Chapter 16: Public Policy and Sustainability

Spencer Elliot; Kassem Homssy; Wessam Monzer; Jason Roberts; Tanjot Sohal; Dr. Brendan Boyd; Tai Munro

Chapter 16: Public Policy and Sustainability

Spencer Elliot; Kassem Homssy; Wessam Monzer; Jason Roberts; Tanjot Sohal; Dr. Brendan Boyd; and Tai Munro

Key Ideas

In this chapter, you will learn about:

what public policy is and how it influences sustainability
the importance of systems thinking for public policy
the impacts of different levels of government on jurisdiction over sustainability policies

What is Public Policy and Policy Making?

Public policy is a term that is familiar but hard to define. Different situations lead to different interests and produce different perspectives. Public policy can include a wide range of activities, from specific proposals or decisions by government and the authorization of decisions such as legislation, to the actual outcomes of decisions and processes (Cairney, 2019). Cairny (2019) suggests that we can define policy as “the sum total of government action, from signals of intent to final outcomes” (p. 27).

Recommended Resource

Check out this video: Public Policy: Definition & Examples (Easy Explanation) (3:02) by Helpful Professor Explains for a quick overview of public policy.

Given the ambiguity in policy, policymaking is also a complex process. One of the best tools to help us understand policymaking is the policy cycle which is a simple model of complex processes that can support prescription — “how policymakers should operate, to make sure that their decisions are made in a systematic way” (Cairney, 2019, p. 57) — and description — describing how policy makers do operate (Cairney, 2019).

A circle of arrows, one leading to the next. Arrow labels are policy maintenance, succession, or termination; agenda setting; policy formulation; legitimation; implementation; evaluation — Image adapted from Figure 2.1 The generic policy cycle (Cairney, 2019).

Let’s consider each stage in a little more detail.

Agenda setting occurs by identifying issues that require government attention and action. This stage also requires that we decide which problems need attention first and define the actual problem.
Policy formulation involves research and development of possible solutions to needs or problems, and estimating the cost and impact of different solutions, allowing us to make informed choices from the range of possible solutions and select the most appropriate policy instruments.
Legitimation is about approval. Depending on the policy, this may include legislative, executive, and judicial approval, consultation with other governments including First Nations and other levels of public government, consultation with interest groups, and public consultation through tools such as referendums, surveys, and town halls.
Implementation involves determining roles, responsibilities, and timelines for implementing policy, and ensuring that the assigned implementers (whether individuals, agencies, or institutions) have the necessary mandate, tools, accountability, and authority to carry out their roles.
Evaluation includes assessing the success of the policy, including whether it was appropriate, implemented correctly, and had the planned effect. Evaluation can include both formative (during) and summative (outcome) evaluations.
Policy maintenance, success, or termination involves re-evaluating to determine if the policy needs to be modified, discontinued, or can continue as it is currently operating.

Activity 16.1 Personal Policy

Even though we are talking about public policy, which is the realm of governments, we all engage in policymaking in our own lives, both professionally and personally. Take a moment to think about a problem that you identified and had to figure out how to deal with in your experience.

How did you decide which problem deserved your attention?
How did you make the decision between different available solutions?
Were there other people involved, if so, how did you ensure that they supported the chosen approach? If you were the only person involved, consider what made you decide that you were willing to implement the approach you decided on?
Were you the one responsible for implementation? How did you make sure you had the resources needed to implement your policy?
What kinds of questions did you ask to determine if the policy you implemented was working?
Did you decide to keep, modify, or completely throw out your policy?

Let’s look at a quick example. Remember back in Chapter 2, we looked at wicked problems. When we were doing that, we decided that waking up in the morning was not a wicked problem. But it is one that we could create our own personal policy about. The problem might be that you have trouble getting to your morning commitments on time, whether that commitment is getting to class, work, the gym, or maybe walking your kids to school. You decide that this is an important problem that you want to address, so you consider your possible solutions.

You could start driving instead of biking or taking public transit. That would cut down on your commute time (maybe), but then you’d have to pay for parking, which would mean you’d actually have to work more shifts, and that might affect your ability to attend class.
You could plan to get up with enough time that you can bike or take the train. This doesn’t add any costs, as this is what you are already doing. But it might cost you some sleep.

In our example, you’re the only person involved. Therefore, you decide that you are going to get up with enought time to ride your bike or take the train. Not only does the bike or train save you money, but it also helps you exercise in your day without having to spend extra time going to the gym.

What resources do you need to do this? Perhaps you decide that you want to try a wake-up light because you hate waking up when it is still dark out. Can you buy the wake-up light and where from? You also realize that the weather impacts your decision on whether to bike or ride the train. You set an alarm on your phone to remind you to check the weather for the next day, so you can prepare what you need before going to bed. You also decide that, since it will cut into your sleep a little, you’re going to implement better sleep hygiene practices so that you can fall asleep a little earlier.

In a couple of weeks, you reflect back and think about how your mornings have been going. Have you been getting up on time? If not, what might be in the way? What changes do you need to make?

Indigenous Policy

For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to exist as distinct, legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as “cultural genocide” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015).

This statement opens the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. We must be careful, though, as we read it, not to fall victim to the assumption that these goals exist only in the past. There is a history of colonialism and paternalism that pervades public policy in Canada to this day. Active resistance from Indigenous Peoples across Canada, and indeed globally, is contributing to shifts away from assimilationist policies and towards reconciliation, self-determination, and rights recognition (First Nations Studies Program, 2009; Government of Canada, 2018). However, the actual effectiveness of these changes is frequently questioned (e.g., Reed et al., 2022; Tsuji, 2022).

From a sustainability perspective, Indigenous governance and knowledge systems are foundational to sustainability. Cultural vitality, social justice, economic resilience, and environmental health have all suffered through the same colonial policies that have subjugated Indigenous Peoples. Practices such as traditional land stewardship and community-based resource management offer models for sustainable practices and policies. However, ongoing challenges–such as extractive industries on Indigenous lands, limited access to healthcare, poor living conditions on reserves, and paternalistic treatment of Indigenous knowledge and practices–continue to show that sustainability cannot be achieved without addressing colonial legacies and honouring Indigenous sovereignty.

Recommended Resources

There are a number of resources that can help you get started in investigating this issue further, including:

Reflection 16.1

How might the principles of Indigenous sovereignty influence the topics discussed throughout this chapter? Where do you see opportunities or challenges for integrating these principles into sustainability frameworks?

Systems Thinking and Public Policy

You can probably already see how a systems thinking perspective might impact public policy and policymaking. Clearly, there are many interconnections between policies that impact topics like air pollution, transportation networks, and public health. This means that systems thinking can be particularly helpful in making decisions about which problems need to be addressed first and how they can be addressed effectively. Can you imagine what a cluster map might look like for the example that you thought about in Activity 14.1? And, you might have noticed that the policymaking model looks a lot like a feedback loop. That’s because it is.

There is another systems thinking term that can be useful when we talk about public policy, and that is bounded rationality. The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming open textbook on Systems Thinking that is being developed by Dr. Tai Munro.

Each person’s limitations and biases relate to a concept known as bounded rationality. If you are familiar with Adam Smith’s invisible hand, you may know that he argued that the free market economy would be guided by the invisible hand such that self-interested individuals would make optimal choices based on complete information. The result of these choices would “add up to the best possible outcome for everybody” (Meadows, 2008, p. 107). Bounded rationality contradicts this perspective.

Bounded rationality recognizes that we make choices based on the information we have, but we don’t have perfect information. In other words, there are gaps in our knowledge, which impact our decisions. Further, we don’t interpret the information we do have perfectly. This occurs, according to Meadows (2008), for several reasons. First, we misperceive risk. We think that some things are much more dangerous and others much less than what reality tells us. This happens for many reasons, including how media reports some types of events, how people with a vested interest may exaggerate certain risks, and the temptation to downplay risks that require us to make big changes.

Second, we privilege the present over both the past and future. Recent events get weighed more heavily than past patterns. We also discount the future, often, at least in terms of sustainability, because we think conditions, usually available technology, will change and make the situation different. Related to this, but still a distinct challenge, is that we tend to focus on short-term versus long-term solutions. An example of this bias for the present and near future is the focus on carbon capture and storage. It, in theory, reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide now but does nothing to change the system to prevent future emissions from happening in the first place. Another example is electric cars, which allow us to maintain our current infrastructure and tweak what is under the hood.

Bounded rationality plays a significant role in public policy. As Cairney (2019) states: “it is not realistic to expect policymakers to (1) possess the organizational and cognitive capacity to gather and process all information relevant to their decisions and then (2) make clear, consistent, and well-ranked choices, in (3) a policymaking system over which they have full knowledge and control. While approaches like collaborative systems thinking may enhance capacity and make it more likely to include more relevant information, systems thinking reminds us that policy making will always be based on incomplete understandings and operate within complex systems that will behave in ways that we cannot predict.

Policy Influence on Sustainability

Sustainability includes social, economic, cultural, and environmental issues and problems. This has created new demands on public policy. Sustainability problems have particular attributes such as irreversibility, urgency, connectivity, complexity, cumulation, and uncertainty that make them different than some other areas of public policy. Let’s look at one of these in greater detail.

Conflicting Timeframes

If we consider sustainability problems like climate change, they aren’t ones that can be completely solved within a normal political cycle. This means that a current government may need to implement policies that have negative short-term consequences in order to achieve long-term benefits (Böhme, 2023). But, given the cycle of elections, their government may only be judged on the short-term consequences during the next election and may lose power.

Not every sustainability problem has every attribute listed earlier. And of course, sustainability isn’t the only type of problem that may show these attributes. However, the most negative cases are likely to display more of these attributes in combination. As awareness and commitment to sustainability continue to become more apparent and relevant, existing policy processes will need to adapt.

Recommended Resources

There have been a number of international agreements developed that relate to sustainability and public policy. Although the agreements are not binding, they can serve as a framework for policy development. If you are interested in public policy and sustainability or law and sustainability, you may want to check out one or more of the following resources. As you review these international agreements, consider how your local or national government has incorporated the principles of these agreements into legislation or policy frameworks. What barriers prevent your government from fully implementing the commitments made in these agreements? How do local priorities impact whether these international agreements are implemented locally?

Public Policy and the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Public policy plays an important role in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It creates the legal and regulatory frameworks necessary for their implementation. Policies at every level of government determine the allocation of resources, setting of priorities, and establishment of mechanisms to track progress. By prioritizing sustainability, public policy can facilitate long-term planning that is inclusive, equitable, and effective.

Of course, for public policies to effectively support the SDGs, they must be integrated and holistic in nature. Just like we have seen with public policy, the SDGs are also interrelated. Progress in one area often depends on achievements in others. For example, policies aimed at improving access to education (SDG 4) can also have a positive impact on gender equity (SDG 5) and poverty reduction (SDG 1). Policymakers must, therefore, adopt an integrated approach to policymaking that considers the interdependencies between different goals (Tosun & Leininger, 2017). As a result, systems thinking is essential to developing and implementing public policies that promote sustainability.

We might also consider here the importance of the policymaking process in achieving the SDGs. Recall from the model of policymaking that legitimation requires ensuring that any policy instruments to be implemented have support from both government channels and organizations and citizens, while implementation involves identifying or establishing who is responsible for implementation. Policies to support the SDGs, which aim to ensure that no one is left behind, should be designed to empower local governments, civil society organizations, and businesses to contribute to sustainability (Belaïd & Unger, 2024). This inclusivity can foster a sense of ownership and accountability, ensuring that the goals are supported across different sectors of society. Without active involvement and collaboration from all stakeholders, progress toward achieving the SDGs will be limited. In this context, the government must actively engage with both the market and civil society, as these entities play a crucial role in driving sustainability through innovation, resource mobilization, and community support (Belaïd & Unger, 2024).

Monitoring and accountability mechanisms are critical components of public policy for the SDGs and for sustainability more broadly. It is not enough to create policies that support the SDGs; governments also need to ensure that these policies are being implemented effectively and that progress is being measured (Tichenor et al., 2022). Transparency in policymaking and the use of data to track outcomes allow governments and international organizations to assess whether policies are working and make necessary adjustments. These mechanisms are essential for ensuring that progress towards the SDGs occurs and that gaps or shortcomings can be addressed in a timely manner. Thus, public policy serves as both the framework for action and as a system for monitoring results to facilitate policy adjustments.

Should Sustainability Policies Stand on Their Own?

Whether sustainability should be a separate policy or incorporated as a principle into other public policies is a crucial consideration. Each possibility has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, the existence of a stand-alone sustainability policy ensures that sustainability goals are well outlined, prioritized, and assigned the necessary resources. In this way, governments and industries can set well-delineated targets for emissions reductions, renewable energy transitions, and environmental protection. Having a stand-alone policy also promotes accountability, as it compels companies to report on sustainability indicators, making it easier to monitor progress and ensure compliance (Dovers, 1996).

On the other hand, mainstreaming sustainability in broader public policies, such as energy, economic development, transportation, and labour policy, ensures that sustainability is integrated into decision-making at all levels and not treated as an isolated issue. This approach adheres to the principles of sustainable development, which emphasize the interdependence of economic, social, and environmental considerations (Belaïd & Unger, 2024). For instance, mainstreaming sustainability in energy policies can encourage investment in cleaner technologies while maintaining economic stability. Likewise, mainstreaming sustainability in labour policies can help safeguard fossil fuel workers by offering retraining schemes for the renewable energy sector. This method also prevents policy silos, thus mainstreaming considerations of sustainability throughout governance frameworks.

While a separate sustainability policy supports increased focus and accountability, folding sustainability into other policies ensures systemic change in all areas. The best model is probably a hybrid one, where sustainability isn’t just a single priority but an embedded element in broader policymaking.

Reflection 16.2 The Impacts of Policies

Think about a sustainability change that you might want to make in your own life. What might be the policy that you make to support this goal? Some examples include:

I will use public transit if the estimated travel time is less than 1 hour and the temperature is above -10°C (14°F)
I will eat vegetarian meals with at least 80% local ingredients three times a week
I will repair clothes when I can instead of replacing them

Now, with whatever policy you identified, think about all the parts of your life that it might influence. Does using public transit only affect how you get somewhere, or does it impact scheduling, budget, social (picking up friends), daily activity, etc.? A cluster map is a helpful tool for exploring all these interconnections. You will likely find that even though your policy is focused on being more sustainable, it impacts many areas of your life. The same is true for public policy. Even though the target of the policy might be one narrow area, it is likely to have systemic impacts. As a result, collaboration across many areas is likely necessary for success.

Sustainability Policy and Levels of Government

Many countries feature different levels of government that have shared jurisdiction over sustainability domains. This creates an added level of complexity to public policy, which again highlights the need for a systems thinking perspective. We will use Canada as a case study to discuss this issue here, but you are likely to find your own examples in the jurisdictions where you live.

Canada is one of many countries worldwide that have implemented policies and regulations to achieve a more sustainable future. The federal system in Canada has a shared jurisdiction over the environment, meaning that each province and territory has its own jurisdiction over natural resources and Crown land (Boyd, 2024). This shared jurisdiction can lead to conflicts between the federal and provincial/territorial governments regarding which policies should be implemented and how they should be implemented. The federal government must bring the provinces and territories together to establish and maintain national policies (Boyd, 2024).

The federal government has different methods it can use to bring the provinces and territories of Canada together to create and maintain national policy. While each provincial/territorial government has its own jurisdiction over the resources and land within its borders, the federal government can employ several different tactics that generally fall into the categories of director, leader, and convenor to create nationwide policies. Similarly, each province and territory can play distinct roles in national policymaking. Provincial or territorial roles tend to be categorized as willing participants, conditional participants (they offer their support only based on other requirements, such as receiving something in return or the participation of other provinces), or hostile adversaries.

While the Canadian federal government has taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable practices, the shared jurisdiction over environmental matters creates complexities in policy implementation. The provinces and territories hold significant authority over their own natural resources and land, making collaboration essential for effective national sustainability policies. The federal government employs various strategies to encourage provincial and territorial cooperation, including legal mandates, financial incentives, and political pressure. However, the success of these efforts depends on the willingness of each province and territory to align with federal goals. Some regions may fully support sustainability initiatives, while others may only participate under certain conditions or actively resist federal policies. As Canada continues to work towards a more sustainable future, fostering collaboration between all levels of government remains crucial. By finding common ground and striking a balance between federal leadership and provincial/territorial autonomy, Canada can develop and implement effective sustainability policies that benefit both the nation and the global community.

Recommended Resource

The Government of Canada has identified 10 principles respecting their relationship with Indigenous Peoples. After reviewing these principles, consider how they might influence the topics discussed above.

Activity 16.2 Levels of Government

Think about an area of sustainability that you are interested in that will be part of public policy. This could include areas from social, cultural, economic, or environmental domains. If you don’t know already, do some research to find out which level of government where you live has jurisdiction over your area of interest. Once you know who is responsible, see if you can create a cluster map that illustrates all the different areas of public policy that your target area might interact with. Are all of those under the same jurisdiction as your initial interest? Are there any examples that you can find of how different levels of government have interacted with each other? How would you classify the interaction based on the strategies and roles described?

Activity 16.3 Case Study: Policies in Alberta’s Oil & Gas Industry

Oil and Gas are a primary industry in the province of Alberta in Canada. This next section will look at some specific aspects of the regulatory framework. You could take a look at an industry in your local environment if you would like something specific to where you are.

Public policies play a crucial role in regulating Alberta’s oil and gas sector, ensuring environmental responsibility, industry compliance, and economic sustainability. The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) oversees these policies. Thus, it provides an example of how sustainability considerations are integrated into provincial resource management. By enforcing standards that protect natural resources while supporting Alberta’s energy economy, the AER illustrates the role of public policy in promoting environmental responsibility within the oil and gas sector in Alberta.

The regulatory framework governing Alberta’s oil and gas industry is grounded in several key legislative acts. The Oil and Gas Conservation Act ensures responsible development and conservation of fossil fuel resources, while the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act emphasizes the importance of minimizing environmental harm through monitoring and mitigation. In recent years, newer legislation such as the Geothermal Resource Development Act and the Mineral Resource Development Act reflect Alberta’s expanding approach to sustainability, recognizing the need for regulation in emerging energy and mineral sectors. These acts collectively empower the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to implement detailed directives that operationalize sustainability principles. The following policies and directives illustrate how such legislation is translated into practice within Alberta’s oil and gas sector.

