Strategies of Mutualism versus Hyper-efficiency in Sustainable Buildings and Cities
Ebru Özer, Assistant Professor, Landscape Architecture Department, Florida International University
11200 SW 8th Street, PCA374A, Miami, FL 33199 U.S.A.
[email protected]
Douglas T. Thompson, Licensed Landscape Architect, LEED Accredited Professional, LandscapeDE,
185 SW 7th Street, Suite 2004, Miami, FL 33130 U.S.A.
[email protected]
The quest for sustainability in the design and development of buildings and cities has
expressed itself particularly as a pursuit of ever-greater efficiency. Urban systems have been
developed to achieve energy and resource savings in an attempt to eliminate their
environmentally negative impacts. The end goal would seem to be to make buildings and
cities virtually invisible within the context of the natural environment and to extract humanity
from that which is natural. This approach could be termed as a hyper-efficiency sustainability
model. In this approach, the impacts of human beings and their functional systems are seen as
contaminants that need reduction or removal. Although driven by a desire to preserve earth’s
natural systems, such an approach ultimately creates greater division between humanity and
nature and may not bring sustainability.
As an alternative to a hyper-efficiency model of sustainability, a model should be pursued that
focuses more on developing an integrative relationship between civilization and environment
akin to mutualisms in biology. Such an approach, which could be termed as a mutualistic
sustainability model, incorporates natural systems and elements into the structures and
functions of buildings and cities, with the goal of achieving cooperative and positive
interaction between humanity and nature. Such integration can create opportunities to support
living organisms and biological systems in an ecologically contributive manner, while
fulfilling human infrastructural needs. It offers a more positive alternative to efficiency based
strategies and has the potential to establish a healthier and more productive relationship
between humanity and the earth’s natural systems.
This paper elaborates on these two distinct approaches to sustainability and presents an
examination of recent green building projects and green infrastructure projects. It analyses
specific strategies and methods to contrast and compare manifestations of both approaches,
providing valuable lessons and insights for designing sustainable buildings and cities.
Keywords: Sustainability, Mutualism, Building, Landscape, City
I. Hyper-efficiency Sustainability
Today’s cities are complex systems, incorporating a variety of sophisticated components, technologies, and
processes to function. These systems include resource distribution networks (electricity, water, food, and
goods), waste collection and treatment systems, communication networks, and a variety of other systems
servicing human needs. That these systems tend to be entirely human-centric in their goals and applications has
often led to unintended negative impacts on the environment and natural systems. As concerns for sustaining a
healthy environment have increased globally, more attention has been given to these negative impacts and
finding methods for their resolution. However, movement toward environmentally sustainable development has
mostly hinged on the slow modification of existing systems and methodologies, which has not led to any
significant achievement of an environmental sustainability. We believe bridging the gap between human needs
and a healthy functioning environment requires a more integrative relationship between civilization and natural
systems in the design and construction of the built environment. Building this relationship will require a reexamination and revision of the paradigms guiding sustainable development today.
There are several definitions for sustainable development in the context of the built environment. However, the
Brundtland Commission definition is the most widely accepted and is likely the most influential (Zimmerman,
2001, p.251). It defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The emphasis on “needs” as it relates
to humanity takes a view of sustainability as a protection of resource materials. It promotes the idea that the
1
priority for achieving sustainability is that resources must be preserved or conserved for future use.
Approaching sustainability as preservation or conservation of resources suggests that achieving it can be done
through the promotion of increased efficiency or through limits on negative impacts that will force efficiency.
In pursuit of an avenue of efficiency, the end goal is to remove or reduce negative impacts produced by the
construction and operation of the built environment. This view has had significant bearing on the strategies
employed by designers and planners in achieving sustainability. In the construction of individual buildings,
better insulation techniques, higher efficiency appliances, and low water consuming plumbing fixtures
exemplify the efficiency-focused approach. At the city scale, strategies include increasing land use efficiency,
encouraging public transportation, and reducing consumption/production. The ultimate goal for such strategies
would seem to be to achieve a level of efficiency at which the negative impacts of the built environment, and by
extension of humanity, will become negligible, or at least absorbable by the environment. This could be termed
as a hyper-efficiency sustainability model. Although efficiency-promoting strategies can be highly effective in
reducing negative impacts per capita on the environment in the short term, it is unclear if the resulting
reductions in negative impacts lead to an overall sustainability (McDonough and Braungart, 2002, p.63).
Efficiency is really an expansion of capacity. If the resulting freed capacity of energy, land, and resources are
devoted to the healthy functioning of natural systems and their improvement, that could be positive, but there is
no evidence that this is the case. Historically, human civilization has continually moved toward greater
efficiency. Yet this hasn’t led to greater environmental sustainability (McDonough and Braungart, 2002, p.62).
Increasing efficiency hasn’t altered the adversarial relationship between contemporary human civilization and
the natural world that creates pressure on cities to expand in ways that create barriers to the functions of natural
systems and ecologies
Additionally, top-down policies imposing limits that do not have direct economic benefits to individuals or
groups can be subject to trade-offs and politics, making them unstable. Thus, pursuing hyper-efficiency in
urban systems that does not improve the relationship between people and the natural world will not guarantee a
move toward environmental sustainability in the long run. The efficiency may really only be a temporary
containment of negative impacts. Continually pursuing an efficiency model by itself could really be an endless
game without long run benefits.
Making hyper-efficiency even less of a viable path is that many of the technologies that are the target of it were
initially developed with little to no regard for healthy functioning of natural systems and ecologies. Their
design intent is solely to circumvent or substitute natural systems. Therefore, retrofitting existing technologies
with the dynamism inherent in natural systems is difficult. Even with positive results from efficiency, buildings
and cities can remain rigid places with regard to their environmental adaptivity. By their nature, they are
systems in which a narrow range of operations and environmental conditions must continually persist. The
conditions required are in opposition to natural systems. The result is that in order to expand urbanity and
maintain it, under a hyper-efficiency model, offsetting increases in the isolation of negative impacts are
required. This promotes the idea that humanity and the natural world must remain continually at odds, fostering
an environment that isolates people from earth’s natural systems and functions. This can result in decreased
understanding of the natural world, creating misinformed viewpoints that can undermine efforts at achieving
sustainable development.
II. Mutualistic Sustainability
Focusing on technological efficiency as the solution to sustainability issues in the development of the built
environment has done little in the past to bridge the rifts between humanity and the natural world. Many
architects have been aware of the insufficiencies of technology-centric solutions for creating environmental
sustainability for some time and have written critically about the relationship between the built environment and
nature. The architect Ken Yeang (2007), in his book, Eco Skyscrapers, wrote critically of architecture’s impact
on the environment and also its overreliance on technological efficiency as a means for mitigating the impacts.
He said: “We must not be misled and seduced by technology. There is the popular perception that if we
assemble in one single building enough eco-gadgetry such as solar collectors, photo-voltaics, biological
recycling systems, building automation systems and double-skin facades, we will instantaneously have an
ecological architecture” (p.22).
As an alternative to the technological hyper-efficiency focused approach, solutions can be sought that promote
connections to the environment. Relationships can be developed in which both the city and natural systems can
flourish and prosper. Some species of animals in the natural world are able to build relationships with one
2
another that are mutually beneficial to both. This is called mutualism. One example of this is the relationship
between sea anemones and anemonefish. Anemones provide the anemonefish with protection from predators.
The anemone's tentacles contain stings, which drive off predatory creatures. The anemonefish in turn defend the
anemones against butterflyfish, which pray on anemones. Along with defensive benefits, the waste ammonia
from the fish feeds symbiotic algae that are found in the anemone's tentacles. A more familiar example of
mutualism is found in the relationship between the honeybee and many flowering plant species. While
harvesting pollen from flowers to produce honey, the bees source of sustenance, the bees also pollinate and
cross-pollinate flowers, assisting the plants in their reproduction.
Beyond reducing the negative impacts of current building technologies, there is a need to modify the
relationship between people and nature. It may be that an approach based on a model of mutualistic
sustainability is the key to moving forward. Buildings and cities are the interface by which this will need to take
place. Using a model of mutualistic sustainability, designers and planners would actively seek out strategies in
which natural systems and the built environment could find cooperative relationships.
