 1.5 2 2.5 2 1 1.5 2 2 2 B 3B Spokane, WA 1 1 3 3 2 2 2.5 2 1 1.5 2 2 2 B 1B Bingen, WA 3 1.5 3 3 2.5 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 B 3B Cheyenne, WY 1 2.5 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 2 2 2 B 1B Baggs, WY 3 2 2.5 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1.7 B 3B Cody, WY 2 3 2.5 1 1 1 2 2 3 1.5 1 3 1.9 B 2B



8

related than others. Diversity, variability, distance, retention, distribution, and directionality are all based on a community’s physical features. Size, persis-tence, and collectivism focus on social aspects of local history and social organization. Risk stands alone because it is based on the prediction of future events, according to an analysis of all other proxies. Topography is not included as a proxy, although it affects many of the proxies, including size, distance, risk, and distribution. Results

Table 2 displays the size of the communities and aggregate measures of the metrics for each resilience proxy so that they can be compared across communi-ties. The table also shows the final combined size and resilience score for each community. Communities typed A to C are more to less resilient, respectively; community sizes 1 to 3 are large to small, respective-ly.

On the basis of our analysis (Table 2 & Figure 2), most sample communities are characterized as transitional (n = 17); however, four communities are classified as resilient. Large communities, or cities, are deemed to be either resilient (n = 3) or transition-al (n = 5). Medium-sized communities are all identi-fied as transitional (n = 7). The majority of small towns are transitional (n = 5). Using the framework provided by Alessa et al. (2009), none of the towns in our sample are classified as vulnerable, although Baggs, WY scores very close.

As an illustration of the assessment of SES resili-ence using the typology it is useful to consider the in-dividual measures for a single community. As an ex-ample, the town of Salmon, Idaho, is a small rural community of 3,112 residents located in the Salmon River Mountains of the American Continental Divide in central Idaho—rated as a medium-sized communi-

ty (Type 2). The town is situated at an elevation of 1,202 meters above sea level (ASL), immediately west of Continental Divide-mountain peaks that reach in excess of 3,000 meters ASL, and at the up-per headwaters of the Salmon River—a tributary of the Columbia River Basin, and 1,560 kilometers up-river from the Columbia River mouth on the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). Salmon has a semi-arid climate with cold, dry winters and hot, slightly wetter sum-mers. Historically, the Salmon River valley is home to the Native American Lemhi Shoshone people and notable as the birthplace of Sacajawea, the Shoshone guide for the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804–1806, and the route taken by that expedition as they crossed the Continental Divide en route to the Pacific Ocean.

The overall diversity proxy for Salmon of 1.5 (medium) tempers a low industrial diversity, based on over 12% participation in lumber, ranching, and tourism as the top three industries, with a high biodi-versity, resulting from close proximity to relatively unmodified forest and riverine environments (Tables 1 & 2). The distance proxy of 2.5 (medium-low) combines a particularly large distance from the ocean (1,560 kilometers) at the very headwaters of the Co-lumbia River, and short distance from the town’s main water source—the entire town is within one kilometer of the Salmon River (Tables 1 & 2). The retention proxy of 3 (very low) combines low metrics for renewable-energy use and recycling activity (Ta-bles 1 and 2). The distribution proxy of 1 (very low) reflects Salmon’s single connection to Interstate 90 which is 226 kilometers away and accessible in Mis-soula to the north (Tables 1 & 2). Its persistence proxy of 2 (medium) mirrors the founding of Lemhi County and the City of Salmon in 1866 (Tables 1 & 2). The collectivism proxy of 2 (medium) reflects the combination of 12% of employed and salaried work-ers in union affiliation for Idaho and 165 people per NGO (Tables 1 & 2). The variability proxy of 2 (me-dium) indicates both a modest environmental varia-bility (range in annual precipitation) and a modest change in community population from 1990 to 2015 (+0.03%). The directionality proxy of 3 (low) for Salmon echoes relatively low self-sufficiency due to the importation relative to exportation of resources (Tables 1 & 2). A substitutability proxy of 1.5 (medium-low) reflects little change in daytime popu-lation due to scant commuting (the only other incor-porated city in the county being Leadore with only 105 residents some 74 kilometers away, and a medi-um number of growing days per year (Tables 1 & 2). Its communication proxy of 2 (medium) is due to a moderate percentage (83%) of the community pos-sessing computer and Internet access. And the risk proxy of 2 (medium) reflects a moderate social vul-

Figure 2 Typology results for the communities assessed.



9

nerability index score (2.0) for the community (Ta-bles 1 & 2). The average resilience for Salmon of 2.1 is in the range of transitional resilience—an uneven response to disturbance resulting in an overall rating for the community as a type 2B transitional com-munity (Table 2 & Figure 2).

Discussion Benefits and Limitations

The Alessa et al. (2009) typology offers descrip-tions of proxies, but does not specify the metrics that should be used. The categories in the typology are not unique to mountain systems, but mountain char-acteristics such as precipitation, temperature, transport, and diversity of available resources do af-fect results by influencing resilience. As such, the ty-pology allows for flexibility to use different region-specific metrics for capturing resilience in mountain systems. By testing the utility of the typology with mountain communities, we were able to assess the challenges, benefits, and limitations of the typology, so that more robust taxonomies can be developed and data gaps identified. Our proxies were not weighted, as the intent was to identify the communities that showed more or less vulnerability within this particu-lar framework.

Datasets are generally available to capture the size and proxies for resilience reasonably well. Since each of our datasets came from a different source, it was time consuming to collect the appropriate data to inform each metric. As other SES studies have noted, the different scales used for each dataset (e.g., coun-ty, zip code, state levels) present challenges, because there is a need to scale down some datasets to the town level (e.g., per capita) (Cumming et al. 2006). To improve quantitative capacity to evaluate the re-silience of communities, datasets should be collected at the community level.

As an evolving field, resilience science continues to test conceptual SES models that identify metrics of resilience as well as relationships among metrics (Berkley & Gunderson, 2015). In the absence of guidance from a foundation of literature that defines specific metrics to be used in a typology, we select measures that are able to demonstrate the typology’s workability using publically available data. Among the proxies, persistence proves to be the least in-formative in our analysis, as all of the communities were established at roughly the same time. For varia-bility, we use population change from 1990 until the present, which demonstrates that communities can leverage human capital into infrastructure improve-ment (Short & Mussman, 2014). Although less than ideal, the data were readily available and could be used to highlight the relative ability of communities

to address variable resource or ecological conditions. We use the number of growing days for the substitut-ability proxy, as this shows the range of crops that can be grown given prevailing climatic advantage. While mountain communities in the United States are not often known for large-scale commercial agricul-ture, food production does enable local residents to provide for themselves during disruption. For our assessment of risk, we use the Social Vulnerability Index (HVRI, 2013), which we recognize does not include the biophysical aspect of vulnerability, but offers a straightforward way to differentiate risks among communities.

Our typology has potential to be more readily ap-plied using quantitative—rather than qualitative—data, as they provide values that can be directly trans-lated to resilience categories. However, some proxies like collectivism may best be informed through quali-tative documentation of activities conducted by gov-ernment, nongovernmental, and private-public part-nerships. The current typology framework is not very conducive for such qualitative datasets. To under-stand the context that underlies community resilience, better ways to assess qualitative data, such as through the deployment of historical perspectives, are needed to improve typologies. In addition, data sources for metrics are not available in a central repository, so time-consuming online searches in a dispersed and changing digital landscape are needed. We suggest that future typologies consider better ways to include qualitative datasets. While qualitative databases are often inherently difficult to work with, relative measures within such qualitative understanding can at least provide information on what is more or less important from the perspective of resilience.

In this study, we relied only on publically availa-ble data rather than community-based information (e.g., local knowledge, unpublished municipal man-agement information). These data, which are labor in-tensive to collect, could be used in analyses after spe-cific communities of interest have been identified through applying the typology. Depending on open-access data makes the typology useful for managers and planners, who can efficiently allocate their lim-ited resources by more quickly identifying vulnerable communities that may warrant further investigation. In our current study, we emphasize access to data over a more comprehensive approach because we believe that typologies must be easy to populate and implement to be useful in land, resource, and com-munity management. Science often fails to translate results into methodologies that can be utilized by managers and applied researchers, resulting in a research-implementation gap that this study attempts to fill (Walsh et al. 2014).



10

Another limitation of our approach is that the metric scores are calculated based on our sample. However, we selected this approach because our main goal was to demonstrate the potential utility of the typology as one step in a more encompassing process toward vulnerability assessment of a large number of communities. One benefit of our approach, nevertheless, is that the resilience score is adaptable to changing circumstances within the sample itself. As new resilience typologies and assessments are developed and tested, more rigorous comparisons will be possible. This was attempted for this study but proved difficult for the given data values that were available. In any case, we contend that our analysis offers valuable perspective on advancing SES typologies.

Relevance of Results

Our assessed communities indicate that larger cities are slightly more resilient than smaller commu-nities, where Size 1 settlements average a 2.18 resili-ence score vs. 2.06 for all other settlements. On one hand, the higher resilience result could be because relatively larger communities generally have more diversified economies; more efficient connections to national and international transportation networks; use of resources; and ability to leverage social, knowledge, and financial capital. In advanced econ-omies, cities tend to have social and economic capac-ity to develop increasingly resilient infrastructures (Pretty & Ward, 2001; Vugrin et al. 2010; Walker & Cooper, 2010; Smith & Stirling, 2011). In compari-son to larger cities, smaller mountain communities, particularly those with populations of less than a few thousand, are slightly more vulnerable (Size 3 com-munities have a 1.98 resilience average). Interesting-ly, no communities are classified as Type C (vulnera-ble). There are a number of possible explanations, such as that no communities in the sample group are vulnerable, the United States is simply relatively wealthier and better able to address resilience, and the typology is not specific enough to inform the re-silience context of mountains (e.g., mountain system may represent a nested typology within the typology that we used). Instead of adjusting scores so that some communities are assigned to each of the re-silience categories (e.g., centering proxy scores at “2”), we chose to maintain the original protocol, so that the results could be comparable to future typo-logical analyses.

Unfortunately, we were unable to find many oth-er studies similar to the approach that we have em-ployed here, making comparison to previous work difficult. Pickett et al. (2014) propose some relevant ideas of urban adaptation and how it could benefit types (large to small) of communities, but this does

not include a practical implementation of a typology to case studies. Although comparable current re-search efforts have been produced to investigate cit-ies and their capacity for resilience (e.g., Arup Group, 2015; BRR, n.d.), we find that these studies do not account sufficiently for environmental, geo-graphical, or biogeographic effects.

Future Direction

This study offers yet one more step in improving typologies so that they can provide useful infor-mation for stakeholders seeking to make decisions regarding community- and landscape-level resilience. A next step entails more rigorous analysis and identi-fication of appropriate metrics. Even among monitor-ing initiatives, it is unclear what indicators should be assessed to support improvements in community re-silience (Carpenter et al. 2001), a situation that remains a major challenge for the broader monitoring community (Schimel & Keller, 2015).

We applied our typology to mountain communi-ties in the western United States, where data are more available than for less developed nations (Sunderlin et al. 2005). A major obstacle for all managers is data availability, which has led to advocacy for open-access publishing (Fuller et al. 2014). With a new push for large-scale, standardized, and publicly ac-cessible data around the world (e.g., observatories, census data, satellite maps), data will likely become more accessible in the future, making possible global-scale analyses. Remote-sensing data is another attractive and simple resource useful for providing quick proxy measurements until more adequate re-sources are obtained from ground-based sources.

Based on our experience, we have some concrete recommendations for the next steps needed to devel-op an effective and useful SES typology. Researchers should strive to:

Develop a portal that assembles datasets for met-

rics in one place, so that the mining of data can be made more efficient.

Define best practices, particularly in regard to the unit analysis and scales used among different datasets, so that the data can be more interopera-ble and easier to use.

Increase testing of SES and resilience science theories, conceptual models, and typologies to better define the metrics and relationships among metrics.

Increase the sample size used to test typologies to better define the range and thresholds for met-rics.



11

Test the limits of the typology in other mountain systems, ecosystems and landscapes, and geopo-litical and sociopolitical contexts.

Foster better partnerships with data- and informatics-science communities to help over-come data challenges in the typology, such as the need to identify better ways to include qualitative data and community-based data.

Conclusion

We present an application of the Alessa et al. (2009) SES typology to evaluate its utility for as-sessing resilience of communities located in moun-tain landscapes. We offer suggestions to further re-fine a conceptual SES typology so that better assess-ment of the resilience of communities in specific landscapes can occur. With such refinement, SES typologies can provide useful information for region-al planners, for instance at the state level, as a way to compare vulnerability of multiple communities. For researchers, typologies offer a useful tool and ap-proach to better evaluate conceptual SES models and to analyze patterns and causes of resilience or vulner-ability to change. Efforts to standardize data and ana-lytical approaches for SESs and resilience science will help to advance these fields toward new frontiers and increase their application in practice.

Our study offers a starting point for further de-velopment of typologies. Taxonomic tools are critical for identifying communities and regions or geograph-ic areas that are more or less resilient, but these pro-vide a coarse-level diagnostic, so that more compre-hensive assessment and data collection can be applied more efficiently. With growing global population, changing climate, and increasing pressures on limited natural resources and infrastructure, an SES approach is needed in land and natural resource management, so that the landscape and its components can be treat-ed as an interconnected system with shared goals toward greater resilience. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Mountain Social Ecologi-cal Observatory Network (MtnSEON; NSF award #DEB 1231233), the Dynamics of Coupled Natural Human Sys-tems: Water-use Decisions in a Dynamic Environment Pro-ject (CNH; NSF Award #BCS 1114851), and the Idaho EPSCoR Program (MILES; NSF award #IIA-1301792). The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the funders. We also express our gratitude to Kacy Kreiger (University of Alaska Anchorage) for the carto-graphic design on Figure 1.

References Adams, W., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J.,

Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B., & Wolmer, W. 2004. Biodiver-sity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306 (5699):1146–1149.

Adger, W., Kelley, P., Winkels, A., Huy, L., & Locke, C. 2002. Migration, remittances, livelihood trajectories, and social re-silience. Ambio 31(4):358–366.

Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., & Altaweel, M. 2009. Toward a typology for social-ecological systems. Sustainability: Science, Prac-tice, and Policy 5(1):31–41.

Alley, R., Marotzke, J., Nordhaus, W., Overpeck, J., Peteet, D., Pielke, R., Pierrehumbert, R., Rhine, P., Stocker, T., Talley, L., & Wallace, J. 2003. Abrupt climate change. Science 299 (5615):2005–2010.

Altieri, M. 2004. Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1):35–42.

Anderson, D., Salick, J., Moseley, R., & Xiaokun, O. 2005. Con-serving the sacred medicine mountains: a vegetation analysis of Tibetan sacred sites in Northwest Yunnan. Biodiversity & Conservation 14(13):3065–3091.

Arup Group. 2015. City Resilience Framework. http://www.arup. com/cri. November 23, 2015.

Assche, K. & Lo, M. 2011. Planning, preservation and place branding: a tale of sharing assets and narratives. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 7:116–126.

Beniston, M. 2003. Climatic change in mountain regions: a review of possible impacts. Climatic Change 59(1):5–31.

Beniston, M. & Stoffel, M. 2014. Assessing the impacts of climatic change on mountain water resources. Science of the Total En-vironment 493:1129–1137.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berkley, J. & Gunderson, L. 2015. Practical resilience: building networks of adaptive management. In C. Allen & A. Garmestani (Eds.), Adaptive Management of Social-Ecological Systems. pp. 201–216. London: Springer.

Blaikie, P. & Sadeque, S. 2000. Policy in High Places: Environ-ment and Development in the Himalayan Region. Kathman-du: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Develop-ment.

Blair, B., Lovecraft, A., & Kofinas, G. 2014. Meeting institutional criteria for social resilience: a nested risk system model. Ecology and Society 19(4):36.

Briggs, D. 2003. Environmental pollution and the global burden of disease. British Medical Bulletin 68(1):1–24.

Brondizio, E. & Chowdhury, R. 2013. Human-environmental re-search: past trends, current challenges, and future directions. In E. Brondizio & E. Moran (Eds.), Human-Environmental Interactions: Current and Future Directions. pp. 391–400. London: Springer.

Buduru, B. & Pal, L. 2010. The globalized state: measuring and monitoring governance. European Journal of Cultural Stud-ies 13(4):511–530.

Buergelt, P. & Paton, D. 2014. An ecological risk management and capacity building model. Human Ecology 42(4):591–603.

Building Resilient Regions (BRR). n.d. Resilience Capacity Index. http://brr.berkeley.edu/rci/. November 23, 2015.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2014. Union Affiliation of Em-ployed Wage and Salary Workers by State, 2013–2014 An-nual Averages. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2. t05.htm. May 25, 2015.

Carney D. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribu-tion Can We Make? Nottingham, UK: Russell Press.

Carpenter, S. & Brock, W. 2008. Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecology and Society 13(2):40.



12

Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, M., & Abel, N. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Eco-systems 4(8):765–781.

Chapin, F., Peterson, G., Berkes, F., Callaghan, T., Angelstam, P., Apps, M., Beier, C., Bergeron, Y., Crépin,A.-S., Danell, K., Elmqvist,T., Folke, C., Forbes, B., Fresco, N., Juday, G., Niemelä, J., Shvidenko, A., & Whiteman, G. 2004. Resili-ence and vulnerability of northern regions to social and envi-ronmental change. AMBIO 33(6):344–349.

City Data. 2015. City Data. http://www.City-Data.com. May 25, 2015.

Cohen, J. & Small, J. 1998. Hypsographic demography: the distri-bution of human population by altitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95(24):14009–14014.

Cutter, S., Burton, C., & Emrich, C. 2010. Disaster resilience indi-cators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7(1):1547–7355.

Cumming, G., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K., Southworth, J., Binford, M., Holt, R., Stickler, C., & Van Holt, T. 2005. An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems 8(8):975–987.

Cumming, G., Cumming, D., & Redman, C. 2006. Scale mis-matches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11(1):14.

Cumming, G., Olsson, P., Chapin, F., & Holling, C. 2013. Resili-ence, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology 28(6):1139–1150.

Dasgupta, P. 1995. The population problem: theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature 33(4):1879–1902.

Emelko, M., Silins,U., Bladon, K., & Stone, M. 2011. Implications of land disturbance on drinking water treatability in a chang-ing climate: demonstrating the need for “source water supply and protection” strategies. Water Research 45(2):461–472.

Emtage, N., Herbohn, J., & Harrison, S. 2006. Landholder typolo-gies used in the development of natural resources manage-ment programs in Australia: a review. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 13(2):79–94.

Farmer’s Almanac. 2015. Frost Dates Calculator for Places in Cali-fornia. http://www.almanac.com/content/frost-chart-united states/CA. May 25, 2015.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive gov-ernance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Envi-ronment and Resources 30(1):441–73.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for so-cial-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16(3):253–267.

Forman, R. 2008. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fuller, R., Lee, J., & Watson, J. 2014. Achieving open access to conservation science. Conservation Biology 28(6):1550–1557.

Gardner, J. & Dekens, J. 2007. Mountain hazards and the resili-ence of social-ecological systems: lessons learned in India and Canada. Natural Hazards 41(2):317–336.

Gibon, A., Sheeren, D., Monteil, C., Ladet, S., & Balent, G. 2010. Modelling and simulating change in reforesting mountain landscapes using a social-ecological framework. Landscape Ecology 25(2):267‒285.

Google Earth. (2015). Western United States. 40°02’54.14”N 111°03’25.02”W. Landstat: http://www.earth.google.com. January 18, 2016.

de Groot, R., Wilson, M., & Boumans, R. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem func-tions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41(3):393–408.

Heffernan, J., Soranno, P., Angilletta, M., Buckley, L., Gruner, D., Keitt, T., & Kellner, J. 2014. Macrosystems ecology: under-standing ecological patterns and processes at continental

scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12(1):5–14.

Haslett, J. 1997. Mountain ecology: organism responses to envi-ronmental change–an introduction. Global Ecology and Bio-geography 6(1):3–6.

Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute (HVRI). 2013. Social Vulnerability Index for the United States: 2006–10. http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sovi.aspx. January 14, 2015.

Hewitt, K. 2014. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. New York: Routledge.

Holycross, A. & Douglas, M. 2007. Geographic isolation, genetic divergence, and ecological non-exchangeability define con-servation units in a threatened sky-island rattlesnake. Biolog-ical Conservation 134(1):142–154.

Hope, G. 2014. The sensitivity of the high mountain ecosystems of New Guinea to climatic change and anthropogenic impact. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 46(4):777–786.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 2015. Exempt Organizations Select Check. http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/forwardToPub78 Download.do. May 25, 2015.

Kaneshiro, K., Chinn, P., Duin, K., Hood, A., Maly, K., & Wilcox, B. 2005. Hawai’i’s mountain-to-sea ecosystems: social-ecological microcosms for sustainability science and practice. EcoHealth 2(4):349–360.

Kamehameha Schools. 1994. Life in Early Hawai’i: The Ahupua’a, 3rd Ed. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press.

Kliskey, A., Alessa, L., & Barr, B. 2009. Integrating local and tra-ditional ecological knowledge for marine resilience. In K. McLeo & H. Leslie (Eds.), Managing for Resilience: New Directions for Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. pp. 145–161. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Schandel, H., & Eisenmenger, N. 2008. The global sociometabolic transition: past and present metabolic profiles and their future trajecto-ries. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12(5–6):637–656.

Kullman, L. 2004. The changing face of the alpine world. Global Change Newsletter 57(1):12–14.

Lambin, E., Geist, H., & Lepers, E. 2003. Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28(1):205–241.

Marston, S. 2000. The social construction of scale. Progress in Hu-man Geography 24(2):219–242.

Messerli, B., Viviroli, D., & Weingartner, R. 2004. Mountains of the world: vulnerable water towers for the 21st century. Am-bio 13(1):29–34.

Mountain Social Ecological Observatory Network (MtnSEON). 2015. What’s MtnSEON? http://webpages.uidaho.edu/ mtnseon. May 11, 2015.

Nature Serve. 2015 NatureServe Explorer: Plants/Animals. http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe. May 25, 2015.

Nuissl, H., Haase, D., Lanzendorf, M., & Wittmer, H. 2009. Envi-ronmental impact assessment of urban land use transitions: a context-sensitive approach. Land Use Policy 26(2):414–424.

O’Neel, S., Hood, E., Bidlack, A., Fleming, S., Arimitsu, M., Arendt, A., Burgess, E., Sergeant, C., Beaudreau, A., Timm, K., Hayward, G., Reynolds, J., & Pyare, S. 2015. Icefield-to-ocean linkages across the Northern Pacific Coastal Temper-ate Rainforest. BioScience 65(5):499–512.

Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422.

Ostrom, E. & Cox, M. 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. En-vironmental Conservation 37(4):451–63.

Pickett, S., McGrath, B., Cadenasso, M., & Felson, A. 2014. Eco-logical resilience and resilient cities. Building Research & In-formation 42(2):143–157.



13

Pretty, J. & Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29(2):209–227.

Ratner, B. 2000. Watershed Governance: Livelihoods and Re-source Competition in the Mountains of Mainland Southeast Asia. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

RecyclingCenters.org. 2015. Find a Recycling Centers and Busi-nesses that Recycle by State. http://www.recycling centers.org/Recycling_Centers_by_State.php. May 25, 2015.

Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C., & Stringer, L. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5):1933–1949.

Rescia, A., Pons, A., Lomba, I., Esteban, C., & Dover, J. 2008. Re-formulating the social-ecological system in a cultural rural mountain landscape in the Picos de Europa region (northern Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning 88(1):23–33.

Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H., & Larigauderie, A. 2012. Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosys-tem services. BioScience 62(5):503–507.

Schimel, D. & Keller, M. 2015. Big questions, big science: meet-ing the challenges of global ecology. Oecologia 177(4):925–934

Shackleton, C. & Shackleton, S. 2004. The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safe-ty nets: a review of evidence from South Africa. South Afri-can Journal of Science 100(11–12):658–664.

Short, J. & Mussman, M. 2014. Population change in U.S. cities: estimating and explaining the extent of decline and level of resurgence. The Professional Geographer 66(1):112–123.

Skoufias, E. 2003. Economic crises and natural disasters: coping strategies and policy implications. World Development 31(7): 1087–1102.

Smith, A. & Stirling, A. 2010. The politics of social-ecological re-silience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society 15(1):11.

Stoddard, E. 1991. Frontiers, border and border segmentation: to-ward a conceptual clarification. Journal of Borderlands Stud-ies 6(1):1–22.

Sunderlin, W., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., & Wunder, S. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Development 33(9):1383–1402.

Travel Math. 2015. TravelMath.com. http://www.travelmath.com. May 25, 2015.

United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2010a. 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html. May 25, 2015.

United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2010b. U.S. Census: Commuter Adjusted Daytime Population: 2006–2010. https://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/data/acs2006_2010.html. May 25, 2015.

United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2013a. County Busi-ness Patterns. http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html. May 25, 2015.

United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2013b. Computer and Internet Access in the United States. http://www.census.gov/ hhes/computer/publications/2013.html. May 25, 2015.

United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2015a. Annual Esti-mates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. http://www.census.gov/popest /data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014-3.html. May 25, 2015.

United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2015b. Foreign Trade: State Export and Import. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/index.html. January 18, 2016.

United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 2013. Energy Pro-duction by State. http://www.energy.gov/maps/renewable-energy-production-state. May 25, 2015.

U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2015. Homepage. https://toolkit. climate.gov/. May 25, 2015.

Vogel, C., Moser, S., Kasperson, R., & Dabelko, G. 2007. Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: pathways, players, and partnerships. Global Environmental Change 17(3–4):349–364.

Vugrin, E., Warren, D., Ehlen, M., Camphouse, R. 2010. A frame-work for assessing the resilience of infrastructure and eco-nomic systems. In K. Gopalakrishnan & S. Peeta (Eds.), Sus-tainable & Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems. pp. 77–116. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Walker, J. & Cooper, M. 2011. Genealogies of resilience: from systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue 42(2):143–160.

Wallace, K. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139(3–4):235–246.

Walsh, J., Dicks, L., & Sutherland, W. 2014. The effect of scien-tific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management de-cisions. Conservation Biology 29(1):88–98.

Weaver, J. 2001. The Transboundary Flathead: A Critical Land-scape for Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains (No. 18). Bo-zeman, MT: World Conservation Society.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2015. Mean Monthly and Annu-al Precipitation. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climatedata/clim tables/citycompppt/. May 25, 2015.

Wikipedia. 2015. List of United States Cities by Population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population. January 23, 2016.

Wilbanks, T. & Kates, R. 1999. Global change in local places: how scale matters. Climatic Change 43(3):601–628.

Wild, R., C. McLeod, & P. Valentine (Eds.). 2008. Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers (No. 16). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Winkler, R., Field, D., Luloff, A., Krannich, R., & Williams, T. 2007. Social landscapes of the inter-mountain West: a com-parison of “Old West” and “New West” communities. Rural Sociology 72(3):478–501.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. 2004. At Risk: Nat-ural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. New York: Routledge.



ARTICLE

Sufficiency in social practice: searching potentials for sufficient behavior in a consumerist culture Melanie Speck & Marco Hasselkuss Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy, Doeppersberg 19, Wuppertal, North-Rhine Westfalia 42103 Germany (email: [email protected]; [email protected])

To live a life of sufficiency in a consumerist culture may be one of the most ambitious experiments an individual could undertake. To investigate this challenge, we employed a social-practice approach. This article is based on 42 qualitative interviews asking respondents why and how they acted in a sufficient way within a Western infrastructure and culture. The results indicate that sufficiency-oriented people draw on particular meanings in everyday-life practices when adopting relevant resource-extensive actions. These understandings encompass an amalgam of environmentally friendly attitudes, positive social intentions, and/or personal commitments to thriftiness. We further identified a set of specific practices—including sharing, recycling, and reusing—as useful for the adoption of a sufficient lifestyle. For our respondents, many of these sufficiency practices occurred regularly in daily life and were rarely questioned. Using an additional survey, we show that these routines lead to less resource-intensive lifestyles and demonstrate how a small group of people has been able to habitually adopt sufficiency practices. However, the majority does not see a need for more frequent implementation of such routines because daily decision-making processes are widely focused on the consumption of products. KEYWORDS: consumerism, social practice, sufficiency, consumption, behavior, social impact, environmental impact

Introduction1

After decades of industrialization and globaliz-

ation, advanced economies have become significantly

more efficient in their use of materials despite

mounting environmental pressures (Meadows et al.,

2004; Princen, 2005; Rockström et al. 2009). While

prior to the Industrial Revolution, people lived more

sufficiently, industrialization triggered exceptional

levels of wealth and luxury and enormous increases

in the volume of private consumption, leading to

accumulating environmental stress. In short, “current

consumption patterns are simply unsustainable”

(Assadourian, 2010), to the extent that changes in

consumer behavior are crucial to sustainable

development (Sanne, 2002; Shallcross & Robinson,

2007; Alcott, 2008; Bliesner et al. 2014). However,

such strategies are likely to be ineffectual in the

absence of substantial reorganization of society and

its sociotechnical regimes, for instance in introducing

product-service innovations (WBGU, 2011; Rohn et

al. 2013).

To ensure protection of the global environment,

households in developed countries will need to adopt

new consumption routines (Spangenberg & Lorek,

2002; Fuchs & Lorek, 2005; Osterveer & Sonnenfeld,

1 The article is partly based on the PhD dissertation written by Melanie Speck née Lukas.

2012). Our current sociotechnical regime strongly

promotes efficiency and consistency, while usually

excluding sufficiency due to its assumed unattract-

iveness and conflict with the economic system, which

depends on consumers’ purchasing power (e.g.,

Defila et al. 2012). As with more radical

sustainability strategies such as degrowth or

downshifting, sufficiency suffers from both low

salience and disregard. The idea of absolute reduction

in material use faces strong resistance in

industrialized countries.

Sustainability scientists contend that, depending

on the field of activity, a 40‒80% reduction of

current consumption levels is required (Lettenmeier

et al. 2014). This level of attenuation is not possible

unless we begin to consider more radical strategies

premised on notions of sufficiency (Buhl, 2014). A

change in mobility is needed as well as a reduction in

housing, nutrition, and leisure practices. Within these

considerations, the level of consumption has to be

tempered using strategies such as sharing, recycling,

and repairing, as well as renunciation.

This article seeks to advance understanding of

why people adopt resource-light, or even sufficient,

lifestyle routines, despite what can be construed as a

generally hostile social context regarding sustainable

consumption. The following sections focus on

everyday practices that have been at the center of

recent research on sustainability (Cohen et al. 2013).

Speck: Sufficiency in Social Practice: Searching Potentials for Sufficient Behavior in a Consumerist Culture


2

We explore some of the most important social

practices in the field of sufficiency, remaining aware

that the normative notion of sufficiency still suffers

from a lack of empirical data. In addition, there is

insufficient appreciation regarding practical strategies

to improve contemporary consumer culture (Schneid-

ewind & Zahrnt, 2013).

