Discover Sustainability

Research

Four dimensional spatial sustainability (4DSS): a revolutionary

approach toward utopian sustainability
Raed Najjar1

Received: 2 April 2022 / Accepted: 15 June 2022

© The Author(s) 2022  OPEN

Abstract
This research paper is composed of several interrelated sections that present thought-provoking concepts and debates
concerning sustainability. Substantially, it argues the failure of the classical definition of sustainability and underlines
serious worldwide challenges that face the planet and mankind due to the questionable current modes of development.
Understanding the importance of adopting more comprehensive definition that ensures integrating critical missing
aspects; mainly the cultural-historical and temporal analysis, as well as, rethinking the approach when applying that
concept is more urgent than ever. In this sense, the author theorizes new ground-breaking definition for sustainability;
namely the four dimensional spatial sustainability, and so, develops innovative approaches that effectively facilitate
adopting a set of philosophical models pertaining to this revolutionary definition on different temporal scales. The social
aspect has far-reaching impacts upon the different models, hence it is considered as chief factor that democratically
supports, controls and enhances the other dimensions, i.e. economic, environmental, and cultural-historical. Basically,
these models catalyze generating socially-driven synergy that fosters change in key systems, and creates therefore, spatial
participative sustainability leading, on the long run, to standardized spatial sustainability featuring what the author calls
‘utopian sustainability’ on global scale.

Keywords Classical Sustainability (CS) · Four Dimensional Spatial Sustainability (4DSS) · Social-Economic-
Environmental-Cultural (SEEC) Orbit of Sustainability · Spatial Participative Sustainability (SPS) · Standardized Spatial
Sustainability (SSS) · Utopian Sustainability (UtS)

1 Introduction

Human communities are facing critical challenges that cause enormous socioeconomic and physical damages pro-
gressively more. Abnormalities such as floods, severe storms, extreme temperatures and droughts resulted more than
1,300,000 death records during the past five decades [1]. This requires firm, effective and integrated immediate actions;
as well as, long-term planning, strategies, positive and green thinking. Currently, one million species are in danger of
extinction, i.e. an alarming rate of one over eight, a lot of flora and fauna are shortly in extreme risk of disappearance due
to human failure on earth [2]. Our ecosystems and biodiversity are not good anymore; the world today is facing complex
challenges because our fundamental systems are broken. Climate change, poverty, malnutrition, and civil unrest are
outstanding signs in this regard [3]. Dynamic urban areas continue to attract more residences from rural areas, other
cities and countries. Therefore, they demand extra spaces and more resources [4]. But the respective urban expansion

* Raed Najjar, dr.raednajjar@wuhs.edu.bz; raedfnajjar@gmail.com | 1Vice President for Academic Affairs and Planning, Washington
University of Health and Science - Palestine Campus, San Pedro, Belize.

Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x

processes generate excessive natural contamination, basically for water, soil and air. In many cases, urbanization pro-
duces unmatched rates of visual, noise and light pollution that develops social stress and cultural tensions. However,
residents expect standard efficient public services such as health, education, transportation, green and open spaces,
clean environment and sufficient resources that ensure high quality of urban life. Matching these essential needs and
expectations on the socio-economic and ecological aspects is core theme for urban sustainable development [5–8].
The tremendous number of researches pertaining to sustainability discloses that this notion has rich diversity of mean-
ings especially in terms of physical development. The term ‘development’ delineates an event constituting a new stage
in a changing situation. In other words, it represents a status of evolution, maturing, expansion, enlargement, or more
precisely the gradual growth or formation of something. Development refers to something that gets created or grows
over a period of time. In practical terms, a ‘sustainable development’ is generally able to mitigate to a greater extent the
conditions, forces and constraints that threaten its continuation in time, as well as benefit from the opportunities that
protect or foster that same continuation. And so, the main difference between a sustainable and a regular development
is that those who participate in a sustainable development are more aware of the external and internal ´forces´ that can
hurt or benefit them, and they decide to consciously chose the combination of options that will likely offer the best net
long term results, even if many of those decisions are unpleasant in the short/medium term.
The concept sustainable development appeared in 1980’s to connect conservation and development objectives.
Since that time, it has evoked countless discussions. It describes incremental improvements and changes that aim to
achieve more sustainable situation. It includes interventions that aim to reduce environmental impacts and improve,
in the same time, social and economic conditions. Sustainability describes a state that is sustainable and is much more
specific as it describes a situation where systems and conditions are balanced in such a way that they can continue to
exist in the long term. In that sense, sustainability stands for avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order
to maintain ecological balance. Thus, the aim of the classical sustainable development is to balance the economic,
environmental and social needs. Currently, most environmental initiatives such as green policies, reporting and rating
systems are based on a sustainable development approach because this is easier and many aspects of current systems
can continue. Very few initiatives actually address sustainability because it is far more difficult and will require radical
change. This is, however, what required.

2 Dynamics of sustainability

Sustainability is a key subject that intersects with many life aspects. It is considered a global norm adopted by a growing
number of people and organizations worldwide [9]. Thus, sustainability is widely presented in a lot of books, research
papers, accords and treaties [10]. Historically, the intense attention to protecting our global environment due to increas-
ing ecological concerns in the 1960s and 1970s lead to emergence the concept of sustainability. Since 1980s considerable
analytical elaboration and enhancement has taken place to better understand the relationships between development
and the environment, and to identify the idea behind sustainability that has many complicated dimensions [11]. In
consequence, new sciences have been derived from classical sciences where more integration has occurred between
economics, social and natural sciences. For example, environmental and ecological economists, environmental engineer-
ing, green architecture, post renewable energies and passive structures. Due to the dynamic nature of sustainability and
its far-reaching impacts other disciplines will continue to emerge.
Indeed, sustainability along with the relevant revolutionary sciences offered tremendous excitement and hope for
people worldwide. It generated consolidated vision and promise for multidimensional integration centered by aspira-
tion. This fact was reflected in political discourses, and therefore, traversed the political boundaries of a single state to
become more universal trend. In this sense, the UN report [12] highlights that development and environment represent
one inseparable agenda, since sustainability is the life support system for development. Still, sustainability is not a simple
question to be tackled easily. It is rather dynamic, complex, and wide spreading notion that crosses over many perspec-
tives where lot of dimensions can be singled out as shown in Fig. 1.
The changing dynamic status of sustainability remains unclear and not easy to be interpreted. In consequence, the
dualism of that concept was discussed and exposed critically by Heather and Zachary [13]. In their critical writing, they
highlight the interdiciplinary of that notion, and continue reasoning whether sustainability is ‘embedded’ in everything.
Many researchs show that considering sustainability, poverty and environment produce complex relationships that
become confusing [14]. In that orientation, problems are perceived through multiple spatial scales: household prob-
lems such as indoor housing conditions, city-level problems such as air quality and water contamination, besides global

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x Research

Fig. 1  Dynamics of sustain- (axis-4)

ability (author) cultural-historical

Culture
Dynamics
environmental

Nature
(axis-2)

(axis-1)
social
of Humans
Sustainability

Economy
economic (axis-3)

problems such as climate warming. To overcome such challenges, Pfister argues that national, regional, local govern-
ments, hand in hand with international organisations, have declared sustainability as political objective and put forward
agendas to achieve it [9]. According to Brandon [15] the problems generated by the human development impact our
physical environment on the short-range; however, their significant impacts on the long-range become fully appar-
ent to future generations. To mitigate adverse consequences of physical development, ensure respecting non-physical
(social) components [16], as well as, re-evaluating the economic behavior to limit the so called ‘artificial needs’ become
a priority [17].

3 Classical sustainability

The world witnessed exceptional mutation in all life aspects after the wide industrialization introduced by the industrial
revolution that forced transition to new manufacturing processes. It facilitated that communities could produce more
and expand much faster, however, the resulted urban sprawl and uncontrolled development generated, in many cases,
social fragmentation, unacceptable living conditions and environmental degradation [18, 19]. This fact urges rethinking
such development patterns. Sustainability raised this reconsideration and highlighted multiple challenges for planners
and decision makers [8]. Grubler [20] points out that sustainability is a cornerstone for sciences as it demarks environ-
mental protection while attaining better communities and quality life. Likewise, Adams [21] argues that the ecological
sensibility introduced by sustainability has impacted different knowledge and sciences. In terms of physical development,
the basic definition of the classical sustainable development is introduced by Brundtland report, in 1987, as: ‘paths of
human progress that meet the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs’. The report presents economic and political outlines, besides, democratic and environmental concerns
for development in different scales [22]. Thus, sustainability proposes new outlines and solutions for the physical devel-
opment and socio-economic demands. Nonetheless, the reactions to satisfy the cumulative needs of rapidly growing

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x

population worldwide are undermining the planet essential life-support systems [23]. Figure 2 presents the classical
sustainability model with the associated development-generated conflicts. Perfectly, sustainability aims at controlling
the essential sources of conflicts, i.e. the ecological and socio-economic concerns to guarantee conflict disappearance
and thus better integration of goals.
In reality, understanding and resolving these multidimensional conflicts offer complex matrices that are not easily man-
ageable, this justifies why most of the current development processes are not sustainable [24]. The degree of complexity
goes higher when taking into consideration the growing impacts of the worldwide ecological alterations and the intense
transformations underway in socio-economic life patterns. Key indicators for those adverse consequences are troubling
global climatic change, deterioration of ecosystems, degradation of living conditions and acceleration in poverty rates,
misuse of natural resources, and excessive levels of pollution [25]. In this regard, the concept of sustainability becomes
uncertain and brings back debates of imperfect idealism introduced against comprehensive planning [26]. So far, plan-
ners challenge hard decisions to reach holistic solutions and preferred alternatives, to satisfy essential demands and offer
reasonable supply that will respect environment, promote local economy and advocate social justice. In consequence,
the role of planners becomes more central in controlling unlimited growth, deteriorated environment, and vulnerable
social justice. Kates [24] highlights an interesting conclusion of the threatened sustainability due to the sharp contrast of
resource distribution between the developed countries and the developing countries. Therefore, spatial disparities will
continue to expand between the North and the South. Eventually, the socio-economic and environmental oppositions
are aggravated by the deepening global divide illustrated in Fig. 3 that outlines the global failure accompanied by the
classical sustainability approach. Accordingly, the debate concerning sustainable development can be considered as
‘terminology game’ that does not resolve the older growth debate, but disguises it [27]. Thus, questioning the classical
sustainability model becomes an urgent need, in the meanwhile proposing a ‘‘revolutionary’’ rather than ‘neo-classical’
models remains, an urgent demand, in consequence.