Malcolm Wells (1981) in his book, Gentle Architecture, recognized that solving environmental problems
requires better connections between the built environment and the natural world. He asked, “Why is it that
almost every architect can recognize and appreciate beauty in the natural world and yet so often fail to endow
his own work with it” (p.41). Wells was looking for a more adaptive and ecologically connected architecture.
He asserted that architecture had greater responsibilities to the environment than it maintained. He believed that
buildings should create relationships with the natural environment that would allow consumption of building
waste, provision of animal habitat, and moderation of climate by natural means. He sought a much greater
connection between the built environment and the natural environment than was considered at the time.
Much emphasis has been placed on the functional connection between nature and the city, but just as important
is the visibility of such connections to individual citizens. If connections between cities and nature are
appreciable, then individuals are more likely to understand their personal connections to it. Tim Beatley (2011)
suggests that “nature-protective behaviors,” such as taking steps to protect nature through advocacy in
government or through individual actions, like recycling, are predicted by an emotional affinity for nature,
which in turn is a function of the time and frequency of interactions with nature (p.9). Therefore, mutualistic
strategies to building and city design that are visible, may offer opportunities for increased understanding by
people of nature, thereby contributing to a greater affinity for it, and reinforcement of sustainability goals.
III. Mutualistic Sustainability in Practice
Connecting the city with natural systems requires rethinking the functional systems of buildings and urban
infrastructure. To examine the prevalence of mutualistic relationships in building design, we reviewed recently
constructed buildings that received high grades for their environmental sustainability from green building
certification programs throughout the world. From the several dozen projects we reviewed, we focused on
buildings that claimed to have strong connections with nature or incorporated natural elements into their
designs. The list of these building projects is presented in Table 1. The strategies utilized by these buildings to
achieve their high scores in their associated green building rating programs were analyzed to assess their
connections to natural systems and ecologies. Although all of the projects in the focus group claimed
connections with nature in their designs, most of the projects were more notable for their emphasis on
technological efficiency rather than their connections to natural systems. However some did contain significant
elements that were mutualistic.
The Building
Of the projects examined, one stood out for its notable connections with natural systems; The Sidwell Friends
School (Fig. 1) in Washington D.C., United States. Kieran Timberlake Architects designed the school with
Andropogon Landscape Architects and consultants Natural Systems International. The school advocates the
Quaker philosophy of human beings as stewards of the Earth. During a recent expansion project, the school
sought to integrate this philosophy into the design of its new facilities (Chen, 2007). The centerpiece of the new
project is the school’s courtyard, which contains a series of terraced constructed wetlands for the recycling and
reuse of water.
The school’s wetlands, in combination with a biological filtering system, are used to process and treat
wastewater created by the school for reuse in the school’s toilets and cooling towers. The system recycles up to
3000 gallons of wastewater per day (Margolis and Robinson, 2007). In addition to water and energy savings
3
and the reductions in generated waste, the terraced wetlands have created habitat for local insects, birds and
small animals. Its planting design promotes the range of plant communities that would occur along the soil
within each given moisture gradient to create habitats reflective of what might naturally exist on the site. Using
native plant species is a strategy that extends throughout the school grounds, strengthening connections between
natural/ecological functions and the school.
The treatment of the school grounds is an integral component of a larger strategy within the school to foster
connections between the students and their environment, both inside and outside the school. In addition to the
benefits provided by the wetlands in the treatment of the school’s wastewater, the wetlands are also a learning
resource. Learning about the building and its systems, and its connections to natural processes, is part of the
educational curriculum. The goal is to make systems and their processes evident. Students have access to
monitors, which measure such things as the temperature outside and inside the building, air quality, wind
speeds, rainfall levels, and the health of their school’s wetlands. The blending of the school’s water supply and
wastewater treatment systems with natural processes in the wetland systems provides a more mutualistic
connection between the building and natural processes.
Sidwell Friends School illustrates an excellent example of a qualitatively different relationship between building
and nature that may present a better route to sustainability. However, despite its high level of innovation, the
interaction between the school and natural systems seems to be limited to the confines of the site. There is no
evidence that the design considered nature and ecology as extensive systems that go beyond the boundaries of
the school grounds. A building considered as an individual unit will not necessarily contribute to a holistic
sustainability (Conte and Monno, 2012, p.38). Therefore, the system may not be so much of a model to emulate,
as it is a point of beginning for realizing an alternative model for sustainability.
The City
Buildings by themselves may be limited in answering the broader scale issues of sustainability. In addition to
possible shortcomings in the consideration of context, transformation of the world’s existing building stock to a
more sustainable mode may not be possible within a reasonable timeframe. Mutualistic relationships at regional
or citywide scales can provide greater opportunities to connect with a larger environment and can have broader
impacts on achieving environmental sustainability. The concept of “green infrastructure” may be the heart of a
solution to better connect the city to the natural environment. Green infrastructure posits that nature can have a
purpose within the context of the city that is critical to the function of the city. The earliest ideas of green
infrastructure seem to be derived from the much simpler concept of the “greenway,” which is the idea of large
defining swaths of interconnected parklands that sweep through a city. Different from the greenway, green
infrastructure has purpose beyond its recreational amenity. Early emphasis was on the benefits to the ecological
health and function of natural systems (Walmsley, 2006, p.257). More recently, emphasis is being placed on the
ways in which natural systems can reduce the loads on traditional urban infrastructure systems or even replace
them. Green spaces are not necessarily built merely to fulfill recreational purposes or for ecological health, but
to offer solutions to more utilitarian needs in the city. Green infrastructure, done correctly, has the potential to
offer more mutualistic and sustainable connections between cities and nature.
Miami Beach has an excellent and noteworthy example of a self-sustaining green infrastructure in its beach and
dune system along the Atlantic oceanfront (Fig. 2). The system is remarkable in its benefits to the city and in its
connections with natural systems and ecologies. The dune system was developed before the concept of green
infrastructure was popularized, and was seen as more of a “restoration” at the time of its construction. However,
it would be better labeled as green infrastructure using today’s terminology. The beach and dune system was
developed between 1976 and 1981 by the Army Corps of Engineers as a strategy to replenish the city’s eroded
beachfront to protect the city against future erosion and hurricanes, and to also reinvigorate the beach as a
recreational amenity (City of Miami Beach, 2011). The design of the beach and dune system mimics the
appearance of naturally occurring dune formations. It also uses native dune plantings in order to encourage a
stable and self-perpetuating system. Today, the beach and dunes exist as a mostly self-sufficient system. The
system requires some limited maintenance and intervention, mostly related to the impacts of human usage, but
also occasional washouts. Since its construction, the beach and dune system has been a tremendous asset for the
city. Along with protecting the city from the ocean’s winds and waves, the reestablished beach is the foundation
of an improved tourism economy. It attracts millions of visitors each year from around the world. Furthermore,
in addition to its value to humans, the beach and dune system is also wildlife habitat for birds, insects, and small
animals, and an important nesting site for sea turtles.
A more recognizable instance of green infrastructure promises to be developed through the recent commitment
by New York City to spend $2.4 billion to develop green infrastructure that will detain some of the city’s
4
stormwater runoff and promote its infiltration into the ground. The idea is to reduce stresses on the traditional
combined stormwater sewer system in existence in the city. This is an unprecedented commitment by a city to
green infrastructure and will likely have a tremendous impact on the city’s environment and structure. A highly
visible and integrated green infrastructure, like that being developed in New York City, expands the potential
for developing a greater depth of mutualism between the city and natural systems and ecologies. The economic
and civic value that can be provided by green infrastructure also gives stronger justification for the promotion of
nature in the city, particularly when tight budget constraints need to be considered.
Beyond the direct benefits that natural systems can lend to the city, there may be other benefits to human
happiness from their presence. Tim Beatley (2011), a professor in city planning, developed the idea of the
“biophilic city.” The term biophilia, coined by the biologist E.O. Wilson (1984) in his book by the same name,
suggests that there is an instinctive bond between human beings and other living things. This is backed up by
research showing that people who have connections to nature in their lives are healthier and happier (Beatley,
2011). In his book, Beatley points to the example of the Mexican Free Tail bat colony that inhabits the
Congress Avenue Bridge in Austin, Texas. The colony has become a highly regarded part of the city. Citizens
and visitors congregate around the bridge hours before sunset in order to get a view of the 1.5 million member
colony as they take flight from under the bridge each evening for their nightly hunt of insects (Fig. 3). The
citizens of Austin benefit from the fact that the bats eat mosquitoes, which are a nuisance to people. However,
according the concept of biophilia, the people of Austin also benefit from their feelings of pride and affinity they
feel in connection with the bats. Along with being an example of a connection between nature and people, the
bats of Austin also prove that people and nature can coexist in the same space, even in the heart of the city.
