‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

How can objective, data-based processes be misleading in themselves?
Design criteria and indicators, for example, being based on available and easily accessed data, do not 
always correspond directly to sustainability goals. Most data has been collected for other isolated 

---

92
Positive Development
purposes in industry, academic and government spheres, not sustainability. Given that the dominant 
public policy is still growth, governments have traditionally collected information that is relevant 
to business growth. A lot of data on materials is only available from manufacturers, so the data can 
even be questionable in some cases. Likewise, the data may not be appropriate to the 
context
in which 
the design is being developed. For example, some kinds of data have historically been collected in 
zip codes or political districts rather than, say, at the bioregional level. Reliance upon an approach 
that appears scientific or objective, because it is quantitative, can discriminate against designs that 
do not fit the standard equations or computer programs. Natural systems are hard to measure, and 
some technicians would rather just deal with things they can measure. As we saw in the case of some 
planning approaches, some tools and standards reduce everything to energy. This is a poor surrogate 
for space, time and the health-giving functions of nature.
Can’t we support the use of natural systems within a reductionist framework? 
Theoretically, perhaps, but it does not seem to happen. By prioritizing ‘number crunching’ over design, 
we may overlook potential new uses of natural systems, or even uses for talented designers. We know, 
for example, that passive solar design can avoid fossil fuel systems in the first place. Nonetheless, many 
engineers prefer unopenable windows in order to facilitate calculations of system or greenhouse gas 
performance.
21
This is despite the fact that air-conditioning systems account for a substantial portion 
of electricity use, CO
2
emissions and poor indoor air quality. Natural ventilation is difficult to predict 
and measure, but it can greatly reduce indoor air pollution in certain locations. Yet many tools do 
not even count air quality. Some tools have actually favoured larger homes despite their embodied 
waste, because the space-to-envelope ratio is more efficient. These and other glitches are slowly being 
addressed. However, new design prototypes which are not suited to the application of rating tools 
may be derided by those who have to figure out how to measure them. To encourage innovation and 
facilitate new means of satisfying human and ecosystem needs, again, we need to front-load design.
Instead, if other jurisdictions have sustainability assessment processes and tools, councils often feel 
pressure to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ and divert staff resources to selecting or developing tools. The 
possession of tools becomes the benchmark for (or symbol of) sustainability.