4 The four dimensional spatial sustainability

Reconsidering the classical definition of sustainability, principally during the persistent territorial risks in global scale—
remarkably urban cultural conflicts, considerable migration and immigration, urban sprawl, unregulated growth and
dissolving heritage, climate warming, poverty, and the spread of epidemics— becomes more sensitive and alarmingly
necessary. Urban growth can be described as a standard, but risky, response to organic human society needs. The
modernization processes of the historical societies have widened debates and raised attention to the multidimensional
related side effects which become increasingly unbearable. Thus, rethinking the community growth patterns and the

Fig. 2  Classical sustainability

Sources of Conflicts
model associated with the Environmental
Interests/Concerns
traditional poles of conflict
(author)
Social Economic
Interests/Concerns Interests/Concerns

Conflict-producing
processes
Management
Conflicts

Capital Resources Development

Investment/Conflict Utilization/Conflict Growth/Conflict

Conflicts Resolutions
Sustainability
Zone

Classical Sustainability

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x Research

Fig. 3  Classical sustainabil-

ity within a divided world
(author)
North
Pollution destabilizes ecosystems
Degradation of biological diversity Poor young billions
Unprecedented levels of consumption ‘local people’
Increase in poverty
levels
Inflation / instability

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Developing
Countries

Strong social relations

(family dimension)

GLOBAL CLIMATE WARMING

Poor social services
Developed (State dimension)
Countries

Fragmented social
relations (family
dimension)
Advanced social services
(State dimension)

Old rich millions

‘global people’
Economic growth and
stability Depletion of natural resources
Resources surpluses Ecological degradation
Deterioration of living conditions

South

physical development paradigms becomes more pressing by time. Therefore, the interdisciplinary science of sustainability
has emerged highlighting substantial challenges for planners and policy makers who should try to balance needs and
concerns. Sustainability is a growing concept, so no wonder that the definition of sustainable development has been
changing, it has exceeded hundreds of presentations shown on multiple millions of internet sites and the numbers will
continue to augment [28], however conceptions of the term remain vague [4].
The term sustainability is systematically connected to the continuously growing ecological challenges that foster
integrations and advancement in contemporary sciences. In the developed countries, urban spaces and rural zones
have rapidly changed due to that concept; nonetheless, a lot of the risks that provided impulse to the emergence of
that notion have not so far been solved. On contrary, the irretrievable damage of natural resources, rapid shrinking of
reserve of fossil fuel, worrying climate warming, and social struggles are observed. As a result, empirical and ethnographic
researches on sustainability showed progressive development over the last decade [29]. Sustainability investigates long-
run interrelations and consequences between wide-ranging social, economic and environmental systems. Generally, the
sophisticated reorganization processes lead to deterioration of these systems, and serious threats to mankind. Therefore,
sustainability analyses the natural and social systems, by investigating the respective plausible interrelationships, aiming
at attaining equilibrium in terms of physical entities (e.g. natural resources, ecosystems, biodiversity, cultural heritage
and spaces) connected to the growing needs of the current communities, in addition to those of the future, in order to
sustain quality welfare and conserve the basic key systems on the long term.
The multidisciplinary scientific approach accompanied by the multi-criteria analysis highlights the importance to
link the interrelationships between the different scientific paradigms and the classical separate intellectual disciplines.
Despite the proposed holistic approach offered by sustainability, the world’s present development path is not sustainable,
as balances have not yet been achieved between communities’ organic demands and the capacity of the planet [28].
Additionally, lots of researches show that human responses to sustainability remain ineffective, as they consider mainly
short term policies [30], and thus the unequal world has continued undermining the earth’s essential life-support systems

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x

[31]. As such, D’Alisa [10] highlights the criticisms of the major methodological approaches to sustainability, arguing
that the traditional definition of sustainability is not exhaustive and lacks institutional dimension in form of participa-
tive democracy, and discusses dividing sustainability in technocentric and ecocentric poles to facilitate systematization
of processes. This underlines again that the classical sustainability in its traditional outline presents fragile, vulnerable,
incomprehensive and rigid concept rather than holistic and dynamic one.
Moreover, Najjar [25] argues that sustainability in its classical definition shows significant temporal deficiency in terms
of the spatial time-line analysis, and so it has been regarded as an ‘observation’ instrument that could partially ‘guide’
development processes, since it incorporates only two temporal statuses, the present and the future, but it neglects and
discards the back-records of time, i.e. the past. Thus, critical temporal deficiency is proved in the traditional sustainability
outline model. This past-tense temporal deficiency generates risks, threats, weaknesses, and even problems when adopt-
ing the classical model of sustainability because it neglects also very significant other aspects of human communities,
namely the cultural and the historical dimensions in terms of both: humans and places. Hence, it could be argued that
the analytical methodologies related to classical sustainability disregard the different identities, cultural social marks,
community history, and adopting the classical model of sustainability may transform adversely the cultural identities
and generate societal conflicts that could lead to crucial cultural heritage deterioration and degeneration.
In order to surpass the prevailing deficiencies and to rectify the discussed temporal and cultural-historical gaps in the
CS model, and its corresponding traditional definition, there is no choice but to set forth an innovative outline defini-
tion that copes with the multiple spatial aspects of sustainability. Namely, a revolutionary concept that assures sound
development which respects ecological balances, social justice and economic prosperity, in parallel to inclusive tempo-
ral analysis in incorporating effectively the cultural and the historical domains. Therefore, the rigid concept of classical
sustainably should be shifted to more dynamically inclusive model, that is, the “four-dimensional” spatial sustainability
(4DSS), which was first introduced by the author in [25], as shown in Fig. 4. The 4DSS model interconnects new interesting,
but critical, poles, dimensions, axes and spatial orbits, in order to overcome the aforementioned CS deficiencies, i.e. the
temporal and cultural-historical. In this concern, Najjar [25:222] states: ‘‘This [model] adds a new comprehensive time-based
dimension allowing the integration of the past of a referenced space by evaluating its cultural and historical identity and to
assess the consequential cause-effect impacts of the projected, future development. Furthermore, considering the cultural-
historic dimension within the development process enhances the integration toward a well-balanced time scale focusing on
understanding a past-present trajectory before linking it into the future.’’.

Fig. 4  Model 1: Spatial pres-

(-)

entation of the 4DSS model

and the generated SEEC orbit
Sensibility (++)

(social, economic, environ-

mental, cultural-historical)– Time factor
(++)
centered by multiple polar
tensions (author)
(-)
Critical Zone
Social Justice
(welfare)

Sensibility (++) Economy (++) Sensibility

Environment
(-) (natural resources) (prosperity) (-)

The SEEC Culture

(historical)
. critical orbit of the 4DSS (-)
(++) Sensibility

Time factor
(++)
(-)

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x Research

These independent, but time-based, interconnected, and mixed poles are presented spatially to emphasize con-
ducting integrative 4D analysis to each. The combination of these different poles: social, economic, environmental, and
cultural-historical shape together a fascinating orbit of spatial sustainability, the SEEC (identified in details in Sect. 5
below), which is centered by concentrated polar tensions due to polar conflictual powers. The 4DSS model, can therefore,
better enable us understand notably the spatial urban-based stresses, in addition to, the development-based conflicts.
This underlines the complexity encapsulated in theorizing that concept, as well as, in defining its relevant sustainability
dimensions in holistic approach that allows examining the past, present, and future of spatial sustainability within local
and global scales. As will be shown, the 4DSS model forms the foundational base that inspires adopting more advanced
derived models (see Sects. 6, 7) which together offer charming, inclusive approach of eluding the manifold development
challenges.

5 Dimensions of sustainability

The term ‘SEEC’ stands for the four critical dimensions of sustainability, specifically: social, economic, environmental, and
cultural-historical aspects. Spatially, the SEEC renders a holistic approach to sustainability by catalyzing common com-
mitments to develop community-led participatory processes in order to balance and regenerate the social, institutional,
physical, and natural environments. Furthermore, these commitments would allow the inevitable community moderni-
zation processes in the different life aspects take place but in balanced way, assuring thus, positive transformations and
desired long-term changes in key systems, especially in the institutional and the political levels. The SEEC promotes this
gradual transformation (institutional and individual) toward collective sustainable vision based upon multi-dimensional
perspectives connected into the temporal analysis and historical contexts, on both, the micro (individual or intra-com-
munity) level and the macro (inter-nations) scale. As such, the SEEC promotes integrating democratically the individuals
to reform the institutional and political structures regularly.

5.1 Social sustainability

The social dimension plays central role in the 4DSS, as will be illustrated later (see Sect. 6). The essential philosophy behind
this dimension is to cultivate the people pertaining to the urgent need for adopting sustainability on the micro and macro
levels. Standing upon this point of view, public awareness surfaces to top, and consequently, needs to be promoted to
ensure maximum understanding, and thus acceptance, for comprehensive and constant transmission. Reasonable and
accountable social commitments will better support attaining social justice by working on building social confidence,
cooperation, coherence, openness and trust between people, and to ensure that they feel empowered, seen and heard,
thus more involved to establish standard welfare. In this regard, the social dimension will: embrace diversity and build
community; empower participatory leadership and good governance; cultivate inclusive, responsive and transparent
decision-making; ensure equal access to holistic community services; develop fair, effective and accountable institutions;
promote democracy, conduct regular institutional and political reforms. Therefore, continuously growing social forces
will be formed and will, in consequence, generate the social momentum needed to create responsible and democratic
community that puts sustainability first.

5.2 Economic sustainability

The economic dimension in this model sheds light on the economic solidarity respecting the other interlinked dimen-
sions of the 4DSS. In other words, it aims to establish economic cycles that contribute to: promote prosperity, preserve
resources, collaborative support, durable micro (local) and macro (regional) economies, besides territorial networks which
serve the needs of local communities and ecosystems, through intra-community and inter-nations scales. In that sense,
the absolute value of ‘economic’ profit is not the sole objective. Hence, other values are integrated into the economic
upstream and downstream activities. Thus, this dimension reclaims and questions the classical ways of thinking about
wealth and progress in the different life aspects. Innovating, caring for sharing, entrepreneurship towards social solidar-
ity, green economies and responsible forms of collaborative ownership are leading examples in this regard that will lead
to reinforce healthier territorial economies; invest in fair business and ethical systems of exchange, enhance generating
public and common wellbeing through economic justice. Normative result to this dimension is the prosperity of ‘eco-
just’ commerce, ecological technologies, innovative environmental norms and regulations of green trade and industry.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x

5.3 Environmental sustainability

The environmental dimension underlines respecting manifold ecological aspects. It aims to enable communities to share
essential organic needs such as access water, habitation, food, clean energy and open spaces in just ways that respect the
life support systems, cycles of nature, biodiversity and ecosystems. It also aims to link different multicultural societies
with environment and wild nature in a manner that: enhances balanced biological diversity, regenerates more powerful
ecosystems, and gives people a chance to experience their interdependence in their particular life style with key systems
on a direct and daily basis. Ecosystems, biodiversity and natural resources are thus valuable treasures that should be kept
away from depletion and misuse. Renewable clean energies are inevitable choice in this sense. Bio-agriculture, organic
livestock, soil and water protection, less consumption, waste recycling, green industries, technologies and constructions
are among the major trends in this model. Hence, the environmental dimension will form the upper limits of develop-
ment and will control most of its related decisions.

5.4 Cultural‑historical sustainability

A soft but critical dimension is the cultural-historical aspect. While culture characterizes the identity of community,
history represents its mirror through which community can read its deeply-rooted stories, customs, traditions, events,
festivals, feasts, marks and symbols. Both, culture and history reflect and establish the temporal bridges between people
and places. The basic aim of this dimension is to better understand and sustain the community’s culture and history, to
preserve them as much as possible on the one hand, while maintain community modernization take place on the other
hand. This two-sided balance is paradoxical, thus critical sensitivity is presented when dealing with ‘soft’ projects that
impact the cultural aspects of people, and ‘physical’ projects that influence the historical heritage of community. Change
is a must; accordingly assessing its processes to mitigate and preempt the probable adverse impacts formulates the
indispensable role for the cultural-historic sustainability. In this regard, it aims to protect identity, preserve and enhance
diverse values that support tolerance and care for people, communities and the planet. This encourages people to better
respect and appreciate their historical roots and their different background. Thus, the strong community will protect and
empower the weaker rather than restricting, eliminating or imposing changes for its characteristics, features and history.
As such, this dimension helps better connect to values that lead to a higher purpose in life, enrich multiculturalism and
collective growth, respect cultural traditions and ethnic differences that protect human dignity, encourage community
tolerance, reconnect to nature and embrace low-impact lifestyles, and support people, fauna and flora, and respect life
and the beings and systems that sustain it.

6 Spatial participative sustainability

The spatial participative sustainability (SPS) is a model that represents a particular intermediate case of the 4DSS. It
represents two foundational phases, the preparatory and the translational. The SPS is based upon participatory and
transparent approach that accounts on adopting the 4DSS on the micro scale (individual, i.e. personal and family dimen-
sions), as well as, the macro scale (collective, i.e. intra-community and inter-nations dimensions). The SPS is an inspiring,
but time demanding, philosophy that promotes global social, socio-economic and ecological-democratic reforms. To
attain that status, it is recommended to begin by restructuring the 4DSS model’s diverse components. In other words,
to decompose the problems and to separate the conflict poles aside as shown in Fig. 5.
This rearrangement incorporates and evaluates all dimensions of the 4DSS but handles, on purpose, their impacts
differently. On the short term, during the initiation ‘preparatory’ phase, the application of the 4DSS model-restructuring
approach allows prioritizing the social factor. As such, it proposes a two-sided, 50/50 scaling, that enables prioritizing
the social dimension in order to enhance and accelerate the processes of comprehensive social reform that aims at cur-
ing gradually, but effectively, the gaps of the global divide presented previously in Fig. 3. This social reform factored by
½ (i.e. 50% of the total model’s weight) will act ultimately to rectify: the community unawareness, unenlightenment,
illiteracy, lack of knowledge and education, inexperience, ills, cracks, struggles, and thus, will minimize the social gaps
between the different intra-community and inter-communities strata. It accounts on upgrading the public awareness
continuously, through: multiple awareness campaigns, implanting democratic participation, enriching civic engage-
ment, empowering the women and the elderly, youth encouragement in decision-making and leadership. Thus, all these

