Concepts of Sustainable Development

Concepts of Sustainable Development

and Globalization in Times of Transition:

The Case of Ukraine

Peter L. Gess[1] and Valentyna V. Pidlisnyuk[2]

Abstract

A relatively new concept, sustainable development, was proclaimed as a main goal for future world development at the Global Summit on Environment and Development in RiodeJaneiro in 1992. Almost no nation has been immune to the debate surrounding these new ideas (and even the debate about whether or not sustainable development offers anything new). Especially interesting is how the concepts of sustainable development have affected national, sub-national and local policy initiatives in countries experiencing political and economical transition, such as those of Eastern and Central Europe.

The past fifteen years of attempted implementation of the principles of sustainable development coincide with fifteen years of Ukrainian independence. This period has brought about radical changes in Ukrainian social, political and economic systems. Strategic planning for the transition to sustainable development has not yet achieved the status of formal hallmarks for a coherent policy in Ukraine.

It is apparent that a "one size fits all" model is not realistic, especially for transitional countries. Indeed, policy actors in Ukraine are debating and conceptionalizing the meaning of sustainable development in a Ukrainian context. Such considerations as multiple-use of protected lands, stewardship, government responsibilities, personal property rights, community and regional development, poverty elimination, public health and welfare, grassroots action and activism, and economic development will all color sustainable development concepts.

We argue that if Ukraine and its people are to be successful in achieving sustainable development goals, it is important to understand the values and attitudes of key actors. As sustainable development is sufficiently vague as a concept and lacks a clear definition with concrete goals and strategies, a first important research question is how important policy and education actors think about and define sustainable development. Further, it is important to understand whether or not these actors share common attitudes and beliefs. Understanding how various individuals involved in the debate think and feel about sustainable development is important to understanding the future of Ukrainian society, environment and economy.

We utilize Q-methodology to examine the views and understandings of important Ukrainian policy and education actors toward sustainable development. Q is an appropriate technique because it provides a framework for a science of subjectivity that incorporates procedures for data collection (Q-sort technique) and analysis (factor analysis). The participants for this study include main actors involved in sustainable development issues in Ukraine: representatives from national ministries, councils, and parliament; local government leaders; private sector entrepreneurs; and researchers, professors and students from institutions of higher learning.

Analysis of the Q-data identified four factor types. The first factor is a consensus factor described as favoring a balanced approach to sustainable development, a role for scientific experts and governmental regulators, and pragmatism. The three minority or dissenting factors differ from the consensus factor as how to prioritize development dimensions, the appropriate loci of policy-making, and how to define and implement sustainable policies; ten individuals loaded on these three factors. The presence of a consensus factor indicates those involved with or knowledgeable of Ukrainian sustainable development issues have common values and views, and that a foundation exists upon which to build public policies. However, the presence of dissenting factors indicates the need to incorporate minority values into the process if a national strategy is to move forward. As Ukraine transitions to a democratic society, it is important to incorporate all voices into the public policy process.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Continuous world economic growth has resulted in substantial improvements in health, education, and the quality of life for many people; however, such growth has also caused significant deterioration of the environment. Negative impacts include: (1) destruction of natural ecosystems at an alarming rate resulting in considerable losses in biodiversity; (2) tremendous increases in soil, air and water contamination; (3) accumulation of sizeable amounts of waste in the environment that neither can be assimilated by the biosphere nor managed by humans effectively; (4) extensive land degradation, including catastrophic deforestation and desertification; (5) global climate change; and (6) depletion of nonrenewable resources such as gas, oil and coal. Additionally, population pressure, poverty, social injustice, and food security problems have negatively impacted human development.

This combination of threats and insecurities spawned a new approach known as sustainable development, one which has been accepted almost globally. Sustainable development is a modern concept of interaction between society and nature which integrates economic growth and social development with protection the environment; it is development which “meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[3]

One of the main characteristics of sustainable development is that it depends on systems of government that are transparent, participatory, and accountable, with full access to relevant information and decision-making processes by all stakeholders. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development stresses the need for citizen participation in environmental issues and for citizen access to governmental information on the environment.[4] The role of participatory democracy is emphasized in numerous intergovernmental documents on sustainable development issues, particularly as a means of managing conflicts in society and achieving justice. Further, the movement to sustainable development in any country or region parallels a strengthening of citizen rights and freedoms. Many nations moving to democracy have adopted principles of sustainable development as they transition from former communist states.

