Sustainability is often conceived of as an attempt to balance competing economic, environmental and social priorities. Over the course of three decades of scholarship, however, the meaning and appropriate application of the ‘social pillar’ continues to inspire confusion. In this paper, we posit that the inherent challenge of understanding social sustainability is its many legitimate meanings plus a lack of interdisciplinary scholarship. We draw from literature in multiple disciplines to illustrate five different ways that the concept of social sustainability has been applied in scholarship and professional practice, and highlighting the importance of applications that acknowledge placed-based, process-oriented perspectives that understand social, economic, and environmental imperatives as integrated concepts. Ironically, this framing forecloses on social sustainability as an entity distinct from environmental and economic sustainability. We believe that organizing the conversation around these five applications can help advocates of sustainability use the concept of social sustainability in clear and powerful ways while avoiding applications that relegate the social dimensions of sustainability to an afterthought.

Farm production often involves family-owned agribusinesses where decisions are made by households or individuals, not corporate managers. As these decisions have important economic, environmental, and social implications, decision-making processes must be understood to foster sustainable agricultural production. Decision experiments, involving lotteries, targeting farmers in the Argentine Pampas were used to estimate prospect theory (PT) parameters. Results suggest that decisions under risk are better represented by prospect theory than by expected utility (EU) theory: Decision makers treat gains and losses differently and use subjective probabilities of outcomes; they are quite loss averse and are more likely to overweigh probabilities of infrequent events, such as large droughts or floods. Statistical testing revealed heterogeneity in the risk tied to land tenure (land owners vs. renters) and agribusiness roles (farmers vs. technical advisors). Perceptions of risk, probability, and outcomes played a large role in the sustainability of production. Due to a strong desire to avoid losses, decision makers have a greater short term focus: Immediate economic outcomes are more salient, and environmental and social investments are framed as costs rather than long-term gains. This research can help design policies, programs, and tools that assist agribusinesses in managing better contradictions across the triple bottom line to ensure greater sustainability.

The viability of conservation efforts, including protected areas and buffer zones, depends on finding ways to make those strategies more attractive and viable for local populations. This paper presents a pilot study utilizing a rapid rural appraisal of livelihoods in the buffer zone of Tambopata National Reserve in Madre de Dios, Peru, threatened by illegal gold mining and logging. We evaluated three predominant economic activities—artisanal gold mining, Brazil nut harvesting, and fish farming—in terms of potential economic returns. The main research question we ask is whether the latter two potentially sustainable land uses can match or exceed the returns from mining. Contrary to popular belief, we find that enhancing value creation at product origin could make existing forest-friendly livelihoods as or more lucrative than extractive ones. This has implications on local conservation policy encouraging implementable strategies incentivizing sustainable livelihoods in tandem with, and in support of, conservation goals.

Using surveys and interviews with Argentine agribusiness owners and managers, we examine the relative importance of economic, environmental, and social goals in their planning processes. While in one survey, respondents rate these three objectives as equally important, they also prioritize economic goals over environmental and social targets when assigning points based on the importance of decisions made for various sub-categories. Discussions of specific scenarios illuminate goal importance, but also demonstrate that perceived losses can be valuable for understanding how managers think about sustainability in terms of comparative economic gains, social relationships, and different social and economic outcomes. Subsequent analyses suggest that the three categories of the “triple bottom line” are overly rigid and cannot capture the integration among environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainability. Given these findings, we suggest future directions for research on losses, time scales, and sustainability.