Next Article in Journal
Synchronous Multi-Span Closure Techniques in Continuous Rigid-Frame Bridges: Research and Implementation
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Audiovisual Environment in Rail Transit Spaces on Pedestrian Psychological Perception
Previous Article in Journal
Safety Risk Assessment of Deep Excavation for Metro Stations Using the Second Improved CRITIC Cloud Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Approach Design Inheriting Traditional Spatial Ambiguity: An Analysis of Arrangement and Composition in Takehara Yoshiji’s Independent Residential Works
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/buildings15081339
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluating the Incorporation of Ecological Conscious Building Design Methods in Architectural Education

by
Pooya Lotfabadi
* and
Aminreza Iranmanesh
Faculty of Architecture and Fine Arts, Final International University, Çatalköy, Girne 99370, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(8), 1339; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081339
Submission received: 14 March 2025 / Revised: 9 April 2025 / Accepted: 16 April 2025 / Published: 17 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human-Centric Space Design: Occupant Comfort, Wellbeing, and Post-occupancy Evaluation of Multi-Scale Built Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

As the global community struggles with pressing environmental challenges, the field of architecture finds itself at the forefront of sustainable innovation. The multidisciplinary nature of architectural education curriculums covers a wide range of ecological topics; however, the tangible impact of these courses in the design process has not been well explored. Accordingly, this study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of an “Ecological Conscious Building Design” (ECBD) course in enhancing architectural design education and promoting ecological consciousness among future architecture practitioners. To this extent, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method was employed as a systematic framework for evaluating the impact of the course on students’ knowledge, abilities, and attitudes towards sustainable architectural practices. This study explored the benefits and drawbacks of integrating ecologically conscious building design techniques into architectural education through a comprehensive analysis of students’ feedback, performance assessments, and course outcomes. The research also examined the alignment between the course curriculum and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system criteria, assessing whether the course equips students to contribute to environmentally responsible architectural solutions. This research provides insights into academia and the architecture industry by exploring the nexus between architectural education and sustainable design. The results indicate that both students and experts prioritize “energy and atmosphere” and “indoor environmental quality” as critical components of sustainable design education. However, experts place greater emphasis on “innovation” and forward-looking approaches. These findings highlight a gap between pedagogical goals and practical readiness, offering actionable insights to align curriculum with industry standards and long-term sustainability strategies.

1. Introduction

Architecture is pivotal in driving sustainable innovation, especially in response to pressing global environmental challenges [1,2,3]. Given the diverse nature of architectural education, which covers a diverse range of environmental subjects, it has become exceedingly important to explore these issues in more depth. This is more critical in the education of the architectural design process as the newly educated will be the ones with an impact on the future of the built environment [4]. This study addresses this need by assessing the effectiveness of an “Ecological Conscious Building Design” (ECBD) course in improving architectural pedagogy and fostering ecological consciousness among future architects.
This research explores this topic from an objective metric: the alignment between the course curriculum and the criteria established by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system [5]. This assessment seeks to determine whether the course effectively equips students with the skills and knowledge necessary to make substantial contributions to the creation of environmentally sustainable architectural solutions. Simultaneously, the study sought the opinion of expert lecturers and practitioners via the same scale to provide a comparative framework. To achieve this, a pairwise comparison matrix used in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed as a systematic framework for evaluating the course’s impact on students [6,7,8]. AHP, in this case, was used to explore the hierarchical importance of LEED criteria in architecture studio pedagogy; hence, no alternatives were developed. This comprehensive assessment encompasses various dimensions, including knowledge acquisition, the cultivation of critical skills, and the transformation of attitudes toward sustainable design approaches. The potential for this research to transform architectural education and practice is significant.
While existing literature emphasizes the importance of integrating sustainability concepts into architectural education [9,10,11,12], the tangible impact of such courses on the design thinking and practical skills of future architects needs more investigation. To address this gap, this study poses the following research questions:
  • How do architecture students and expert lecturers differently prioritize LEED criteria within ecological conscious building design (ECBD) education?
  • What gaps exist between the intended pedagogical goals of ECBD courses and the practical outcomes, perceived by students and experts?
The study aims to provide a precedent for exploring possibilities concerning meaningfully integrating ecologically conscious design principles into an architecture curriculum. The study also aims to identify specific gaps in students’ understanding of sustainability compared to experts. By aligning the course objectives with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the study tried to provide a tangible basis for this exploration to be reproduced and expanded. The exploration of ECBD in design education from a systematic approach appears to be a shortcoming in the existing literature that requires further attention. Additionally, this study aimed to provide practical guidance for enhancing instructional strategies and curriculum design—also see [4,13]. More specifically, a discussion needs to be made regarding how ECBD approaches must be integrated into design courses. From an idealistic perspective, the goal is to educate the next generation of architects who are deeply committed to environmentally conscious practices [4].

2. Theoretical and Background of the Study

The emergence of concerns regarding undergraduate education in universities presents new opportunities for academics to enhance their programs, increase their influence over undergraduate education, and elevate the quality [14,15]. Educating students for future jobs—often clouded with uncertainty [16]—is a challenging task that requires continuous re-evaluation of teaching materials and methods [17,18,19]. The Boyer Commission’s influential report titled “Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities” (1998) made significant connections between critical issues in undergraduate education [20]. Although the report was primarily directed at research universities, its conclusions hold relevance for higher education institutions worldwide, regardless of their research designation. Since its publication, this report has catalyzed debates, prompted self-reflection, and spurred institutional reforms [21].
In architectural education, similar initiatives have emerged, such as the “UIA-UNESCO Charter of Architectural Education-1996”, “A New Future for Architectural Education and Practice (1996)”, and “The Re-design of Studio Culture (2002)” [20,21]. These initiatives collectively highlight the underutilized potential within higher education institutions, indicating that oversimplified connections between undergraduate education, professional practice, and faculty research can hinder the enrichment of undergraduate education through exposure to the research process.
Furthermore, the environmental movement began to gain attraction in the 1970s, with the United Nations endorsing the introduction of environmental education into mainstream education [22]. Initially, these movements revolved around directly addressing environmental problems. However, the field of ecology transitioned from a problem-solving focus to emphasizing systems thinking, highlighting interconnections and relationships within ecosystems [23,24].
In this regard, the link between sustainability, education, and sustainable development was emphasized in “Agenda 21”, underlining the importance of education in achieving sustainable development [25]. The “UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development”, officially launched in 2005 by UNESCO, aimed to incorporate sustainable development principles, values, and practices into all aspects of education and learning [26,27]. This integration of sustainability into tertiary education is essential for sustainable development in education [2,24,28,29].
Recent strategic international objectives for 2021–2024 set by Advance HE aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, demonstrating the higher education sector’s commitment to sustainable growth and climate action. Active student participation in research and research-informed teaching has traditionally been a priority in higher education, particularly in architecture, where deficiencies in the curriculum have garnered significant attention [20]. Over the past few decades, many architecture schools have introduced courses in environmental design and evidence-based architectural design to their programs [9,30].
Various scholars have extensively documented and analyzed the use and effectiveness of teaching and learning methods, like evidence-based design, integrated studios, and live projects for environmental design in higher education [31,32,33]. These methods have become increasingly common in higher education institutions, and numerous articles have highlighted their potential [34]. Consequently, there is growing interest in incorporating sustainability perspectives into higher education [35]. Phrases like ‘ecological design’, ‘greening the curriculum’, and ‘greening the university’ are frequently used to denote the integration of an environmental perspective into university operations and instruction [36].
While there have been several review papers on sustainability in higher education, they have rarely addressed architectural education specifically [21]. The Mintz and Tal [37] study revealed significant differences in the quantity and variety of environmental knowledge provided by different curricula [37]. Ceulemans [38] highlighted the need for a more structured approach to sustainability in higher education and recommended future research to focus on stakeholder engagement, sustainability management standards, and sustainability reporting for organizational change.
Guerra, et al. [39] explored tertiary environmental education programs and formulated a set of indicators to guide the development of a sustainability curriculum—also see: [38]. Thürer, et al. [40] provided a comprehensive review of sustainability in engineering. The Yüksek [41] course content analysis, specific to architectural education in Turkish institutions, highlighted an increase in sustainable architecture content in course syllabi but highlighted the need for further progress [41]. An effective curriculum aims to build climate awareness by encouraging students to collect and interpret data using research-based methods; this is essential for evidence-based design in architectural education [20]. Such an approach encourages students to critically evaluate design choices based on data collection, underpinned by research on the local climate, environment, and society. However, architectural education often lacks structured methodologies for students to engage with the built environment [42].
The concept of “knowledge about better environments” poses essential questions in architectural education [43,44]: what is considered better, better for whom, and why is it better? Unfortunately, research indicates that these interactions and activities related to understanding the built environment are often informal and lack structured investigation or inquiry [42]. In this regard, common pedagogical challenges in architecture schools worldwide have been documented [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Ecological design is often introduced as a multidisciplinary and comprehensive program in architecture curriculum research at institutions worldwide [4,41].

3. Materials and Methods

Addressing the multifaceted nature of the course materials and the complexity of integrating ecologically conscious building requires a method capable of evaluating and cross-referencing multiple criteria. Thus, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed to explore and evaluate all criteria and sub-criteria. AHP is a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) aiming to facilitate decision-making for complex and multifaceted problems [8,54,55,56]. The method is used to select the best alternative while considering numerous, complex and interconnected inputs when focusing on a particular goal [57]. AHP is widely used across various disciplines and research methodologies [58] and has a precedent in architectural pedagogy [31]. Moreover, AHP provides an objective and strong basis for evaluating and exploring pedagogical approaches [59,60]. In this study, the aim was not to select an alternative; rather, AHP was employed to assess the weight of influential criteria in addressing ecologically conscious building within the curriculum of an architecture program. It is critical to explore the hierarchy of these criteria for planning their integration into the design pedagogy.
The method often includes five steps for additional details and specifications—please see [8,55,58]. First, a goal, criteria, and alternatives are developed by consulting existing literature, guidelines, reports, or a consensus opinion of experts in the field (alternatives are not a part of the current study and might be considered for future studies). Second, the criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives are evaluated using a pairwise comparison method with the objective of addressing the goal (integrating “ecological conscious building design” approaches into architecture pedagogy and the design process). The pairwise comparison is made between all possible pairs, first for the main criteria, followed by the subcritical and alternatives, respectively. This step often includes a one-to-nine scale for judging the importance of each pair. Pairwise comparison is usually conducted by targeting experts, professionals, or people who are well-connected with a topic, idea, location, site, or problem [58]. Third, a comparison matrix is constructed based on the outcome of the pairwise comparison from set two. Fourth, the consensus of responses provides insight into the hierarchical importance of criteria and sub-criteria. The result of step four indicates the consensus of experts (in this case) on weighing the influential criteria. Step five consists of checking for consistency and outliers in the dataset; this is measured using the consistency index (CI). Any response with a CI exceeding 0.1, indicating inconsistency, is considered unreliable and should be revisited or removed [31,61,62].

3.1. Case Study

In this regard, this study was conducted in a school of architecture and targeted lectures with expertise in environmental sciences and sustainable building techniques. The criteria/sub-criteria table was developed based on the course evaluation table, addressing the expected learning outcomes (ARCH305). The course learning outcomes are in line with the program learning outcomes. Lecturers with expertise in “ecologically conscious building design” were targeted for the study; 10 lecturers and experts voluntarily participated in the survey (See Supplementary Materials). The survey included a brief introduction to AHP, its logic, and instructions about how to fill out the survey. The survey was completed with a researcher overseeing the process and clarifying any ambiguities or questions raised by the participants. Two objectives guided the selection of the study participants: First, obtaining expert professional assessments and second, evaluating direct student experiences. Lecturers (n = 10) were selected based on their specialized expertise in environmental and ecological dimensions of architectural education. The expert selection was monitored to ensure robust professional insight and external validation. Students (n = 18) enrolled in the ECBD course during the academic year 2023–2024 and were included to capture immediate educational outcomes. Students’ feedback sought to provide direct input on curriculum effectiveness in enhancing ecological awareness. Furthermore, AHP pairwise comparison supports obtaining reliable results through targeted, knowledgeable respondents; the method is tailored for small sample sizes and has a strong precedent in the literature [7,63,64,65]. AHP method, and consequently pairwise comparisons, can achieve a consistent outcome with a smaller sample size due to the careful selection of experts and knowledgeable individuals [62,63].

3.2. Criteria Development Based on LEED

In architectural education, developing a deep understanding of sustainable design principles is critical for preparing future architects. The pedagogical method must extend beyond theoretical knowledge into potential practical applications. To achieve this, developing a course evaluation framework that is aligned with established sustainability standards, such as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, can be helpful [5].
Incorporating LEED-based criteria into the course design provides a robust and comprehensive framework for teaching and assessment methods. These criteria guide students toward responsible and environmentally conscious design practices and prepare them to address real-world challenges. The aim here is to train practitioners with the knowledge and skills needed to contribute to a more sustainable and ecologically responsible future in architecture.
These criteria cover various aspects of sustainability, from site selection to materials, emphasizing environmentally responsible choices and innovative approaches. Accordingly, the criteria and sub-criteria were developed following LEED frameworks (Figure 1). The pairwise comparison method employed in this research allows for assessment of the impact of ECBD courses on students’ knowledge through their understanding of LEED criteria, their skills through analytical comparison exercises, and their attitudes by revealing student prioritizations compared to expert opinions.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

AHP calls for pairwise comparison among experts in the field. In this case, the data were collected from two groups. The first group consisted of 10 lecturers in Northern Cyprus faculties of architecture with expertise in lecturing environmental and ecological courses of their colliculus. The second group consisted of 18 students who took the “Environment Conscious Building Design” course in the academic year 2023–24. Overall, 28 participants voluntarily participated in filling out the pairwise comparison matrix. The scale was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee board of the host university. The results are organised accordingly to provide a legible reading of the outcome. On the left, the combined answers of all participants are presented, followed by the experts in the middle and students on the right (Table 1).

4. Analysis

With respect to the main goal of the course, “integrating ecological conscious building design approaches into design”, the overall analysis shows that “energy and atmosphere” is the highest-rated criterion, followed by “indoor environmental quality” and “innovation”. This finding highlights the significance of energy efficiency and the atmospheric impact of design strategies in architecture pedagogy (Figure 2). Nevertheless, there are meaningful differences between the two groups; the experts rated “innovation” as the highest-rated criterion, emphasizing the role of novel approaches and advanced solutions in fostering sustainability in architectural education—see [66]. At the same time, students considered it “indoor environmental quality”, focusing more on direct well-being dimensions of design. These variations can be interpreted as more forward-looking perspectives among experienced professionals, who might prioritise long-term advancements and emerging strategies compared to students. The following headings closely examine each criterion with respect to their assigned sub-criteria across the two groups (Table 1).

4.1. Location and Transportation

While being among the lowest-rated criteria by both groups, location and transportation still play a significant role in moving toward ecologically conscious building design. The sub-criterion “surrounding density and diverse uses: sustainable site selection” emphasizes land conservation and promotes development in areas with existing infrastructure. Being aware of these issues encourages students to put their projects’ ecological impact in a broader and urban context. The sub-criterion, “access to quality transit: promoting transit accessibility”, stresses selecting locations with good transportation accessibility to reduce car dependency and encourage alternative transit methods. “High-priority site: addressing development constraints” underscores the value of considering development in areas with specific constraints, fostering creativity in repurposing existing structures, and revitalizing urban areas (Figure 3). Within the framework of architectural design, site analysis is one of the major initial steps that incorporates these dimensions [67].

4.2. Sustainable Sites

The “sustainable sites” criterion explores the critical relationship between the built environment and the natural landscape, aiming to develop design approaches that create less ecological disruption while enhancing environmental resilience. Considering “sustainable sites” encourages students to become more aware of the impact of their projects on biodiversity. Both groups rated the sub-criterion “restore or protect habitats” as the most significant. This is due to the tangible impact of the architecture on the sites and micro-habitats, while an issue such as an urban heat island can be considered a more significant planning problem. Moreover, effective rainwater management is also a tangible and more design-related issue regarding the topography and the existing waterways, which directly impact the ecological aspects of the design (Figure 4). Accordingly, students are encouraged to incorporate strategies such as rain gardens, vegetated roofs, and permeable pavement to manage rainwater effectively. These strategies help mitigate flooding, reduce pollution, and support sustainable water use.

4.3. Water Efficiency

Students rated the “water efficiency” criterion relatively higher than experts. This criterion focuses on minimizing water consumption while promoting responsible water management practices. The sub-criterion “indoor water use reduction” is the highest-rated overall (0.44), with students prioritizing it more (0.502) than experts (0.334). In contrast, reducing outdoor water use is of greater importance for experts than students. Experts highlighted their broader long-term focus on sustainable landscaping, drought-resistant vegetation, and irrigation efficiency as critical factors in water efficiency (Figure 5). These differences in prioritization show differences in opinion regarding water efficiency; while students emphasize immediate consumption reduction, experts highlight integrated, large-scale water management strategies.

4.4. Energy and Atmosphere

The “energy and atmosphere” criterion is the highest-rated criterion (especially from students’ perspective). The analysis of sub-criteria indicates that “renewable energy production” is the most significant factor (0.616 overall), slightly more emphasized by students than experts; this suggests a strong recognition of integrating renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, while aiming for ECBD. Nevertheless, “optimizing energy performance” also holds substantial weight, indicating a professional emphasis on efficiency measures such as improved insulation, advanced HVAC systems, and passive design strategies (Figure 6). These findings highlight a shared commitment to energy-conscious design, with students slightly inclined toward renewable energy solutions. At the same time, experts prioritized both renewable energy integration and enhancing overall energy performance in buildings.