Nature does not have to lie in some distant and distinct place away from where people live.
Beatley’s ideal vision of biophilic city is one in which nature is an integral part of the city. This is not just the
typical idea of ‘nature in the city.’ Beyond increased parkland and wild areas within the borders of the city,
nature is abundant and accessible everywhere in the biophilic city. Furthermore, the lines between city and
nature become blurred. The biophilic city in conjunction with the concept of green infrastructure can perhaps be
the foundation of a mutualistic sustainability.
IV. Concluding Thoughts
With the increasing urgency of finding sustainable answers to the world’s environmental problems, solutions are
necessary which do not just depend on mitigation through efficiency, but reimagine the connections between
human systems and ecological ones in ways that promote mutualism. In an article entitled “Making the Case for
Landscape Ecology,” ecologist Jianguo Wu (2008), contrasted modern human engineered systems with those of
beavers. In so doing he articulated that human beings must find an alternative way of building their
environment. In his analogy, Wu noted that beavers and humans are both ecosystem engineers, modifying their
own ecosystems to suit their needs. “However, even if beavers change a natural landscape from one state to
another, their influences are usually confined within the local landscape” (p.47). Furthermore, as beavers do
alter their systems, they do not replace them with simplified, ecologically inefficient versions that isolate them
from outside forces as humans often do.
Architects, engineers, and planners, who seek a path to sustainability in their work, should look beyond
implementing efficiencies for existing human-centric technologies. By depending solely on strategies of
containment and efficiency, opportunities to develop better systems may be overlooked and left out. Strategies
need to focus on developing new systems, which are compatible with natural systems and processes. This
requires movement toward a new paradigm of mutualistic sustainability in which buildings and cities look to
natural systems for an example and a partner.
V. References
Beatley, T., 2011. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Chen, A., 2007. Teaching Tools. Metropolis Magazine, July/August, 106-111.
City of Miami Beach, 2011. Miami Beach Shoreline Named One of America’s Best Restored Beaches. Press release [online]
issued 24 May 2011. Available from:
http://web.miamibeachfl.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=64849&libID=67826 [27th May
2012]
5
Conte, E. and Monno, V., 2012. Beyond the buildingcentric approach: A vision for an integrated evaluation of sustainable
buildings. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 34, 31-40.
Margolis, L. and Robinson, A., 2007. Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture.
Berlin: Birkhauser Verlag AG.
McDonough, W. and Braungart M., 2002. Cradle to Cradle. New York: North Point Press.
Walmsley, A., 2006. Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 252290.
Wells, M., 1981. Gentle Architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wilson, E.O., 1984. Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Wu, J., 2008. Making the Case for Landscape Ecology: An Effective Approach to Urban Sustainability. Landscape Journal,
27 (1), 41-50.
Yeang, K., 2007. Eco Skyscrapers. Mulgrave, Vic.: Images Publishing Group Pty. Ltd.
Zimmerman, J., 2001. The “nature” of urbanism on the new urbanist frontier: sustainable development, or defense of the
suburban dream? Urban Geography, 22 (3), 249-267.
VI. Tables and Images
Table 1: Studied building projects.
6
Figure 1: Sidwell Friends School’s constructed wetlands provide a mutualistic connection between the building and
natural processes (Photo by Albert Vecerka, Esto Photographics).
Figure 2: Miami Beach’s beach and dune system serves as a recreational amenity for the city, a protective barrier
from the ocean winds and hurricanes, and a habitat for wildlife.
7
Figure 3: Mexican free-tailed bats emerge from the Congress Avenue Bridge in Austin hunt for insects and
mosquitoes that are nuisance for the humans, while allowing great moments for the people to feel connected to
nature (Photo by Karen Marks, Bat Conservation International Inc.).
8