Ukraine in Eastern Europe is one such country. Ukraine gained its independence in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Slightly smaller than the U.S. state of Texas, Ukrainehas a population of approximately 48 million people, ranking as the fifth most populated country in Europe and 21stin the world. Ukraine embodies many post-communist environmental threads. As a key industrial center of the former Soviet Union,Ukraine suffers heavily from pollution and ineffective utilization of natural resources. Although it has experienced recent political changes through its “Orange Revolution,” independent Ukraine has mostly been managed as a centralized economy and by communist-era holdovers less interested in reform than in self-aggrandizement and wealth accumulation. Both gross domestic product and personal incomes have decreased significantly in the 1990s, and the export structure has shifted from high-tech products to basic commodities. The Ukrainian economy has become even more resource-intensive and environmentally unfriendly when compared to the period immediately prior to independence. Additionally, as Ukraine was the “food basket” for the Soviet Union, agriculture still plays an important role in the national economy, and makes up 18% of the GDP. Agriculture occupies 70% of the land, and an extraordinarily high average of 81% of agricultural land is cultivated. More than one-fifth of all Ukrainians are involved in agricultural activities. The impact of the agricultural production systems on the environment has been devastating; the sector is estimated to cause 35-40% of total environmental degradation in the country.[5]

Since 2000,Ukraine has experienced constant economic growth. This may be explained by numerous factors, such as slow but insistent economic transformation, the emergence of a private sector and an increase in private enterprises, and governmental reforms. However, various experts stress that current economic development in Ukraine is far from sustainable. According to the 2005 World Economic Forum’s Environmental Sustainability Index,Ukraine ranks 108thamong 146 nations considered.[6]

1.1 History of Sustainable Development in Ukraine

Ukrainian representatives participated in the 1992 Earth Summit; there Parliament Speaker Ivan Plutzh signed the Earth Summit’s documents on behalf of the Ukrainian people. In 1997 at the “Rio + 5” Global Meeting,the Ukrainian delegation reaffirmed the government’s commitment to move toward sustainable development. Again, in 2002, President Kuchma led the Ukrainian delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg; Ukraine was among the creators of the “West-East” environmental partnership between Eastern European countries and Central Asian republics.

In 1997 the National Commission on Sustainable Development was established and chaired by the First Vice-Premier Minister. Several draft sustainable development concepts were prepared during 1997-2002; some of these were discussed with the public. In March 2002 the final draft was adopted by the Commission and presented to Parliament for adoption. The draft states that moving toward sustainable development in Ukraine is defined as a process of state building on a basis of harmonization of economic, social, and ecological components with the purpose of meeting the needs of today’s and future generations. Further, sustainable development favors national economic growth distributed equitably, protection of the environment, and elimination of poverty.[7] The draft also lays out a strategy for eliminating barriers and proceeding toward sustainable development; elements include:

• establisha legal framework;
• reduce poverty;
• establishpartnerships among all branches and levels of government;
• introduce efficient, economic mechanisms for natural resource utilization;
• improve public access to information regarding the state of the environment and public health;
• strengthenpublic participation in the decision making process; and
• strengthening the system of environmental management and environmental education.[8]

The draft sustainable development strategy for Ukraine was refused by parliament in March 2002 on the strength of Communist and Socialistic Party block voting. However, with press attention leading up to the Johannesburg Summit, the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministries at a special meeting in August 2002 called for political compromise on sustainable development legislation. But to date there is no officially-adopted governmental document regarding sustainable development in Ukraine.

In late2002, the Cabinet of Ministries adopted a comprehensive program for decision-making and implementation based upon the World Summit. The program emphasizes that an expanded environmental code, a national environmental fund, and environmental audit, insurance and monitoring systems are necessary requisites for sustainable development. Some elements of the program were incorporated into the national government’s action plan for 2003-2004.

1.2 The Research Questions

We argue that if Ukraine and its people are to be successful in achieving sustainable development goals, it is important to understand the values and attitudes of key actors. Even though the concept of sustainable development was introduced widely into global society almost twenty years ago, sustainable development is sufficiently vague as a concept and lacks a clear definition with concrete goals and strategies.[9] A first important research question is how important policy and education actors think about and define sustainable development.

Further, it is important to understand whether or not sustainable development actors share common attitudes and beliefs. For example, do they agree that Ukraine is ready to adopt sustainable development principles and concepts? Do they agree on a balance for the different factors (social, economic, environmental), or are they divided on prioritizing these dimensions? Do they feel that government can lead the way, or is the issue too political and better left to scientists or the public at large? Understanding how various individuals involved in the debate over sustainable development think and feel about these and other issues is important to understanding the future of Ukrainian society, environment and economy. By answering these research questions, we are able to identify areas of common ground on which sustainable development foundations may be built.

Chapter 2: The Research Design

We chose Q-methodology as an appropriate technique for examining the attitudes, views and understandings of key actors in the Ukrainian sustainable development debate. Q-methodology, which has been utilized since Stephenson[10]first introduced it more than seventy years ago, allows us to study the subjectivities of the participants scientifically or empirically. The methodology seeks to understand how people think about a particular topic, and is related to post-positivist epistemology. Q-methodology is also intensive, seeking in-depth understanding of the subject matter. There are several steps in carrying out a Q-study, as defined below.

