Assumed Standards:
The Creation of Design Culture and Values

Traci Rose Rider

As the threat of global warming grows, there has been a call for groups and individuals to look into their own lives to see what might be changed, shifted and altered to help reduce the strain on the planet. The building industry has responded by focusing incredible energy toward the development of new technologies and initiatives. Though the green building movement has strong roots dating back to the 1970s, the momentum that has been witnessed in the last five years is extraordinary. Green building guidelines have been developed and implemented with notable success, as have new manufacturing processes for building materials. Online tools are available to help search for the appropriate product, as well as to analyze the life-cycle assessment and ecological impact of larger building assemblies. There are endless opportunities to assist practitioners in the building industry in the effort to create greener, healthier buildings.

Many prominent figures in the green building movement speak of a paradigm shift within the building industry that is necessary to truly embrace sustainability inside the design profession.[1] This suggests that the level of sustainability we are seeking (that we arguably need) cannot be applied, calculated or guided as a result of the traditional design process. And it is not only the process, but also the foundation of that process that needs desperately to change. Behind the methods and processes used to design these greener structures is a foundation of design culture and values that must be redefined. These fundamentals have most certainly been around for years and years and in that time have been refined, revised and blessed. Because our buildings need to live like never before, giving back to the earth what has been taken for so many years, the foundations of our design field need to reflect these new requirements.

Valuing the natural environment within architecture is something that has not yet found a place in the regimented design process; the priorities of cost, budget and schedule are often perceived to be in conflict with environmental issues.  Environmental values in design have fallen to the periphery since the swell of the 1970s and have only recently started to gain popularity. Though the green building and sustainable design movement has found incredible momentum recently, there is still substantial resistance to moving toward uniform consideration of the environment and the increased implementation of green methods. This essay supports the position that architects, interior designers and/or urban designers have historically envisioned themselves as separate from environmental problems, choosing to believe that their task at hand is, at a the very basic level, the simple need for shelter. The goal itself is protection and separation from the environment. Primary concerns of building design professionals typically hinge on two facets of design: the creation of spaces to enhance productivity, and the aesthetics of the proposed space.  The focus is narrow, concentrating only on the immediate built form and the occupants’ activities within it and perception of it. 

Though this narrow focus seems to permeate the field, many building design professionals believe themselves to have an important role beyond the creation of simple shelter, which may be social responsibility, cultural enhancement, public design or improving the well being of users. A large number of professional firms pledge their mission statements to bettering the human condition through built form, settling this topic squarely within the scope of designer responsibility. However, each of these concerns, when pushed, would likely come in second to budget and marketability. To say these building industry professionals are strictly concerned with the cost and schedule is unreasonable. It is not too far-fetched, however, to claim that the standard designer is concerned primarily with the human relationship to the built-environment, and not equally concerned with the built-environment’s relationship to nature. 

The term sustainability itself is perceived by many as vague and may cause concern to those that are familiar with the process or philosophy.[2] If a designer were to begin to understand the contributions to environmental degradation as a result of their projects, the associated environmental impact may be brushed aside. These impacts would be seen as a trade-off in the name of necessity, shelter, or design for design’s sake, not to mention the interest of the client. This indirect indifference has been referred to as the ‘Ostrich Syndrome’ in the business world, insinuating that professionals bury their heads in order to continue working towards their goal, without disruption.[3] If the professional is unaware of contributing to environmental problems, there is no need to take steps to change ingrained habits that have proven productive. As often noted, old habits die hard. This essay posits that a large percentage of the design professions remain entrenched in conventional behaviors resulting in the loss of both the desire, and at times the ability, to question daily habitual choices.  The following discussion will further the argument that many of the very basic assumptions of the design professions, including culture and education, must be questioned.

To further encourage the positive swing of environmental change within the building industry architects, interior and urban designers must understand how their constructed culture of design relates to society at large. It is also important to understand how the attitudes and values within the building industry correspond to other paradigm shifts. By looking at environmental attitudes and assumptions in sociology and education, the foundational issues regarding culture and values in architecture can be better assessed.