4.5. Materials and Resources

The “materials and resources” criterion—second highest ranked by experts overall—focuses on minimizing the environmental impact of building materials through sustainable selection, responsible sourcing, and efficient use. Among the sub-criteria, “building life-cycle impact” reduction is the most highly rated by both groups concerning ECBD. This can be interpreted as a shared understanding of the dire need to evaluate the entire lifespan of materials, from source and processing to disposal. Additionally, the sub-criteria “environmental product declarations” and “sourcing of raw materials” are also considered significant, with only minor differences between experts and students (Figure 7). It could be argued that there is a growing awareness of the environmental transparency of materials and the importance of responsibly sourced raw materials in reducing ecological impact.

4.6. Indoor Environmental Quality

The “indoor environmental quality” LEED criterion addresses the importance of designing spaces that value occupant health, well-being, and comfort and is the highest-rated criterion by students. Considering that the content of the curriculum is centered around designing architectural spaces, it is not surprising to see students’ attention on this criterion. Among its sub-criteria, “daylight” emerges as the most highly rated factor overall (0.464), with experts (0.506) placing slightly greater emphasis on it compared to students (0.44). There seems to be a consensus on the benefits of natural lighting in enhancing occupant productivity and reducing energy consumption while aiming to improve overall indoor experiences. “Enhanced indoor air quality” emphasizes air quality control measures such as ventilation, pollutant filtration, and humidity management. Lastly, “low-emitting materials” (0.216 overall) received the lowest relative rating. Nevertheless, the literature recognizes it as impactful in reducing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in building interiors [68]. The results indicate that professionals prioritized daylighting strategies, and students strongly emphasized air quality improvements, reflecting different approaches to creating healthier indoor environments (Figure 8).

4.7. Innovation

The essence of creative and forward-looking approaches in ECBD is encapsulated in the criterion “innovation”. The analysis shows the most significant difference between expert and student evaluations regarding this criterion. While experts rated “innovation” as the highest priority (0.246), students considered it less important (0.103). This suggests that experienced professionals emphasize innovative solutions to push the boundaries of ECBD, while students may focus more on established criteria. What is more, among the sub-criteria, “practicality” (0.278 overall) and “adaptability” (0.27 overall) are the most valued aspects, with students prioritizing adaptability more than experts. Experts, however, rated “feasibility” (0.247) higher than students (0.175), indicating a preference for innovative solutions that are also viable in real-world applications. “Originality” (0.109) and “uniqueness” (0.145) were rated lower across both groups, suggesting that while creativity is encouraged, it is most valued when paired with practical and adaptable solutions (Figure 9).

4.8. Regional Priority

In addressing ECBD, the regional priority aspect of LEED recognizes the significance of addressing geographical, specific environmental issues pertinent to the project’s location. This is a larger planning criterion and is rated low among students and experts. Nevertheless, this criterion underscores the importance of fitting sustainable design solutions to the unique challenges and opportunities embedded in the contextual circumstances. Key considerations within this topic include community and stakeholder engagement, being aware of the local environmental context, geographically targeted solutions, and, most importantly, adaptation to regional regulations.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study highlight the complex nature of approaching ECBD in architectural education from the perspectives of students and experts. Approaching ECBD through the well-established criteria of LEED, technical performance, occupant well-being, ecological preservation, and innovative thinking can be considered among the most significant issues under the broader umbrella of environmental responsibility. The pairwise comparison scale helps put these criteria into perspective. While experts might consider all criteria important, critical differences emerge when evaluating the importance of one criterion relative to another.
The study’s overall results show that “energy and atmosphere” is seen as the most critical criterion by the target group, which aligns with the green building literature emphasizing energy efficiency and emissions reductions as a pivotal long-term sustainability strategy [69,70,71]. From a pedagogical perspective, this high score suggests a difference of opinion between learners and experts. In this case, students identified reducing energy consumption and transitioning toward renewable sources as environmentally conscious buildings’ most critical design dimension.
Beyond energy concerns, however, “indoor environmental quality” emerged as a significant dimension—especially among student respondents—indicating health and comfort factors as increasingly central to sustainable design. The existing literature supports this idea that occupant-centric criteria (e.g., daylighting, air quality, and low-emission materials) enhance productivity and overall satisfaction [72,73,74]. The focus on “indoor environmental quality” illustrates a broader shift in sustainability discourse where well-being has become increasingly emphasized. It is no longer enough to reduce carbon footprints; designs must simultaneously promote the well-being and comfort of those living and working within the built environment [75,76]. The divergence between experts and students on “indoor environmental quality” might be caused by students’ sensitivity to the immediacy of occupant health benefits. In contrast, experts balance these human-centered concerns with energy strategies and cost implications. This seems to be a common pattern in this study, where students seek tangible and applicable short-term strategies, and experts are more focused on longer-term solutions.
“Innovation” was the highest-rated criterion among experts, reflecting a professional inclination to push boundaries and invest in emerging technologies. To aim for ECBD, creative methodologies that move beyond conventional best practices were evaluated by experts to be the best course of action in the long run. Existing literature also underscores the importance of “innovation” in advancing ECBD [77,78,79]. In contrast, students’ lower evaluation of “innovation” implies prioritizing more immediate and tangible strategies. While students seem well aware of these immediate strategies, they seem less sensitive toward the long-term approaches. Hence, it is critical to address both approaches in the curriculum.
It can be argued that students have developed an understanding of renewable energy integration and indoor environmental quality, which is evident from their prioritization of these areas in the pairwise comparison. What is more, it could be argued that students have gained critical evaluative skills, as demonstrated by their detailed and consistent responses in the pairwise comparison. In terms of attitudes, students’ lower prioritization of long-term innovative solutions compared to immediate and practical sustainability measures suggests that the course could further reinforce the importance of innovation and systems thinking for future sustainability challenges.

Practical Implications for Academia and Industry

From an educational standpoint, some of the findings of this study can offer useful insights into how ECBD concepts might be taught and emphasized in architecture curricula, with particular emphasis on design studio courses. The contrast between experts’ prioritization of “innovation” and students’ focus on more immediate, occupant-centric or resource-specific issues (e.g., indoor environmental quality, indoor water use reduction) suggests that educators could consider introducing design studio projects and theoretical modules that target sustainability solutions. However, this should not remain limited to pragmatic applications and should encourage innovation and creativity. Such an approach resonates with the broader discourse in architectural pedagogy, which stresses the importance of translating abstract environmental principles into concrete, context-driven design strategies [80,81,82]. By encouraging students to experiment with innovative technologies and creative approaches while considering occupant well-being and resource management, a faculty can cultivate a balanced mindset that highlights different dimensions of ECBD—also see [4]. Within the framework of this study, possibilities regarding the integration of ECBD into architectural curricula have been explored. One significant advantage is the enhanced student engagement with sustainability dimensions in the curriculum. Students’ feedback can facilitate this process and address existing gaps, particularly when compared with the opinions of lecturers. In particular, students highlighted renewable energy strategies, indoor environmental quality, and sustainable material choices. It could be argued that this method provides actionable insights to guide educators in improving curricula based on identified knowledge gaps, such as students’ relatively lower prioritization of long-term innovative strategies compared to immediate, practical solutions.
The insights drawn from the outcome of this study can be used to develop practical and conceptual frameworks for connecting architectural education with the broader goals of sustainable development and ecological responsibility. Through this, some of the challenges academia and industry face can be addressed.
First, the study underlines the importance of linking academia and industry in developing and evaluating architectural course content. By utilizing LEED as a benchmark, the study assesses how effectively ECBD approaches can potentially equip students with the knowledge, skills, and values demanded in real-world sustainable design practices—see [9,83]. This structured framework ensures that course content reflects professional sustainability standards, making it highly relevant for both the educational and professional practice of architecture. For instance, students learn to apply performance-based criteria [84]—key aspects of green building certifications—which are directly translatable into professional practice.
Second, the study highlights the importance of addressing the complexities and technicalities of sustainable approaches in curriculum development for architecture programs. From this perspective, architectural education should be seen more as a catalyst for forward-looking and long-term practical design approaches—see [66,85,86]. It is evident from the findings that the students have already internalized some critical aspects of sustainability goals, such as occupant well-being and reducing environmental impact through design. Nevertheless, developing long-term visions and innovative thinking should be emphasized more. In this context, it could be argued that embedding some LEED-based evaluation into design studios, especially those focusing on contextualizing ecological strategies, is essential. Furthermore, introducing scenario-based projects where students balance local constraints, regional challenges, and global sustainability goals can be beneficial. Encouraging the use of lifecycle analysis tools and post-occupancy evaluation techniques in design projects also advances architecture towards a future that is not only environmentally responsible but also adaptive and resilient.
Third, the outcome of the analysis indicates that exploring emerging technologies and innovation is a critical competency in architectural education. There appears to be an evident gap between learners and experts [87,88]; therefore, there is a pressing need to design programs and curriculum designs that encourage both creative experimentation and technical proficiency. One pedagogical strategy in this regard is to use layered studio briefs, in which dimensions of sustainability and ecology are integrated into the design strategies to address technical compliance (e.g., passive energy design) and innovation (e.g., speculative ecological futures).

6. Conclusions

Incorporating sustainability into architectural education allows higher education institutions to improve their programs and play a role in sustainable development. However, effectively integrating sustainability concepts into the architecture curriculum has proven challenging despite several initiatives and publications addressing sustainability in higher education. This study extensively explored the connection between sustainable design and architectural education, emphasizing its vital importance.
The results indicate that incorporating ECBD into architecture pedagogy does more than teach students; it also develops a significant mindset change and cultivates essential skills among students. Examining how well course curricula match the strict requirements of the LEED certification program has shown how well the course can prepare students for the skills necessary to make a substantial contribution to environmentally friendly architectural solutions. Furthermore, this study emphasizes how innovative and locally relevant architectural education must be. It fosters creative thinking among students, extending the bounds of sustainable design and tackling environmental issues that are contextually sensitive.
In this regard, innovation is essential to ECBD’s future development. Experts revealed that pushing limits, adjusting to emerging technology, and reconsidering conventional approaches are crucial for long-term sustainability. In contrast, students concentrated more on immediate, tangible outcomes like energy efficiency and indoor environmental quality. This emphasizes the necessity of design programs that encourage both creative experimentation and technical proficiency.
However, this research’s implications go beyond academia’s confines; they can be used to improve curriculum design, refine pedagogical approaches, and foster the development of a new generation of environmentally conscious architects who will work to steer architecture toward a more sustainable future. Eventually, it emphasizes how important architectural education is in molding the next generation of architects, promoting environmental awareness, and providing them with the tools necessary for sustainable design, all advancing architecture and making the world greener.
Moreover, these findings highlight the pedagogical value of fostering dialogue between novice learners and experienced professionals to cultivate a shared vocabulary and set of goals around sustainability. Pairwise comparison analyses and collaborative critiques could be integrated into the design studio process, where students present proposals that emphasize occupant experience, and experts provide feedback grounded in feasibility, long-term resilience, and broader life-cycle impacts. Such interactions underscore the potential of multi-perspectival approaches—students learn the value of system-wide innovation and data-driven methodologies while experts gain insight into the evolving priorities and ideals of a new generation of architects. In this way, architectural education becomes not only a channel for disseminating established best practices but also a dynamic forum for shaping the future directions of ecologically conscious design.
The comparison between experts and students helps in identifying points of interest where shifts in the curriculum can be implemented, aiming towards more forward-thinking and ecologically responsible design strategies. By spotlighting areas where student and expert perspectives diverge—such as the emphasis on immediate energy savings versus longer-term, innovative solutions—this study showcases potential points in the curriculum that can be recalibrated. Accordingly, strengthening these areas of misalignment ensures that graduates of the program are not only familiar with the technical competencies but also with the innovative, critical, and systems-level thinking essential for addressing the ECBD of tomorrow. Moreover, by exploring both the strengths and shortcomings inherent in the ECBD integration—such as the significant knowledge gains observed and the identified gaps in students’ long-term innovative thinking—the study not only supports current refinements in the curriculum but also provides insights for future architectural education initiatives.

Limitation and Future Studies

The limitations of this research must be lastly acknowledged. The study involved a relatively small and targeted group of participants—10 expert lecturers and 18 students—from faculties of architecture in Northern Cyprus. Although the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method allows for reliable outputs even with small, expert-driven samples, the limited number of participants may not have fully captured the diversity of perspectives across different institutional settings. Thus, the study is limited in its sample size and case study; thus, over generalization of the findings had better be avoided. Future studies can expand upon this by implementing the same method in different cases. The study is also limited in its exploration of tangible design strategies produced by students; further studies are needed to make better connections between design studio pedagogy and supporting courses. Moreover, the study is rooted in a particular cultural and educational setting, which may influence how sustainability and ecological design are understood and prioritized. Factors such as local climate conditions, policy frameworks, and architectural traditions could shape both pedagogical approaches and participant responses. This research offers a snapshot of participant perspectives at a single point in time, specifically at the conclusion of the ECBD course. It does not assess the long-term impact of the course on students’ professional development, ecological design thinking, or practical application in the field.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/buildings15081339/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.L.; methodology, P.L and A.I.; software, A.I.; validation, P.L. and A.I.; formal analysis, P.L., A.I.; data curation, P.L. and A.I.; writing—original draft preparation, P.L and A.I.; writing—review and editing, P.L and A.I.; visualization, A.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ECBDEcological Conscious Building Design
LEEDLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design
AHPAnalytic Hierarchy Process
VOCVolatile Organic Compounds
UNUnited Nations
UNESCOThe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

References

  1. Altomonte, S.; Yannas, S.; Herde, A.D.; Riemer, A.; Cangelli, E.; Horvath, S.; LopezDeAsiain, M. Education for Sustainable Environmental Design—The EDUCATE Project; Educate Press University: Notthingham, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  2. Grant, E.J. Mainstreaming environmental education for architects: The need for basic literacies. Build. Cities 2020, 1, 538–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lotfabadi, P.; Hançer, P. Optimization of visual comfort: Building openings. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 72, 106598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Domenica Iulo, L.; Gorby, C.; Poerschke, U.; Nickolas Kalisperis, L.; Woollen, M. Environmentally conscious design—Educating future architects. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2013, 14, 434–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. US Green Building Council. LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  6. Bhushan, N.; Rai, K. Strategic Decision-Making. In Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Bhushan, N., Rai, K., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2004; pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  7. Saaty, T.L. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting Resource Allocation, 2nd ed.; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  8. Saaty, T.L. What is the Analytic Hierarchy Process? In Mathematical Models for Decision Support; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boarin, P.; Martinez-Molina, A. Integration of environmental sustainability considerations within architectural programmes in higher education: A review of teaching and implementation approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 342, 130989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ismail, M.A.; Keumala, N.; Dabdoob, R.M. Review on integrating sustainability knowledge into architectural education: Practice in the UK and the USA. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1542–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hassanpour, B.; Alpar Atun, R.; Ghaderi, S. From Words to Action: Incorporation of Sustainability in Architectural Education. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rieh, S.-Y.; Lee, B.-Y.; Oh, J.-G.; Schuetze, T.; Porras Álvarez, S.; Lee, K.; Park, J. Integration of Sustainability into Architectural Education at Accredited Korean Universities. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bradecki, T.; Uherek-Bradecka, B.; Tofiluk, A.; Laar, M.; Natanian, J. Towards Sustainable Education by Design: Evaluating Pro-Ecological Architectural Solutions in Centers for Environmental Education. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Healey, M.; Jenkins, A. Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. Available online: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/developing-undergraduate-research-and-inquiry (accessed on 28 May 2023).
  15. Sara, R. Learning from life–Exploring the potential of live projects in higher education. J. Educ. Built Environ. 2011, 6, 8–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fernandez-Antolin, M.-M.; del Río, J.M.; Gonzalez-Lezcano, R.-A. Building performance simulation tools as part of architectural design: Breaking the gap through software simulation. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2022, 32, 1227–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McDiarmid, G.W.; Zhao, Y. Learning for Uncertainty: Teaching Students How to Thrive in a Rapidly Evolving World; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  18. Pigott, J. Less is more: Education for uncertain times. Glob. Soc. Educ. 2022, 20, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bashabsheh, A.K.; Alzoubi, H.H.; Ali, M.Z. The application of virtual reality technology in architectural pedagogy for building constructions. Alex. Eng. J. 2019, 58, 713–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. BCEURU Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A blueprint for America’s Research Universities; BCEURU Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  21. Salama, A.M. Learning from the Environment: Evaluation Research and Experience Based Architectural Pedagogy. CEBE Trans. 2006, 3, 64–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Orellana, I.; Fauteux, S. Environmental education: Tracing the high points of its history. In The Future of Environmental Education in a Postmodern World; Yukon College: Whitehorse, YT, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  23. Capra, F. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems; Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  24. Moore, K.; Geboy, L. The question of evidence: Current worldviews in environmental design research and practice. Archit. Res. Q. 2010, 14, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. UN General Assembly (United Nations). Human Rights Council—No. 53 (A/66/53); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2010; p. 211. [Google Scholar]
  26. UNESCO. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005–2014: The DESD at a Glance; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  27. Koehn, P.H. Universities and the Sustainable Development Future: Evaluating Higher-Education Contributions to the 2030 Agenda; Uitto, J.I., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dawe, H. Education for sustainable development: How can we fit it into the law curriculum? In Proceedings of the Learning in Law Annual Conference, Coventry, UK, 19–28 January 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Alshuwaikhat, H.M.; Abubakar, I. An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1777–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dodd, M.; Harrisson, F.; Charlesworth, E. Live Projects: Designing with People; RMIT Press: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lotfabadi, P.; Iranmanesh, A. Evaluation of learning methods in architecture design studio via analytic hierarchy process: A case study. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2023, 20, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lotfabadi, P.; Mousavi, S.A. Adaptation of Architectural Education Pedagogy in Addressing Covid-19 Pandemic. J. Educ. Technol. Online Learn. 2022, 5, 1094–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lotfabadi, P.; Mousavi, S.A. The Effect of Covid-19 Pandemic on Architectural Education Pedagogy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Technology and Online Learning (ICETOL), Ören, Burhaniye, Turkey, 23–26 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schiano-Phan, R.; Gonçalves, J.C.S.; Vallejo, J.A. Pedagogy Pro-Design and Climate Literacy: Teaching Methods and Research Approaches for Sustainable Architecture. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Al-Hagla, K.S. The role of the design studio in shaping an architectural education for sustainable development: The case of Beirut Arab University. Int. J. Archit. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2012, 6, 23–41. [Google Scholar]
  36. Alabaster, T.; Blair, D. Greening the university. In Education for Sustainability; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 1996; pp. 86–104. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mintz, K.; Tal, T. Sustainability in higher education courses: Multiple learning outcomes. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2014, 41, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ceulemans, K.; Molderez, I.; Liedekerke, L.V. Sustainability reporting in higher education: A comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Guerra, J.B.S.O.d.A.; Garcia, J.; de Andrade Lima, M.; Barbosa, S.B.; Heerdt, M.L.; Berchin, I.I. A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program at universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1674–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Thürer, M.; Tomaˇsevi’c, I.; Stevenson, M.; Qu, T.; Huisingh, D. A systematic review of the literature on integrating sustainability into engineering curricula. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 181, 608–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yüksek, I. The Evaluation of Architectural Education in the Scope of Sustainable Architecture. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 89, 496–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Salama, A.M. Skill-Based/Knowledge-Based Architectural Pedagogies: Toward an Alternative for Creating Humane Environments. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the International Association for Humane Habitat—IAHH, Mumbai, India, 29–31 January 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rapoport, A. The Need for What Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association-EDRA, St. Antonio, TX, USA, 16–20 March 1994; pp. 35–39. [Google Scholar]
  44. Taylor, A. Linking Architecture and Education: Sustainable Design for Learning Environments; UNM Press: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  45. Anthony, K. Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Studio; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  46. Cuff, D. Architecture: The Story of Practice; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  47. Koch, A.; Schwennsen, K.; Dutton, T.; Smith, D. The Redesign of Studio Culture, Studio Culture Task Force; The American Institute of Architecture Students-AIAS: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mazumdar, S. Cultural Values in Architectural Education. J. Archit. Educ. 1993, 46, 230–237. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nicol, D.; Pilling, S. Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism; Spon Press: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  50. Donald, A.S. Learning a Language, Learning to Design; Consortium of East Coast Schools of Architecture: Cambridge, UK, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  51. Donald, A.S. The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Tradition and Potentials; RIBA Publications: London, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  52. Arthur, E.S. Jungian Epistemological Balance: A Framework for Conceptualizing Architectural Education. J. Archit. Educ. 1994, 48, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  53. Teymur, N. City as Education: Habitat II Edition; Question Press: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  54. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Volume 282. [Google Scholar]
  55. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15, 234–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Franco, L.A.; Montibeller, G. Problem Structuring for Multicriteria Decision Analysis Interventions. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science; John Wiley & Sons Inc: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  58. Bozorg-Haddad, O.; Zolghadr-Asli, B.; Loaiciga, H.A. A Handbook on Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  59. Fahim, A.; Tan, Q.; Naz, B.; Ain, Q.u.; Bazai, S.U. Sustainable Higher Education Reform Quality Assessment Using SWOT Analysis with Integration of AHP and Entropy Models: A Case Study of Morocco. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mahmoud, R.M.A.; Youssef, A.M.A. A computational framework for supporting architectural education of spaces’ furnishing design. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2022, 20, 346–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Aguarón, J.; Escobar, M.T.; Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. Reducing inconsistency measured by the geometric consistency index in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 288, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vehbi, B.O.; Günçe, K.; Iranmanesh, A. Multi-Criteria Assessment for Defining Compatible New Use: Old Administrative Hospital, Kyrenia, Cyprus. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu, E.K.; Pärn, E.; Edwards, D.J. Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Haggag, A.G.; Zaki, S.H.; Selim, A.M. Emergency camps design using analytical hierarchy process to promote the response plan for the natural disasters. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2023, 19, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abudayyeh, O.; Zidan Saad, J.; Yehia, S.; Randolph, D. Hybrid Prequalification-Based, Innovative Contracting Model Using AHP. J. Manag. Eng. 2007, 23, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Altomonte, S.; Rutherford, P.; Wilson, R. Mapping the Way Forward: Education for Sustainability in Architecture and Urban Design. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, P.-H.; Nguyen, T.C. Integrating web map service and building information modeling for location and transportation analysis in green building certification process. Autom. Constr. 2017, 77, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Steinemann, A.; Wargocki, P.; Rismanchi, B. Ten questions concerning green buildings and indoor air quality. Build. Environ. 2017, 112, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cole, R.J. Building environmental assessment methods: Clarifying intentions. Build. Res. Inf. 1999, 27, 230–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Asdrubali, F.; Baldinelli, G.; Bianchi, F.; Sambuco, S. A comparison between environmental sustainability rating systems LEED and ITACA for residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2015, 86, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rebelatto, B.G.; Salvia, A.L.; Brandli, L.L.; Leal Filho, W. Examining Energy Efficiency Practices in Office Buildings through the Lens of LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB Certifications. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Al-Ramahi, A.; Iranmanesh, A.; Denerel, S.B. Well-Being as an Effective Aspect in the Perception of Vital In-between Spaces within Art and Architecture Faculties. Buildings 2023, 13, 1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Allen, J.G.; MacNaughton, P.; Satish, U.; Santanam, S.; Vallarino, J.; Spengler, J.D. Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 805–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Fisk, W.J. Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2000, 25, 537–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ambrey, C.L.; Daniels, P. Happiness and footprints: Assessing the relationship between individual well-being and carbon footprints. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 895–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fanning, A.L.; O’Neill, D.W. The Wellbeing–Consumption paradox: Happiness, health, income, and carbon emissions in growing versus non-growing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 810–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Umoh, A.A.; Adefemi, A.; Ibewe, K.I.; Etukudoh, E.A.; Ilojianya, V.I.; Nwokediegwu, Z.Q.S. Green architecture and energy efficiency: A review of innovative design and construction techniques. Eng. Sci. Technol. J. 2024, 5, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Berardi, U. Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and Rated Buildings. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Edwards, B.; Naboni, E. Green Buildings Pay: Design, Productivity and Ecology; Routledge: Abingdon, Oxon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  80. Salama, A.M. Reflections on Architectural Education of the Muslim World within a Global World. Int. J. Islam. Archit. 2019, 8, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Salama, A.M. A theory for integrating knowledge in architectural design education. ArchNet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2008, 2, 100–128. [Google Scholar]
  82. Cole, L.B. The Teaching Green School Building: A framework for linking architecture and environmental education. Environ. Educ. Res. 2014, 20, 836–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wright, J. Introducing sustainability into the architecture curriculum in the United States. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2003, 4, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wei, W.; Ramalho, O.; Mandin, C. Indoor air quality requirements in green building certifications. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Woźniczka, A.; Widera, B. Developing sustainable resilience through forecasting and backcasting in architectural education. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ. 2022, 20, 39–44. [Google Scholar]
  86. Bibri, S.E. Backcasting in futures studies: A synthesized scholarly and planning approach to strategic smart sustainable city development. Eur. J. Futures Res. 2018, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Iranmanesh, A.; Onur, Z. Generation gap, learning from the experience of compulsory remote architectural design studio. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2022, 19, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Brzezicki, M.; Jasiolek, A. A Survey-Based Study of Students’ Expectations vs. Experience of Sustainability Issues in Architectural Education at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Poland. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 15 01339 g001
Figure 1. The AHP methodology process addressing the LEED framework.
Figure 1. The AHP methodology process addressing the LEED framework.
Buildings 15 01339 g001
Buildings 15 01339 g002
Figure 2. Priority of main criteria with respect to the goal.
Figure 2. Priority of main criteria with respect to the goal.
Buildings 15 01339 g002
Buildings 15 01339 g003
Figure 3. Evaluation of the 1st criterion: location and transportation.
Figure 3. Evaluation of the 1st criterion: location and transportation.
Buildings 15 01339 g003
Buildings 15 01339 g004
Figure 4. Evaluation of the 2nd criterion: sustainable sites.
Figure 4. Evaluation of the 2nd criterion: sustainable sites.
Buildings 15 01339 g004
Buildings 15 01339 g005
Figure 5. Evaluation of the 3rd criterion: water efficiency.
Figure 5. Evaluation of the 3rd criterion: water efficiency.
Buildings 15 01339 g005
Buildings 15 01339 g006
Figure 6. Evaluation of the 4th criterion: energy and atmosphere.
Figure 6. Evaluation of the 4th criterion: energy and atmosphere.
Buildings 15 01339 g006
Buildings 15 01339 g007
Figure 7. Evaluation of the 5th criterion: materials and resources.
Figure 7. Evaluation of the 5th criterion: materials and resources.
Buildings 15 01339 g007
Buildings 15 01339 g008
Figure 8. Evaluation of the 6th criterion: indoor environmental quality.
Figure 8. Evaluation of the 6th criterion: indoor environmental quality.
Buildings 15 01339 g008
Buildings 15 01339 g009
Figure 9. Evaluation of the 7th criterion: innovation.
Figure 9. Evaluation of the 7th criterion: innovation.
Buildings 15 01339 g009
Table 1. The weights of all LEED criteria/sub-criteria.
Table 1. The weights of all LEED criteria/sub-criteria.
Main LEED CriteriaSub-CriteriaAllExpertsStudentsAllExpertsStudents
1. Location and TransportationSurrounding Density and Diverse Uses0.3890.4070.3790.0720.0690.071
Access to Quality Transit0.3760.3750.376
High-Priority Site0.2350.2180.245
2. Sustainable SitesProtect or Restore Habitat0.3990.4840.3420.1110.0880.122
Rainwater Management0.340.3760.307
Heat Island Reduction0.2610.140.351
3. Water EfficiencyIndoor Water Use Reduction0.440.3340.5020.1240.0850.145
Outdoor Water Use Reduction0.3240.3860.288
Water Metering0.2350.280.209
4. Energy and AtmosphereOptimize Energy Performance0.3840.4010.3750.1710.2090.148
Renewable Energy Production0.6160.5990.625
5. Materials and ResourcesBuilding Life-Cycle Impact Reduction0.4540.4610.450.1410.1210.146
Environmental Product Declarations0.2760.2770.275
Sourcing of Raw Materials0.270.2620.275
6. Indoor Environmental QualityLow emitting materials0.2160.2240.210.1640.1220.185
Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies0.320.270.35
Daylight0.4640.5060.44
7. InnovationOriginality0.1090.1190.1020.1450.2460.103
Practicality0.2780.2590.286
Uniqueness0.1450.1470.142
Feasibility0.1980.2470.175
Adaptability0.270.2280.295
8. Regional PriorityNo Sub-criteria0.0730.0590.0790.0730.0590.079
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lotfabadi, P.; Iranmanesh, A. Evaluating the Incorporation of Ecological Conscious Building Design Methods in Architectural Education. Buildings 2025, 15, 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081339

AMA Style

Lotfabadi P, Iranmanesh A. Evaluating the Incorporation of Ecological Conscious Building Design Methods in Architectural Education. Buildings. 2025; 15(8):1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081339

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lotfabadi, Pooya, and Aminreza Iranmanesh. 2025. "Evaluating the Incorporation of Ecological Conscious Building Design Methods in Architectural Education" Buildings 15, no. 8: 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081339

APA Style

Lotfabadi, P., & Iranmanesh, A. (2025). Evaluating the Incorporation of Ecological Conscious Building Design Methods in Architectural Education. Buildings, 15(8), 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081339

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop