Implementing Sustainable Transformation in the Built Environment: Evaluation of the Experimental Phase of the New European Bauhaus Academy Alliance Pilot Project

Abstract

The built environment plays a critical role in achieving climate neutrality, yet the construction sector continues to contribute significantly to carbon emissions and resource depletion. This study evaluates the experimental phase of the New European Bauhaus Academy (NEBA) Alliance pilot project, which aims to support sustainable transformation in the built environment through the integration of circular economy principles, adaptive reuse, and nature-based solutions. Conducted at the Lodz University of Technology, the pilot study involved interdisciplinary modules combining Building Information Modeling (BIM), urban regeneration strategies, and sustainable material use. A mixed-methods approach was employed, including structured surveys and qualitative analysis of student projects, to assess the effectiveness of these interventions. The results indicate that the pilot project successfully enhanced the participants’ understanding of sustainable design practices and their application in real-world architectural and urban contexts. Participants demonstrated increased competence in using digital tools for low-carbon design and in proposing regenerative solutions for existing urban fabric. The findings suggest that targeted, design-led initiatives can contribute meaningfully to the transformation of the built environment, aligning with the goals of the European Green Deal and the New European Bauhaus. This study offers a replicable model for embedding sustainability into professional practice through applied, context-sensitive strategies.

1. Introduction

This study evaluates the implementation of the NEBA (New European Bauhaus Academy) pilot project at the Lodz University of Technology, with a specific focus on how it integrates the core NEB principles of sustainability, aesthetics, and inclusiveness into architectural education. The primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of this pilot project in reshaping architectural pedagogy to better prepare future professionals for the challenges of climate change and the transition to a circular economy. In doing so, the study also explores how future professionals can prepare for a new approach to designing the built environment in the context of climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Particular attention is given to strategies for integrating sustainability, adaptive reuse, and the principles of the circular economy into architectural education. Conducted within the framework of the New European Bauhaus Academy Alliance, a Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking project, the study focuses on pilot training modules developed and implemented at the Lodz University of Technology. These modules aim to provide architecture students with the practical and theoretical knowledge required for sustainable construction. It is anticipated that the findings of the pilot project will facilitate the iterative implementation of training programs and inform broader architectural education reforms.

1.1. Research Background

Globally, an increasing proportion of the world’s population is residing in urban areas, with projections indicating that by 2050, two-thirds of the global population will be urban dwellers. Consequently, there is an increasing demand for additional accommodation. Nevertheless, contemporary mainstream architecture rarely engages with the premise of sustainability [1]. Consequently, the built environment bears a significant responsibility for the extraction of raw materials, the generation of waste, and the emission of greenhouse gases. Within the European Union, the construction and demolition sector is responsible for the generation of 35% of total waste output [2], with building operations accounting for 40% of anthropogenic carbon emissions [3].

The present environmental crisis has become a significant motivator for the improved utilization of existing resources and the adaptation of buildings to new circumstances [4]. Adaptive reuse is a direct solution to these problems, extending the lifecycle of buildings and reducing embodied carbon, i.e., the emissions associated with material production and construction. By leveraging existing structural frameworks, this approach has been shown to reduce raw material consumption by up to 40% compared to new construction [5]. Moreover, at the urban scale, adaptive reuse intersects with nature-based solutions to create resilient, low-carbon cities. These projects frequently incorporate green roofs, permeable paving, and urban forests, achieving 20–30% reductions in localized heat island effects while maintaining architectural continuity [4]. Another research study [6] indicates that the ‘build less’ approach, which maximizes the use and exploitation of existing assets, could enable an 80% reduction in carbon emissions. This is in contrast to the ‘build smart’ (50% reduction) and ‘build efficient’ (20% reduction) approaches, which are insufficient from the point of view of the strategy to achieve the goal of climate neutrality. Moreover, the European Union places a high priority on the utilization of bio-based building materials, a decision that is underpinned by their inherent sustainability and adaptability. It has been demonstrated that wood products have the potential to exhibit a low or even negative carbon footprint [7]. Their utilization has been identified as the most efficacious method for mitigating the ecological impact within the construction industry [8]. However, the potential of the built environment as a carbon store appears yet to be discovered and taken into systematic use [9].

The application of circular economy concepts is of particular pertinence to the building and construction sector in urban areas. The validity of this assertion is reinforced by the findings of Girard [10] and Foster [11], who underscored the significance of the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings in promoting their conservation and circumventing the requirement for extensive new infrastructure. This approach is not only beneficial in terms of cultural heritage preservation but also contributes to environmental sustainability. In the context of the circular economy, adaptive reuse can be regarded as a more effective strategy, given its pivotal role in facilitating the transition towards a circular model [12]. It is vital, therefore, that this novel design approach acknowledges the repercussions of each design decision on the natural and cultural resources of the local, regional, and global environments [13].

In light of the aforementioned points, it is unsurprising that adaptive reuse has emerged as a cornerstone of sustainable construction. This is a concept that has been promoted by the EU within the New European Bauhaus (NEB) initiative and the Renovation Wave. The NEB is characterized by its three dimensions: sustainability, beauty, and inclusiveness. It seeks to play a critical role in enabling the green transition of European society, connecting the European Green Deal to buildings, living spaces, and experiences [14]. However, adaptive reuse or regeneration projects are not conclusive and merely form a part of an ongoing narrative of change [4]. It is evident that solutions to carbon emissions and the management of an ecological footprint are seldom confined to a built environment; rather, they are intricately linked to political will and behavioral changes. As Sassi [15] argues, the sustainability of an architectural regeneration process is contingent upon a holistic consideration of all dimensions, including the social and environmental aspects. For instance, an emphasis on the existing building stock and its adaptive reuse has the potential to markedly enhance housing conditions and, consequently, the quality of life, which is an overarching sustainable development goal [16].

One of the cornerstones of the NEB initiative was to address skill gaps and also changes in professions, followed by the need to reskill and upskill to meet the emerging needs in the building industry. The NEB goals have been a source of inspiration for the development of new courses in various EU countries, including those in the field of architecture education. However, the majority of these courses have focused on various aspects of decarbonization in the construction sector through the appropriate design of new buildings. It is noteworthy that only a limited number of universities have incorporated this subject into their teaching. A survey of 47 European architecture schools revealed that only 31% offer dedicated courses on bio-based materials, while just 18% integrate adaptive reuse studios into core curricula [17]. This is surprising, as such a strategy corresponds to the Renovation Wave program implemented by the European Commission under the European Green Deal [6]. This disconnection persists despite the fact that for a multitude of architectural practices, working on existing buildings constitutes a substantial proportion of their workload, averaging 50% across Europe and reaching 70% in Italy [18].

Previous studies have shown that most research and education related to adaptive reuse focuses on heritage buildings [11,19]. Courses that focus on the sensitive approach towards the transformation of 20th-century buildings are often perceived as experimental [20]. In a broader context, the conceptual framework for architectural pedagogy in the decarbonized realm remains the subject of ongoing debate [21], encompassing strategies such as means-oriented versus goal-oriented architecture education [22]. Nevertheless, a number of courses have been implemented that focus on skills that are crucial for the implementation of circular architectural practices. For instance, the CAS ETH program is a paradigm of best practices, with its hands-on modules. Students conduct life-cycle assessments (LCAs) on reused brick and design parametric models for non-uniform retrofits [23]. Still, such programs remain niche, accessible primarily to mid-career professionals. Consequently, there is an evident necessity to identify methodologies that facilitate the integration of circularity and adaptive reuse into architectural education, with the objective of equipping students with the requisite skills and knowledge.

The development of a methodological framework for the integration of circularity into architectural curricula is imperative for the cultivation of a novel form of professionalism among students. Such frameworks should focus on actionable knowledge and decision-making skills, enabling students to assume accountability for their design decisions beyond aesthetics [1]. Furthermore, sustainability protocols have the potential to serve as valuable tools in promoting adaptive reuse and circular economy principles, particularly in contexts of significant architectural heritage, such as Italy [24]. It is imperative to educate and engage stakeholders at every stage of a project to encourage them to consider the challenges and solutions proposed by the circular economy. This will facilitate the evolution of current linear practices. The objective is twofold: firstly, to bring a change in mentalities; secondly, and in the longer term, to bring a change in practices [25]. Furthermore, the integration of circular design principles at the outset of architectural education has been demonstrated to facilitate enhanced student comprehension of sustainability issues and promote critical design thinking [26,27]. The integration of circular design principles into studio courses is pivotal in preparing students to tackle the challenges posed by sustainable architecture. This integration encourages students to incorporate the strategies of building and material reuse into their design projects [27]. Furthermore, the integration of the concept of the circular economy into the domain of urban design education has been demonstrated to enhance understanding and innovation [28].

A preceding study [29] demonstrated that the integration and holistic supply of professional skills in the emergent domain of green design and green building remains conspicuously deficient. For instance, bio-based materials are regarded as a promising resource for construction due to their sustainability and versatility. However, it is important to note that architects and civil engineers are rarely trained in the proper use of wood and other biomaterials, including its use for building façades [30]. Consequently, the comprehensive decarbonization of the building sector necessitates the upskilling and reskilling of current professionals, as well as the development of new subjects within higher education courses [31].

From the perspective of the New European Bauhaus, sustainability, social value, and aesthetics are the critical positions. The present challenge for architectural education is to determine effective methodologies for inculcating the values under discussion into the design of livable spaces and for successfully implementing the NEB initiative [32]. Higher education institutions are obliged to reconsider their participation in the rethinking of the responsiveness and relevance of their curriculum and mode of pedagogy against current environmental, social, and political realities [1]. In particular, the objective of integrating adaptive reuse and urban regeneration within the framework of the circular economy necessitates the development of awareness-raising tools and activities. The combination of these tools with appropriate educational resources can prove instrumental in achieving this objective [12].

1.2. The New European Bauhaus Academy Alliance (NEBA Alliance)

In view of the aforementioned considerations, it is evident that action was required to establish the framework necessary to initiate and/or coordinate the education of professionals in accordance with NEB objectives. The NEBA Alliance is a strategic initiative funded under the Horizon Europe program (HORIZON-JU-CBE-2023-2-S-01), with the objective of accelerating the green and digital transformation of the European construction sector [33].

The NEBA Alliance, launched in 2024 and coordinated by the University of Primorska (Slovenia), responds to the need for upskilling and reskilling within the built environment. In order to achieve this objective, the alliance has established a consortium comprising educational institutions, training providers, and industry stakeholders. The core objective of the NEBA is the development and dissemination of high-quality, accessible training programs that align with the core values of the NEB—namely, sustainability, aesthetics, and inclusion.

The NEBA Alliance has received funding for a two-year period commencing in April 2024 and concluding in March 2026. It is anticipated that this initiative will substantially increase the construction sector’s capacity to align with the objectives of the European Green Deal and contribute to the cultural and ecological transformation envisaged by the New European Bauhaus.

In line with the ‘European Year of Skills’ [34] and the ‘Pact for Skills’ [35], the NEBA Alliance is developing a skilled workforce that can implement sustainable construction practices across Europe. The project takes a transdisciplinary and participatory approach, fostering collaboration between academia, industry, and civil society.

The NEBA Alliance operationalizes the NEB’s vision by embedding sustainability deeply into vocational and professional education, thereby empowering a new generation of construction professionals to lead Europe’s green transition. The educational content emphasizes bio-based materials and circular construction practices. What is more, NEBA integrates both digital tools and green technologies into its curriculum, reflecting the dual transition goals of the European Green Deal.

The initiative is structured around a network of regional hubs, each specializing in a specific thematic area, such as bio-based materials, circular construction, and climate-resilient design. These hubs are interconnected through a digital platform that facilitates the co-creation and exchange of educational content, best practices, and innovative pedagogical approaches.

The Lodz University of Technology (TUL), Poland, in its capacity as a partner university in the NEBAP Hub, is conducting pilot training at the Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning. The subjects of these training courses include BIM for sustainable and circular construction, the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, and the urban regeneration with the use of various green solutions, technologies, and materials. At this stage of the project, these trainings are exclusively available to TUL architecture students. These pilot training courses, implemented in the winter semester 2024/2025, are the subject of this article.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study has employed a mixed-methods, design-based research approach with the objective of evaluating and enhancing pedagogical practices within the framework of the Horizon NEBA initiative. The project-based learning activities concentrate on sustainable construction practices, encompassing urban regeneration, adaptive reuse, and BIM for the purpose of reducing the carbon footprint of the built environment. The following methodologies were employed during the course of the project:

• Educational Design and Implementation. The educational design incorporated a variety of learning methodologies, including tutorials, seminar-style discussions, and project-based learning. The integration of these elements was undertaken with the objective of providing students with the opportunity to address real-world challenges in sustainable urban development. The trainings were meticulously designed to promote collaboration, critical thinking, and experiential learning, aligning with contemporary pedagogical principles.
• Student Engagement and Participation. The students participated in the co-creation of knowledge through research-based studies, collaborative design tasks, and reflective discussions. This participatory approach was designed to facilitate a more profound comprehension of NEB principles and their implementation in architectural and urban contexts.
• Evaluation through Structured Surveys. Subsequent to the conclusion of the training programs (namely, undergraduate BIM tutorials and graduate seminars on urban regeneration), the participants were invited to complete structured questionnaires. The questionnaires were designed to evaluate multiple dimensions of student learning outcomes and were based on experience from similar projects implemented previously, so it was not necessary to go through a pre-testing phase. The surveys included a series of Likert-scale questions that assessed students’ perceptions of knowledge retention, skill acquisition, and the practical application of competencies in real-world architectural and construction contexts. Additionally, open-ended questions invited qualitative reflections on topics of interest and novel concepts encountered during the courses. This mixed-methods approach enabled a comprehensive evaluation of both cognitive and experiential learning, aligning with pedagogical goals of fostering both theoretical understanding and practical proficiency in sustainable design.
• Data Collection and Validation. Data from over 60 surveys, conducted across two training programs, were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Where applicable, qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis to uncover deeper insights and contextualize numerical trends. The validation of the third training course, the design studio, was based on the evaluation of the final outputs, as well as the direct observation of the students’ performance during the subsequent design tasks.
• Lessons for Iterative Application. As this study only involved one iteration to date, the focus is on the educational insights gained from the implementation of the training. The findings of this study contribute to an understanding of the needs of learners and the effectiveness of instruction and guide future improvements in line with design-based research principles.

3. Results

All pilot training courses discussed in this study were integrated into the undergraduate and graduate architecture and urban planning programs at TUL during one semester (from October 2024 to February 2025). The primary aim of this pilot phase was to evaluate the effective strategies for embedding the core principles of the NEB initiative into architectural education. The implementation consisted of three distinct modules within the architecture curriculum. One module, focused on BIM technology, was part of the undergraduate (bachelor’s) program. The remaining two modules—a design studio and a complementary seminar—addressed urban regeneration and were incorporated into the graduate (master’s) program. In alignment with the NEBA Alliance requirements, these courses received formal approval from the NEBAP Hub Leader and were officially recognized by the University of Primorska. It should also be stressed here that in the Polish context, architectural studies have to comply with a national standard adopted by the National Chamber of Polish Architects and therefore can be perceived as professional education, primarily targeted by the NEBA Alliance.

3.1. Building Information Modeling: Tutorials

The course on Information Technology for Sustainable Design focused specifically on BIM. The course was 15 weeks long and worth 3 ECTS. It consisted of two hours of lab work per week and one hour of e-learning per week, as well as self-study. The course was structured into three interconnected modules. The first module, delivered through an e-learning format, introduced students to the fundamental concepts and workflows of BIM, the basics of algorithmic thinking in relation to BIM processes, and the application of simulation tools for designing low-energy buildings within a BIM environment. The second module, conducted in a laboratory setting, provided hands-on experience in designing architectural components using BIM software (GRAPHISOFT ArchiCAD 28). It included the creation of interactive schedules for building elements and the use of analytical tools for sun path analysis and building performance evaluation. The final module required students to develop an information model of a low-energy architectural object of intermediate complexity. This phase emphasized the presentation of design solutions using BIM and AI tools (Figure 1), culminating in a critical evaluation of the outcomes in the context of sustainable design principles. Following the conclusion of the tutorials, the students were invited to provide feedback on their experience by means of a structured questionnaire (

Table 1. Results of the survey conducted after the Information Technology for Sustainable Design tutorials.

Question	Response
	Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neither Agree or Disagree	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree
I gained new knowledge through the training.	0 (0%) *	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (26.09%)	17 (73.91%)
The training developed my professional skills.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (34.78%)	15 (65.22%)
The training was relevant to the industry.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	9 (39.13%)	14 (60.87%)
The training met my expectations.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8.70%)	9 (39.13%)	12 (52.17%)
I would recommend this training to a friend or colleague.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4.35%)	13 (56.52%)	9 (39.13%)
The training increased my understanding of BIM concept and workflow for sustainable design.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (17.39%)	3 (13.04%)	16 (69.57%)
I am more confident in creating digital information models of architectural objects on intermediate complexity level.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4.35%)	9 (39.13%)	13 (56.52%)
The training increased my confidence in exploring simulation tools for low-energy buildings design in BIM such as analytical data, sun-study analysis, building performance.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (26.09%)	5 (21.74%)	12 (52.17%)
I gained practical skills in applying BIM-oriented techniques to real-world scenarios in architecture and construction industry.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4.35%)	9 (39.13%)	13 (56.52%)

* Based on 23 completed questionnaires.

).

The questionnaire was completed by 23 of the 25 trainees, yielding a response rate of 92%. The evaluation of the pilot training course on BIM for sustainable design revealed a highly positive reception among participants (see Table 1). A substantial majority of respondents reported gaining new knowledge through the training, with 73.91% strongly agreeing and 26.09% somewhat agreeing. Similarly, 65.22% strongly agreed and 34.78% somewhat agreed that the training contributed to the development of their professional skills. The relevance of the training to the industry was affirmed by 60.87% of the participants who strongly agreed and 39.13% who somewhat agreed. Regarding expectations, 52.17% strongly agreed that the training met their expectations, while 39.13% somewhat agreed and only 8.70% remained neutral. The recommendation rate was also high, with 56.52% somewhat agreeing and 39.13% strongly agreeing that they would recommend the training to others. In terms of specific learning outcomes, 69.57% strongly agreed that the training enhanced their understanding of BIM concepts and workflows for sustainable design. Confidence in creating digital information models of intermediate complexity was reported by 56.52% (strongly agree) and 39.13% (somewhat agree). Additionally, 52.17% strongly agreed and 21.74% somewhat agreed that the training increased their confidence in using simulation tools for low-energy building design. Finally, 56.52% strongly agreed and 39.13% somewhat agreed that they gained practical skills in applying BIM-oriented techniques to real-world architectural and construction scenarios. Notably, no respondents expressed disagreement with any of the statements, indicating a uniformly positive assessment of the training experience.

The participants were also asked to respond to two open-ended questions: (1) Describe what topics and/or tools were particularly interesting for you and why; (2) describe what was totally new for you in the course.

A recurring theme among respondents was the strong interest in AI-based visualization tools, particularly the AI Visualizer. Many participants described this tool as innovative, engaging, and aligned with contemporary trends in architectural design. It was frequently cited as a source of inspiration and a means of enhancing creativity, suggesting that the integration of AI into the curriculum was both timely and effective.

Another prominent area of interest was the sun study analysis, which participants appreciated for its practical application in sustainable design. Respondents noted its usefulness in understanding light dynamics throughout the year, reinforcing its value in environmentally responsive architecture. Similarly, tools such as Truss Maker, complex profiles, and curtain walls were highlighted for their versatility and potential to expand design capabilities. These tools were seen as instrumental in bridging theoretical knowledge with practical application, enabling students to experiment with form, structure, and materiality.

Several students also emphasized the importance of structural analytical models, noting their role in understanding load distribution and verifying the adequacy of structural elements. This reflects a growing awareness of the integration between architectural design and engineering analysis, a key component of BIM.

In terms of novelty, many participants reported that the course introduced them to entirely new tools and concepts. For some, the entire ArchiCAD environment was unfamiliar, while others highlighted specific features, such as BIMx, graphical overrides, parametric composites, and project origin settings, as new learning experiences. The NEB principles and their connection to BIM were also mentioned as a meaningful addition, indicating the course’s success in embedding sustainability and interdisciplinary thinking into the curriculum.

Notably, several students appreciated the self-directed learning aspect of the training, acknowledging that the hands-on, task-based approach encouraged deeper engagement and independent problem-solving. This pedagogical strategy appears to have fostered a sense of ownership over the learning process, which is particularly valuable in professional education.

Overall, the qualitative feedback underscores the course’s effectiveness in introducing advanced digital tools, fostering sustainable design thinking, and enhancing students’ confidence in applying BIM technologies in real-world scenarios.

3.2. Urban Regeneration: Seminar

The seminar, which focused on urban regeneration and cultural heritage, was enhanced by the incorporation of sustainability-related topics. The training included 15 h of in-class activities and students’ own work and was worth 1 ECTS. The seminar was offered as an elective course, and 39 students were enrolled. The seminar comprised two distinct sections. In the initial section of the program, students engaged in group activities, including carousel brainstorming and other gamification methods of interactive engagement in the classroom environment. The themes focused on strategies for reducing the carbon footprint of the construction sector, the utilization of circular solutions, and bio-based materials. The culmination of these activities was an Oxford debate. Concurrently with the group activities, students individually prepared research as well as case study papers to be presented in the second part of the seminar. These subjects had to be approved by the tutors and will be discussed in the subsequent part of this article. The second part of the seminar comprised the presentation of these papers and subsequent group discussions. Following the conclusion of the seminar, the students were invited to provide feedback on their experience by means of a structured questionnaire (

Table 2. Results of the survey conducted after the Urban Regeneration Seminar.

Question	Response
	Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neither Agree or Disagree	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree
I gained new knowledge through the training.	1 (2.56%) *	0 (0%)	2 (5.13%)	12 (30.77%)	24 (61.54%)
The training developed my professional skills.	2 (5.13%)	0 (0%)	8 (20.51%)	15 (38.46%)	14 (35.90%)
The form of delivery of the first part of the training (group work, debate, etc.) was attractive and engaging.	1 (2.56%)	1 (2.56%)	2 (5.13%)	6 (15.38%)	29 (74.36%)
The training met my expectations.	1 (2.56%)	0 (0%)	6 (15.38%)	5 (12.82%)	27 (69.23%)
The purpose of the training was clear to me.	1 (2.56%)	1 (2.56%)	1 (2.56%)	8 (20.51%)	28 (71.79%)
Participation in the training enabled me to understand the principles of sustainable development in the adaptive reuse of existing buildings and urban regeneration.	1 (2.56%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.56%)	16 (41.03%)	21 (53.85%)
Participation in the training enabled me to understand the advantages and limitations of using circular solutions in the adaptive reuse of existing buildings and urban regeneration.	1 (2.56%)	0 (0%)	8 (20.51%)	10 (25.64%)	20 (51.28%)
During the training, I learned about the challenges faced by the architecture and construction sector in reducing its carbon footprint.	1 (2.56%)	1 (2.56%)	2 (5.13%)	11 (28.21%)	24 (61.54%)
Participation in the training has enabled me to acquire new knowledge which I will be able to use in my design practice in the adaptive reuse of existing buildings and urban regeneration.	1 (2.56%)	1 (2.56%)	2 (5.13%)	10 (25.64%)	25 (64.10%)

* Based on 39 completed questionnaires.

).

All seminar participants completed the questionnaire. The analysis of the responses (see Table 2) revealed a predominantly positive evaluation of the training program across multiple dimensions. A substantial majority of participants (92.31%) reported that they had acquired new knowledge, with only a negligible proportion (2.56%) expressing disagreement. Similarly, 74.36% of respondents acknowledged that the training contributed to the development of their professional skills. The delivery method employed in the initial segment of the training was particularly well-received, with 89.74% of participants finding it appealing and engaging. The overall satisfaction with the training was high, as evidenced by 82.05% of participants expressing complete or partial agreement with the statement. Furthermore, 92.3% of respondents indicated a clear understanding of the training objectives. The content was also effective in enhancing the comprehension of sustainability principles (94.88%) and the advantages and limitations of circular solutions (76.92%). Additionally, 89.75% of participants reported an improved understanding of the challenges facing the architecture and construction sector in reducing carbon emissions. Importantly, 89.74% of respondents believed that the knowledge gained could be directly applied in their design practice. These findings suggest that the training was successful in achieving its educational objectives, particularly in terms of knowledge transfer, practical relevance, and participant engagement.

In addition, paper topics selected by students were analyzed. The seminar presentations revealed a strong thematic focus on the revitalization of post-industrial urban environments, with particular emphasis on sustainability, circularity, and cultural heritage preservation. A significant number of papers centered on the city of Lodz, Poland, showcasing emblematic examples of adaptive reuse. These studies highlighted the integration of historical preservation with contemporary urban needs, reflecting a broader trend in post-industrial cities toward multifunctional and culturally resonant redevelopment.

Sustainability emerged as a central concern, with numerous contributions addressing climate resilience through green and blue infrastructure, zero-emission architecture, and climate-responsive design. Notable international case studies included Copenhagen’s Cloudburst Management Plan, Stockholm’s Hammarby Sjöstad district, and Melbourne’s Docklands, all of which exemplify comprehensive approaches to sustainable urban regeneration. Circularity was explored through the reuse of materials, energy-efficient construction, and biodiversity integration, particularly in the context of Copenhagen’s Nordhavn district.

Social and cultural dimensions were also prominent, with several papers examining the impact of revitalization on community identity, tourism, and gentrification. The role of art, shared public spaces, and inclusive planning practices were discussed as mechanisms for fostering social cohesion and enhancing urban livability.

While topics such as seismic adaptation in Japan and digital heritage preservation were less frequently addressed, they introduced valuable perspectives on resilience and technological innovation.

3.3. Urban Regeneration: Design Studio

A total of 66 students participated in the Urban Regeneration Design Studio. The design studio offered students 5 h of hands-on activities each week, in addition to their own independent work. Students received 6 ECTS for taking part in this training. In the initial phase, the participants were divided into two teams. The objective of this phase was to conduct a multi-faceted analysis of a city block. The aim was to identify the most significant spatial, functional, cultural, social, and natural problems. Following this, the students were divided into two-person project teams. The objective of the design assignment was the transformation of the urban block in order to enhance its spatial layout and enrich its functional program. As part of the proposed solutions, students were tasked with focusing on selected aspects of sustainability. In particular, they were required to utilize nature-based solutions (NBS) and timber structures for new developments in the revitalized area. The solutions implemented by the students contributed to their professional competence while also enabling them to experiment with new ideas. Consequently, the studio adopted an experimental approach. In this regard, one of the most engaging challenges was the design of multi-story timber-framed buildings as infills of inner-city developments (Figure 2). A formal evaluation of the design studio was not conducted through the questionnaire. This was due to the fact that these were the same students who were evaluated after attending the seminar. Consequently, it was possible to observe whether the topics discussed during the seminar were reflected in their designs. It was noted that a number of NBS were successfully implemented. The students’ designs encompassed green roofs for retaining stormwater and reducing the urban heat island effect; green walls for cooling and air purification; and rain gardens for stormwater absorption and increased biodiversity. What is more, social aspects were tackled with community gardens.

4. Discussion

Boarin et al. [36] examined how sustainability is integrated into architectural education across Oceania, Europe, and North America, revealing that while students broadly recognize sustainability as a vital component of their education, their interpretations and applications vary significantly depending on curricular structure. This aligns with the findings from the NEBA Alliance pilot project at TUL, which demonstrated that targeted, well-structured educational interventions can significantly enhance the students’ understanding and application of sustainability principles.

The pilot modules—focused on BIM for sustainable design, adaptive reuse, and urban regeneration—highlighted the effectiveness of experiential learning approaches, such as project-based learning and learning-by-doing, in teaching circularity and adaptive reuse [37]. Students responded positively to the integration of digital tools, particularly AI-based visualization and simulation software, which not only supported technical skill development but also fostered creativity and critical thinking.

The seminar and design studio components further emphasized the importance of contextual learning. Students explored both local and international case studies, applying circular economy principles to real-world urban challenges. This approach reinforced the value of adaptive reuse and nature-based solutions in creating climate-resilient, culturally sensitive urban environments.

Despite these successes, challenges remain. As noted by Gomes et al. [38] and Ioannou et al. [1], the complexity of multidisciplinary integration and the need for adequate time and resources to address complex design problems persist. Recommendations for overcoming these challenges include expanding the use of collaborative projects and best-practice examples to build systems thinking and facilitate learning-through-making [26,39]. In the case of the discussed pilot trainings, which involved different subjects (architecture, urban planning, sustainability, and BIM), it was imperative to formulate a comprehensive plan for each training session. In particular, the design studio emulated the Integrated Design Process, and the tutors provided students with structured interdisciplinary feedback. Fortunately, in Poland, architectural education incorporates urban planning. Thus, the main challenges pertained to the integration of sustainability principles.

The students who participated in the project under discussion continued their education in the subsequent semester. It was therefore possible to monitor their performance, for example, throughout the heritage conservation design studio. In this case, the anecdotal feedback from tutors indicated that the majority of students were enthusiastic about solutions for reducing carbon footprints and expressed increased confidence in their ability to utilize these solutions to solve a conservation design task.

However, a critical gap remains in preparing the educators themselves. As Almazroa and Alotaibi [40] argue, there is a pressing need for upskilling and reskilling teachers through “train the trainer” programs—an approach strongly advocated by the NEBA Alliance.

Lessons for Iterative Applications

Several key lessons emerged from this pilot project that can inform future iterations:

• Early integration of circularity concepts: Embedding circular economy principles early in the curriculum fosters a mindset shift and enhances students’ ability to think systemically.
• Blended learning formats: Combining e-learning, lab-based tutorials, and collaborative seminars accommodates diverse learning styles and reinforces theoretical knowledge through practice.
• Student-centered pedagogy: Encouraging self-directed learning and co-creation of knowledge increases engagement and ownership of the learning process.
• Contextual relevance: Grounding projects in local contexts while drawing on global examples helps students connect sustainability goals with regional challenges.
• Scalability and flexibility: The modular structure of the courses allows for adaptation across institutions and educational levels, supporting broader implementation within the NEBA framework. In particular, the seminar has the capacity to raise awareness and provide vocational training for professional architects.

These observations will be utilized by the NEBA Alliance project team at TUL in the implementation of the second edition of the pilot training program, which is scheduled to take place during the winter semester of 2025/2026. A thorough analysis of both iterations is required to establish the final results of the project. Additional study is planned to assess how participants apply their learning in professional settings.

5. Conclusions

Incorporating circularity and adaptive reuse into architectural education is vital for preparing future architects to address the sustainability challenges of the built environment. The NEBA pilot project at the Lodz University of Technology demonstrated that experiential learning, digital tools, and interdisciplinary collaboration are effective strategies for equipping students with the necessary skills and knowledge.

The overwhelmingly positive feedback from students confirms the value of integrating sustainability, aesthetics, and inclusion—the NEB core principles—into architectural curricula. However, the success of such initiatives also depends on the preparedness of educators. Therefore, institutional support for “train the trainer” programs is essential to ensure that faculty are equipped to deliver these new pedagogical approaches.

Ultimately, the NEBA pilot project serves as a promising model for future educational initiatives. By fostering a deeper understanding of sustainability principles and encouraging critical, context-sensitive design thinking, architectural education can play a transformative role in the transition toward a more sustainable, circular, and resilient built environment.