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x Research

Model restructuring - conflict separation: gaps remedy

Decomposing the SEEC

Factor initial scale
1/6
Factor initial scale
Environment 1/2
(natural resources)
Social techniques to minimize social gapes:

Social Equity
Enhance awareness regularly

(welfare / Justice)
Factor initial scale
YESTERDAY 1/6 Institutional and Political reforms TOMORROW
Democracy, transparency and participation
Time factor
Economy Civic engagement Time factor

(++) (prosperity) Women and elderly empowerment (++)

Equality and Equity
Factor initial scale
1/6 Social Motor for Change
Culture
(historical) Weight initial 50%
scale

Social Momentum
Weight initial 50%
Positive
scale
Transformations:
Up-lifting force TODAY Institutional (political)
(Social Momentum) Individual (citizens)
Social Forces

Fig. 5  Model 2: Decomposing the 4DSS, conflict separation model for generating social driving force–short term initiation model (author)

actions will help forming effective and participative platform that will generate the necessary social momentum needed
to enhance the other three dimensions (environmental, economic, cultural-historical) which are factored by 1/6 for each,
i.e. the other 50% of scale of the total model’s weight. This 50/50 scaling technique will facilitate smooth and efficient
model launching, and will therefore, guarantee its long-term auto-played functionality, as well as, durability provided
by intra-generational awareness.
Effectively, the proposed inter-linked philosophy of conflicts separation underlines how the social factor will be the
motor that directs and enhances the other three equal-scaled dimensions; namely: the environmental, economic and
cultural-historical aspects. This happens as the dynamic social involvement will establish collective responsibility on
the micro and macro scales. Furthermore, this approach will develop social rearrangements concerning not only the
intra-community common values but also will implant new inter-nations mixed-values more coherent with respect to
the SEEC orbit of sustainability. On the medium term, the different social techniques proposed by this model, altogether
supported by sufficient public social awareness, will formulate a powerful ‘‘social sphere’’ surrounded by renewable
‘social forces’ that will continue to reorganize the model toward more territorially harmonized 4DSS as shown in Fig. 6.
The collective social momentum forms ‘social sphere’ that stands on deeply-rooted ‘cultural base’ and headed by the
‘environment’, meanwhile the ‘economy’ lies in the core of this sphere in a manner allowing to support all these inter-
connected dimensions. This model will, on the medium term, induce, develop and reproduce effectively the multiple
intra-community and inter-nations life-cycle aspects, such as production processes, consumption patterns, construc-
tion and expansion trends, modes of transport, technologies, and thus, it will lead to the desired translational status of
change in a definitive manner.

7 Utopian sustainability

The utopian sustainability (UtS) is an ideal concept that represents the ultimate, perfect, far-reaching end of inte-
grating the previously elaborated models in (Figs. 4, 5, 6). That is, UtS is the long-term resulting case due to harmo-
nized socially-driven and economically-centered status of the 4DSS that leads into perfect standardized spatial sus-
tainability (3S) on global scale. On the long term, getting the harmonized socially-driven 4DSS model well-adopted
as time passes by, the social forces will continue to grow and expand spatially to influence and impact positively
other places and communities. Hence, its cross-border territorial impact becomes more influential. Accordingly, the
inter-nations and intra-generational harmonized common SEEC values become more and more anchored in more
coherent and balanced matter between the developed (North) countries and the developing (South) countries. In

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x

Fig. 6  Model 3: Harmonized NORTH

socially-driven economically-
centered 4DSS on global
scale–medium term impact
model (author)
The Globe

Prospective
dimension

Environment
Time factor
(++)

Sphere Social force

WEST Economy EAST

The SEEC
critical orbit of the 4DSS
Social
Social
momentum

Time factor
Culture (++)

Historical
dimension

SOUTH

consequence, these forces will modify the distribution, and thus the alignment of the SEEC orbit by their powers
generated by the improved universal inter-nations social mixed-values that not only facilitate, but also guarantee,
the auto-transformations of key systems toward ‘utopian sustainability’. Hence, the social powers will adjust the
centrality of the SEEC to get it smoothly extended along the North–South axis, formulating accordingly, the har-
monized capsule of the 4DSS which delineates the UtS as shown in Fig. 7. By this new unified centrality, the SEEC
continues to interlink all the diverse poles of the 4DSS and will generate the required thrust to direct the develop-
ment universally toward more standardized spatial sustainability (3S). In this logic, the UtS model will inspire both:
intra-community development, as well as, inter-nations progress, and thus the cross-borders spatial development
guided always by uniform and active social framework.
The application of the utopian sustainability model ensures satisfying the urgently needed global balances on the
four essential poles (economic, environmental, social and cultural-historical dimensions). More interestingly, the UtS
model places the economy in very central position as illustrated in Fig. 8. Again, this reflects the universal prosperity
resulting by the spatially growing intra-generational and inter-communities awareness that will proactively lead
into multiple life-aspects development and thus achieving stable economic growth, democratic institutional and
political reforms, besides territorial solidarity. The UtS model limits the processes of development and growth by
strict environmental requirements that guarantees preserving the ecosystems and biodiversity, besides the natu-
ral resources, while it is based on respecting the cultural diversity that leads to community multiculturalism and
tolerance. Hence, the UtS model romanticizes the spatial development treating it as principal agent of progressive
positive change which leads into intra-generational justice and inter-nations coherences that preserve identifies,
respect history and accept cultures. Therefore, it is more capable to spread happiness for human communities,
conserve flora and fauna, from north to south, west to east and vice versa, forming in consequence, utopian mul-
ticultural sustainable societies, and eventual ideal biodiverse environments.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x Research

Fig. 7  Model 4: Utopian NORTH

Sustainability (UtS): Perfect
standardized spatial sustain-
ability (3S) resulting demo-
cratically by spatial participa-
tive sustainability (SPS) on Utopian
Sustainability UtS The Globe
global scale–long term impact Harmonized capsule of 4DSS

model (author) Prospective

dimension

Environment
Time factor
(++)

SSS SSS
Sphere
Standardized Spatial
Sustainability SSS
WEST Economy EAST
SSS Standardized Spatial
Sustainability

SSS Social SSS

Time factor
Culture (++)

Historical
dimension

SOUTH

8 Conclusion

Since the past century many problems in the socio-economic and environmental aspects have shown up to the surface
worldwide. Nowadays, despite the exceptional technological development and the advancement of digital world, studies
show that the world continues developing more unsustainably. Therefore, more alarming adverse phenomena will con-
tinue to expand and evoke critical global challenges such as: unprecedented pollution levels, poverty, social segregation
and family fragmentation, excessive degradation of biodiversity, depletion of natural resources, cultural conflicts, massive
immigration, historical heritage disappearance, climatic change and global warming. To this end, classical sustainability
(CS) can be considered as a tool that does not resolve the adverse development impact, but embellishes it. Thus, ques-
tioning its model becomes progressively urgent, while proposing revolutionary alternatives remains a must. As such, the
transversal concept of the four dimensional spatial sustainability (4DSS) is proposed as a response to that demanding
need, besides a set of philosophical revolutionary models that incorporate comprehensive interlinked temporal analysis,
based upon the four principal dimensions, specifically: social, economic, environmental and cultural-historical. As shown
in this research, the multiple elaborated models romanticize the notion of sustainability, and therefore the author intro-
duces interestingly the concept—utopian sustainability—that sheds light on an economically-centered socially-boosted
model constrained by ecological limits and cultural-historical horizons. Remarkably, these models invest first in the
social pole, and mark it as leader to the other dimensions, since it assures forming participative platform and democratic
atmosphere that guarantees intra-generational justice on the intra-community and inter-nations scales. Eventually, the
models rely on cultivating comprehensive social awareness that will generate social forces to create powers of positive
change in key systems (institutional, political, economic and ecologic) through spatial participative sustainability (SPS)
that leads, on the long-term, to globally perfect standardized spatial sustainability (3S).

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x

TOMORROW

Time factor
(++)

Environment
Limiting Forces (ecological ceiling)
Environmental Ecological

by enhancing democratic balances between conflict zones

Restrictions limits

Social Forces
Upon The Model Restructuring Forces

Economic power motivates change

Ecosystems Environmental
Biodiversity Regulations

Social Stability
Constraints

Social
Social Forces

Restructuring Economical Solidarity Models

(inter-nations /intra-community)

Forces
(production, technology, manufacture, industry, consumption, etc.)

Historical Modernization
Identity Civility

Social Forces

Cultural Multiculturalism

Horizon Widening
Framework
Culture Integration

Forces (historical floor)

Time factor
(++)

YESTERDAY

Fig. 8  Model 5: Economical outline model of utopian sustainability (author)

Author contributions This paper is an original work written by the author Dr. Raed Najjar. Likewise, the concepts: four dimensional spatial
sustainability (4DSS), utopian sustainability (UtS), standardized spatial sustainability (3S), spatial participative sustainability (SPS) and their
presented models are conceived and designed by the author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Competing interests The author declares no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://c​ reati​ vecom
​ mons.o
​ rg/l​ icens​ es/b
​ y/4.0
​ /.

References
1. Almazroui M, Saeed F, Saeed S, Ismail M, Ehsan M, Islam M, Abid M, O’Brien E, Kamil S, Rashid I, Nadeem I. Projected Changes
in Climate Extremes Using CMIP6 Simulations Over SREX Regions. Earth Syst Environ. 2021;5:481–97. https://​doi.​org/​1 0.​1007/​
s41748-​021-​00250-5.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Sustainability (2022) 3:21 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00090-x Research

2. Le Hir P. Biodiversity: One million species in danger of extinction (in French). In: Le Monde. 2019. https://​w ww.​lemon​de.​fr/​plane​te/​
artic​le/​2019/​05/​06/​un-​milli​on-d-​espec​es-​en-​danger-​d-​extin​c tion_​54587​85_​3244.​html. (Accessed 18 Jan 2021).
3. Forum for the Future. Driving systems change in turbulent times. In: The Future of Sustainability. 2019. https://​www.​forum​forth​efutu​
re.​org/​drivi​ng-​syste​ms-​change-​in-​turbu​lent-​times. (Accessed 20 Feb 2021).
4. Vojnovic I. Urban Sustainability: A Global Perspective. Michigan State University Press; 2013.
5. Yokohari M, Takeuchi K, Watanabe T, Yokota S. Beyond greenbelts and zoning: a new planning concept for the environment of Asian
mega-cities. Landscape Urban Plann. 2000;47:159–71.
6. Haughton G, Hunter C. Sustainable Cities. Regional Policy and Development; 1996.
7. Botkin D, Beveridge C. Cities as Environment. Urban Ecosyst. 1997;1:3–19.
8. Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. 1992. https://​susta​inabl​edeve​lopme​nt.​un.​org/​conte​nt/​
docum​ents/​Agend​a21.​pdf
9. Pfister T, Schweighofer M, Reichel A. Sustainability. Routledge; 2016.
10. D’Alisa G. Dimensions of sustainable development: a proposal of systematization of sustainable approaches. University of Foggia; 2007.
https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​23692​978_​Dimen​sions_​of_​susta​inable_​devel​opment_​a_​propo​sal_​of_​syste​matiz​ation_​of_​
susta​inable_​appro​aches (Accessed 23 Feb 2021).
11. Pugh C, editor. Sustainability, the environment and urbanisation. Routledge; 1996.
12. Report of the secretary general of the UN General Assembly. UN; 2010.
13. Heather M, Zachary A. Sustainability: If It’s Everything, Is It Nothing? Routledge; 2020.
14. McGranaham G, Songsire J, Kjellén M. Sustainability, Poverty and Urban Environmental Transitions. In Pugh C, editor. Sustainability, the
environment and urbanisation. Routledge; 1996.
15. Brandon P, Lombardi P, Bentivegna V, editors. Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability. Taylor and Francis; 1997.
16. Polèse M, Stern R. The Social Sustainability of Cities, Diversity and the Management of Change. Toronto: Univesity of Toronto Press; 2000.
17. Santolaria N. Black Friday or the shame of shopping (in French). In: Le Monde; 2019. https://​www.​lemon​de.​fr/m-​perso/​artic​le/​2019/​11/​
26/​black-​friday-​ou-​la-​honte-​du-​shopp​ing_​60206​15_​44979​16.​html (Accessed 5 May 2021).
18. Vitousek P, Mooney H, Lubchenco J, Melillo J. Human domination of the Earth’s ecosystems. Science, New Series. 2007;277(5325):494–9.
19. Stearns P. The Industrial Revolution in World History. Boulder: Westview Press; 1993.
20. Grubler A. Managing the global environment. Environ Sci Technol. 2000;34:184A-187A.
21. Adams W. Green development–Environment and sustainability in the third world. Routledge; 1990.
22. Naess P. Urban planning and sustainable development. Eur Plan Stud. 2001;9(4):503–24.
23. Watson R, Dixon J, Hamburg S, Janetos A, Moss R. Protecting Our Planet, Securing Our Future. UN Environment Programme, Nairobi; 1998.
24. Kates R, Clark W, Corell R, Hall J, Taeger C, Lowe I, McCarthy J, Schellnhuber H, Bolin B, Dickson N, Faucheux S, Gallopin G, Grübler A,
Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha N, Kasperson R, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B, O’Riordan T, Svedin U. Sustainability Science. KSG
Working Paper No. 00–018; 2000. https://​www.​albany.​edu/​gogre​en/​files/​files/​docum​ents/​facul​ty%​20for​um/​Kates.​pdf.
25. Najjar R. Planning, Power, and Politics (3P): Critical Review of the Hidden Role of Spatial Planning in Conflict Areas. In: Luís Carlos Loures,
editor. Land use-assessing the past, envisioning the future. IntechOpen; 2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5772/​intec​hopen.​78779
26. Campbell S. Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. Journal of the
American Planning Association, University of Michigan: Urban and Regional Planning Program; 1996.
27. Bergh J, Mooij R. An assessment of growth debate. In: Bergh J, editor. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham; 1996.
28. Najjar R. Spatial planning, urban land management, and political architecture in the conflict areas-Jerusalem case study [thesis]. Dort-
mund. 2013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17877/​DE290R-​5370.
29. Spoelstra S. Sustainability research: Organizational challenge for intermediary research institutes. NJAS-Wageninge J Life Sci. 2013;66:75–8.
30. James P. Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice. Routledge; 2007.
31. McNeill J. Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the 20th Century World. New York: Norton; 2000.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)