Key Policies & Directives

Directive 020: Well Abandonment
- Ensures that inactive and abandoned oil and gas wells are properly sealed to prevent environmental contamination and long-term damage (Alberta Regulation 151/1971, sec. 3.012).
Directive 060: Flaring, Incineration, and Venting
- Regulates the release of harmful emissions from oil and gas operations to control air pollution and greenhouse gas levels (Alberta Regulation 151/1971, sec. 3.062).
Directive 083: Hydraulic Fracturing – Subsurface Integrity
- Establishes safety and environmental standards for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to protect groundwater and prevent subsurface damage (Alberta Regulation 151/1971, sec. 3.061).
Directive 088: Licensee Life-Cycle Management
- Requires oil and gas companies to be responsible for their wells and facilities from development through closure to prevent financial and environmental liabilities (Alberta Regulation 151/1971, sec. 1.250).
Directive 007-1: Allowables Handbook
- Regulates oil and gas extraction limits to prevent resource overuse and depletion, ensuring long-term sustainability (Alberta Regulation 151/1971, sec. 10.190).
Directive 058: Oilfield Waste Management
- Provides strict regulations for waste disposal and contamination prevention in oilfield operations to protect land and water resources (Alberta Regulation 151/1971, sec. 12.2).
Directive 071: Emergency Preparedness and Response
- Requires companies to have emergency response plans in place to manage potential environmental and safety risks in oil and gas operations (Alberta Regulation 151/1971, sec. 3.012).
Section 9.040: Air Quality Control in Processing Plants
- Enforces air quality standards for oil and gas processing facilities to promote cleaner energy production while maintaining economic stability (Alberta Regulation 151/1971, sec. 9.040).

Reflection Question

Given the policies listed, what are some potential gaps or areas for improvement in Alberta’s oil and gas regulations to enhance sustainability and environmental responsibility?

Research Questions

How do Directive 020 (Well Abandonment) and Directive 088 (Licensee Life-Cycle Management) ensure that companies remain responsible for their oil and gas wells beyond active production?
Why is Directive 060 (Flaring, Incineration, and Venting) important for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and improving Alberta’s environmental policies?
Directive 083 (Hydraulic Fracturing – Subsurface Integrity) sets safety requirements for fracking. What are the main environmental concerns related to fracking, and how does this policy address them?
How do Directive 007-1 (Allowables Handbook) and Directive 058 (Oilfield Waste Management) contribute to long-term sustainability in Alberta’s oil and gas industry?
Section 9.040 (Air Quality Control in Processing Plants) enforces cleaner industrial practices. What are some of the economic and political challenges Alberta might face when implementing stricter air quality policies?
Why is Directive 071 (Emergency Preparedness and Response) crucial in preventing environmental disasters, and what role does industry compliance play in emergency response?

References

Belaïd, F., & Unger, C. (2024). Crafting effective climate, energy, and environmental policy: Time for action. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1357. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03762-3

Böhme, K. (2023). The tragedy of the time horizon: Navigating short-termism for long-term sustainability. Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning, 7(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.24306/TrAESOP.2023.01.001

Boyd, B. (2024). The green transition, federalism and policy durability. In D. Vannijnatten (Ed.), Canadian Environmental Policy and Politics (5th edition, p. Chapter 9). Oxford University Press.

Cairney, P. (2019). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

Dovers, S. R. (1996). Sustainability: Demands on Policy. Journal of Public Policy, 16(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00007789

First Nations Study Program. (2009). Government Policy. Indigenous Foundations. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/government_policy/

Government of Canada, D. of J. (2018). Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html

Munro, T. (Forthcoming). An Introduction to Systems Thinking: Concepts and Tools. MacEwan OpenBooks.

Reed, G., Brunet, N. D., McGregor, D., Scurr, C., Sadik, T., Lavigne, J., & Longboat, S. (2022). Toward Indigenous visions of nature-based solutions: An exploration into Canadian federal climate policy. Climate Policy, 22(4), 514–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2047585

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: Summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Tichenor, M., Merry, S. E., Grek, S., & Bandola-Gill, J. (2022). Global public policy in a quantified world: Sustainable Development Goals as epistemic infrastructures. Policy and Society, 41(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac015

Tosun, J., & Leininger, J. (2017). Governing the Interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: Approaches to Attain Policy Integration. Global Challenges, 1(9), 1700036. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700036

Tsuji, S. R. J. (2022). Canada’s Impact Assessment Act, 2019: Indigenous Peoples, cultural sustainability, and environmental justice. Sustainability, 14(6), Article 3501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063501