_kt75 | mirror

-- an SWM THiNKTANK debate According to a previous survey [ 1 ] sustainability is synonymous with 'durability'. One may also interpret this result with 'stability', 'safety', 'predictability', etc. However, when it comes to 'personal mobility' (e.g. with regard to the daily work environment) or to 'personal time flexibility' (in the same context), the first results look different [ 2 ], [ 3 ]. It is obvious that, today, people increasingly appreciate flexible and open work spaces instead of (apparently old-fashioned) single-space offices. Single room offices with a limited number of work places are clearly disliked. So, apparently, and from the office design open-space offices can be considered a key sustainable alternative (as people prefer this kind of work environment, i.e. productivity can be assumed to be higher). The question of individual time-planning seems to be more tricky: there are the 'individualists' (currently pr

-- an SWM THiNKTANK debate In continuation of the past debates about the topic of sustainability [ 1 ]-[ 4 ] a new debate concentrating on the current situation of sustainable development has been started - Sustainability. We are on the right way!? [ 5 ]. Main incentive for the continuation of the controversy is a perceptible hebetude in sustainable development [ 6 ]. Today sustainable development can be considered as ' institutionalized ', ' standardized ', 'quantified', ' technified ', etc. Sustainability is still considered and treated as ' extra ', i.e. as ' add-on '. Accordingly, sustainability as such is considered as a cost factor - which is basically not the case. Some quick surveys [ 7 ]- [ 9 ] demonstrated how integral sustainability is included in a person's every day live. It is more than obvious that, if the turn towards a truly sustainable society shall be successful, there is a need to change the approaches to impa