Definition
The concept of quiet sustainability is defined as comprising of:
widespread practices that result in beneficial environmental or social outcomes and that do not relate directly or indirectly to market transactions but [sic] are not represented by their practitioners as relating directly to environmental or sustainability goals. These practices represent exuberant, appealing and socially inclusive, but also unforced, forms of sustainability.
(Smith & Jehlička, 2013: 148)
Despite the undertone of inconspicuousness, the concept of quiet sustainability (QS) represents a departure from the mainstream understanding of sustainable consumption and lifestyles. Specifically, it presents a counterpoint to the so-called ABC model (see Behavior Change), according to which attitudes (A) drive behavior (B) which people choose (C) to adopt. While the ABC model remains popular among policymakers and certain scholarly debates on sustainable consumption, it has also been criticized (see Attitude-Behavior Gap, Social Practice Theory). The model privileges deliberate actions driven by conscious ethical values. As a result, it fails to account for everyday practices driven by motivations that are unrelated to political activism but nonetheless have sustainable outcomes. The notion of QS addresses this gap by highlighting practices characterized more succinctly as “sustainability by outcome rather than intention”.
History
Quiet sustainability can be associated with low-resource lifestyles and practices of (self-)sufficiency, reuse, and repair. While such practices predate the notion of sustainability, it is in the context of sustainability debates that the notion of QS was coined in Smith and Jehlička’s (2013) article Quiet Sustainability: Fertile Lessons from Europe’s Productive Gardeners.
In this chapter, the concept is empirically grounded in the practice of food self-provisioning (FSP), intended here as growing food in home or allotment gardens. In their research in Czechia and Poland, Smith and Jehlička discovered that FSP was a practice popular across all social classes, age groups, and educational and professional backgrounds, in which around half of the population participated. It presented a significant source of fresh fruits and vegetables, covering on average one-third of practitioners’ consumption of these foods. This food was typically produced using (near-)organic growing methods, as about half of the practitioners refrained from using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and many others tried to minimize their use. FSP presents an extremely short and localized supply chain, where consumers are simultaneously producers (see Prosumerism, Food Miles). The practice contributes to food literacy and informal environmental education, while research also showed the importance of home-grown food in fostering social connectedness and resilience through informal sharing and exchange.
Originating from the practice of FSP, the notion of QS has gained significant relevance in research on sustainable food practices. Apart from numerous countries in Central and Eastern Europe, a region with widespread FSP, researchers have located QS practices in contexts as diverse as Greece, Colombia, the Faroe Islands, and China. Quiet sustainability is also visible in sharing meals and seeds and non-monetized food distribution from sources like orchards and fields facilitated by digital platforms and social media (see Sharing Economy, Information and Communication Technology). Recent debates explore the relationship of QS to more political articulations of food sovereignty (Visser et al., 2015, see also Velicu and Ogrezeanu’s [2022] critical take on QS in connection to Romania’s small peasants “quietly contributing to sustainability” in the shadow of systemic marginalization).
Beyond food, we note an affinity of QS with concepts such as quiet activism, actually existing sustainability, and frugal or inconspicuous innovation (see Grassroots Innovation). Recent discussions (e.g. Pungas et al., 2024) have also pointed to other practices that could be framed as QS, such as do-it-yourself (DIY) practices, low-tech climate adaptation strategies on the household level, or sustainable forms of travel and tourism (see Energy Consumption Behavior, Sustainable Housing, Sustainable Mobility). Extending QS to profit-oriented activities, the concept has also been applied to the recycling and reuse of car parts at salvage yards. While the goal of these activities is to generate financial profit, they also lead to frugal resource use and unintended environmental benefits. These emerging debates raise questions about the role of (technological) innovation and political mobilization, which are highly relevant for sustainability-oriented action. We thus hope that future research and practice will explore the relevance of QS within and beyond food provision.
Different Perspectives
Quiet sustainability presented a significant turn in the theorization of FSP, a practice previously interpreted as a reaction to economic hardship (Daněk et al., 2022). Conversely, more recent research in Central and Eastern Europe convincingly shows that the quality of home-grown food and the enjoyment of gardening are key motivations for most practitioners. At the same time, environmental motivations rank low in gardener surveys. In this sense, FSP – and other examples of QS – provide a counterpoint to conscious consumerism, which is grounded in environmental awareness and conceptually underpinned by the theory of planned behavior. Similar to the aforementioned ABC model, this theory presumes that individual actions result from conscious choices which are based on rational decisions and which can, in turn, be influenced by providing people with information.
QS’s advocacy of the importance of maintaining what already works challenges the presumed connection of sustainable consumption with novelty and change. In the sphere of food, the mainstream version of sustainable consumption – alternative food networks – is implicitly conceptualized as niche innovations for the future, in need of successful “scaling up”. In contrast, QS practices are already widespread. Nevertheless, instead of being associated with a hopeful future, QS practices are often viewed as traditional and stuck in the past; and for that reason threatened by so-called modernization. This association often results – both in scholarly accounts and in the sphere of public policies – in the negative valuation of QS practices as mere reproduction and maintenance. In contrast, the mainstream variants of sustainable consumption are habitually associated with positively valued qualities such as difference, novelty, creativity, innovation, and transformation. The concept of QS proposes to recast already-existing sustainable consumption practices as valuable and extends the notion of sustainable consumption in a novel direction. The effectiveness of different communication frames about the sustainability contribution of already existing and widely practiced behaviors is thus increasingly tested by communication scientists and environmental psychology scholars.
Applications
While sustainability campaigns often rely on awareness raising and nudging toward responsible behaviors (see Green Nudging), QS highlights practices that are already contributing to environmental and social goals without needing to be developed, promoted, and propped up by external funding and activist efforts. Instead, these practices are grounded in everyday routines/habits/practices (see Social Practice Theory), long-standing traditions, and social relations. This makes them accessible to large swathes of the population, while mainstream notions of sustainable consumption are often criticized for their niche focus on urban elites of the Global North (see Social Tipping Points). In contrast to the exclusivity of market-based sustainable consumption, QS presents a radical alternative, as it happens largely outside the market, thus nurturing community economies and contributing to a good life beyond capitalist growth (see Degrowth, Well-being Economy). Indeed, while sustainable lifestyles might often imply constraints and (self-)limitation, QS is typically associated with exuberance, generosity, and enjoyment (see Mindfulness, Alternative Hedonism).
Through its broad geographical relevance, QS also presents an important epistemological counterpoint to mainstream notions of sustainable consumption, which, while presented as universally valid, are too often embedded in Western contexts. Indeed, Western discourses frame many of the international debates and policy agendas around sustainability. In this context, acknowledging the relevance of local “quiet” practices and preserving the conditions for their continuation presents not only a sustainability concern but also a matter of epistemic justice.
Further Reading
Daněk, P., Sovová, L., Jehlička, P., Vávra, J., & Lapka, M. (2022). From coping strategy to hopeful everyday practice: Changing interpretations of food self‐provisioning. Sociologia Ruralis, 62(3), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12395.
Pungas, L., Kolínský, O., Smith, T.S.J., Cima, O., Fraňková, E., Gagyi, A., Sattler, M., & Sovová, L. (2024). Degrowth from the east – between quietness and contention. Collaborative learnings from the Zagreb Degrowth Conference. Czech Journal of International Relations. https://doi.org/10.32422/cjir.838.
Smith, J., & Jehlička, P. (2013). Quiet sustainability: Fertile lessons from Europe’s productive gardeners. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.002.
Velicu, I., & Ogrezeanu, A. (2022). Quiet no more: The emergence of food justice and sovereignty in Romania. Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.024.
Visser, O., Mamonova, N., Spoor, M., & Nikulin, A. (2015). ‘Quiet Food Sovereignty’ as food sovereignty without a movement? Insights from post-socialist Russia. Globalizations, 12(4), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2015.1005968.