sb08

SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE: ARCHITECTURE AS SUSTAINABILITY

Sant Chansomsak1
Prof. Brenda Vale2

1
(PhD Candidate) School of Architecture, Faculty of National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries,
The University of Auckland, New Zealand; Faculty of Architecture, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok,
Thailand, santchansomsak@gmail.com
2
School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, brenda.vale@vuw.ac.nz

Keywords: Sustainable architecture, Sustainable Schools, Sustainable education, Definition of sustainable

architecture, Sustainable about sustainability, Sustainable for sustainability, Sustainable as sustainability

Summary
Recently, for some people the idea of sustainable design has become the basic criterion of architectural
design. Frequently, however, many buildings that are claimed as sustainable are only so in terms of the
design. All these talk about sustainability, only using sustainable techniques without concern for the results
or consequences or, worse, the word ‘sustainable’ or ‘sustainability’ is attached to an ordinary building. To
improve the world so as to become close to sustainable conditions, architecture should be designed for
sustainability, using sustainable ideas and techniques as the basic design criteria. With the support of a
sustainable milieu, including sustainable behaviour and management as well as sustainable political and
social conditions, architecture could be part of sustainability or be sustainability. This idea of architecture as
sustainability shows the interrelationships of people and the non natural environment, of which architecture is
a part, and emphasises the aims of development that are not for ‘external’ goals to achieve sustainability but
for architecture for own sake that is sustainability.

1. Introduction
This paper is based on research undertaken as part of an investigation into sustainable schools and the
connections between sustainable architecture and sustainable education. It is based on an interdisciplinary
approach that suggests all forms of sustainable practice could and should support each other in the creation
of sustainability. As a result, study of sustainable practices in the educational field helps to an understanding
and enhancement of the meanings of sustainable architecture.
Sustainable architecture and sustainable education share many similarities. For example they both
originated from environmental concerns and the promotion of interrelationships between human beings and
nature. While sustainable education is mainly developed from preceding practices, like nature study, outdoor
education, conservation education, and environmental education that began to be used broadly in the mid
1960s (Palmer, 1998), sustainable architecture has also evolved from earlier practices, such as green
architecture, ecological design, and other familiar ideas and practices (Farmer 1996; Ryn and Cowan, 1996;
Wine 2000; Steele, 2005). The main influence that has driven the development of sustainable architecture
and sustainable education is the environmental movement in the 1960s and 70s, which can be traced
through literature, such as Silent Spring (1962), Design with Nature (1969), and Limits to Growth (1972), and
environmental events, such as the first Earth Day in 1970, the UN conference on the Human Environment,
Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, and the UNESCO First Inter-government Conference on Environmental
Education, Tbilisi, USSR in 1977. In the 1980s, environmental consciousness was revived again as a result
of a movement in favour of sustainability as part of what Beder (1996) called the second wave of
environmentalism. This involved governments, economists and business people in the promotion of
sustainable development. The term ‘sustainable development’, which was internationally promoted by the
WCED report, Our Common Future (1987), and the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in 1992, has led to adaptation of the term ‘sustainable’ to modify educational and
architectural practices. Since then, in the architectural field, sustainably-modified terms, such as sustainable
design (Crosbie, 1994; Mendler and Odell, 2000; McLennan, 2004), sustainable buildings (Barnett and
Browning, 1995; Maiellaro, 2001), sustainable architecture (Edwards, 1996; Steele, 1997; Gauzin-Muller,
2002; Guy and Moore, 2005), have been used in a similar way to environmental-related texts, such as green
and ecological architecture, while in the educational field the terms related to sustainability and sustainable

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1 www.sb08.org
< Back • Home • Contents 2294 • Authors Index • Program Index > Forward
 sb08

development concepts, such as sustainable education (Sterling, 2001), sustainability education (Shallcross,
O’Loan and Hui, 2000), education for sustainability (Huckle and Sterling, 1996; Federico, C. M., et al., 2002),
and education for sustainable development (ESD) (UNESCO, 2004), have been used in a similar way and in
parallel with environmental education.1
In terms of the definition, one of the most definitive models of environmental education is that proposed by
Lucus in 1972.2 It refers to education in the environment, about the environment, and for the environment
(Lucus 1979; Linke, 1980). While education in the environment is characterised by the use of a particular
pedagogic technique that takes place in the environment, education about the environment is characterised
by the content, focusing on information concerning the environment. In contrast, education for the
environment is focused on the aims of education to assist preservation or improvement of the environment.
As Fensham (1978) observed in the UNESCO/UNEP definition of environmental education, education in the
environment or about the environment is, however, not environmental education. Only education for the
environment, or any combination which includes a for component can be classified as environmental
education (Linke, 1980). In the same way, sustainable education can be categorised as education about, for,
and as sustainability. While education about sustainability focuses on the content and education for
sustainability places emphasis on the purpose, this being similar to what Gough (1987) called education with
environment, education as sustainability proposes a characteristic of education that enables education to be
understood both as an integrated process and as an element of a whole process of creating sustainability
(Foster, 2001; Sterling, 2001). Although sustainable education encompasses education about, for and as
sustainability, educational activities that are part of sustainable education need to aim at least at being
education for sustainability, rather than just education about sustainability.
The definition of environmental education and sustainable education provide a lesson for revisiting the
definition of sustainable architecture. Using a similar approach, sustainable architecture can be categorised
into three types, namely architecture about sustainability, architecture for sustainability, and architecture as
sustainability. These three possibilities are presented here as being separate, but in practice they may be
merged or dominated by each other according to the focus of the approach.

2. Architecture about Sustainability

The most common form of sustainable architecture is architecture that is about sustainability. It embraces
every building and built environment that contains sustainable components or provides information
concerning sustainability. This information is varied ranging from building components, such as building
materials and systems, to sustainable design tools and techniques, such as environmental impact
assessment (EIA), life cycle assessment (LCA), and building evaluation systems (e.g. LEED and BREEAM),
to general relationships between the built environment and environmental and social issues, such as
addressing environmental concerns and social benefits in planning policies or architectural programming.
Architecture about sustainability usually comprises sustainable elements or sustainable strategies. While the
elements encompass sustainable products, materials, and technical devices, the strategies include
sustainable approaches in site selection and development, transport impacts, building configuration and
orientation, selection of products and materials, energy conservation, use of renewable energy, water
conservation, air quality, human comfort, operation and maintenance, renovation, and demolition. Because
of differences of project conditions, each project cannot accommodate all sustainable elements and
strategies, but select some that support each other and that are likely to respond to the particular approach.
The diversity of implementation can be classified in various ways, for example, the three images of
sustainable architecture, namely, natural, cultural and technical (Williamson, Radford and Bennetts, 2003:
Chapter 2), the six competing logics of sustainable architecture (Guy and Farmer, 2000; 2001), and the ten
shades of green architecture (Buchanan, 2005).
Architecture about sustainability, however, may not always lead to sustainability. Since many buildings that
are claimed as sustainable are only so in terms of applying specific design elements and strategies, without

1
In the architectural field, although a few authors have pointed out the difference between sustainable
architecture and green architecture (e.g. Hengrasmee, 2005; Kwok, and Grondzik, 2007), most authors
recognise that the terms are used interchangeably. Meanwhile, in the educational field, many authors (e.g.
Jickling and Spork, 1998; Stables, 2001; McKeown and Hopkins, 2003) have discussed the conflicting
relationship between environmental education and other educational terms related to sustainability and
sustainable development concepts, such as education for sustainable development (ESD). Although
priorities and foci are varied depending on definitions and interpretations of concepts of sustainability and
sustainable development, as McKeown and Hopkins (2003) have stated, the terms have similarities and can
be complementary.
2
Arthur M. Lucas first introduced this concept of environmental education in his 1972 dissertation, which was
then revised and published in 1979.

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1 www.sb08.org
< Back • Home • Contents 2295 • Authors Index • Program Index > Forward
 sb08

concern for situational appropriateness and whole-life consequences, their actual results may not create
positive effects on society and the environment. For example, timber products may be specified in the
design, based on the idea that timber is a natural and renewable resource, but the products may come from
unsustainable harvesting and production processes, they may be transported from overseas manufactures,
or are traded unfairly. The decision to use timber may thus lead to deforestation, higher energy consumption
in transport, or other social problems caused by unjustifiable manufacturing and trading. Meanwhile, setting
up renewable energy production systems, such as solar panels, and applying other energy conservation
strategies, such as addition of insulation and enhancement of natural light and ventilation, does not
guarantee that the building will be efficient and totally rely on renewable energy sources. Without being
conscious of the need to reduce energy consumption, the users may carelessly use energy and have too
many appliances, so the building consumes a lot of energy and still requires considerable energy from non-
renewable sources to satisfy the rising demand.
In addition, because the sustainable agenda is marketable, discourse of architecture about sustainability can
be just greenwash (Williamson et al., 2003: 10-12). Some clients and architectural firms use sustainable
design strategies mainly for creating a marketing opportunity for their products and services, but do very little
to create sustainable solutions. These companies often use sustainable design strategies to show their
visions or inspiration, but ignore the appropriateness for local conditions and long-term effects after trading.
They mainly place their focus on financial profits and selling rates of their products and services. Moreover,
they rarely provide adequate information about the products and design solutions or suggest alternatives for
the buyers or users to make fully informed decisions. Based on such data, the consumers are therefore
deceived into choosing only the products and services they provide. These selling strategies often create
negative outcomes for the environment and also create a misleading public understanding of sustainable
design and sustainability. In fact, use of sustainable design for selling and marketing strategies is not always
wrong. With concern for the whole-life effects and local situation, this method can help to promote
sustainable design and enlighten clients, developers, and designers to come forward and commission many
more sustainable buildings.
Recently, the number of buildings representing architecture about sustainability has increased. Many
buildings are labelled as sustainable architecture and increasingly project descriptions mention the words,
‘sustainable’ or ‘sustainability’. This represents an increase in the general concern about sustainable issues
and sustainable design. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier architecture about sustainability, particularly as a
term bolted onto the pre-existing unsustainable agenda (Willis, 2000; McLennan, 2004), may not necessarily
lead to sustainability. To improve the world to be close to a sustainable condition, it is essential to focus on
the overall results as well as the intention of the creation.

3. Architecture for Sustainability

Unlike architecture about sustainability that focuses on sustainable components and techniques, architecture
for sustainability is centred on the purpose of architectural creation. Architecture for sustainability usually
uses sustainability as the objective of the project and uses sustainable techniques as the basic design
criteria. Since stakeholders’ objectives are frequently interconnected and conflict between objectives is
common (Williamson et al., 2003: 65), when using sustainability as an objective, the particular definition of
sustainability should be identified. The definitions may vary but are generally considered in terms of the level
of sustainability from an anthropocentric or ‘weak sustainability’ to a non-anthropocentric or ‘strong
sustainability’ (Turner, 1993; Bosselmann, 2002: 89-92). For ‘weak sustainability’, which equates to a type of
economic sustainability, to achieve the sustainable condition, a balance of three issues – ecology, economy
and society – is required. On the other hand, the ‘strong sustainability’ model, which equates to what some
call ecological sustainability, is concerned with ecology as the overarching system. In this approach, every
action affects others and ecological issues are the most important.
The diversity of sustainability definitions and approaches results in various means to achieve them. For
instance, based on the ‘strong sustainability’ approach, architecture should be in harmony with nature,
designed within limits of ecological footprints, and ensure the stability and integrity of local and global
biodiversity. Examples related to this approach are autonomous house and self-sufficient community design
(e.g. Vale and Vale, 1975; 2000; Hockerton Housing Project, 2001; Tlholego Development Project, 2001).
Based on the ‘weak sustainability’ concept, architecture should be the result of compromise solutions
between ecological, social and economic benefits. Several projects based on the techno-rational and policy-
oriented approach (e.g. Catherine, 1997; Ray-Jones, 2000; Broto, 2003) are relevant examples of this
category. It is quite clear that ‘strong sustainability’ implementation allows the world to reach a more
sustainable situation than the ‘weak sustainability’ approach. In contrast, because of the difficulties of
applying the sustainability concept, ‘weak sustainability’ practices are more popular.
Although architecture for sustainability obviously shows an intention to create sustainability, it is crucial to
consider the process of implementation from objective statements to actual results. Architecture for
sustainability with inadequate knowledge and skills and inappropriate strategies may lead to unsustainable

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1 www.sb08.org
< Back • Home • Contents 2296 • Authors Index • Program Index > Forward
 sb08

conditions. Stakeholders should have knowledge about basic environmental concepts, environmental
regulations, life cycle assessment and other sustainable design methodologies, and the environmental
performance of built environment components and systems (Martin, 2001). If they do not have enough
knowledge, they should learn constantly from their own experiences and through information from
publications and other media, and can also ask for advice from experts or other people who have more
knowledge or experiences. The stakeholders should also obtain skills that facilitate the creation of
sustainable architecture, including the ability to understand the circumstances of the community,
communication and collaboration skills, and adaptation skills (Maser, Beaton, and Smith, 1998).
Furthermore, design tools and techniques should be appropriately selected and accommodated in every
phase of architectural design. For instance, as Hyde et al (2007) suggested, setting goals, environmental
briefs, specifying principles, checklists, and design phase rating and benchmarking systems are useful
during pre-design and schematic design, while monitoring, surveys of building in use, operational phase
rating and benchmarking systems are practical strategies for the post-occupation phase.
In addition, since objectives can be changed at every part of design process, to create architecture that is
mainly for sustainability it is important to examine the purpose of projects frequently. This will help to ensure
that sustainability is a main purpose and does not get shifted to be a sub-objective under other purposes,
such as to complete a checklist or create more profit, which may limit the visions of development or even
misguide the process so projects become unsustainable architecture.

4. Architecture as Sustainability
In contrast to architecture about and for sustainability, which are both characterized by components and
goals, architecture as sustainability is characterized by its process. It is defined as a transformative
architectural process towards sustainability and as a part of an entire process that leads to sustainability.
Architecture as sustainability encompasses processes from pre-design, design, construction, operation,
renovation, and demolition, to creation of new projects. The processes are considered as a cyclical and
dynamic system that is connective, contextual, inclusive, integrative, and that extends the boundaries of care
and concern to the social, environmental, non-human and future dimensions. To deal with a complex and
vital system, whole systems thinking or the holistic approach is required (Vale and Vale, 1991; McLennan,
2004; Hyde et al. 2007). This mode of thinking indicates that all things are interconnected and the
interrelationship of the parts forms the whole. Since building is basically an open system that relies on the
import of energy and resources from the environment, sustainable architecture commonly aims to create
‘more closed’ and ‘less open’ systems in buildings (Williamson et al., 2003: 82-84). Similar to what Guy and
Farmer (2001) have labelled eco-centric logic, sustainable architecture based on this approach tends to draw
directly on analogies with ecological systems as living, efficient, self-reliant, closed, and cyclical processes,
which oppose the linear, inefficient, dependant and open systems of conventional buildings. Furthermore,
related to time-linked dimensions, contemporary sustainable architecture can shape patterns of subsequent
projects. While knowledge and skills from one project will contribute to design and construction procedures
of future projects, sustainable conditions that the project provides, such as healthy environments and
positive attitudes towards sustainable practices (e.g. self-esteem and self-reliance), enhance constructive
circumstances for other existing and forthcoming projects.
As an element of the whole process of sustainability, architecture as sustainability participates in the process
of change from the less sustainable condition to the more sustainable situation, or so-called ‘weak’ to ‘strong’
sustainability. Sustainable architecture is thus a subsystem of a whole system of sustainable practices. It
overlaps and interconnects with other subsystems, such as the building industry, education, economy,
politics and society. Fundamentally, sustainable architecture reduces environmental impacts and improves
quality of life. It also imparts positive environmental conditions for other sustainable practices to occur in
such buildings. Meanwhile, to create and sustain the conditions, sustainable architecture demands
collaboration with sustainable practices in other disciplines (McLennan, 2004). As the list of issues of
concern is expanded, it requires participation of various people with specific knowledge in the process.
Architects, engineers, specialists, developers, project managers, builders, and users can share their
knowledge and expertise to solve problems and create sustainable conditions. Sustainable approaches in
local politics frequently lead to policies that demand and support sustainable practices, including sustainable
architecture and planning. Innovations in the building industry towards sustainability, such as eco-label
materials and products, environmental regulations, as well as environmental design and operational
directives and standards, can guide sustainable practices and reinforce participation of various stakeholders
in the process. To maintain appropriate conditions, sustainable architecture requires constant sustainable
management and users that behave sustainably. Moreover, continual study, research and development in
architectural and other green related fields assists in enhancing the quality of sustainable architecture, as
well as promoting attitudes to and understanding of the importance and impact of sustainable design.
It appears that architecture as sustainability, which can be simply described as a process of continual
development, shares a similar characteristic in its continual and cyclical process with other practices, such as

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1 www.sb08.org
< Back • Home • Contents 2297 • Authors Index • Program Index > Forward
 sb08

an on-going process of educational action and research (e.g. Robottom, 1987; OECD, 1995; Sterling, 2001)
and community development (e.g. ORTEE, 1994; Maser, 1997;). The resemblance shows the inherent
shared quality of sustainable practices and ensures the possibility of developing architecture as
sustainability, so that architecture becomes an integrated part of sustainable systems.
In addition, architecture as sustainability evokes a shift in approach from the traditional viewpoint that
considers architecture as an end product of design and construction and sustainability as a goal that will be
achieved some day to the new model that recognises architecture as a whole architectural process from pre-
design to operation, renovation and demolition, and sustainability as a process of development, which
requires current and continual actions. Under the traditional perception, at present, because sustainability is
not yet attained, there is no architecture that can be claimed as sustainability. On the other hand, in the new
paradigm, architecture can possibly be ‘as sustainability’, if it provides sustainable conditions, has concern
for the actual context and whole-life results, continually improves its performance, and supports and
collaborates with other sustainable practices.

5. Case studies: Sustainable Schools

As this paper is based on an investigation into sustainable schools, two school projects, from developed and
developing countries, were selected as case studies to show how the designed could be categorised
according to the definitions set out above. These projects are Sidwell Friends Middle School, Washington,
DC (2006) and the primary school at Gando Village, Burkina Faso (2001).
Basically, both projects can be classified as architecture for sustainability. They both aim to provide a place
for learning within an ethos of sustainability, particularly during childhood when value systems are formed.
Sidwell Friends School was committed to being an institution responsible environmental stewardship would
be practiced. This concept was applied to its curriculum and the selection of sustainable design was a logical
expression of its values. As a result, the renovation and addition of its Middle school in 2006, designed by
Kieran Timberlake Associates, obtained a LEED Platinum certification and was chosen as an AIA Committee
on the Environment (AIA/COTE) Top Ten Green Project for 2007. In contrast to the devotion to promoting
environmental awareness of Sidwell Friends School, the Gando Primary School simply aimed at enhancing
local social conditions by improving basic education for local children, the first priority of sustainable
education in any society (Hopkins and McKeown, 2002). Architect Diébédo Francis Kéré, who was born in
Gando and was the first person from his village to study abroad, reinvested his knowledge as an architect
into the urgent need for construction of a school in Gando3. The school not only provides education for local
children, but its construction is part of a process of passing on new skills and knowledge to the entire
community. Consequently, it was the recipient of an Aga Khan Award for Architecture in 2004.
To respond to their objectives, both schools encompassed several sustainable strategies and techniques.
Thus, besides being for sustainability, they can be about sustainability as well. At Sidwell Friends Middle
School, rather than demolishing the existing building, renovation and addition were chosen, because of
having less impact on the environment. Maximising the use of daylight, but avoiding glare, was combined
with several techniques, such as lightshelves, sunscreens, high-efficiency electric lighting, photosensors,
and occupancy sensors. Operable windows and solar-ventilation chimneys were designed to work with
ceiling fans and mechanical heating and cooling systems. To reduce storm water runoff and support native
habitat, a green roof and a constructed wetland were incorporated. A constructed wetland was also used for
treating building waste water on site and forms part of a closed system that recycles the water back to the
school lavatories and cooling towers. Furthermore, sensor-operated water-conserving laboratory faucets
were used. In terms of material selection, 78% of building materials were manufactured regionally, 11% were
from recycled sources, and 60% of construction waste was diverted from landfills and recycled (Sidwell
Friends School, n.d.). Since the school was located within walking distance of a subway stop and several
bus stops, the design was intended to promote a non-automobile commuting option by providing bicycle
storage and showers for bicycle commuters and separating vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The school also
offered $35 each month to any staff member who reduced car use by 80%. Since the policy started, the
number of people qualifying for this benefit has increased 61% (AIA, 2007). Differing from the manifold
solutions at Sidwell Friends School, the design strategies for the primary school at Gando were based on the
basic idea of designing for climatic comfort with low-cost construction. In term of orientation, three
rectangular classrooms were aligned east to west and separated by covered areas. The structure comprised
traditional load-bearing walls made from compressed earth blocks and concrete beams. The beams running
across the width of the ceiling supported a ceiling also of earth blocks and provided the structural base for
the roof. To overcome the difficulty of transporting large elements to the site and economic availability of
large machinery, such as cranes, the architect selected small steel bars to create lightweight trusses with a

3
Kéré is the main motivator behind the project. He designed the school, secured financial support via a fund-
raising association Schubausteine für Gando (Bricks for the Gando School), and also obtained government
support to train people in building with local materials (AKDN, n.d.).

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1 www.sb08.org
< Back • Home • Contents 2298 • Authors Index • Program Index > Forward
 sb08

roof of corrugated metal sheeting, so people could learn how to build the school with a handsaw and a small
welding machine (AKDN, n.d.). Earth blocks, used for walls and ceilings, absorb heat and moderate the
room temperature. The overhanging roof shades the façades from sun and rain and, by lifting the roof up on
the steel trusses above the clay block ceiling, cooling air can flow freely between the roof and the ceiling.
In addition, the construction of Gando Primary School helped to solidify the community connection by
engaging all of the villagers in building the school for their children, created opportunities for young trained
Gando villagers to be employed on further public construction projects, and empowered neighbouring
villages to follow the same model of community mobilisation to build schools for themselves (Ford, 2007;
AKDN, n.d.). This construction process was part of an entire process that leads the communities towards
sustainability, and makes the project able to be categorised as architecture as sustainability. In the case of
Sidwell Friends Middle School, although communal learning was not a focus during the construction process,
the finished building was used as a tool to learn about the relationship between natural and human-created
systems. Because many parts of the building systems were exposed and made visible, the mechanical,
electrical, structural and plumbing systems in the school were able to be used for study. Students monitored
the building functions and measured the health quality of the facility. The school has developed a tour and
signage program for the community. A real-time monitoring program can also be accessed via the internet
(Sidwell Friends School, n.d.). In addition, the school became the subject of study for the Yale School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies and a case study for green design, found in the LEED for Schools
Reference Guide (AIA, 2007). Through the operational activities that aim to enhance environmental
awareness and promote learning community, therefore, this project can also recognised as architecture as
sustainability.
In summary, these two case studies illustrate the feasibility of sustainable architecture that could be about,
for, and as sustainability. They also show the practicability of architecture to strengthen sustainable
conditions and collaborate with other sustainable practices, in every architectural process from pre-design
(e.g. setting aims of the projects), design (e.g. selection of design strategies and solutions), construction
(e.g. participation of local community in the construction), operation (e.g. use of schools as a learning tool),
renovation and demolition (e.g. decisions to renovate and add), to creation of new projects (e.g. building on
lessons from previous projects). Furthermore, they suggest that the process and design solutions to create
sustainability can be varied, depending on local conditions and contexts. This affirms that sustainable
architecture is inevitably influenced by economic, social, and environmental systems, and is part of a larger
system of sustainable practices.

6. Conclusion
According to the discussion above, a sustainable design project can be related to all three categories of
sustainable architecture, architecture about, for, and as sustainability. They are connected and combinations
of any two or all three are both possible and sensible. Architecture that aims for sustainability usually
contains sustainable design strategies and sustainable components, which are the essence of about
sustainability. Furthermore, it is meaningful to speak of architecture about sustainability and for sustainability
at the same time. Meanwhile, some buildings, such as traditional and vernacular architecture, that are about
sustainability by accommodating sustainable components (e.g. natural and non-toxic materials and sun
shading) and use sustainable design strategies (e.g. natural ventilation and appropriate orientation
responding to the solar pattern and wind directions), may not seem to aim for sustainability, but because
they support sustainable behaviours and local sustainable environments and culture can be recognised as
architecture as sustainability. Additionally, to create architecture as sustainability, stakeholders should aim to
create at least architecture for sustainability, and not just add on terms about sustainability into conventional
practices.
These connections suggest the feasibility of enhancing the meaning of sustainable architecture to include its
elements, objectives and processes. Particularly, an explanation of sustainable architecture that is
architecture as sustainability suggests an interdisciplinary approach, which helps to improve quality of design
as well as sustainable conditions. It also emphasises the fact that the aims of sustainable architecture are
not just approaching the goal of achieving sustainability, but architecture for its own sake that is
sustainability. With the support of a sustainable milieu, architecture could be part of sustainability or, better,
be sustainability. This transformative process will change the meaning of both sustainable architecture and
architecture itself. Eventually, there will no longer be sustainable architecture, but only architecture that is
sustainability.

Reference
AIA. 2007, Sidwell Friends Middle School, Retrieved 17 June 2007, from http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/.
AKDN. no date, Primary School, Gando, Burkina Faso. Retrieved 13 Aug 2007, from
http://www.akdn.org/agency/akaa/ninthcycle/page_04txt.htm.

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1 www.sb08.org
< Back • Home • Contents 2299 • Authors Index • Program Index > Forward
 sb08

Beder, S. 1996, The Nature of Sustainable Development (2nd ed.), Scribe Publications.
Bernett, D. L. and Browning W. D. 1995, A Primer on Sustainable Building, Rocky Mountain Institute.
Bosselmann, K. 2002, The concept of sustainable development. In Bosselmann, K. and Grinlinton, D. (ed.),
Environmental Law for Sustainable Society, New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law, pp. 81-96.
Broto, C. 2003, Sustainable Architecture: Hightech Housing, Links International.
Buchanan, P. 2005, Ten Shades of Green Architecture and the Natural World, Architectural League of New
York.
Carson, R. 1962, Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin.
Catherine, S. 1997, Eco-tech: Sustainable Architecture and High Technology, Thames and Hudson.
Crosbie, M. J. 1994, Green Architecture: A Guide to Sustainable Design, American Institute of Architects
Press.
Edwards, B. 1996, Towards Sustainable Architecture: European Directives and Building Design, Butterworth
Architecture.
Farmer, J. 1996, Green Shift: Towards a Green Sensibility in Architecture, Butterworth Architecture.
Federico, C. M., et al. 2002, Kindergarten through twelfth-grade education for sustainability. In Dernbach, J.
C. (ed.), Stumbling toward sustainability, Environmental Law Institute, pp. 607-24.
Fensham, P. J. 1978, Stockholm to Tbilisi: The evolution of environmental education. Prospects. 8 (4), pp.
446-55.
Ford, A. 2007, Designing the Sustainable School. Mulgrave, Image Publishing.
Foster, J. 2001, Education as sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 7 (2), pp. 153-65.
Gauzin-Muller, D. 2002, Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism: Concepts, Technologies, Examples,
Birkhauser.
Gough, N. 1987, Learning with environment: Towards an ecological paradigm for education. In Robottom, I.
(ed.), Environmental Education: Practice and Possibility, Deakin University, pp. 49-67.
Guy, S. and Farmer, G. 2000, Contested construction: The competing logics of green buildings and ethics. In
Fox, W. (ed.), Ethics and the Built Environment, Routledge, pp. 73-87.
Guy, S. and Farmer, G. 2001, Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: The place of technology. Journal of
Architectural Education, pp. 140-48.
Guy, S. and Moore, S. A. (eds.) 2005, Sustainable Architectures: Cultures and Natures in Europe and North
America, Spon Press.
Hengrasmee, S. 2005, The Study of Sustainable Architectural Design in Thailand, Faculty of Architecture,
Naresuan University.
Hockerton Housing Project, 2001, The Sustainable Community: A Practical Guide. Hockerton Housing
Project.
Hopkins, C. and McKeown, R. 2002, Education for sustainable development: An international perspective. In
Tilbury, D., Stevenson, R. B., Fien, J., and Schreuder, D. (eds.) Education and Sustainability: Responding to
the Global Challenge. Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN. pp. 13-24.
Huckle, J. and Sterling, S. (eds.). 1996, Education for sustainability. Earthscan.
Hyde, R. et al. 2007, The Environmental Brief: Pathways for Green Design, Taylor & Francis.
Jickling, B., & Spork, H. 1998, Education for the environment: A critique. Environmental Education Research,
4, pp. 309–327.
Kwok, A. G. and Grondzik, W. T. 2007, The Green Studio Handbook: Environmental Strategies for
Schematic Design, Elsevier.
Linke, R. D. 1980, Environmental Education in Australia, George Allen & Unwin.
Lucus, A. M. 1979, Environment and Environmental Education: Conceptual Issues and Curriculum
Implications, Australian International Press & Publications.
Maiellaro, N. (ed.). 2001, Towards Sustainable Building, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Martin, M. 2001, Sustainable building design. In AIA (ed.), The Architects Handbook of Professional Practice,
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 656-661.
Maser, C. 1997, Sustainable community development: Principles and concepts, St. Lucie Press.

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1 www.sb08.org
< Back • Home • Contents 2300 • Authors Index • Program Index > Forward
 sb08

Maser, C., Beaton, R. and Smith, K. 1998, Setting the Stage for Sustainability: A Citizen’s Handbook, Lewis
Publishers.
Meadows, D. H., et al. 1972, Limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of
mankind. Universe Books.
Mendler, S. F. and Odell, W. 2000, The HOK Guidebook to Sustainable Design, John Wiley & Sons.
McHarg, I. L. 1969, Design with Nature, Natural History Press.
McKeown, R., & Hopkins, C. 2003, EE  ESD: Defusing the worry. Environmental Education Research, 9,
pp. 117–128.
McLennan, J. F. 2004, The Philosophy of Sustainable Design: The Future of Architecture, Ecotone.
OECD. 1995, Environmental learning for the 21st century, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
ORTEE. 1994, Sustainable communities resource package, Ontario Round Table on the Environment and
Economy.
Palmer, J. A. 1998, Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress and Promise,
Routledge.
Ray-Jones, A. 2000, Sustainable Architecture in Japan: The Green Building of Nikken Sekkei, Wiley-
Academy.
Robottom, I. 1987, Towards inquiry-based professional development in environmental education. In I.
Robottom (Ed.), Environmental education: Practice and possibility, Deakin University, pp. 83-120.
Ryn, S. van der and Cowan, S. 1996, Ecological Design, Island Press.
Shallcross, T., O’Loan, K. and Hui, D. 2000, Developing a school focused approach to continuing
professional development in sustainability education. Environmental Education Research, 6 (4), pp. 363-82.
Sidwell Friends School. no date, Green Building. Retrieved 17 June 2007, from http://www.sidwell.edu/
Stables, A. 2001, Language and meaning in environmental education: An overview. Environmental
Education Research, 7, pp. 121–128.
Steele, J. 1997, Sustainable Architecture: Principles, Paradigms and Case Studies, McGraw-Hill.
Steele, J. 2005, Ecological Architecture: A Critical History, Thames & Hudson.
Sterling, S. 2001, Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Green books Ltd.
Tlholego Development Project. 2001, Tlholego Ecovillage: A Sustainable Development Initiative in Rural
South Africa, Retrieved 28 September 2003, from http://www.sustainable-futures.com.
Turner, R. K. 1993, Sustainability: Principles and practice. In Turner, R. K. (ed.), Sustainable Environmental
Economics and Management: Principles and Practice, Belhaven Press, pp. 3-36.
UNESCO. 2004, United Nation decade of education for sustainable development 2005-2014: Draft
international implementation scheme, UNESCO.
Vale, B. and Vale, R. 1975, The Autonomous House: Design and Planning for Self-sufficiency, Universe
Books.
Vale, B. and Vale, R. 1991, Green Architecture: Design for a Sustainable Future. London: Thames &
Hudson.
Vale, B. and Vale, R. 2000, The New Autonomous House: Design and Planning for Sustainability, Thames &
Hudson.
WCED. 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press.
Williamson , T., Radford, A. and Bennetts, H. 2003, Understanding Sustainable Architecture, Spon Press.
Willis, A. 2000, The limits of 'Sustainable Architecture'. In Shanableh, A. and Chang, W. P. (eds.), Towards
Sustainability in the Built Environment, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, Queensland University
of Technology, pp. 1-7.
Wines, J. 2000, Green Architecture, Taschen.

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1 www.sb08.org
< Back • Home • Contents 2301 • Authors Index • Program Index > Forward
View publication stats