sustainability

Article
Culture-Sustainability Relation: Towards a
Conceptual Framework
Katriina Soini 1,2, * and Joost Dessein 3,4,5
1 Center for Environment, University of Helsinki, P. O. Box 65, Viikinkaari 2A, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
2 Natural Resources Institute, Latokartanonkaari 9, Helsinki FI-00790, Finland
3 Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agriculture and Fisheries Research, Burg. van Gansberghelaan 115, box 2,
Merelbeke 9820, Belgium; joost.dessein@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
4 Centre for Sustainable Development, Ghent University, Poel 16, Gent 9000, Belgium
5 Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Gent 9000, Belgium
* Correspondence: katriina.soini@helsinki.fi; Tel.: +358-40-725-1891

Academic Editor: Marie-Theres Albert

Received: 7 January 2016; Accepted: 8 February 2016; Published: 11 February 2016

Abstract: Several individual scholars and international organizations have attempted to conceptualize
“culture” in its different meanings in sustainability. Despite those efforts, a tangle of different
approaches are being used, reflecting the various disciplines and policy aims. In this paper we
propose an interdisciplinary framework for identifying the different roles of culture in sustainability
in an attempt to guide the research and policy activities in this complex field. The framework
is comprised of three representations defined by a literature review on “cultural sustainability”,
which are further explored through eight organizing dimensions that mark the similarities and
differences between the three representations. The article reveals that the three representations are
partly interlinked and that they also reveal gradients in the dynamics of the system, as well as in the
human/nature interface.

Keywords: culture; sustainability; sustainable development; cultural sustainability; interdisciplinary

framework

1. Introduction
Sustainability and culture have been widely discussed, but until now they have only seldom
been explicitly combined. Notions of “sustainability” and “sustainable development” persist in
policy and research despite of the criticism and the skepticism they have faced due to vagueness and
ambiguity since the term “sustainability” was first introduced. The new sustainable development
goals, recently introduced by United Nations, illustrate this well. “Culture” is also widely discussed
and debated across scientific disciplines and policy domains, and in the sustainability debate it is
gaining attention as an aspect of its own [1–6]. However, a recent analysis of the scientific discourses
on “cultural sustainability” [6] revealed that although “cultural sustainability” is used in a number
of meanings and contexts, there are only very few attempts to bring “culture” and “sustainability”
together in an analytical and systematic way. Culture is still often analyzed within or as part of social
sustainability [7–9]. However, we argue it is important and necessary to explicitly integrate culture
in sustainability discourse, as achieving sustainability goals essentially depends on human accounts,
actions, and behavior which are, in turn, culturally embedded.
In this paper we tackle the challenge to combine culture and sustainability in an analytical
framework. Conceptual frameworks aim to clarify and relate concepts in order to make them useful
tools in research through description or categorization [10]. Attempts to frame culture in sustainability
have appeared in policy documents [11,12] and in scholarly works [1,7,13–15]. However, most of

Sustainability 2016, 8, 167; doi:10.3390/su8020167 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 2 of 12

these texts, as well as some other work related to this theme, have a specific thematic scope, such
as cultural planning [15], arts [4], heritage [16], changes in values [17], or cultural industries [18].
Culture is also often explicated via the anthropological method of intensive case studies, which
has yielded valuable insights of cultural aspects of sustainability but has not provided explicit
information on how the results can be interpreted within the frame of sustainability. On the other
hand, recently-introduced frameworks and concepts, such as biocultural diversity, ecosystem services,
capabilities, socio-ecological system approaches, as well as actor network theory or eco-arts, do
consider human and environmental aspects in a culturally sensitive way. However, these theories or
frameworks do not directly contribute to sustainability discourses, nor do they always make culture
explicit, and cultural aspects easily remain separated from the policy debate and policy-making.
In this paper we build an interdisciplinary framework for relating culture and sustainability
in order to go beyond sectoral and disciplinary approaches, and to make the research and policy
choices regarding culture in sustainability discourses more explicit and conscious. The framework
is based on three roles of culture identified by the review paper on scientific discourses of cultural
sustainability [6]. We consider these three roles as representations of culture in the sustainability
framework, and analyze them against eight dimensions. Those eight dimensions in turn valorize
different aspects of both culture and sustainability in order to promote the operationalization of culture
in sustainability research and policy. The paper is structured as follows: after this introduction, we
discuss the need for an interdisciplinary approach to overcome some of the conceptual challenges
related to disciplinary approaches. In the third section we introduce the three representations and the
main characteristics of the eight dimensions. Finally, we discuss implications of the framework for
research and policy-making, as well as future research needs.

2. Setting the Scene

Building a framework of sustainability calls for justification of the use of sustainability instead of
the commonly-used term sustainable development, which is often used as a synonym for sustainability.
Sustainable development became popular from the Brundtland’s Commissions report “Our Common
Future” [19]. The concept of sustainable development is often criticized of being in favor of growth,
efficiency, and the increase of technology, although development can also be considered in a qualitative
way [20]. Sustainability, on the other hand can be understood not only as a universal goal to be
achieved, but as a procedure or continuously evolving “imaginary world” [21]. In the beginning of this
paper, we use the concept of sustainability to refer to both sustainability and sustainable development,
but later our analysis reveals that these concepts receive different meanings in the three representations
explored here. Acknowledging the limitations of the “pillar approach” to sustainability, we use it as a
basis for our analysis, because it is a commonly known and widely used approach to sustainability
both within the research and policy.
Although scholars and policy-makers are increasingly interested in the integration of sustainability
and culture, this task is an arduous one. First, culture brings additional challenges to the already
ambiguous and vague notion of sustainability [20,22]. Doubters assert that the concept of culture is too
broad and complex to be included in sustainability, as culture can mean anything from networks of
meaning, to a way of life, to high culture and arts [14]. Second, compared to the environmental aspects
of sustainability, for example, cultural analysis often requires special methods. This “methodological
separatism” often results in excluding culture from the analysis [23]. Third, the concepts of culture
and sustainability are also interlinked: culture can be seen both as fundamental for, and a result of, any
development [24], which makes it difficult to explore and discern their relationship. Fourth, we argue
that leaving culture out of the debate might also be the result of political resistance: it can be assumed
that introducing culture in sustainability as a “fourth pillar” or in some other specific role would
change the status quo in sustainability research and policy. Finally, sustainability has been seen as an
integration of, or a win-win-win situation between, ecological, economic, and social dimensions [25]
and typical objects of research are the state of the environment, social structures, economic viability,
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 3 of 12

institutional, and governance arrangements. Introducing culture into the sustainability debate means
that human beings – their values, behavior and ways of life –should be included in the analysis. This
implies not only methodological questions but also many normative questions as well.
Although we aim for more analytical approaches for culture in sustainability, we hold that
“cultural sustainability” or “culture in sustainability” are boundary concepts [26], meaning that they
are subject to social, political, and scientific processes of negotiation, interpretation, and adaptation
and that they escape any final definition. Referring to Hirsch Hadorn et al. [27], we contend that
to effectively cope with a conceptual complexity and understand the different roles and meanings
of culture in sustainable development, one must employ interdisciplinarity and, to some extent,
transdisciplinarity. The importance of combining and entangling different epistemological traditions
in the context of sustainability has already been recognized and mapped [28,29] and has, for instance,
been reconfirmed in the sustainability conferences in Rio (1992) and Johannesburg (2002), as well as in
an enormous body of scientific literature (for an overview, see [30]).
The framework introduced in this paper is the result of the four-year research network COST
IS1007 “Investigating Cultural Sustainability” (2011–2015) [31]. The network was comprised of
researchers from multiple disciplines ranging from social and humanistic sciences, to geography
and environmental planning. During a series of workshops, various dimensions of culture and
sustainability and a draft of this framework were discussed, triangulated, adapted and refined.
Following Kagan [31] (p. 61) the process used can be labeled as “interdisciplinary transversal learning”:
striving for unity in a complexity of knowledge while integrating different ways of knowing through
practices where researchers from one discipline borrow and adapt methods and metaphors from other
disciplines, within the wider shared system of science.

3. A Conceptual Framework for Culture and Sustainability

3.1. Three Representations of Culture in Sustainable Development

By reviewing and analyzing scientific peer-reviewed papers using the concept of “cultural
sustainability”, Soini and Birkeland [6] found seven storylines of “cultural sustainability” and proposed
three roles of culture in sustainable development, which are redefined here as “representations” [25]
(see Table 1.).
The first representation considers culture as if it had an independent role in sustainability: it
becomes the fourth pillar of sustainability. This representation stands for culture in sustainability,
and sees cultural sustainability as parallel to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Here
the importance of conservation, maintenance and preservation of cultural capital in different forms
as arts, heritage, knowledge, and cultural diversity for the next generations, as well as culture as
an independent pillar from social sustainability, are recognized. The second representation refers
to culture having a mediating role to achieve economic, social, and ecological sustainability. This
representation, culture for sustainability, suggests that both material and immaterial culture are seen
as an essential resource for local and regional economic development. It also implies that cultural
values and perceptions need to be considered when aiming for ecological or social sustainability.
The third representation considers culture as a necessary foundation for meeting the overall aims
of sustainability. This representation, called culture as sustainability, encloses the other pillars of
sustainability and becomes an overarching dimension of sustainability. In other words, sustainability
becomes embedded in culture and leads to eco-cultural civilization (Table 1. the circles).
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 4 of 12

Table 1. The three approaches and eight structuring dimensions for exploring the culture-sustainability
relations. In Sustainability
the figure (adapted
2016, 8, 167 2016, 8,from
Sustainability
Sustainability 2016, [31]) on the second row the light grey circles represent
167 8, 167 4 of 12 the 4 ofthree
12 4 of 12

pillars (ecological, economic, Table

and social)
1. three
The three
of sustainability, and the dark grey culture. Culture is “a
Table 1. Table
The three 1. The approaches andapproaches
approacheseightand and eight
structuring
eight structuring
dimensions
structuring for dimensions
dimensionsexploring for culture-
the
for exploring exploring the culture-
the culture-
fourth pillar” (left diagram),
sustainability culture
sustainability
relations.
sustainability In mediates
the relations.
relations.figure between
In
(adapted
In the the figure
figure from
(adaptedthe
[31]) three
(adapted
on the
from pillars
from [31])
second
[31]) on row
the (central
on the
the second
second light diagram)
row greyrow
the thegrey
circles
light and grey circles is
culture
lightcircles
represent the
representrepresent
three pillars
the the
three three
(ecological,
pillars pillars (ecological,
economic,
(ecological, and
economic,
the foundation for transformation towards sustainability (right diagram), where arrows indicate economic,
social) of
and and social)
sustainability,
social) of of sustainability,
and the
sustainability, dark
and and
grey
the the
dark dark greythe
grey
culture. Culture
culture. culture.
isCulture Culture
“a fourth is “a is “a (left
pillar”
fourth fourth pillar”
diagram),
pillar” (left diagram),
culture
(left diagram), cultureculture
mediates between
mediatesmediates
the between
three
between pillars
the the three
three pillarspillars
ever-changing dynamics of culture
(central diagram)
(central (central
and culture
diagram) andandissustainability.
diagram) andfoundation
the
culture culture
is the isfoundation
the transformation
for foundation for towards
transformation
for transformation towards
sustainability
towards sustainability
(right
sustainability (right (right
wherediagram),
diagram), diagram),
arrows
where where
indicate arrows
arrowsthe indicate
ever-changing
indicate thedynamics
ever-changing
the ever-changing dynamics
of culture
dynamics and
of of culture and sustainability.
sustainability.
culture and sustainability.

