Sustainable development and human development. Evolution or transition in the scientific conception of sustainability?

Abstract

The integration of the various ideological views by the academic community around the great problems facing the planet has allowed the establishment of a complex system of practical and theoretical relationships between man and nature, generating a strong connection between sustainable development and human development, and conferring greater prominence to the role of human beings, according to their powers, liberties and actions for achieving and maximizing their individual and collective well-being. In this regard, this chapter aims to analyze the influence of the human context in the historical conceptualization of development and its relation with human and planetary well-being over the past 50 years. We try to prove that when it comes to development from the human perspective or from the perspective of sustainability, it tends towards the same discourse that enables convergence and evolution of the concept of development into a much less utopian trend, with greater scope and application under the scientific paradigm of sustainability in terms of human welfare.

Full text

Artículo original / Original article / Artigo original
Producción + Limpia - Julio - Diciembre de 2017. Vol.12, No.2 - 103•117 - DOI: 10.22507/pml.v12n1a9
Sustainable development and human
development. Evolution or transition in the
scientic conception of sustainability?1
Julián Santiago Vásquez Roldán2, Robert Ng Henao3
¿Desarrollo sostenible y desarrollo humano. ¿evolución o transición en la
concepcion cientíca de sostenibilidad?
¿Desenvolvimento sustentável e desenvolvimento humano. Evolução ou transição
na concepção cientíca de sustentabilidade?
ABSTRACT
The integration of the various ideological views by the academic community around the great problems facing
the planet has allowed the establishment of a complex system of practical and theoretical relationships between
man and nature, generating a strong connection between sustainable development and human development, and
conferring greater prominence to the role of human beings, according to their powers, liberties and actions for
achieving and maximizing their individual and collective well-being. In this regard, this chapter aims to analyze the
inuence of the human context in the historical conceptualization of development and its relation with human
and planetary well-being over the past 50 years. We try to prove that when it comes to development from the
human perspective or from the perspective of sustainability, it tends towards the same discourse that enables
convergence and evolution of the concept of development into a much less utopian trend, with greater scope
and application under the scientic paradigm of sustainability in terms of human welfare.
Keywords: sustainable development, human development, local development, regional development, welfare,
governance.
1 This article is the result of the project: “ Sustainable Governance “ Management Model For Sustainable Development In The
City Of Medellin Through Reinterpreting The Esc (Emerging Sustainable Cities) METHODOLOGY, funded by the Autónoma
Latinoamericana University and the Group of Economic Research GINVECO of the School of Economics. We acknowledge the
contributions made by Diego Alejandro Cortés Gil, a research assistant of the group GINVECO, Faculty of Economics.
2 GINVECO Group researcher at the Faculty of Economics, Autónoma Latinoamericana University, email julian.vasquez@unaula.
edu.co ORCID: 0000-0002-2561-5285
3 GINVECO Group researcher at the Faculty of Economics, Autónoma Latinoamericana University, email robert.nghe@unaula.
edu.co ORCID:0000-0002-9228-2193
Artículo recibido: 29/08/2017; Artículo aprobado: 25/09/2017
Autor para correspondencia: Julián Santiago Vásquez Roldán, Email: julian.vasquez@unaula.edu.co

104
Producción + Limpia - Julio - Diciembre de 2017. Vol.12, No.2 - Vásquez Roldán et al - 103•117
RESUMEN
La integración de varias posturas ideológicas de la
comunidad académica en torno a los grandes problemas
que afronta el planeta ha permitido establecer un
complejo sistema de relaciones prácticas y teóricas
entre el hombre y la naturaleza, generando una fuerte
conexión entre desarrollo sostenible y desarrollo
humano, y conriendo mayor prominencia al papel
de los seres humanos, de acuerdo a sus poderes,
libertades, y acciones para alcanzar y maximizar su
bienestar individual y colectivo. En este sentido, el
propósito de este capítulo es analizar la inuencia del
contexto humano en la conceptualización histórica
del desarrollo y su relación con el bienestar humano
y planetario durante los últimos 50 años. Intentamos
comprobar que cuando se trata del desarrollo desde
una perspectiva humana o desde la perspectiva de la
sostenibilidad, se tiende hacia un mismo discurso que
posibilita la convergencia y evolución del concepto de
desarrollo hacia una tendencia mucho menos utópica,
con mayor alcance y aplicación bajo el paradigma
cientíco de sostenibilidad en términos de bienestar
humano.
Palabras clave: desarrollo sostenible, desarrollo
humano, desarrollo local, desarrollo regional, bienestar,
gobernanza.
RESUMO
A integração de várias posturas ideológicas da
comunidade acadêmica em torno aos grandes
problemas que afronta o planeta há permitido
estabelecer um complexo sistema de relações práticas
e teóricas entre o homem e a natureza, gerando uma
forte conexão entre desenvolvimento sustentável
e desenvolvimento humano, e conferindo maior
prominência ao papel dos seres humanos, de acordo
aos seus poderes, liberdades, e ações para alcançar
e maximizar seu bem-estar individual e coletivo.
Neste sentido, o propósito deste capítulo é analisar
a inuência do contexto humano na conceptualização
histórica do desenvolvimento e sua relação com o
bem-estar humano e planetário durante os últimos
50 anos. Tentamos comprovar que quando se trata
do desenvolvimento desde uma perspectiva humana
ou desde a perspectiva da sustentabilidade, se tende
a um mesmo discurso que possibilita a convergência
e evolução do conceito de desenvolvimento a
uma tendência muito menos utópica, com maior
alcance e aplicação sob o paradigma cientíco de
sustentabilidade em termos de bem-estar humano.
Palavras chave: desenvolvimento sustentável,
desenvolvimento humano, desenvolvimento local,
desenvolvimento regional, bem-estar, governação.
INTRODUCTION
From the 1960s, the conuence of various ideological
views by the scientic community around major
global issues such as the concentration of income, loss
of biodiversity and environmental degradation, has
allowed to identify an increasingly strong correlation
among physical measurements of inevitable
human activity, nature, resource conservation and
environmental sustainability (Bettencourt & Kaur,
2011).
This complex system of interrelations between man
and nature is what allows establishing the existence of
a strong connection between sustainable development
and human development, with the latter more focused
on human development, depending on the capabilities
and freedoms that humans have (Miller, 2013. P 281).
As it is intended subsequently to identify in this work,
and because of its degree of ambiguity, sustainable
development has been interpreted across multiple
considerations (Bosselmann, 2008); unlike the
concept of human development, upon which lies
a higher degree of uniformity and unanimity in its
conceptualization (Ul Haq, 1995).
The ecological or environmental dimension was only
recently inserted into a practical and tangible level in
anthropological, sociological, political and economic
visions of man and his relationship with the territory.
Therefore, the sustainability eld is incipiently
developed and of rather low acceptance but, on the

105
Sustainable development and human development. Evolution or transition in the scientic conception of sustainability?
contrary, with recent, relentless and prolic technical,
academic and scientic creation, given the interest
that this new development approach has aroused
globally, and given its multidisciplinary and especially
transdisciplinary nature (Palmer, 2012; Shahadahu,
2016).
The approach that this paper seeks to establish in
the conceptualization of sustainability and its relation
to the understanding of human development from a
framework of local application aims to conceive the
environment as a concept that is intimately linked to
ecology. According to the Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of
Doubts of the Royal Spanish Academy of Language
in its rst edition (October 2005), the environment
is the ¨set of circumstances or conditions outside a
living being that inuence their development and their
activities¨4. Ecology will be regarded as the study of
the relationships of living beings with each other and
with their environment (Lee Ellis, Kweon & Hong,
2008). In the framework to be developed in this paper,
special emphasis will be given to the natural dimension
of the environment, reduced in a utilitarian fashion
sometimes to qualify as natural resources, but the
focus will also be on the environment built by human
activity. In urban environments, both dimensions are in
continuous interaction. As suggested by Verschure and
Tuts (2004, p. 250), all environments are constructs,
in the sense that they are transformed, reinterpreted
and endowed with meaning by the human being.
The risks involved in a markedly economistic
understanding of the processes of managing
development and its scale of action on a human, social
or territorial level, identies a number of elements
that combine into what can be called a common
denominator in terms of building a perception of
development more focused on economic aspects
(Wiek, 2007 p. 54). The features listed below as
evidence of the risks posed by this confusion are
considered as the main and most valuable criticism of
these approaches:
• Economic growth is the engine of development
and social progress, presented as the instrument
and the purpose of development. Issues linked
to the unequal distribution of income are not
incorporated (Steelman et al., 2015);
• Despite the contributions of the structuralist
approach through the use of instruments for
4 Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Doubts of the Royal Spanish
Academy of Language -rst edition (October 2005), (http://
buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=medioambiente)
synchronic and diachronic analysis, its anachronistic
vision of development (without considering the
time variable) reveals the little incorporation of
a country’s historical perspective in the studies
carried out (NESS et al., 2007);
• Development refers to the development of
countries, obviating its territorial, local and individual
levels and the effects of this “development” on
human interactions with society, institutions and
the environment (Fischer et al., 2007);
• They do not pay attention to relevant elements
of development as they really are - social subjects
themselves-, or to the environment or culture,
which would provide a more comprehensive view
of the concept (JERNECK et al. 2011)
The main loss of validity of these economistic
approaches lies in their inability to solve current
problems (UNDP, 1992). Although productivity and
efciency continue to be recognized as important
indicators in the consolidation of a much more holistic
denition of development, the so called alternative
trends begin to incorporate new analysis components,
such as gender equality, the satisfaction of basic
human needs, respect for ethnic minorities, inclusion
and social cohesion, governance, governmentality,
metabolic efciency, environmental sustainability
and, more recently, the valuation of the territory and
localities (Valcárcel, 2006, p. 31).
Finding a valid denition for the concept of
development that links the concepts of human
and territory from a scientic perspective is not
easy. This is especially due to the economic vision
that has accompanied its various lines of thought
throughout the twentieth century, where one can
identify interesting contributions such as: development
as a process in stages (Rostow 1990; Kuznets 1955;
Chenery 1966); the progressive expansion of the
capitalist core (Lewis, 1996); the poverty trap (Nurske
1953; Chenery, 1966; Strout, 1966); the role of external
economies (Rosestein-Rodan, 1984; Hirschman, 1958;
Myrdal, 1957); the center-periphery approach and the
deterioration of terms of trade (Prebisch-Singer, 1982).
The excess of strictly delineated components from
economic science is precisely one of the elements for
which the concept is questioned by some authors,
for the simple fact of being considered as a unique
construction of Western societies5. It is their heritage
5 In this regard, see the interesting work of Gilbert Rist enti-
tled “Development: History of a Western belief” (Rist, 2002).

106
Producción + Limpia - Julio - Diciembre de 2017. Vol.12, No.2 - Vásquez Roldán et al - 103•117
of the notions of progress, civilization or growth
(Valcárcel, 2006), which for some is the main reason
for their dichotomous validity as a concept with a
vocation towards universal application in any context.
We depart from the idea that, under new approaches
(human, regional and sustainable developments), it
is possible to talk about development in the sense
of a permanent change and transformation process
(from the individual level to the global level); it is of a
multidimensional and transdisciplinary character, but
not necessarily of an evolutionary, cumulative and uni-
disciplinary one (Miller, 2013).
Evolution of the concept of development and
its debate around the concept of sustainability
Since the mid-eighteenth century, the history of
mankind has been determined by a particular pattern
of thought, which has consequently inuenced the
spread of views that society accepts about the facts
related to the determining conditions of sustainable
development (Mebratu, 1998). This scheme of thought
has been closely linked to the establishment of a set
of economic, environmental, political, cultural and
social elements that have laid the foundations of
what historiography acknowledges as the emergence
of capitalism, understanding emergence or birth
as a synthetic and adjusted characteristic of what
is considered as modernity (Miller et al., 2014;
Bettencourt & Kaur, 2011; Kates, 2011).
Parallel to the advancement and penetration of the new
model of economic organization in the social context
and the dynamics of public responsibilities and the
government, the juxtaposition of individual behavior,
and the psychological and economic validation of
selshness, the thinking and autonomous individual
appears, who engages in an ongoing struggle to satisfy
their own needs as opposed to the responsibilities
that the new model imbues (Komiyama & Takeuchi,
2006). In a now famous interpretation of the work
of Max Weber, the German historian Wolfgang
Mommsen (1971, p. 111) warned about the presence
of an “abysmal antagonism” between individual
responsibility and product rationalization, particularly
in the modern capitalist world of work with its
hierarchical structures, disciplines and bureaucracies.
The real problem is the ease with which we accept
this paradox, because as the problems arising from
approaching the operating limits of the system
become more noticeable, we are also more aware
of the environmental problems derived from the
socioeconomic processes that we are a part of
(Nassauer, 1995; NG, 2013; Foody, 2015). In this
way we advocate the need to generate greater
scientic and technological progress for our nations.
But even knowing this, we are unable to accept our
responsibilities regarding the increasing abuse and
deterioration of nature with the consequences of
increasing poverty and misery for most people on the
planet (Jimenez 1996, p.79).
The environmental crisis and its correlation with the
effects of growth and economic expansion has been
accelerated during the second half of the twentieth
century, with the additional problem of progressive
increases in the inability of human understanding as to
the true dimension of man in nature (Carvalho 1998,
p.15). Man’s pressures for better survival conditions
have encouraged population growth, the globalization
of economy, culture and technology, and the
generation of a high network of interdependencies
between advanced and emerging nations (Van Kerkoff,
2014). Although with these the world economy has
managed to recover from the recent crisis context, the
implications of the depletion of resources, generating
catastrophic effects on habitats and the environment,
are incalculable versus traditional mechanisms under
which the current production model is supported
(Duit et al., 2010).
However, although the outlook is daunting, all is
not lost. Environmental education, culture and
management are critical when raising awareness
about the signicant changes required by society and
the system, where responsibility does not exclusively
encompass the role of states and large corporations
(Kajikawa, 2008), but rather requires a change in our
customs and ideologies concerning the processes
of consumption, accumulation and production. In
sum, a change is required in all our dynamics with
the environment and our relationship with our
surroundings and our fellow beings, those who have
impacted the dichotomy of the pursuit of individual
satisfaction of human needs as opposed to the leading
role of the individual as a link in the production chain
under ideal welfare frameworks (Ng, 2014).).
For about three decades, special relevance has
been given to the delicate situation that the natural
environment is experiencing, from the capitalist
system’s desire to relate development with economic
growth, without any distinction (Redman, 2014). This
concern is not new in history, given that sustainability
has been talked about since the eighteenth century,

107
Sustainable development and human development. Evolution or transition in the scientic conception of sustainability?
with the French proposals regarding physiocracy
(Kates, 2011). This theory, consisting of an economic
system and a production model based on the power of
the land and agriculture, proposed the consideration
of natural factors in the production of wealth.
However, such approaches did not have resonance
against the emerging and subsequently inuential
economic theories of Adam Smith and David Ricardo
through their school of classical liberal thought, for
which industrial and nancial wealth was conceived
independently from ecological factors (Llobera, 2001).
In the nineteenth century, economists of the Russian
school such as Podolinsky (1995) and Geddes (1949)
began to give shape to what would be the roots
of the trend now known as green economy. More
recently, in the early sixties, came the concept of
sustainable economy from authors such as Herman
Daly, John Cobb and Clifford Cobb (1994) and Paul
Erlich (1996), who referred to the “need to ensure
an equitable economic system that was in relation to
the consumption of natural resources, progressive
in moral and ethical aspects as well as in human
knowledge and technological applications, and in
terms of distribution” (Llobera, 2001).
At present, some collective movements, academics
and social groups have been more sensitive to the
increasing environmental degradation and depletion
of natural resources and have gradually directed
the attention of development experts towards
the consolidation of a movement in defense of the
planet. This has been done by means of a strong
criticism against the prevailing model of economic
system which, according to them, is the main cause
for this dangerous situation (Miner, 2008). At the
same time, they have been noticing the growing
problems of poverty in a world where, apparently,
the generation of material wealth was supposedly
increasing (Kemp et al., 2005, p.13). However, the rst
attempts to operationalize the concept of sustainable
development have been aimed towards economic and
environmental dimensions. It is only in recent years
when more interest has been found in considering
the social dimension of implementing sustainable
development (Froger, 2004). Thus, a new vision of
sustainable development arises, under the fulllment
of four basic objectives: economic prosperity; inclusion
and social cohesion; environmental sustainability; and
governance and governability (Sachs, 2014).
Perhaps one of the most decisive events for the
reorientation of the conceptualizations about
development and the evolution of the concept
around the paradigm of sustainability is the forum of
independent and international debate known as the
“Club of Rome”. The forum has brought together
scientists, economists, entrepreneurs, sociologists
and senior ofcials from various organizations around
the world since 1968 and, in 1972, published a report
entitled “the limits to growth” (Mebratu, 1998;
Meadows et al., 1972). The main conclusion of the
report focused on the absolute limits to growth which
earth is approaching during the next hundred years,
due to the complex and almost exponential increase
in world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production and the excessive exploitation of natural
resources (Kates et al., 2001).
Although the analysis of the interactions among
those problems is extraordinarily complex, the Club
of Rome analyzed the evolution of key parameters
of planet Earth (population, natural resources,
industrial food production and pollution), generating
a predictive model of the global behavior of the
planet called World36, with different versions over
the years (Weber, 2010). The study highlighted the
physical constraints to growth and concluded that
there would be a collapse of the above variables in
2050. Although many labeled them as doomsayers and
the predictions are certainly based on a mathematical
model that simplies reality (simplication of which
the authors were aware), these predictions sounded
the alarm about the devastating effects that standard
patterns of production and consumption were causing
to planet Earth (MEADOWS et al, 1992).
The United Nations Conference on Human
Environment held in Stockholm in 1972 is another
reference that should be considered when analyzing
the elements and the most representative moments
in the evolution and inclusion of the sustainability
paradigm in conceptualizing development. The
international community met there for the rst time
to analyze the global needs in the eld of development
and the environment. Although the relationship
between environment and development did not
emerge strongly enough, there was sufcient evidence
to conrm the need for altering the way economic
development had been carried out (Mebratu, 1998, p.
500). But it was not until the late 80s of the twentieth
century that the term sustainable development itself
6 World3 is a computer software simulation. It was created
to make projections about the future development of the
planet, using a large database with many variables. These
projections are based on the interplay of systems such as
world’s population, industrial growth, food production and
limits on ecosystems on Earth.

108
Producción + Limpia - Julio - Diciembre de 2017. Vol.12, No.2 - Vásquez Roldán et al - 103•117
began to spread worldwide, especially following the
report “Our Common Future”, better known as the
Brundtland Report of 1987. The report was supposed
to be an advance on the proposals made to date, as the
aspects considered included North-South inequalities,
inequity of the current development model, the need
for intergenerational justice, etc. (Meadowcroft, 2000;
Sen, 2000). The World Commission on Environment
and Development concluded in the study that
ecological and social failures had common causes
and therefore demanded common responses (Kemp,
2005, p. 13).
Despite its efcient and accepted analysis, the report
does not deal with certain issues crucial for promoting
sustainability and citizen participation with the
required depth (Font, 2000). It has been criticized for
its ambiguities, which have just opened a large stage
where almost everything has a place and acceptance.
Some voices, however (Sen, 2000), give value precisely
to this ambiguity, arguing that what people need, as
agents of change, is a sufciently broad notion of
sustainability that different linkages can adapt later on
(Spangenberg, 2011).
Tryzna and Mebratu (1998) stress that the greatest
advancement in the new conceptual perspective
on development and the environment was given by
the publication in 1980 of the World Conservation
Strategy, which placed particular emphasis on the
concept of conservation as a framework when
discussing environment and development. It does
not explicitly address the denition of sustainable
development (what it does layout is the concept
of sustainable development, understanding this as
economic growth that does not infringe ecosystems),
but recurrently stresses the concept of sustainability
and the inevitable connection between environmental
variables and development (Scholz & Steiner, 2015).
Other approaches to consider in the search for
a conceptualization of development without
destruction, or from a much more “green wave”
oriented view, is the proposed eco-development
that emerged from the United Nations Program for
Environment (UNEP) in the early 1970’s (Mebratu,
1998). Eco-development, set forth by Polish socio-
economist Ignacy Sachs (1981), is a concept that
proposes a development model in which each country
requires specic strategies to solve their particular
problems, taking into account cultural, social, and
ecological specicities, with the aim of better meeting
the needs of the local community (Lin & Chang, 2013).
The context of eco-development is structured in
three parts: economic, environmental and social; and
the main issue to be resolved in each part revolves
around the creation of welfare for society, which is
somehow determined by technological constraints
and issues related to environmental degradation
(Masten & Powell, 2003).
In his work on sustainable human development,
Calabuig (2008, p. 29) presents as a new approach
to development, a comprehensive compilation of
events, which are named by the author as great
“milestones” of sustainability, and made up of the
possible proposals from different summits, meetings
and documents ratied worldwide. These have
helped to address a new vision of sustainability from
a conception of development much more oriented
to the human component, placing special attention
on the connections between the environment and
economic growth, and on issues such as population,
poverty, social mobility, inequality, climate change and
urbanization, among others (Moffatt, 1996; Hopwood
et al., 2005).
In this regard, according to the contributions of
Naredo (1996), Alonso and Sevilla (2000), Bermejo
(2000), and Rist (2002), led by the arguments put
forward by Abeledo (2002) on the transition and
evolution of the concept “development”, it is valid
to consider the following as environmental scenarios
of the economic paradigm and its implications for
development management under the paradigm of
sustainability: the mechanical and anthropocentric
vision; commercial and mercantilist reductionism;
technological and scientic optimism; the notion of
unlimited and indenite growth; the belief that natural
resources are renewable and unlimited; in addition
to the full rate of substitution between natural and
anthropic capital (Walker et al., 2004).
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels had established at the
time that production implied relations of production
and therefore the predominance of capitalism as it
generated the exploitation of the working class; it
also linked the exploitation of said class to the terms
offered by the environment (Bellamy, 2009). To achieve
levels of development in line with the main paradigms
of sustainability order, it is necessary to apply the basic
microeconomic principles around the optimization
of resources, production maximization and prot
maximization (Kirby et al., 1995). However, this
situation is not possible without radical changes in the
economic structures that make up the current world
order. Consequently, the following questions arise: is
it essential to fully break with the current pattern of

109
Sustainable development and human development. Evolution or transition in the scientic conception of sustainability?
growth and accumulation, changing the market and
the importance of the role of consumption?; or will
the constitution of supranational policies and the
establishment of global agreements and commitments
that encourage the disappearance of inequities be
enough? (Jacobs, 1996).
Although answering these questions is complicated,
it is more complex to frame the implementation
of possible solutions in an agreement of opinion
and wills, not without acknowledging the different
ideological and theoretical views framing the problem
that our planet and the prevailing economic, political,
and social systems, are going through.
In the synthesis made from the different ideological
views that have emerged throughout history since the
origins of capitalism as the prevailing economic system,
one can identify irreconcilable relations between man
and his needs: the necessary resources and services
to satisfy them, and the environment (CALABUIG,
2008). In this regard, the most important thing to
consider is that we can build consensus among the
responsibilities of the various individual and collective
actors, both public and private. This consensus must
embody a new concept of development consistent
with the interests and needs of both rich and poor
(Leff, 2000). The actions proposed within this new
scenario must be of a truly global impact, because the
consequential problems of environmental degradation
and the effects of climate change, among other issues,
are intertwined and cannot be isolated (Fussel, 2007).
Humanizing of the concept of development
The most signicant conceptual change in
development economics begins from the 1970s,
motivated by the lack of signs that show a real scope
of balanced welfare conditions and needs satisfaction
for the entire population within a territory (Miller
et al., 2014). The notion of economic growth loses
momentum and gives way to another focus: the
satisfaction of basic human needs. One of the authors
that have validated the conguration and acceptance of
alternative approaches to the concept of development
is Sen (2000, p19), who conceives an alternative way
to development as a process of expanding the real
freedoms enjoyed by individuals. The same author
points out that the fact that society focuses its
attention on human freedoms contrasts with the
strictest visions of development and its identication
with gross domestic product growth, rising personal
incomes, industrialization, and technological advances
or social modernization (Nussbaum & Mazzoni, 1996).
Alternative ideas to development will materialize
in a variety of approaches that advocate for a
development with a human face, more focused on
ecological balance (Hidalgo, 1998, p. 280). Among the
works and contributions of the past three decades
related to the concept of human development, it is
rst necessary to note the report “Adjustment with
a human face” published by UNICEF in 1987 (Cornia
& Stewart, 1987). For its attempt to confront the
economic orthodoxy under which many structural
adjustment and stabilization programs have been
implemented in developing countries (Cruz, 2006),
this report becomes one of the forerunners of the
approach and concept of human development that
begins to integrate itself with the dimensions of
sustainability sciences.
The human development approach emerged in the late
1980s within the United Nations, under the inuence
of the thinking and work of economists Amartya Sen
(awarded with the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998)
and Mahbub ul Haq (Lechner, 2000). This concept
is institutionalized starting from 1990 through the
Human Development Reports prepared by the United
Nations Program for Development. The rst Report
on Human Development of 1990, entitled “Concept
and Measurement of Human Development”, emerges
from a break with traditional thinking of development
as economic growth (Ferrero, 2004, p 106; Valcárcel,
2006, p. 25).
The interest in all that underlies human development
came to occupy a central place in the debate about
development in the nineties (Sarewitz et al., 2012).
For a long time, the recurring question was: how is a
country producing? The question being asked now is
more often: how are people doing? The main reason
for this change is the growing acknowledgement that
expanding people’s options and meeting an increasingly
broader range of both physical and intangible needs
is the real objective of development (Cutter et al.,
2008). “Income is just one of those options -and an
extremely important one- but it is not the total sum
of human life. Health, education, physical environment,
freedom, to name a few options, can be as important
as income” (Ul Haq, 1995).
The structural bases for sustainability as a science
that relates to development and human welfare are
supported in the theory of Amartya Sen’s “capabilities

110
Producción + Limpia - Julio - Diciembre de 2017. Vol.12, No.2 - Vásquez Roldán et al - 103•117
approach” (Sen, 2000). This approach seeks to address
an alternative conception of sustainability of territory
and views development as a process of expansion of
individual and collective human capacities to carry
out activities that are freely chosen and valued. This
report can be considered as the academic document
that disclosed the concept of human development; it
was written by a team led by Mahbub ul Hac and made
up of Keith Grifn, Amartya Sen, Frances Stewart and
Paul Streeten, among others (Ferrero, 2004, p 106;
Valcárcel, 2006, p. 25).
One possible denition of valid acceptance of human
development and its relationship with sustainability
is precisely the one coined by the UNDP Report
on Human Development, which puts forward the
following concept: “Human development is a process
by which individuals’ opportunities expand, the most
important of which are a long and healthy life, access
to education and the enjoyment of a decent standard
of living. Other choices include political freedom,
guaranteed human rights and self-respect” (UNDP,
1992, p. 33). Human development is then congured
under the tutelage of multiple disciplines and diverse
applications in a multidimensional concept that
goes beyond the simple satisfaction of basic needs
and which applies equally to both developed and
developing countries, and generally to any kind of
territory (Ferrero, 2004, p. 106).
Several misinterpretation problems arise from the
debate on the concept of development, as a result
of the poor denition of its dimensions in recent
attempts to theorize it (Cruz, 2006, p. 58). Regarding
human development, there are some disagreements,
but it is undeniable that there is broad agreement in
relation to various aspects (Ul Haq, 1995, p.4):
• The human development paradigm is concerned
with developing human capacities through a
framework for growth and employment (Tomer,
2016).
• Human development has four pillars: equity,
sustainability, productivity and empowerment.
It considers economic growth as essential, but
emphasizes the need to pay attention to quality
and distribution; it carefully analyses their link to
the lives of people and questions their long-term
sustainability (Biggeri & Ferranini, 2014).
• Development must put people at the center of
its concern. The human development paradigm
establishes development purposes and analyzes
the most sensitive options to meet these goals.
The person is, from this approach, the means and
the end of development, that is, participant and
beneciary of the process (Tridico, 2011).
Hidalgo (1998, p. 278) analyzes the concept of human
development as “an integrative concept of what
has been alternative development, combining the
satisfaction of basic needs, sustainable development,
reform of the international order, autonomous
development, multidimensional development, among
others”. From this perspective, considering the
perceptions of authors such Keith Grifn (1990),
Amartya Sen (2000), Frances Stewart and Paul
Streeten (1976), one cannot deny the intellectual
efforts made from the perspective of human
development in recent years, in order to strengthen
its relationship with the paradigm of sustainability and
their actual implementation in the territory. However,
sustainability is not fully embedded in the human
development approach despite what is suggested
by Hidalgo (1998, p. 284); this is why the current
trend focuses on adopting the term sustainable
human development as a way to consolidate the
major contributions of both approaches in an inter-
and trans-disciplinary way, from a more holistic
conception of analysis.
The human development approach proposed by
UNDP revolves around measuring its own instrument,
which is known as the Human Development Index
(HDI). Under this indicator, development is conceived
as a concept that represents more than the variation
in the income of a territory (Mesa, 2008); human
development according to the UNDP seeks to
ensure the need for people and groups to develop
their potential and pursue a creative and productive
life towards meeting their needs and interests7. This
conceptualization focuses on an alternative vision
that proposes placing development in its human
component as the possibility of expanding the
options people have available to carry out the lifestyle
they value, that is, to increase the range of options
or possibilities of what they can be and do in their
lives. In this way, economic growth and sustainable
consumption and income are only valid as long as
they result in the generation of greater and better
opportunities for people (Lopez - Bald & Grajales,
2013). To expand these options, it is essential to build
human capabilities. The most basic capabilities for
human development are: leading a long and healthy
life, having access to resources that enable people to
live in dignity, and being able to participate in decisions
that affect their community (UNDP, 2015). Without
7 http://www.pnud.org.co/sitio.shtml?apc=aBa020081--
&m=a&e=A#.VT5FsNJ_NHw

111
Sustainable development and human development. Evolution or transition in the scientic conception of sustainability?
these capabilities, many of the options are simply not
available and many opportunities are inaccessible.
Within the academic and scientic considerations
and the concept of development from its human
component inputs, one cannot exclude the focus
on Human Scale Development, which ultimately is
complementary to the contributions of Amartya Sen
and UNDP. The human scale development has been led
by the work of Manfred Max-Neef, Martin Hopenhayn
and Antonio Elizalde (1986), where the importance
of distinguishing between needs and satisfactions of
these needs is stressed. According to these authors,
human needs are not innite and inscrutable; on the
contrary, they are nite and well known. That does
not imply a biological or etiological reductionism or
the application of the approach of “basic needs of the
poor” 8 (Feres & Mancero, 2001). Human needs are
those of all humans (Martínez, 1994) which, adapted
to the context of development that this work calls for,
could translate into the idea that development refers
to people, not to objects (Max-Neef et al., 1996, p.40).
Max-Neef, Hopenhayn and Elizalde (1996) focus on
talking about poverties rather than poverty, in the
sense that any fundamental human need that is not
adequately satised reveals a human poverty. Because
of their impact on development policies, development
on a human scale considers that these policies should
be geared towards meeting the broad needs in the
sense understood by this approach, which implies
transcending the traditional economic rationale to
commit the human being in full (Calabuig, 2008, p. 25).
The proposal for humanizing development is then
summarized as its practical application in a matrix of
needs and satisfactions; the former are classied in
four existential categories (be, have, do, being) and
nine axiological categories (subsistence, protection,
affection, understanding, participation, leisure,
creation, identity and freedom) (Calabuig, 2008, p. 37).
CONCLUSIONS
There are important trends of thought that have been
raising questions about the relationship between the
conceptualization given to development and the very
issues that structure the paradigm of sustainability.
Based on this view, a certain conclusion emerges
about the negative effects that the development
model imposed by the capitalist system is causing not
only in the physical component of the territory but
8 Characteristic of the World Bank and other international
organizations from 1970
also in its main impact component which is society
(Redclift, 2000; Rist, 2002). In his work “Development:
History of a Western belief”, Rist (2002) is even more
critical and radical and dares to expose the thesis that
sustainable development is really an oxymoron 9 .
Another trend worth considering within the
existing debate between the importance of foisting
the concept of development and the proper and
concerning issues regarding the sustainability
paradigm is the eco-technocratic vision (Alonso
& Sevilla, 2000). According to Gallego (1972), this
ideological stance arises from the Conference of
the United Nations on Human Environment held in
Stockholm in 1972 and its conception in the school
of orthodox economics, which championed the
term sustainability under the claim that economic
growth (unlimited) is compatible with sustainability
(Calabuig, 2008). This is one of the most important
criticisms of the denition in the Brundtland Report
and one of the biggest contradictions that the Report
encloses: promoting as an alternative to eradicate
poverty and stabilizing the global ecosystem precisely
the policies of economic growth, which are those
that have increasingly deepened the gap between
rich and poor and have degraded the environment
(Rist, 2002; Meadowcroft, 2003; Naredo, 1996;
Bermejo, 2001; Llobera, 2001). The discourse then
defended by technocratic environmentalism is
now regarded as founding and validating ofcial
sustainable development, according to international
organizations (Alonso & Sevilla, 2000). It states that
although the threat to the planet is ongoing, its
effects can be minimized by establishing a series of
corrective measures. However, under deep analysis,
these measures generate a great contradiction with
the model of growth, accumulation and development
of the great super powers, and even generate loss of
development and exclusion for most countries that
do not have great historical accumulations of capital,
technology and power (Gorostiaga, 1991, p.39).
Authors such as Norton (1995) and Naredo (1996) have
focused the analysis on the concept of sustainability,
rather than on the concept of development, enabling
the creation of two views on it. One the one hand
there is the view of weak sustainability, understood as
9 Among literary gures in rhetoric, it is a logical gure that
consists of using two concepts of opposite meaning in a
single expression, which generates a third concept. Since the
literal sense of oxymoron is opposite or ‘absurd’ (for ex-
ample, “an eternal moment”), it forces the reader or listener
to understand the metaphorical sense. http://www.retoricas.
com/2009/05/gura-de-oximoron.html

112
Producción + Limpia - Julio - Diciembre de 2017. Vol.12, No.2 - Vásquez Roldán et al - 103•117
the viability of a socioeconomic system in time, which
is achieved by maintaining some of the production
factors or available capacities in the production
system (Leal, 2000). According to Calabuig (2008),
the interpretation of weak economic sustainability
reects the assumption that both natural and
unnatural factors are replaceable; the former can be
liquidated as long as there is investment to provide
an equivalent endowment for the next generation
(Roseland, 2000); or the non-natural capital can be
converted into natural capital, avoiding irreversible
nature processes. On the other hand, there is the view
of strong sustainability, which, according to Naredo
(1996), is dened as the viability of the relationship
that a socioeconomic system maintains with an
ecosystem, where the latter has the peculiarity that it
can function autonomously; unlike the socioeconomic
system, which is entirely dependent on the ecosystem.
Today, the vision of strong sustainability is framed
almost to the level of a utopia and cannot be carried
out because we place ourselves in an economy with
budgets of unlimited growth. However, it is possible
to start designing economies guided by principles
derived from strong sustainability and make concrete
projects which, although framed in today’s economy,
approach the ideal of sustainability (Lufego &
Rabadan, 2000. p, 476).
The Brundtland Report, where sustainable
development is established as an ofcial method to
correct the effects of the ecological crisis, is vaguely
dened as the one “which meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” (Alonso &
Sevilla, 2000. p, 103). It is the report that best promotes
strategies and intervention actions to revive the
behavior of the former strictly economistic models.
This report granted the same meaning to development
and growth. Regarding the social permeability of
the ecological and environmental issues, it disguises
the dichotomies which are present in the evolution
of human development under the acceptance that
development is simply guaranteed through the
generation of strategies that encourage approaches
which seek to guide growth through a sustainable
growth path (UNCED, 1988, p, 68), forgetting the
much more important concept of distribution from
the same classical economicist view10.
10 According to Herman E. Daly (1991, p.38-41) to grow
means to naturally increase the size by the addition of ma-
terial through assimilation or accretion; while developing
means to expand or realize the potentialities that are avail-
able within a society; access to a much fuller, greater or bet-
ter state.
REFERENCES
ABELEDO, R. (2002) “Principios básicos de la
sostenibilidad local”. Curso Estrategias
locales de sostenibilidad: la Agenda 21 Local,
15-25 abril 2002.
ALONSO, A.M. & SEVILLA, E. (2000) “El discurso
eco tecnocrático de la sostenibilidad”
en Bárcena, I.; Ibarra, P.; Zubiaga, M. (Eds)
(2000). Desarrollo sostenible: un concepto
polémico. Servicio editorial Universidad del
País Vasco, Bilbao.
BARTON, J. R. (2006) “Sustentabilidad urbana como
planicación estratégica”. EURE (Santiago),
vol.32, no.96, p.27-45.
BERMEJO, R. (2000) “Acerca de las dos visiones
antagónicas de la sostenibilidad” en
BÁRCENA, I.; Ibarra, P.; Zubiaga, M. (Eds)
op. cit. - (2001) “Desarrollo sostenible y
humano” en Ibarra, P. y Unceta, K. (coords)
Ensayos sobre el desarrollo humano,
Barcelona, Ed. Icaria.
BELLAMY, A. (2009) “ Responsability to Protect”
Polity, 2009. 249 pp.
BETTENCOURT LMA, KAUR J (2011) Evolution and
structure of sustainability science. Proc Natl
Acad Sci 108(49):19540–19545 doi:10.1073/
pnas.1102712108
BIGGERI, M; FERRANINI, A. (2014). Final remarks
and fuutre perspectives for SHD at
the local level in Sustainable Human
Development, Springer, pp 147-155. DOI
10.1057/9781137380296_8
BOSSELMANN, K (2008) The principle of sustainability:
transforming law and governance. Ashgate,
Aldershot
BRUNDLAND, G.H (1987) “Informe de la comisión
mundial sobre el medio ambiente y el
desarrollo (Comisión Brundland): Nuestro
futuro común. Comisión Brundland. New
York
CALABUIG, C. (2008) Agenda 21 local y gobernanza
democrática para el desarrollo humano
sostenible: bases para una gestión orientada
al proceso. Universidad Politécnica de
Valencia. 2008.

113
Sustainable development and human development. Evolution or transition in the scientic conception of sustainability?
CARVALHO, E. (1998): A sociabilidade fragmentada
na metrópole contemporânea. Tese de
doutorado. F.C.L - Unesp - Campus de
Araraquara, 1998
CNUMAD - Comisión Mundial del Medio Ambiente
y del Desarrollo (1992) [1987] Nuestro
futuro común. Madrid, Alianza Editorial.
CORNIA, G. A., & R STEWART, F. (1987). Ajuste con
rostro humano. v. 1: Protección de los grupos
vulnerables y promoción del crecimiento.
v. 2: Estudio de paísesAdjustment with a
human face. v. 1: Protecting the vulnerables
and promoting growth. v. 2: Country case
studies (No. 338.9 A312). UNICEF.
CUTTER S, BARNES L, BERRY M, BURTON C, EVANS
E (2008) Community and regional resilience:
perspectives from hazards, disasters, and
emergency management. Community and
Regional Resilience Institute, Washington
DC
CRUZ, I (2006) “Human Development assessment
through the Human-Scale Development
approach: integrating different perspectives
in the contribution to a Sustainable Human
Development Theory” Ph.D. dissertation.
Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya,
Càtedra UNESCO de Sostenibilitat.
Accesible en: [http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/
TDX-0308107-121708/index.html]
CHENERY, H; STROUT, AM (1966) Foreign Assistance
and Economic Development. The American
Economic Review Vol. 56, No. 4, Part 1 (Sep.,
1966), pp. 679-733
DALY, H. E., COBB, J. B., & COBB, C. W. (1994). For
the common good: Redirecting the economy
toward community, the environment, and a
sustainable future (No. 73). Beacon Press.
DUIT A, GALAZ V, ECKERBERG K, EBBESSON
J (2010) Governance, complexity, and
resilience. Glob Environ Change 20(3):363–
368. . doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.006
EHRLICH, P. R. (1996). Socioeconomic equity,
sustainability, and Earth’s carrying capacity.
Ecological Applications, 991-1001.
FERES, J. C., & MANCERO, X. (2001). El método de las
necesidades básicas insatisfechas (NBI) y sus
aplicaciones en América Latina. Cepal.
FERRERO, G. (2004) De los proyectos de
cooperación a los procesos de desarrollo.
Hacia una gestión orientada al Proceso.
Ph.D. dissertation. Universidad Politécnica
de Valencia, 2004. Dissertation Abstracts
International. UMI Microform 3148051.
FISCHER, J. MANNING, AD. STEFFEN, W. ROSE,
DB. DANIELL, K; FELTON, A; GARNEYY, S;
GILNA, B; HEINSOHN, R; LINDENMAYER,
BD; MACDONALD, B; MILLS, F; NEWELL,
B; REID, J; ROBIN, L; SHERREN, K; WADE,
A. (2007) Mind the sustainability gap. Trends
Ecol Evol 22(12):621–624. doi:10.1016/j.
tree.2007.08.016
FOODY, GM. (2015) Valuing map validation: the
need for rigorous land cover map accuracy
assessment in economic valuations of
ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 111:23–28.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.003
FROGER, G.; MÉRAL, P.; HERIMANDIMBY, V. (2004)
“The expansion of participatory governance
in the environmental policies of developing
countries; the example of Madagascar”.
International Journal for Sustainable
Development, Vol. 7, No 2.
FUSSEL, H-M. (2007) Vulnerability: a generally
applicable conceptual framework for
climate change research. Glob Environ
Change 17(2):155–167. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.05.002
GALLEGO, J. A. (1972) “Pasado y futuro de la
Conferencia sobre el medio Ambiente
Humano” en Documentación Económica,
Vol 3.
GEDDES, P. (1949). Cities in evolution.
GOROSTIAGA, X. (1991): “Ya comenzó el siglo XXI:
El norte contra el sur” en Congreso de la
asociación Latinoameruicana de Sociología,
Mayo, La Habana. MIMEO.
GRIFFIN, K. KNIGHT, J. (1990).Human Development
and the International Development Strategy
for the 1990s. Londres, MacMIkllan, 1990.

114
Producción + Limpia - Julio - Diciembre de 2017. Vol.12, No.2 - Vásquez Roldán et al - 103•117
HIDALGO, A.L. (1998) El pensamiento económico
sobre desarrollo. De los mercantilistas al
PNUD. Universidad de Huelva. Accesible en
[www.uhu.es/antonio.hidalgo]
HIRSCHMAN, A.O. (1958): The strategy of economic
development, New Haven, Yale University
Press.
HOPWOOD, B; MELLOR, M; & O´BRIEN, G. (2005).
Sustainable development: mapping different
approaches. On Sust. Dev. 13 38-52. Doi:
10.1002/sd.244
JACOBS, M. (1996) The politics of the real world.
Earthscan: London.
JERNECK, A; OLSSON, L; NESS, B; ANDERBERG,
S; BAIER, M; CLARK, E; HICKLER, T;
HORNBORG, A; KRONSELL, A; LO¨
VEBRAND, E; PERSSON, J. (2011) Structuring
sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(1):69–82.
doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x
JIMENEZ, L.M. (1996): Desarrollo sostenible y
economía ecológica, Madrid, Editorial
Síntesis.
KAJIKAWA, Y (2008) Research core and framework
of sustainability science. Sustain Sci 3(2):215–
239 doi:10.1007/s11625-008- 0053-1
KATES R (2011) What kind of a science is
sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 108(49):19449–19450.
KATES R, CLARK W, CORELL R, HALL J
(2001) Sustainability science. Science
292(5517):641–642
KEMP, R.; PARTO, S.; GIBSON, R.B. (2005) “Governance
for sustainable development: moving from
theory to practice”. International Journal for
Sustainable Development, Vol. 8, Nos 1/2.
KIRBY, J; O´KEEFE, P; TIMBERLAKE, L. (1995)
Sustainable Development: an introduction.
In The Earthscan Reader in Suntainable
Development. Earthscan: London 1-14
KOMIYAMA H, TAKEUCHI K (2006) Sustainability
science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci
1(1):1–6 doi:10.1007/s11625-006- 0007-4
KUZNETS, S. (1955) Economic Growth and Income
Inequality, The American Economic Review
Vol. 45, No. 1 (Mar., 1955), pp. 1-28
LEAL, G. (2000) Debate sobre la sostenibilidad.
Desarrollo conceptual y metodológico
de una propuesta de desarrollo urbano
sostenible para la ciudad región de Bogotá
en clave de ciudad Latinoamericana.
Universidad Javeriana.
LECHNER, N. (2000). Desafíos de un desarrollo
humano: individualización y capital social.
Instituciones y desarrollo, 7, 7-34.
LEE SW, ELLIS CD, KWEON BS, HONG SK (2008)
Relationship between landscape structure
and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized
areas. Landsc Urban Plan 85(1):60–70
LEEF, E. (2000). Sustainable development countries.
In Global Sustainable Development in the
21st Century. Edinburgh University Press:
Rdinburgh; 62-75
LEWIS, D. (1966) Anthropology, Development and
the Post-Modern Challenge. Pluto Press,
20/05/1996 - 192 pP
LIN K-H, CHANG C-Y (2013) Everyday crises:
marginal society livelihood vulnerability and
adaptability to hazards. Prog Dev Stud 13(1):1–
18. doi:10.1177/146499341201300101
LÓPEZ-CALVA, L. F., & GRAJALES, R. V. (2003).
ESTUDIOS SOBRE DESARROLLO
HUMANO PNUD México No. 2003-1.
LUFFIEGO, G, M. & RABADÁN, V, J (2000) La
evolución del concepto de sostenibilidad y
su introducción en la enseñanza. En Historia
y Epistemología de las ciencias. IES La
Albericia. Av. Deporte s/n. 39012 Santander
CPR de Santander. C/ Peña herbosa, 29.
39003 Santander.
LLOBERA, F. (2001) “Desarrollo sostenible. Entre las
cumbres políticas, las teorías económicas
y la práctica del ecodesarrollo” en Boni,
A. y Ferrero, G. (Eds) Introducción a la
Cooperación para el Desarrollo. Valencia,
SPUPV.

115
Sustainable development and human development. Evolution or transition in the scientic conception of sustainability?
MARTINEZ, L. (1994). El desarrollo sostenible en el
medio rural. ISBN-997~67-040-8
MASTEN A, POWELL J (2003) A resilience framework
for research, policy, and practice. In: Luthar SS
(ed) Resilience and vulnerability adaptation
in the context of childhood adversities.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
MAX-NEEF, M., ELIZALDE, A., & HOPENHAYN,
M. (1986). Desarrollo a escala humana.
Development dialogue, 9-93.
MEADOWCROFT, J. (2003) “Participación y
estrategias para el desarrollo sostenible”,
Revista Instituciones y Desarrollo, nº 14-15,
pp. 123-138.
MEADOWS, DONELLA H., DENNIS L. MEADOWS,
JORGEN RANDERS, AND WILLIAM
W. BEHRENS III. (1972). “The Limits to
Growth”. New York: Potomac.
MEBRATU, D. (1998) “Sustainability and Sustainable
Development: historical and conceptual
review”. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 18, pp. 493-520.
MESA, J. C. P. (2008). Factores relevantes en la medición
de la pobreza y el desarrollo humano: índices
PNUD. Revista de economía mundial, 19.
MINER, J (2008) Promoting environmental
consciousness as a part of an arts curriculum.
Int J Environ Cult Econ Soc Sustain 1(4):105–
110
MILLER TR (2013) Constructing sustainability
science: emerging perspectives and research
trajectories. Sustain Sci 8(2):279–293.
doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6
MILLER TR, WIEK A, SAREWITZ D, ROBINSON J,
OLSSON L, KRIEBEL D, LOORBACH D
(2014) The future of sustainability science: a
solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain
Sci 9(2):239–246. doi:10.1007/s11625-013-
0224-6
MOMMSEN, W. (1971): “La sociología política de Max
Weber y su losofía de la historia universal”.
En Parsons, Talcott y otros. Presencia de
Max Weber, 1971. p. 111.
MOFFAT, I. (1996) Sustainable Development:
principles, analysis and policies. Parthenon:
London.
MYRDAL, G. (1957): Economic theory and
underdeveloped regions, London,
Duckworth.
NAREDO, J.M. (1996) “Sobre el origen, el uso y el
contenido del término sostenible” en:
Ciudades para un futuro más sostenible.
Primer catálogo español de buenas prácticas.
Volumen Primero. Madrid, Ministerio
de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio
Ambiente.
NASSAUER, JI. (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly
frames. Landsc J 14(2):161–170. doi:10. 3368/
lj. 14. 2. 161
NESS B, URBEL-PIIRSALU E, ANDERBERG S, OLSSON
L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability
assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023
NG, R. (2013) El Concepto de Crisis en el Siglo
XX – Una Mirada General desde da
Contraposición existente Alrededor de la
Teorìa Crìtica y el Positivismo Lógico. En:
Movimientos Sociais & Dinamicas Espaciais
ISSN: 2238-8052 ed: Editora Universitaria
Ufpe v.2 fasc.2, 2013
NG, R. (2014), “gobernanza sostenible: propuesta de
un modelo de gestión para la sostenibilidad
del desarrollo en la ciudad de Medellín
a través de la reinterpretación de la
metodología CES (Ciudades Emergentes
Sostenibles)”. En: Movimientos Sociais &
Dinamicas Espaciais ISSN: 2238-8052 ed:
Editora Universitaria Ufpe v.3 fasc.1, 2014
NORTON, B.G. (1995). Evaluating ecosystem states:
Two competing paradigms. Ecological
Economics, 14, pp. 113-127.
NURSKE, R. (1953). Problems of capital formation in
underdeveloped areas.
NUSSBAUM, M. C. S., & MAZZONI, A. K. R. (1996). La
calidad de vida (No. 306 C3).
PALMER M (2012) Socioenvironmental sustainability
and actionable science. Bioscience 62(1):5–6

116
Producción + Limpia - Julio - Diciembre de 2017. Vol.12, No.2 - Vásquez Roldán et al - 103•117
PARSON, E., HAAS P., & LEVY, M: (2002).A summary
of major documents signed at the earth
summit and the global forum.Environment,
34 (4), 12-15, 34-36.
PNUD (1992) Agenda 21. Mundi Prensa. España. 1992
PODOLINSKY, S. A. (1995). El trabajo del ser humano
y su relación con la distribución de la
energía. Principios de economía ecológica,
Madrid, Fundación Argentaria.
REDCLIFT, M. (1996) “Desarrollo sostenible:
ampliación del alcance del debate”. Revista
CLADES, nº 10, nov 1996. - (2000) “El
desarrollo sostenible: necesidades, valores
derechos” en Bárcena, I.; Ibarra, P.; Zubiaga,
M. (Eds) op. Cit.
PREBISCH, R. (1982). Capitalismo periférico. Crisis y
transformación.
REDMAN, CL (2014) Should sustainability and
resilience be combined or remain distinct
pursuits? Ecol Soc 19(2):37. doi:10.5751/ES-
06390-190237
RIST, G. (2002) “El medio ambiente o la nueva
naturaleza del ‘desarrollo’” en Rist, G.
El desarrollo: historia de una creencia
occidental. Madrid, Ed. Catarata.
ROSELAND, M. (2000) “Sustainable community
development: integrating environmental,
economic, and social objectives”. Progress in
Planning, nº 54, pp.73–132.
ROSESTEIN-RODAN, P.N. (1961): “International aid
for underdeveloped countries”, Review for
Economic and Statistics, 43, pp. 107-138
ROSTOW, W. (1990) The stages of economic growth:
a non communist manifestó. Cambridge
University Press, 272, pp.
SACHS, I. (1981) “Ecodesarrollo: concepto, aplicación,
benecios y riesgos”, en Agricultura y
Sociedad Nº 18, pp. 9-32.
SACHS, J. (2014): The age of suntainable. University of
Columbia. 2014.
SAREWITZ, D. KRIEBELE, D. CLAPP, R. CRUMBLEY,
C.HOPPIN, P. JACOBS, M. TICKNERJ. (2012)
Tehe sustainability solutions agenda. New
Solut 22(2): 139-151.
SCHOLZ RW, STEINER G (2015) Transdisciplinarity
at the crossroads. Sustain Sci 10(4):521–526.
doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0338-0
SCHOLZ RW, STEINER G (2015) Transdisciplinarity
at the crossroads. Sustain Sci 10(4):521–526.
doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0338-0
SEN, A. (2000) Desarrollo y libertad. Ed. Planeta.
SHAHADU, H (2016). Towards an umbrella science
of sustainability. Sustain Sci 11:1–12 DOI
10.1007/s11625-016-0375-3
SPANGENBERG JH (2011) Sustainability science:
a review, an analysis and some empirical
lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287.
doi:10.1017/S0376892911000270
STEELMAN T, NICHOLS EG, JAMES A, BRADFORD L,
EBERSO¨HN L, SCHERMAN V, OMIDIRE F,
BUNN ND, TWINE W, MCHALE MR (2015)
Practicing the science of sustainability:
the challenges of transdisciplinarity in
a developing world context. Sustain Sci
10(4):581–599. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-
0334-4
STEWART, F., & STREETEN, P. (1976). New Strategies
for Development: Poverty, Income
Distribution, and Growth. Oxford Economic
Papers, 28(3), new series, 381-405. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2662730
TOMER, J. (2016). Integrating Human Capital
with Human Development: Toward a
Broader and More Human Conception
of Human Capital in Palgrave Advances in
Behavioral Economics. Springer. pp 17-38.
DOI10.1057/9781137456748_2
TRIDICO, P. (2011). Institutions, Human
Development and Economic Growth
in Transition Economies. Studies in
Economic Transition. Springer. 300 pp. DOI
10.1057/9780230313880
UL HAQ, M. (1995) El paradigma del desarrollo
humano. Síntesis de Mahbub ul Haq, 1995,
Reexiones sobre Desarrollo Humano,
capítulos 2 y 3, Oxford University Press,
accesible en http://desarrollhumano.cl

117
Sustainable development and human development. Evolution or transition in the scientic conception of sustainability?
VALCÁRCEL, R. (2006) Génesis y evolución del
concepto y enfoques sobre el desarrollo.
Documento de investigación. Ponticia
Universidad Católica de Perú.
VAN KERKOFF, L. (2014) Developing integrative
research for sustainability science through
a complexity principles-based approach.
Sustain Sci 9:143–155. DOI. 10.1007/s11625-
013-0203-y
VERSCHURE, H. & TUTS, R. (2004) “Lessons Learnt”
en Loeckx, A. et al (2004) op cit.
WACKERNAGEl, M. & REES, W.W. (1996) Our
Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers,
Gabriola Island, BC. 1996.
WALKER, B; HOLLING, C; CARPENTER, S;
KINZIG, A. (2004) Resilience, adaptability
and transformability in social–ecological
systems. Ecol Soc 9(2):5. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/
WEBER, L. (2010). Demographic Determinants and
Economic Impact. Chapter Demographic
Change and Economic Growth. Part of the
series Contributions to Economics pp 17-
86. DOI 10.1007/978-3-7908-2590-9_2
WIEK A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary
research as interactive knowledge generation:
experiences from transdisciplinary case
study research. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc
16:52–57 doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6