2.1 Creating the Q-Sample

The first step to conducting research using Q-methodology, or a Q-study, is to create a sample of communication or conversation about the topic. It is important that this sample—known as the “Q-sample”—covers the entire concourse of views and attitudes on the subject. The researcher uses his or her judgment to select statements to maximize diversity. Traditionally there are two ways of doing this. The first is through a series of unstructured interviews or conversations with representatives of the study population, either as a group or individuals; the participants in such an endeavor are allowed to brainstorm the breadth of attitudes, views and understandings on the topic. The second way to generate the Q-sample is to cull the statements from relevant literature on the topic.

For our work, we utilized a hybrid of the two. We began with a group of statements from an earlier Q-study examining sustainable development: Logan and Beltrao[11] specifically examined Brazilian policy makers. The applicable statements were modified as necessary, and additional statements were added as needed. Next the whole Q-sample was translated in Ukrainian. The Q-sample was then shared with a few individuals familiar with and involved in sustainable development issues in Ukraine; feedback was helpful in finalizing the Q-sample so that all statements were appropriate to and applicable for the Ukrainian context. A few additional statements were added to assure a diverse concourse. The final Q-sample consisted of sixty statements, twelve from each of five sustainable development dimensions: environmental, economic, social, governmental, and definitional.[12] The complete list of Q-statements appears as Appendix A.

2.2 Defining the Person Sample

The next step in the Q-Methodological research is to assemble a group of people—known as the “person sample” or “p-sample”—of theoretical interest to the study. In order to better grasp the progress of sustainable development goals in Ukraine, we are most interested in those individuals involved with such issues. For this reason we targeted representatives from national ministries, councils, and parliament; local government leaders; private sector entrepreneurs; and researchers, professors and students from institutions of higher learning and research. Thirty-six individuals participated in this research program (twenty women and sixteen men). The participants ranged from a low age of eighteen, to a high of sixty-five (mean of 34.6). All of the participants hold or are working toward a university degree; many hold or are working toward a post-baccalaureate degree.

2.3 Performing the Q-Sorts

In 2003 and 2004, the thirty-six individuals completed the Q-sort process. In all cases, one of the researchers was present to observe. Often this was done one-on-one, but on several occasions the researchers took advantage of a larger gathering of subjects to have many complete theQ-sorts at the same time. Participants were handed sixty small square pieces of paper, each printed with one of the Q-sample statements (in Ukrainian). They were asked to sort the statements in a quasi-normal distribution along a continuous scale of integers from -5 to 5, where -5 represents “strongly disagree” and 5 represents “strongly agree.” A few individuals deviated from the quasi-normal distribution which does not adversely affect the outcome (a quasi-normal distribution is not imperative). Each participant recorded the layout of his or her sort on a sheet of paper.

2.4 Analyzing the Q-Sorts

Once all Q-sorts were collected from the P-sample, they were analyzed using PQMethod software.[13] To begin, all statements from the Q-sample were entered into a data file, as were each individual sort (how each participant arranged all sixty statements). Following a usual Q-methodology examination and utilizing the software, the sorts of all respondents were correlated, and the resulting matrix was factor analyzed using the principal components method.[14]

At this stage, Q-methodology calls for the factors to be rotated. A typical technique for doing so is “judgmental rotation.” Such a technique, which is easily accomplished with the PQMethod program, requires the researcher to manually rotate the various factors based upon theoretical criteria or understandings of the topic and p-sample. However, as we had no clear or strong theoretical suppositions concerning this study, we opted to employ an objective factor rotation technique based upon mathematical criteria: verimax rotation. After rotation, we concluded that four factors emerged as easily explained. It is theoretically possible to select many more factors (although PQMethod has a physical limit of eight factors), but in this case additional factors resulted in diminishing explanatory power. Further, very few participants loaded on additional factors, when included.

At this point in the analysis, we found the correlations among the four factors scores to be quite high, as demonstrated in Table 1. We therefore opted for an unrotated solution. An unrotated solution confines the variance to the first factor instead of spreading it across all factors. This results in a “consensus” Factor A, with dissenting or minority views loading on the subsequent factors. And the resulting correlations among the factors scores, while high as expected between the consensus factor and other factors, are reasonable among Factors B, C and D (Table 2).

Table 1. Correlations among the factors scores (rotated solution).

Factor
Factor / A / B / C / D
A / 1 / 0.77 / 0.86 / 0.82
B / 1 / 0.76 / 0.66
C / 1 / 0.76
D / 1

Table 2. Correlations among the factors scores (unrotated solution).

Factor
Factor / A / B / C / D
A / 1 / 0.79 / 0.73 / 0.57
B / 1 / 0.53 / 0.49
C / 1 / 0.44
D / 1

At the completion of this analysis, thirty-five of the thirty-six individuals loaded significantly on Factor A, the consensus factor. Additionally, six participants loaded significantly on Factor B, two on Factor C, and three on Factor D. The only participant not loading significantly on Factor A (ID number 015) loaded on two other factors: B and D. Factor coefficients above 0.33 were accepted as statistically significant at the 0.01 level. This value was calculated according to the following formula: