土著觀點實際（而不只是名義上）納入具有許多積極影響。

There is a danger of sustainability becoming the last term in a series reading colonialism—neo-colonialism—development—globaliza tion—sustainability, and inheriting the fundamental problems of its predecessors—paternalism, top-down imposed solutions, lack of democracy and consultation, a one-size-sets-all mentality, and resulting injustices, including some people or groups “benefitting” from sustainability while others are excluded or cannot access it to the same degree. The actual (rather than simply nominal) incorporation of indigenous perspectives has many positive implications which include modifying global governance through engagement with local peoples in such areas as information collection and dissemination, policy development, implementation and monitoring, providing models of climate change mitigation and adaptation through methods such as traditional forestry, learning from local health systems and bringing local knowledge and “Western” science into dialogue with each other (McLean et al. 2012). But behind all these practical measures is the more philosophical question of the possible multiplicity of ideas of sustainability.

可持續性有可能成為一系列閱讀殖民主義——新殖民主義——發展——全球化——可持續性，並繼承其前人的根本問題——家長式、自上而下強加的解決方案、缺乏民主的系列的最後一個術語的危險和協商，一種一刀切心態，以及由此產生的不公正，包括一些人或團體“受益於”可持續性，而另一些人或團體則被排除在外或無法獲得同等程度的可持續性。將土著觀點實際（而不只是名義上）納入具有許多積極影響，包括通過在信息收集和傳播、政策制定、實施和監測等領域與當地人民接觸來改變全球治理，提供減緩和適應氣候變化的模型通過傳統林業等方法，向當地衛生系統學習，並將當地知識和“西方”科學引入彼此的對話中（McLean etĠal. 2012）。但在所有這些實際措施的背後，是關於可持續性理念可能多樣性的更具哲學意義的問題。