The authors note that “each of the indicators is linked to those at other scales so that achieving social sustainability at the ranch scale is dependent upon achieving social sustainability at communal and industry scales and vice versa.”
Further, results from the study showed that “social sustainability as a term is insufficient for representing the positive futures desired by ranchers and that quantifiable indicators and metrics are not able to capture some of the subjective qualities of social sustainability.”
In other words – and as we often discuss here at Savory – “sustainability” implies a maintaining of the status quo, but from a holistic perspective, we know that sustaining our current broken system simply won’t do. To move beyond
sustainability, whether we are referring to the ecological or the social, we must embrace new ways of managing and monitoring.
Further, the authors note that “several aspects of social sustainability are more subjective and qualitative, yet no less important than the more easily quantifiable dimensions of economic or ecological sustainability.”
As the saying goes, “not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured.”
This paper is a good reminder to all of us that the work we do has implications far greater than what we will ever be able to comprehend. We can look at the different social, ecological, financial, quantitative, and qualitative angles… but each of these are different windows into the same room. No single view tells the full picture, but each offers an important perspective.
|
