From your description, it does not seem that your created a scale before hand from some pre-existing standard that defined sustainability. So, if that is correct, on your scale you only know what a (eg) neighborhood measures on a scale where the top of the scale is objectively/absolutely meaningless. That would imply that the scores are relative to one another. As a result, and depending on how you create the outcome scale, you might (but not necessarily) be able to say neighborhood A is twice as sustainable as neighborhood B....as an example, consider how ecological footprints work, where, based on prior knowledge, the footprint indicator means a specific thing, EG, EF = 1.0 or greater = sustainable. But 2.0 isn't "twice" as sustainable, or even more sustainable. Now, in contrast, on the negative side of the scale, given how it is constructed, some comparisons cab be made since the measure is indicating how much of the world of nature is being consumed. eg, -1.5 is half a world more use than is sustainable (1.0).

I agree with the answer given by Michael. If you use a number of indicators to define sustainability, the scores from each indicator will have to be relative to each other if no external scale is provided (based on measurements, guidelines, standards, etc.). In your case, if 70% of the HHs have access to better sanitation in one neighborhood that would be more sustainable than other neighborhood which has let's say 40% of the HHs with access. As long as you define sustainability, in your case, based on the performance of an indicator such as "presence of better sanitation" or something like that, among other indicators. Quantifying how "much more sustainable" an alternative is with respect to another may be a bit more difficult to do, as Michael mentioned.

All the indicators of sustainability become variables.This would be latent or observed.If they are latent you need to find a standard scale for the same and if observed then it can be measured as it is .