SUSTAINABILITY, GREEN BUILDING AND ECOLOGY
For a better grasp of the discussion, it is necessary to define some of the more vague and overlapping terms that will be used. There is a variety of terminology used when referring to being environmentally friendly, and it varies by field, involvement, and understanding. The popular method is to use the general term of sustainability, which the general population can identify with and has become popular with marketing campaigns, environmental advocates, and government. The more particular term of green building seems to be less clear to the public. For the purpose of this article, green building will refer specifically to green building and energy conservation strategies, while the use of the term sustainability will refer to a holistic view of sustaining life and well-being, including intertwined realms such as the social, economic, and environmental. Ecology, when used, refers to the natural environment and the systems found within it.[4]

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY
The environmental issues society faces as a whole are analogous to environmental issues in the world of design. This essay cannot do justice to the comprehensive works done on the topic of environmental sociology, but it will review one perspective for the sake of illustration in the design field. The field of sociology has been well established for centuries, through which practitioners built upon theory after theory. Though many continued to work in this tradition, many started to question the basic notions from which the field was working. Similar to this essay’s proposal, they believed that assumed standards had evolved. 

While these touchstone beliefs were never articulated in written form, the 1970s found these foundational presumptions being questioned more than ever before. Regarding an interest in the environment, sociologists William Catton and Riley Dunlap felt that the basic building blocks for practicing sociology had inadvertently begun dictating how social scientists were fundamentally approaching their studies. Catton and Dunlap believed that the very root of the field of sociology had stopped being questioned and had come to be primarily based on human centricity and a fundamental view that humans are exempt from ecological principles and limitations. The idea that humans might be fundamentally a part of nature rarely entered a sociological equation. This led to the designation of this traditional worldview as the Human Exemptionalism Paradigm (HEP).[5]

The HEP theory, which Catton and Dunlap believe dominates modern day society, is based upon a Dominant Western Worldview (DWW).[6] The fundamentals of the DWW are: (1) People are fundamentally different from all other Earth creatures, over which they have dominion; (2) People are masters of their destiny; they can choose their goals and learn to do whatever is necessary to achieve them; (3) The world is vast and thus provides unlimited opportunities for humans; and (4) The history of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution, and thus progress need never cease.[7] Through this reasoning, basic anthropocentric values of the DWW and the HEP are primarily responsible for the environmental degradation witnessed today. More significantly, in response to these traditional anthropocentric sociological perspectives, Catton and Dunlap created a New Environmental Paradigm (NEP),[8] which used the altered foundational belief that humans are integrally entwined in the circle of life and ecological laws cannot be overruled by human ingenuity. By developing a scale to measure these beliefs, a group’s or individual’s opinions could be determined on an environmental attitude spectrum.

When first created in the late seventies, the twelve-question NEP attitude scale addressed three proposed indicators of an environmental worldview: anti-anthropocentricism, limits to growth, and the balance of nature.[9]   In 1990 the original scale was revisited, adapted, and updated with the addition of two new areas of concern:  the possibility of an eco-crisis and the rejection of human exemptionalism.[10] This new scale had fifteen questions and was found to be successful in predicting an environmental worldview of individuals or groups, while covering more relevant topics. A number of studies on specific populations helped to solidify the original findings that the scale denotes pro-environmental attitudes while establishing known-group validity.[11] Additional studies have supported predictive validity by illustrating a significant relationship between the NEP scale and a variety of intended behaviours and actual behaviours, both observed and self-reported.[12]

The Design Parallel
As discussed previously, assumed processes have become the foundation of much professional design. The actions and beliefs of these procedures are historically based on underlying presumptions reflecting the HEP view. For example, the ability to heat and cool in all environments is one illustration of unceasing progress. Building along fault lines or in flood plains assert that we are masters of our own destiny. High concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are acceptable if it helps a compound set securely, though they may compromise the well being of users. A vacuum has been created allowing architects to continue their craft through the idealized individual creative process. However, design teams are more frequently encountered than the storied individual designer within the design office; to move further toward sustainability and systematic integration there must be more collaboration with other disciplines, and this must happen early in the design process. 

Even beyond the immediate design process, other behaviors illustrate the idea of assumed standards and anthropocentricism. Previously unquestioned construction procedures, such as the unchecked harvesting of forests and extracting of minerals for construction materials, are two examples of standard construction practices. Demolishing buildings that have fallen out of fashion, only to replace them with similar equally dated structures, is still a common practice. The destruction of endless living ecosystems for new developments and suburban sprawl continues daily. Many practitioners within the building industry do not feel that these larger and seemingly oblique matters are primary concerns for architectural designers. The daily world of an architect is rife with more pressing issues such as budgets, schedules and construction constraints. However, the attitude toward these topics is shifting.

Some practitioners have not lost the seed of idealism planted during their education, nor have they forgotten their potential to dynamically impact society through good design. The New Environmental Paradigm states that the health of modern societies depends largely on the health of the ecosystems within which they coexist.[13] Participants in the building industry have an incredible opportunity, which is now gaining momentum within the profession, to impact the health of both the physical and natural environment. For instance, materials that must travel an excessive distance to reach the construction site, such as stone from a European quarry, may be specified. Not only are architects and interior designers dictating the mining of arguably unnecessary minerals and resources, simply for contrived and standardized aesthetics, but immense amounts of damage are being inflicted on the global environment as well as endless ecosystems. Through the resultant pollution and unnecessary energy expenditure, these construction industry methods continue to compound the degradation of the environment.

Site selection is also a major design decision that has historically been standardized. Though the traditional knee-jerk reaction to siting may look to views and street frontage, other criteria can have a greater positive environmental impact. When selecting a site for potential design landscapes, many architects, builders and clients gravitate toward traditional pastoral beauty elements. However, through the development and construction of a brownfield site or previously used urban site, a smaller negative environmental impact would result, and could be developed to be just as traditionally beautiful. In actuality, using this type of site would actually heal the environment to some extent. A small footprint minimizes site and ecosystem disturbance. Orienting a building by prioritizing sun angles and wind direction, instead of views and lot lines, allows a decrease in heating and ventilating requirements. This results in both lower energy expenditure and a healthier workplace. Though these are unintended consequences of daily decisions within the fast-paced building industry, the impact is not small when unchecked and multiplied thousands of times. Many practitioners remain loyal to these traditional systems and design paradigms that have been proven productive in practice to date. Currently, green building advocates are seen as separate and are the primary exception to the rule.

Design and the NEP Scale
To draw the sociological parallel, conventional, non-green architects and interior designers would be categorized as advocates of the HEP point-of-view outlined earlier. They are likely unmotivated to change, being comfortable with consistency; they believe whole-heartedly in their learned way of design, to which they are committed. This group might jump to argue that clients are unwilling to pay for alternative materials and methods in defense of the conventional construction approach. This excuses them from approaching green building with their clients or their having to move out of their comfort zone. The market is the HEP-type designer’s primary concern, and demand is the ultimate design authority. From this perspective there is no problem, much like the ostrich with its head in the sand, and therefore no real need exists to explore green building. Green building is seen as a fad that is unnecessary and that will fade, as it has before. In line with the DWW view and this HEP perspective, building materials and energy may continue to become more scarce and more costly, but human ingenuity will prevail, and alternatives will be found. This will likely involve technology or the identification of additional resources. Architects and urban designers, as form-givers of the physical environments in which we live, work and play, should look beyond the current market to these larger environmental concerns.

Catton and Dunlap created the NEP scale to differentiate between perspectives valuing the natural environment and those subscribing to a human-exemptionalist perspective in various user groups. With this in mind, the established NEP scale was given to self-selected practitioners in the green building industry.[14] The survey was sent to all current board members of local U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Chapters in early 2005, under the assumption that these individuals were involved in the green building movement at a high level due to their own concern about and interest in the environment. These individuals had become voluntarily involved with the green building movement, establishing themselves as dedicated local leaders of a USGBC Chapter. While the results of the administered NEP scale reflected that these voluntary leaders of the green building industry were in fact pro-environment, there were particular issues that illustrated a direct conflict between the established culture of design and the individual desire to be environmentally friendly.

A number of the NEP questions hold a direct relationship to the building industry. For example, Statement Two in the NEP survey states that, “Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.”[15] This question addresses the very premise of architecture as currently understood. While Webster defines the term architect as “One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures,” it is correctly assumed that in order to construct these buildings architects, interior and urban designers are directly modifying the natural environment. The question quickly translates to a discussion of these architects and urban planners having the right to actually do the jobs for which they have been trained. The insinuation is that if they do, they cannot help but to harm the environment, potentially creating a moral dilemma.

Statement Four of the NEP scale reads, “Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unliveable.”[16] Architects are trained to be creative and rely on ingenuity to problem solve on a daily basis, even within the standardized process outlined earlier. This anti-environmental statement directly addresses technological advancements in the building industry. As seen in hot and humid climates, sealed buildings with a full reliance on air conditioning increases the comfort of the occupant, regardless of the state of the natural environment and associated emissions. Similar statements can be made about any non-temperate climate in the industrialized world. Architects and builders have advocated for strategies and technologies that can either ignore or withstand nearly any inclimate weather, save an incredible natural disaster; earthquake and hurricane-proof designs are only a few examples of building ingenuity confronting Mother Nature herself. This ingrained emphasis on problem solving may be at odds with fundamental environmental positions and may need addressed for future professionals in the building industry.

The NEP’s Statement Six states, “The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.”[17] This clearly speaks to issues in design and construction including forestry management and energy conservation. As architects, interior designers and urban planners, what are we to use to build our necessary structures if not natural resources? Will managing them create a shortage, increasing the cost of the materials specified most? Will there be a cost increase for a standard material, as seen recently with steel, that will greatly impact projects’ costs and schedules? This specific concern that natural resources used for construction are disappearing, can be a major strain on the building profession. This is likely the case due to the nature of architecture, which assumes that additional resources are ultimately needed to continue the growth of the built environment and the profession.  As the NEP framework illustrates, there are fundamental notions within architecture and design that need to be addressed if green building and sustainability are to become integral to the design and building process.

Environmental Education
A similar and closely connected framework can be seen in the field of education. The environmental education movement is rooted in rural and local studies from the 1960s.[18] The term environmental education became popular in the 1970s, and started to include ethical, political and urban issues that had been previously relegated to other domains. The 1980s brought global issues into education, while the 1990s saw environmental education coincide with other movements seeking change, such as social equality and human rights. In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development published The Brundtland Report, more commonly known as “Our Common Future,” which helped to fuel change in education by articulating a unified worldview and a global problem. A shift to environmental communication and education is popularly seen as a possible catalyst for change.[19]   

Traci Rose Rider (2007), Outdoor Garden Classroom.
, IslandWood Environmental Education Center

Traci Rose Rider (2007), Exterior of Leaning Studios building
, IslandWood Environmental Education Center.

Public schools and higher education have been targeted as a critical leverage point for a potential shift in popular environmental attitudes. Stephen Sterling, a well-known environmental education specialist, states that traditional education is lacking in a number of ways: (1) it takes a “fundamentally mechanistic” view of the world; (2) it is primarily ignorant of issues concerning sustainability; and (3) it is uninformed of the growing ecological thinking that intends to more fully integrate humanity with the environment.[20] Like the fields of sociology and design, the educational field is considered by many also to be functioning on outdated anthropocentric foundations; education is predicated on the assumption that human ingenuity will always prevail. Creating his own “new educational paradigm” Sterling delineates the difference between ”first order” learning and “second order” learning.  While the “first order” learning takes place within the accepted boundaries of the familiar, the “second order” learning change involves critical reflection and awareness.[21] A truly ecological approach to education would be holistic in nature, and more systems oriented than linear in design. It necessitates the incorporation of practicality and science with seemingly peripheral topics such as politics, ethics and economics.[22]

Critical Thinking[23]
Many specialists in critical thinking tout it as one of the most important elements of environmental education.  According to the American Philosophical Association, critical thinking is the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment, which drives problem-solving and decision-making.[24]

Sterling defines sustainable education as “a change of educational culture which both develops and embodies the theory and practice of sustainability in a way which is critically aware.”[25] David Orr, a renowned environmental educator at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio, seconds this notion, positing that today’s society is quickly loosing the capacity to think - ultimately losing the ability to both say and think what we mean.[26]   In essence, this means that we are simply regurgitating information and not thinking through or understanding ideas fully.  Krapfel also recognizes this worry and suggests that there is importance in addressing complexity and speculation, using this as a different method to integrate environmental education with the traditional educational structure.[27]   For example, while children expect the teacher to provide answers for questions arising in the traditional classroom, the students are ready for and expect more complex experimentation out in the field; this gives the instructor permission to not know all the answers and allow students to look for the answers themselves.  This also allows teachers to participate in the learning process, while still engaging and energizing the students.  Closely tied to participatory education, this critical thinking process encourages sessions of watching, recording, understanding, and learning through first-hand experiences – not from reciting facts from books.

While many young adults are noticeably aware of environmental problems, they are less likely to fully understand the problem that they champion. Bator et al. outlines twelve steps closely tied to critical thinking that are necessary for communication to result in practical and executable behavior, following receiving an environmental message.[28]   These steps include paying attention to the message, liking it, understanding it, agreeing with it, and storing it for retrieval later, ultimately to make decisions based on the foundation of the message at a later time.[29]   Critical thinking, embodied in these twelve outlined steps, is undoubtedly seen as an important ingredient in environmental communication and education and can be easily tied to the design process.

