What Does “Sustainability” Mean Anyway?

Editor’s Note: The article below addresses an important issue:  authenticity.  Anyone and everyone seems to be jumping on the “green and sustainable” bandwagon.  With any popular movement there are bound to be counterfeits.  It is important to identify what values are promoted by sustainability, so that we can identify the real from the pretend.  The last thing we who aim to represent sustainability want is for the term to be co-opted by the less than scrupulous.

Earth Question Mark


Use of the term is growing. As focusing on our effects on the environment becomes more publicly accepted/pertinent/politically correct, sustainability continues to be a label that is slapped on the side of another box and fit into another soundbyte with less and less of a care as to how it is defined and ultimately received by the public. While having more people become part of a larger discourse about sustainability is a good thing, if we do not take the time to step back and realize what values and concepts we are trying to instill in the word then we run the risk of confusing and ultimately deterring potential allies and supporters. I thought I would take a stab at a definition for what sustainability has come to mean to me as an architect and a writer thus far.

I recently got into a great comment-conversation over on Randal O’Toole’s blog (Antiplanner) concerning the nature of sustainability. A chap I know only as “ChipDouglas” took what is likely a common stance of skepticism surrounding the topic, but seemed to be a well-informed, educated, American citizen. One of his contentions was:

Despite its immense popularity, sustainability has no fixed meaning, which can probably explain why it won’t go away: it’s nominally attractive and you get to define it.

While I do not think that is true, I think it is a reasonable reaction to draw given the dangerous waters we are wading into concerning a mass-market image of an important concept. I recently gave a talk on sustainability at Milton Academy in Milton, Massachusetts, to students and faculty where I outlined some of my reactions to sustainability and how to zero in on this elusive definition.

The market for sustainability has evolved into a number of consumer items meant to fit seamlessly into our daily, cultural activities. Companies try to make it as easy as possible for people to change as little as possible. Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, CFLs, Hybrid Cars… Using any of these things does not really require us to change very much at all, and this can lead us to believe that the problem is not what we’re doing, but only what we’re doing it with. A potentially dangerous misconception for a culture that has so far to go. It allows us to develop a false sense of security that these “products” are solutions.

Now I am not arguing against buying a Prius or installing low-flow fixtures in your bathroom. If you’re motivated to do those things then by all means, I’m not going to stop you, but these are not “solutions.” Rather, these are a first step from where we are now and are decidedly secondary to the behavior of how we live. For instance, how much are we accomplishing if we install CFLs but still leave the lights on when we leave the room or if stores keep their window displayed illuminated all night long? How much are we helping by installing an efficient heating and cooling system if we still try to keep our homes at 60 degrees in the summer or 80 degrees in the winter? Before we talk about cutting edge buildings with impressive technologies, it is important to remember that sustainability is not a technological fix to supplement a wasteful lifestyle.

I have come to describe sustainability as:

A network of interactions that achieves a consistent sum of resource components to operate and evolve indefinitely without collapse or additional influx of energy.

Now there may be some fancy words in there but what we are talking about is a series of actions that revolve around an idea of balance or stasis—pushing and pulling around a point of equilibrium. So sustainability is not CFLs, it’s designing spaces with more natural light. Sustainability is not driving a hybrid, but rather designing communities around alternative transit and walkability so that people drive less. Sustainability isn’t designing a 5,000 square foot home with more bells and whistles than another 5,000 square foot home—it’s designing a spatially efficient 3,000SF home. These concepts are more than just items we can purchase. They carry with them repercussions for how we decide to live.

In the end, the talk was well received but I was struck by the number of people that came up to me afterwards commenting on how they had never considered sustainability in that light and how much more sense it made. This only underscored for me how our flagrant use of the term has gotten a bit sloppy–perhaps to our detriment. My definition may not be perfect, and I am open to criticisms and reactions, but I think the exercise of trying to holistically define the word and how it relates to our society is important for those of us who subscribe to making it a comprehensive, cultural direction.


3 Responses

  1. Greetings. Thanks for the shout out and I couldn’t agree more. The longer that sustainability is this ethereal, undefined concept, the more susceptible it is to violations in authenticity at not only the expense of the consumer, but expense of the movement as a whole. As you point out, the last thing we need right now are people who misrepresent the genuine goals of sustainability when we are in the critical stage of trying to get more of our culture on board.


  2. Great article. Having been an environmental consultant and developer of sustainability principles and practices for industry during the 1990s, I can tell you that “authenticity” was huge for me. One of the things companies and individuals don’t do well is actually measure the impact of their efforts to start with. It is not just putting in a few things in one’s huge house, but having a smaller house, living with less, walking instead of driving and more. Unfortunately, Americans in particular are a lazy lot. We have “re-train” our young people in the ethic of working hard, better understanding their impact on the world, and most importantly, getting them away from their cell phones and computers, and get them outside to learn to better appreciate our world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: