[6] In contrast, conventional sustainable design and development, in the real-world context of excess population growth, biodiversity loss, cumulative pollution, wealth disparities and social inequities closes off future options.
To reverse the overshoot of planetary boundaries, a 'positive Development' would, among other sustainability criteria, increase nature beyond pre-urban or pre-industrial conditions.
[22] The hypothesis was that, by converting negative systems into positive ones, genuinely sustainable planning, decision and design frameworks would materialize.
Essentially, decision methods simplify issues and options to facilitate finding the best path from the present position or desired future.
The reduction of the ecological base and public estate continues, PD argues, because new sustainability goals were spliced onto the old (anti-ecological) closed system models, methods and metrics of the DP.
[27] Whereas the internal logic of decision frameworks tend to diminish ecosystems and land eco-productivity, eco-logical design (creating) can multiply functions and public benefits synergistically.
[28] Decision systems in governance (i.e., legislative, executive and judicial) resolve conflict by allocating rights and resources—not by increasing the ecological base and/or public estate.
[29] These include a modified constitution with a new decision sphere to deal with the unique ethical dimensions of biophysical development, planning and design.
PD contends that gaps can be avoided in new governance and planning systems by simply reversing each ecologically terminal convention into eco-positive ones.
PD proposes means to reduce material flows without tradeoffs by, for example, creating mutual gains and 'low-impact luxury' environments.
PD contends that eco-positive design is already possible, partly through the integration of natural systems with building structures, spaces and surfaces (e.g. 'living machines', mycology, or 'algaetecture').
PD contributes other design concepts (e.g. 'design for eco-services', 'green scaffolding' 'green space walls', 'solar core' and 'piggyback roof, or 'playgardens').Digital sustainability can stimulate empirical advances in entrepreneurship, innovation and strategy and has the potential to have a positive impact on society.
To counteract the ecological footprint of existing development,[41] 'surplus' natural and social capital[42]—assessed from fixed biophysical baselines—must be created both off-site and on-site by design.
A case study showed that a building sequestering more carbon than it emits over its life cycle with building-integrated vegetation using PD design principles is possible within under twelve years.
[45] In contrast to green building rating tools, the EDR aims to uncover opportunities to create net public gains.
[48] Exposing the research and reasoning behind decision and design concepts facilitates input from community, assessors and independent experts, and should therefore occur be undertaken in development project.
Some provisions consider respective rights/responsibilities, but not broader ethical issues like improving human-nature relationships, reducing total resource flows or increasing social capital in the vicinity.
Unlike rating tools, benchmarks for different sustainability factors are based on fixed biophysical conditions—not typical buildings, sites or practices.