Systems Thinking    
Related to critical thinking is the idea of systems thinking, which aims at a more holistic view when attempting to understand the environment and environmental implications.  Sterling proclaims the importance of critical thinking and ‘whole systems thinking.’  In what he has established as “second order” learning, critically reflective learning is employed, taking learning beyond the dominant forms of thinking such as analytic, linear and reductionist.[30]   The concept of ‘whole systems thinking’ within education makes holistic thinking practical, feasible, accessible and understandable.[31]   

One of the best examples of whole systems thinking is interdisciplinary learning, where students are trained to identify contrasting perspectives and reexamine previously held views regarding certain topics.[32]   A complementary and important skill also emphasized by this type of training is the ability to respect a variety of disciplines as powerful sources of information and to recognize the limitations of single disciplinary approaches.[33]   In relation to environmental education, individuals experiencing this type of education would be more likely to search for multiple sources of information on controversial topics such as global warming and deforestation, where claims are often brief and pronounced.[34]   

An example of a course in systems thinking can be seen at Salisbury University in Salisbury, Maryland. This course was taught through three different departments: ecology, philosophy and economics.  While the core beliefs of these three approaches seem to hold intrinsic conflicts regarding the environment, each of the three perspectives were given equal time and billing during class to encourage students to develop a thorough critical understanding of each.  Ultimately, feedback from the course showed that while students came into the course with preconceived notions concerning the environment, they were encouraged and willing to consider other valid viewpoints throughout the semester.[35]   This type of course is slowly becoming more popular at the university level, especially in fields such as engineering, which have been accused of being isolationist in the past.[36]

A charrette is one way to implement systems thinking in the design world.  An intense collaborative design effort usually confined to a few days, a charrette brings in a variety of different fields to collaborate on a specific project, bringing a wide range of perspectives to the table.  Typically architects, engineers, clients and landscape architects are involved, but other groups and organizations can easily be included.  Some charrettes are intended as community projects, bringing not only those in the field together but serving as an educational tool as well for other people not involved in community planning.  One such charrette was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in September of 2005 and served primarily as an educational experience focusing on both university and K-12 students.[37]   The event gathered not only educators in the traditional fields of design, engineering and landscape, but also environmental educators, governmental groups, community groups, natural products, non-profits and organic foods, as well as socially responsive groups such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, with the hopes of creating a more well-rounded, comprehensive understanding of a site and program for architects to work within.

Traci Rose Rider (2005), Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Fe Charrette,
hosted by USGBC’s Emerging Green Builders .

Traci Rose Rider (2005), Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Fe Charrette,
hosted by USGBC’s Emerging Green Builders .

Regionalism
A number of experts interested in environmental education address the importance of knowledge of place.[38]   This position is based on the popular notion that sustainability begins at the local level. While this statement is difficult to dispute, the realistic application of this theory into formal education – especially at the university level – is too detailed to cover in only four years and may be contrary to the growing idea of a global village. As society evolves, it is continually less likely that graduates might spend their entire lives in one location, possibly not even the same location as their university experience.  This makes an intimate knowledge of the land and history not only difficult, but also seemingly unnecessary. 

One feasible application of this local-knowledge theory is what is called ‘Community Based Social Marketing,’ and is already being used emphatically and successfully in parts of Canada.[39]   Composed of four steps – (1) uncovering barriers to behaviors and selecting what behavior to promote, (2) design a feasible and directed program, (3) pilot the designed program, and (4) evaluate the program once it has been implemented broadly[40] – this type of implementation can be paralleled between a typical regional community and an educational community for the area.  The success of this proposed parallel would depend deeply on vernacular knowledge and an investment of the students within the local environment, both socially and ecologically.  

As McKenzie-Mohr emphasizes with neighborhood communities[41] , internal and external barriers and commonalities can also easily be found in educational settings.  Identifying these common obstructions to environmental behaviors can allow for strategic means of communication and education targeted on the specific population – for this purpose, design in higher education.

Environmental education does not intend to create throngs of environmentalists, but to implement a system of lifelong learning as well as civic, social, emotional and academic competencies, ultimately creating a better world for the future.[42] Some elements addressed in environmental education are transformative learning, participatory methods, and informal education. Others, including systems theory, knowledge of place and critical thinking, can also easily be applied to design education.

Design Education
Similar to this discussion on traditional education, much formal design curriculum has been repeated, relatively without question for decades. There is a range of necessary topics to cover regarding the creation of a built form, and these create both challenges and benefits seen in established paradigms in such areas as breadth of classes, few electives, a narrow focus and necessary technical expertise. Design foundation classes revolve around perspectives, sight lines, traditional materials and common construction methods. Design instructors tend to teach the way they were taught, without any curriculum theory training or much questioning of pedagogy. Rarely are ecological connections and sustainable design elements incorporated within required classes, likely because the instructors have not been trained in such strategies or have nothing to refer to as an example.

The acclaimed environmental educator David Orr has brought his knowledge of environmental literacy and education to the design field through a number of books, most notably The Nature of Design.[43] Among a number of important points, Orr brings up the importance of not only understanding the ‘know-how,’ but also the ‘know-why’ that has been so frequently forgotten in current society.  For example, we should not teach just to recycle, but also why to recycle. We should not teach to simply use local materials, but why to use local materials. Referring to the same concern voiced in McKibben’s The Age of Missing Information, Orr believes that we are indeed in an age of information but feels that in terms of understanding, clarity, civility and wisdom we have been going backwards.[44]  

Orr also notes in an interview in 2005 that architecture ought to be a subset of the larger field of ecological design.[45] This changes the perspective used to look at the architecture profession; it is no longer just about buildings and contained, man-made environments, but finds equal importance in the larger environmental setting. Orr voices concerns about obstacles he sees in architectural education, mainly identified as “an overblown sense of isolation and a strange sense of rigor.”[46] These concerns question many of the basic notions held firmly in architectural education, again setting the field in a larger context.

The Boyer Report, officially entitled Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice: A Special Report, was released in 1996.[47] Commissioned by organizations with vested interest in architectural education such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), it outlined a total of seven goals for the future of architectural education. Sustainability was mentioned in three of the seven. In addition to calling for a more integrated curriculum with other disciplines and understanding true ethical standards of the profession, the report looked to the revising the goals of formal education. “The profession, schools, and students should expand their knowledge, for example, of energy, the use of renewable resources, the recycling process, the use of carcinogenic materials, and the safe disposal of waste.”

A yearly survey done by Metropolis Magazine in 2003 states that while it is fundamentally true that grassroots environmentalism is having an effect on design and architecture, the integration of sustainability into formal education leaves much to be desired.[48]   It was reported by educators that: two out of an average of eleven design studios were dedicated to sustainability; twenty-seven percent said that between one and three required courses were focused on sustainability; forty-six percent were attempting to thread sustainability through the foundation of their program; and that funding was the biggest barrier to integrating sustainable design into the curriculum.[49]

Another report, Ecological Literacy in Architecture Education Report and Proposal was published in 2006 through the AIA’s Committee on the Environment (COTE). This report echoes concerns of both Boyer and Metropolis.[50] There is little wiggle room in already-packed architecture curriculum, sustainability and environmental systems are not integrated into studio courses, and the topics of sustainability and ecological ethics are predominantly marginalized. Some design schools added sustainability to the curriculum during the energy crisis of the 1970s, and have retained it through fundamental dedication of philosophy and faculty. Though these classes may not be listed as sustainable in either syllabi or course descriptions, some schools have an established reputation as a greener school. With green design philosophy being integrated across curriculum, students are comprehensively exposed to the impact of sustainability on both the final design and the process itself. Other programs view sustainable design as a specialization or add-on that would require additional classes to be squeezed into an already full curriculum. Many of the highest-ranking architecture programs were noted to have little or no interest in sustainability.[51]

This is not to say that there have not been organized initiatives in the realm of design education. Most recently, schools have been challenged to subscribe to the 2010 Imperative as outlined by Ed Mazria’s 2030 Challenge.[52] The 2010 Imperative outlines a number of goals, from including carbon-neutrality in all studio courses to creating carbon-neutral facilities for the schools by the year 2010. Similarly, the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE), a strong group of faculty members teaching building science in architecture schools, is creating an initiative to help standardize and popularize carbon-neutral studios in design schools. Even before these more immediate endeavours, other projects existed. The Agents of Change project, funded by the US Department of Education and run primarily out of the University of Oregon in 2005, sought to train students to be future educators, practitioners and environmental stewards through building science, case studies and post-occupancy evaluations.[53]

Formal design education is a powerful factor in forming design ethics and establishing a larger context reflecting the environment; it can be a powerful force regarding environmental ethics. However, this avenue is yet largely untapped. Through the strategic integration of sustainability into whole curriculum paths, as advocated by a number of reports in the recent past, students would begin to understand the interconnectedness between built forms and nature at an early stage in their education. This would allow more opportunity for students to transfer these ethics into the design process itself. With such an intense curriculum, design programs have great potential to make a powerful difference in the direction of the environmental futures of the design professions and of the society as a whole. 

Perceptions of Design Education and Design Culture
The vast majority of green professionals surveyed in the previously discussed HEP/NEP survey did not attribute their interest in sustainability to their formal education; forty percent did not believe that their education affected their environmental ethics to encourage green building.[54] This may be that they had already taken a pro-environmental stance or that there was a delayed effect where topics and ideas were not fully realized until much later in their professional development. Regardless, education is not being identified by the majority of current green architects as an influence on their interest in sustainability. If the design field is going to contribute fully to the solution of global warming, this identification of environmental values in relation to education must change.

Of the thirty-five percent that cited higher education as an influence, the majority (83.3%) felt that their undergraduate experiences were more of a determinant than their graduate experiences.[55]   This speaks to not only the importance and impact of undergraduate design curriculum, but also to the possibilities for influencing the professional design culture if there were a major swing toward sustainability in curriculum. Classes, such as service learning and participatory education explicitly illustrating green building elements, are found to be most productive and useful.[56]   Still other subjects indicated that the class most influential was outside the design school, lending support to the importance of systems thinking and interdisciplinary learning.

Current green building leaders responded in great numbers to suggestions for design education reform, indicating a true interest and allegiance to design education.  Suggestions, such as the reading of more environmental literature in the classroom, were met with overwhelmingly positive response.[57]   The combination of these responses leads to a sum greater than all the individual parts; while education itself is not ranked highly as a factor, each of the individual alternative education elements received high marks.[58]

Indications are that the individual elements of environmental education, most likely found in electives, are what architecture graduates remember in relation to environmental ethics in design education.  This study supports the fact that a number of individual elements could be successfully incorporated into design education, encouraging environmental behaviour.  The combination of various educational methods in design education provides undergraduate programs with the potential to deliver necessary environmental knowledge, values, and impact, which future professionals in the design industry desperately need.  By increasing the exposure to these different alternatives, current and future professionals alike will be reminded that design is not simply about aesthetics and functionality.  With it comes the responsibility to create healthy buildings, not just for the users but also for the natural environment, thus allowing future generations to meet resource needs as we do currently.

The environmental issues that stand before us are not insurmountable. This is not meant to be a statement proclaiming the powers of human ingenuity, as outlined by the Human Exemptionalist Paradigm, but one that speaks to the promise of the design profession and our culture as a whole. The current path of the green building movement is incredibly promising, moving forward with new technologies and becoming reacquainted with passive strategies nearly forgotten; this promise is paralleled in a variety of other disciplines. But our culture needs to look further than strategies and processes that have fallen to the wayside. We need to reach down deep, past the learning curves and new technological applications, past the processes that have become so habitual, and back to the created culture and values that serve as the very foundations of our cultures and professions. Look with new eyes at processes taken for granted. Look at the way we are educating our future leaders. Look at the way we structure professional processes, and at the values that are emphasized during and after education. We must take pointers from the fields of education, sociology and science, and deeply reflect on the assumed standards that have been created. We must understand that there are elements within our professions that are innately against the environment and which must be addressed. Understand that the established and comfortable way may not be the best way any longer. And understand that we do have the power to change the course of the future.

[1] For a sampling, see: Edwards, Andres. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift (British Columbia: New Society Publisers, 2005);  and Mclennan, Jason. The Philosophy of Sustianable Design (Kansas City, MO: Ecotone Publishing, 2005).
[2] For the purposes of this essay, sustainability and green building will be used synonymously. While there is much discussion around these two terms and their relationships to each other, this discussion is larger than this paper.
[3] Hasan, S. M. Jameel. 'Business schools: Ostrich syndrome,' Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 6, no. 1, 1993, 47-53.
[4] These are the definitions and intentions used by the author, which strive to be consistent with others’ usage of these terms in additional articles referenced. However, other authors may not have used these terms with the exact meanings outlined above, but the original terminology of the work was maintained for the integrity of the quote or statement. 
[5] Humphrey, Craig R., Tammy L. Lewis, et al. Environment, Energy and Society: A New Synthesis (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning, 2002).
[6] Buttel, Frederick H. ‘Environmentalization: Origins, processes, and implications for rural social change’, Rural Sociology, vol. 57, 1992, 1-27.
[7] Dunlap, Riley E. and William R. Catton. ‘A New Ecological Paradigm for a Post-Exhuberant Sociology’, American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 24, no. 1, 1980, 15-47.
[8] Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. VanLiere, et al. ‘Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, 2000, 433.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Pierce, John C., Mary Ann E. Steger, et al. Citizens, political communication and interest groups: Environmental organizations in Canada and the United States (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992).
[12] Edgell, M. C. R. and D. E. Nowell. ‘The new environmental paradigm scale: Wildlife and environmental beliefs in British Columbia’, Society and Natural Resources, vol. 2, 1989, 285-296.
[13] Dunlap, Riley E. 'Paradigms, Theories, and Environmental Sociology', in Dunlap, Riley E., Frederick. H. Buttel, Peter Dickens and August Gijswijt (eds.). Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights (Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002), 329-350.
[14] Rider, Traci R. Education, Environmental Attitudes and the Design Professions:  A Masters Thesis (Ithaca, NY: Unpublished master’s thesis, Cornell University, 2006).
[15] Dunlap and Catton, 1980.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Sterling, Stephen R. Sustainable Education: Re-visioning Learning and Change (Bristol, UK: Schumacher Society, 2001)/
[19] Bowers, Chet A. Educating for an Ecologically Sustainable Culture: Rethinking Moral Education, Creativity, Intelligence, and Other Modern Orthodoxies (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995).
[20] Sterling, 2001.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Orr, David W. The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and the Human Intention (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002).
[23] Information from the Critical Thinking section, as well as the sections on Systems Thinking and Regionalism, was seen in a previous work by the author.  For more information see Rider, 2006.
[24] APA. 'Critical thinking: a statement of expert consesus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction', ERIC Document No. ED 315 423, American Philosphical Association, 1990.
[25] Sterling, 2001.
[26] Orr, 2002.
[27] Krapfel, Paul. 'Deepening Children's Participation through Local Ecological Investigations',  in Smith, Gregory A. and Dilafruz R. Williams (eds.). Ecological Education in Action. (Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1999), 47-64.
[28] Bator, Renee J. and Robert B. Cialdini. 'The Application of Persuasion Theory to the Development Of Effective Proenvironmental  Public Service Announcements', Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, 2000, 529.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Sterling, 2001.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Caviglia-Harris, Jill L. and James Hatley. 'Interdisciplinary teaching: analyzing consensus and conflict in environmental studies', International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 5, no. 4, 2004, 396.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Though the topic of environmental communication and its accuracy, sensationalism, and appropriateness is important and closely tied to the topic of environmental education, it is outside the scope of this study.
[35] Caviglia-Harris and Hatley, 2004: 401.
[36] Boyle, Carol. 'Considerations on educating engineers in sustainability', International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 5, no. 2, 2004, 148-149.
[37] This charette was hosted by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Emerging Green Builders Committee in partnership with the Santa Fe Boys and Girls Clubs to help facilitate ideas for a new local facility in the green design spectrum.
[38] McKibben, Bill. The Age of Missing Information (New York, NY: Plume, 1992) 41-44, 52; Bowers, 1995, 33; Orr, 2000, 38-42.
[39] McKenzie-Mohr, Doug. 'Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing', Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, 2000, 549-551.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Santone, Susan. ‘Education for Sustainability’, Educational Leadership, December 2003/January 2004).
[43] Orr, 2002.
[44] Rider, 2006.
[45] American Institute of Architects, Committee on the Environment. Ecology and Design: Ecological Literacy in Architecture Education (Washington, D.C: AIA, 2006).
[46] Ibid.
[47] Boyer, Ernest L. Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice (Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996).
[48] Szenasy, Susan S. ‘School Survey’, Metropolis, vol. 23, no. 1, 2003, 104-107.
[49] Ibid.
[50] American Institute of Architects, Committee on the Environment, 2006.
[51] Ibid.
[52] For more information, see www.architecture2030.org
[53] For more information, see www.aoc.uoregon.edu
[54] Rider, 2006.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid.

Traci Rose Rider is in the PhD Design Program at North Carolina State University. She is exploring methods of integrating sustainability into architectural education. She is also partner in Trace Collaborative, LLC, a sustainability consulting firm intent on helping established offices within the design and construction industry "green" their culture.