First: Culture First: Culture

First:inCulture in
in Second: Second:
Culture
Second: Culture
Second:
for
Culture for Third:
Culture
for for Culture
Third:Third:
Third:
As Culture
Culture
Culture As As
As
First: Culture in Sustainability Sustainability Sustainability
Sustainability Sustainability
Sustainability Sustainability SustainabilitySustainability
Sustainability Sustainability
Sustainability

of Definition
DefinitionDefinition of of
Definition of culture culture as culture
culture culture
a capital
capital as aculture
as a capital capitalasculture
a way culture
culture of
aslife as aof
way
a way way
of of life as culture
culture
life
life culture
a semiosis
culture as a semiosis
semiosis
as a semiosis
culture cultureculture
culture as an
culture achievement
as culture
an as an as an culture as a resource and
culture development as
Culture and development
Culture and Culture
Culture and and culture as culture
a resource
culture as aand as a resource
resource and anddevelopment
development as adevelopment
cultural as a cultural
as a cultural
inachievement
development in achievement
achievement in in condition for development a cultural process
development development
development condition for condition
development
condition for development
for development process process process
Value of culture development development
intrinsicdevelopment instrumental and intrinsic embedded
Value of Value Value
of of
intrinsic intrinsic
complementing
Culture and society culture cultureculture intrinsic
instrumental andinstrumental
intrinsic
instrumental and intrinsic
and intrinsic
affording embeddedembedded embedded
transforming
Culture and Culture
Culture and and interaction of
Culture and nature human complementing
perspective on complementing
nature
complementing affording affording affording transforming
culture andnature nature constituent
transforming
transforming of culture
society societysociety
Policy sectors Culture and Culture
Culturehuman
and and human
cultural policieshuman
perspective on perspective
perspective on on
interaction of interaction
culture
interaction and
of of
culture
all policies culture
andnatureandconstituent
nature nature
ofnew policies of
constituent
constituent of
nature naturenaturenature naturenature nature naturenature culture cultureculture
Modes of GovernancePolicy sectors
PolicyPolicy
sectors
hierarchical sectors
cultural policies cultural
cultural
governance, policies
1st orderpoliciesallco-governance, all2nd
policiesall policies policies
order new policies newself-governance,
new policies
policies
meta-governance
Modes of ModesModes of
of hierarchical hierarchical
hierarchical self-governance, self-governance,
self-governance,
co-governance, co-governance,
2nd order
co-governance, 2nd 2nd order
order
mainly mono-
Governance and 1st order
governance, 1st order mainly multi- and meta-governance mainly inter-and
meta-governance
Research approachGovernance governance,
Governance 1st order
governance, meta-governance
Research Research multidisciplinary
Research
mainly mono- mainly
and
mainly mono-mono- and multi-
and mainly interdisciplinary
and
mainly mainly
multi- multi-
and and mainly inter-and
mainly transdisciplinary
mainly inter-and
inter-and
approach approachapproach
multidisciplinary multidisciplinary
multidisciplinary interdisciplinary interdisciplinary
interdisciplinary transdisciplinary transdisciplinary
transdisciplinary

In this article these three

In this article
In this representations
Inarticle
these thisthree
article
these these
three three
representations are areused
representations
representations used areasas structuring
are used
structuring
used as as principles
structuring
principles
structuring for for
principles
for exploring
principles for exploring
the
exploring the the the
exploring
complexity of complexity of theofculture-sustainability
the culture-sustainability
the culture-sustainability
complexity The interface.
interface.interface. representations The representations
are deconstructed
The representations are deconstructed
in an
are deconstructed in anin an
complexity of the culture-sustainability
integrated andintegrated
integrated systematic andway
and systematic
interface.
systematic usingway
by way byeightusing
The
by dimensions
using
representations
eight eight dimensions
that
dimensions characterize
are
that and
deconstructed
characterize
that characterize highlight and highlight
and highlight
in an
integrated and systematic
differences way
differences
between
differences by using
them.
between between
These
them. eight
them.
dimensions dimensions
TheseThese dimensions
reflect
dimensions and that
explore
reflect andcharacterize
reflect theand explore
representations
explore theand highlight
representations
in respect
the representations in differences
intorespect respect
to to
the key concepts
the keytheconcepts
key concepts
“culture” and “culture”
“culture” and “sustainability”.
“sustainability”.
and “sustainability”.They alsoThey They
represent also
common
also represent represent
science common
and science
policy and policy
between them. These dimensions reflect and explore the representations incommon
respect science
to and policy
the key concepts
debates in debatesdebates
relation in to in relation
culture
relation toand to culture
sustainable
culture and sustainable
development
and sustainable development
(e.g.,
development value(e.g.,
the (e.g., the value
of value
the culture, of the of
role
culture, culture,
of
the role theofrole of
“culture” and “sustainability”.
policies, policies, theThey
policies,
the consequences also
the consequences represent
for governance
consequences forand
for governance common
governance
research). science
andWe research).
and research). proposeandpropose
We We policy
that propose
the that debates theinconceptual
that conceptual
conceptual
the relation to
framework
culture and sustainable framework
(the
framework combination
development (the(e.g.,
(the combination ofcombination
thesethe three
of ofroles
these
value these
threeand
of three
eight
roles
culture, roles
and and eight
dimensions)
eight
the dimensions)
constitutes
dimensions)
role of policies, constitutes
a kind
constitutes the a kind
ofa consequences
kind of of
kaleidoscope kaleidoscope
to analyze
kaleidoscope to the to analyze
complexity
analyze the
of complexity
the complexity of theofrelationship
the relationship thebetween
relationship
culture
between between
and culture
sustainability
culture and at sustainability
and sustainability at at
for governance and research).
meta level.metaFormeta We
level.
clarity,
level. Forthe propose
For
eight
clarity, clarity, that
the
dimensions
the eight eightthe
dimensions conceptual
aredimensions
presented as
are presented framework
areapresented
table as(Tableas 1).
a table a table (the
However,
(Table 1). combination
(Table 1). However,
they
However, are they are ofare
they these
three roles and eight dimensions)
conceptual conceptual
“sortings”
conceptual andconstitutes
“sortings” “sortings”
not air-tight
and not and anotkind
air-tight
categories.
air-tight of categories.
kaleidoscope
Hence,
categories. inHence, Hence,
reality they
in toreality
in
are
reality analyze
interlinked
they are the
theyinterlinked
are
and complexity
interlinked
partly and partly of the
and partly
overlapping. overlapping.
The
overlapping. conceptual The
The conceptual conceptual
framework framework
should
framework beshould
taken should
as ataken
be be taken
whole as and asseen
a whole a whole and as
as a seen
and map seen as a for
fora finding
map map for finding
finding
relationship between culture
one’s wayone’s one’s
in the
way
and
inway
complex thein
sustainability
the complex
debate
complex ofdebate
culturedebate
ofand
at meta
of culture
sustainable
culture
level.
and development.
and sustainable
For
sustainable
clarity,
development.
We
development.
the
now introduce
We now
eight
Weintroduce
now
dimensions
eachintroduce
of each of each of
are
presented as a table (Table
the eight the
dimensions
the eight1).dimensions
However,
eightand dimensions they
and
the interpretation
and the theareof the
interpretation conceptual
interpretationof theof
representations the “sortings”
representations
in respectintorespect
representations and tonot
in respect
these toair-tight
dimensions.
these these categories.
dimensions.
dimensions.
Hence, in reality3.2.they are
Eight 3.2.
interlinked
3.2. Dimensions
Dimensions
Eight Eight Dimensions
for Describing
and partly
forThree
the
for DescribingDescribing
overlapping.
the Three
Representations
the Three Representations
Representations
The conceptual framework should
be taken as a whole and seen as a map for finding one’s way in the complex debate of culture and
3.2.1. 3.2.1.
3.2.1. Definition Definition
of Culture
Definition of Cultureof Culture
sustainable development. We now introduce each of the eight dimensions and the interpretation of the
It has been Itbeen
argued
It has hasthat beenculture
argued argued that
one culture
thatisculture of isthe
one isofone
two or oftwo
thethree themost
ortwo or three
most most
complicated
three complicated
words,
complicated because
words, words,
because because
representations in respect
culture has become
to these
cultureanhas
dimensions.
become concept
important an important in severalconcept in several
distinct, distinct,
and often and often intellectual
incompatible, incompatible, intellectual
culture has become an important concept in several distinct, and often incompatible, intellectual
disciplines anddisciplines
systems
disciplines and of and systems
thought
systems of(p.
of [32] thought
thought 77). [32]77).
[32] Culture
(p. (p.is77).
alsoCulture
Culture alsois an
anis everyday alsoeveryday
an everyday
concept, used concept,
in aused used
concept, in a in a
3.2. Eight Dimensions for Describing the Three Representations

3.2.1. Definition of Culture

It has been argued that culture is one of the two or three most complicated words, because culture
has become an important concept in several distinct, and often incompatible, intellectual disciplines
and systems of thought [32] (p. 77). Culture is also an everyday concept, used in a number of ways
and contexts. As a result, multiple definitions and categorizations of the concept of culture exist
simultaneously. They reflect the various disciplines, schools of thought, (policy) objectives or cultural
contexts and time/period where the concept is used [32,33]. In pre-modern times, culture referred to
the action in real life-worlds and interaction with nature, which are essential aspects for anthropological
use of the concept even today. Towards the modern era, the concept of culture was used to express
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 5 of 12

cultivation of the mind, and later on the cultivation of humankind [32,33]. Since then, the relationship
between culture and “arts and creativity” has been constantly negotiated challenging also the research
and policy making [33]. Travelling through the history of the concept of culture, Raymond Williams
created three main meanings of culture that have become popular both in research and policy: culture
as (1) a general process of intellectual, spiritual or aesthetic development; (2) a particular way of
life, whether of a people, a period, a group, or humanity in general; and (3) works and intellectual
artistic activity. Yet, very often two definitions of culture are discerned: a “broad”, way-of-life based
concept referring to all domains of human life, and a “narrow”, art-based culture referring to both the
general process of intellectual and spiritual or aesthetic development and its results [32,33]. In the first
representation (“culture in sustainability”), culture is seen as a general process of intellectual, spiritual
or aesthetic development, as well as the results of intellectual and artistic work, which can also be called
cultural capital in the Bourdieusian sense. The second representation (“culture for sustainability”)
highlights culture as a way of life, referring to Williams’ second meaning of culture: culture regulates
all spheres of life, and reflects and gives meaning to the environment as well. The third representation
(“culture as sustainability”) opens up the broadest perspective for looking at human and social life as a
whole. It is extending to semiosis and significations and their various influences both on intentional
and unconscious behavior and functions over actions in human social life [34].

3.2.2. Culture and Development

We now explore the relationship between culture and development while bearing in mind the
criticism of “sustainable development” as a concept promoting continuous growth and the politically
laden concept of development. Referring to the Human Development Reports of the UNDP, Esteva [35]
(pp. 16–17) described development as a process (“the enlargement of relevant human choices”) as
well as an achievement (“the extent to which, in given societies, those relevant choices are actually
attained”). Hence, development entails intentional as well as unintentional processes of change and
evolution towards a new situation which is considered as “more developed” than before. Although
we take this broad spectrum of development along, we stress that development is not an objectively
definable concept, but rather a concept that is value-laden, culture-, context-, and time-specific and,
hence, continuously being (re)negotiated.
In the first representation, development processes contribute to the achievement of establishing
and recognizing culture and cultural diversity. This implies conservation, maintenance, and
preservation of tangible and intangible culture and the diversity of cultural expressions. In the
second representation, culture is seen as a resource for development and a means to conceptualize,
regulate, and shape development processes. By grafting development endeavors onto the cultural
contexts, they are translated in a culture-specific way to local conditions. An example is applying
the principles of spatial planning, not in a generic way, but rather to adapt them to local conditions.
The third representation refers to a fundamental paradigm shift, in which development as such is
considered to be a cultural process. In this way, sustainability is no longer seen as a set of options that
can be chosen or denied, or which can be integrated or not, but rather it becomes an inseparable part
of a culturally-embedded development paradigm that is largely shared among policy-makers, citizens,
public and private institutions, and so on.

3.2.3. Value of Culture

Within the cultural sector, there is a lot of discussion about the intrinsic and instrumental values
of culture (e.g., [36]). A value is either intrinsic (also called inherent), meaning it is considered as in and
of itself, or for its own sake; or a value is instrumental, meaning it is a means to acquire something else.
In reality the distinction between the two is somewhat blurred: intrinsic values (such as peace) might
also have some instrumental ends (such as a feeling of safety). In the context of culture, intrinsic value
refers to the set of values that relate to the subjective experience of culture intellectually, emotionally,
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 6 of 12

and spiritually, while instrumental value refers to culture as a means for acquiring something else of
value, e.g., social or economic impacts or intrinsic values [37].
In the first representation, culture has essentially an intrinsic value, an all-encompassing way
in human existence. Consequently the intrinsic values of culture can be experienced in aesthetics,
historical sites, heritage, scientific knowledge or artistic creation and, therefore, their sustainability
is seen as important for example in the work of culture and art organizations, but also by many
researchers [6]. In the second representation, the intrinsic value is considered as a necessary resource
to achieve objectives such as those related to education, human well-being, economic development or
environment. Therefore, in this representation when culture is facilitating development processes, it
becomes instrumental as well. In other words, the intrinsic values and instrumental values of culture
are interlinked. For example, a heritage site has both aesthetic and historical, hence intrinsic, values
because it has been standing in its location for hundreds of years, but it also has an instrumental value
for creating a sense of identity for people living close to that site or for raising economic well-being
through tourism. In the third representation, the intrinsic and instrumental values of culture become
both embedded in, and constitutive of, the cultural change.

3.2.4. Culture and Society

The relationship between “society” and “culture” is an interesting debate as such, but it also
has important implications for distinguishing between social and cultural sustainability. A relevant
question is how culture and society are different from, or constitutive of, each other. In the broadest
sense, culture covers all the spheres of society and, therefore, becomes empty of meaning, and in its
narrowest sense it can be considered even outside the society [33]. In the 1980s, as a result of the
so-called cultural turn, culture started to gain a more prominent role in social research more broadly.
Many of these works reveal the interlinked nature of culture and society, as is shown for example by
Habermas’ [38] argument that constituents of the life-world are “individuals, culture and society”.
In the first representation, culture has a complementary role in the society: it is recognized as an
important sphere of life besides the ecological, economic, and social aspects, and a sustainable society
cannot be treated without taking cultural aspects into account. In the second representation, culture is
considered as an engine of the functions of society and its evolution. Therefore, in this representation,
we call its role “affording” [39]: culture affords sustainable society to keep running and evolve. The
third representation suggests that culture is a change factor that may transform society. Thus, culture
can be considered not only as a structural component, but as a necessary agency in the transformation
towards a more sustainable society.

3.2.5. Culture and Nature

This dimension concerns the human’s relation to nature: how nature is defined, perceived, and
experienced by humans. It entails the social and cultural approach to nature instead of seeing nature
as a physical entity, environment, or the mere surroundings of people. Noel Castree [40] has discerned
three ways to understand such “social natures”: knowing, engaging, and remaking. Knowing nature
holds that there is no singular, objective knowledge of nature, only particular, socially-constituted
knowledges, in the plural. This implies that knowledge reflects power relationships and also has
material effects. Engaging with nature refers to practical interaction processes that take place between
humans and nature within a specific socio-ecological system. In the words of Castree, “the physical
characteristics of nature are contingent upon social practices” [40] (p. 13) and the boundaries between
the two become blurred. Remaking nature refers to the manipulation of nature or shaping nature
by humans.
We use these social natures as a starting point when exploring the dimension “culture and
nature”. In the first representation culture is the general process of intellectual, spiritual, or aesthetic
development leading to a human perspective on nature, and different ways of “knowing” nature.
Consequently, culture includes the accumulated knowledges and experiences of nature. In the second
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 7 of 12

representation culture and nature interact in everyday life processes and nature is a contributor to
and the result of all human practices. This dimension also denotes the differences between various
cultural contexts and their respective interactions with nature. In the third representation, nature is
a constituent of culture, in parallel with the economy and the social, and is (re)shaped by different
meanings and symbols.

3.2.6. Policy Sectors

Different criteria of categorizing policies can be found, such as policy domains (e.g., agriculture,
food, forest, regional, social, cultural and art policy, urban, rural, welfare etc.), scale (local, national,
international) and use of various instruments (regulations, awareness raising, “carrots and sticks”).
Until now, culture in respect to sustainability has been mainly (and most explicitly) treated by
the international cultural policy [11,12,41]. Yet, cultural aspects have been implicitly discussed in
environmental policies, for example in the ecologically-sound production and consumption, or in
biodiversity conservation policies in relation to the role and rights of indigenous people, while culture
is almost totally missing in many other policy fields.
The first representation is most clearly linked with the cultural policy, which is the area of
public policy-making that governs activities related to cultural activities and arts. Generally, this
involves fostering processes and institutions that promote e.g. cultural diversity and access to cultural
works and experiences, but it also involves enhancing and promulgating the expressions of all people,
especially those of indigenous, or broadly representative cultural heritage. In the second representation
almost all policy fields covering different spheres of human life become relevant, as they are all inspired
by culture. The third representation calls for cross-sectoral or totally new policies that intrinsically
accommodate sustainability principles.

3.2.7. Modes of Governance

Governing can be considered as the totality of interactions in which public, as well as private,
actors participate with the aim of solving societal problems or creating societal opportunities; attending
to the institutions as contexts for these governing interactions; and establishing a normative foundation
for all those activities [42]. Commonly phrased as a shift from government to governance, the notion
of governance entails a process of interaction between different societal and political actors and the
growing interdependencies between the two as modern societies become ever more complex, dynamic,
and diverse.
Kooiman [42] has distinguished between “self”, “co-“, and “hierarchical” modes of governing. In
hierarchical governance the focus is on the steering role of the state in respect to governance. The state
has shifted its pattern of steering away from direct legislative intervention and control to more subtle
forms of regulation and oversight. Co-governance is about how groups cooperate on a horizontal
axis. It includes various forms of collaboration and stretches from network information to the practical
establishment of public-private partnerships and regimes. Self-governance refers to the capacity of
people to govern themselves, where actors come together to frame their own collective solutions.
Kooiman also identified different orders of the governance (first, second, or meta orders) to illustrate
the many different structures and levels of modern governance today. The first order governance
refers to the day-to-day activities of governing while, in the second order governance, the institutions
in which the first order governing takes place become the objects of governance. When the norms
and principles for governing as a whole are the object of governance (includes first, second, meta
governance, itself) it is possible to talk about meta-governance.
Following Kooiman’s work, we contend that the first representation mainly concerns the
hierarchical governance, e.g., a governmental cultural policy in the field of heritage conservation
or arts. This does not necessarily exclude other forms of governance and/or involvement of various
stakeholders including other policy sectors and citizens. In the second representation, the ideal
situation would be a governance structure that stimulates the role of culture in SD, a second order
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 8 of 12

governing. The third representation refers to modes of governance which can be associated with
self-governance, but also totally new ones, implying the mode of meta-governance.

3.2.8. Research Approach

The last dimension explores how the three representations differ in terms of research approaches.
An awareness and recognition of multidisciplinary approaches has existed in the field of sustainability
research for a long time. In recent years, however, a strong impetus is found for going beyond
multi- towards inter- and transdisciplinarity, to contribute to the sustainability problems,
although many ontological and methodological challenges related to the inter- and, in particular,
transdisciplinary sustainability research still need to be solved [43]. Obviously, all the research
approaches (mono-, multi-, inter-, or transdisciplinary) can be relevant for each representation. The
relevance of the selected research approach depends on the objectives of the research in question.
Therefore, rather than describing what is the preferred or most common approach in each of the
representations, we discuss what is characteristic in each of them.
As for the first representation, if culture is considered as a relatively independent dimension of
sustainability, disciplines within the social sciences and humanities (such as cultural policy, archeology,
education, art and cultural history, and aesthetics) become specialized and advanced research
fields in relation to sustainability, either alone (monodisciplinary) or together (multidisciplinary).
Inter- and transdisciplinary approaches are increasingly found within arts and humanities that aim
for sustainability as well. In the second representation, the selection of disciplines is expanded
to include all natural, economic, and social sciences to enable them to tackle all the dimensions
of sustainability. Here, the need for interdisciplinary approaches that combine approaches and
methodologies across the disciplines and participatory approaches becomes particularly important.
Transdisciplinary approaches often combine non-academic and academic knowledge from different
disciplines as well as artistic work, and offer a wider integrative framework that aims not only to
increase the understanding of the complexity and uncertainty related to sustainability, but also to
contribute to the societal transformation as required in the third representation.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The aim of the framework introduced here is to clarify the three representations of the role
of culture in sustainability by discussing and comparing them through the abovementioned eight
dimensions in order to increase our understanding of the culture-sustainability interface in the
academic world and beyond. In the following section we describe and discuss some general
observations and draw on the implications of the framework for research and policies.
Although the representations were introduced as separate, they can also be seen as interlinked
(see Figure 1). For example, the first representation, which emphasize the independent role of culture
in sustainability and intrinsic values, can be seen as a necessary condition or means for societal
transformation. Sustainability of cultural capital is also important in the second representation. For
example local (cultural) knowledge of the environment can be seen as an essential resource and factor
in nature conservation, local livelihoods and social well-being.
Second, the framework points out some gradients which can be described along the axes of
inertia/dynamics and human/nature interface (Figure 1). The former refers to the gradient from a
more stable state to a more dynamic state i.e., from sustainability that is grafted on present societal
(including cultural) conditions, to sustainability that is transformative for society as a whole. The
latter refers to the nature/culture divide, i.e., the gradient from a more anthropocentric condition
to a more eco-centric condition. When moving from the first representation to the second towards
the third, the ecological emphasis, but also the integration of cultural, social, and ecological aspects,
as well as the overall dynamics, diversity, and openness of the representation, all increase. In the
first representation, the aim is to give adequate and equal attention to the cultural aspects (such as
cultural rights, cultural capital, etc.) within the prevailing sustainability research and policies. The
Sustainability2016,
Sustainability 2016,8,8,167
167 99ofof12
12

policies. The second representation contains an understanding of a more functional role of culture
second
in the representation
broader contextcontains an understanding
of sustainability, butofthe
a more
aimfunctional
is ratherroletoof find
culture morein theculturally
broader
context of sustainability, but the aim is rather to find more culturally sensitive/reformative
sensitive/reformative approaches to sustainability, including culture as an explicit aspect while, in approaches
to
thesustainability, including the
third representation, culture
aim asisan toexplicit
promote aspect while, in the third
a transformation representation,
of society towards the aim
a more
is to promote
sustainable a transformation
condition, broadening of the
society towards a of
understanding more
naturesustainable
as a formcondition,
of human broadening
capital towardsthe
understanding of nature as a form of human capital towards a constituent of (sustainable)
a constituent of (sustainable) culture. It also implies that while the first and second representations culture. It
also implies
address that as
culture while the first
a result and of
or part second representations
the (sustainable) address culture
development process aswith
a result or partgoal,
a certain of the
in
(sustainable) development
the third representation it process
is ratherwith
a parta certain goal, in the
of a constantly third representation
evolving process aiming it is
forrather a part of a
transformation.
constantly
In this way,evolving process
the third aiming forresonates
representation transformation. In thissustainability
better with way, the third(cf.
representation
Section 2) rather resonates
than
better with sustainability
with sustainable (cf. Section 2) rather than with sustainable development.
development.

Figure 1. The relationships between the three representations and the main observations of the
Figure 1. The relationships between the three representations and the main observations of the
dynamics included in the eight dimensions discussed in this article. The figure has two main axes,
dynamics included in the eight dimensions discussed in this article. The figure has two main axes, one
one describing the inertia/dynamics of the system, and the other describing the human/nature
describing the inertia/dynamics of the system, and the other describing the human/nature interface
interface (from more anthropocentric to more ecocentric). The figure shows the relationships
(from more anthropocentric to more ecocentric). The figure shows the relationships between the various
between the various representations (they are not mutually exclusive) and the increased complexity
representations (they are not mutually exclusive) and the increased complexity as distance from the
as distance from the origin increases.
origin increases.

Following this, when moving from the first to second to third representations, policies become
Following
more diverse and this, multilayered,
when moving thus from complex,
the first toassecond to third
mirrored by representations,
the dimensions policies become
of policies and
more diverseThis
governance. and complexity
multilayered, thus reflected
is also complex,inasresearch
mirrored by the dimensions
orientations, which also of policies
extend fromand
governance. This complexity
narrow disciplinary is also reflected
based approaches in research
towards orientations,Obviously,
transdisciplinarity. which alsothisextend from narrow
extension is also
disciplinary based approaches towards transdisciplinarity. Obviously, this extension
related to the phenomenological-semiotic definition of culture integrating both natural and human is also related to
the phenomenological-semiotic
worlds at the level of meanings. definition of culture integrating both natural and human worlds at the
level Although
of meanings.the first representation is presented as stable and anthropocentric, and the third as
Although
dynamic the first
and more representation
holistic is presented
and ecocentric, as stable
one should be and anthropocentric,
careful not to interpret andthe theproposed
third as
dynamic and more holistic and ecocentric, one should be careful not
framework as a strict evolutionary or normative path: depending on their use, all three to interpret the proposed
framework as a strict
representations mightevolutionary
be relevant or normative path: depending
in their contexts, whetherontheoretical,
their use, allpolitical,
three representations
or practical.
might be relevant
Furthermore, in their contexts,
the framework whethertable
and associated theoretical,
should be political,
used inor practical.
a flexible way;Furthermore,
for example,the by
framework and
looking at the associated
different table shouldorbedimensions
representations used in a flexible
from theway;pointfor example,
of view by lookingtheme.
of a particular at the
different representations
To conclude, or dimensions
the framework from in
presented thethis
point of view
article showsof aremarkable
particular theme.
differences in the way
To conclude, the framework presented in this article shows
culture can be understood within the context of sustainability. Consequently, remarkable differences in the way
when working on
culture can be understood within the context of sustainability. Consequently, when working
culture in the context of sustainability, one should be at least aware of the way culture is addressed. on culture
in the context
However, of sustainability,
while one should be
arguing the importance of at least aware
making cultureof the
more way cultureinissustainability
explicit addressed. However,
policies
while arguing the importance of making culture more explicit in sustainability
and research, we also acknowledge the danger of this kind of representations to become policies and research,
binding
and reducing the complexity of the reality, as Noorgaard [44] for example has pointed out
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 10 of 12

we also acknowledge the danger of this kind of representations to become binding and reducing
the complexity of the reality, as Noorgaard [44] for example has pointed out concerning ecosystem
services approaches. Acknowledging that many research activities are already taking place, such as in
sustainability transformation research and socio-ecological research, we agree that nuanced research is
needed that takes into account the special character of culture—not as a fixed object or category—within
each of the three representations discussed above. As Proctor [23] has noted, as long as culture is not
mentioned, it simply disappears and is, therefore, not included in the analysis. Consequently, the
value of the interdisciplinary framework presented here is to help the communication about culture
and sustainability, but also position oneself or one’s research, political discussion, or practical activity,
in some of the representations, thus increasing the accuracy of those activities.

Acknowledgements: This work was carried out during the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural
Sustainability. The authors are grateful for the members of the Action for the comments on the earlier version of
the framework presented in this paper and the three anonymous reviewers for the remarks on the final version of
the manuscript.
Author Contributions: The authors have equally contributed to the development of the framework.
Katriina Soini drafted the main parts of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hawkes, J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning; Common Ground P/L:
Melbourne, Australia, 2001.
2. Reisch, L. The cultivation of sustainability. Int. J. Environ. Cult. Econ. Soc. Sustain. 2006, 1, 2005/2006.
3. Duxbury, N.; Jeannotte, E. Culture as a Key Dimension of Sustainability: Exploring Concepts, Themes, and Models;
Working Paper 1; Creative City network of Canada; Centre of Expertise on Culture and Communities:
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2007.
4. Kagan, S. Art and Sustainability: Connecting Patterns for a Culture of Complexity; Transcript Verlag: Bielefeld,
Germany, 2007.
5. Axelsson, P.; Degerman, E.; Teitelbaum, S.; Andersson, K.; Elbakidze, M.; Drotz, M. Social and Cultural
Sustainability: Criteria, Indicators, Verifier Variables for Measurement and Maps for Visualization to Support
Planning. AMBIO 2013, 42, 215–228. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Soini, K.; Birkeland, I. Exploring the scientific discourse of cultural sustainability. Geoforum 2014, 51, 213–223.
[CrossRef]
7. Chiu, R. Socio-cultural sustainability of housing: A conceptual exploration. Hous. Theory Soc. 2004, 21, 65–76.
[CrossRef]
8. Cuthill, M. Strengthening the “social” in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual framework for
social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 18, 362–373. [CrossRef]
9. Vallace, S.; Perkins, H.C.; Dixon, J.E. What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum 2011,
42, 342–348. [CrossRef]
10. Ravitch, S.M.; Riggan, J.M. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research; Sage: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 2012.
11. Culture and Sustainable Development: Examples of Institutional Innovation and Proposal of a New Cultural Policy
Profile; UCLG: Agenda 21 for Culture, 2009; Available online: http://www.agenda21.culture.net (accessed
on 20 May 2015).
12. The Hangzhou Declaration Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies. Available
online: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhou
Declaration20130517.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2015).
13. Nurse, K. Culture As the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development, Unpublished Paper. 2006. Available online:
http://www.fao.org/sard/common/ecg/2785/en/Cultureas4thPillarSD.pdf. (accessed on 1 August 2015).
14. Throsby, D. Culture in Sustainable Development: Insights for the future implementation of Art.
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Available online:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001572/157287E.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2015).
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 11 of 12

15. Duxbury, N.; Jeannotte, M.S. Including culture in sustainability: An assessment of Canada's Integrated
Community Sustainability Plans. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2012, 4, 1–19. [CrossRef]
16. Auclair, E.; Fairclough, G. Living between Past and Future. Introduction to Heritage and Cultural
Sustainability. In Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability: Between Past and Future; Auclair, E.,
Fairclough, G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 1–22.
17. Horlings, L. The Worldview and Symbolic Dimension in Territorialisation: How Human Values Play a Role
in a Dutch Neighbourhood. In Cultural Sustainability and Regional Development; Dessein, J., Battaglini, E.,
Horlings, L., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 43–58.
18. Culture and Sustainable Development in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. United Nations
General Assembly Special Thematic Debate. Available online: http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/
68/pdf/culture_sd/Culture%20and%20SD%20Summary%20of%20Key%20Messages_FINAL%20rev.pdf
(accessed on 1 August 2015).
19. Our Common Future. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm (accessed on 1
August 2015).
20. Robinson, J. Squaring the Circle: Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48,
369–384. [CrossRef]
21. Bendor, R. Sustainability in an Imaginary World; Forum Sustainability in (Inter) Action; 2015; pp. 54–58.
22. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. Our Common Future revisited. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 6, 130–139.
[CrossRef]
23. Proctor, J.D. The meaning of global environmental change. Retheorizing culture in human dimensions
research. Glob. Environ. Chang. 1999, 8, 227–248. [CrossRef]
24. Clammer, J. Culture, Development and Social Theory. Towards an Integrated Social Development; ZED–Books:
London, UK, 2012.
25. Connelly, S. Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept. Local Environ. 2007, 12, 259–278.
[CrossRef]
26. Star, S.; Griesemer, J. Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals
in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1989, 19, 387–420.
27. Hirsch Hadorn, G.; Bradley, D.; Pohl, C.; Rist, S.; Wiesmann, U. Implications of Transdisciplinarity for
Sustainability Research. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 119–128. [CrossRef]
28. Stember, M. Advancing the Social Sciences through the Interdisciplinary Enterprise. Soc. Sci. J. 1991, 28,
1–14. [CrossRef]
29. Hopwood, B.; Mellor, M.; O’Brien, G. Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches.
Sustain. Dev. 2005, 38, 38–52. [CrossRef]
30. Brandt, P.; Ernst, A.; Gralla, F.; Luederitz, C.; Lang, D.; Newig, J.; Reinert, F.; Abson, D.; von Wehrden, H. A
review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 1–15. [CrossRef]
31. Dessein, J., Soini, K., Fairclough, G., Horlings, L., Eds.; Culture in, for and As Sustainable Development;
Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. University of Jyväskylä:
Jyväskylä, Finland, 2015. Available online: http://www.cost.eu/media/publications/Culture-in-for-and-as-
Sustainable-Development-Conclusions-from-the-COST-Action-IS1007-Investigating-Cultural-Sustainability
(accessed on 1 August 2015).
32. Williams, R. Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1985.
33. Pirnes, E. Cultural Policy in the sectoral trap—But how to escape it. Nord. Kult. Tidskr. 2010, 2, 155–174.
34. Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays; Basic: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
35. Esteva, G. Development. In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power; Sachs, W., Ed.;
ZED Books: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 6–25.
36. Throsby, D. Economics and Culture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.
37. Holden, J. Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy. Why Culture Needs a Democratic Mandate. Available
online: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Culturalvalueweb.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2015).
38. Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of
Functionalist Reason.(Original text in German 1981). Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 1987.
39. Gibson, J.J. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology;
Shaw, R., Bransford, J., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1977; pp. 127–143.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 167 12 of 12

40. Castree, N. Chapter 1. Socializing Nature. Theory, Practice, and Policies. Introduction. In Socializing Nature.
Theory, Practice, and Policies; Castree, N., Braun, B., Eds.; Blackwell: Malden, MA, USA, 2001.
41. Rio +20 and Culture. Advocating Culture As a Pillar of Sustainability. Available online: http://www.
agenda21culture.net/index.php/docman/meetings/467-rio20engdef/file (accessed 20 May 2015).
42. Kooiman, J. Governing As Governance; Sage: London, UK, 2003.
43. Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.J.
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7,
25–43. [CrossRef]
44. Norgaard, R. Ecosystem services: From eyeopening methaphor to complecity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69,
1219–1227. [CrossRef]

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).