This article draws on work from two so-far

mostly separated research areas—social practice

research and sufficiency. On one hand, we turn to the

broad field of inquiry on social practices, which takes

a micro-consumer perspective to investigate the

challenges of achieving a cultural transformation

toward sustainability (Halkier & Jensen, 2011;

Hargreaves et al. 2013). The concept of social

practices, as developed primarily by sociologist

Elizabeth Shove (e.g., Shove et al. 2012), has not

been deployed to explore issues pertaining to

sufficiency; however, we reconsider this framework

from the angle of sufficient behavior in daily life.

Our objective is to empirically ground the notion of

sufficiency in terms of social practice theories of

consumption. After drawing an intermediate

conclusion regarding the integration of these two

concepts, the second section introduces our

methodology to empirically integrate sufficiency into

a social practice framework. We use a grounded

theory approach based on 42 interviews to define

characteristics of sufficiency. In the third section, we

present the results by focusing on activities in the

domains of mobility, nutrition, housing, and leisure.

The conclusion discusses aspects of change that

consider sufficient social practices and identify

avenues for further research.

Theoretical Background

Social Practice: Leading Change on a Micro-Level

In recent years, theories of social practice have

gained considerable attention in research on

consumer behavior (Gronow & Warde, 2001;

Reckwitz, 2002; Shove & Pantzar, 2005; Røpke,

2009; Brand, 2010; Shove et al. 2012). These

perspectives derive largely from sociological theories

developed by Anthony Giddens (1984) and Theodore

Schatzki (1996), who put social practices in the

center of their theoretical conceptions. Reckwitz

(2002) later aimed to integrate these perspectives into

a more cohesive framework that advanced a practice-

centered sociological approach based on the original

idea of duality of structure. He accordingly identified

social practices as the location of the social, where

action and structure are mediated.

We concentrate here on the question of

sufficiency in the sense of engaging in less resource-

intensive modes of consumption (or even non-

consumption) since more attention is needed to the

link between practices and consumption (Sage, 2014;

Strengers & Maller, 2015; Lukas, 2016). Warde

(2005) argues that consumption is not a practice

itself, but rather an assemblage of many distinct

practices. Accordingly, approaches for studying

practices should emphasize the ordinary and

unreflected occurrence of consumption in most daily

routines, shifting attention away from individual

actions to the organization of practices and the level

of consumption that they entail. For example, jogging

is not only related to the actual performance of

running but also to other practices, like taking part in

competitive sporting events or engaging in

consumption decisions favoring the purchase of

breathable clothing or specialized shoes. Thus, these

so-called side events also increase an individual’s

resource use in practice (see Backhaus et al. 2013;

Lettenmeier et al. 2014).

Particular styles of consumption are interwoven

with social practices of certain activities, as well as

with daily household activities (Brand, 2010). The

interdependency among routines, technological

artifacts, social acceptance, and norms is therefore

closely linked (Reckwitz, 2002; Jackson, 2005a;

Warde, 2005; Røpke, 2009). Consumers then

combine a number of practices related to nutrition,

mobility, and so forth and assemble them into

lifestyles (Spaargaren & Vliet, 2000; Spaargaren,

2003; 2011). Lifestyles can be understood as a bundle

of practices that actors adopt as part of a reflexive

project of the self (Giddens, 1991), even though we

should not neglect the social shaping of the elements

of practices or the often substantial barriers to

individual change.

Further condensing the theoretical work, Shove

et al. (2012) identify three elements of practices and

show the aspects behind these elements: meanings

(mental activities, emotions, motivational know-

ledge); materials (objects, infrastructures, tools,

hardware, body) and competences (understanding,

practical knowledgeability). Shove and her

colleagues also demonstrate how different social

practices might be interrelated by having a similar

element in common. For instance, driving and

repairing cars share a common image of masculinity

(see Figure 1).

Within the environmental social sciences, a

growing number of authors deploy various practice-

theoretical approaches to analyze the greening of

consumption in the new global order of reflexive

modernity. Practices are key methodological units for

research and governance and provide ways to avoid

the pitfalls of individualist paradigms that have

tended to dominate studies of sustainable

consumption (Spaargaren, 2011). Previous empirical



3

work on consumption and social practices has shown

the methodological challenges of such approaches

(Evans, 2011; Halkier & Jensen, 2011; Hargreaves,

2011; Sahakian & Wilhite, 2013). For instance,

Halkier & Jensen (2011) describe two advantages of

a construct-ivist approach to social practices in terms

of 1) understanding consumption as entangled in

webs of social reproduction and changes rather than

focusing on individual consumer choices, and 2)

viewing ways of consuming as continuous relational

accom-plishments in “intersectings of multiple

practices” (Halkier & Jensen, 2011). Here, the

concept of duality of structure and agency that is

inherent in practice theories offers important insights.

Using such an understanding, Evans (2011) shows

that food waste is not a consequence of immoderate

consumer choices but rather a matter of managing the

multiplicity of everyday practices and contingencies.

A problem of a purely constructivist perspective, as

promoted by Halkier and Jensen (2011), however, is

to foreground the discourse and negotiation of

normative elements in consumption among

practitioners at the expense of downplaying factual

knowledge about boundaries or indicators.

Practice-theoretical research pertaining to

sustainable consumption thus highlights the social

embeddedness of consumption, the negotiation that

takes place within social networks about normative

elements, and the acceptability of practices, power

relations, and intersections of different daily routines.

Nevertheless, to date most of these studies lack a

clear concept of sustainability and fail to analyze

practices in the most environmentally relevant fields

of activity (housing, food, and mobility; see

Lettenmeier et al. 2014).

The following sections explain sufficiency and

how it is actually performed, using different

strategies from the perspective of social practice. It is

important to consider another point of differentiation,

namely that between practices as performance (i.e.,

tangible, observable actions, different skills,

knowledge and competences that actors need to

engage in practices, as emphasized by Reckwitz,

2002) and practices as entities (representing a

concept of social structure related to Giddens’ idea of

rules and resources as stressed by Schatzki, 1996).

The latter represents institutionalized social practices

that are similarly (re)produced by a large number of

actors in a social system bridging time and space.

This also accounts for individual deviation in practice

performance without any effect on practice as entity.2

Figure 1 illustrates how Shove et al. (2012)

conceptualize links among different practices, for

instance through similar meanings connected to

various practices in a related field of action (in this

case automobility). In Figure 2, we adopt this idea to

show how a specific meaning to avoid unnecessary

consumption can link different social practices as

exemplified by home heating and cooking.

Based on the results and concepts of previous

work (most prominently Shove et al. 2012; see also

Stengel, 2011; Liedtke et al. 2013), we propose that

meanings are the most important element in implem-

enting change and further claim that a specific

constellation of meanings is a linking element among

various practices in different fields of activity (e.g.,

mobility, nutrition, housing) when consumers

perform actions considered as sufficient. Speaking of

a currently dominant consumerist society, the linking

element among almost all institutionalized and

routinized practices, involving some kind of

consumption, is a meaning associated with material

wealth as accumulation of goods and with ownership

2 In the terminology of social practice theories, performance refers

to a set of practices that are considered within the context of daily frameworks.

Figure 2 Meanings of sufficiency linking the performance of consumption to engagement in social practices, for example, cooking and heating (adapted from Shove et al. 2012).

Figure 1 The concept of meaning in two related practices (adapted from Shove et al. 2012).



4

as a central orientation. This is not to say that all

consumers are oriented toward a “simple” or “more is

better” logic. Rather, at least in some sociopolitical

contexts, the contrary is increasingly the case, since a

number of developments have sensitized consumers

to the environmental and social implications of their

consumption. For example, organic food and fair-

trade products have gained visibility among the

general public. We should nonetheless differentiate

consump-tion patterns between a shift to consuming

the “right” goods (such as organic food) and

voluntary downshifting (which we here consider as a

form of sufficiency motivated by a desire to avoid

consumption deemed as unnecessary) (Schrader &

Thøgersen, 2011; Schrader et al. 2013).

We therefore take an empirical approach and

analyze the meanings that respondents associate with

their social practice performances. Also considered

are the barriers and other contingent factors that they

experience when experimenting with sufficient

modes of consumption, as well as the strategies that

they adopt to overcome these obstacles. We are thus

able to identify strategies that support larger scale

changes of social practices. Our study aims to

encourage practice reconfiguration and eventual re-

institutionalization at the level of practice as an entity

(cf. Cajaiba-Santana, 2014).

Social practice approaches are limited, however,

in that at first sight they focus on routines and social

reproduction rather than change. More recent theories

of practices have sought to overcome this limitation

by focusing on the alteration of elements or links

among different practices. Shove et al. (2012) suggest

that the dynamic and recursive interrelation between

practice-as-performance and practice-as-entity is

useful to show how innovation in practices occurs by,

for example, forging new relations among elements.

Shove et al. (2012) further discuss how these new

connections can evolve into enduring changes at the

level of practice-as-entity. It is, though, still

problematic to explain when or under what

circumstances actors are more likely to deviate from

routine practices or which competencies require

change.3

Sufficiency: Leading Transformation in Practice Sufficiency has unfortunately come to be seen as

a mediating strategy, one regularly considered as a

3 The Research Group on Sustainable Production and Consumption

at the Wuppertal Institute is developing a model for research and transformation of social practices toward sustainable patterns of

production and consumption (Liedtke et al. 2013). By integrating

social practice theories with models from environmental psychology and transition theory, this work aims to establish a

theoretical basis and methodological framework for research and

design of transforming social practices toward resource-light patterns within a social innovation framework.

focus for research, but is less dedicated to exploring

daily life (Princen, 2005; Stengel, 2011). In science,

the strategy is meant to develop behavioral

approaches to guide consumer choices, but too often

fails due to its lack of empirical grounding (Linz,

2012). According to Princen (2005), the principles

and strategies that accompany sufficiency also

employ self-management to avoid overconsumption.

The concept asks whether products or goods deliver

an additional benefit and which aspects increase

utility and which do not (Liedtke et al. 2013).

Sufficiency requires social learning and is less about

losses and restraints than striving to maintain, or even

to increase, individual welfare, which can be seen as

the easiest solution for daily life.

Popular media today has shown interest in

minimalist lifestyles, both with and without reference

to sustainability. For instance, widely disseminated

magazines regularly investigate the consequences of

less materialistic lives, including cases where young

people own little more than a computer and a few

everyday objects (Der Spiegel, 2014). Nevertheless, a

sufficient lifestyle goes further since it is less about

the reorganization of private consumption patterns

and more about the philosophical question of “a good

life.” “Sufficiency” as a term tends to be excluded

from debates about the sustainable transformation of

behavioral patterns. Despite general acceptance, at

least in some quarters, of claims that a shift in

consumption patterns is necessary to reduce dramatic

disruption of ecological systems, concepts such as

“downshifting” (Schor, 1998; Hamilton & Mail,

2003) and “non-consumption” remain confined to

peripheral niches (see Black & Cherrier, 2010;

Cherrier et al. 2011; Cherrier & Gurrieri, 2013).4

When consumption is reduced, for instance, the

outcomes usually include monetary savings or co-

benefits such as improved health for those with low-

resource mobility (Stengel, 2011; Lukas et al. 2014).

People often employ sufficient practices without

conscious awareness, and within this lifestyle social

practices are frequently modified (e.g., vegetarian

diet, holidays without long-distance travel, mobility

without using private cars). There is thus a strong

connection to downshifting. Downshifters often

modify their regular lifestyle to spend more time with

their families or toward less materialistic and more

sustainable modes of living, as well as a reduced

workload (Hamilton & Mail, 2003; Liedtke et al.

2013). Moreover, sudden events such as a severe

illness, the death of someone close, or a marriage

breakdown influence the decision to downshift in a

4 The German academic understanding of sufficiency is rather wide

and often includes the notions of simplicity, anti-consumerism, and nonconsumerism.



5

way that can be equivalent to the theoretical construct

of sufficiency. Thus, strict downshifting may be seen

as a radical strategy to implement sufficiency in daily

life (Alexander, 2011). Further research activities

coinciding with anti-consumption and non-

consumption might intersect with a sufficient

lifestyles (Cherrier et al. 2011; Cherrier & Gurrieri,

2013).

Based on these findings, sufficiency is defined

by tangible behavior patterns and is not necessarily

linked to a moral concept of “less is enough”

(Schneidewind & Zahrnt, 2013). Across the board,

we assume that the reduction of ecological and social

impacts is the most important element of a

sufficiency strategy in everyday life (Stengel, 2011).

Sufficient actions are certainly linked to notions of

sharing, reusing, recycling, repairing, or changing

behavior to prolong the lifespan of goods. Further,

sufficient action is connected to a partial

abandonment of goods and services with high

resource intensity. A sufficient way of living includes

ecological and socially fair practices. This may

encompass abstaining from overseas travel or

keeping a personal car, but also voluntary restrictions

pertaining to plant-based foods or housing in a small

apartment, preferably either in or proximate to a city.

A sufficient lifestyle may include restriction on

certain leisure activities or the avoidance of

functional or cultural obsolescence (Tukker et al.

2008; Lukas et al. 2013; Lettenmeier et al. 2014;

Liedtke et al. 2014), as well as the reduction of

working time (Müller & Paech, 2012; Paech, 2013).

In sum, adequate competences and moral

concepts are irreplaceable for a sufficient lifestyle.

Consistency of action and knowledge, with a

distinctive orientation toward social and

environmental issues, are likewise important, as

Kleinhückelkotten (2005) proposes. However, it has

to be emphasized that moral concepts (as part of

meanings) and competences in social practices are

socially constructed and not simply opinions learned

or held individually. The challenge is to examine

competences at the level of practices that could be

useful and practicable.

Based on the research reviewed above, we

propose the following working definition of

sufficiency, which we apply to our qualitative

research. Sufficient behavior implies reducing

environmental and social impacts that go along with

daily routines and behaviors. These arrangements

include classical actions of consumption schemes

such as shopping for food or clothes in conventional

supermarkets and stores, alternative behavioral

schemes such as repairing or recycling, and the idea

of waiving some consumption practices. Therefore,

sufficiency at the level of household implementation

indicates modified cultural techniques (social

practices) in as many household consumption areas

as possible but generally encompassing mobility,

nutrition, housing, and leisure.

Intermediate Summation: Linking the Concepts

Drawing on these findings and descriptions, we

derive a qualitative comparison scheme of consump-

tion patterns displaying several everyday practices

that enable comparisons of sufficient and

nonsufficient behavior. Table 1 describes

conventional and sufficient behavioral patterns

through the lens of practice performance, and thus

includes several exemplary practices in the fields of

mobility, nutrition, housing, and leisure with

categories inspired by Spaargaren (2011). The aim is

to establish a starting point for classifying interview

statements since in daily activities consumers do not

consistently act sufficiently.

From our perspective, it is important to define

sufficient practice performance in the context of real-

world conditions. This understanding is based on a

conceptual approach that examines and integrates

sufficient actions in a consumerist culture without

provoking a break with daily narratives and

meanings, thus creating a concept of sufficiency that

fits into daily life. Bringing together both concepts of

social practice and sufficiency makes obvious the

need for an empirical data set to embed and develop

the theoretical approach in everyday consumption.

Table 1 uses a basic matching scheme to

interpret the extreme poles of practice performance

between conventional consumption and sufficient

behavior. The table also serves as an ideal lens to

assess our interview results. In reality, such behavior

should be understood as a continuum. Thus, within

the same household, a variance between different

activities can be expected. For example, consumers

might show sufficient practice performance in the

field of nutrition but not in mobility.

As outlined above, we propose that a specific

constellation of meaning is a linking element between

different social practices in different fields of activity

(e.g., mobility, nutrition, and housing that is

considered sufficient). In the next section, we apply

this scheme and the conceptual approach to systemize

the empirical interview data and to analyze the three

dimensions of social practices. After introducing the

methodological study design, we focus on sufficient

actions in daily life and their meanings, competences,

and practice performance. We analyze the interviews



6

Table 1 Performances in conventional and sufficient behavioral patterns

Framework Mobility Nutrition Housing Leisure Vision of Individual

Consumption Behavior

Conventional consumption [no restriction]

Using all mobility infrastructures without limitation, primarily individual cars

Buying discount and retail products, only conventional food, regularly using takeaway offers

Living in old buildings without restriction on space, partial energy saving in heating, electricity, water

Using full range of travel possibilities (skiing, Caribbean cruises)

Focus on “conspicuous consumption” and buying durable goods only in specific areas of consumption

Sufficiency [Restriction at the level of individual actions up to time-consuming behavior changes]

Primarily traveling by train and public transport, using a bike, not owning a car

Exclusively buying seasonal and organic food, maintaining a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Inner-city, energy-efficient buildings, medium size of dwellings (maximum 30 square meters per person), collective usage of basic commodities, strong energy-saving for heating, electricity, water

Shifting holiday destinations to regional level, travelling by bicycle or train, maximum of 1–2 trips per year

Often using second-hand goods, online exchange platforms, sharing services, generally avoiding new goods

Based on: Gregg (1936), Leonard-Barton (1981), Jackson (2005a), Princen (2005), Schor (2011), Stengel (2011), Alexander (2012), Lettenmeier et al. (2012), Müller & Paech (2012), and Lettenmeier et al. (2014).

to identify the main categories that respondents use to

frame their daily routines related to the different

fields of consumption and show which

circumstances they perceive as helpful or unhelpful.

We present examples from the material for the main

categories, themes, and sub-themes that emerged

from coding the interviews and analyze them through

the theoretical lens provided by the three elements of

social practices.

Primarily to underline our results and argument-

ation, we conduct a model calculation of resource use

for a sufficient lifestyle, matching it with the

assumptions of a resource-light lifestyle (Lettenmeier

et al. 2014). Finally, we consider the following

research question: What is the most important

element to cause social practices to become more

sufficient?

The Study: Describing Sufficiency Using an

Empirical Data Set

To identify sufficiency in everyday practices and

their linked performances, competences, and

meanings, we studied typical consumers. The

research used a grounded-theory methodology to

gather and analyze a qualitative data sample (Glaser

& Strauss, 1967; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). A first

feature of this approach was that the respondents

should have a “regular” approach to life with no

special commitment to sufficiency, for example to

downshifting.5 Second, we sought interviewees that

5 For this article, we focus on a group of sufficient respondents (n

= 7) and on the group of moderately sufficient interviewees (n = 30) so as to highlight the results of these two groups.

lived in a conventional German suburban or urban

setting within the common consumer society. In other

words, radical downshifters who had moved to a

wooden house and tried to live autonomously were

not part of the sample. Similarly, individuals who had

lost a job and were forced to drastically reduce their

consumption were excluded from the study.

Respondents were recruited through universities,

virtual social networks and, to reach seniors, clubs

for the elderly. The participants were sought out

using a widespread pyramid scheme. The elderly

people were all contacted in clubs, while the middle-

agers who had responded to announcements in virtual

networks were also asked for suggestions for other

participants, and the same was done with the

students. Thus, one interview led to another.

Prior studies using a practice-theoretical

approach have encountered methodological obstacles

both in data production and in generalizing results

(Evans 2011; Halkier & Jensen 2011). Concerning

data collection, Evans (2011) favors a research

strategy of participant observation that focuses on

actions as demanded by practice theory. Given the

challenges of conducting ethnographic research with

private households, the preferred strategy is for the

investigator, at least to some extent, to join in

activities of the respondents. Such a research design

is demanding and often necessarily entails scaling

back the number of participants so as not to exceed

available resources. Consistent with Halkier & Jensen

(2011), we assume that all qualitative data can be

treated as enactments and performances of social

practitioners in different contexts and therefore opted

for interview data.



7

The empirical analysis in this article is based on

42 interviews. The sample consists of participants

varying in gender and socioeconomic status from

three different age groups—young adults, empty

nesters, and golden agers—to generate different

perspectives on daily consumption and schemes of

sufficient action.6 All respondents lived in Germany,

but the sample is mixed, with the majority from the

western part of the country.7 Interviews were

conducted using a problem-centered protocol

(Witzel, 2000). The focus was on everyday

consumption and participants’ concept of

consumption, as well as attitudes toward

environmental and social issues deemed to influence

consumption patterns and decisions. The interviews

averaged sixty minutes in duration and were digitally

recorded and transcribed for analysis using the

software package ATLAS.ti. Following the

grounded-theory approach, we first investigated each

interview transcript in detail to generate a general

understanding of every respondent’s experiences and

the influences on their consumption in different

phases of life. Second, a constant comparative coding

and cross-comparison of interviews was carried out

to form categories. Finally, these categories were

formed and summarized into key and subcategories.8

We analyzed the interviews using an inductive

strategy of creating main categories and subthemes

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Corbin & Strauss, 2008)

(Table 2). The outcomes presented here are the result

of a year-long examination of all interviews using the

grounded theory approach and associated coding

system. The respondents have a robust connection to

consumerism due to their social settings—the

majority was middle-class Germans.

The sample enables us to understand social

practice in the context of sufficiency and provides the

evidence base to identify the opportunities and

barriers for a sufficient way of life. By now, the

sufficiency strategy is, from our perspective, more

often integrated in actions and practices than current

science is able to prove. Regarding the ability of

practice research to make generalizations beyond

methodological individualism (Halkier & Jensen,

6 We actively excluded potential respondents in early parenthood,

since Jaeger-Erben’s (2010) work was devoted to such individuals. 7 We acknowledge that some of our results may be particular to the circumstances of our study, which focused on respondents with

German cultural backgrounds. Consumption styles might differ

elsewhere. 8 We note here that the interview responses were strongly related to

sufficient practices. This may suggest that a majority of

respondents acted sufficiently, but in fact the largest share were classified as non- or slightly sufficient. Therefore, the selection

discussed in this article refers to the smallest part of the sample,

namely the participants who were identified as strongly sufficient. See Lukas (2015) for further details.

2011), we build types not to categorize consumers

individually or by lifestyles but to find relatively

stable meanings in certain sufficient practice

performances.

During the course of the coding process, we

identified meanings in the participants’ description of

their practices-as-performance. Meanings at the level

of actual practice-as-entity could be found by

identifying common aspects across cases and by

drawing on existing literature.

We assembled the quantitative results to

calculate the resource use into a spreadsheet with

several closed questions conducted by six persons.

This survey was done after the main interview.

Questions included “How often do you eat meat per

week?” (Possible answers: I eat meat one/two/three

times per week or more than three times; I am

vegetarian; I am vegan) and “Do you have a car?”

(yes/no). This part of the study was carried out by

telephone only with respondents who agreed to

complete the second questionnaire. The method of

utilizing a spreadsheet to calculate the resource use in

several fields of action such as nutrition, mobility,

housing, and leisure is based on Wiesen et al. (2014).

Findings and Discussion: Sufficient Action in

Everyday Life

In this section, we analyze our sample to provide

an overall outline on several important themes,

following grounded-theory methodology. The sample

was screened to examine daily social practices that

are compatible with a sufficient lifestyle. Thus,

consumers can usually be regarded as partly

sufficient, or even only sufficient in a few fields of

actions. With the help of the following main

categories, we map various impact factors and

decision-making structures, but first we point out the

resource intensities of different lifestyles.

Matching Lifestyles and Resource Use

9 Within debates and analyses pertaining to

sufficiency, commentators frequently ask what

constitutes a “better” lifestyle. In our case, we follow

a descriptive approach of empirically classifying

sufficient performances of everyday social practices

and link our results to research and policy discussions

about quantifying the resource use of specific

activities without rendering any assessment about

“better” or “worse” lifestyles. This connects to

overlapping considerations about “environmental

space” (Spangenberg & Lorek, 2002) and “safe

economic operating space” (Rockström et al. 2009),

9 This section is based on calculations from Lukas (2015).



8

to which we add the self-descriptions of respondents

about their voluntary sufficiency.

For this reason, we analyzed the resource use of

various lifestyles using a material footprint-calculator

method (Wiesen et al. 2014). Based on the

interviews, we selected from our sample one

individual deemed to live most sufficiently and a

counterpart from the opposite end of the spectrum

who had the least sufficient (or most conventional)

lifestyle. Using the interviews described above, as

well as a second short interview done in 2014, we

calculated footprints, showing that car ownership and

diet are consequential factors. The results

demonstrate that the resource use for a conventional

consumer is three to five times greater than for a

strongly sufficient consumer, although this depends

on the field of action (Figure 3).

The differences are obvious. In comparison to

suggested magnitudes of resource use (the so-called

recommendation level, proposed by Lettenmeier et

al. 2014), even the most sufficient consumer had

higher resource use in nearly every field of

consumption.10

Interestingly, nutrition (the daily diet)

is the only area where this respondent was able to

meet the ideal typological assumptions. Nonetheless,

the comparison shows that a more sufficient way of

living is far less resource intensive than a

conventional lifestyle. This underlines the potential

impact of sufficient practices, for which we next

present detailed descriptions derived from the

qualitative study.

10 Lettenmeier et al. (2014) propose a sustainable lifestyle that on the level of practices entails the following: a vegetarian diet, a

small suburban flat (< 25 square meters per person), regional

holidays, and an individual mobility strategy based on public transportation, biking/walking, and avoidance of air travel.

Behavioral Orientations in Daily Life In the field of sustainable consumption or

sufficiency, key studies try to analyze the

improvement of knowledge about the ecological and

social consequences of certain consumption habits

and possible alternatives. However, other research

over the last few decades, especially in

environmental behavior, has found low correlations

among knowledge, attitudes, and behavior (e.g.,

Diekmann & Preisendörfer, 1992; 1998; Alcott,

2008; Bamberg, 2013). Current findings in

environmental psychology indicate that changes in

attitudes and behavior are mediated through a multi-

stage process where orientations, social norms, and

shared beliefs highly influence personal doings. This

problem is often referred to as the knowledge-action

gap (see Matthies, 2005; Möser & Bamberg, 2008;

Bamberg, 2013). As we discuss, due to special

meanings that undergird the practices, the former

may change or even shape the latter (Shove et al.

2012). Furthermore, our research makes clear that

group dynamics often influence attitudes. Thus, the

social settings and surroundings are important for the

output of consumption strategies or orientation

toward a change (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002). As

presented above, a broad range of attitudes exists; we

therefore examine the most important practice

performances as a way to generate a guiding

orientation.

Everyday consumption practices are heavily

driven by convenience, habits, monetary value,

personal health concerns, and social and institutional

norms. But even more importantly, practices are

likely to be resistant to change (Vermeir & Verbeke,

2006). The idea of consuming less is necessarily

based on different strategies, basically reusing,

reducing, recycling, repairing, or sharing (Lukas,

2013). The implementation of these action patterns is

ultimately based on practices, especially in private

households. Therefore, we analyzed how these tactics

are expected to shape everyday routines, even in a

consumerist culture where the previously cited norms

have been adopted in daily life.

A sufficient lifestyle coincides with the idea of

consuming less, or even virtually nothing. In the

sample, many respondents living in a consumerist

culture described that they experience property as

“ballast.” For instance, one respondent stated that he

was always worried about his car. He had to repair it

on a regular basis and at great expense. After coming

to terms with his situation, he adapted to life without

a personal automobile and instead relied on shared

cars,

Figure 3 Comparison of resource use (material footprint) of two relevant consumers in comparison with the suggested target level



Table 2 Selected study participants

Person groups

Number of persons

Age Gender Professions (examples)

Status Persons’ Net-

Income in € ($) per month

Youngsters 17 22–29 10 (F) 7 (M)

Students and trainees Single or in

relationships 500–1500

(542–1626)

Empty nesters

12 49–65 7 (F) 5 (M)

Research fellow, teacher, social worker, bakery shop assistant, engineer, early-retired

persons

In relationships, Married, divorced, all with children, even

grand-children

1250–3000 (1355–3253)

Elderly persons

13 63–92 10 (F) 3 (M)

All retired workers and housewives

Married, divorced, widowed, all with children and even

grandchildren

1250–2000 (1355–2169)

which were much easier for him to manage.

With respect to their level of consumption, the

respondents reflected that they kept owned goods to a

necessary minimum for everyday life, a pre-

disposition maintained by their prevailing attitudes.

Younger participants were especially connected to

environmental and social justice without desiring a

high level of property.

The seven most sufficient respondents acted in a

very different manner, compared within the sample

of interviews, to reduce or avoid consumption, both

consciously and unconsciously. Their motivating

meanings in detail, which might be embodied as well

in the overall meaning, extended from saving money

and health concerns to flexibility. In general,

sufficiency-oriented patterns of action also correlated

with meanings of anti-materialism, reduction of

consumption, and belief that property increases

lifestyle rigidity, as described above. However,

sufficiency also addressed quality aspects connected

to resource consumption.

So I think I’m frugal when I compare myself

to others, but I’m somehow not a miser. So I

give in then…so I also invite people. So it’s

not like I invite everyone, at least not

voluntarily, that I count every Euro and so

on. So yes, somehow I’m thrifty. Then I do

not buy the cheapest stuff; actually I rather

buy the higher quality things, because I find

if it needs a repair...also because of resource

consumption anyway (Nathalie, age 30).

The respondents demonstrated that a sufficient life is

not strictly related to austerity, but can also be about

looking for durable products or connected to a

willingness to spend money on quality. The next

sections provide three guiding principles that were

found to inform decisions in daily life.

Guiding Principle: Doing Without The respondents that defined property as

“ballast” were often not striving for a great change in

life, such as a higher income or even a larger

residence. Their meaning was more focused on being

frugal and easily satisfied within their daily life. They

were trying to manage within their own space and to

cover their own needs. Following the approach of

Opschoor (1995), the majority of participants in our

study already defined their own needs in their current

phases of life using the individual environmental

space within which they acted rather than following

the latest consumption trends. Of course, they saw a

need for basic equipment in every household, but

nothing lavish. One of the older respondents,

Heinrich, age 83, did not gravitate to more household

goods, saying it will “only end up in a bin” after his

death.

These respondents thus viewed owning many

goods as unnecessary in their lives, or even as

disturbing. The reasons for this view varied and were

by no means only associated with anti-consumption

attitudes. Rather, this meaning corresponded to

different life phases and attitudes regarding whether

further consumption was necessary. One of our study

participants summarized it this way.



10

I always really feel material things as

ballast. And I think it’s great if you have

only a little room full of stuff and you can

pack anything quickly in a box somehow

and can move with it (Sabrina, age 27).

Our sample offered a wide range of doing

without and illustrated how meanings assimilate into

practices and competences. Starting from typical

ideas of brand avoidance or nonconsumption (Lee et

al. 2009) and going as far as the dissemination of

clothes or tools, another respondent displayed how

the special meaning was adjusted in performance and

competences.

Yes, somehow I am quite militant. For

example, my mother once gave me a car and

then it was standing next to our front door

for two weeks and then I went to her house

and I said, “Mother sell it.” Yes, at that time

it was 1984. Because, if you have lived

without a car for a while, you won’t miss it.

It’s all easier without a car. And that is quite

an amazing experience. We have actually

even rented a car, to go on holiday…the car

was not needed (Markus, age 65).

In this case, rejection of material goods was

supported by an overall meaning and its strong belief.

In the special field of mobility, evasive strategies are

necessary, for example, to go by train or walk.

To summarize, such purposeful reflection on

consumption behavior against generally effective

norms of consumerism, or an orientation toward

owning few but high-quality and durable goods,

provided another general meaning associated with

sufficient practice performance in different fields of

consumption. It guided and supported performances

considered sufficient such as repairing and sharing

and thus doing without excessive material goods.

Guiding Principle: Establishing Islands of

Enjoyment Another practice set, “establishing islands of

enjoyment” (as one respondent called her own little

escapes from daily obligations), coincided with an

individual definition of rejection and reduction in

daily life and was strongly linked to the performance

of “doing without” that guided everyday actions.

Within this category, the idea of a sufficient life was

already adopted by acting restrictively in everyday

consumption. People may reject a holiday or be

vegetarian or otherwise reduce consumption

activities. By establishing certain so-called islands of

enjoyment, our interviewees demonstrated that they

were searching for possibilities to act completely

contrary to their personal conviction of restrictions

for a short time. These behavioral expectations

opened up space to “escape” from regular activities

and to allow one afterward to re-appreciate everyday

routines.

I think the more consciously we restrict, the

more we have to look out for creating a

feeling of happiness or satisfaction by doing

other things (Eveline, age 53).

The imposed restriction was generally balanced

by several competences and practices. Our sample

offered a wide range. These islands could be either

real or imaginary. Reading a book could be an island

of enjoyment, as could dining at a restaurant. Inter-

estingly, these islands were frequently linked to

practices demanding no or few materials, for

example, gardening or hiking. As Sabine (age 49)

proposes,

I also sometimes have weekends where I

read no newspaper, watch no television, just

go into the garden and do not want to think

about the world.

However, these meanings required a certain kind

of reflection on one’s own needs and the critical

analysis of possibilities and potential islands of

enjoyment. Of course, all respondents live in a

contemporary consumerist culture (Warde, 2005).

Accordingly, many of them share consumerist values

or attitudes and invariably consume to find meaning

and satisfaction in life (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006).

Consumerism has emerged as part of a historical

process that has created mass markets,

industrialization, and cultural dispositions to ensure

that rising incomes are used to purchase an ever-

growing output. However, the insight that consumer

classes all over the world are no longer finding

happiness in ever-growing consumption is gaining

attention (e.g., Jackson, 2005a). It thus becomes more

likely that people could increase their quality of life

by reducing and critically scrutinizing their

consumption levels (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005).

Guiding Principle: Linking Daily Alternative

Consumption Strategies with Personal Benefits The most common everyday-life strategy to

reduce personal consumption levels seems to be to

reuse goods by extending their use phase and by

sharing. Very often, these strategies were explicitly

linked to specific fields of action. Furthermore, in

Germany there is great disparity across age groups.

To differentiate demographic groups by their habits,

older persons very often engage in sewing and



11

repairing clothes, empty nesters invest their personal

resources in repairing goods, and younger people

emphasize sharing goods and using second-hand

clothes. Regarding household management, a

majority of respondents tried to maintain goods for as

long as possible. Moreover, among them it was

common to pass on items, especially clothes, and

particular children’s apparel, to other people, often in

the same neighborhood. This performance coincides

with a welfare orientation.

Sharing goods had great interest among the

respondents, depending on the field of action. Thus,

only a minority would share a car. Often, the fear of

losing flexibility was the leading reason to avoid this

kind of sharing, particularly for older people.

Although younger respondents had a high acceptance

rate regarding sharing everyday objects—especially

if they lived in a shared apartment—the empty

nesters were more skeptical, even if some saw great

opportunities. Older respondents were, though, more

open-minded about the sharing of gardening tools

and similar materials. Particularly in Germany, the

sharing of goods in younger stages of life is quite

widely accepted, while with increasing age the

demand for convenience has been partially, but

continuously, growing, even if people reflected on

their own prosperity and realized “how much less”

they needed. Among those surveyed, sharing and

reusing goods were not strictly linked to

environmentally friendly meanings. Saving money

was the main reason, while eco-friendliness was

often appreciated as a cobenefit. Further advantages,

such as healthfulness and well-being, also influenced

individual choices.

We point out sufficient strategies that are part of

daily structures and especially linked to individual

benefits. Especially in the field of mobility, money-

saving strategies and health concerns are leading

motivations. Several respondents, independent of

age, tried, for example, to bike and walk short

distances. Thus, they integrated multiple benefits into

their actions. Interestingly, due to their own beliefs

and convictions, the respondents did not worry about

any discomfort.

I used the tram for commuting. And now for

about a year I’m not doing this anymore, I

walk now. Very consciously, I do this for

me, and also for the environment. In order to

increase my daily fitness and since I am

used to it, and now I feel stressed by all

these underground stations with the constant

delays and afterwards I always feel nervous.

If I make the journey on foot, I calm down

(Beate, age 53).

As several studies have shown, a sufficient

behavioral pattern is linked to a set of meanings, a

notion displayed in the sample (Stengel, 2011;

Liedtke et al. 2012). Overall meanings previously

discussed, such as the definition of property as ballast

or the experience of islands of enjoyment, interacted

with other daily meanings that were connected to

flexibility, expenditures, environmental protection, or

health concerns. This was exemplified for the

practice of mobility, where different meaning

structures and performance patterns (at the level of

individual practice performance) led to the outcome

of using a bicycle instead of a car (see Figure 4).

A practice, which may go along with a sufficient

lifestyle, was typically formed through different

meanings. Whereas Simon and Hugo used their bikes

as easy-going vehicles, when allowed by learning and

infrastructural conditions, Ruth and Markus rode for

the benefits of health and well-being. The data show

that different meanings can overlap and still lead to

the same kind of practice performance, in this case

using a bicycle instead of a private car (e.g., due to

budget considerations, ease of use, environmental

considerations, health issues). When meanings

pointing in the same direction overlap, we can

assume that the kind of practice performance (biking)

is more established as a routine. We can thus classify

such meanings as valuable in the context of

sufficiency since they can lead to a valuable output.

Furthermore, the meanings that are subsets of the

overall meanings defining property as ballast while

searching for islands of enjoyment may be very diff-

erent, even if there is overlap. In particular, the

meaning of “environmental friendliness” does not

have to be at the center of the leitmotifs to lead to

sufficient actions.

Figure 4 One practice, several meanings



12

Barriers and Obstacles Recent studies have discussed various obstacles

to sustainable consumption and a more sufficient life

(Alexander, 2012; Schäfer et al. 2012). The lack of

suitable public transport, employment, product

information, social activities, and housing, combined

with a surfeit of consumer temptations, may

significantly impede effective changes toward more

sufficient behavior, unrelated to country differences.

Constraints seem to include the fear of a loss of

opportunities, habit, and status, as well as failure

anxiety, uneasiness, social disintegration, lack of

knowledge, and unwillingness to move away from an

acquired consumption and comfort level. Considering

our respondents, Figure 5 provides an overview of

the various barriers, as highlighted in our interviews.

In the following sections, we show how these

obstacles are connected to daily performances and

how the participants managed them or even bypassed

them altogether (the category “other” includes, for

example, personal inadequacies).

Figure 5 Mentioned barriers in the context of a sufficient lifestyle (multiple answers possible)

Infrastructure and Time Availability

Infrastructure and daily necessities from

everyday life were mentioned as obstacles when

developing a sufficient lifestyle. Strategies such as

reducing distances and limiting mobility were

explicitly linked to this objective. To remove these

barriers, low-impact lifestyles require one to, for

example, change his or her transportation behavior.

The question of mobility is an instance of “how

structure can lock people into high impact

consumption” (Alexander, 2011). Correspond-ingly,

depending on infrastructure and a daily schedule,

sufficiency seems impossible for many participants,

even if they would like to implement substantial

changes. Especially in more rural areas, a car is

necessary, particularly if one has to care for children

or grandchildren. Respondents thus managed their

transportation and followed the meaning of saving

money, but saw additional benefit to the natural

environment.

At home and here in the city where I work, I

partially go by bike and partially bus. But I

am strongly involved in politics in my

county, and there the public transport is

partly unreasonable; for example, if I have a

meeting, then I’m going to my working city

by car…I have to do that to be on time. But

my first priority is using my bicycle, then

train and bus, and then car (Sabine, age 49).

It is obvious that Sabine handled the problem of

infrastructural binding to extant transportation

systems by staying creative and setting her own

priorities. She dealt with the given structure, tried to

make the best of it, and remained flexible. Thus, she

individually reduced the constraining effects of the

infrastructure, because if she had the choice, she

would have used the most environmentally friendly

solutions. Further, she was trying to create her own

mobile space—she had her own bike in the city

where she worked and tried to stay adaptable by

using it.

Clearly, the meanings of flexibility and creativity

helped respondents to overcome obstacles and to

arrange for sufficiency-oriented performance with

their own individual changes, but without a wider

social change. The decisive difference between

conventional and sufficient shaping of practice

performance was that the former acquiesced to

perceptions of infrastructural barriers as

insurmountable and definitions of one’s own routines

of, for example, using a private car as unavoidable,

given the prevailing transportation system. By

contrast, sufficient performance was linked to

accepting the challenges of the mobility system, but

nonetheless riding a bicycle or using public

transportation. Meanings associated with these

practice performances can be shown to conflict and

using a car is even perceived as a form of discomfort,

while conventionally oriented consumers feel the

opposite way. Effects of barriers are, thus, also

shaped by meanings.

Routines, Habits, and Convenience As Jaeger-Erben (2010) contends, habits are an

essential obstacle to the promotion of sustainable

everyday-consumption patterns. This was noticeable

in our sample, but routines were also very important

when considering sufficient behavior. Habits and

convenience could be anti-drivers for sustainable

behavior, but in light of our results, they were also

supportive elements toward a more sufficient

lifestyle. Habits, which could be understood as



13

sufficient behavior patterns, could be influenced by

other circumstances, such as phase of life or

infrastructure, and implemented without any special

orientation. Often, the respondents defined their own

meaning regarding “level of convenience.”

This was expressed in different fields of action,

but routines could be either very sufficient or a very

nonsufficient, especially in the field of mobility. The

following excerpts indicate the impact of routines.

I really only drive my car because it is a

pure luxury item and that is what I enjoy.

But this is also the only thing where I treat

myself (Joachim, age 50).

[B]ut the bike has also influenced me. I’ve

always done it, even as a teenager, I have

always used the bicycle. And it’s easy. So

why would you go the two kilometers to the

city center by car and look for a parking

space? (Hugo, age 62).

The mobility habits of our respondents seemed

essentially guided by the meaning “level of

convenience” and individual demands. While

Joachim regarded his private car as a luxury item,

Hugo assigned more negative impacts to an

automobile and implemented his mobility preferences

by not using the vehicle. Again, as the example for

infrastructure and time availability shows, some

flexibility and reflection is present in more sufficient

behavior patterns. Further, Hugo subscribed to the

idea of simplifying his everyday practices. Hence, the

concept of Fischer & Grießhammer (2013) of several

steps toward sufficiency is the one to consolidate.11

The solution that was understood as relatively more

sufficient was, in the eyes of the beholders, the easier

one. Within this practice, minor side effects, such as

the search for a parking place, which may be time-

consuming, were present for Hugo. Thus, if routines

are to follow the meaning of the “easiest solution,”

and this is linked to the overall consideration of the

specific convenience level, sufficient solutions could

become more attractive to the individual.

Habits and their meanings provide an important

avenue for changing to a more sufficient society. At

this stage of our research, it is only possible to

consider, especially in the field of mobility, why

people develop such disparate meanings. Particularly

in this case, several factors, such as living in a rural

area, in contrast to a city or a different experience of

11 For instance, if consumers have a refrigerator at home the most sufficient way of acting would be to remove it and try to do

without such an appliance. A less radical way of sufficiency would

be to reduce the size of the refrigerator and buy a very energy-efficient one.

the socialization process, come into play. It is thus

necessary to examine life conditions in greater detail,

such as influential life-course transitions that may

indicate several meanings.

Major Practices in a Sufficient Life

The question arises as to what needs to change

for people to conduct themselves in a more sufficient

way. To begin to formulate an answer, it is necessary

to identify specific social sufficiency practices. For

this purpose, we screened in detail seven interviews

with respondents categorized as having a strong

orientation toward sufficient action. This selection

process was designed to identify practices carried out

by a majority of our interviewees that were, at the

same time, relevant to the wider public.

In the field of nutrition, our analysis shows that

sufficient social practices are performed in the main

areas of procurement, preparation, and disposal. The

seven respondents explained that they purchased

groceries at weekly markets where they were able to

buy regional organic products or to shop in organic

supermarkets or health-food stores. They tried to

follow their conceptions of “less artificiality”—

products should be as basic and entail as little

processing as possible. Our respondents also often

cooked within their daily routines. To expand their

knowledge and techniques, they collected culinary

information or tried new foods and learned new

preparation techniques.

The respondents were also open to the notion of

a primarily vegetarian diet. However, often they did

not go completely in this direction, but returned to a

“Sunday tradition” of eating meat. Even though less

sufficient people often emphasized budget

restrictions as a rationale not to shop for organic

food, five respondents here—after changing their

shopping routines—did not question their decision.

None of our interviewees returned to buying cheaper

food in a discount store even if their monthly budget

was limited. This was underlined by one of our

respondents:

You can cook organic food on a low budget,

but you have to change your cooking

routines. A piece of meat, etc.—this food is

much more expensive. If you buy more

grain and seasonal vegetables, etc., you may

save a lot—and it is not expensive; you have

to do some rethinking of practices (Marie,

age 54).

A drastic change in food choice and preparation

practices had occurred over time. Consumers might

need to process products on their own—for example,



14

grain needs be ground. This requirement coincided

with increased time for preparation and information

gathering, activities that less-sufficient people

generally sought to avoid. Over the longer term,

however, these new practices became routinized and,

thus, relatively easy. In general, all of the practices

that our respondents described are well-known and

did not require new technologies or entail significant

costs.

Regarding mobility, one decisive aspect of

mainstream practices is the “material” element of

actually owning a private car. Two of the seven

sufficient subjects completely abstained from

automobiles; a third respondent owned a personal

vehicle but shared it with other users in the

neighborhood. Yet another individual owned a car

with a natural-gas engine. Decisions about mobility

practices were strongly dependent on the available

options, as Sabine stated. She used her bike for short

distances, or walked. For commuting to work, which

required four trips each week, she used a regional

train as often as possible, at least two to three times

each week. Upon arrival, she used her bike to travel

the last three kilometers to her workplace. In general,

she used the car once a week, which was justified by

the fact that she did volunteer work and these dates

were always in the evening when she was not able to

go by train.

In the example, Sabine tried to meet her own

ideas of mobility. She also had very definite

conceptions regarding transportation and expressed

herself quite clearly:

But first priority is to ride a bicycle, then

train and bus and car (Sabine, age 48).

Markus, however, deliberately rejected owning a

car, primarily because “in the city” it was not

necessary and he appreciated his daily strolls and

bicycle routes. Further, the social environment can

influence mobility practices, as related by another

respondent.

[Twenty years ago], I had three children,

was employed and we were living in the

countryside; now we are more centrally

located, we live near the city center. There

were times to use the car, it was necessary

and I believe that if you have an everyday

schedule which is absolutely packed with

little time resources, I’ve experienced

myself, so at times I tried to save or to fight

for leisure, even if you have an

environmental awareness...it was harder, so

now in this phase of life, I find it’s easier to

say, now I go by bike and just go shopping

because I might not have to be back in

twenty minutes (Eveline, age 53).

Thus, the decision to choose one mobility mode or

another usually depended on life phases or job

situations.

Housing did seem particularly important to many

of our seven respondents and only one of them had

undertaken renovations in recent years. Of the other

six individuals, two owned a house, two owned an

apartment, and the others were tenants. Thus, the

majority had not considered an investment in

renovation. However, all seven respondents indicated

that they used resources such as water, electricity,

and natural gas very sparingly, but did not evince any

special practices.

Moreover, it appears that sufficient people put

more emphasis on social or voluntary activities, as

well as on less materialistic hobbies. For example,

Markus participated in a sports program every day by

bicycle and emphasized that for him cycling was a

pastime even though he did not care about wearing

multifunction clothes or other paraphernalia. He

enjoyed cycling outdoors and rejected all practices

that required acts of consumption such as becoming a

member of a fitness club. Sabine spent her free time

reading or gardening. Marie was active in art and

tried to work with recycling old materials. All seven

respondents declared that they loved to go on

vacation, but that there was no need for a “great

holiday.” Many of our interviewees preferred “nearby

destinations” in Germany or Europe that could be

reasonably accessed by train. The majority liked to

go camping as well.

Conclusion

Both an analysis of dynamics in social practices

and a differentiation of sufficiently sustainable

actions in private households are necessary to build a

model of target-oriented sufficient behavior (Liedtke

et al. 2013; Lukas et al. 2013). To do so, in this study

we integrated concepts of social practice theory to

explore sufficiency practices in daily routines. From

our perspective, social practices must be regarded as

an important part of contemporary debates on

sufficiency. They are cornerstones for

implementation and provide a framework to assess

changes in consumption routines at a micro-level,

even though without further synthesis of evidence it

remains uncertain whether the study of social

practices is useful.

We have sought to demonstrate that sufficient

consumption patterns can be traced to social practices

of everyday actions, avoiding normative prescriptions

or moralization of consumption behavior. Instead, by



15

screening an empirical data set, we have examined

how the concept of sufficiency is presumably linked

to everyday practices and that it may be easily

integrated into lifeways if a person subscribes to an

underlying philosophy that shapes behavior. We have

investigated changing procedures along the three

dimensions of social practices—meanings,

competences, and materials—that can provide

starting points for changing practices toward

sufficient patterns. Our data and analysis show that

sufficiency, while often marginalized in debates over

sustainability strategies, can lower individual

environmental impacts when defined from empirical

grounds as a strategy for action and rooted in

personal settings. For different reasons, we can

assume that high environmental awareness leads

people to restrict their consumption level and,

contrary to some critiques, reduction is not primarily

motivated by personal budget limitations. At the

same time, we have aimed to avoid a purely

constructivist analytical perspective that over-

emphasizes the social construction of what can be

regarded as sustainable. Rather, the empirically

grounded practices of sufficiency should be analyzed

together with sustainability impacts on an analytical

level, both to account for findings within the field of

sustainability science and to support clearly defined

sustainable changes of practices (as entities) toward

resource-light living.

The notion of meaning is a critical anchor—

different competences and practices will derive from

this point. Interestingly, pioneering examples are

found in the fields of nutrition and mobility. Nutrition

especially seems to be a domain that facilitates many

changes and possibilities to act sufficiently. For

instance, an organic diet often precedes an altered

meaning that then manifests itself in everyday-

practice performances. These, in turn, lead to

changing competences, for example, cooking skills to

serve a nutritious meal that is not based on animal

protein. Further, guiding meanings are especially

prone to being linked to several motivations and

competences that are not strictly connected to a

sufficient lifestyle, such as health concerns or saving

strategies.

Based on these results, we emphasize that

previously proposed sufficiency priorities (e.g.,

Kleinhückelkotten, 2005), such as the attitude of

thriftiness, should not be used as guiding principles

for further motivating sufficiency. More or less,

sufficiency is about the quality aspects of products

(e.g., durability) and the idea of using fewer goods.

Furthermore, strategies such as sharing, repairing,

and reusing should become an increasingly common

part of life and have to be supported socially as well

as through infrastructure (Leismann et al. 2013,

Schäfer et al. 2012).

Our main point is that sufficiency occurs in

everyday practices, a more attractive principle than

social science currently considers. We do not know if

sufficient behaviors are intentional or if they are side-

effects of other goals, such as the realization of a

healthy lifestyle or a synergy to save money. In the

end, this does not make any difference for lifestyle

changes. From our point of view, enabling alternative

practices toward a more resource-light society can

have an impact.

Nevertheless, sufficient lifestyles may encounter

infrastructural barriers arising from, for example,

dependencies associated with the time regime of

social practices that are individually unchangeable at

first glance. Still, science and politics need to focus

on enabling conditions to support the spread of

sufficient practices. Key among these are recycling,

reusing, and sharing, or more specifically repair cafés

or sharing stations. The idea is that if more and more

possibilities exist in daily life to guide sufficient

practices these practices will become routinized.

Our study provides a framework to work toward

such a goal and tries to re-evaluate sufficient

practices. The practice-theoretical framework

suggests equal treatment of structural features and

agency. To sum up, the advantage of using practice

theory for our analysis is twofold: 1) it is useful to

empirically locate sufficiency at the level of action

and not moral considerations alone and 2) it helps to

overcome the perspective that, for a more resource-

light society, all individuals need to be persuaded to

make different choices, that is change their values

and consumption decisions. Rather, when

modifications in the elements of practices become

effective (taking on a different meaning) at the level

of practice-as-entity, currently “normal” per-

formances will become delegitimized and

subsequently disappear for the broad majority of

practitioners.

Even though we have been primarily interested

in forms of agency toward shaping a sufficient

lifestyle, we emphasize that structural features are

equally important and go beyond simple individual

responsibility. Policy goals also need to be designed

to change practices, including infrastructure for

sustainable systems of provision and developing

competences, as well as the formulation of policies

supporting sufficiency (Schneidewind & Zahrnt,

2013; Walker, 2015). Making use of practice

theories, however, means showing how agency is

performed despite the social norms of consumerism

and infrastructural barriers. Respondents who may be

characterized as sufficient act within their daily

limitations of time regimes and infrastructure in a



16

relatively resource-extensive way. Thus, a change

toward sufficient living is not solely linked to societal

changes. Everyone is able to act within his or her

daily limitations in a relatively more sustainable way

without completely rejecting consumption or waiting

for political or infrastructural change, which may be

slow to arrive.

References

Alcott, B. 2008. The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-

world frugality lower environmental impact?

Ecological Economics 64(4):770–786.

Alexander, S. 2011. Property Beyond Growth Toward a

Politics of Voluntary Simplicity. Faculty of Law,

University of Melbourne, Melbourne. http://simplicity

institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Property-

Beyond-Growth1.pdf.

Alexander, S. 2012. Radical simplicity and the middle

class: exploring the lifestyle implications of a “Great

Disruption.” Simplicity Institute Report. http://perma

culturenews.org/2012/09/28/radical-simplicity-and-

the-middle-class-exploring-the-lifestyle-implications-

of-a-great-disruption.

Assadourian, E. 2010. Transforming culture: from con-

sumerism to sustainability. Journal of

Macromarketing 30(2):186–191.

Backhaus, J., Breukers, S., Mont, O., Paukovic, M., &

Mourik, R. 2013. Sustainable Lifestyles: Today’s

Facts and Tomorrow's Trends. Sustainable Lifestyles

2015. http://www.sustainable-lifestyles.eu/fileadmin/

images/content/D1.1_Baseline_Report.pdf.

Bamberg, S. 2013. A stage model of self-regulated

behavioral change. Journal of Environmental Psych-

ology 34:151–159.

Black, I. & Cherrier, H. 2010. Anti-consumption as part of

living a sustainable lifestyle: daily practices, context-

ual motivations and subjective values. Journal of Con-

sumer Behavior 9(6):467–487.

Bliesner, A., Liedtke, C., Welfens, M., Baedeker, C.,

Hasselkuß, M., & Rohn, H. 2014. “Norm-oriented

interpretation learning” and resource use: the concept

of “open-didactic exploration” as a contribution to

raising awareness of a responsible resource use.

Resources 3(1):1–30.

Brand, K.-W. 2010. Social practices and sustainable

consumption: benefits and limitations of a new

theoretical approach. In M. Gross & H. Heinreich

(Eds.), Environmental Sociology: European Perspec-

tives and Interdisciplinary Challenges. pp. 217–235.

Dordrecht: Springer.

Buhl, J. 2014. Revisiting rebound effects from material

resource use: indications for Germany considering

social heterogeneity. Resources 3(1):106–122.

Cajaiba-Santana, G. 2014. Social innovation: moving the

field forward—a conceptual framework.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 82:42–

51.

Cherrier, H., Black, I., & Ian, M. 2011. Intentional non-

consumption for sustainability: Consumer resistance

and/or anti-consumption? European Journal of

Market-ing 45(11‒12):1757–1767.

Cherrier, H. & Gurrieri, L. 2013. Anti-consumption choices

performed in a drinking culture: normative struggles

and repairs. Journal of Macromarketing 33(3):232–

244.

Cohen, M., Szeijnwald Brown, H., & Vergragt, P., Eds.

2013. Innovations In Sustainable Consumption: New

Economics, Socio-technical Transitions, and Social

Practices. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. 2008. Qualitative Research, 3rd

Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Defila, R., Di Guilio, A., & Kaufmann-Hayoz, R. 2012.

The Nature of Sustainable Consumption and How to

Achieve it. Munich: Oekom Verlag.

Diekmann, A. & Preisendörfer, P. 1992. Persönliches

Umweltverhalten [Personal environmental behavior].

Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozial-

psychologie 2:226–251.

Diekmann, A. & Preisendörfer, P. 1998. Umwelt-

bewusstsein und Umweltverhalten in Low- und High-

Cost-Situationen [Environmental awareness and

behavior in low- and high-cost situations]. Zeitschrift

Für Soziologie 27(6):438–453.

Evans, D. 2011. Blaming the consumer—once again: the

social and material contexts of everyday food waste

practices in some English households. Critical Public

Health 21(4):429–440.

Fischer, C. & Grießhammer, R. 2013. Mehr als nur

Weniger: Suffizienz: Begriff, Begründung, und

Potenziale [More than just less: sufficiency: term,

reasons, and potentials]. Öko-Institut Working Paper

02/2013. Freiburg: Ökoinstitut.

Fuchs, D. & Lorek, S. 2005. Sustainable consumption

governance: a history of promises and failures.

Journal of Consumer Policy 18:261–288.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of

the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University

of California Press.

Giddens, A.1991. Modernity and Self-identity: Self and

Society in the Late Modern Age. Malden, MA: Polity

Press.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded

Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago:

Aldine.

Gregg, R. 1936. The Value of Voluntary Simplicity.

Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill.

Gronow, J. & Warde, A. 2001. Ordinary Consumption.

New York: Routledge.

Halkier, B. & Jensen, I. 2011. Methodological challenges

in using practice theory in consumption research:

examples from a study on handling nutritional

contestations of food consumption. Journal of Con-

sumer Culture 11(1):101‒123.

Hamilton, C. & Mail, E. 2003. Downshifting in Australia:

A Sea-change in the Pursuit of Happiness. Discussion

Paper No. 50. Canberra: The Australia Institute.

http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP50.pdf

Hargreaves, T. 2011. Practicing behaviour change:

applying social practice theory to pro-environmental

behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture

11(1):79–99.



17

Hargreaves, T., Longhurst, N., & Seyfang, G. 2013. Up,

down, round and round: connecting regimes and

practices in innovation for sustainability. Environment

and Planning A 45(2):402–420.

Jackson, T. 2005a. Live better by consuming less? Is there

a “double dividend” in sustainable consumption?

Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(1–2):19–36.

Jackson, T. 2005b. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A

Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and

Behavioural Change. Guildford: Centre for Environ-

mental Strategy, University of Surrey.

http://www.comminit.com/en/node/219688/306.

November 2, 2015.

Jaeger-Erben, M. 2010. Zwischen Routine, Reflektion und

Transformation: die Veränderung von alltäglichem

Konsum durch Lebensereignisse und die Rolle von

Nachhaltigkeit [Between Routine, Reflection and

Transformation: The Change in Everyday

Consumption Through Live Events and the Role of

Sustainablity]. Berlin: Faculty of Planning, Building,

and Environment, Technical University Berlin.

Kenis, A. & Mathijs, E. 2012. Beyond individual behaviour

change : the role of power, knowledge and strategy in

tackling climate change. Environmental Education

Research 18(1):45–64.

Kleinhückelkotten, S. 2005. Suffizienz und Lebensstile

[Sufficiency and Lifestyles]. Berlin: Berliner

Wissenschafts-Verlage.

Lee, M., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. 2009. Anti-consumption

and brand avoidance. Journal of Business Research

62: 169–180.

Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C.

2013. Collaborative consumption: towards a resource-

saving consumption culture. Resources 2(3):184–203.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1981. Voluntary simplicity lifestyles

and energy conservation. Journal of Consumer

Research 8(3):243–252.

Lettenmeier, M., Göbel, C., Liedtke, C., Rohn, H., &

Teitscheid, P. 2012. Material footprint of a sustainable

nutrition system in 2050: need for dynamic

innovations in production, consumption and politics.

In U. Rickert & G. Schiefer, Eds., Proceedings in

System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.

pp. 584–598. Bonn: University of Bonn.

Lettenmeier, M., Liedtke, C., & Rohn, H. 2014. Eight

tonnes of material footprint: suggestion for a resource

cap for household consumption in Finland. Resources

3(3): 488–515.

Liedtke, C., Baedeker, C., Hasselkuß, M., Rohn, H., &

Grinewitschus, V. 2014. User-integrated innovation in

Sustainable LivingLabs: an experimental

infrastructure for researching and developing

sustainable product service systems. Journal of

Cleaner Production 97: 106–116.

Liedtke, C., Buhl, J., & Ameli, N. 2013. Designing value

through less by integrating sustainability strategies

into lifestyles. International Journal of Sustainable

Design 5(3):1141–1160.

Liedtke, C., Welfens, M. J., Rohn, H., & Nordmann, J.

2012. LIVING LAB: user-driven innovation for

sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability

in Higher Education 13:106–118.

Linz, M. 2012. Weder Mangel noch Überfluss: Warum

Suffizienz unentbehrlich ist [Neither Abundance nor

Shortage: Why Sufficieny is Indispensable]. Munich:

Oekom Verlag.

Lukas, M. 2015. Suffiziente Haushalte: Möglichkeit oder

Illusion? [Sufficient households: a possibility or

illusion?]. UWF‒UmweltWirtschaftsForum 23(1‒2):

15‒21.

Lukas, M. 2013. Nachhaltiger Konsum und simplifizierte

Lebensstile: welche Perspektiven zeigen sich im

Alltag? [Sustainable consumption and simplified

lifestyles: which prospects are there in everyday life?].

Haushalt in Bildung & Forschung 2(2):43–58.

Lukas, M., Liedtke, C., Welfens, M. J., & Baedeker, C.

2014. Suffizienz als Anknüpfungspunkt für ein

nachhaltiges Handeln des verletzlichen Verbrauchers

[Sufficiency as a Connecting Point for Sustainable

Behaviour of Vulnerable Consumers]. Düsseldorf:

Verbraucherzentrale NRW.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K., & Schkade, D. 2005.

Pursuing happiness: the architecture of sustainable

change. Review of General Psychology 9(2):111–131.

Matthies, E. 2005. Wie können PsychologInnen ihr Wissen

besser an die PraktikerIn bringen? Vorschlag eines

neuen integrativen Einflussschemas umweltgerechten

Alltagshandelns. [How can psychologists more

effectively provide practicioners with knowledge?

Proposal of a new, integrated way of influencing

environmental-friendly everyday action]. Umwelt-

psychologie 9(1):62–81.

Meadows, D., Rander, J., & Meadows, D. 2004. The Limits

to Growth: The 30 Years Update. 3rd Ed. White River

Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Möser, G. & Bamberg, S. 2008. The effectiveness of soft

transport policy measures: a critical assessment and

meta-analysis of empirical evidence. Journal of

Environmental Psychology 28:10–26.

Müller, C. & Paech, N. 2012. Suffizienz und Subsistenz

[Sufficiency and subsistence]. In Der kritische

Agrarbericht [Critical Agricultural Report]. pp. 148–

152. Hamm: ABL‒Verlag.

Opschoor, J. 1995. Ecospace and the fall and rise of

throughput intensity. Ecological Economics

15(2):137–140.

Osterveer, P. and Sonnenfeld, D. Eds. 2012. Food,

Globalization, and Sustainability. New York: Rout-

ledge.

Paech, N. 2013. Das Konzept der Postwachstumsökonomie

als Rückbau industrieller, global arbeitsteiliger

Wertschöpfungsprozesse. [The concept of a Post-

growth Economy as a Basis of Industrial, Global and

Collaborative Value Chains]. Vortrag im Rahmen der

Tagung Ohne Wachstum Wirtschaften? [Paper

presented at the conference Economics Without

Growth], Hochschule Bremen, 18 June. https://www.

hs-bremen.de/internet/einrichtungen/koop

eration/aktivitaeten/2013-18-06/paech-2013_06_18-

bremen-hochschule.pdf.

Princen, T. 2005. The Logic of Sufficiency. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.



18

Reckwitz, A. 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: a

development in culturalist theorizing. European

Journal of Social Theory 5(2):245–265.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin,

F., Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M., Folke, C.,

Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes,

T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder,

P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M.,

Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J.,

Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K. Crutzen, P.,

and Foley, J. 2009. Planetary boundaries : exploring

the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and

Society 14(2):32.

Rohn, H., Pastowski, N., & Lettenmeier, M. 2013.

Ressourceneffizienz: Potentiale von Technologien,

Produkten und Strategien [Resource Efficiency:

Potentials of Technologies, Products and Strategies].

Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag.

Røpke, I. 2009. Theories of practice: new inspiration for

ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecolog-

ical Economics 68(10):2490–2497.

Sahakian, M. & Wilhite, H. 2013. Making practice theory

practicable: towards more sustainable forms of

consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture 14(1):25–

44.

Sage, C. 2014. The transition movement and food

sovereignty: from local resilience to global

engagement in food system transformation. Journal of

Consumer Culture 14(2):254-275.

Sanne, C. 2002. Willing consumers—or locked-in? Policies

for a sustainable consumption. Ecological Economics

42(1–2):273–287.

Schäfer M., Jaeger-Erben M., Bamberg S. 2012. Life

events as windows of opportunity for changing

towards sustainable consumption patterns? Journal of

Con-sumer Policy 35(1):65–84

Schatzki, T. 1996. Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian

Approach to Human Activity and the Social. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Schneidewind, U. & Zahrnt, A. 2013. Damit gutes Leben

einfach wird. Perspektiven einer Suffizienzpolitik [The

Politics of Sufficiency: Making it Easier to Live the

Good Life]. Munich: Oekom Verlag.

Schor, J. 1998. The Overspent American: Upscaling,

Downshifting, and the New Consumer. New York:

Basic Books.

Schor, J. 2011. True Wealth: How and Why Millions of

Americans Are Creating a Time-Rich, Ecologically

Light, Small-Scale, High-Satisfaction Economy. New

York: Penguin.

Schrader, U., Liedtke, C., Lamla, J., Arens-Azevedo, U.,

Hagen, K., Jaquemoth, M., Kenning, P., Schmidt-

Kessel, M. & Strünck, C. 2013. Verbraucherpolitik für

nachhaltigen Konsum: Verbraucherpolitische Per-

spektiven für eine nachhaltige Transformation von

Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Consumer policy for

sustainable consumption: prospects for a sustainable

transformation of economy and society]. In

Stellungnahme des wissenschaftlichen Beirats

Verbraucher und Ernährungspolitik beim BMELV

[Opinion of the Scientific Advisory Board on

Consumer and Food Policy at the BMELV].

http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ministeri

um/Beiraete/Verbraucherpolitik/2013_12_Nachhaltige

rKonsum.html. October 26, 2015.

Schrader, U. & Thøgersen, J. 2011. Putting sustainable

consumption into practice. Journal of Consumer

Policy 34(1):3–8.

Shallcross, T. & Robinson, J. 2007. Is a decade of teacher

education for sustainable development essential for

survival? Journal of Education for Teaching:

International Research and Pedagogy 33(2):137–147.

Shove, E. & Pantzar, M. 2005. Consumers, producers and

practices: understanding the invention and reinvention

of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture 5(1):

43–64.

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. 2012. The Dynamics

of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it

Changes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spaargaren, G. 2003. Sustainable consumption: a

theoretical and environmental policy perspective.

Society and Natural Resources 16(8):687–701.

Spaargaren, G. 2011. Theories of practice: agency,

technology, and culture: exploring the relevance of

practice theories for the governance of sustainable

consumption practices in the new world-order. Global

Environmental Change 21(3):813–822.

Spaargaren, G. & Vliet, B. 2000. Lifestyles, consumption

and the environment: the ecological modernisation of

domestic consumption. Environmental Politics 9(1):

50–77.

Spangenberg, J. & Lorek, S. 2002. Environmentally

sustainable household consumption: from aggregate

environmental pressures to priority fields of action.

Ecological Economics 43(2002):127–140.

Speck, M. 2016 (forthcoming): Konsum und Suffizienz:

Wann kann weniger mehr sein? Eine empirische

Untersuchung privater Haushalte in Deutschland

[Consumption and Sufficiency: An Empirical

Study of Private Households in Germany]. Published

Doctoral Dissertation. Berlin: Springer.

Der Spiegel. 2014. Konsumverzicht: Weniger haben,

glücklicher leben [Cutting consumption: less stuff,

more happiness] Der Spiegel Issue 14. http://www.

spiegel.de/spiegel/print/index-2014-14.html. October

22, 2015.

Stengel, O. 2011. Suffizienz: Die Konsumgesellschaft in der

ökologischen Krise [Sufficiency: The Ecological

Crisis of the Consumer Society]. Munich: Oekom

Verlag.

Strengers, Y. & Maller, C., Eds. 2015. Social Practice,

Intervention and Sustainability: Beyond Behaviour

Change. New York: Routledge.

Thøgersen, J. & Ölander, F. 2002. Human values and the

emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a

panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology 23(5):

605–630.

Tukker, A., Cohen, M., Hubacek, K., & Mont, O. 2010.

The impacts of household consumption and options

for change. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14(1):13–

30.

Tukker, A., Emmert, S., Charter, M., Vezzoli, C., Sto, E.,

Munch Andersen, M., Geerken, T., Tischner, U., &

Lahlou, S. 2008. Fostering change to sustainable



19

consumption and production: an evidence based view.

Journal of Cleaner Production 16(11):1218–1225.

Vermeir, I. & Verbeke, W. 2006. Sustainable food

consumption: exploring the consumer “attitude‒

behavioral” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environ-

mental Ethics 19(2):169–194.

Walker, G. 2015: Beyond individual responsibility: social

practice, capabilities and the right to environmentally

sustainable ways of living. In: Strengers, Y. & Maller,

C., Eds. Social Practice, Intervention and

Sustainability: Beyond Behaviour Change. pp. 63–77.

New York: Routledge.

Warde, A. 2005. Theories of Practice as an Approach to

Consumption. Manchester: Centre for Research on

Innovation and Competition and Department of

Sociology, University of Manchester.

Watson, M. 2012. How theories of practice can inform

transition to a decarbonised transport system. Journal

of Transport Geography 24:488–496.

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale

Umweltveränderungen (WBGU) [German Advisory

Council on Global Change]. 2011. Welt im Wandel:

Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation

(Hauptgutachten) [World in Transition: A Social

Contract for Sustainability (Flagship Report)]. Berlin:

WGBU.

Wiesen, K., Wirges, M., Liedtke, C. 2014. MIPS

Calculation Sheets: Calculation Resource Intensity of

Practices. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute.

Witzel, A. 2000. Das problemzentrierte Interview [The

problem-centred interview]. Forum: Qualitative

Sozialforschung [Social Research] 1(1), Art. 22.

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/

article/viewArticle/1132/2519.


2015 McConville et al. CC-BY Attribution 4.0 License. Winter 2015 | Volume 11 | Issue 2

33

ARTICLE

Closing the food loops: guidelines and criteria for improving nutrient management

Jennifer McConville

1, Jan-Olof Drangert

2, Pernilla Tidåker

3, Tina-Simone Neset

2, Sebastien Rauch

4, Ingrid

Strid5, & Karin Tonderski

6

1 Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, Sven Hultins gata 6, Gothenburg, SE-41296 Sweden (email:

[email protected]) 2 Department of Thematic Studies-Environmental Change, Linköping University, Linköping, SE-581 83 Sweden (email:

[email protected]; [email protected]) 3 Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Box 7033, Uppsala, SE-750 07 Sweden (email:

[email protected]) 4 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SE-412 96 Sweden (email:

[email protected]) 5 Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7032, Lennart Hjelms väg 9, Uppsala,

SE-750 07 Sweden (email: [email protected]) 6 Department of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, Linköping University, Linköping, SE-581 83 Sweden (email: [email protected])

As global consumption expands, the world is increasingly facing threats to resource availability and food security. To meet future food demands, agricultural resource efficiency needs to be optimized for both water and nutrients. Policy makers should start to radically rethink nutrient management across the entire food chain. Closing the food loop by recycling nutrients in food waste and excreta is an important way of limiting the use of mineral nutrients, as well as improving national and global food security. This article presents a framework for sustainable nutrient management and discusses the responsibility of four key stakeholder groups—agriculture, the food industry, consumers, and waste management—for achieving an effective food loop. In particular, we suggest a number of criteria, policy actions, and supporting strategies based on a cross-sectoral application of the waste hierarchy. KEYWORDS: Food processing industry wastes, agricultural wastes, waste utilization, food additives, material balance

Introduction

The global population has grown sharply over

the last century, placing increasing burdens on the

natural resources that provide us with food, energy,

and shelter. Roughly one third of food internationally

produced for human consumption, equivalent to 1.3

billion tons per year, is lost or wasted (Godfray et al.

2010; Gustavsson et al. 2011). Estimates of the vol-

ume of food wasted along global supply chains, from

agricultural production to final human consumption,

range from 25–50%. There are great differences

among regions in the amount of food lost and in

terms of where the losses are most pronounced

(Mena et al. 2011). In all regions, however, there is

growing recognition of the need to improve agricul-

tural resource efficiency with respect to both water

and nutrients (Foley et al. 2011). Increasing access to

fertilizers, particularly locally produced agricultural

additives, and improved soil-nutrient management

are critical in assuring global food security (Chen et

al. 2011).

Increased productivity since World War II has

been achieved through application of chemical ferti-

lizers, pesticides, and irrigation, yet the contemporary

global environmental situation and growing con-

straints in resource availability challenge us to take a

more sustainable approach. The production of chemi-

cal fertilizers relies on limited sources of phosphorus

and energy-intensive nitrogen fixation. Both nitrogen

and phosphorus cycles have been identified as critical

planetary boundaries for maintaining a balance in the

Earth’s biophysical processes (Rockström et al.

2009). Currently, cycles for these two elements are

under threat in many parts of the world where reac-

tive nitrogen from fertilizer production ends up pol-

luting waterways or is released as a greenhouse gas

(nitrous oxide), and excessive use of phosphorus not

only reduces access to this limited resource, but

phosphorus runoff causes eutrophication of lakes and

puts oceans at risk for anoxic events. Better manage-

ment of these macronutrients is needed both from an

agricultural perspective in terms of, for example, re-

ducing fertilizer runoff and with respect to the global

environment by managing material flows of these

McConville et al.: Guidelines for Closing Food Loops

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://sspp.proquest.com Winter 2015 | Volume 11 | Issue 2 34

elements. At the same time, it is important that we

devote more attention to the role of micronutrients

and soil organic carbon in enhancing productivity.1

Studies show that an increased soil organic-carbon

pool can influence yields (Lal, 2006) and that many

micronutrients enhance disease resistance and toler-

ance (Dordas, 2009). The recycling of organic waste

has the potential to return both carbon and nutrients

to soils.

The planetary boundary for nitrogen has already

been exceeded and that for phosphorus is threatened

(Rockström et al. 2009). It is time to radically rethink

nutrient management across the entire food chain.

Scientists see recycling of nutrients in food waste and

excreta, for example, as an important way of limiting

the use of mineral nutrients as well as improving na-

tional and global food security (Cordell et al. 2009),

particularly if such measures can balance local and

regional nutrient flows. Improving global nutrient

management will require a holistic approach that

includes the entire food cycle from production and

distribution to consumption and resource recovery.

There is a need for guiding principles and actions that

reach a broad spectrum of stakeholders in diverse

sectors and unite them in a global vision for sustaina-

ble nutrient management. Taking this broader ap-

proach means linking material flows and manage-

ment sectors that today are generally managed on a

separate basis, such as food-processing plants and

wastewater-treatment facilities.

This article aims to influence policy develop-

ment by presenting a working framework for sustain-

able nutrient management based on multi-stakeholder

collaboration. Current models for sustainable waste

and material-flow management highlight the need for

waste prevention, recycling, and life-cycle perspec-

tives. Building on the popular waste hierarchy, while

recognizing the need to focus on waste minimization

(Price & Joseph, 2000), our framework is based on

two key principles: 1) increasing the effectiveness of

nutrient use in the overall provisioning system (i.e.,

minimizing waste flows) and 2) closing the loop on

fertilizing nutrients (i.e., reuse & recycling). The sec-

ond principle also entails ensuring that nutrient-flow

streams are kept free from contaminants so that the

constituent resources can be reused. This article pre-

sents a number of criteria, policy actions, and sup-

porting strategies, for stakeholders at all levels of the

food chain, for achieving the goal of sustainable nu-

trient management. The text explains the theoretical

framework based on a multi-sector approach to food

1 Micronutrients are those elements essential for plant growth that

are needed in only very small quantities, as opposed to macronutri-

ents (nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, sul-fur) that are required in larger quantities.

loops and the waste hierarchy. The framework is then

presented with discussion of the roles of each sector.

Finally, specific policy strategies and methods for

enabling change are discussed.

Theoretical Framework

The sustainable management of nutrients means

achieving a balance between the removal and addi-

tion of organic and mineral material. Such practices

also entail avoiding the net accumulation of heavy

metals and other undesirable compounds, such as

medical residues and pesticides, in soil. This article

uses a framework based on three concepts that aim to

capture the complexity associated with the formula-

tion of sustainable solutions: food loops, a multi-

sector approach, and the waste hierarchy.

Food Loops To maximize resource efficiency, it is necessary

to adopt a life-cycle perspective with respect to nutri-

ent flows within the food system. Closing food loops

means the nutrients are recovered and returned to

agriculture to the greatest extent possible (Figure 1).

Food loops exist at several levels and may connect

one or more sectors. For example, the internal agri-

cultural loop returns manure and harvest waste to the

fields, while other loops transport food products from

fields to consumers and on to waste-treatment plants.

However, each sector tends to focus on its own

agenda and thus cross-sectoral collaboration for nu-

trient management is a weak point in many policies

Figure 1 Food Loops: from agricultural production and processing to consumption and collection/treatment of food waste so as to return valuable organic and mineral compounds to agriculture. Note to readers: this article focuses on the larger loop in which food passes through all four sectors.



today. Therefore, this article focuses on the larger

loop in which food passes through four key sectors

(further explained in the section below).

From an environmental perspective, closing

loops is best done at a local scale to avoid unneces-

sary transport and associated energy costs (Tidåker et

al. 2007). However, we recognize that global popula-

tion distribution and local food production capabili-

ties can make it difficult, and perhaps economically

inefficient, to maintain a completely local food loop.

Thus, there will be tradeoffs to consider when deter-

mining the optimal scale of this system. For example,

it is unreasonable to expect that large cities can be

completely supported by urban and near-urban agri-

culture. The optimal scale of the food loop for a par-

ticular city will depend on the consumption patterns

of the city and local agricultural conditions.

Multi-Sector Approach Four key management sectors are involved in the

direct handling of nutrient flows within the larger

food loop shown in Figure 1: agriculture, the food

industry, consumers, and waste management. Stake-

holders in each of these sectors play a vital role in

achieving balanced management of nutrient flows.

There are, of course, other important stakeholders

such as regulators that can affect nutrient manage-

ment. However, since these stakeholders often influ-

ence actions in more than one sector, their role is

discussed below in the section about enabling

change, along with institutional structures and regu-

lations.

Agriculture in this context is defined as primary

food producers. The food industry includes manu-

facturers and processors, distributors, and wholesal-

ers. Consumers comprise households and restaurants,

as well as local food retailers such as grocery stores

which we deem employ similar nutrient-management

strategies. The waste-management sector, generally

including solid-waste and wastewater-management

organizations, is responsible for the collection, treat-

ment, and disposal of solid and liquid wastes. It

should be noted that these sectors are dependent on

each other and thus management measures are inter-

dependent and linked across sectors.

Waste Hierarchy The management framework that we formulate

in this article is based on the waste hierarchy com-

monly used in solid-waste management (European

Commission, 2008; ARCADIS, 2010). Indeed, varia-

tions of the generalized “reduce, reuse, recycle”

model are common and the basis of waste manage-

ment in many countries (Sakai et al. 2011).

1. Reduce a) waste generation and b) harmful con-

tents in products

2. Reuse the waste more or less as it is

3. Recycle the waste as input to new products (in-

cluding biogas production)

4. Incinerate

5. Dispose

From a nutrient-management perspective, the

above steps are interpreted as follows. Reduction

aims at preventing the generation of waste containing

nutrients and thus the need to tap mineral nutrient

reserves. This includes (Step 1a) reduced volumes

and, perhaps more importantly, (Step 1b) minimizing

harmful and unwanted contents in products and mate-

rials. If the nutrients are not mixed with contami-

nants, they can be recovered and (Step 2) reused

without treatment beyond sanitization (WHO, 2006).

If the food-waste material is not safe or not in a state

that allows for direct reuse, treatment processes can

recycle it into new products (Step 3).

The final two steps of the waste hierarchy are of

less interest for purposes of nutrient management

since opportunities for nutrient recovery are small.

Incineration (Step 4) of food waste is an option, as

both the emissions and the ashes contain a variety of

plant nutrients, including phosphorus and potassium.

However, all carbon and nitrogen are lost and the

amount of plant-available phosphorus in ashes is re-

duced (Zhang et al. 2001). Incineration is therefore

mainly used to reduce the volume of solid waste and

to recover energy. Finally, the waste hierarchy rec-

ommends (Step 5) disposal, most often landfilling,

only for material that cannot be used in the previous

four steps. We focus on the first three steps as the

most effective for improving nutrient management.

Strategy Framework

This article presents a number of functional crite-

ria (Table 1) that may guide technology and policy

development within key sectors to improve nutrient

management. Criteria selection is a sensitive issue,

since it often reflects decision-maker preferences.

While aware of this inclination, we carefully devel-

oped sustainability criteria through a series of work-

shops and meetings with a multi-disciplinary group

of researchers.2 The criteria presented here should be

at least partially measureable and should guide policy

makers and technology developers in system im-

2 A summary from the initial workshop supported by the

SanWatPUA network can be found at http://www.urbanwater.se/

sites/default/files/filer/sanwatpua_p-workshop_summary.pdf. The

table presented in this article was developed in subsequent meet-ings and refined through an iterative review process.



provement. The following sections provide support-

ing arguments for selecting the functional criteria.

Agriculture Farmers around the world have typically used lo-

cally based food-loop strategies for generations. Op-

timizing internal recycling of organic material at the

farm level should, of course, be encouraged. The cri-

teria presented here focus on what the agriculture

sector (primary producers of crops and livestock) can

do to enable wider food loops in connection with

other stakeholders.

A primary concern is, of course, that agriculture

should not become a dumping ground for society’s

waste. Therefore, the first priority should be efficient

use of fertilizers and minimization of hormone and

chemical additions to the soil. Use of harmful chemi-

cals, including those in recycled food waste, should

be discontinued to avoid long-term contamination of

soils. The second priority strategy should be to reuse

food waste directly on the farm. This includes using

unprocessed urine as fertilizer and giving food waste

directly to livestock. Export of manure from areas

with abundant livestock to crop-intensive areas is a

reuse option that may need wider stakeholder collab-

oration. It requires dewatering of the manure to

achieve the most cost-effective transport, and thus

there may be advantages for tighter collaboration

with the waste-management sector that regularly uses

dewatering technology (UWE, 2013). Finally, food

waste that cannot be directly reused should be recy-

cled into fertilizers or fodder whenever safe and fea-

sible.

Maximizing the return of food-related material

flows to agriculture in this way, particularly at a local

scale, can greatly reduce nutrient losses to water and

air, as well as improve soil conditions. However,

these strategies require that farmers know about op-

timal fertilizer and chemical dosing to prevent over-

fertilization or accumulation of other toxic com-

pounds. In particular, information about the fertiliz-

ing values of potential reused and recycled food

wastes needs to be documented and disseminated, as

different wastes have different characteristics and

thus differ in expected fertilizer effect (Delin et al.

2012). The same applies to using food-waste prod-

ucts as fodder, which can be encouraged through

formalization and product marketing to assure quality

Table 1 Functional criterion for improving nutrient management in the food chain. Supporting guidelines and policy documents are shown in Table 2. Arrows indicate direction of material flows.



and content standards. Implementation of these strat-

egies will require guidelines for application of a vari-

ety of food-waste products, both those produced di-

rectly at the farm and those from other sectors. This

should include standardization and reference values

for element balances for a variety of nutrients and

organic carbon substrates (Öborn et al. 2003). One

move in this direction is the quality certification rules

for biowaste digestate from the Swedish waste-man-

agement authorities, which requires that levels of

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, sulfur,

and calcium must be declared (SP, 2013).

Food Industry The food industry has a critical role to play con-

cerning efficient use of nutrients, particularly food

additives, and reducing waste in the food chain. Food

industry waste-reduction measures can range from

improving transport and handling infrastructure, in-

cluding better coordination with suppliers and con-

sumers, to increasing the lifespan of food through

proper storage and packaging. For example, a recent

study in Sweden found that 20–25% of household

food waste could be related to packaging that was

either difficult to empty or too large (Williams et al.

2012). New packaging standards could reduce food

waste, for instance through hydrophobic lining for

better emptying of containers or by designing pack-

aging to match consumer eating habits (e.g., avoiding

extra-large portions that often spoil).

In addition, improving efficient use of nutrients

requires minimizing unnecessary use of food addi-

tives. For example, use of phosphorus-containing

additives in processed food and animal feed has in-

creased in the last few decades, contributing to the

increased demand on mined phosphate. These com-

pounds are used as dietary supplements and for func-

tional purposes such as emulsifiers, stabilizers, or

preserving moisture and color. Winger et al. (2012)

refer to several studies which estimate that up to 50%

of the daily phosphorus intake in affluent countries is

from food additives. Medical knowledge has linked

higher blood-phosphorus levels to significant health

risks, including cardiovascular disease, deterioration

of kidney function (e.g., Dhingra et al. 2007), and

bone disease (e.g., Sax, 2001). The development

trend toward using phytase enzymes in animal feed

can significantly reduce the need for phosphorus ad-

ditions and dietary supplements.3

Food additives and packaging material (which

contain compounds that may migrate into food)

3 Phytase is an enzyme that catalyzes the hydrolysis of indigestible

organic phosphorus, releasing usable forms of inorganic phospho-

rus. Its use in animal feed can enhance the nutritive value of plant material.

should also be free from toxic and persistent sub-

stances because they can make it difficult to later

reuse and/or recycle food. Although outside the spe-

cific context of food loops, it is, of course, advanta-

geous to minimize the amount of packaging and de-

sign it for material recovery. The recovery rate of

nutrients in food waste can only be improved if the

waste is uncontaminated, with chemical and pathogen

concentrations close to or below background levels.

For example, some plastic packaging may contami-

nate the food content by releasing Bisfenol A and

phthalates, two hormone-disturbing chemicals linked

to a number of diseases (Rudel et al. 2011). Avoid-

ance of such substances in food and packaging would

improve public health and facilitate the design of

more effective food loops.

The food industry also has the potential to de-

velop internal strategies to maximize recovery of

food residues for direct reuse and/or recycling into

new products. Mena et al. (2011) identify a number

of areas where lack of communication and waste

policies cause food waste in the food industry, such

as lack of information sharing causing forecasting

difficulties and poor ordering, or lack of monitoring

routines for measuring waste creation. There are op-

portunities to realize economic gains by optimizing

the efficient use of food resources. For example,

slaughterhouses and fish industries can grind bones

and sell the meal as fertilizer (Jeng et al. 2006). Ad-

ditionally, green technologies are increasingly pro-

moted as a means of extracting valuable chemicals

from food residues, such as turning citrus waste into

limonene (Luque & Clark, 2013).4

Consumers Consumers, including local food retailers, can

play a major role in preventing food waste and re-

ducing contamination of nutrient-rich waste streams

so that they can more easily be recovered. In indus-

trialized countries, the share of food waste is signifi-

cantly higher in the consumption phase of the supply

chain, estimated to be approximately 95–115 kilo-

grams (kg) per capita/year in Europe and North

America compared to 6–11 kg per capita/year in sub-

Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia

(Gustavsson et al. 2011). A recent study estimates

that about 40% of household-food waste in the UK is

due to cooking and serving more food than can be

consumed (Quested & Johnson, 2009). Better plan-

ning in food purchasing and creative use of leftovers

by households could significantly reduce this volume.

In addition, consumers can reduce waste through

proper storage, attention to expiration dates, and

4 Limonene is used in food manufacturing, medicines, cosmetics,

insecticides, cleaning products, and solvents.



more careful preparation (e.g., cutting and properly

cooking food). Restaurants and caterers can track

food frequently left uneaten or sent back by custom-

ers and modify the menu based on this information.

Reduction of food waste can result in direct eco-

nomic gains for consumers. Policy measures like the

imposition of fees for trash collection and disposal

can be effective in reducing consumer waste.

From environmental and nutrient-management

perspectives, lower consumption of meat and dairy

products would also significantly reduce the need for

input of external nutrients into the food loop. For

example, a meat-based diet requires approximately

three times the phosphorus as a vegetarian diet and

results in more nitrogen excreted by humans into the

wastewater system (Cordell et al. 2009). Thus, re-

duction of meat and dairy products in the diet would

substantially lower the need for chemical fertilizers.

Consumers can also pave the way for increased

nutrient recovery through proper management of

household waste. This includes separation of organic

waste from other items. Placing left-over medicines

and harmful chemicals into separate waste streams,

for example, can significantly reduce contaminants in

wastewater, making it easier to recycle sludge and

water back to agriculture. Similarly, the diversion of

fats, oils, and grease from wastewater flows can in-

crease the efficiency of associated systems. Fats can

be captured at home or public kitchens and either

recycled into composts or collected by the waste

sector for processing into biofuels, soaps, and other

products.

In addition, consumers can be encouraged to

practice reuse and recycling, for example by food

donations or composting. There is an increasing trend

toward redistribution of surplus from catering and

retail sectors to human consumption, largely through

soup kitchens and food banks (Alexander & Smaje,

2008). In many countries there are “Good Samaritan”

laws that protect donors from liability. Feeding do-

mestic animals with food scraps and leftovers is an-

other option. For example, hog farmers have tradi-

tionally relied on food scraps to sustain their live-

stock and in some areas may provide storage contain-

ers and low-cost pick-up service. Of course, consum-

ers need to be aware of what types of scraps are ap-

propriate for animal consumption and sort waste

properly. Composting can be done on-site at the

household level or off-site, often in collaboration

with the waste-management sector.

Consumers can also influence the food loop

through their shopping choices by minimizing pur-

chases with unnecessary food additives and increas-

ing consumption of products that contribute to nutri-

ent recovery in the food loop. Informed decisions,

however, require knowledge. Information dissemina-

tion and proper training in how and why to buy food

that is easily recovered will play an important role in

mainstreaming these practices.

Waste Management Waste management is defined here as the col-

lecting, transporting, processing, recycling. or dis-

posing of waste materials (Demirbas, 2011), includ-

ing solid and liquid wastes from households and in-

dustry. The standard has until now been focused on

infrastructure for managing linear waste flows, gen-

erally from waste production to landfills or incinera-

tors. However, significant volumes of nutrients end

up in solid and liquid wastes. The waste-management

sector can therefore play a crucial role for improved

nutrient recovery and reuse through three important

activities: 1) implementing nutrient-focused waste-

management systems, especially in urban areas; 2)

acting as a watchdog to minimize contaminants in the

food loop; and 3) producing nutrient-rich waste prod-

ucts that are acceptable for both farmers and consum-

ers.

To efficiently recycle nutrients, the waste-

management sector should minimize the dilution of

nutrients and reduce the amount of hazardous chemi-

cals in waste flows. With respect to nutrient-rich

waste in urban areas, human excreta is the single

largest source (Cordell et al. 2009) followed by food

waste (Gustavsson et al. 2011).These nutrients are

more easily accessed if they are collected in separate

flows not polluted by chemical substances. In the

wastewater sector, minimizing excess water (e.g., in-

leakage from pipes or stormwater) can significantly

reduce treatment costs and simplify the extraction of

nutrients. Systems that separate human excreta from

other household wastewater (i.e., greywater) are even

better from a nutrient-recovery perspective, as the

nutrients are then concentrated in smaller volumes

and a majority of contaminants are removed with the

greywater.

Food wastes should also be considered sepa-

rately. Today, they are usually mixed with other

wastes and either incinerated or landfilled. However,

systems do exist when they are separated, as in Swe-

den, where approximately 60% of municipalities

collect food waste to produce the nutrient-rich ferti-

lizer digestate as well as biogas by anaerobic diges-

tion. Experience shows that implementing a well-

functioning food-waste collection system for house-

holds can take several years, as it requires planning,

adequate personnel resources, information, and

follow-up (Avfall Sverige, 2013).



Waste and wastewater utilities are strategically

positioned to become watchdogs over harmful waste

that can hamper nutrient recovery. The European

Union (EU) estimates that some 140,000 substances

are currently registered in products (Environment

Directorate General, 2007) and very few of them

have been properly tested for impact on humans and

the environment (although several hundred chemicals

are on a watch list). Capture and removal of all such

substances from waste flows would be extremely

costly, if not technically infeasible. However, waste

managers can post warning signals for products that

pose a risk to reuse and recycling. They can work

closely together with manufacturers, environmental

organizations, and chemical agencies in such matters.

Manufacturers could be approached from two sides:

legal restrictions on use of certain substances and

consumer boycotts of household products with un-

wanted content.

Waste-management agencies can also produce

nutrient-rich waste products and thus be key players

in creating a viable market. A number of techniques

are available to recover nutrients from waste streams;

ranging from low-tech solutions, such as direct use of

urine, to high-tech extraction of nutrients from mu-

nicipal wastewater (e.g., struvite production). Trans-

parent management and certification processes, pref-

erably in close dialogue with farmers and consumers,

can ensure acceptable and high-quality products.

Sweden, for example, has implemented certification

of solid waste-derived fertilizers and sewage sludge

to reduce discharges of heavy metals and organic

pollutants in the raw wastewater, improving the

quality of waste-derived fertilizers for agriculture.

The waste-management sector should also establish

measurable standards and organizational norms that

maximize potential for recovery of nutrients from

food-derived waste and their return to agriculture.

Policy Strategies

This section provides suggestions for how the

criteria presented in Table 1 can be translated into

policy (Table 2). Many of the actions suggested here

are guidelines, standards, and certification systems,

some of which are sector-specific, but several that

require input and action from multiple sectors (high-

lighted in bold in Table 2). For example, a register of

safe agricultural fertilizers and chemicals (including

those produced from food waste) will require infor-

mation from other sectors regarding the contents of

these products. The information to create many of

these guidelines already exists, but needs to be syn-

thesized into more readily accessible platforms.

In the agriculture sector, farmers are primarily

concerned about the quality of products applied to

their fields (and potential negative consequences) and

the potential to sell their produce. They need infor-

mation regarding the contents of recovered food

waste and guidelines on how to best apply these

products. To eliminate harmful chemicals in the food

loop, a register of safe fertilizers and chemicals for

agricultural use should be developed through collabo-

ration of agricultural and food/drug specialists. Fi-

nally, quality certification of products from “reuse”

agriculture can build consumer acceptance and in-

crease the number of farmers adhering to such prac-

tices. Such a certification process would, of course,

require collaboration with stakeholders across the

entire food loop.

As the food industry comprises a diverse and

complex network of actors involved in transporting,

processing, packaging, and wholesaling, a unifying

vision is needed that outlines a holistic perspective

regarding nutrient management, particularly high-

lighting potential areas for stakeholder collaboration.

Such a vision needs to include policy documents and

guidelines for minimizing food waste, limiting addi-

tives, and recovering food products within the indus-

Table 2 Supporting guidelines and policy actions that should be developed for improving nutrient management within key sectors based on the waste strategy that they support. Points highlighted in bold will require collaboration across sectors.

Agriculture Food Industry Consumers Waste management

+ Register of safe agricultural fertilizers & chemicals (including those from food waste)

+ Guidelines for reuse/recycling food waste within agriculture

+ Certification of “reuse” agriculture products

+ Vision for food-loop management, including collaboration points and standards for reuse/ recycling

+ Register of food additives, including nutrient content, toxicity, persistence, and health effects

+ Certification & product labeling to promote reuse/recycling

+ “Sustainable lifestyle” guidelines, including advice on purchasing, preparation, & storage

+ Incentives for household-level reuse/recycling of food products

+ Guidelines for home reuse, separation of food waste & safe disposal of harmful chemicals

+ Technical standards & organizational norms for designing systems for nutrient reuse/recycling

+ Monitoring standards & norms for tracking nutrients and harmful chemicals in waste



try. A register of food additives containing infor-

mation on nutrient content, toxicity, persistence, and

health effects would add transparency to negotiations

between industry partners and provide consistent

information to consumers. An industry “reuse stand-

ard” would also strengthen intra-industry cooperation

and build consumer acceptance of products with re-

covered nutrients.

Product labeling by the food industry would also

assist consumers to make informed choices, as would

“lifestyle guidelines,” which include purchasing rec-

ommendations, as well as advice on purchasing,

preparation, food storage, and home reuse. Further

guidelines for home reuse, separation of food waste,

and proper disposal of chemicals are also needed.

These guidelines could be distributed by a number of

different agencies, for example, grocery stores, mu-

nicipalities, and housing companies. Of course, in-

formation dissemination by itself will not signifi-

cantly change consumer behavior. Incentives are

needed to encourage consumer reuse/recycling, in-

cluding financial incentives/rebates and construction

of supportive infrastructure that makes it easy to

practice reuse.

As noted earlier, the waste-management sector

has a critical watchdog role to play. This role can be

strengthened by establishing monitoring standards

(locally or nationally) for harmful chemicals in waste

flows. In addition, the sector can work to establish

technical standards and organizational norms for nu-

trient reuse/recycling. Standards for sewage sludge

recycling, for example, are a step in this direction.

Enabling Change Achieving the criteria outlined in this article will

require large changes in how stakeholders behave and

interact. The change required must go beyond policy

documents to result in action and ultimately changes

in infrastructure and institutions. Numerous cross-

cutting issues can act as barriers or drivers for

change. Many of these issues deal with anchoring the

functional criteria within society, legitimizing ac-

tions, and monitoring side effects. We identify the

following issues, further discussed below, as critical

for enabling transitions within the food loop and al-

lowing for implementation of the functional criteria

(Storbjörk & Söderberg, 2003; Bergek et al. 2008;

Fam & Mitchell, 2013):

Institutional capacity for system management

Effective collaboration between sectors

Supportive legislation

Transparent system for monitoring and quality

control

Reliable data and evidence-based cost-benefit

calculations

Knowledge and incentives for action

One of the most critical issues is the institutional

capacity to manage nutrient flows throughout the

entire loop of food production, processing, consump-

tion, waste collection and treatment, and back to the

fields. If the entire system is to function properly, a

clear division of roles and responsibilities among

stakeholders is necessary to assure cooperation and

minimize conflict. Although food loops are ideally

closed at a local level, institutional support for this

work can be established at multiple levels, including

internationally. In fact, national and international

actors likely have the best capacity to initiate policy

strategies and lead collaborative action.

Providing an arena for communication and col-

laboration among stakeholders at an early stage of

policy implementation increases the potential for a

well-functioning recovery system, both from an or-

ganizational and environmental point of view

(Jönsson et al. 2010). A number of the policy actions

outlined in Table 2 can act as starting points for es-

tablishing the necessary collaboration across sectors.

For example, the development of certification sys-

tems or “lifestyle guidelines” can bring multiple

stakeholders together to work on a concrete task. Co-

operation in the development of such specific docu-

ments, perhaps facilitated by national or international

actors, may pave the way for further collaboration.

A related issue is the need for supportive legisla-

tion that encourages nutrient recovery. Today, one of

the major stumbling blocks for nutrient reuse and

recycling is legislation that directly or indirectly dis-

courages such practices. Waste flows containing nu-

trients are often regulated under different and some-

times conflicting statutes—water, health, environ-

ment and so forth—which makes interpretation of

laws difficult for local authorities. Negative percep-

tions of human excreta also affect regulations. For

example, human urine and feces are currently not

permitted by EU regulation for organic farming,

which means that farmers using them cannot be certi-

fied as organic (Johansson & Kvarnström, 2005).

This exclusion is considered a cultural construction

rather than a scientific distinction. Current legislation

needs to be reviewed to ensure that it does not inhibit

nutrient reuse/recycling.

In addition, a transparent system for monitoring

and quality-control should be developed for mapping

nutrient flows and certifying products. Expanding the

concept of the phosphorus footprint is one possibility



(Lott et al. 2009; Metson et al. 2012).5 Such a system

would allow for monitoring of quantifiable goals and

assure quality of recycled products. Various sectors

would have a role, with a need for coordination

among monitoring systems. It has been suggested

that the waste-management sector be responsible for

developing a monitoring system, but specific stake-

holders involved will likely be context specific.

A monitoring system needs to be based on relia-

ble data and evidence-based cost-benefit calculations.

Calculating accurate costs and benefits requires a

system perspective so that nutrient recovery does not

lead to excessive energy use or result in substantial

increases in the release of greenhouse gases when

fulfilling the functional criteria. Thus, it requires a

broad data set, some of which is currently missing or

under-researched. However, research is ongoing in

this field, largely based on substance flow analysis

(Cordell et al. 2012), and new data should soon fill in

missing pieces.

Many of the functional criteria are dependent on

stakeholder knowledge of waste products and their

willingness to reduce the use of nutrients and/or in-

crease the use of recovered products. For this to hap-

pen, an active information and dissemination pro-

gram is needed that targets all stakeholders. Of

course, the message has to be adapted for each stake-

holder group, for example through better fertilizers

for farmers and environmental stewardship for con-

sumers. In addition, local conditions, such as popula-

tion density and environmental awareness are im-

portant factors to consider when designing infor-

mation campaigns.

Finally, economic incentives for all stakeholders

are needed. This requires establishing markets for

reused/recycled products and calculations of local

nutrient costs. An example of a recent initiative to

create a market for recycled nutrients as a commodity

is the Dutch Phosphate Value Chain Agreement (Nu-

trient Platform NL), founded in 2011 by the Dutch

State Secretary for Infrastructure and the Environ-

ment and the national farmers’ organization (LTO

Nederland). It includes more than 35 Dutch compa-

nies, research institutes, governments, and nongov-

ernmental organizations (NGOs) working to create a

market for recycled phosphate.6 Policy development

will play a critical role in defining economic incen-

tives, especially since the costs for redesigning sys-

tems do not always fall on the same sectors as those

receiving the benefits of reuse. Polluter-pays princi-

5 The phosphorus footprint is a calculation of the average amount

of mined phosphorus required to produce the food consumed per

capita per annum. 6 See http://www.nutrient platform.org.

ples or “quality” certification can be effective tools

for balancing costs and benefits among sectors.

Conclusion

This article provides vision, criteria, and sup-

porting strategies for improving nutrient management

in the food chain. It presents a framework for closed-

loop nutrient management based on a multi-

stakeholder approach to the waste hierarchy. It out-

lines the roles of four key sectors (agriculture, food

industry, consumers, and waste management) in re-

ducing, reusing, and recycling nutrients within the

food loop. The functional criteria outlined in this

framework (Table 1) aim at minimizing food waste

and harmful chemicals in food and waste products.

They also aim to maximize the recovery of nutrients

in food waste through reuse and recycling of waste

flows. The criteria presented here should be seen as

starting points for the development of measureable

indicators which can help policy- and decision-

makers monitor progress toward improved nutrient

efficiency. Effectively closing the loop on nutrient

flows will require action by all stakeholders. This

article has also highlighted examples of actions that

each sector can take and suggested several policy

documents that should be developed (Table 2).

A number of positive examples exist of policy

aimed at food-waste reduction and recovery. For ex-

ample, the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) and the United States Environmental Pro-

tection Agency (USEPA) are collaborating on poli-

cies to reduce and recover food waste. The United

States food waste and recovery challenges invite ac-

tors throughout the food chain to disseminate infor-

mation about best practices and set specific quantita-

tive food-waste goals (mostly related to waste reduc-

tion). These challenges may be a good platform for

implementing the framework outlined in this article,

which could help these programs shift their focus

from waste reduction to holistic material flow man-

agement and bring onboard the non-consumer sectors

that are currently poorly represented. Another posi-

tive example is Sweden where the EPA has recom-

mended national goals of returning 40% of phospho-

rus and 10% of nitrogen from wastewater to agricul-

ture; managing manure so that nutrient additions bal-

ance depletion; and treating at least 50% of food

waste so that nutrients are recovered

(Naturvårdsverket, 2013). As these recommendations

are still new (and not yet official), there are few

practical guidelines for how to achieve them. Again,

the framework in this article may provide guidance.

Implementing the approach outlined in this arti-

cle will require widespread cooperation and possibly

new organizational structures. However, concerns



about food security and the need for more sustainable

management of nutrients may provide a common

cause for uniting diverse stakeholders. It is our hope

that the criteria and suggested policy actions can

serve as points of departure for local champions to

initiate the necessary dialogue. Stakeholders need to

agree on a common vision. The one presented here

may provide a starting point. Closing the food loop is

possible if all stakeholders apply thinking from the

waste hierarchy, minimizing waste within their own

sector and assuring that waste flows to other sectors

are in optimal condition for reuse. No sector can do it

alone, but together we can achieve sustainable nutri-

ent management.

References

Alexander, C. & Smaje, C. 2008. Surplus retail food redistribution:

an analysis of a third sector model. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 52(11):1290–1298.

ARCADIS. 2010. Analysis of the Evolution of Waste Reduction

and the Scope of Waste Prevention. Final Report ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112. Deurne, Belgium: ARCADIS

Belgium.

Avfall Sverige. 2013. Swedish Waste Management. Stockholm, Sweden Avfall Sverige AB.

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. 2008. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological

innovation systems : a scheme of analysis. Research Policy

37(3):407–429. Chen, X.-P., Cui, Z.-L., Vitousek, P., Cassman, K., Matson, P.,

Bai, J.-S., Meng, Q.-F., Hou, P., Yue, S.-C., Römheld, V., &

Zhang, F.-S. 2011. Integrated soil-crop system management for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America 108(16):6399–6404.

Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., & White, S. 2009. The story of phos-phorus: global food security and food for thought. Global

Environmental Change 19(2):292–305.

Cordell, D., Neset, T.-S., & Prior, T. 2012. The phosphorus mass balance: identifying “hotspots” in the food system as a

roadmap to phosphorus security. Current Opinion in Bio-

technology 23(6):839–845. Delin, S., Stenberg, B., Nyberg, A., & Brohede, L. 2012. Potential

methods for estimating nitrogen fertilizer value of organic

residues. Soil Use and Management 28(3):283–291. Demirbas, A. 2011. Waste management, waste resource facilities

and waste conversion processes. Energy Conversion and

Management 52(2):1280–1287. Dhingra, R., Sullivan, L., Fox, C., Wang, T., D’Agostino, R.,

Gaziano, J., & Vasan, R. 2007. Relations of serum phospho-

rus and calcium levels to the incidence of cardiovascular dis-

ease in the community. Archives of Internal Medicine

167(9):879–885.

Dordas, C. 2009. Role of nutrients in controlling plant diseases in sustainable agriculture: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable

Development 28(1):33–46.

Environment Directorate General. 2007. REACH in Brief. Brus-sels: European Commission.

European Commission. 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the Euro-

pean Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal of the

European Union 58:3–30.

Fam, D. & Mitchell, C. 2013. Sustainable innovation in wastewater management: lessons for nutrient recovery and reuse. Local

Environment 18(7):769–780.

Foley, J., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K., Cassidy, E., Gerber, J.,

Johnston, M., Mueller, N., O’Connell, C., Ray, D., West, P., Balzer, C., Bennett, E., Carpenter, S., Hill, J., Monfreda, C.,

Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman,

D., & Zaks, D. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478(7369):337–342.

Godfray, H., Beddington, J., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D.,

Muir, J., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S., & Toulmin, C. 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion peo-

ple. Science 327(5967):812–818.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste.

Rome: UNFAO.

Jeng, A., Haraldsen, T., Grønlund, A., & Pedersen, P. 2006. Meat and bone meal as nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer to cere-

als and rye grass. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 76(2):

183–191. Johansson, M. & Kvarnström, E. 2005. A Review of Sanitation

Regulatory Frameworks. Stockholm: EcoSanRes Prog-

ramme. Jönsson, H., Tidåker, P., & Stintzing, A. 2010. Role of farmers in

improving the sustainability of sanitation systems. In B. Van

Vliet (Ed.), Social Perspectives of the Sanitation Challenge. pp. 179–188. Dordrecht: Springer.

Lal, R. 2006. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries

through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agri-cultural lands. Land Degradation & Development 17(2):197–

209. Lott, J., Bojarski, M., Kolasa, J., Batten, G., & Campbell, L. 2009.

A review of the phosphorus content of dry cereal and legume

crops of the world. International Journal of Agricultural Re-sources, Governance, and Ecology 8(5/6):351–370.

Luque, R. & Clark, J. 2013. Valorisation of food residues: waste to

wealth using green chemical technologies. Sustainable Che-mical Processes 1(1):10.

Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurt, O. 2011. The causes of food

waste in the supplier–retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 55

(6):648–658.

Metson, G., Bennett, E., & Elser, J. 2012. The role of diet in phos-phorus demand. Environmental Research Letters 7(4):

044043.

Naturvårdsverket. 2013. Hållbar återföring av fosfor Natur-vårdverkets redovisning av ett uppdrag från regeringen

(Sustainable phosphorus recycling Environmental Protection

Agency's reporting of a commission from the government). Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

Öborn, I., Edwards, A., Witter, E., Oenema, O., Ivarsson, K.,

Withers, P., Nilsson, S., & Richert Stinzing, A. 2003. Ele-ment balances as a tool for sustainable nutrient management:

a critical appraisal of their merits and limitations within an

agronomic and environmental context. European Journal of Agronomy 20(1):211–225.

Price, J. & Joseph, J. 2000. Demand management—a basis for

waste policy: A critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste man-

agement. Sustainable Development 8(2):96–105.

Quested, T. & Johnson, H. 2009. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. Banbury: WRAP.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.,

Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C., Hughes, T., van

der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P., Costanza,

R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson,

K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. 2009. A safe operating space for

humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–475. Rudel, R., Gray, J., Engel, C., Rawsthorne, T., Dodson, R.,

Ackerman, J., Rizzo, J., Nudelman, J., & Brody, J. 2011.

Food packaging and bisphenol A and bis(2-ethyhexyl)



phthalate exposure: findings from a dietary intervention. En-

vironmental Health Perspectives 119(7):914–920. Sakai, S., Yoshida, H., Hirai, Y., Asari, M., Takigami, H.,

Takahashi, S., Tomoda, K., Peeler, M., Wejchert, J.,

Unterseh, T., Douvan, A., Hathaway, R., Hylander, L., Fischer, C., Oh, G., Jinhui, L., & Chi, N. 2011. International

comparitive study of 3R and waste management policy de-

velopment. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Manange-ment 13(2):86–102.

Sax, L. 2001. The Institute of Medicine’s “dietary reference in-

take” for phosphorus: a critical perspective. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 20(4):271–278.

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden (SP). 2013. Certifi-

eringsregler för Biogödsel (Rules for Certification of Diges-tate). SPCR 120. Borås, Sweden: Avfall Sverige.

Storbjörk, S. & Söderberg, H. 2003. Plötsligt Händer det: Institu-

tionella Förutsättningar för Uthålliga VA-System (Suddenly It Happens: Institutional Requirements For a Sustainable

Wastewater System). Urban Water Report 2003:1. Göteborg:

Chalmers University of Technology. Tidåker, P., Sjöberg, C., & Jönsson, H. 2007. Local recycling of

plant nutrients from small-scale wastewater systems to farm-

land: a Swedish scenario study. Resources, Conservation,

and Recycling 49(4):388–405. University of the West of England (UWE). 2013. Science for

Environment Policy In-depth Report: Sustainable Phospho-

rus Use. Bristol: UWE. World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Guidelines for the Safe

Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater: Volume 1 (Pol-

icy and Regulatory Aspects). Geneva: WHO. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., &

Gustafsson, A. 2012. Reasons for household food waste with

special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Produc-tion 24:141–148.

Winger, R., Uribarri, J., & Lloyd, L. 2012. Phosphorus-containing

food additives: an insidious danger for people with chronic kidney disease. Trends in Food Science & Technology 24(2):

92–102.

Zhang, F., Yamasaki, S., & Nanzyo, M. 2001. Application of waste ashes to agricultural land: effect of incineration tem-

perature on chemical characteristics. Science of the Total En-

vironment 264(3):205–214.



INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Forum on Sustainability and the Library

Amy Forrester School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37916 USA (email: [email protected])

I have had the great fortune to be involved with

the development and growth of Sustainability: Sci-

ence, Practice, & Policy since its inception. The jour-

nal’s decade-long tenure is a testament to the impera-

tive for scholarly cross-disciplinary discourse on sus-

tainability problems and solutions that is open and

freely accessible. In my final term as Managing Editor

of SSPP, I had the opportunity to concurrently pursue

a new personal endeavor into the field of Information

Sciences. As such, I took the initiative to bridge the

two activities as the coordinator of this Forum on Sus-

tainability and the Library.

Modifying the environmental, social, and eco-

nomic requirements of the contemporary world in a

way that does not harm future generations is the prem-

ise of sustainability. The library and information sci-

ences (LIS) community is recognizing its role in this

mission by being both a change leader and educator.

Libraries have a rich history of innovative practices,

services, and engagement in mitigating change. For

example, they have been for some time now incorpo-

rating disruptive technologies into their mission as ma-

jor information providers and delivering their services

to an increasingly diverse user-centered population.

The accompanying Forum comprises two timely

and important contributions. In the first article, Beth

Filar Williams, Madeleine Charney, and Bonnie Smith

discuss how library professionals are a “natural fit for

advocating and promoting sustainability.” They de-

scribe the response of the LIS community through the

American Library Association’s adoption of a sustain-

ability-focused national group for professionals to fos-

ter dialogue and collaboration. This is a critical step in

assessing and developing the strategic role of library

and information science in sustaining environmental

protection, social equity, and economic development.

Many LIS professionals understand that they have

the unique advantage of addressing sustainability is-

sues both from the physicality of the library and intel-

lectually as information and knowledge managers. Cli-

mate change, a factual mediator of sustainability, can

pose a major threat to both objectives. In the second

article in this Forum, Eira Tansey explains how cli-

mate change effects the continuity of records and re-

positories. She challenges the American archival pro-

fession to preemptively consider the risks and prepare

for the impacts of climate change on repositories, the

livelihoods of archivists working in vulnerable loca-

tions, and the public’s ability to access vital records.

These two topics are illustrative of the scholarship

emerging out of the nexus of LIS and sustainability re-

search. I look forward to continued discussion as LIS

professionals and academics continue to advance this

interdisciplinary pursuit and chart a course for the next

generation of effort and solutions.


2016 Tansey CC-BY Attribution 4.0 License. Fall 2015 | Volume 11 | Issue 2

ARTICLE

Archival adaptation to climate change Eira Tansey University of Cincinnati Libraries, PO Box 210113, Cincinnati, OH 45221 USA (email: [email protected])

Discussion of the likely impacts of climate change on archives is significantly deficient in the archival profession. Ar-chives hold rare and unique materials that are irreplaceable and institutional adaptation to climate change is critical to the survival of these resources. The earliest effects of climate change are likely to be increased weather events that threaten the physical safety of holdings. Hurricanes, floods, and fires pose particular risks to archives due to potential damage to buildings as well as from limitations of local infrastructure to rapidly respond to disasters. Disaster prepar-edness for archives needs to include planning responses to a wide variety of situations that threaten holdings. As societies begin to adapt to climate change, archivists should consider how values of sustainability and resiliency might inform archival practice. KEYWORDS: archives, archivists, preservation, cultural heritage, climate change, sea-level rise, climate adaptation, resilience

Introduction

According to the National Climate Assessment,

the United States will in future years likely experi-

ence an increasing number of climate-change related

trends that will influence residential patterns, agricul-

ture, natural resources, and future investments in in-

frastructure. Many of these changes will be due to

increasingly severe weather and rising sea levels that

will pose significant dangers to most of the popula-

tion in the country (USGCCRP, 2014).

Climate change is one of the greatest contempo-

rary threats to archival repositories and the records in

their custody. Increasingly severe disasters like hurri-

canes, floods, and wildfires pose immediate dangers.

At best, archives affected by such events may be able

to evacuate certain holdings, to move collections to

safer parts of buildings, or to salvage materials using

disaster-response teams. At worst, a disaster may

result in total loss, with collections of records or even

a repository’s entire holdings damaged or lost beyond

recovery. Longer-term trends such as human migra-

tion and rising sea level may necessitate decisions

concerning the geographic relocation of archival rec-

ords.

Despite these mounting threats, the American

archival profession has to date not demonstrated

significant interest in addressing the likely impacts of

climate change on archival repositories, the liveli-

hoods of archivists working in vulnerable locations,

and the public’s ability to access vital records threat-

ened by severe weather. To the extent that risks to

archival holdings have been considered, it has pri-

marily been through the lens of disaster planning and

management, which emphasizes emergency response,

but does not address long-term adaptation for

repositories in geographically vulnerable areas

(Gordon-Clark & Shurville, 2010). However, a

significant body of literature has examined the effects

of climate change on long-term viability of other

areas of cultural heritage, such as monuments and

architecture (Holtz et al. 2014; UCS, 2014; O’Brien

et al. 2015). This work has significant value for

archivists who are only beginning to consider similar

questions.

As archivists adapt to meet the challenges of

climate change, they can draw inspiration from pre-

vious shifts in theory and practice. Revising tradi-

tional archival methods to meet contemporary chal-

lenges is familiar to most practitioners. Archivists

have responded to the processing demands associated

with increasingly large collections of modern paper

and electronic records by embracing new processing

and cataloging practices that recognize limited insti-

tutional resources. These techniques have been de-

veloped in recent decades to help archivists make

more records available to users. This may be con-

strued as a sustainability response, albeit from a labor

and resource-allocation perspective, rather than an

environmental one. Embedding responses to climate

change in long-term planning for stewardship of rec-

ords is a path toward developing a professional cul-

ture of sustainability and resiliency. Current archival

practice emphasizes access for researchers in the

foreseeable future, but overlooks major shocks out-

side the control of archivists.

Archivists will have to meet the challenges of

climate change on two fronts: interim protections and

Tansey: Archival Adaptation to Climate Change


long-term planning. Interim protections, such as insti-

tutional disaster-response plans and choices about

processing materials, are easier to implement since

this work can be done at the local level and is based

on existing guidance. Future planning for these

issues is more fraught, as long-term archival

adaptation to climate change calls for more research

and coordinated efforts between archives and parent

organizations, as well as among archivists across the

profession. Decisions on interim protections and

long-term planning must also be worked through

within the local contexts of individual repositories

(e.g., archives that are part of a larger organization,

such as a university, government agency, or

corporation), within larger emergency response and

adaptation frameworks at state and federal levels, as

well as across the archival profession. Values of

sustainability and resiliency must inform archival

adaptation to climate change.

This article primarily focuses on the challenges

that American archives are likely to encounter when

seeking to adapt to climate change and does not sig-

nificantly address similar threats to archives in an

international context. However, American archivists

must consider that climate change crosses national

boundaries and colleagues in other countries face

similar issues that may require a multinational re-

sponse.

Cultural Heritage and Climate Change

Archives are often grouped with other cultural

heritage organizations such as libraries and museums

(sometimes referred to as LAMs) and are similar to

these institutions in that they preserve cultural herit-

age. Moreover, archives maintain the “materials cre-

ated or received by a person, family, or organization,

public or private, in the conduct of their affairs and

preserved because of the enduring value contained in

the information they contain or as evidence of the

functions and responsibilities of their creator” (SAA,

n.d.a). The LAM community has developed over the

years a significant body of disaster planning, prepara-

tion, and management guidance. The following dis-

cussion is not a comprehensive review of this materi-

al but rather provides a brief appraisal of recent lit-

erature and resources pertinent to archives and cli-

mate change.

There is little professional discussion or guid-

ance that specifically considers the major threats

posed by climate change to the continuity of records

and repositories. A rare exception is the work of Aus-

tralian archivist Matthew Gordon-Clark, who has

researched rising sea-level threats to the national ar-

chives of Pacific island nations (Gordon-Clark &

Shurville, 2010; Gordon-Clark, 2012). This work

examines particular national archives that face the

greatest danger, as well as the political and access

problems associated with the possible transfer of rec-

ords to other national jurisdictions. He concludes that

archivists in developed nations have an ethical duty

to assist with the threats and that more research must

be done to formulate potential long-term solutions.

American archivist Casey Davis (2015) present-

ed a four-item activist agenda for archivists interested

in climate change during a 2015 regional archives

conference. Davis has gone on to found

ProjectARCC (Archivists Responding to Climate

Change), an advocacy group of mostly American

archivists examining the intersections of climate

change and archives. ProjectARCC’s (n.d.) four

committees reflect the four-item agenda called for in

Davis’ original presentation. The four committees are

dedicated to examining the threats of climate change

to archives, to considering the carbon footprint of ar-

chival repositories, to promoting climate-change

related collections, and to working with climate-

activist groups to preserve organizational records. In

addition to ProjectARCC, another professional

organization has recently signaled interest in how

climate change may adversely affect archives. The

Disaster Planning and Recovery Subcommittee of the

Regional Archival Associations Consortium

announced that their 2015‒16 focus will be on

climate change (Labinsky, 2015).

Although they exist primarily as institutional

planning documents, two federal entities with signifi-

cant archival holdings, the National Archives and

Records Administration (NARA) and the Smithson-

ian Institution, have developed climate change-adap-

tation plans required by recent executive orders

(NARA, 2013; 2014; Smithsonian Climate Change

Adaptation Working Group, 2013; Smithsonian

Institution, 2015). Between 2009 and 2015, the

Obama administration (2009; 2013; 2015) issued

three executive orders concerning federal agency

adaptation to climate change, requiring development

of plans that incorporate sustainability and resiliency.

In its 2014 plan, NARA acknowledged the risks

posed by climate change to its facilities, but stated it

did not yet have enough local data to implement spe-

cific regional facility-adaptation plans (NARA,

2014). In contrast, due to a 2005 comprehensive risk

assessment of multiple threats to its operations, the

Smithsonian has more data concerning climate-

related threats and vulnerabilities to its facilities, but

to date has not released extensive local facility-adap-

tation plans (Smithsonian Climate Change Adapta-

tion Working Group, 2013; Smithsonian Institution,

2015).

While not explicitly addressing climate change,

preservation and conservation professionals have



developed many tools to promote disaster mitigation

and effective emergency management for archives.

These tools have significant value for archivists

working in areas increasingly vulnerable to severe

weather events precipitated by a changing climate.

The Coordinated Statewide Emergency Preparedness

(COSTEP) framework may be the most comprehen-

sive. Developed by the Northeast Document Conser-

vation Center in cooperation with several other li-

brary and archives organizations, COSTEP is a guid-

ance document that institutions can adopt and use to

encourage coordination of archival disaster responses

with existing state and local emergency-management

infrastructure (NEDCC, 2009). For example,

Massachusetts began implementation of COSTEP in

2007 and over the course of several years has

successfully integrated dozens of cultural heritage

organizations within the larger infrastructure of Mas-

sachusetts state emergency-response measures

(Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners,

n.d.).

In addition to the archives profession, resources

from allied fields may be valuable to archivists.

Preservationists have long been the primary

advocates for disaster preparation and management

within the broader cultural heritage sector. The

American Institute for Conservation of Historic &

Artistic Works (AIC) maintains a special team known

as the National Heritage Responders for conservators

responding to disasters. The team formed in response

to the aftereffects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,

which dramatically affected the holdings of many

libraries, archives, museums, and historic buildings

(AIC, 2015).

Heritage Preservation, an organization in the

process of dissolving and transferring many of its

programs to AIC, previously hosted the Heritage

Emergency National Task Force. Between 2005 and

2011, the group gathered information on massive

weather disasters affecting cultural heritage in-

stitutions, primarily in the United States. Previously,

several regional emergency-response networks exist-

ed as a result of workshops offered through Heritage

Preservation’s Alliance for Response program in the

early 2000s; however, many now appear to be de-

funct (Alliance for Response, n.d.; Heritage

Preservation, 2015).

Heritage Preservation also conducted the Herit-

age Health Index survey in 2004, the first compre-

hensive survey to examine the preservation condi-

tions of collections held by American libraries, ar-

chives, museums, and other cultural heritage institu-

tions. Over 3,000 institutions responded, with over a

quarter of them reporting a lack of environmental

controls for humidity and temperature and more than

half indicating water/moisture damage to holdings

(Heritage Preservation & IMLS, 2004). Since then,

efforts to coordinate centralization of cultural

heritage disaster response have been proposed

without apparent implementation (Silverman, 2006).

There has been much discussion but little action. It is

unclear why this is the case; however, any

centralization of cultural heritage disaster response is

challenging due to the proliferation of professional

organizations that do not always work together and

the nature of librarians, archivists, and museum

curators who have different disciplinary training and

professional networks. In the last four years, an

increasing number of cultural heritage and

preservation events have focused on climate change

and this may finally provide the impetus to centralize

cultural heritage disaster response (NARA, 2011;

Metropolitan New York Library Council, 2014;

Newport Restoration Foundation, n.d.).

Other cultural heritage sectors that focus on the

built and natural environment have made far more

progress on climate-change adaptation, particularly

its effects on buildings and monuments, archaeologi-

cal sites, and historical landscapes (Holtz et al. 2014;

O’Brien et al. 2015). This is understandable, as the

holdings of libraries, archives, and museums are less

geographically bound and can be migrated to safer

locations. While individual monuments can some-

times be relocated to a safer location, most buildings,

sites, and landscapes are indelibly tied to their physi-

cal location (Cazenave, 2014; Neuhauser, 2015).

Historic preservation professionals are reckoning

with the fact that difficult decisions may be needed

that involve extensive heritage-protection plans or

letting a site be destroyed (Craig, 2015; Veerkamp,

2015). In cases where a heritage site is left unman-

aged against the forces of climate change, the archiv-

al record of that place through extensive documenta-

tion may be all that survives (Melnick, 2015).

Even if the planet manages to stay below the

widely-recommended 2ºC target in global tempera-

ture warming, sea-level rise is expected to affect over

100 World Heritage sites designated by the United

Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organiza-

tion (UNESCO); a temperature increase of more than

4ºC would affect over 140 sites (Marzeion &

Levermann, 2014). In a 2005 survey conducted by

UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre, 72% of respond-

ents reported that “climate change had an impact on

their natural and cultural heritage” and that 125

World Heritage sites were specifically affected

(Jigyasu et al. 2013). Many of these sites contain

irreplaceable archival records.

Cultural heritage professionals challenged by

climate change may find guidance from organizations

dedicated to emergency response in regions affected

by armed conflict. For example, Blue Shield Interna-



tional works to protect cultural property as defined in

the 1954 Hague Convention and coordinates with

emergency-response organizations and other cultural

heritage organizations to safeguard cultural heritage

sites and objects. Blue Shield (2014) is monitoring

the current civil war in Syria to identify particular at-

risk heritage sites. Climate change’s effects can have

grave implications for security risks, as the 2006

Syrian drought is widely recognized to have contrib-

uted to the region’s destabilization (Gleick, 2014;

Kelley et al. 2015). In many areas of the world, cul-

tural heritage may be threatened not only by disas-

trous weather, but by armed conflict that scarce re-

sources or weather damage could trigger.

Embedding Sustainability and Resiliency in

Archival Practice

It is important to consider the challenge of ar-

chival adaptation to climate change through the lens

of sustainability and resiliency. Sustainability is

commonly defined as “Development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs”

(WCED, 1987). Resiliency considers the ability of

systems, organizations, and individuals to survive

and recover from major disruptive events (Zolli,

2012). Mounting comprehensive archival adaptation

to climate change requires efforts that incorporate

both sustainability and resiliency.

Sustainability is not just about building design or

waste streams—it is also about the acquisition, ap-

praisal, processing, and outreach choices archivists

make on a daily basis as part of professional practice.

Sustainability and resiliency in an archival context

form a complementary relationship. Sustainable

choices enable archives to be resilient in the face of

climate-change threats. Sustainable archival practice

means making present-day archival choices that ena-

ble future archivists to carry out their jobs and en-

sures survival of cultural heritage.

Of the thin amount of literature that addresses

(either directly or indirectly) climate-change impacts

on archives, much of it focuses only on the sustaina-

bility question (Abbey, 2012; Wolfe, 2012). In con-

trast, disaster-preparedness literature clearly

promotes resilience, but it tends to treat disasters as

“acts of God” as opposed to advocating creation of a

long-term resiliency framework for a changing

climate.

Like cultural heritage organizations around the

world, most archives in the United States are under-

funded and understaffed. As archives adapt to climate

change, they must consider how choices around re-

sources and high-priority activities support sustaina-

bility and resiliency of the parent institution. Archi-

vists that concentrate their adaptation efforts on, for

instance, acquiring sustainability certification for new

or renovated facilities will find that these projects do

not prepare them to recover from the shocks of a

massive disaster. Archivists must find a way to inte-

grate sustainability and resilience planning both to

reduce institutional contributions to climate change

and to protect their repositories from climate-change

threats.

The next two sections consider the types of sus-

tainable and resilient choices archivists can make in a

changing climate.

Revisiting Traditional Archival Practice

Issues of sustainability in the literature pertaining

to archives and libraries often reference the notion of

“scalability,” the ability to perform at maximum ca-

pacity over the long term, with respect to economic

or social sustainability, rather than environmental

sustainability (Rieger, 2011; Vinopal & McCormick,

2013). It is common for archives to engage in a new

activity (e.g., rapid digitization of analog content for

online access) but then to find that the activity does

not scale, due to understaffing and underinvestment

by the parent organization, and therefore is not “sus-

tainable.” Within the archives profession, much of

the work on sustainability has examined processing,

digitization, and digital preservation practices intend-

ed to lead to economic sustainability, given the pre-

carious budget and staffing of most archives.

Much of the sustainability activity in the LAM

sector focuses on building, energy, and material-pur-

chase contributions to carbon emissions (Henk,

2014). However, few archivists have examined how

archival practice itself can be adapted in response to

climate change. An exception is Mark Wolfe’s

(2012) argument that reliance on building controls

does not address the environmental impact of ar-

chives as well as rethinking archival practice through

a framework of sustainability does.

In the face of rising risks from climate change,

archives in the United States face threats comparable

to other American communities: increasingly severe

disasters that jeopardize the built environment, such

as floods and hurricanes, as well as rising sea levels

that endanger many of the country’s coastal popula-

tion centers. Most archives are part of a larger parent

institution, such as a university, corporation, local or

state government, or museum. Therefore, any plans

for adaptation or preparation must occur within the

context of larger organizational structures. Many of

these entities do not have adaptation plans in place,

severely compromising their resilience capacity.

Fewer American cities are engaging in adaptation

planning activities (58%) compared with all interna-



tional cities (75%). The United States also has the

highest proportion of cities of all countries focusing

exclusively on emissions-mitigation efforts without

including resiliency or adaptation initiatives (Aylett,

2014). Less than half of all American states have

climate change-adaptation plans and there is little

information on the overall adaptation efforts of the

private sector (Bierbaum et al. 2012).

Consistent with disaster-preparedness recom-

mendations, archivists should ensure that they have a

disaster plan in place that includes “policies, proce-

dures, and information that direct the appropriate

actions to recover from and mitigate the impact of an

unexpected interruption of operations, whether natu-

ral or man-made” (SAA, n.d.b). However, it is criti-

cal that they shift their treatment of disaster prepara-

tion from a stand-alone activity to a set of procedures

that is woven into the rest of archival practice to in-

crease professional resilience. Treating disaster prep-

aration as separate from the rest of the archival enter-

prise often means it is relegated to the bottom of a to-

do list, or the sole responsibility of one person, in-

stead of the shared obligation of an archives staff.

Disaster plans are susceptible to a lack of testing,

such as practice drills, to assess effectiveness before a

true disaster hits (Muir & Shenton, 2002). Centering

a mindset of preparedness in all facets of archival

practice can ensure a new form of social, economic,

and environmental sustainability within archival

work.

To envision how archivists could shift to sus-

tainable and resilient practices that incorporate disas-

ter awareness, it is worth revisiting several core ar-

chival practices:

Appraisal and Acquisition: The process refers to how

archivists evaluate the informational and research

value of a body of records and the ways in which an

archival repository takes physical and/or intellectual

custody of the records through their transfer from a

donor or originating office (i.e., accession). In the

post-custodial model, archivists may work with indi-

viduals or organizations that will continue to manage

their own records (i.e., no process of acquisition).

This article primarily considers the traditional custo-

dial work of archives.

Arrangement and Description: This refers to the pro-

cess by which archivists physically arrange and gen-

erate descriptive information documenting the con-

tent of records and preserve the intellectual relation-

ships among records in a given collection.

Preservation: A multifaceted approach to ensuring

the continued integrity of archival records. Preserva-

tion encompasses practices such as monitoring envi-

ronmental conditions of storage areas (e.g., tempera-

ture and humidity levels), as well as conservation

calling for physical interventions with respect to rec-

ords at risk of damage or loss (e.g., removing mold

from water-damaged documents).

Reference and Access: This core practice refers to the

processes by which archivists connect users to ar-

chival resources. Unlike libraries with browsing

stacks, archives store records in closed areas for secu-

rity purposes (archives are by definition irreplacea-

ble). By making catalog records available online and

answering questions, archivists help users identify the

records they need to use. Digitization of analog rec-

ords and the rise of electronic records bring signifi-

cant access challenges. Digitization is a time and

resource-heavy activity, so not all materials can be

easily digitized. Electronic records often exist in

formats that are no longer readable by current

computing systems. Depending on the records,

archivists may make these freely available online or

may restrict access to them based upon certain donor

or intellectual property conditions.

Outreach and Advocacy: Archivists are often called

upon to advocate for their archives within their parent

organization, but also for the larger archival profes-

sion. Archivists also value identifying and cultivating

new audiences through outreach efforts, realizing that

a strong base of users is one of the best ways to en-

courage continued investment and support by parent

organizations.

In typical archival practice, disaster preparation

is most strongly associated with preservation.

However, positioning disaster preparation along one

single aspect of professional functions leaves it vul-

nerable to marginalization. Disaster preparation may

be reconceived in a new framework, by considering

how seemingly unrelated archival functions support

preparedness.

Sustainable Choices that Support Resiliency

Responsible archivists will not support transfer

of records to archival custody unless they reasonably

expect that the materials can be adequately cared for,

processed, and made accessible to users (barring do-

nor or institutional restrictions on access). Most ar-

chives have some form of collection policy regarding

the records that they will accession into their custody.

However, the reality is that many archives sometimes

take collections at odds with their own collection

policy, even if they lack sufficient storage space or

staff to process the records. This may be due to

parent-institution politics, or because many archivists



cannot say “no” to new accessions (whether because

of legally mandated records transfers or the goodness

of their hearts). Over the last several decades, as the

cost to produce analog and electronic information has

declined, there has been an explosion of records,

leading to unsustainable archival acquisition practices

in which archivists acquire more records than they

can reasonably process and make available for public

use (Wolfe, 2012). A combination of reluctance to

apply stringent appraisal practices, overreliance on

traditional processing methods, and understaffing has

resulted in most archival repositories attempting to

manage extensive backlogs of unprocessed materials.

These collections often lack physical and intellectual

control, meaning they may be housed in unsuitable

containers (e.g., acidic boxes, rusting filing cabinets),

and have little to no documentation (e.g., a finding

aid or inventory) identifying the contents. Unpro-

cessed collections are a particular liability when dis-

asters strike since they are more likely to contain

unidentified fragile materials and lack documentation

establishing intellectual control.

A critical part of disaster response is having a

clear idea of what was damaged in order to triage

materials and prioritize recovery efforts. When un-

processed collections become impaired, an already

difficult process of recovery becomes harder to man-

age. As archivists appraise collections, they should

take care to realistically consider how long the mate-

rials might be part of a backlog. Unprocessed collec-

tions often occupy an “out of sight, out of mind”

space. Lack of documentation about the volume and

locations of backlog collections is common in archiv-

al repositories. This has grave ramifications if a dis-

aster hits these materials before they have been fully

processed and documented. Insurance companies and

disaster agencies (e.g., Federal Emergency Man-

agement Agency, state and local departments of

emergency management) may require documentation,

such as inventories, finding aids, and catalog and

accession records to process claims for recovery

work.

The mainstreaming of More Product, Less Pro-

cess (MPLP) processing (an approach to minimal

processing popularized in the early 2000s) arose spe-

cifically as a response to growing backlogs (Greene

& Meissner, 2005). The MPLP procedures have been

celebrated for their emphasis on increasing access.

Some argue that MPLP has helped readjust the un-

reasonable labor expectations of overstretched archi-

vists, while others believe that the emphasis on expe-

diency undercuts their intellectual work (Meissner &

Greene, 2010). Other archivists note that adopting

MPLP implies a higher degree of reliance on exten-

sive climate-control systems to passively perform

preservation functions that were previously actively

done under traditional and more extensive processing

methods. For example, archivists may forego

stabilizing fragile forms of paper during processing,

under the assumption that a resource-intensive

building climate-control system will regulate tem-

perature and humidity enough to make up for the lack

of item-level handling while processing. This could

have countervailing effects on repositories seeking to

reduce their carbon emissions (Wolfe, 2012; Jones,

2014). From a disaster perspective, any level of

processing that establishes a degree of physical and

intellectual control over an unprocessed collection as

soon as possible is worthwhile.

As of 2004, 70% of American archives did not

have an emergency plan with trained staff prepared to

execute it (Heritage Preservation & IMLS, 2004).

State archives have made a particular effort to in-

crease disaster preparation since Hurricane Katrina;

between 2006 and 2014, the number with an emer-

gency plan in place increased from 14 to 43 (CoSA,

2015). Even fewer repositories have identified the

records that are most vital or should have highest

priority in the event of a disaster. A 2007 survey of

state archives and records programs showed that not

all programs had identified vital records in their

emergency plans (CoSA, 2007). Archivists frequently

note that archives are, by definition, difficult to in-

sure since they are irreplaceable. However, if archi-

vists have warning about a looming disaster, they

may have a short time in which to evacuate or move

records. Archives with an institutional collecting

mandate (e.g., government archives, corporate ar-

chives, university archives) may place the highest

value on records such as articles of incorporation,

deeds, and building plans. Like a family’s birth

records and marriage certificates, these vital records

of a parent organization are critical to ensuring

operational continuity in the event of a disaster. Loss

of these records can severely stymie recovery efforts.

Records with historical value but not critical to

continuity of operations may have less priority in an

emergency.

Archives that do not contain parent-organization

vital records still need to identify high-priority collec-

tions as well as internal documentation supporting

collections. Characteristics of high-priority records

include 1) the archival repository’s own internal ac-

cession, donor, catalog, and inventory records; 2)

collections with extremely high research value; and

3) collections with a large quantity of fragile

materials that, if damaged, may be totally lost (e.g.,

film and audiovisual collections). At first glance,

these criteria may seem to encompass virtually all of

an archive’s holdings—after all, if a collection has

made it into an archive, it should have high research

value. However, even among extremely valuable



collections, there may be portions not worth

prioritizing, such as newspaper clippings and printed

ephemera. Decisions about what to save first should

be made well in advance.

Following a disaster, the public may need infor-

mation about access to affected records. Archivists

should find ways to share information about how

collections were affected, when restoration efforts

will make collections usable again, the scope of loss,

and how patrons can help with recovery efforts. De-

pending on the scale and expected time and expense

of recovery from the disaster, this information may

be shared via an archives’ blog and website and on

social media. If damage is localized to a small num-

ber of collections, but the recovery period is expected

to be long, the catalog and inventory records for

those collections should be updated to reflect access

restrictions.

Disaster planning also aligns closely with archi-

vists’ orientation toward advocacy and outreach. By

demonstrating how the preservation of records is

critical during a disaster, archivists not only highlight

the importance of archives but reach new audiences

such as disaster-management professionals (Car-

micheal & Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), 2015).

Disasters

Dozens of American archives in the last several

years have suffered from disasters resulting from

flooding and hurricanes. In 2004, the University of

Hawai’i at Manoa experienced a flash flood that

dramatically affected the Hamilton Library, with

damage to over 200,000 rare maps and photographs,

several thousand of which were valuable materials

related to the history of Hawai’i and the Pacific re-

gion. A class of library-school students meeting at the

time even had to quickly escape the flood (Stone,

2004; Davis, 2006). The entire campus sustained

US$80 million in damage and the library “ac-

count[ed] for almost half of the damage costs”

(University of Hawai’i, 2014). The recovery compa-

ny used by the university, Belfor, was also called

upon by Tulane University in the aftermath of Hurri-

cane Katrina (Diamond, 2006).

During Hurricane Katrina, archivists around the

Gulf Coast raced to save their collections from the

ravages of mold and complete disintegration wrought

by floodwaters and wind. Within New Orleans, the

levee failure created a “toxic stew” in which library

and archive holdings sat for several days due to a

mandatory evacuation and the immediate focus on

ensuring human health and safety. Tulane Universi-

ty’s libraries suffered arguably the greatest damage

ever in an American academic library (Corrigan,

2008). As a member of the Association of Research

Libraries (ARL), an elite group of North American

research libraries, Tulane’s libraries had more re-

sources than others to deal with the aftermath of the

hurricane and floods; nevertheless, they experienced

massive losses of materials and subsequent recovery

efforts spanned several years. The main research li-

brary’s audiovisual and microform collections were

almost entirely lost while the printed music scores

sustained extensive damage, although most were

eventually salvaged. Flood waters inundated the Spe-

cial Collections building, damaging an entire floor of

archival collections, including historical ephemera

and political papers (Corrigan, 2008). Much of the

Special Collections material was in due course recov-

ered; however, some vulnerable items such as film

reels were completely lost during the recovery pro-

cess. Tulane’s libraries ultimately sustained ap-

proximately US$30 million in losses and the

administration cut a dozen staff positions as part of

the overall university reorganization (Diamond,

2006).

Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath affected vir-

tually every academic library and archive in the New

Orleans metropolitan area, as well as most school and

public libraries. Over 100 public libraries were ad-

versely affected in Louisiana and more than 30 in

Mississippi (Nevins & Nyberg, 2006). Even when the

flood waters did not inundate a particular location,

the insufficient operational infrastructure failed to

prevent heavy mold outbreaks (Skinner, 2006). Else-

where in the Gulf Coast region, Hurricane Katrina

and its repercussions affected dozens of academic

libraries, archives, and museums (Nevins & Nyberg,

2006; Wall, 2006). Even when collections survived

relatively unscathed, large numbers of library staff

suffered great losses to their homes, health, and

sometimes family and friends’ lives. In addition, vital

records maintained outside the purview of archival

repositories were often damaged. Residents who

evacuated without their own vital documents, such as

a birth certificate, marriage license, or other records,

faced large obstacles in replacing these materials

(Swartz, 2005).

A common reflection through much of the post-

Katrina recovery literature is how even the most

thorough plans may be no match for a large-scale

disaster ( Diamond, 2006; Skinner, 2006; Wall, 2006;

Corrigan, 2008). Employees with institutional email

addresses became unreachable as institutional servers

went down; those with Gmail, Hotmail, or Yahoo

addresses were easier to reach. However, emergency

contact lists at the time did not always include non-

institutional addresses. Administrators at Tulane

University established an online listserv through

Yahoo to communicate with employees (Diamond,



2006). Government officials closed access to the

region for weeks following the levee failures and

only emergency responders and other designated

personnel were able to enter, which meant few

professional librarians and archivists could assess the

situation on-site. Disaster-recovery specialists often

value different knowledge than do archivists and

these differences may have effects for response

efforts, for instance in taking necessary immediate

steps to halt the growth of mold in water-damaged

collections (Passley, 2013).

In addition to Katrina, other recent hurricanes

have had disastrous consequences for American ar-

chives. The archives of the Slate Valley Museum

(located on the New York-Vermont border) suffered

damage from two feet of water that flooded

document-storage boxes during Hurricane Irene in

2011 (NYCH, 2015). When Hurricane Sandy hit New

York City and its surrounding area in 2012, several

smaller archives suffered damage to their collections,

including the non-profits Eyebeam Art and

Technology Center, Printed Matter Inc., and the

National Guard Militia Museum of New Jersey

(Webre, 2013; NJDMVA, 2015; Printed Matter, Inc.,

n.d.).

Comprehensive numbers on how many Ameri-

can archives have been affected by disasters in recent

years do not exist because no periodic census is taken

to assess this kind of annual damage. Given the irre-

placeable nature of these records, collecting these

data would be difficult and an alternative measure

would be needed to assess damage, such as volume

of records lost or dollar value of insurance payments.

Inadequate information limits wider understanding of

how climate change may continue to affect American

archival repositories. Archivists lack data to

adequately inform the stakeholders of their parent

organization, as well as emergency-management of-

ficials, on the dramatic losses that can occur in the

wake of a disaster.

Long-Term Adaptation

Looking past intermediate steps of improving

disaster preparedness, some archival repositories in

increasingly geographically vulnerable regions like

coastal areas may need to reckon with the possibility

of relocation—whether of the entire archival reposi-

tory building and its collections or of specific groups

of records—or even dissolution. Few archives will

make these decisions solely on their own, as most are

part of a larger parent organization, such as a univer-

sity, government, or corporation. It is likely that deci-

sions about continued human occupation of threat-

ened areas will ultimately be decided by state and

federal policy, as well as the risks the insurance in-

dustry is willing to bear. Historic preservationists

have noted that changes to the federal flood-

insurance program may affect the insurability of

historic properties and sites (Eggleston & Wellock,

2015). Archives located in these affected sites, or in

other endangered areas, may find insurance coverage

increasingly hard to attain, which may be the ultimate

lever that forces a shift to long-term adaptation

and/or relocation.

It is important for archivists to plan for these cir-

cumstances now so that they can start to embed

climate-change adaptation into their advocacy and

outreach activities. This adaptation can build upon

earlier efforts to incorporate sustainability into ar-

chival practice as a way to enhance resiliency. If

planning is delayed until urgent conditions have be-

come fully manifest, government plans are unlikely

to prioritize archives in more expansive community

or organizational climate-adaptation initiatives.

Sea-Level Rise

Sea-level rise, which will significantly affect

many major American coastal cities, presents the

most obvious long-term danger to archives, threaten-

ing the physical viability of continuing to house rec-

ords in vulnerable locations. Depending on projected

emissions pathways, between one and seven major

population centers in the United States (i.e., popula-

tion > 350,000) will have significant areas below

future high-tide lines (Strauss, 2013). Archivists

alone will not make decisions about where to relocate

records housed in areas vulnerable to inundation.

Corporate directors, university presidents, governing

boards, and government officials of organizations

that house archives will participate in tough decisions

about what justifies relocation. Most disaster-

management officials are unlikely to prioritize cul-

tural heritage adaptation, so cultural heritage profes-

sionals must become their own best advocates. Ar-

chivists may be pressured to make difficult choices

about prioritization for saving records, or finding

them new homes, or may be asked to identify

reformatting solutions (e.g., mass digitization or

microfilming) to reduce physical storage needs (Line,

2006).

Residential relocation in response to climate

change has already begun in parts of the United

States. Several native tribal communities in Alaska

and Louisiana are in the process of relocating to safer

areas due to increased sea-level rise, thawing perma-

frost, and/or loss of natural barriers to mitigate flood-

ing. Many of these tribes lack adequate access to

governmental assistance for relocation and there is no

designated federal agency to help native (as well as

non-native) communities proactively migrate to safer



areas before coastal erosion and rising sea levels

threaten to overwhelm current residential locations

(Maldonado et al. 2013). Hurricanes and coastal ero-

sion have particularly affected Louisiana tribal lands,

an issue compounded for tribes without federal

recognition (Ferguson-Bohnee, 2015).

Some historical monuments, such as the Cape

Hatteras lighthouse in North Carolina, have been

relocated due to eroding shorelines and rising tide

lines (Holtz et al. 2014). Because many natural and

cultural coastal landscapes are expected to be lost or

radically altered over the coming decades, some ad-

aptation, such as engineering sea walls, levees, dikes,

and building elevation will be needed to help protect

existing communities. Other areas may be completely

lost. American history has numerous examples in

which coastal and floodplain communities have cho-

sen or been forced to migrate due to high costs of

attempting to control inevitable disaster (Isacoff,

2014). In 2010, the last house on Holland Island in

Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay finally collapsed

(Fahrenthold, 2010). The island had experienced al-

most total desertion in the preceding decades due to

residential concern about the island’s stability

(Gibbons & Nicholls, 2006). Other areas of the Unit-

ed States are confronting similar issues; the Inupiat

village of Kivalina in Alaska may be completely lost

to erosion and rising sea levels by 2021, but there is

no clear source of funding available for relocation

efforts (Maldonado et al. 2013, DeMarban, 2015).

Fortunately, unlike an entire settlement with

unique topography and historic buildings, archival

records are much easier to physically relocate, given

enough time and planning. Physical relocation of

these materials raises significant concerns, including

whether the archive’s parent institution will continue

to operate or be ultimately dissolved, and whether its

assets (including the archival records) are transferred

to another institution. Regardless of outcomes, archi-

vists working in areas subject to sea-level rise must

find ways to embed themselves in the long-term

planning for their parent institution’s future. Without

early involvement in institutional adaptation efforts,

archivists’ interests are unlikely to be prioritized.

Future Research

The overall topic of climate change is largely ab-

sent from the American archival profession. Even

when the issue is addressed, the discussion typically

concerns reduction of carbon emissions. Few re-

sources, whether publications, training, workshops,

or conference programs, exist regarding the adapta-

tion of archival repositories to climate change. This

emphasis is understandable regarding what archives

can do to reduce or mitigate carbon emissions, such

as choosing environmental controls and decisions

about materials, transportation, and storage matters.

Archivists have significant influence over these

activities, while appropriate adaptation measures,

such as deciding where to move a university archives

on a campus threatened by rising sea levels or coastal

erosion, may often be outside of their direct control.

In addition, sustainability questions may be psycho-

logically easier to tackle than those associated with

resiliency. Planning for adaptation to a changing

climate inevitably raises disturbing questions about

risks to human safety, collections, livelihood, and

operational continuity.

American archivists should consider the follow-

ing topics to develop a robust professional response

to climate change:

Conduct a comprehensive census of financial

and collection losses sustained by American

archives due to disasters associated with global

climate change. Currently, there is no accred-

itation body for American archives, so this effort

would either have to be a research project (likely

sponsored by a large organization such as the

Society of American Archivists) or a reporting

infrastructure would need to be established.

Examine archives that are developing or im-

plementing climate-adaptation plans. More

research is needed to determine whether any

archives are formulating these plans or whether

staff assume that the parent organization will

take the lead on adaptation issues.

Investigate FEMA and insurance-company pay-

outs to American archives for material losses.

Collection of this information could help archi-

vists inform stakeholders on the potential risks of

inadequate facilities or staffing to care for rec-

ords.

Prepare a comprehensive survey of American

archival repositories located in geographically

vulnerable areas threatened by sea-level rise.

Particular attention should be paid to territories

and associated states, many of which are far

more vulnerable to rising sea levels due to their

isolated oceanic geography than mainland

archives. This information could be used to in-

form new priorities for archival grant programs

such as the Institute for Museum and Library

Services or the National Historical Publications

and Records Commission. These organizations

may consider creating new grants to help archi-

vists with collection adaptation and relocation ef-

forts.

Assess the current state of regional and national

coordination of cultural heritage emergency-

response organizations. Currently, many of these

efforts are scattered and cultural heritage staff



may be unaware of resources available during a

crisis.

Conclusion

The American archival profession is not alone in

its delayed response to climate-change adaptation.

Across the country such oversights are common at

both the state and federal level. At present, FEMA is

currently encouraging states to include climate-

change considerations in their hazard-mitigation

grants, which are available to areas following a

presidential major-disaster declaration (FEMA,

2015). This development may hasten state response

to climate-change adaptation, because only seventeen

states have so far adopted climate-adaptation plans

(Elliott, 2015).

It appears that most federal agencies are

currently in the exploratory stages of determining the

impacts of climate change on their activities and

agency-adaptation plans. Of federal agencies

examined in 2015, the Department of Defense was

recognized for releasing the strongest assessment of

how climate change would affect its mission

(Leggett, 2015). Otherwise, the United States

Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent

review of coordinated federal response to climate

change, which it identifies as a high risk to the

solvency of the federal government, found significant

problems. The GAO (2015) report noted, “There are

no programs to monitor and independently validate

the effectiveness and sustainability of federal efforts

to reduce the fiscal exposure posed by climate

change. Thus, there is no way to demonstrate

progress in implementing corrective measures.” For

this reason, archivists should not expect government

agencies in the United States to develop a robust

adaptation agenda before taking action to manage the

effects of climate change.

Archives contain a wide range of records neces-

sary to support society. Institutional archives such as

those situated in government, universities, and corpo-

rations steward significant groups of records essential

to uninterrupted operation of civic affairs. Vital rec-

ords include those needed for individuals to demon-

strate their identity, for universities and businesses to

prove their legal and tax status, for students to docu-

ment their education, and for local jurisdictions to

establish property boundaries. Collecting repositories

also provide a critical service to society by preserving

the papers and records that reflect community history

and cultural heritage.

The increasingly severe weather and sea-level

rise associated with anthropogenic climate change

raises significant challenges to the archival profes-

sion. Archival repositories in geographically vulnera-

ble areas will have to adapt through a combination of

intermediate and long-term practices that draw on

values of sustainability and resiliency. These steps

are necessary to ensure that the critical services ar-

chives provide to society are not threatened by the

shocks of climate change. Archivists who contribute

research in these areas will find that colleagues in the

allied fields of librarianship, museums, and historic

preservation have developed significant work that

can be adapted to archival theory and practice. De-

veloping this awareness within the archival profes-

sion is critical to guiding archivists through the chal-

lenges of global climate change.

References

Abbey, H. 2012. The green archivist: a primer for adopting afford-able, environmentally sustainable, and socially responsible

archival management practices. Archival Issues 34(2):91–

115. Alliance for Response. n.d. About Alliance for Response.

http://www.heritageemergency.org/initiatives/alliance-for-

response/about-afr/. August 23, 2015. American Institute for Conservation (AIC). 2015. National

Heritage Responders. http://www.conservation-

us.org/publications-resources/disaster-response-recovery/national-heritage-responders#.VsR7uUb0-wh.

August 25, 2015.

Aylett, A. 2014. Progress and Challenges in the Urban Govern-ance of Climate Change: Results of a Global Survey. Cam-

bridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Bierbaum, R., Smith, J., Lee, A., Blair, M., Carter, L., Chapin III, F., Fleming, P., Ruffo, S., Stults, M., McNeeley, S., Wasley,

E., & Verduzco, L. 2012. A comprehensive review of climate

adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change 18(3):361–406. Blue Shield International. Press Room.

http://www.ancbs.org/cms/en/press-room. January 14, 2016.

Carmicheal, D. & Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. The Essential Role of Records in Disaster

Response, Continuity Webinar Series.

https://share.dhs.gov/p50s3emrz4z/. August 31, 2015. Cazenave, A. 2014. Anthropogenic global warming threatens

world cultural heritage. Environmental Research Letters

9(5):051001. Corrigan, A. 2008. Disaster: response and recovery at a major

research library in New Orleans. Library Management 29(4–

5):293–306. Council of State Archivists (CoSA). 2007. Safeguarding a Na-

tion’s Identity. Iowa City, IA: CoSA.

Council of State Archivists (CoSA). 2015. The State of State Rec-

ords. Albany, NY: CoSA.

Craig, L. 2015. Weather it together: Annapolis’ model planning

effort. Forum Journal 29(4):47–57. Davis, C. 2015. Preserving Our Future: Understanding and Acting

on the Implications of Climate Change on the Archival Pro-

fession. http://www.slideshare.net/caseyedavis/climate-change-caseydavis. August 23, 2015.

Davis, L. 2006. Riding the surf: dealing with library disasters in

island communities. Public Library Quarterly 25(3–4):99–112.

DeMarban, A. 2015. Walker visits imperiled village of Kivalina in

advance of Obama’s Alaska visit. Alaska Dispatch News Au-gust 22.



Diamond, T. 2006. The impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on

three Louisiana academic libraries: a response from library administrators and staff. Library Leadership & Management

20(4):192–200.

Eggleston, J. & Wellock, J. 2015. The National Flood Insurance Program and historic resources. Forum Journal 29(4):34–46.

Elliott, D. 2015. As States Ready Disaster Plans, Feds Urge Them

To Consider Climate Change. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/19/408010

685/disaster-agency-to-require-states-to-consider-climate-

change-in-plans. August 28, 2015. Fahrenthold, D. 2010. Last house on sinking Chesapeake Bay

Island collapses. The Washington Post October 26.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. Washington, DC: FEMA.

Ferguson-Bohnee, P. 2015. The impacts of coastal erosion on tribal

cultural heritage. Forum Journal 29(4):58–66. Gibbons, S. & Nicholls, R. 2006. Island abandonment and sea-

level rise: an historical analog from the Chesapeake Bay,

USA. Global Environmental Change 16(1):40–47. Gleick, P. 2014. Water, drought, climate change, and conflict in

Syria. Weather, Climate & Society 6(3):331–340.

Gordon-Clark, M. 2012. Paradise lost? Pacific island archives threatened by climate change. Archival Science 12(1):51–67.

Gordon-Clark, M. & Shurville, S. 2010. “To take up arms against a

sea of troubles”: finding safe havens for the national archives of low-elevation Pacific islands and nations threatened by

climate change. Archives & Manuscripts 38(1):78–93. Greene, M. & Meissner, D. 2005. More product, less process:

revamping traditional archival processing. American Archi-

vist 68(2):208–263. Heritage Preservation. 2015. Cooperative Disaster Networks.

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/PROGRAMS/TFDisaste

rNetworks.html. August 23, 2015. Heritage Preservation & Institute of Museum and Library Services

(IMLS). 2004. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health

Index Report on the State of America’s Collections. http://www.heritagepreservation.org/HHI/HHIsummary.pdf.

August 17, 2015.

Henk, M. 2014. Ecology, Economy, Equity: The Path to a Carbon-Neutral Library. Chicago: American Library Association.

Newport Restoration Foundation. n.d. Keeping History above

Water. http://www.historyabovewater.org/. January 18, 2016. Holtz, D., Markham, A., Cell, K., & Ekwurzel, B. 2014. National

Landmarks at Risk. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned

Scientists. Isacoff, R. 2014. Raised or Razed: The Challenge of Climate Ad-

aptation and Social Equity in Historic Coastal Communities.

Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Department of Historic Preser-vation, University of Pennsylvania.

Jigyasu, R., Murthy, M., Boccardi, G., Marrion, C., Douglas, D.,

King, J., O’Brien, G., Dolcemascolo, G., Kim, Y., & Albrito, P. 2013. Heritage and Resilience: Issues and Opportunities

for Reducing Disaster Risks. Geneva: Global Platform for

Disaster Risk Reduction. Jones, A. 2014. Sustainability in library preservation. Technical

Services Quarterly 31(1):31–43.

Kelley, C., Mohtadi, S., Cane, M., Seager, R., & Kushnir, Y. 2015. Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of

the recent Syrian drought. Proceedings of the National Acad-

emy of Sciences 112(11):3241–3246. Labinsky, D. 2015. RAAC Disaster Planning Committee Decided

to Focus on Climate Change This Coming Year. #saa15.

https://twitter.com/dlabq/status/634115252351856640. Au-gust 19, 2015.

Leggett, J. 2015. Climate Change Adaptation by Federal Agencies:

An Analysis of Plans and Issues for Congress. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.

Line, M. 2006. Global warming and national libraries. Alexandria

18(3):3–4.

Maldonado, J., Shearer, C., Bronen, R., Peterson, K., & Lazrus, H.

2013. The impact of climate change on tribal communities in the U.S.: displacement, relocation, and human rights. Climat-

ic Change 120(3):601–614.

Marzeion, B. & Levermann, A. 2014. Loss of cultural world herit-age and currently inhabited places to sea-level rise. Environ-

mental Research Letters 9(3):034001.

Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners. n.d. About COSTEP MA. http://mblc.state.ma.us/costepma/about-

costep-ma/overview.html. October 30, 2015.

Meissner, D. & Greene, M. 2010. More application while less appreciation: the adopters and antagonists of MPLP. Journal

of Archival Organization 8(3–4):174–226.

Melnick, R. 2015. Climate change and cultural landscapes: obser-vations and options. Forum Journal 29(4):4–33.

Metropolitan New York Library Council. 2014. Climate Change Is

at the Door: Preparing Your Collections. http://metro.org/events/527/. August 31, 2015.

Muir, A. & Shenton, S. 2002. If the worst happens: the use and

effectiveness of disaster plans in libraries and archives. Li-brary Management 23(3):115–123.

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 2011.

25th Annual Preservation Conference. http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/2011/.

August 31, 2015.

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 2013. 2013 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. Washing-

ton, DC: NARA. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 2014.

2014 Sustainability Plan. Washington, DC: NARA.

Neuhauser, A. 2015. Dead wrong: as Florida bans “climate change,” warming kills mummies. US News & World Report

March 9.

Nevins, K. & Nyberg, S. 2006. SOLINET’s Gulf Coast libraries recovery projects for public and academic libraries. Public

Library Quarterly 25(3–4):215–223.

New Jersey Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (NJDMVA). 2015. National Guard Militia Museum Reopens

After Sandy. http://www.nj.gov/military/museum/releases/

MuseumReopensAfterSandy%20.html. January 18, 2016. New York Council for the Humanities (NYCH). 2015. NEH Final

Report: Hurricane Recovery Grants. New York: NYCH.

Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC). 2009. COSTEP: Coordinated Statewide Emergency Preparedness.

Andover, MA: NEDCC.

O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., Jayawickrama, J., & Jigyasu, R. 2015. Developing a model for building resilience to climate risks

for cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage Manage-

ment and Sustainable Development 5(2):99–114. Obama, B. 2009. Executive Order 13514. Federal leadership in

environmental, energy, and economic performance. Federal

Register 74(194):52117–52127. Obama, B. 2013. Executive Order 13653. Preparing the United

States for the impact of climate change. Federal Register

78(215):66819—66824. Obama, B. 2015. Executive Order 13693. Planning for federal

sustainability in the next decade. Federal Register

80(57):15871–15884. Passley, C. 2013. Determining differences between archival staff

and restorers ranking of training topics for disaster restora-

tion projects. Collection Management 38(4):267–300. Printed Matter, Inc. n.d. Archival Activities.

http://printedmatter.org/what_we_do/archival_activities. Au-

gust 23, 2015. ProjectARCC. n.d. About. http://projectarcc.org/about-us/. Sep-

tember 1, 2015.

Rieger, O. 2011. Assessing the value of open access information systems: making a case for community-based sustainability

models. Journal of Library Administration 51(5–6):485–506.



Silverman, R. 2006. Toward a national disaster response protocol.

Libraries & the Cultural Record 41(4):497–511. Skinner, R. 2006. “Nor any drop to drink”: New Orleans libraries

in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Public Library

Quarterly 25(3–4):179–187. Smithsonian Climate Change Adaptation Working Group. 2013.

Roadmap for the Development of a Climate Change Adapta-

tion Plan. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution. 2015. Strategic Sustainability Perfor-

mance Plan. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Society of American Archivists (SAA). n.d.a. Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology: Archives.

http://archivists.org/glossary/terms/a/archives. August 27,

2015 Society of American Archivists (SAA). n.d.b. Glossary of Archival

and Records Terminology: Disaster Plan.

http://archivists.org/glossary/terms/d/disaster-plan. August 28, 2015.

Stone, A. 2004. Flash floods drench University of Hawaii library.

American Libraries 35(11):16. Strauss, B. 2013. Rapid accumulation of committed sea-level rise

from global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences 110(34):13699–13700. Swartz, N. 2005. Katrina devastates Gulf records. Information

Management 39(6):24.

United States Global Change Research Program (USGCCRP). 2014. Third National Climate Assessment.

http://www.globalchange.gov/nca3-downloads-materials. April 30, 2015.

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2015.

Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Bet-ter Managing Climate Change Risks.

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/limiting_federal_government_fi

scal_exposure/why_did_study. October 21, 2015. University of Hawai’i . 2014. Hamilton Library thrives 10 years

after devastating flood.

http://www.hawaii.edu/news/2014/10/27/hamilton-library-thrives-10-years-after-devastating-flood/. August 24, 2015.

Veerkamp, A. 2015. Preservation in a changing climate: time to

pick up the tab. Forum Journal 29(4):9–18. Vinopal, J. & McCormick, M. 2013. Supporting digital scholarship

in research libraries: scalability and sustainability. Journal of

Library Administration 53(1):27–42. Wall, K. 2006. Lessons learned from Katrina: what really matters

in a disaster. Public Library Quarterly 25(3–4):189–198.

Webre, T. 2013. After the Flood: Digital Art Recovery in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy.

http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2013/02/after-the-

flood-digital-art-recovery-in-the-wake-of-hurricane-sandy/. August 23, 2015.

Wolfe, M. 2012. Beyond “green buildings:” exploring the effects

of Jevons’ paradox on the sustainability of archival practices. Archival Science 12(1):35–50.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).

1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zolli, A. 2012. Forget sustainability. It’s about resilience. The New York Times November 2.



ARTICLE

Growing our vision together: forming a sustainability community within the American Library Association Beth Filar Williams1, Madeleine Charney2 & Bonnie Smith3

1 OSU Library, Oregon State University, 121 The Valley Library, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA (email: [email protected]) 2 W.E.B. Du Bois Library, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 154 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA 01002 USA (email: mcharney@library. umass.edu) 3 George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, PO Box 117000, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA (email: [email protected])

As long-standing keepers of democracy and information stewardship, library professionals are a natural fit for advocating and promoting sustainability within their communities. From seed libraries to Occupy Wall Street libraries, their view of sustainability extends beyond environmental concerns to include community activism, economic development, and social equity. Empowering people, facilitating dialogue, and providing resources for a more resilient future are at the center of librarians’ vital and changing roles. These visionary professionals have powered libraries’ work as outspoken advocates with well-founded initiatives. For a long time, however, there was no cohesive sustainability-focused venue for sharing best practices, collaborating, and contributing to the profession. In 2013, after one year of focused research and promotion, the American Library Association (ALA) approved a new group, the Sustainability Round Table (SustainRT). This article describes how library advocates built SustainRT over the years and gained momentum with a pivotal webinar series. Clear signs of SustainRT’s early success are a testimony to the critical need for a sustainability-related Community of Practice (CoP). The article shows how the steps taken to achieve this national group’s standing can serve as a model for fostering dialogue and collaboration (often through virtual means) that allows for wide participation.

KEYWORDS: advocacy, co-creation, community, education, environment, library, stewardship, webinar

Introduction

A rich and colorful tapestry of innovative and

sometimes daring library practices, services, and

engagement emerged in response to the unpredictable

dynamics of the twenty-first century, not least of which

were the explosion of technology, the Great Recession,

and a growing environmental imperative. In a world

struggling for sustainability, libraries continue critically

evolving to embrace their communities’ successes and

adversities. Library associations bring together

professionals to co-create solutions, share expertise, and

bolster resilience through learning and community

building. This article reports on the early stages of

development of the American Library Association

(ALA) Sustainability Round Table (SustainRT) in 2013,

the result of an urgent “call to action” for a unified effort

to address the new millennium’s environmental,

economic, and social sustainability challenges within the

library profession in the United States and Canada. We

identify the technologies, processes, dynamics and other

factors that led to the formation of SustainRT as a

functional Community of Practice (CoP)—“a group of

people who share a concern, set of problems, or a

passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge

and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing

basis” (Wenger et al. 2002). From the initial large-group

webinars to the identification of leaders, from the

acceptance of the Round Table into ALA to the decisions

involved in forming committees and prioritizing work,

the establishment of this CoP offers a model for

engaging in dialogue and collaboration within the library

profession to better foster community resilience.

In an article entitled “To Remake the World,” Paul

Hawken (2007) refers to hundreds of thousands of

sustainability-related groups as constituting “the largest

coming together of citizens in history.” He describes

these groups as being without a center, codified beliefs,

or charismatic leader and as cutting across economic

sectors, cultures, and regions. Arising from research

institutes, community-development agencies, village and

citizen-based organizations, corporations, networks,

faith-based groups, trusts, and foundations, they all share

the goal of creating “a just society conducive to life on

Earth.”

Andres Edwards (2005) synthesizes the intentions

and objectives of such sustainability-oriented groups

with the three E’s, “concern for the environment, the

economy and social equity,” and recognizes sustain-

ability as “a common language that links the central

issues confronting our civilization as well as its potential

to bring social change values into the mainstream.” This

article outlines SustainRT’s place within the global

context separately described by Hawken and Edwards

and how it was established as a professional forum for

ALA members to exchange ideas and opportunities

regarding sustainability in order to move toward a more

equitable, healthy, and economically viable society.



Libraries and Commitment to Community

Library resources and services are generally

accessible to all members of a community, regardless of

socioeconomic status, gender, political views, race,

religion, and other differentiating characteristics.

Libraries are distinct in the types of communities served,

such as a municipality, school, university, hospital, or

business. As hubs of information, intellectual explor-

ation, and community, libraries offer a synergy of space,

services, and resources that create dynamic learning

environments, while their open-door ethos facilitates

partnerships with a wide range of organizations and

individuals. However, to remain relevant in a rapidly

changing world, libraries must reflect the concerns,

needs, and realities of their communities, as well as

spark inquiry, develop innovative opportunities, and

serve as a bastion of free knowledge and lifelong

learning. This strong advocacy for equality of access and

learning is reflected in ALA’s “Library Bill of Rights,”

which states that “all libraries are forums for information

and ideas, and that books and other library resources

should be provided for the interest, information, and

enlightenment of all people of the community.

Furthermore, libraries should provide materials and

information presenting all points of view and challenge

censorship and make their space available on an

equitable basis” (ALA, 1996). By creating a focused

community of practitioners, SustainRT embraces and

strengthens ALA’s vision of libraries as forums for

information and ideas available on an equitable basis.

Shifting economic, social, and environmental

dynamics of the 21st century have created an

environment for radical reimagining of libraries. First,

and perhaps most transformative, is the ongoing

explosion of technology as a means for learning, creat-

ing, and sharing information. The widespread use of

computers, digital devices, digitization of materials,

electronic books, Massive Open Online Courses

(MOOCs), digital repositories, globalization, and the

open access movement are all recent heightened

phenomena and direct results of the expansion of

technology. As a consequence, the role of libraries has

profoundly changed, from centers that primarily house

collections and lend books to vital multi-dimensional

spaces for collaborating, connecting, and learning.

Within academic and research libraries, the

internationalization of higher education has also

contributed to extensive changes in library services and

outreach. Dewey (2010) summarizes the impact of this

new environment, in which the academic library “must,

in a global way, create, collaborate, and connect

scholarship for and with users at a level never seen

before to ensure lifelong learning and the ability to solve

the world’s continuing challenges inclusive of all

cultures, time periods, and approaches.” Sustainability as

a global challenge is being addressed within our

institutions and requires large- and small-scale collab-

oration and networking.

Following profound technological changes, the next

significant twenty-first century challenge for libraries

was the 2007–2009 Great Recession, which increased

library use in response to economic pressures including

layoffs, foreclosures, and strain on communities. During

these hard times, public libraries offered new services,

which played a key role in helping people connect with

each other and helped them find employment and launch

new ventures. While use of libraries increased and their

vision expanded, many municipalities drastically cut

personnel, which resulted in closures, reduced hours, and

dissolution of programs. School libraries, in particular,

saw sweeping cuts to funding which led to elimination of

media specialists in many locales despite the infusion of

technology. Academic libraries were similarly chall-

enged with funding constraints and budget cuts. In an

effort to reduce costs and consolidate services, many

universities closed small special-branch libraries and

restructured services. The economic downturn was

coupled with an increasing awareness of the threat posed

by humanity’s excesses, including population growth,

and their effect on global climate change. The notion of

sustainable development became a core concern of

society, and consequently of libraries. When commun-

ities respond to environmental disasters, think critically

about their environmental impacts, and seek answers to

complex and interrelated economic, environmental, and

social-equity issues, addressing the three E’s of sustaina-

bility, libraries remain firm cornerstones for free,

essential, and timely assistance.

Libraries Respond to Economic and Social Comm-

unity Pressures

As community hubs and centers of change and

learning, libraries absorb their shifting environment to

co-create spaces and services for a sustainable future.

While the fundamental role of the library as a gateway to

knowledge remains intact, the ways in which this is

accomplished are rapidly changing. Free public access to

computers and the Internet at libraries, now considered a

core service, has helped to bridge the “digital divide” for

people who do not have these privileges in their

workplaces, homes, or schools. According to the Public

Library Funding & Technology Access Study, 2010‒

2011, public libraries “serve as ‘first responders’ for

people in need of technology training and online

resources for employment, continuing education and

access to online government services…Libraries serve as

a ‘toll free’ bridge over the great divide” (Hoffman et al.

2011). Another important report, Opportunity for All:

How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access



at U.S. Libraries (Becker et al. 2010), is the first large-

scale investigation of the ways library patrons use this

service, why they use it, and how it affects their lives.

This report demonstrates the critical role of the public

library in the digital landscape.

Libraries have begun offering new types of

collections and services, lending items along with books

and media. Seed libraries have been sprouting up in

response to a need for affordable, healthy food; to foster

understanding and knowledge of sustainable food

systems; and to support local interest in environmental-

sustainability efforts (Seed Libraries, n.d.). Economic

pressures caused people to reconsider investing in costly

equipment, and thus tool-lending libraries increased to

support people with gardening, repair, and home-

improvement projects. In conjunction with tools and

classes, libraries loaned educational materials to assist in

learning new skills and reducing costs, thus creating a

credible sharing economy and building community.

Examples include the Grosse Pointe Michigan Public

Library Tool Collection (GPPL, n.d.) and the Ann Arbor

Public Library’s Unusual Stuff to Borrow (AADL, n.d.),

which includes musical instruments and energy meters.

Adding to the list of community-building offerings are

outdoor movies, festivals, community gardening, fitness

classes, picnics, and bilingual story and craft sessions

(PPS, 2015). These services reinforce social equity and

address economic sustainability by providing free

resources to all. Project for Public Spaces notes that,

“When you put all the ingredients of a great library

together, you end up with a public institution whose

influence extends far beyond its physical location. The

best libraries anchor communities. Because they are

highly visible centers of civic life, these libraries instill

public confidence in their neighborhoods and catalyze

further investment from both the public and private

sectors” (PPL, n.d.), strengthening community resilience

and sustainable environments.

Libraries as community-oriented repositories for

social sustainability sprang up in unexpected ways. For

example, September 2011 saw the launch of Occupy

Wall Street, a “people-powered movement” that fought

back against “the corrosive power of major banks and

multinational corporations over the democratic process,

and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic

collapse that has caused the greatest recession in

generations” (OSN, n.d.). A critical part of this

movement was the People’s Library—also referred to as

the Occupy Wall Street Library—which provided, “a

space for dialogue, creativity, intellectual and cultural

exchange and personal growth” (Scott, 2011). The

People’s Library sparked valuable and passionate

debates about the role of “guerrilla librarianship” within

the profession as a response to the strictures of the status

quo (Henk, 2011). Mandy Henk (2011), a librarian

involved in the People’s Library, sees the occupation

movement as the shape of things to come. “We have to

keep serving the information needs of the protesters,”

she says, “and of other communities being hit by the

economy” (McLemee, 2011). Libraries need to continue

addressing economic issues as part of the three

dimensions (environment, economy, and equity) of

creating and supporting sustainable communities.

Since the start of the Great Recession, libraries have

increased their partnerships with critical community

services. Examples include a healthcare partnership

between the Arizona Public Library in Pima County and

the Pima County Health Department, which resulted in a

library-nursing program (Johnson et al. 2014). In

Rochester, New York, the CLIC-on-Health (2015)

collaboration of hospital, public, and school libraries

provides the community with healthcare information and

resources. In 2009, the Multnomah County Library in

Portland, Oregon received the National Medal for

Museum and Library Service from the Institute of

Library and Museum Services (IMLS) for the positive

impact of its programs for non-English speakers (IMLS,

2009). The Alachua County Library District in

Gainesville, Florida received the IMLS medal in 2011

for their “Thinking Outside the Book” approach, which

helped open the door to community partnerships that

provide “health and legal services, rent and utility

subsidies, tax assistance, counseling for substance or

domestic abuse, and a host of other social services,”

including a mobile outreach clinic (IMLS, 2011).

When crisis and disasters strike, libraries provide

services and a safe haven so that citizens can rebuild

their lives. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist

attacks, New York City libraries stayed open throughout

the day, offering space for citizens to gather as the

tragedy unfolded. Subsequently, many libraries provided

programming and brought community members together

to discuss the significance of these events. Similarly,

after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast in

2005, libraries welcomed evacuees, held story-time

programs for children, provided books to shelters and

contact information for local service organizations, and

established missing-persons bulletin boards (Albanese et

al. 2005). As climate change worsens environmental

disasters, the need for these services is likely to intensify.

Libraries Respond to Environmental Pressures

Examining the environmental aspect of the three E’s

of sustainability, we notice that libraries have worked in

two different ways: 1) through internal management and

procedural changes to create sustainable buildings and

practice and 2) through education, collaboration, and

community dialogue. Libraries are by their very nature

“green” in that their resources avoid the environmental

impact of unnecessary duplication. Building on libraries’

innate qualities, other efforts seek to minimize resource



consumption in library construction and operations. As

trusted community institutions and with shared

consensus about local needs and goals, libraries have

embraced environmental responsibility and become

models for sustainability. A notable example is the New

York City Bronx Library Center, which became the first

municipal green building in the city in 2006 (Harriper-

saud, 2013). A plethora of efforts to improve the

environmental performance of libraries have been

written about and shared in library professional journals

and books, on social media, and at library-association

conferences. Illustrative examples include the Going

Green initiative, which took place at the American

Association of School Librarians (AASL) 2007

conference (ALA, 2007) and the 2008 Knowledge to Go

Green initiative of the Special Library Association

(SLA) (SLA, 2008). Monika Antonelli (2008) provides a

comprehensive overview of green-library developments.

Her 2012 co-edited book Greening Libraries covers

recent examples from all types of libraries taking

initiatives ranging from green building to resources as

well as the coauthors’ own reflections and insights

(Antonelli & McCullough, 2012).

Educating for environmental stewardship and

engaging with communities on green initiatives are

additional strategies used by libraries to contribute

toward a more sustainable future. Libraries offer a

neutral venue and bring together programming on

sustainable topics through film nights, local speakers,

book clubs, events, and art exhibits. For example, Laura

Barnes (2012) identifies public libraries that connect

themselves with the developing ideals of the commun-

ities they serve and use their green-building technologies

and practices as tools to teach patrons how to be more

sustainable at home, at work, and in the community.

Within academic libraries, sustainability

engagement has played out in many of the same ways as

in other libraries. As part of a larger institution, however,

each academic library must serve its distinct

communities of learners and researchers by aligning

itself with its institution’s mission and vision. The

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in

Higher Education (AASHE), founded in 2005 as a

professional organization to help coordinate, advance,

and strengthen campus sustainability efforts, boasts over

750 institutional members (AASHE, 2015). As of July

2015, AASHE’s database of academic programs reports

nearly 1500 sustainability-focused programs at 476

campuses in 66 American states and Canadian provinces

(AASHE, 2015). Another indicator of higher education’s

engagement with sustainability is the increase in the

number of signatories of the American College and

University President’s Climate Commitment

(ACUPCC). The original 2007 charter, signed by 152

presidents, had an additional 533 signatories as of July

2015. Signing the Climate Commitment signals resolve

by colleges and universities to “demonstrating with their

actions that addressing climate and sustainability issues

are central to the education, research and service mission

of higher education to help create a thriving and civil

society” (Second Nature, 2015). Given the urgent need

for cutting-edge research on effectively managing

climate change, it is not surprising to see the emergence

of a serious and focused dialogue within the academic

library community on the library’s role in advancing and

supporting sustainability teaching, research, and service.

Several pivotal publications have recently focused

on this new interest on the part of academic libraries and

their growing role in educating for sustainability,

including contributing to scholarly activities and

curricular initiatives. Focus on Educating for Sustain-

ability: Toolkit for Academic Libraries captures a range

of best practices, case studies, and activities ready for

implementation in the academic library (Jankowska,

2014). The book emphasizes the role of librarians as

teachers and collaborators engaging with administrators,

instructors, and researchers to provide credible resources

and instruction, bringing sustainability more fully into

the curriculum and reinforcing collection development.

Two studies (Charney, 2014; Jankowska et al. 2014) also

provide a baseline on the sustainability efforts of

academic libraries, including library guides, instruction,

research, institutional repositories, collaboration with

other units on campus, and the role of Library

Information Studies (LIS) schools.

The Role of Library Associations

Library associations are the backbones that connect

the library community worldwide, through networking,

professional development, sharing, and collaborating.

ALA, the “largest and oldest library association in the

world,” was founded in 1876 during the Centennial

Exposition in Philadelphia (ALA, 2015a). With over

50,000 members, ALA’s highly complex structure offers

myriad options for participation. Members may join

divisions, sections, committees, discussion groups, task

forces, and/or round tables. The overall goal of

establishing a roundtable is to promote a field of

librarianship that does not fall under any single division.

While roundtables may recommend policy and action to

other units, ALA is not committed to any declaration of

policy.

Placing a high value on learning, collaborating, and

sharing is inherent to the library profession. Joining an

established association, whether local or global, large or

small, is one means of transforming values into action.

Finding colleagues with whom to collaborate and share

ideas strengthens the profession and thus the comm-

unities it serves. Library associations are also venues for

creating strong partnerships to advocate for issues facing

the profession and communities. As John Berry (2010)



says in a Library Journal column, “Every issue is a

library issue.” He goes on to cite a resolution submitted

in 1978 to move the ALA Headquarters to an Equal

Rights Amendment state or district. The ALA Council

defeated the resolution, but it demonstrates an

infrastructure for advocacy within library associations.

Task Force on the Environment (TFOE)

Well before “green“ and “sustainable“ became

household words, libraries were drawing attention to

these issues, as reflected in the establishment of the Task

Force on the Environment (TFOE) in 1989 (Stoss, 2009).

Spurred by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and

created under the ALA Social Responsibilities Round

Table (SRRT), TFOE quickly contributed to the

profession by publishing several articles and hosting the

first ALA environmental program at its 1991 annual

conference. A turning point occurred in scholarly

publishing with the creation of The Green Library

Journal: Environmental Topics in Information World

(GLJ) in 1994, now the well-respected Electronic Green

Journal (UCLA Library, 2015). Following their creation,

TFOE and GLJ supported each other and were

instrumental in emphasizing environmental concerns

within the library community.

Over the next few years, TFOE hosted a variety of

green programs at ALA conferences, including “How

green is your library: environmentalists at work” in 1990

and “Environmentally and socially responsible business:

finding the information to make the decision to buy or

invest” in 1996. TFOE also introduced resolutions to

promote greater environmental stewardship within ALA

and at its conferences while providing a forum and open

dialogue for the greater library community.

In 2000, ALA’s president, Sarah Ann Long,

supported sustainability in her landmark project

Libraries Build Sustainable Communities (LBSC), a

two-year grant-funded partnership between ALA and

Global Learning, Inc. (SRRT, 2000). This ground-

breaking ALA initiative, heavily supported by TFOE,

educated the library community on sustainability

concepts and provided the tools for libraries to “serve as

strategic assets and resources for building sustainable

communities while building positive development,

environmental integrity, and equitable access” (Stoss,

2003). One significant element of the program was a

train-the-trainer preconference, which equipped

participants with a “workshop in the box” to hold their

own LBSC workshops back home. Libraries responded

to the call for environmental stewardship and education

with a strong green-library movement.

TFOE continued its powerful advocacy for

sustainable library efforts by meeting and offering at

least one program during each ALA annual conference.

At the same time, global events and social stressors led

to library-budget cuts amid a rapidly changing environ-

ment, with increasingly digital formats. Accordingly,

libraries were compelled to focus on managing change

and providing new and key services to stay afloat. These

cross-cutting institutional pressures caused a natural

veering away from the siloed environmental focus,

embracing a more complex, interconnected, full-

spectrum sustainability concept. Despite continued

efforts, membership, participation, and activism within

TFOE plateaued and then significantly decreased, with

very few attendees for the 2010 meeting at the ALA

annual conference. The reasons for this decline are

multifaceted, but it became clear that TFOE was no

longer meeting the needs of library professionals even

while they were clearly formulating and engaging in all

three E’s of sustainability—environmental, economic,

and social-equity—as a direct response to their

increasingly informed and challenged communities. The

question then emerged as to whether sustainability-

engaged library professionals wanted and/or would

support and contribute to a community of practitioners,

an outlet for expressing their passion, a forum for

communication and, equally important, a virtual “home.”

Collaboration Leads to Webinar Series

In 2011, while co-writing a book chapter for The

Entrepreneurial Librarian, the first author of this article

and colleagues (2012a) drew from a survey designed to

identify advocates, educators, and entrepreneurs involved

in sustainable librarianship activities. Subsequently, she

created the Sustainable Librarians LinkedIn space to

connect respondents who participated in the survey. That

same year, the second and third authors of this article

met for the first time at the AASHE conference, where

they both presented on sustainable libraries and co-

facilitated a library-networking event. Informal commun-

ication regarding the need to strengthen and energize the

library community regarding sustainability led to a

virtual collaboration and a shared vision among these

three library professionals. The goal of developing and

implementing a series of free webinars emerged as a first

step toward a national dialogue, and thus the four-part

Libraries for Sustainability was born.

Figure 1 Libraries for Sustainability Webinar Series



A seasoned distance-learning librarian, the first

author was already adept at techniques for hosting online

sessions and had access to existing tools. The idea of a

webinar series to initiate a national conversation seemed



within reach, with the stated intention “to facilitate

dialog with the hope that leaders will emerge and begin

to work on a new framework for collaboration.” A robust

marketing effort was launched, which encouraged

attendance by members of the Sustainability Librarians

LinkedIn group, SRRT, and TFOE—including key

leaders identified from the history and literature reviews.

To broaden and maximize participation and input,

presenters from a variety of library environments and

roles were selected. All sessions were recorded for future

viewing by those unable to participate (Filar Williams,

2012). Using a Google form for registration, participants

were asked for their name, email address, library role,

institution, hopes for the session, ideas for future

webinars, and interest in presenting in webinars or

becoming otherwise involved (Smith et al. 2012a).

Gathering this information was important to better

understand the needs and range of individuals interested

in sustainability in libraries.

The first webinar, Libraries for Sustainability: Call

for Action and Collaboration, took place in February

2012. The session featured invited guest Maria

Jankowska as the most recent Chair of TFOE, to discuss

the organization’s background, challenges, and

successes, as well as her recommendations for next steps

to revitalize TFOE and support the sustainable library

movement in the United States and Canada. Participants

shared their ideas regarding possible courses of action

within ALA. A follow-up email was sent to all

registrants with links to the recording and slides, a chat

transcript, a bibliography of items mentioned, along with

a few questions to further investigate options and ideas.

Key questions included: Should this group be revitalized

and/or is a change in direction indicated? What are some

options for remaining engaged at the local and national

levels? Where are opportunities for collaboration and

action around broader sustainability issues? The

organizers hoped that this conversation would spur

leaders to organize a new ALA group or revitalize

TFOE.

The second webinar, Exploring Sustainability

Practices in Libraries, held in April 2012, featured

speakers representing the following array of library

initiatives:

Kathryn Miller: Public Libraries, Sustainability

through library operations

Marianne Buehler: Academic Libraries, Sustain-

ability across the curriculum and research

Laura Barnes: School Libraries, School libraries—

lead by example

Mandy Henk: Community, Confronting power

The webinar also included an open discussion.

The registration form posed the question, “What do

you hope to get out of the session?” (Smith et al. 2012b).

Responses indicated the need for new ideas, tips, and

information. Other important themes included “under-

standing what libraries are doing to become more

sustainable and what trends they are seeing,” “identify-

ing applicable strategies and best practices,” and

“developing a plan for sustainable practices.” Both the

general and more specific responses confirmed the desire

for a community to share practices and learn from each

other. The topics presented, which represented a broad

array of library initiatives, generated an engaged

exchange of information and a lively discussion. By the

conclusion of this second webinar interest seemed to be

rising.

The third webinar, Engagement in Professional

Library Organizations, held in June 2012, was scheduled

just before the ALA annual conference to generate ideas

and momentum. The discussion was designed to glean

specific recommendations for successful sustainability

activities within professional library organizations,

including library associations, national and regional

organizations, and other groups, such as discussion

groups, task forces, committees, and social activities.

Participants also shared their experiences using tools

such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and listservs. The

registration form asked for input regarding desire to be

part of, or assist in forming, a group focused on

sustainability within existing library associations (Filar

Williams et al. 2012b). Participants were provided

options including individual sections within ALA,

AASHE, International Federation of Library

Associations and Institutions–Environmental Sustain-

ability in Libraries Special Interest Group (IFLA

ENSULIB), state and regional associations, and write-in

suggestions. The majority of respondents selected ALA,

but others suggested a range of cultural and local

organizations, recommending outreach and partnerships

with these sustainability leaders once an established

ALA group was formed.

The webinar began with a recap of efforts to date

and the introduction of five embedded facilitators—

engaged and energetic librarians recruited to assist with

the session. Participants broke into two virtual rooms,

one for an ALA-focused discussion—in particular, the

future of Task Force on the Environment (TFOE)—and

the other to discuss alternative options for collaborating

on sustain-ability in libraries. Participants self-selected a

virtual room, then both groups rejoined for sharing.

Plans were announced for a meet-up during the

upcoming ALA conference, at the TFOE official

meeting time, with the hopes that discussions on whether

to revitalize TFOE or create a new group would become

conclusive at that point.

The fourth and final webinar, Exploring More

Sustainability Practices in Libraries, held in August

2012, focused on creating an action plan and facilitating

an open discussion. Although this webinar had the



lowest registration numbers, many more people viewed

the recording after the webinar as demonstrated in Figure

1. The registration form asked whether participants had

presented, or had plans to present, on a sustainability

topic and requested future webinar suggestions (Charney

et al. 2012). The session began with a TFOE update

report from Ashley Jones, a librarian from Miami

University, who had assisted with the previous webinar

and co-facilitated a meet-up at the ALA annual

conference in June 2012. Similar themes and ideas

coalesced from previous webinar discussions: revitalize

TFOE or create a new group to be more inclusive and

visible to all ALA members; create resources for people

such as a toolkit with information, data, best practices,

and so forth; work with ALA to make conferences

greener; and seek collaborations for future conference

sessions. Participants discussed at length whether to use

the term “sustainability” in the group name to reflect

broader engagement than is reflected in the term

“environment,” and whether to create a new entity

altogether. Some felt it would be wiser to remain within

a well-established entity such as SRRT rather than

starting from scratch, while others believed that

sustainability was a large enough arena to warrant its

own roundtable.

As Figure 1 demonstrates, a range of libraries and

other entities were represented in the webinar series,

including some from outside the profession and several

from across the globe. The types of positions held within

library and related organizations also varied. Registration

was widely marketed as a way for interested parties to

access the recording even if they were not able to

participate in real time. Of the 4,138 total views, 97%

(4,024) were offline, with only 3% (114) viewed live.

These recordings are still viewable and the offline views

will only grow over time. These figures reflect

significant desire for remote engagement and SustainRT

is strongly committed to connect with those not able to

attend a conferences, including professionals in other

countries.

SustainRT is Formed

The deliberations and discussions during the webinar

series led to the decision to create a new ALA Round

Table. By December 2012, with Jones taking the lead, a

plan was formulated to navigate the logistics of creating

this organizational form. Working with ALA, Jones and

her collaborators implemented and promoted an e-

petition, which requires 100 signatures from ALA

members; gathered input from others in the library

community; drafted a mission statement; created a logo;

secured an online space on ALA’s “Connect” portal; and

scheduled a networking meet-up for the ALA Midwinter

Meeting in January 2013. More signatures than

necessary were gathered to form the Round Table. A

small team from this emerging practitioner community

presented the e-petition to ALA Council at Midwinter

2013, which granted its immediate approval. SustainRT

members then collectively decided on Libraries

Fostering Resilient Communities as a byline for the

group. An assortment of professionals from academic,

school, and public libraries, among other settings, came

together, virtually at first and later in person, at ALA

meetings. The webinar series described above

jumpstarted a sustainability conversation, which led to a

fairly organic process for creating SustainRT.

Unwittingly, this process turned out to be based on the

three fundamental elements of a CoP: a domain of

knowledge, a community of people, and the shared

practice within this domain (Wenger et al. 2002).

Member benefits of a CoP, as Wegner et al. (2002) state,

are assistance with challenges, access to expertise, team

contributions, confidence building, enjoyment, mean-

ingful participation, and a sense of belonging. In a

practical sense, a CoP allows its members to manage

knowledge efficiently and then share and steward that

knowledge effectively. However, the group’s knowledge

is also “an integral part of their activities and

interactions, and they [the CoP] serve as living repository

for that knowledge” (Wegner et al. 2002). While a full

exploration of CoPs does not fit the scope of this article,

it is useful to note that this model now guides

SustainRT’s work.

Vital to the group’s success is a consistent message

for members to share in the responsibility (and attendant

satisfaction) of improving the group’s evolution over

time. SustainRT’s foundation rests not merely on its

members’ professional achievements, but equally on

their ethical and personal stake in the well-being,

empowerment, and blossoming of the communities they

serve. Continued success will depend on marketing the

community value of this group, so that membership

increases as existing members invest their energy and

legitimize its voice (Wenger et al. 2002).

SustainRT’s Place within the Profession

The Libraries for Sustainability webinar series,

which involved a host of presenters, facilitators, partic-

ipants, and organizers, jumpstarted the formation of

SustainRT as a CoP. Casting the net broadly to capture

as many sustainability library practices and practitioners

as possible was key, and indeed was prominent at the

very foundation of SustainRT, in opening an inclusive

dialogue. The most dedicated individuals formed an

interim steering committee to navigate the complex

structure of ALA, an organization with over 50,000

members. A backbone began to form, connecting

geographically and topically scattered pieces. With each

subsequent resource, meeting, and conference came a



growing sense of community and shared enthusiasm,

with the knowledge that together we could accomplish

even more. Some of the intangible values of a CoP listed

by Wenger et al. (2002) are an increased ability to

innovate, relationship building, a sense of belonging, a

spirit of inquiry, and “the professional confidence and

identity [CoPs] confer on their members.” Special

acknow-ledgment goes to Ashley Jones, who stepped

forward as the first SustainRT Coordinator, the group’s

lead officer. Her pioneering spirit led the Round Table

into the next phase of development and growth. While

electing officers is a requirement within the structure of

ALA, SustainRT established a decentralized and

distributed leadership structure, a growing “ecology of

leadership.”

ALA Council’s approval of SustainRT in 2013

affirmed the value that such a group brings. The

professional association provided strong support to

SustainRT from the start, including a capable staff

liaison for guidance through administrative procedures

and a seasoned council liaison who shared ideas on

outreach and procedures when working within ALA.

According to Wenger et al. (2002), these “external roles”

are important, “especially as communities mature,

because communities depend on external sponsors for

access to influence and resources and for building

credibility with teams and business units.” Looking

ahead, there are limitless ways SustainRT can grow

within ALA to bolster sustainability engagement within

the profession. SustainRT provides a unique means for

all types of libraries to interact, allowing the

interpenetration of the three E’s, and creating a holistic,

more synthesized approach to sustainability in libraries.

SustainRT became an official ALA body with the

election of its officers in June 2014 and has moved

rapidly from an engaged to an active stage. The CoP

culture of SustainRT operates from a decentralized

leadership structure, intentionally encouraging members

to step into leadership roles. Members create, expand,

and exchange knowledge, as well as develop individual

capabilities, such as posting resources on the website,

adding content to SustainRT’s social media channels,

learning to organize webinars, participating in

conference-submission reviews, helping draft

resolutions, implementing and contributing to the blog,

and learning how to run a membership drive. Many of

our members are stretching in these new roles. The

aspiration is to continue increasing the passion,

commitment, and identification within the group and

expand its expertise (Wenger et al. 2002).

A “Think-Pair-Share” exercise was conducted at the

first SustainRT board meeting in June 2014 (SustainRT,

2014). The group was asked to collectively respond to

the statement, “When we are successful, we will

have….” Sheets of paper on the wall were soon filled

with specific visions, including “Convey that

sustainability is not an ‘add-on’”; “Develop a situational

awareness of what is already being done in the area of

sustainability in ALA and in libraries modeling best

practices, at conference (both in our activities and by

influencing how the conference is run) and through

resolutions at council”; “Boil down our message to a tag

line”; “Develop resources and an online toolkit to share

best practices and help others avoid reinventing the

wheel”; and “Adopt and practice a decentralized

leadership culture within SustainRT.” All of these

statements have come to fruition. Other ideas from the

exercise are infusing conversations and taking shape

through the project teams, for example, “Embedding

sustainability in the profession”; “Providing a clear

understanding of the sustainable, resilient, and

regenerative nature of libraries and how libraries can

adaptively manage the future”; “Shifting the culture of

the profession and the perception of libraries in our

communities so that we all have a renewed sense of the

role of libraries within the context of the social-

ecological system”; and “Talking to library schools and

students.”

From the exercise, project teams were formed for

governance, environmental scan, online education, and

outreach (with a program-project team added later). Each

team chose a chair and was offered a board liaison. The

governance team quickly collaborated with ALA’s

Conference Planning Committee to set up plastic badge

reuse stations at the January 2015 midwinter meeting, a

first step in helping to “green” ALA conferences. The

establishment of a searchable public database to provide

a cohesive and growing picture of sustainability

advancement in libraries is now well underway, a project

pioneered by the Environmental Scan Team, which is

collecting publications, policies, and procedures, facility

projects, best practices, curriculum support, program-

ming, and community-outreach documents from the

broad library community. The Online Education Team

launched a free webinar series, beginning with a

showcase of lightning talks from the ALA annual

conference; a presentation about ALA’s Center for the

Future of Libraries focusing on the trends of resilience

and sharing economy; an IT lesson in saving energy

costs with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

EnergyStar Program; and a “Book to Action” program

featuring Chelsea Green Publishing and the Hayward

Public Library. The Programs Team organized lightning

round presentations at two annual conferences. With a

goal of 300 members by the end of 2016, the Outreach

Project Team initiated “Each One, Reach One,” a

membership drive including a gift-certificate incentive to

a green-products company. An active and skilled

webmaster keeps activities updated and a blog adds

another layer of dynamism to the group’s public face, as

well as providing opportunities for contributions from

members.



The summer of 2015 was a fertile time for

sustainability and community-related advancements

within ALA itself. Sari Feldman, ALA’s President for

2015–16, launched the Libraries Transform (LT)

campaign, which highlights how libraries support

individual opportunity and community progress. One of

its goals is to “Energize and engage all library workers

as well as build external advocates to influence local,

state, and national decision makers” (Feldman, 2015).

The LT campaign includes the Center for the Future of

Libraries, which, according to ALA Executive Director

Keith Michael Fiels, helps libraries “identify emerging

trends, provoke discussion on how to respond to and

shape the future, and build connections with experts and

innovative thinkers in other fields who can help libraries

understand and meet the challenges of the future” (ALA,

2013a). One trend identified by the Center is resilience,

which is particularly aligned with SustainRT’s core

value of equity and access; the term “resilience” is

actually embedded in SustainRT’s byline. The statement,

“Truly resilient communities would embrace distributed

renewable energy, support diversified local agriculture,

and foster social equity and inclusion,” demonstrates that

ALA already upholds the three E’s of sustainability.

Also related is the LT campaign’s Libraries

Transforming Communities program, which trains

library staff to better understand communities, change

processes and thinking to make conversations more

community-focused, be proactive to community issues,

and put community aspirations first (ALA, 2015b).

A particularly powerful example of SustainRT’s

work so far, and ALA’s support, is the passing of an

ALA resolution, The Importance of Sustainable

Libraries (ALA Council, 2015). Within ALA, a

resolution is “a clear and formal expression of the

Table 1 SustainRT Communities of Practice Model

CoP Lifecycle Phase CoP Lifecycle Phase Explanation SustainRT Steps Taken

Inquire Explore, in order to identify audience, purpose, goals, vision

Webinar series with embedded questions regarding: the resurrection of TFOE, hoped for outcomes of a webinar session, how to initiate contact with library groups, how to address diverse needs of all library types, interest in presenting at sustainability conferences.

Design Define activities, technologies, group processes, roles to support the group

Used virtual technology for webinars, including chat function to stimulate discussion, ideas, and connections; invited guest speakers to webinars.

Prototype

Pilot the community with a select group of key stakeholders, to gain commitment, test assumptions, refine the strategy, and establish a success story

Formed an interim steering committee across library types; navigated the channels of ALA for becoming an official round table; collaborated on writing bylaws; selected neutral title of “Coordinator” for lead officer.

Launch

Roll out the community to a broader audience, in ways that engage newcomers, and deliver immediate benefits.

Launched social media, listserv and website with resources, news, events, and opportunities; circulated e-petition and asked everyone to share it with colleagues and other library groups; used open LinkedIn group for communicating; celebrated approval of the round table at an in-person social event.

Grow

Engage members in collaborative learning and knowledge sharing activities, group projects and networking events, that meet individual, group and organizational goals while creating an increasing cycle of participation and contribution.

‘Think Pair Share’ exercise at initial in-person meeting to elicit ideas from everyone; established ‘Project Teams,’ intentionally named to stimulate collaborative and tangible results; Lightning Rounds for sharing success stories at conferences; collaborative environmental scan of sustainability library projects; widely communicated goal of 300 members by end of 2015.

Sustain

Cultivate and assess the knowledge and “products” created by the community, to inform new strategies, goals, activities, roles, and technologies.

Continue to populate Project Teams, encouraging members to serve as chairs, with officers moving to liaison roles; open virtual meetings prior to in-person meeting to gather ideas from everyone; free and open professional development webinar series.

opinion or will of the assembly which supports ALA’s

strategic plan, its mission and/or its core values” (ALA,

2013b). The ALA initiatives outlined above provided a

logical, relevant, and welcoming bridge to passing this

resolution in June 2015. This synergistic awakening

within ALA as an organization invites its members to

commit to more specific, unified sustainability practices,

presumably with support and insights from SustainRT.

From greening library conferences, to offering

professional development, to funding more sustainability

projects, success will be partially measured by “the

energy, commitment to, and visibility of the



community,” until SustainRT becomes “institutionalized

as a core value-added capability” by ALA (Cambridge et

al. 2005). Rebecca Miller’s Library Journal editorial

sounds the alarm on The Importance of Sustainable

Libraries resolution as a call to action. Recognizing that

the sustainability work of libraries will be daunting in the

face of “a broad shift in entrenched practice,” Miller

notes how SustainRT set up structures to plan

dynamically for this shift through alliances with library,

civic, grassroots, business, and other groups. She

appreciates the terms “resilient” and “regenerative” in

the resolution, stating that they “add a supercharge that

hints at challenges inherent in the sea change, literal and

figurative, ahead.” She refers to the library community as

“one vast, smart, ethical network that is poised to

facilitate this work and make an impact, within the

profession and well beyond” (Miller, 2015).

Model for Fostering Dialogue and Collaboration

Due to the interest and passion staked around the

subject of sustainability, individual and group efforts

combined to move SustainRT forward relatively rapidly.

Working from a more formal model, however, such as a

CoP, would have provided an even more solid found-

ation from which to become established and grow. One

of the goals of this article is to provide a model for

library (and other) groups to start on firm ground.

The trajectory of SustainRT is reflected in the life

cycle offered in EDUCAUSE’s Community of Practice

Design Guide, which was adapted from Robert

McDermott (Cambridge et al. 2005). Based on the

history, development, needs, and aspirations of

SustainRT, the preliminary model exhibited in Table 1 is

offered to other groups starting out or working to

revitalize membership.

SustainRT’s own challenges include how to involve

school librarians, since their schedules do not accom-

modate daytime meetings and they do not typically work

during the summer. Possible solutions include targeted

outreach through school librarians’ professional groups,

listervs and publications; creating a dedicated “home” for

them within SustainRT (e.g., a Project Team); and

fostering connections with public and academic libraries

to support school libraries in the face of budget cuts and

a shrinking workforce. There is also the question of how

members can add to conversations when they cannot

immediately attend the session. One idea is to solicit

comments, questions, and statements in advance, just as

a radio host does, so that others may respond. Finally,

when guest presenters lack experience in the webinar

environment, extra training sessions are necessary. Over

time, as more members (and society in general) become

accustomed to webinars, this challenge will likely

resolve.

Ideas for strengthening and growing SustainRT

include creating avenues for LIS faculty and students to

connect and share resources; offering opportunities to

share members’ passion and expertise through story-

telling; mentoring peers; creating a sustainability “buddy

system”; offering outreach to LIS students; and

providing internships. In addition, SustainRT can support

ALA’s Libraries Transforming Communities endeavors

by developing instructional programs to engage

community conversations as well as leading citizens to

reliable information and empowering them to be

proactive in the face of challenges to come.

Conclusion

The journey from scattered individuals and

disconnected library groups working on sustainability

efforts to a unified, forward-thinking official roundtable,

within a newly realized CoP framework, sets the stage

for measureable change in the near future. SustainRT’s

member-driven design supports the concept that social

responsibility requires individuals to commit to action,

while collegial support through ALA maximizes the

library profession’s ability to address climate disruption

along with economic and social disparities.

Our impetus for engaging the library community and

joining forces around sustainability was born out of a

sense of urgency to openly, unabashedly, and relentlessly

address climate change, environmental degradation, and

social inequities. As the instigators in rallying passionate

and engaged colleagues around the Libraries for

Sustainability webinar series, the authors hope that

SustainRT’s work will provoke radical conversations and

lead to critically needed change at the local, regional, and

national levels, in our libraries, library associations,

communities, and beyond. In his groundbreaking book,

Don’t Even Think About It, environmental commun-

ication expert George Marshall (2014) writes about the

need for unbiased and direct discourse on climate

change, which is too often stymied by internal cultures of

academia, politics, the electoral process, and the media.

He laments that, “Climate change finds no foothold in

the conversations between workmates, neighbors, or

even friends and family...Each silence appears to be built

on the other silences, but they have a common basis in

the need to avoid anxiety and defend ourselves.” He

celebrates the prolonged struggles of social movements

that broke through socially constructed silence around

wicked problems. SustainRT also breaks a silence,

allowing sustainability, including addressing the urgency

of climate change, to resonate as a core mission of lib-

raries as community organizations. SustainRT provides

an open forum that empowers those engaged in

sustainability. In turn, SustainRT members and non-

member participants can gird their communities with



reliable information while maintaining safe spaces for

citizens to converse, connect, and learn.

Acknowlegments

The authors would like to thank the Libraries for

Sustainability webinar presenters and participants, the

first SustainRT officers and Project Team leaders, TFOE,

and ALA administrative staff who were instrumental and

dedicated to ushering in SustainRT. Finally, we convey

our gratitude to Estefania Arellana for designing the

infographic.

References

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher

Education (AASHE). 2015. AASHE Member Directory.

http://www.aashe.org/membership/member-directory.

February 20, 2016.

Albanese, A., Blumenstein, L., Oder, N., & Rogers, M. 2005.

Libraries damaged, librarians respond, after hurricane’s

fury. Library Journal 130(15):16–17.

American Library Association (ALA). 1996. Library Bill of

Rights. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/library

bill. February 20, 2016.

American Library Association (ALA). (2007). AASL national

conference is “going green.” http://www.ala.org/

Template.cfm?Section=archive&template=/contentmanag

ement/contentdisplay.cfm&ContentID=163738. February

20, 2016.

American Library Association (ALA). 2013a. ALA to establish

a center for the future of libraries. ALA News. http://www.

ala.org/news/press-releases/2013/10/ala-establish-center-

future-libraries. February 20, 2016.

American Library Association (ALA). 2013b. ALA Policy

A.4.2.3 Council Resolutions: Guidelines for Preparation.

http://www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/

content/governance/council/resolution_guidelines/council

_resol_guidelines.pdf. February 20, 2016.

American Library Association (ALA). 2015a. About ALA.

http://www.ala.org/ aboutala/about-ala. February 20, 2016.

American Library Association (ALA). 2015b. About LTC.

Libraries Transform. http://www.ala.org/transforming libr

aries/libraries-transforming-communities/about-ltc. Feb-

ruary 20, 2016.

American Library Association Council. 2015. Resolution on

the Importance of Sustainable Libraries. 2014–2015

Washington, DC: ALA. http://www.ala.org/aboutala/

sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/governance/council/cou

ncil_documents/2015_annual_council_documents/cd_36_

substainable_libraries_resol_final.pdf.

Ann Arbor District Library (AADL). n.d. Unusual Stuff to

Borrow. http://www.aadl.org/catalog/browse/unusual.

February 20, 2016.

Antonelli, M. 2008. The green library movement: an overview

and beyond. Electronic Green Journal 1(27).

Antonelli, M., and M. McCullough (Eds.). 2012. Greening

Libraries. Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.

Barnes, L. (2012). Green buildings as sustainability education

tools. Library Hi Tech 30(3):397–407.

Becker, S., Crandall, M., Fisher, K., Kinney, B., Landry, C., &

Rocha, A. 2010. Opportunity for All: How the American

Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries.

Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library

Services.

Berry III, J. 2010. ALA Midwinter 2011: Every issue is a

library issue. Library Journal 135(20):10.

Cambridge, D., Kaplan, S., & Suter, V. 2005. Community of

Practice Design Guide: A Step-by-Step Guide for

Designing & Cultivating Communities of Practice in

Higher Education. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE

Learning Initiative.

Charney, M. 2014. Academic librarians and the sustainability

curriculum: building alliances to support a paradigm shift.

Collaborative Librarianship 6(1):20–35.

Charney, M., Filar Williams, B., & Smith, B. 2012.

Registration Form: Libraries for Sustainability, Webinar

#4. http://works.bepress.com/charney_madeleine/80/.

February 20, 2016.

CLIC-on-Health. 2015. CLIC on Health. http://rrlc.org/

cliconhealth/. February 20, 2016.

Dewey, B. 2010. Transforming Research Libraries for the

Global Knowledge Society. Oxford: Chandos.

Edwards, A. 2005. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a

Paradigm Shift. Gabriola, BC: New Society.

Feldman, S. 2015. Libraries Transform: Making a Difference

for Our Profession. http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/

2015/07/27/libraries-transform/. February 20, 2016.

Filar Williams, B. 2012. Libraries for Sustainability: A Four

Part Webinar Series. https://greeningyourlibrary.word

press. com/2012/10/26/libraries-for-sustainability-a-four-

part-webinar-series/. February 20, 2016.

Filar Williams, B., Less, A., and Dorsey, S. 2012a. Librarians

as sustainability advocates, educators, and entrepreneurs.

In M. Krautter, M., M. Lock, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), The

Entrepreneurial Librarian: Essays on the Infusion of

Private-Business Dynamism into Professional Service. pp.

183-201. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Filar Williams, B., Smith, B., and Charney, M. 2012b.


#3. http://works.bepress.com/charney_madeleine/79/. Feb-

ruary 20, 2016.

Grosse Pointe Public Library (GPPL). n.d. Tool Collection.

http://www.gp.lib.mi.us/tool-collection. February 20,

2016.

Harripersaud, J. 2013. A Library as Beautiful as the Bronx:

NYC’s First Municipal Green Building. http://www.

nypl.org/blog/2013/08/28/library-beautiful-bronx.

February 20, 2016.

Hawken, P. 2007. To remake the world. Orion Magazine, May

7.

Henk, M. 2011. Occupy Libraries: Guerrilla Librarianship for

the People. https://peopleslibrary.wordpress.com/ 2011/

10/28/occupy-libraries-guerrilla-librarianship-for-the-

people. February 20, 2016.

Hoffman, J., Bertot, J., Davis, D., & Clark, L. 2011. Public

library funding and technology access study 2010–11:

executive summary. American Library Magazine

Summer: 6–10.

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). 2009. 2009

National Medal for Museum and Library Service.

Washington, DC: IMLS.



Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). 2011. 2011

National Medal for Museum and Library Service.

Washington, DC: IMLS.

Jankowska, M (Ed.). 2014. Focus on Educating for

Sustainability: Toolkit for Academic Libraries.

Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.

Jankowska, M., Smith, B., & Buehler, M. 2014. Engagement of

academic libraries and information science schools in

creating curriculum for sustainability: an exploratory

study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40(1):45–

54.

Johnson, K., Mathewson, A., & Prechtel, K. 2014. From crisis

to collaboration: Pima County Public Library partners

with health department for library nurse program. Public

Libraries Online February 28.

Marshall, G. 2014. Don’t Even Think about It: Why Our Brains

Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. New York:

Bloomsbury.

McLemee, S. 2011. Guerrilla Librarians in Our Midst.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/11/02/essay-

librarians-occupy-movement. February 20, 2016.

Miller, R. 2015. A win for sustainability: ALA’s resolution is

an important start. Library Journal 140(3):8.

Occupy Solidarity Network. n.d. About. http://occupy

wallst.org/about/. February 20, 2016.

Project for Public Spaces (PPS). n.d. How to Make Your

Library Great. http://www.pps.org/reference/library

attributes/. February 20, 2016.

Project for Public Spaces (PPS). 2015. Beyond Books: Outside

the Box Program Helps Build Community with Public

Libraries. http://www.pps.org/blog/beyond-books-outside-

the-box-program-helps-build-community-with-public-

libraries/. February 20, 2016.

Scott, W. 2011. The People’s Library of Occupy Wall Street

lives on. http://www.thenation.com/article/peoples-library-

occupy-wall-street-lives/. February 20, 2016.

Second Nature. 2015. Frequently Asked Questions: Becoming

Part of the Climate Leadership Network. http://second

nature.org/climate-guidance/frequently-asked-questions/.

February 20, 2016.

Seed Libraries. n.d.. Seed Libraries. http://seedlibraries.net/.

February 20, 2016.

Smith, B., Filar Williams, B., & Charney, M. 2012a.



ruary 20, 2016.

Smith, B., Filar Williams, B., & Charney, M. 2012b.



ruary 20, 2016.

Social Responsibilities Round Table (SRRT). 2000. Libraries

Build Sustainable Communities. Three Dynamics of

Sustainable Communities: Economy, Ecology, and Equity.

http://www.ala.org/srrt/tfoe/lbsc/librariesbuildsustainable

communitiesthree. February 20, 2016.

Special Libraries Association (SLA). 2008. SLA: Knowledge

to Go. https://www.sla.org/sla-knowledge-to-go-green/.

Feb-ruary 20, 2016.

Stoss, F. 2003. Sustainable communities and the roles libraries

and librarians play. Reference & User Services Quarterly

42(3):206–210.

Stoss, F. 2009. How and why we got here today: a history of

the ALA Task Force on the Environment. SRRT

Newsletter 68.

Sustainability Round Table (SustainRT). 2014. Think Pair

Share Exercise. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwQU

j1QSnj 5zcHZJVnVrSTgxa0E/view. February 20.2016.

UCLA Library. n.d. Electronic Green Journal: Aims and Scope.

https://escholarship.org/uc/search?entity=uclalib_egj;view

=aimsandscope. February 20, 2016.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. 2002. Cultivating

Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing

Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Documents

Volume 11 Issue 2 Journal Editor Winter 2015 Maurie Cohen ...d20nn6mxpbiih2.cloudfront.net/sspp-journal/SSPP-vol11.2.pdf · Mark Altaweel, Arika Virapongse, David Griffith, Lilian