4.7 Article

Balancing or prioritising for sustainable development? Perceptions of sustainability integration among professionals

Journal

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 1921-1936

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sd.2493

Keywords

perceptions; survey; sustainability governance; sustainability integration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effective integration of environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability requires a shift in the core problem perceptions of professionals in these fields. However, few studies have examined the role of subjective understandings among professionals in sustainability integration. This article addresses this gap by investigating how professionals understand and operationalize sustainability integration, revealing the need to consider individual circumstances in this process.
The effective integration of the environmental with the economic and social dimensions of sustainability will only succeed when the core problem perceptions of professionals in these fields adjust as well. Yet, while sustainability integration in general has been thoroughly researched, few studies have analysed the specific role of subjective understandings among professionals. This article bridges this gap by asking how professionals understand and operationalise sustainability integration. Which factors shape their perceptions and practices? We present the results of an online survey that was circulated to a diverse sample of professionals and then analysed using statistical methods. Responses from 508 participants show that sustainability integration is mostly perceived as a balance across all three sustainability dimensions rather than a hierarchy with the environment at its basis. However, perceptions also vary significantly across professional and geographical contexts. This signifies the need to better account for how individual circumstances affect processes of integration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available