SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: ARE WE THERE YET?

617

Sustainability and the Architectural Education: Are We There Yet?

SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION:ARE WE THERE YET?

Norhati Ibrahim

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, [email protected]

ABSTRACT: In the last two decades there have been active debates on the subject of architectureeducation reforms to integrate sustainability. The general consensus is that change to addressthe notion of sustainability is inevitable and every school is expected to attempt at makingmeaningful contribution and progress towards this objective. However it is anticipated thatadoption of ideas and content of the sustainability agenda will differ according to the individualschools of architecture due to the contextual forces determining its direction, the diversity of itsphilosophy, pedagogical approaches and ability to adopt innovation. The paper reviews crucialissues relating to adoption of sustainability in the architectural education, and later presents acase study analysis on the architectural programmes offered at UiTM. The study reveals thatthese programmes have elements to support the pursuit of sustainability integration. However,there is a need to review the existing curriculum to significantly include aspects of sustainabilityintegration in the courses content and delivery mode. The study highlights the need to rebalancethe focus between artistic pursuit and development of skills with the more crucial educationalobjective of instilling good values and fostering attitudes compatible with sustainability behaviorand needs.Keywords: sustainability, architectural education

1. INTRODUCTION

Architectural education has been recognized as one of the leading academic endeavor. With thechanges brought about by various forces such as social and environmental context in the last fewdecades, this may not be the case in the near future. Architectural education has to change accordingto time and demands to make it relevant.

The sustainability agenda for the architectural profession was formally initiated 15 years agowith the release of the “Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future” by the Union ofInternational Architects (UIA, 1993). This proclamation was renewed in 1996 with the publicationof the blueprint of UIA / UNESCO ‘Charter For Architectural Education’. This asserts thatincorporation of sustainability elements in the architectural education is inevitable.

In response to the spirit of sustainability, many schools have begun to introduce and revise theirsyllabus content to include technical issues and sustainable design approaches. Hence, the termssuch as environmental responsive design, energy conscious design and bioclimatic architecture hasbecome common and form part of the courses objectives.

Architecture encompasses both art and science disciplines. There is a lot of subjectivity whendiscussing architecture. The architectural design process is complex as it does not arise from a linearthought process or equation. It comes about from an iterative and elusive process of synthesis andanalysis guided by the power of reasoning, as well as calling upon the emotive and intuitive faculties.

SENVAR + ISESEE 2008: Humanity + Technology

618

Essentially an architecture curriculum consists of 4 major fields of study – History/Theory,Technology, Design and Professional Practice. Design is regarded as the uniting subject, where theknowledge learned from the other fields is applied in simulated design tasks. The overall aim forschools of architecture is to ensure the students receive a balanced education of these fields, astheir value judgement of multifaceted issues will influence their architectural design output.

The culture of architectural education has been heavily scrutinized, particularly owing to thefollowing characteristics uncovered from a recent survey (Salama, 2008):

a. High emphasis on advocacy, but low inquiryb. Ambiguous criteria for students’ performance and successc. “Research strategy shaped by low emphasis on developing or even critically examining current

theories of precedents”d. “Emphasis is predominantly on form and artistic terms, still focuses on skill development and

superficially adopting fragmented pieces of knowledge on the technology, ecology, socio-politicaland socio-economic aspect”.

Although most schools of architecture recognize the need to implement sustainable design,environmental agenda continue to be regarded as a marginal issue. In a critical review on thecurrent status of the sustainability integration efforts by schools of architecture (Stasinopoulos,2005), the author concludes with the following observation:

a. Most schools have yet to meaningfully embrace the subject of sustainability, whereby most effortsappears sporadic.

b. The teaching of sustainability requires a change from the traditional method.

On the basis of this observation, this paper reviews issues relating to adoption of sustainability inarchitectural education programmes.

2. THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability embodies the concept that human is able to consciously contribute towards meetingthe needs of the present generation, while ensuring that the needs of future generation is notcompromised. The concept is interdisciplinary in nature, which demands participation from everylevel of the community, aiming at maintaining a balanced ecological, social and economic system.

There have been a number of efforts to define sustainable architecture since the introduction ofthe term ‘sustainable development’ in the Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environmentand Development, 1987). Design approaches in support of sustainable architecture are ‘greenarchitecture’ (Vale & Vale, 1996), ‘environmentally responsive design’ and ecological design’ (Yeang,1998). Vale (1999) for example proposes six green design principles which are conserving energy,working with climate, minimising new resources, respect for users, respect for site and holism.

Sustainable architecture echoes the concept of ‘sustainable development’, targeting on thearchitectural issues. Sustainable architecture covers the tri-domain of social-environment-economyparameters. There are differing opinions in the placement of priority between these three aspects.From an environmental inclined view point, Ray-Jones (2000) sums up sustainable architecture as“a thoughtful and well considered use of energy systems to make buildings that are more conducive

619


to human use and comfort, without generating pollutants or borrowing the earth’s resources for thefuture generations.” While others with a social stance, put social dimension forefront when suggestingthat sustainable architecture is regarded to encompass the design and managing of sustainablehuman settlements which deal largely with creating appropriate human settlements configurationsthat optimise (not maximise) the consumption of resources, and managing resource extraction andwaste disposal in a manner which does not deplete or degrade the environment.

3. ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: EXTERNAL DETERMINANTS

The direction of architectural education is influenced by the needs of its key stakeholders namely,the professional and industry needs, as well as the needs of the university offering the course. Theprofessional and industry needs can be observed from the requirements set by the professionaccreditation bodies as well as the state of the architectural practices that receive the students.

3.1 The Accreditation Bodies

Like other professions, the education and practices of architecture are subjected to accreditation byits professional bodies. The accreditation process is crucial to maintain the society’s trust on theprofession. At tertiary level, architectural programmes are accredited to assure the society of thequality of architects produced, and this mechanism reconciles the differences between the educationand practices. Nowadays universities seek for accreditation or validation as part of their marketingstrategy to gain reputation and promote their programmes.

There are several professional accreditation bodies that award local, regional and/or internationalrecognition. In Malaysia the Board of Architects (LAM) is responsible for determining the standardfor entry into the architectural profession and the accreditation of architectural programmes. LAMestablished the Council of Architectural Education Malaysia (CAEM) to regulate all matters relatingto architectural education. It awards recognized programmes with LAM Part I and Part IIqualifications.

Optional international accreditation that schools of architecture in Malaysia are likely to considerare:

• The Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA)• The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA, 2003)• UNESCO-UIA: an international architectural education accreditation body. A collaboration

between the International Union of Architects (UIA), the world-wide association of architects,with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

Each of these organizations set their procedure and criteria for accreditation. Due to similaraccreditation objectives, the criteria set by each organisation do not differ much.

In its accreditation document, UNESCO-UIA, an international architectural educationaccreditation body, set “a satisfactory balance between theory and practice” as its first qualitativecriteria (UNESCO-UIA Council for the validation of architectural education, 2002). In terms of theexpected breadth of capabilities that an architecture student needs to acquire, UNESCO-UIAidentifies design abilities, knowledge, and skills to fulfill an architect’s role as generalists who can


620

co-ordinate interdisciplinary objectives. UNESCO-UIA endorses teaching based on project realizationas the principle teaching method. This approach places students under the direct and personalguidance of lecturers. This method provides “a synthesis of knowledge, aptitudes, and attitudes”.

3.2 Architectural Practices

As a key team player in the building industry, architects are in the position to promote positiveideologies such as sustainable architecture to the clients and other built environment community.This makes the choice and behaviour of architects in conducting their practices an essential aspectto promoting sustainable development. Despite having said this, it is important to note that operatingin a commercial world and in a global economy, architectural practices are tempted to adaptthemselves to societal values and demands in order to survive. This asserts the suggestion that theprocess of embracing sustainability depends to a large extent on the readiness of the community asa whole. It is inevitable that human’s perception of and behaviour towards the environment willaffect how well the environment is safeguarded. Although much has been said about how architectscan and should strive to promote sustainability, eventually the final endorsement to adopt an idea orotherwise usually rests on the client.

Several authors have noted that although many architects acknowledge the importance ofsustainability, sustainable practices amongst architects are still few (Franz, 1998; Ibrahim & Abbas,2001). Surveys on architects’ attitude towards sustainable architecture revealed barriers to sustainablepractices including lack of knowledge, lack of opportunity and lack of sense of personal responsibility.The view is that the success of realizing sustainability must take into consideration technological(knowledge, information and skills to produce sustainable design) and social perspectives (attitude,behavior and commitment).

In the local scene, a 2001 survey on the Malaysian architect’s attitude and perception onsustainability (Ibrahim, 2003) reveal a significant degree of complacency among the local architectsin responding to sustainability. This is partly attributed to the multi-faceted nature of the architecturaldisciplines itself which demands a multitude of complex considerations such as design concept,structural stability, buildibility, building materials specification, environmental control, interaction withother professionals, building technology, legal responsibility etc. The attitude and intention of thoseinvolved in the design and building activities, namely the architects, clients, project consultants,contractors and project managers are crucial towards realising sustainable architecture.

The preceding paragraphs assert the role the architectural education system could play towardsnurturing and fostering an environmental attitude amongst future architect.

4. SUSTAINABILITY INTEGRATION IN THE CURRICULUM

There have been many discussions on the subject of curriculum transformation in response to thesustainability agenda. In the USA, a conference was held in August 2001 that brought togetherarchitectural schools from across the country with the overriding purpose of charting a three to fiveyear plan for a comprehensive transformation of architectural curriculum so as to address thesustainability agenda (Second Nature, 2001). The programme was initiated alongside and builds onthe substantial and innovative foundation developed by others over the past decade. These include


projects such as EASE at Ball State University, Vital Signs at University of California, Berkeley, thework of the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE), the work of the Association of CollegiateSchools of Architecture (ACSA) and American Institute of Architects – Committee on theEnvironment (AIACOTE).

At this platform, the concluding comment made by the Director of Programs on the changingarchitectural education was:

Transforming architecture education means focusing on how to teach as well as what is being taught. Teachersneed to expose students to the best ideas, exemplify commitment in their own work and expand the boundariesof the discipline and the profession. A primary requirement of moving architecture education beyondarchitecture is an understanding of design that goes beyond buildings. Central to this new vision is theconviction that architects are generalists, although this is often masked by the necessity of specialization.

(Second Nature, 2001: 3)

The conference recognizes that there is no one strategy towards adoption of ideas and contentof the sustainability agenda due to the diversity of schools in terms of their philosophy, pedagogicalapproaches and ability to adopt innovation. The following are the gist of crucial findings from thisconference (extracted from Second Nature, 2001: 4):

General recommendations• Need to move architecture beyond architecture, design that goes beyond buildings• To focus on how to teach (delivery method) and what is being taught (content)• Conviction that architects are generalists, although this is often masked by the necessity of

specialization• Change general approach: link Curriculum, the Campus and the Community.

Recommendations on curriculum elements• Transform the curriculum

♦ Introduce strategies to integrate sustainable design concepts in all areas, History/Theory,Technology, Studio and Professional Practice

♦ Create symposia at architectural schools to address the cutting edge ideas and developments;and

♦ Develop a course for all students on the idea of the Campus as a dynamically integratedsustainable community connected to a larger community.

• Transform studio teaching♦ Find workable methods to breakdown the usual differentiation of the studio and the lecture;♦ Work on real life problems at different scales either on the campus itself or in the community

at large. Begin studio with urban and regional-scale problems;♦ Develop ecological footprint exercises and faculty training. Develop an icon for the eco-

footprint to use on all projects similar to the use of the compass north arrow. Developlayered drawings to include Geographic Information System (GIS) information; and

♦ Bridge the major disciplinary division in design training, using a three-dimensional approachsolving problems, addressing the issues of beauty, performance and ecological simultaneously.

621

[extracted from Second Nature, 2001:4]

Similarly, draws from a survey conducted on the attitude of architects and designers towards

Administrator

Line

Administrator

Note

Accepted set by Administrator

Administrator

Line

Administrator

Line

Administrator

Line


622

sustainability, Franz (1998) recommends that architectural education focuses on inculcating appropriateattitudes amongst students through the following:

i. Making the design students aware of their own and others’ attitudes and how they can influencebehavior

ii. Give the students the opportunity to form an appreciation of themselves as role models in societywith an increased ascription of responsibility; and

iii. Students allowed to develop a detailed knowledge of the range of issues associated withsustainability as well as appropriate strategies for its implementation.

5. CASE STUDY OF UNDER GRADUATE ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMMESAT UITM

This section presents the Architectural Programmes offered at the Universiti Teknologi MARA asa case to assess the readiness of sustainability implementation at a university in the Malaysiancontext. The architectural programmers are run by the Department of Architecture, Faculty ofArchitecture, Planning and Surveying.

5.1 Programme Background

Objective and mission statement: The Department of Architecture at the Universiti TeknologiMARA was established in 1967 with the aim of training graduates at semi-professional and professionallevel, to meet the manpower needs of the nation in the architectural field and the building industry.Its mission statement underlines the concerns to produce competent architectural graduates whoare innovative and sensitive towards the environment through integrated and balanced learning.

Programme structure: The university offers two (2) full-time architectural programmes: theBachelor of Science (Architecture) and Bachelor of Architecture (Hons.). The study period is fourand two respectively. The programme is subjected to the university policy that demands syllabusreview to be conducted every three years. Teaching modules have been progressively improved andthe curriculum is continually updated in order to keep pace with new technologies and challenges.The latest revision was conducted in 2005. Through the years the overall structure have not beensubjected to major transformation, adhering to the traditional studio-based system.

The curriculum: Part I / B. Sc. (Arch.) programme emphasises on developing architecturalskills among students. The curriculum design for Part II / B.Arch. programme is the continuation ofthe previous knowledge gained from Part I. The syllabus focuses on producing competent graduatesthat integrates the aspects of science, technology and culture in design. Ultimately, the goal is toproduce a well rounded individual with a high sense of social responsibility and high self-esteem andconfidence. All these make a sound foundation towards creating an architecture that cares not onlyfor the current generation but also the future generations to come.

Apart from academic excellence, the University emphasises on students’ involvement in otheractivities such as sports and community, as well as other forms of self development. To achieve thisseveral additional non-core subjects are made compulsory for all students in UiTM, such as ThirdLanguage, Islamic Studies and Co-curriculum.

623


In line with efforts to gain validation from RIBA, the department has regrouped the coursesaccording to the theme recommended by RIBA – Design, Cultural/Context, Practices andTechnology.

Emphasis is on the Design subjects whereby the Design courses account for 38% and 40% forthe B. Sc. (Arch.) programme and B. Arch. (Hons.) programme respectively. The design studiosculminates with a comprehensive design task that places the student as the centre of the designprocess. The project is self generated and each student is to work independently, efficiently andeffectively in carrying out and completing his/her thesis project, with close supervision by lecturers.

Detailed descriptions of each course were studied to observe if sustainability design issues arein built into the curriculum. It is observed that descriptions on sustainability integration are limited toStudio courses and a few Architectural Science and Environmental subjects. On the overall theemphasis is on developing skills and technical knowledge. Environmental responsibility is generallycovered in the final year subject for B.Sc. programme, and at the beginning of the B. Arch programme,under the Sustainable Design subject.

The teaching method: Generally the approach outlined in the syllabus describes a traditionalteaching method namely, lectures, tutorials, studio projects, practical training and academic visits.However the department encourages innovation in course delivery, which depends on efforts andcreativity of individual lecturers. In the past there are numerous efforts by studio coordinators toplan out learning activities that involve participation with the community and outside organizations.However, often there are missed opportunities as this potential remained unexplored when suchtasks are undertaken by lecturers who are less inclined towards change. On the overall, the traditionalteaching practices still prevailed and the overall view on architecture as primarily an art-basedprofession persists.

Research culture: The future of the Department is in line with the Faculty’s and UiTM’s visionthat focuses on excellence in terms of students, teaching and research, in preparation to be a World-Class university. As a more aggressive measure to tap research opportunities in the area of builtenvironment, the faculty has set up its own research centres. The Department is slowly but steadilymigrating its mindset from a teaching to a research based department. The Department sees itself tofully embrace the research culture in a very near future.

The quality of academic staff is vital to the successful operation of a university. Compared toother architectural department in the country, the Department has the most number of professionallyregistered architects serving as full time academic staff. About 30% of the department lecturersspecialize in environmental studies. Seven of the Department’s full time lecturers hold Ph.D. invarying areas of expertise such as Sustainability, Buildings Performance, Design Process, Behaviouraland Cultural. The University is continually making efforts to collaborate with other organizationswithin and beyond UiTM boundary.

5.2 The University Agenda

UiTM intents to increase its student numbers. The Department of Architecture intents to increaseits student intake especially at the Part I level. UiTM encourages collaborative and business linkageefforts, and supports internationalization initiatives. These are positive agenda that open opportunityfor sustainability practices to blossom.


624

UiTM was awarded the ISO 9001:2000 Certificate from Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance(LQRA) for all aspects of teaching and learning in 2004. The Department’s quality in terms of itsprocedures and managing the programme is well maintained as it is subjected to two quality audits:(1) external Surveillance Audit conducted twice a year, and (2) internal audit, conducted every 6months, or as deemed necessary by the faculty.

Now with the recent move by the government to make university programme auditing andadoption of Outcome Based Learning compulsory, the quality of the education system in UiTM isexpected to be enhanced, and the overall approach of the teaching and learning processes mademore transparent.

5.3 Accreditation Bodies

The architectural programmes in UiTM are amongst the first to be accredited by the local professionalbodies (LAM) with Part I and II recognitions, since 1982. In the past the criteria for accreditationare vague, relying strongly on the value judgement of the approving visiting panel. The tendencieswere to place strong emphasis on the students technical ability and skills. LAM’s recently releasedrevised accreditation criteria (LAM, 2008) is seen as a very positive move towards a structured andtransparent accreditation process.

The university conducted a RIBA exploratory visit in 2006 and currently the proggramme isnow under consideration for a RIBA full validation.

5.4 Government Standing and the Malaysian Society

The Malaysian government supports the world sustainable development agenda whereby in 1999Malaysia became a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol 1997 (Malaysia Institute of Nuclear TechnologyResearch 1999). Signatories of the Kyoto Protocol are committed to strive to reduce greenhousegas emission. Several major national policies have made sustainable development as its primeobjective; The Outline Perspective Policy 1 (OPP 1) (1971-1990) and 2 (OPP 2) (1990-2000),developed from the National Economic Policy (NEP) and the 8th Malaysia Plan 2001-2005 (EconomicPlanning Unit 2001a), reasserts the national environmental policy introduced in the Third MalaysianPlan 1976-1980.

The government’s concern for environment is positive, initiating serious efforts in embracing anenergy efficiency agenda. This poses a new challenge for architects and the building industry andcommunity as a whole.

6. CONCLUSIONS

This paper identifies aspects of sustainability adoption in the architectural education. This forms abasis to analyse the current state and readiness of the Department of Architecture, FacultyArchitecture, Planning and Surveying to pursue the sustainability agenda.

The study reveals that the architecture programmes offered in UiTM have the necessaryingredients to champion pursuit of sustainability in architecture. The growing number of environmentalexperts and research activities in the Department are signs of the Department’s future inclinationstowards sustainability sensitivity. However obstacles to the integration as observed in past studies

625


conducted overseas (Franz, 2005) are apparent. Currently inclusion of sustainability aspects arefragmented relying heavily upon individual efforts of lecturers that are familiar and inclined towardsthe subject matter. There is a need to review the existing curriculum to significantly include theworthy aspects of sustainability in the courses content and delivery mode.

The open ended approach of describing the studio delivery mode may not contribute well towardssustainability. The study highlights the need for the architectural education system to place emphasison fostering attitudes compatible with sustainability behavior and needs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author acknowledges appreciation to members of the department who contributed to thepreparation of all department documents that this paper has made reference to.

REFERENCES

Franz, J. M. (1998). Attitude towards sustainability and their implications for education, practice and futureresearch. Paper presented at the FORUM II: Architectural Education for the 3rd Millennium.

Ibrahim, N. (2003, 13-14 September 2003). Sustainable architecture: Perception of local architects. Paperpresented at the Seminar on Women in Energy & Architecture: WEA 2003, Kuala Lumpur.

Ibrahim, N. & Abbas, M. Y. (2001, 31 Oct.-2 Nov. 2001). Perception of local architects on sustainable architecture.Paper presented at the Seminar Penyelidikan UiTM 2001, Melaka, Malaysia.

Ray-Jones, A. (Ed.) (2000). Sustainable Architecture in Japan: The Green Buildings of Nikken Sekkei. GB:Wiley-Academy.

RIBA (2003). Criteria for validation.Salama, A. M. (2008). A theory for integrating knowledge in architectural design education. International

Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 100-128.Second Nature (2001, 24-26 August 2001). How can the architects contribute to a sustainable world? Paper

presented at the Wingspread Conference, Wingspread Conference Centre, Racine, Wisconsin.Stasinopoulos, T. N. (2005, 13-16 November). Sustainable architecture teaching in non-sustainable societies.

Paper presented at the PLEA2005 - the 22nd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Beirut,Lebanon.

UIA (1993, 18-21 June 1993). Declaration of Interdependence for a sustainable future. Paper presented at theUIA/AIA World Congress of Architects, Chicago.

UNESCO-UIA Council for the validation of architectural education (2002). UNESCO-UIA Validation system forarchitectural education.

Vale, B. & Vale, R. (1996). Green architecture: Design for a sustainable future. London: Thames & Hudson.World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Yeang, K. (1998). Research Information: Designing the Green Skyscraper. Building Research and Information,

26(2), 122-141.

Documents

SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: ARE WE THERE YET?