1 an Introduction to Sustainable Architecture

Introduction and Overview August 1998 Sustainable Architecture 1

NATIONAL POLLUTION PREVENTION CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Pollution Preventionin Architecture

Introductory ModulePrepared by Jong-Jin Kim, Assistant Professor of Architecture,and Brenda Rigdon and Jonathan Graves, Project Interns;College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan.

National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education University of Michigan May be reproduced Introduction and OverviewDana Building, 430 East University, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1115 freely for non-commercial August 1998734.764.1412 fax: 734/647.5841 [email protected] www.umich.edu/~nppcpub educational purposes.

Introduction and OverviewIntroduction ...................................................................... 2Objectives of Environmental Education ........................ 3

Level 1: Creating Environmental Awareness ..................... 3Level 2: Understanding Building Ecosystems ................... 3Level 3: Ability to Design Sustainable Buildings ............... 4

Current Status of Sustainability in Architecture ........... 4Educational Survey .............................................................. 5Building Product Manufacturers Survey ............................7Review of NAAB Criteria .................................................... 10

Objectives of This Compendium ................................. 12Flexibility ............................................................................. 12Compendium Structure ..................................................... 12

Summary ........................................................................ 14Appendix A: .................................................................... 15Appendix B: .................................................................... 21Appendix C: .................................................................... 25

Combined Resource List

Combined Annotated Bibliography

Syllabi

2 Sustainable Architecture August 1998 Introduction and Overview

IntroductionBuildings have diverse effects on the environment duringtheir entire life cycles. Although the tangible impacts arevisible only after construction begins, decisions made on thedrawing board have long-term environmental consequences.To achieve environmental sustainability in the buildingsector, it is crucial to educate architecture students in envi-ronmental issues.

In spite of the urgent need, teaching materials specificallydesigned for sustainable architecture have been virtually non-existent. While many energy conservation materials have beendeveloped since the 1970s1, resources for addressing largerenvironmental issues and pollution prevention techniques aregreatly lacking. Although some environmental education inarchitecture has been done on an ad-hoc basis, it is fragmentedand insufficient.

To provide a framework, appropriate pedagogical models,and supporting educational resources, we have developedthis compendium specifically for teaching environmentalsustainability and pollution prevention in architecture. Inthe development process, we have:

assessed the current status of research, development,and design activities in this area

compiled information on new materials and products thatenhance environmental sustainability (lower toxicity,higher recycled material content, lower embodiedenergy, and higher energy efficiency).

surveyed architectural educators in the U.S.

Our survey indicated a significant shortage of teachingmaterials for environmental education in architecture; oursubsequent attempt to identify educational materialscurrently being used at architectural schools has onlyreaffirmed the fact that architecture educators lack adequateeducational resources.

1Charles C. Benton and Alison G. Kwok, The Vital Signs Project: Work in Progress, Proceedings of the ASES

Conference (SOLAR 95), Minneapolis, 1995, Boulder, Colo.: American Solar Energy Society.


Objectives of Environmental EducationThe ultimate goal of environmental education in architec-ture is to increase sustainability in the building sector. Inachieving this goal, we discern three levels of educationalobjectives.

Level 1: Creating Environmental Awareness

A majority of architecture students choose the field becauseof their artistic aspiration, and their primary interest is inform-making. While students are generally sympathetic tothe environmental cause, they may not be active environ-mental advocates. Thus, it is important to make them awareof the following:

1. Form-making (i.e., architecture) impacts localas well as global environments.

2. Their profession is responsible for someenvironmental problems.

3. They can contribute to a healthy globalenvironment by practicing sustainable design.

The primary strategy for the early stage of education is tostimulate students interest in environmental issues. Oncethat is underway, introduce the basic laws governing thenature and environment; then demonstrate the relationshipbetween the natural laws and design. Note that it is mucheasier to instill an environmental consciousness at theformative stage of education than in later stages!

Level 2: Understanding Building Ecosystems

The second level of education is to create an understandingof how buildings can be designed for the environment.For this purpose, a building should be understood as an ecosys-tem through which natural and manufactured resourcescontinually flow. Within the building ecosystem, a series ofsubsystems regulate the flow of one or more types of resources.It is important to understand that a building affects andpollutes the environment on both the input side (upstream)and the output side (downstream). Case studies of represen-tative buildings, both successful and unsuccessful, can be

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

EnvironmentalAwareness

Understanding BuildingEcosystems

Design ofSustainable Buildings


effective teaching tools. To enrich students learning, choosecase studies that illustrate:

a range of buildings designed under differentphysical and social contexts

the ways fundamental principles of design impactthe environment

original design concepts, procurement of materials,considerations given to the construction process, andvarious building performances during operation.

Level 3: Ability to Design Sustainable Buildings

The third level of environmental education is to give studentsthe skills and knowledge-bases to seek and find sustainabledesign solutions. Introduce methods and techniques rangingfrom site planning, building design, and specification of mate-rials to the recycling and reuse of architectural resources indesign. Rather than teaching a set of specific skills, developyour students abilities to explore, assess, and pursue variousalternatives for sustainable design.

The Current Status ofEnvironmental Sustainabilityin ArchitectureAlthough there is a universal consensus on the importanceof environmental education in architecture, the questions ofwhat, when, and how to teach specific subjects related toenvironmental sustainability cannot be easily answered.One reason for this is that architecture covers a vast numberof disciplines ranging from art to science determining thelevel and extent of environmental education within design,technology, history, theory, practice, and environmentalbehavior is a formidable task. (At present, in the absence ofa clear pedagogical framework, environmental education isbeing presented as an ethical issue rather than science.)

In the process of developing this compendium, we haveassessed the current status of sustainable architecture in the


areas of research, design practice, and education.Specific areas of the assessments include:

Current environmental technology course curricula,based on an informational survey of architecturaleducators

Building materials and products with a higher degreeof environmental sustainability (lower toxicity,higher recycled material content, lower embodiedenergy, higher energy efficiency)

National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB)criteria relevant to environmental education

Educational Survey

We surveyed architecture educators to determine the currentextent of environmental education in the field. We chose thearchitecture schools and environmental technology depart-ment from members of the Association of Collegiate Schoolsof Architecture (ACSA). Our one-page questionnaire soughtthe status of environmental education in terms of the quantityand intensity of courses dealing with sustainability and thetypes of educational materials used in these courses. We askedrespondents to send copies of their teaching materials, such assyllabi, bibliographies, and assignments, with their completedsurveys. We also asked them what case study buildings, fieldtrips, laboratory facilities, and conferences they used in teach-ing environmental sustainability.

Findings

Of the 200 surveys sent out to faculty members ofaccredited architectural school in the United Statesand Canada, we received 14 responses. This verylow response rate (7%) may indicate a lack ofimportance placed on sustainable design by manyarchitectural educators.

The responses revealed a number of courses dealingspecifically with sustainable design but few thatincorporate sustainable issues into the generalcurriculum. Of the respondents, only 3% reportedcurrent courses dealing specifically with sustainability.However, 93% said they addressed sustainabilityissues within the context of other courses (generally

See Appendix A forsurvey responses.


The NPPC is willing to provide additionalmaterials free of charge on our website

please see the front page forinformation on how to contact us!

those focusing on basic environmental controlsystems). After examinating the syllabi received,we determined that this meant that one or twolectures on a sustainability topic were included ina semester-long class.

Homework and visual materials (slides, videos, etc.)were the most commonly used educational materials.Of the respondents, 71% used homework such asresearch projects and essays; 62%, visual materials;and 47%, other materials such as design studioprojects, service-based learning activities, and studentpresentations. Only 43% employed laboratoryexercises for teaching sustainable design. Mostrespondents used a combination of teaching materials.

Specific buildings and/or field trips were used asenvironmental case studies by 86% of the respondents.To enhance and reinforce course materials, they ledfield trips to local utility companies as well as to resi-dential and commercial buildings featuring alternativeenergy systems and other sustainable features.

Conclusions

In general, the responses indicate a significant shortage ofteaching materials designed specifically for sustainablearchitecture. The number of courses focusing on it and thefrequency with which it is discussed within other architecturecourses reflects the low level at which sustainable design con-cepts have been incorporated into the regular curriculum.

Sustainable architecture is a complex subject that should becovered throughout the curriculum. The syllabi received showhow sporadic this coverage really is; the educational materialsthat faculty cite suggest the need for new materials to providestudents with a sustainable architecture knowledge base foruse in their future practices.

The development of new materials can be facilitated byan exchange of current materials among educators. This willrequire an organizational structure and inexpensive media forthe distribution of educational resources. This Compendiumprovides a framework for teaching sustainability in architec-ture schools and a means of distributing copyright-freematerial to educators.


Building Product Manufacturers Survey

The use of environmentally friendly building materials is thesimplest step for achieving environmental sustainability inarchitecture. However, architects cannot use such materialsunless they can get answers to these questions:

1. What attributes make a building material or product environmentally sustainable?

2. How can the environmental sustainability of a building material or product be measured?

3. Where can designers find the information on sustainable building materials?

Each step of the manufacturing process gathering and refiningraw materials, installation, and ultimate reuse or disposal isassociated with a range of environmental consequences.Evaluating these consequences is difficult, if not impossible.Knowledge of the material itself is not enough: the architectmust know the source of the raw material, the methods ofobtaining it, and the processes used by manufacturers, whichcan vary greatly from one brand to the next.

To assess the current status of sustainable building materials,we surveyed 500 building product manufacturers. The two-page survey was composed of five sections:

1. Information on the company, product name, andConstruction Specification Institute code (a systemfor specifying building materials).

2. A description of the product, including dimensionsand suggested applications.

3. Sustainability features of the product and informationon estimated cost compared to traditional materials.

4. Buildings in which this product was used.

5. General comments.

See Appendix B fora sample survey formand database entry.


Responses

We were relying on manufacturers, who may not always beobjective; some representatives seemed to have little aware-ness of the environmental impact of their products. Also,although over 500 surveys were issued, only 121 peopleresponsed to the survey; the majority simply submitted aproduct catalog, which we have added to our resourcelibrary. Therefore, a quantitative evaluation of sustainableversus non-sustainable materials was not possible.

Criteria for Sustainable Building Materials and Products

We identified three groups of criteria, based on the buildingmaterial life cycle, that can be used for evaluating environ-mental sustainability of building materials. The presence ofone or more of these features can assist in determining abuilding materials relative sustainability.

PRE-BUILDING PHASE: MANUFACTURE

Waste Reduction

Pollution Prevention

Recycled Content

Embodied Energy Reduction

Use of Natural Materials

BUILDING PHASE: USE

Energy Efficiency

Water Treatment/Conservation

Use of Non- or Less-Toxic Materials

Renewable Energy Systems

Longer Life

POST-BUILDING PHASE: DISPOSAL

Biodegradability

Recyclability

Reusability

See the Sustainable BuildingMaterials module for a completediscussion of building materialslife cycle phases and definitions

of sustainability criteria.


70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0WR PP RC EER NM EE WTC NT RES LL BD RC RU OTHER

Pre-Building Phase Building Phase Post Building Phase

Sustainab le Criteria

WRPPRCEERNM

EEWTCNTRESLL

BDRCRU

O

Pre-Building PhaseWaste ReductionPollution Pre ventionRecycled ContentEmbodied Ener gy ReductionNatural Material

Building PhaseEnergy Efficienc yWater Treatment/Conser vationNon or LessT oxicRenewable Ener gy SystemLong er Lif e

Post Building PhaseBiodegradab leRecyclableReusab le

Other

Findings

The results of the survey were based on the sustainability criteriadiscussed above and the percentage of respondents claimingeach feature for their products (see Figure 1).

The results of the survey show a concentration of products fea-turing the waste reduction (56), energy efficiency (67),recycled content (67), and non- or less-toxic (57) criteria. Thismay be due to several factors. The sources for the manufactur-ers surveyed were lists potentially biased toward these types ofproducts.2 These are also the most conventional areas of re-search and development in sustainable building materials.

Few products featured renewable energy systems (5), embod-ied energy reduction (19), or natural materials (13). The energycrises of the 1970s seem to have been forgotten, by the publicand the government. The State of Michigan recently repealedits energy efficiency requirements for new homes, citing theadditional upfront cost as a burden to potential home owners.

Figure 1: The frequency of various features of sustainable building materials.

2Architects for Social Responsibility/Boston Society of Architects, The Sourcebook for Sustainable Design: A Guide to

Environmentally Responsible Building Materials and Processes, ed. Andrew St. John, AIA; Tracy Mumma, et al., Guide

to Resource Efficient Building Elements, 5th ed., Missoula, Mont.: Center for Resourceful Building Technology, 1995;

and Victoria Schomer, Interior Concerns Resource Guide, Mill Valley, Calif: Interior Concerns, 1993.


The low number of products with Post-Building phase fea-tures (33 total) could be expected. This is the leastconsidered phase of architecture, because most architectslike to think that their buildings will stand forever.

Recommendations

The survey results suggest that some positive gains havebeen made in producing building materials that are energy-efficient, have low- or non-toxic components, utilizerecycled material, and reduce waste and pollution from themanufacturing process. However, more emphasis needs tobe placed on a building materials afterlife, which should beconsidered at the very beginning of the design and selectionprocess. By designing products (and buildings) for disassemblyand reuse, much more efficient use can be made of our limitednatural resources.

The responses also suggest the need for an industry stan-dard and outside audit of environmentally friendlymaterials. In addition, as new products are being releaseddaily, a more current directory of sustainable building mate-rials and manufacturers would be desirable, perhaps in anelectronic format or online.

Review of National ArchitectureAccreditation Board Criteria

To evaluate the minimum educational requirements forenvironmental issues and sustainable design in architecture,we reviewed the criteria used by the National ArchitecturalAccreditation Board (NAAB) in certifying U.S. schools ofarchitecture. These minimal acceptable standards for anarchitectural education define three levels of educationalobjectives: going from lowest to highest, they are aware-ness, understanding, and ability.

We evaluated each criterions relevance to sustainable design.Based on our interpretation of the criteria themselves andexperience with the manner in which they are actually appliedin architectural schools, we defined three areas: Directlyrelated criteria explicitly discussed the scientificbasis for understanding environmental phenomena and

See Appendix C forNAAB criteria and suggestions

for improving or expandingthe emphasis on

sustainability issues.


environmental design issues (these criteria were primarily inthe NAAB-defined groups of technical criteria and environ-mental criteria); Indirectly related criteria addressedbroader design issues and the integration of technology andaesthetics; Not related criteria dealt with cultural, historical,and social issues.

Findings

The language of many criteria is overly vague andcan be interpreted quite differently by individualarchitecture schools.

The technical and environmental criteria requireawareness and understanding of certain basic envi-ronmental principles, but do not require the abilityto apply this knowledge.

There is little emphasis on the local and globalenvironmental impact of design decisions.

The review indicated a lack of emphasis on under-standing the ecological impact of buildings and theintegration of environmental issues into the overalldesign of architectural form and selection of materials.

Recommendations

The criteria should be more explicit; the languageshould be clarified and made more proscriptive.

Existing criteria should be expanded to specificallyaddress the environmental consequences of archi-tectural design decisions. In many cases, addingenvironmental impact to the elements listed ina given criteria can accomplish this goal.

A higher level of technical and environmental know-ledge should be required. Students must be capableof integrating environmental knowledge into thedesign process.

Because ecological design should be required and integratedpart of the entire design process, not merely an area of spe-cialization, accreditation should require environmentallysustainable design principles.


Objectives of This CompendiumThis Compendium was designed to locate and develop educa-tional resources. Furthermore, we hope this Compendiumcan be used in flexible segments, integrated into the regularcurriculum as an instructor desires. We formulated a generalframework based on our definitions of the objectives and thescope of environmental education in architecture as describedon pp. 34.*

Flexibility

The curriculum structures of various architecture schools inthe United States are vastly different in many aspects. Peda-gogical models are diverse. Teaching styles of individual


The module on Sustainable Design gives an overviewof environmental sustainability and pollution preventiontechniques in architecture. This super-module outlinesissues overarching various aspects of environmental su-stainability and introduces basic principles for sustainabledesign and pollution prevention.

Building Materials focuses on the environmental impactof the manufacture, use, and disposal of building materials;it also examines how the choice of a material affects the over-all sustainability of a building.

Recycling and Reuse of Building Materials is meant to showstudents the upstream and downstream effects of design,construction, use, and disposal. Designed as a coursepack orsupplemental reading, it provides an introduction as well asdiscussions, case studies, and exercises in the areas of wasteprevention, construction and demolition recycling, architec-tural reuse, and design for materials recovery.

Case Studies provides an in-depth examination of the design,construction, and usage of examples of sustainable architecture.

Each module contains the following:

Overview of key publications. These are meantto provide a background. They discuss principles,techniques, and examples for implementation. Theteaching materials include lab and studio exercises,essay questions, and sample curricula submitted byeducators around the country.

Resource lists. These resources are designed to pro-vide a starting point for more in-depth analysis in agiven area. They were compiled from various orga-nizations, associations, and commercial companiesthat offer educational aids, slides, videos, computersoftware and online services.

References. An extensive bibliography of books,journal articles, industry publications and conferencepapers, organized by module and topic classification.

Annotated bibliography. Provides a summary ofselected bibliography entries, offering information onthe topics covered by the material, the audience level,and relevance to various sustainable design issues.


SummaryIt is our goal to have this compendium used widely amongarchitecture schools in the United States. To this end, a rangeof viewpoints and feedback from architectural educators andpractitioners have been incorporated into the development ofthe compendium. At present, Compendium modules coverSustainable Design, Sustainable Building Materials, Recyclingand Reuse of Architectural Resources, and Case Studies. Manyimportant topics such as sustainable urban design, site plan-ning, and design studio are not included in the project. Wehope that this compendium will continue to expand throughthe collective efforts among architectural educators around thecountry.

National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education430 East University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115734-764-1412 fax 734/647-5841 [email protected]

The mission of the NPPC is to promote sustainable developmentby educating students, faculty, and professionals about pollutionprevention; create educational materials; provide tools andstrategies for addressing relevant environmental problems; andestablish a national network of pollution prevention educators.In addition to developing educational materials and conductingresearch, the NPPC also offers an internship program, profes-sional education and training, and conferences.

Your Input is Welcome!We are very interested in your feedback on these materials. Alsocontact us if you wish to order any of our materials, collaborate onor review NPPC resources, or be listed in our Directory ofPollution Prevention in Higher Education.

Were Online!Most of our educational materials are available FREE OFCHARGE on our website: www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/Please contact us at [email protected] if you have commentsabout our online resources or suggestions for publicizing oureducational materials through the Internet. Thank you!


Appendix A:Current Status of Environmental Education

An informational survey of educators, administered by theCollege of Architecture and Urban Planning at the Universityof Michigan, was designed with the goals of determining thecurrent extent of environmental education and collectingexisting teaching materials on environmental sustainability.This one-page survey requested information on specificcourses dealing with sustainability, the types of educationalmaterials used in these courses, laboratory facilities available,and textbooks used. Respondents were also asked aboutseminars, professional developments series, or conferencesheld by the their university that dealt with environmentalsustainability.

Of the 200 surveys that were sent out to faculty members ofaccredited architectural schools in the United States andCanada, 14 responses were received, for a response rate of 7%.The survey revealed a lack of courses dealing specificallywith sustainable design issues but found that many professorsaddress sustainability principles within the context of othercourses: Of the respondents, only 3% reported currentcourses dealing specifically with sustainability; however,93% reported addressing sustainability issues within thecontext of other core courses. Generally, this meant one ortwo lectures on a given sustainability topic in a semester-long class.

The survey asked respondents to include syllabi, bibliographies,and assignments with their responses. These materials havebeen compiled as separate components of the ArchitecturalCompendium for Environmental Education. In general, theresponses indicated that there is a significant shortage ofteaching materials for environmental education. An attemptto identify educational materials currently being used atarchitectural schools has only reaffirmed the fact that thereis a common deficiency in educational resources amongarchitectural educators around the country.

Of the 200 surveys sent out,14 responses were received.The following schools and facultymembers responded.

Howard UniversityKathryn Tyler Prigmore

Kansas State UniversityDavid W. Clarke

Miami University of OhioScott JohnstonFuller Moore

Montana State UniversityThomas R. Wood

Norwich UniversityDiane Elliot Gayer

Oklahoma State UniversityEric Neil Angevine

University of Detroit-MercyStephen J. LaGrassa

University of HawaiiVictor Olgyay

University of IdahoBruce Haglund

University of MichiganJong-Jin Kim

University of TennesseeRichard M. Kelso

University of Texas at ArlingtonTruett James

University of UtahRobert A. Young

University of WaterlooSally Lerner


Question 1: Currently offered courses related to environmental sustainability.

SCHOOL/RESPONDENT COURSES

Howard University Environmental Systems I & II

Kansas State University Design Studio Project, Third YearEnvironmental Systems in Architecture,Second YearSustainable Architecture, Fourth, Fifth Year and Graduate

Miami University of Ohio ARCH 413/ARCH 414Some material in ARCH 517/518

Montana State University No courses dealing specifically with environmental sustainability. Topicmentioned in environmental controls courses and design studios.

Norwich University Studio course in Environmental Design offered every other year.

Oklahoma State University ARCH 3314: Environmental Control, Life Safety and Thermal SystemsARCH 5133: Advanced Energy Issues in Architecture

University of Detroit-Mercy ARCH 324: Sustainability and Architecture Seminar*

University of Hawaii ARCH 214: Mechanical SystemsARCH 213: Lighting, Illumination, and Power

University of Idaho ARCH 463/462: Environmental Control SystemsARCH 499: Natural Lighting*ARCH 499: PSDATE

University of Michigan ARCH 315, 425: Core Enviromental Technology CoursesARCH 555: Advanced Building Systems and OperationsARCH 575: Building Ecology*ARCH 605: Environmental Design Simulation

University of Tennessee Required third year courses, ARCH 341 and 342, include sustainability as acomponent, but not the major focus.

University of Utah ARCH 537, ARCH 635, ARCH 636: Environmental controlsARCH 670: Financial incentives for constructionARCH 558: Building rehabilitation and recycling*

University of Waterloo Environment and Resource Studies 218 *

Respondents with current courses discussing some sustainability issues: 93%Respondents with current courses dealing specifically with sustainability: 3%

* Courses dealing specifically with Sustainability Issues


Question 2: Educational materials used.

HOME LAB VISUALSCHOOL/RESPONDENT WORK EXERCISE MATERIALS OTHER

Howard University Yes

Kansas State University Yes Yes Yes Studio projects

Miami University Yes Demo models

Montana State University

Norwich University Yes Yes Yes Studio design projects,readings, oral presentations,journals

Oklahoma State University Yes Yes

University of Detroit-Mercy Yes Yes Yes Term paper, paper-makingexercise, AIA series onsustainable design

University of Hawaii Yes Yes Yes

University of Idaho Yes

University of Michigan Yes Yes Yes

University of Tennessee Yes

University of Texas at Arlington

University of Utah Yes Yes Yes Term projects, integration instudio design problems,service based learningactivities

University of Waterloo Yes Team design assignment

% of responding schools 71% 43% 62% 43%


Question 3: Are specific buildings used as case studies in the course? Do field trips include visits toany buildings illustrating concepts of sustainability? List all types and, if possible, enclose additionalinformation on buildings.

SCHOOL/RESPONDENT CASE STUDIES and/or FIELD TRIPS

Howard University Each class visits one building during the course of a semester. The purposeof the trip is to expose students to building systems and their interrelations.This year we will be visiting the central Information Systems and ServicesCenter for the University. The Center is currently under construction in aformer Wonder Bread factory building on campus. In previous years. wehave visited MCI Communications headquarters building, a dormitoryunder construction on campus, Union Station and Retail Shops,1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Old Post Office Building and Pavilion.

Kansas State University Participated in AIA Video Conference Building Connections whichincluded many case studies. Now use the video produced from thisconference in class.

Miami University of Ohio Dayton Power and Lights Energy Resource Center.

Montana State University Third year studio visited the Metcalf Building in Helena, whichdemonstrates daylighting and energy conservation techniques.

Norwich University Design problems have included a bus shelter, an AIDS support/healingcenter, revitalization of an urban waterfront, and redesign of an existinghorticultural farm.

Oklahoma State University Local residential buildings only.

University of Detroit-Mercy Field trips to Energy Conservation Devices (Troy, Michigan) and OaklandCommunity College.

University of Hawaii Specific buildings are used as case studies. Buildings change each semesterbut include standard examples like Bateson Building, Lockheed, andAudubon House.

University of Idaho ARCH 499 PSDATE is developing workups on several buildings as part ofthe Vital Signs Project. ARCH 463 features tour of ground-source heat pumphouse.

University of Michigan ARCH 535 uses multiple case studies and occasional field trips.

University of Utah Field trips to enhance/reinforce course materials.

University of Waterloo Visits to "Living Systems" buildings in the area. Videos of case studies used.

Responding schools using case studies and/or field trips to address sustainability: 86%


SCHOOL/RESPONDENT LAB FACILITIES

Kansas State University Heliodon for determining sun shadows and penetration.David W. Clarke

Miami University Ecology Resource CenterScott Johnston / Fuller Moore Center for Building Science Research

University of Hawaii Currently building an E.C.S. lab, with an emphasis on lighting systems.Victor Olgyay

University of Michigan Skydome for daylighting simulations, computer lab for energy analysis.

University of Utah Solar TableRobert A. Young

Responding schools with lab facilities to demonstrate sustainability: 36%

Question 4: Does your institution possess any unique facilities that demonstrateenvironmental properties?

Responding schools using textbooks addressing sustainability: 79%

Question 5: List textbooks and readings assigned to the course(s).


SCHOOL/RESPONDENT SEMINARS, etc.

Kansas State University Video series: AIA Building Connections

Lecture Series on Building to Save the EarthAndreaus DuaneysSuburban America lecture

Miami University of Ohio AIA Continuing Education Courses through the Dayton AIA and DaytonPower and Light.

Lecture and Workshop CombinationsThe Design of Shading Devices for Buildings, January 1994.Daylighting in Architecture, January 1995.

Montana State University Department assists the State Department of Natural Resources andConservation in hosting an annual two-day energy design conference.

University of Hawaii Hosting an EPA seminar on Pollution Prevention.

University of Waterloo (not specified)

Responding schools offering seminars, etc. addressing sustainability: 36%

Question 6: List seminars, professional development series, conferences, or special coursesoffered by your institution relating to sustainability and pollution prevention.


Appendix B:Survey of Building Product Manufacturers3

Figure 1: Sample of the form used in the Building Product Manufacturers Survey.

Product Information Sheet

With feedback from companies like yours which produce environmentally sustainable building products, we hope to gain

information needed to develop educational materials for building professionals. Please duplicate this form if you have more than

one product. Thank you for your cooperation!

1. Company Name Ener cept I nc. _________________________________________ Phone ( 605) 882- 2222

2. Product Name Ener cept Super i nsul at ed St r ess Ski n Bui l di ng Syst em___ Fax ( 605) 882- 2753

3. Construction Specification Institute (CSI) Classification

CSI Section No. _______________ CSI Section Title__________________________________________________________

4. Product Description (including dimensions and suggested applications)

Super i nsul at ed Panel i zed Bui l di ng Syst em. Di mensi ons var y due t o pr oj ect si nce each ____

pr oj ect i s cust om desi gned and bui l t . Resi dent i al , Commer ci al and Agr i cul t ur al . St andar d _

si zes ar e f our f eet wi t h var i ous l engt hs up t o 24 f eet . _____________________________________

5. Key Features of Environmental Friendliness. Please describe features of environmental friendliness that apply to your product. When

available, provide quantitative data.

Energy Efficiency: Fuel - ener gy savi ngs of 40%- 60% ar e ver y common over t ypi cal 2x6 const r uct ed

homes. ______________________________________________________________________

ex: R-values, Shading Coefficient, System Efficiency

Reduced Toxicity: Ther e ar e no det ect abl e t oxi c i ngr edi ent s r el eased f r om panel mat er i al s.

Biodegradability: ___________________________________________________________________________

Durability: The engi neer ed super i or st r engt h of t he panel s cr eat e st r uct ur es t hat wi l l

wi t hst and f ar mor e st r ess t han t ypi cal const r uct i on. _______________________

Fire Rating: T. S. O. Commer ci al Ri sk Ser vi ce I nc. r at es Ener cept as sl ow bur n, _________

non- combust i bl e. Fl ame spr ead of t he EPS i n r ef er ence t o sur f ace bur ni ng

char act er i st i cs i s ( 5) . Ener cept i s U. L. l i st ed.

Estimated Cost: When compar ed t o const r uct i on cost of convent i onal wal l s wi t h si mi l ar

per f or mance, t he pr i ce i s ver y compet i t i ve. The pr edesi gned panel s ______

gr eat l y r educe t he l abor r equi r ed t o bui l d a st r uct ur e. ___________________

page 1 of 2

3Architects for Social Responsibility/Boston Society of Architects, The Sourcebook for Sustainable Design: A Guide to

Environmentally Responsible Building Materials and Processes, ed. Andrew St. John, AIA; Tracy Mumma, et al., Guide

to Resource Efficient Building Elements, 5th ed., Missoula, Mont.: Center for Resourceful Building Technology, 1995;

and Victoria Schomer, Interior Concerns Resource Guide, Mill Valley, Calif: Interior Concerns, 1993.


Production Process

Overall EnvironmentalOr i ent ed st r andboar d, whi ch i s a r ecycl eabl e cr op pr oduct , i s used ______Considerations i n Ener cept panel s. Recycl ed EPS i s used whenever possi bl e. The _______

over al l ef f ect i s f ar l ess ener gy r equi r ed t o pr oduce t he panel s t han ___

any ot her bui l di ng mat er i al s. ____________________________________________

Pollution Prevention Al l mat er i al s ar e used t o t hei r maxi mum and EPS i s r ecycl ed, ____________Measures f or f ur t her use. _________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

Waste Reduction The nat ur e of t he pr oduct wi t h st andar d si zi ng al l ows f or ver y ef f i ci entMeasures and compl et e use of mat er i al s, vi r t ual l y el i mi nat i ng bui l di ng si t e wast e.

_________________________________________________________________________

Embodied Energy Si nce t her e i s no ai r f l ow t hr ough Ener cept panel s, wi ndy days have _____

l ess ef f ect on t he heat i ng and cool i ng cost s of t he home. _______________

_________________________________________________________________________

Recycled Content O. S. B. i s manuf act ur ed f r om cr op l ogs/ l umber whi ch i s qui ckl y ___________

r enewabl e. Resear ch i s bei ng done and pr ocesses ar e bei ng devel oped ____

t o use a hi gh cont ent of r ecycl ed EPS i n t he cor e. ______________________

Ex: Made from 90% recycled tire rubber

6. A representative building in which the product is used.

Building NameAmer i can Del t a Li f e I nsur ance Co.

Location Wat er t own SD____________________

Architect Spencer , Ruf f and Associ at es ___

7. Comments. Please provide any comments you would like to make in the space below and back. In particular, add other

information on environmental friendliness of your product which cannot be described in above categories.

Si nce Ener cept panel s ar e cust om bui l t f or each pr oj ect al l door s and wi ndow openi ngs ar e

cut i n and f r amed at t he f act or y. Thi s means pr act i cal l y no wast e on t he const r uct i on___

si t e due t o t he panel s bei ng cut on si t e, el i mi nat i ng r ef use haul ed t o t he l ocal l andf i l l .

Ener cept al so suppl i es basement wal l and r oof panel s, so as t o t ot al l y encapsul at e t he___

home i n i nsul at i on. The use of t her mal l y br oken post s as st r uct i onal el ement s i nsur e t he

most ener gy ef f i ci ent , st r ong encl osur e avai l abl e. _______________________________________

Return this form to Dr. J.J. Kim, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

page 2 of 2


Figure 2: Sample page from the Sustainable Building Products Database.


Figure 3: The frequency of various sustainability features of building materials. The total numberof materials included in this survey is 121; a material may have more than one feature.

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0WR PP RC EER NM EE WTC NT RES LL BD RC RU OTHER

Pre-Building Phase Building Phase Post Building Phase

Sustainab le Criteria

WRPPRCEERNM

EEWTCNTRESLL

BDRCRU

O

Pre-Building PhaseWaste ReductionPollution Pre ventionRecycled ContentEmbodied Ener gy ReductionNatural Material

Building PhaseEnergy Efficienc yWater Treatment/Conser vationNon or LessT oxicRenewable Ener gy SystemLong er Lif e

Post Building PhaseBiodegradab leRecyclableReusab le

Other

Sustainable Criteria


Appendix C:Review of National Architecture Accreditation Board CriteriaThe teaching of architecture as a profession is governed bynational standards defined by the profession. As a means ofevaluating the current state of environmental awareness andeducation in architecture, we reviewed the criteria used bythe National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) incertifying schools of architecture in the United States. Ourreview indicated a lack of emphasis on understanding theecological impact of buildings and the integration of envi-ronmental issues into the overall design of architecturalform and selection of materials. The criteria for the variousareas of accreditation are presented in the accompanyingchart and evaluated for relevance to sustainable design issues.Problems with the limitations of current criteria in addressingsustainability are also discussed. Suggestions for expandingand/or rewriting criteria are given where appropriate.

Directly Related

Indirectly Related

Not Related

Key:


NAAB Accreditation Review: Social Criteria

Social Criteria Problems/SuggestionsKey

Promote an awareness of vernacular architecture developed asa response to varying climatic conditions and indigenousmaterials.

Expand the definition of "economic systems and policies" toinclude environmental costs and the importance of sustainabledevelopment in reducing these costs.

The emphasis tends to be on building codes and tax or realestate laws. Expand this area of study to include the laws andpolicies that govern the environmental impact of building anddevelopment.

Be aware of basic principles gov-erning the information of diversecultures and human behavior.

Be aware of the values, needs, andethics that guide human behavior.

Be aware of historical methods ofinquiry.

Be aware of the diversity of archi-tectural history and traditionsthroughout the world.

Be aware of the implications ofeconomic systems and policies onthe development of the built envi-ronment.

Be aware of levels of governmentand the areas of the law each hasgenerated that affect architecture.

Understand the impact of variouscultural values and societal set-tings on the social responsibilitiesand the role of the architect.


NAAB Accreditation Review: Technical Criteria

Technical Criteria

Include an understanding of the environmental impact of vari-ous structural systems.

Include a consideration of codes governing both interior andexterior environmental conditions and the ecological impact ofbuildings.

Within this theoretical study of building systems, develop anability to analyze them in regards to environmental impact.Change to: Understand the basic theories, conservation tech-niques, and ecological impact of lighting, acoustics,environmental control, building systems, and energy manage-ment.

Include in this understanding a study of life cycle environ-mental impact. Change to: Understand the basic elements,organization, design, and life cycle of mechanical and electri-cal, plumbing, communication, security, and verticaltransportation systems.

Expand this area of study to include the environmental impli-cations of various types of materials and assemblies, and thepotential substitution of environmentally friendly buildingmaterials and assemblies. Change to: Be aware of the prin-ciples, conventions, standards, applications, restrictions, andenvironmental impacts associated with the manufacture of ex-isting and emerging construction materials and assemblies.

Key Problems/SuggestionsUnderstand the principles embod-ied in natural laws affecting thescience of building.

Understand the basic theories ofstructures and structural behaviorof typical systems.

Be able to organize and designsimple structural systems to with-stand gravity and lateral forces.

Be aware of relevant codes andregulatory standards and their ap-plication to physical andenvironmental systems.

Understand the basic theories oflighting, acoustics, environmentalcontrol, building systems and en-ergy management.

Understand the basic elements,organization, and design of me-chanical and electrical, plumbing,communication, security, and ver-tical transportation systems.

Be aware of the principles, conven-tions, standards, applications, andrestrictions associated with themanufacture of existing andemerging construction materialsand assemblies.

Understand safety requirementsand selection processes for equip-ment and materials in site andbuilding design.

Understand the problems relatedto the use of hazardous and toxicmaterials in new and existingbuildings.


NAAB Accreditation Review: Environmental Criteria

Emphasis is on the physical laws governing the structuraland thermodynamic properties of individual buildings. Thelocal and global impact of design decisions are neglected.Expand awareness to include the ecological effects ofarchitecture on the global ecosystem.

Key Problems/SuggestionsBe aware of the principles govern-ing the natural world.

Be aware of the theories andmethods that clarify the relation-ships between human behaviorand the physical environment.

Be aware of the principles andtheories that deal with environ-mental context, and the architectsresponsibility with respect toglobal and environmental issues.

Understand how a specific siteinfluences, and is influenced by,its physical characteristics and itsecological context.

Understand the ecological impactof buildings and their occupants.


NAAB Accreditation Review: Design Criteria

Problems/Suggestions

Change to: Be able to gather and analyze information aboutecological conditions, human needs, behavior, and aspirationsto inform the design process and do basic research as itrelates to all aspects of design.

Change to: Be able to integrate natural and imposed siteconstraints and the potential for ecological impact into thedevelopment of the program and the design of the project.

Change to: Be able to design both site and building to accom-modate those with varying physical and environmental needs.

Be able to examine architecturalissues rationally, logically, andcoherently.

Be able to gather and analyzeinformation about human needs,behavior, and aspirations toinform the design process and dobasic research as it relates to allaspects of design.

Be able to use architectural historyand theory in the critical observa-tion and discussion of architectureand bring an understanding ofhistory to bear on the design ofbuildings and communities.

Be able to integrate natural andimproved site constraints into thedevelopment of the program andthe design of the project.

Be able to articulate and clarifybasic project goals and objectivesand to plan appropriate designactivities using techniques ofprogramming, analysis, andsynthesis applicable to a varietyof project types.

Be able to design both site andbuilding to accommodate thosewith varying physical needs.

Key


NAAB Accreditation Review: Design Criteria (continued)

Key Problems/SuggestionsBe able to apply the principles thatunderlie design and selection of lifesafety systems in the general designof buildings and their subsystems.

Be able to assess, select, and integratestructural and environmentalsystems into a building.

Be able to select building materialsand assemblies as an integral partof the design and to satisfy require-ments of building programs.

Be able to develop interior and exte-rior building spaces, elements, andcomponents, using basic principlesof architectural form making.

Be able to use the interactionsbetween technical, aesthetic, andethic values in the formation ofarchitectural judgements.

NAAB Accreditation Review: Aesthetic Criteria

Key Problems/SuggestionsUnderstand basic principles andsystems of order underlying 2Dand 3D design.

Understand history, theories, andprinciples on which making of arch-itecture and urban form are based.

Understand significant designmethodologies and their applicationto architectural design.

Understand purposes for buildingand how they are realized and givenmeaning through architectural form.

Understand how different forms aresuccessful or not in satisfying aproposals programmatic, technical,accessibility and contextual objectives.

Expand this study to include an historical perspective on theenvironmental impact of building and interior environmentalquality.

Expand this area of study to include environmental impactand sustainability criteria.

Combined Bibliography August 1998 Sustainable Architecture Introduction 31

Combined Bibliography

ContentsBuilding Materials and Components....................... 31Case Studies ............................................................. 32Design......................................................................... 33Ecology ...................................................................... 34Education ................................................................... 34Energy ........................................................................ 35Environmental Audits ............................................... 35Environmental Economics....................................... 35Environmental Impact ............................................... 37Environmental Law/Policies .................................... 38Forestry ...................................................................... 38Hazardous Substances............................................. 39History ........................................................................ 39Indoor Air Quality ..................................................... 39Life Cycle Analysis ................................................... 40Lighting ...................................................................... 40Passive Systems ...................................................... 40Photovoltaics ............................................................ 41Recycling and Reuse ................................................ 41Sustainability ............................................................ 44Urban Planning ......................................................... 47

The following topical list of 300+ publications has been compiledfrom a variety of sources, including bibliographies used inarchitectural classes across the country, published lists, andindependent research. An asterisk (*) indicates publicationsdescribed in the Combined Annotated Bibliography, which isarranged alphabetically.

Brick Development Association. Brick: a LowEnergy Material. The Brick Bulletin , March 1974.[www.tradeuk.com/industries/bda.html [email protected] ]

Brick Institute of America. Manufacturing, Classifi-cation and Selection of Brick: ManufacturingPart 1.(Technical Note 9.) Reston, Va.: 1986. [Available freeat www.bia.org/BIA/technotes/technote.htm or bycalling 713/623-4362]

. Oxidized Sewage Sludge as Source ofIncome. BIA News (June 1992). [See www.bia.org/BIA/general.html or call BIA at 713/623-4362.]

Browning, William D., and Philip Arcidi. Knock onBrick. Progressive Architecture 74 (March 1993): 8083.

Burton, Michael. A Guide to Brick Coatings.American Ceramic Society Bulletin 72, no. 3: 8992.

Changing with the Weather. Architectural Review189 (June 1991): 5659.

Chapman, Linda. Straw Into Gold: Using StrawBales to Build Homes. Canadian Architect 41 (May1996): 3637.

de Milleville, Hugues. Smart Houses: HomeAutomation Systems. Canadian Architect 41 (June1996): 33.

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Comparative EnergyEvaluation of Plastic Products and TheirAlternatives for the Building and Construction andTransportation Industries. The Society of thePlastics Industry, Inc., 1991. [Contact Franklin at913/649-2225 or [email protected]]

Gorman, Thomas M. Feasibility of ConvertingWood Materials From County Waste Stream IntoValue-added Products. Prepared for the PanhandleArea Council, Hayden, Idaho, August 1995.

Gregerson, John. Acoustics: Sealing the BuildingEnvelope. Building Design & Construction (May1996): 5658.

Hall, Jonathan. Frame and Fortune. ArchitectureToday 68 (May 1996): 39, 41.

Johnson, Timothy. Low-E Glazing Design Guide.Boston: Butterworth, 1991.

Building Materials and ComponentsAllen, E. Fundamentals of Building Construction.New York: John Wiley, 1985.

American Institute of Architects. EnvironmentalResource Guide Subscription. Washington: AIA, 1992.

Anderson, Bruce N. Ecologue: The EnvironmentalCatalog and Consumers Guide to a Safe Earth.New York: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Brand, Stuart, ed. The Whole Earth Catalog: The Bestof Environmental Tools and Ideas. Sausalito, Calif.:Whole Earth Ecolog, 1993.*

32 Sustainable Architecture Introduction August 1998 Combined Bibliography

Johnston, Janet, and John Swearingen. Building aStraw-Bale House. Fine Homebuilding (June/July1996): 7478.

LeBlanc, Sydney. From Humble Sources, EarthyElegance Springs. The New York Times (Thursday,April 18, 1996): C1, C6.*

Lorenz, David. A New Industry Emerges:Making Construction Materials from CellulosticWastes. Minneapolis: Institute for Local SelfReliance, June 1995. [To order, call 202/232-4108or see www.ilsr.org]

Mumma, Tracy, et al. Guide to Resource EfficientBuilding Elements , 5th ed. Missoula, Mont.: Center forResourceful Building Technology, 1995. [To order,call 406/549-7678 or see www.montana.com/crbt]*

Ozkan, Ertan, and Mohammed S. Al-Herbish. AnExperimental Study of the Critical Properties ofPressed and Stablized Earth Bricks. ArchitecturalScience Review 38, no. 2 (June 1995): 5973.

Pawley, Martin. Building for Tomorrow.San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1982.

Plumridge, A. and W. Meulenkamp. Brickwork.New York: Harry Abrams, 1993.

Ruyssevelt, Paul. Package Deal: Studio E at MiltonPark. Architecture Today 64 (January 1996): 2425

St. John, Andrew, ed./BSA Architects for SocialResponsibility Committee. Sourcebook for SustainableDesign: A Guide to Environmentally ResponsibleBuilding Materials and Processes. Boston: BostonSociety of Architects, 1992. [[email protected] 617/951-1433 x 221]

Smith, E. W., and G. S. Austin. Adobe, PressedEarth, and Rammed Earth: Earth Industries in NewMexico. Bulletin 127. Socorro: New Mexico Bureauof Mines & Mineral Resources, 1989.

Steen, Athena Swentzell, et al. The Straw Bale House .White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green PublishingCompany, 1994.

Sullivan, Ann C. Library Intelligence. Architecture85 (July 1996): 109115.

Williams, Elizabeth and Robert. Building WithSalvaged Lumber. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab Books,Inc., 1983.

Williams, Gary. Wood as Primary Structure:Engineered Wood Products. Canadian Architect 41(July 1996): 29, 32.

Wilson, Alex. Straw: The Next Great BuildingMaterial? Environmental Building News 4, no. 3(May/June 1995): 1, 1117.

Wyatt, Terry. A Sound Approach to Indoor Climate.Building Services: The CISBE Journal (April 1996).

Case StudiesCanterbury Conviction. Building Services: TheCIBSE Journal (January 1996): 1822.

Two Towers in Frankfurt: Office Towers forFrankfurt Commerzbank. Architectural Review 190(May 1992): 5661.

Abel, Chris. Cool High-Rise: MBF Tower,Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia. ArchitecturalReview 196 (September 1994): 2630.

Anderton, Frances J. Jungle House: Tepotzlan.Architectural Review 189 (June 1991): 4245.

Arcidi, Philip, and Abby Bussel. Album: ClimaticBuildings. Progressive Architecture 74 (March 1993):108110.

Blundell-Jones, Peter. Green School of Thought.Architectural Review 188 (September 1990): 4953.

Bone, Eugenia. The House that Max Built.Metropolis (December 1996): 3742.*

Briggs, Angela. Solar Foster: Norman FostersComplex of Buildings, Micro Electronics Park,Duisburg. Architectural Review 192 (February 1993):3236.

Brown, Patricia Leigh. Mr. Fisk Builds His GreenHouse. The New York Times (Thursday, February 15,1996): C1, C6.

Browning, William D., and Philip Arcidi. Knock onBrick. Progressive Architecture (March 1993): 8083.


Christy, Jim. Strange Sites: Uncommon Homes andGardens of the Pacific Northwest. Madeira Park, BritishColumbia: Harbour Publishing, 1996.

Cole, Raymond J. In Transit to a Sustainable World.Canadian Architect 41 (July 1996): 1219.

Cook, Hugh. Lab Design Cultivates Dual Objectives.Building Design & Construction (May 1996): 5054.

. A Green Approach to Office Design.Building Design & Construction (June 1996): 5256.

Davey, Peter. Classic Study. Architectural Review192 (February 1993): 3745.

. Forestry Commission. Architectural Review188 (September 1990): 4548.

. Variable Skin House. Architectural Review192 (February 1993): 5455.

Dawson, Layla. Working Environment.Architectural Review 192 (February 1993): 2025.

Dawson, Susan. Pillars of Hidden Strength. TheArchitects Journal 203 (May 16, 1996).

Edwards, Brian. Huddersfield. Architecture Today61 (September 1995): 1213.

Evans, Barrie. Passive Ideas Cast in Concrete. TheArchitects Journal 203 (May 23, 1996): 5153.

Fawkes, Hugo. Southern Progress. ArchitecturalReview 189 (June 1991): 6771.

Henderson, Justin. Pyramid of the Sun.Architecture 83 (June 1993): 8285.

Landecker, Heidi. Sea Breeze. Architecture 83(June 1993): 5861.

Loken, Steve. ReCraft 90: The Construction of aResource Efficient House. Missoula, Mont.: Center forResourceful Building Technology, 1993. [To order,call 406/549-7678 or see www.montana.com/crbt]

Mays, Vernon. Centre of the Earth. Architecture 83(June 1993): 5257.

Milligan, Charles, and Jim Higgs. The Wizards Eye:Visions of American Resourcefulness. San Francisco:Chronicle Books, 1978.*

Newsmith, Lynn, and Nancy B. Solomon. Making aDifference. Architecture 80 (May 1991): 8289.

Pease, Veronica. Light in Lahr. ArchitecturalReview 192 (February 1993): 4953.

Richards, Ivor. Tropic Tower. Architectural Review192 (February 1993): 2631.

Spens, Michael. Response to Provence.Architectural Review 189 (June 1991): 3641.

DesignAlexander, Christopher. A Timeless Way of Building.New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Attenborough, Miles. Green Buildings: Benefits &Barriers, Part I. Building Service: The CISBE Journal(April 1996): Part 1 of 2.

. Green Buildings: Benefits and Barriers,Part 2. Building Service: The CISBE Journal (May1996): 3637. Part 2 of 2

Barnett, Dianna Lopez, with William D. Browning.A Primer on Sustainable Building. Snowmass, Colo.:Rocky Mountain Institute, 1995. [To order, call970/927-3851 or see www.rmi.org/catalog/gds.htm]*

Bechtel, Stefan, and the Editors of Rodale Press.Keeping Your Company Green. Emmaus, Pa.: RodalePress, 1990.

Bouchlaghem, N. M.. A Computer Model for theDesign of Window Shading Devices. BuildingResearch and Information 24, no. 2 (March-April 1996):104107.

Branch, Mark Alden. The State of Sustainability.Progressive Architecture (March 1993): 7179.

Brand, Janet. Sustainable Development: TheInternational, National and Local Context forWomen. Built Environment 22, no. 1: 5871.

Brunskill, Ronald William. Illustrated Handbook ofVernacular Architecture. London: Faber and Faber,1978.*

Buijs, Arjen, and Sacha Silvester. DemonstrationProjects and Sustainable Housing. Building Researchand Information 24, no. 4 (July-August 1996): 195202.


Cottom-Winslow, Margaret. Environmental Design:The Best of Architecture and Technology. New York:Rissoli International Publications, 1990.

Cowan, Henry J., ed. Handbook of ArchitecturalTechnology. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold, 1991.

Crowther, Richard L. Ecologic Architecture. Boston:Butterworth Architecture, 1992.*

Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky. Risk andCulture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical andEnvironmental Dangers. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1982.

Green Architecture. Architectural Review 188(14-article special section, September 1990): 3693.

Gunts, Edward. Blueprint for a Green Future.Architecture 83 (June 1993): 4751.

Levitt, Sheldon. Keeping the Environment in MindWhen You Design. Facility Management Journal (Jan/Feb 1994): 2024. [www.ifma.org or 713/623-4362.]

McHenry, Paul Graham, Jr. Adobe and Rammed EarthBuildings: Design and Construction. New York: JohnWiley, 1984.*

Olgyay, Victor. Design with Climate : BioclimaticApproach to Architectural Regionalism. PrincetonUniversity Press, 1963.

Rapoport, Amos. House Form and Culture . New York:Prentice-Hall, 1969.*

Reynolds, Michael E. Earthship: Volumes IIII.Taos, NM: Solar Survival Press, 1993.

Vale, Brenda, and Robert Vale. Green Architecture .London: Thames and Hudson, 1991.*

Wann, David. Deep Design: Pathways to a LivableFuture. Washington: Island Press, 1996.

Wilson, Forrest. Building with the Byproducts ofSociety. AIA Journal (July 1979): 4045.*

Yeang, Ken. Designing With Nature : The EcologicalBasis for Architectural Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.*

EcologyAllenby, Braden R. and Deanna J. Richards, eds.The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems. Washington:National Academy Press, 1994.*

Bechtel, Stefan, and the Editors of Rodale Press.Keeping Your Company Green. Emmaus, Pa.: RodalePress, 1990.

Coldicutt, Susan. Environmental Theory and theRoles of Sciences. Architectural Science Review 38,no. 2 (June 1995): 97107.

Edwards, David J., Philip T. Harris and Gary D. Holt.The Greenhouse Effect: Impact Upon and the Roleto be Played by Construction. Building Research andInformation 24, no. 2 (March-April 1996): 97103.

Odum, Eugene. Ecology. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1963.

Parker, Dennis J. Floods in Cities: IncreasingExposure and Rising Impact Potential. BuiltEnvironment 21, no. 23: 114125.

Putman, R. J., and S. D. Wratten. Principles of Ecology .Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Richards, Deanna J., and Ann B. Fullerton, eds.Industrial Ecology: U.S.-Japan Perspectives.Washington: National Academy Press, 1994.

Schnadelbach, R. Terry. The Ecology of Angkor.Architecture + Design 13, no. 3 (MayJune 1996): 4351.

Van der Ryn, Sim, and Stuart Cowen. EcologicalDesign. Washington: Island Press, 1996.

Education

Boyer, Ernest L., and Lee D. Mitgang. BuildingCommunity: A New Future for Architecture Educationand Practice. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation forthe Advancement of Teaching, 1996.

Ivy, Robert A. Rural Education. Architecture 83(October 1994): 6265.*

Mumford, Lewis. Values for Survival: Essays,Addresses, and Letters on Politics and Education.Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries, 1946.


Mountain Institute. [To order, call 970/927-3851 orsee www.rmi.org/catalog/gds.htm]

Vivona, M. A. Audit Environmental ProcessesUsing Life Cycle Costs. Hydrocarbon Processing 73(International Edition; August 1994): 1,1151116.

Environmental Economics

Alper, Joe. Protecting the Environment With thePower of the Market. Science 260 (June 25, 1993):1,8841,885.

Barbier, Edward B. Economics and Ecology: NewFrontiers and Sustainable Development. New York:Chapman and Hall, 1993.

Cairncross, Frances. Green Link: A Guide to theEnvironment. London: Earthscan, January 1995.[www.earthscan.co.uk]

Coker, Annabel, and Cathy Richards, eds. Valuingthe Environment: Economic Approaches to Environ-mental Evaluation. Proceedings of a Workshop Held atLudgrove Hall. New York: Belhaven Press, 1992.

Constanza, Robert. Ecological Economics:The Science and Management of Sustainability.New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.

Daly, Herman E. Towards an EnvironmentalMacroeconomics. Land Economics 67 (May 1991):255259. [Discussion: 68 (May 1992): 241243.]

. Steady-State Economics: Second Edition withNew Essays. Washington: Island Press, 1991.

Dixon, John A., and Paul B. Sherman. Economics ofProtected Areas: A New Look at Benefits. Washington:Island Press, 1990.

Eckersley, Robyn. Green versus EcosocialistEconomic Programmes: The Market Rules OK?Political Studies 40 (June 1992): 315333.

Economic Commission for Europe. Management ofPlastic Wastes in the ECE Region. New York: UnitedNations, 1992. [To order, call 800/253-9646 or [email protected]]

Field, Barry C. Environmental Economics: AnIntroduction. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

EnergyBurberry, P. Saving Energy: What Matters Now.Architects Journal 13 (February 1991): 5559.

Conservation Services Group. Energy CraftedHomes Training Manual . Brattleboro, Vt.: West RiverCommunications, 1990.

Cook, Jeffrey, ed. Passive Cooling . Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 1990.

Energy Resource Center. ERC Sourcebook. Downey,Calif.: Southern California Gas Company, 1995.

Fisk, Pliny, III. Integration vs. Conservation: ARenewable Energy Building Block for the 21st

Century. In Integration Compendium. [Published bythe Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems,8604 Webberville Rd., Austin, TX, 78724; call 512/928-4786 or see www2.cmpbs.org]*

Friedman, Avi, and Vince Cammalleri. The Impactof R-2000 Building Technology on Canadian Housing.Building Research and Information 24, no. 1 (January-February 1996): 513.

Solomon, Nancy B. New Software Saves BTUs.Architecture 85 (May 1996): 257261.

Stein, R. G., et al. Handbook of Energy Use forBuilding Construction. Washington: U. S. Departmentof Energy, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1981.

Watson, Donald, and Kenneth Labs. Climatic Design:EnergyEfficient Building Principles and Practices. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1983.*

Webb, Robert. Energy from the Land. TheArchitects Journal 203 (May 9, 1996): 4445.

Wilson, Alex. Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings.6th ed. Washington: American Council for anEnergy-Efficient Economy, 1998.

Environmental Audits

Barton, Hugh, and Noel Bruder. A Guide to LocalEnvironmental Auditing . London: Earthscan, January1995. [www.earthscan.co.uk]

Browning, William D., and Diana L. Barnett.Greening the Whitehouse. Snowmass, Colo.: Rocky


Fisher, Anthony, C. Environmental and ResourceEconomics. Aldershot, England: Edward ElgarPublishing, 1995.

Goodstein, Eban S. Economics and the Environment.Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.

Hardin, Garret. Living Within Limits: Ecology,Economics, and Population Taboos. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993.

Hawken, Paul. The Ecology of Commerce Inc. 14(April 1992): 9394.

. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration ofSustainability. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.

Hawken, Paul, and William MacDonough. SevenSteps of Doing Good Business. Inc. (November1993): 7982.

Jacobs, Michael. The Green Economy: Environment,Sustainable Development, and the Politics of the Future.Concord, Mass.: Pluto Press, 1991.

Jansson, AnnMari, Monica Hammer, Carl Folke, andRobert Costanza. Investing in Natural Capital: TheEcological Economics Approach to Sustainability.Washington: Island Press, 1994.

Khavari, Farid A. Environomics: The Economics ofEnvironmentally Safe Prosperity. Westport, Conn.:Praeger, 1993.

Munasinghe, Mohan. Environmental Economics andSustainable Development. Washington: World Bank,1993. [To order, call 703/661-1580 or [email protected]]

Makower, Joel. The E Factor: The Bottom-line Approachto Environmentally Responsible Business. New York:Random House/Tilden Press, 1993.

McPhee, Marnie. The Power of Positive Consulting.In Business (November/December 1995): 2728.

Odum, Howard T. Simulation Models of EcologicalEconomics Developed with Energy LanguageMethod. Simulation 53 (August 1989): 6975.

Pearce, David. Economics and GAIA. ArchitecturalDesign 63, no. 1/2 (Jan./Feb. 1993): 9091.

. Economics, Equity and Sustainable Develop-ment. Futures 20 (London; December 1988): 598605.

. Economists Befriend the Earth.New Scientist 120 (November 19, 1988): 3439.

Pearce, David, and Dominic Moran. The EconomicValue of Biodiversity. London: Earthscan, 1994.[www.earthscan.co.uk]

Power, T.M., ed. Economic Well-Being and Environmen-tal Protection in the Pacific Northwest (A ConsensusReport by Pacific Northwest Economists). Eugene,Ore.: Forest Service Employees for EnvironmentalEthics, December 1995. [Call 541/484-2692,e-mail [email protected], or see www.afseee.org/publications/reports/ewb_pnw/ewb_report.html]

Schumacher, E. F. Small is Beautiful: Economics as ifPeople Mattered. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.*

Schmidheiny, Stephen. Changing Course: A GlobalBusiness Perspective on Development and the Environ-ment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992.

Shilling, John D. Reflections on Debt and theEnvironment. Finance and Development 29 (June1992): 2830.

Sinden, J. A. Unpriced Values: Decisions WithoutMarket Prices. New York: John Wiley, 1979.

Skidelsky, Robert. John Maynard Keynes: TheEconomist as Savior, 192037. New York: PenguinPress, 1993.

Solsky, Stuart T. Financing Environmental Projects.Pollution Engineering 27 (March 1995): 4043.

Stern, David, and Daniel Knapp. Reuse, Recycling,Refuse and the Local Economy: A Case Study of theBerkeley Serial MRF. Berkeley: Urban Ore, Inc.,and The Center for Neighborhood Technology, 1993.[To order, call 510/848-6370.]

Tisdell, C. A. Economics of Environmental Conservation:Economics for Environmental and Ecological Manage-ment. New York: Elsevier, 1991.

Turner, Kerry, David Pearce, and Ian Bateman.Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Turner, Kerry, ed. Sustainable EnvironmentalEconomics and Management: Principles and Practice.Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 1993.


Young, John E., and Aaron Sachs. The Next EfficiencyRevolution: Creating A Sustainable Materials Economy.Worldwatch Paper 121. Washington: WorldwatchInstitute, September 1994. [www.worldwatch.org or202/452-1999]*

Environmental ImpactAmerican Institute of Architects.Energy, Environment & Architecture. 1992.Environmental Action Project, 1992: Working for a Sustainable Future .Environmental Resource GuideProtection of Tropical Moist Forests.[To order call 202/626-7541 or see www.aiabooks.com]

Barney, Gerald O., ed. Global 2000: The Report to thePresident: Entering the Twenty-First Century. U. S.Council on Environmental Quality and the Depart-ment of State. Arlington, Va.: Seven Lock Press, 1980.

Barrow, Christopher J. Developing the Environment:Problems and Management. New York: LongmanScientific & Technical, 1995.

Bartlett, Paul and Roger Baldwin. Assessing theEnvironmental Impact of Buildings in the UK. InU.S. Green Building Conference 1994. NIST SpecialPublication 863. [To order, call NTIS, 800/553-6847,or see www.ntis.gov, and order #PB94206364.]

Berry, Thomas. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco:Sierra Club Books, 1988.

Building Research Establishment. BRE EnvironmentalAssessment Method, Version 1/90 for New OfficeBuildings. Garston, Watford, England: BRE, 1990.

Cole, Raymond J. Building EnvironmentalPerformance Assessment Criteria. In U.S. GreenBuilding Conference 1994. NIST Special Publication863. [To order, call NTIS, 800/553-6847, or seewww.ntis.gov, and order #PB94206364.]

Cole, Raymond J., et al. Building EnvironmentalPerformance Assessment Criteria, Version 1: OfficeBuildings. Vancouver: University of British Columbia,School of Architecture, 1993.

Commoner, Barry. Making Peace with the Planet.New York: Pantheon Books, 1990.

Ehrlich, Paul R. Healing the Planet: Strategies forResolving the Environmental Crisis. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1991.

Fanney, A. H., K. M. Witter, A. E. Traugott, and L.N. Simon. U.S. Green Building Conference 1994.NIST Special Publication 863. [To order, call NTIS,800/553-6847, and order #PB94206364.]

Fernando, Chitru S., Paul R. Kleindorfer, and MohanMunasinghe. Integrated Resource Planning WithEnvironmental Costs in Developing Countries.Energy Journal 15, no. 3 (1994): 93121.

Gordon, Harry T., The American Institute ofArchitects Committee on the Environment. InU.S. Green Building Conference 1994. NIST SpecialPublication 863. [To order, call NTIS, 800/553-6847,and order #PB94206364.]

Hammond, Brett, and Rob Coppock. Valuing HealthRisks, Costs, and Benefits for Environmental DecisionMaking: Report of a Conference. Washington: NationalAcademy Press, 1990.

Hart, John. Saving Cities, Saving Money: EnvironmentalStrategies That Work. Sausalito, Calif.: ResourceRenewal Institute, 1992.

Hill, James E. The NIST Green Building Program.In U. S. Green Building Conference 1994. NIST SpecialPublication 863. [To order, call NTIS, 800/553-6847,or see www.ntis.gov, and order #PB94206364.]

John, Kuh H., Hio J. Shin, and Richard G. Walsh.The Effect of Environmental Constraints on Indivi-dual Economic Behavior. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 41 (August 1994): 365374.

Jones, Tom, and Jack Short. The Economics ofTransport Costs. The OECD Observer 188 (June/July1994): 1114.

Jordan, Andrew. Paying the Incremental Costs ofGlobal Environmental Protection: The Evolving Roleof the GEF. Environment 36 (July/Aug. 1994): 1220.

Lewis, Martin W. Green Delusions: An EnvironmentalistCritique of Radical Environmentalism. Durham, NC:Duke University Press, 1993.

Lovelock, J. E. GAIA: A New Look at Life on Earth.New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.


McDonough, William. A Boat for Thoreau:Architecture, Ethics, and the Making of Things.Business Ethics (May/June 1993): 2629.*

Megaard, Michael M. and Susan L. Megaard. IRSExplains Deductions for Environmental CleanupCosts. Taxation for Accountants 53 (October 1994):196204.

Pearce, David. Historical Perspective and Environ-mental Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comment on Doelman.Futures 17 (London; December 1985): 672675.

. Blueprint for a Green Economy. 1989.. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. 1993.. Blueprint 4: Sustaining the Earth, Capturing

Global Value. 1994.London: Earthscan. [www.earthscan.co.uk]

Pederson, D. O. Economic Assessment of EnergyUse and Environmental Impact of Construction.Proceedings: CIB W55/W95 International Symposium onEconomic Evaluation and the Built Environment. Lisbon:Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, 1993.

Pimentel, David, C. Harvey, and P. Resosudarmo.Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosionand Conservation Efforts. Science 267 (February 24,1995): 1,1171,123. [Reprint available from NPPC.]

Turner, B. L., II, et al., eds. The Earth as Transformedby Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in theBiosphere Over the Past 300 Years. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Whole Earth Ecolog. Ecolog: The Best of EnvironmentalTools and Ideas. Sausalito, Calif.: Whole Earth Ecolog,1993.

Wilson, Edward O. The Diversity of Life . Cambridge,Mass.: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 1992.

. Threats to Biodiversity. Scientific American261 (September 1989): 108-112

Wolblast, Anthony B. Environment in Peril .Washington: Smithsonian Press, 1991.

World Resource Institute. World Resources 19941995: Assessment of the Resource Base That Supports theGlobal Economy . New York: Oxford University Press,1995. [To order call 800/822-0504 or see www.wri.org]

Environmental Law/PoliciesFischer, Kurt, and Johan Schot. EnvironmentalStrategies for Industry: International Perspectives onResearch Needs and Policy Implications. Washington:Island Press, 1993.

Lee, Henry. Shaping National Responses to ClimateChange: A Post-Rio Policy Guide. Washington: IslandPress, April 1995.

Zaelke, Durwood, Robert E. Houseman, and PaulOrbuch. Trade and the Environment: Law, Economics,and Policy. Washington: Island Press, 1991.

ForestryAplet, Greg, N. Johnson, J. T. Olson and V. Alaric.Defining Sustainable Forestry. Washington: IslandPress, 1993.

Barbier, Edward, Joanne Burgess, Joshua Bishop, andBruce Aylward. The Economics of the Tropical TimberTrade. London: Earthscan, 1994. [www.earthscan.co.uk]

Bower, Jim L. Responsible Environmentalism: TheEthical Dimensions of Forest Harvest and Wood Use.St. Paul: University of Minnesota, 1990.

Counsell, Simon. The Good Wood Guide . Luton,England: Friends of the Earth, 1990. [To order, seewww.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/pubscat/forest.htm orcall 01582 482 297]

Hoadley, R. Bruce. Understanding Wood . Newton,Conn.: The Taunton Press, 1980.

Maser, Chris. Sustainable Forestry: Philosophy, Science,and Ecconomics . Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press,1994.

Miller, Kenton, and Laura Tangley. Trees of Life:Saving Tropical Forests and Their Biological Wealth.Boston: Beacon Press, 1991.

Slessor, C., and M. Halnan. Tropical Hardwoods:Fruits of the Forest. Architects Journal (August 8,1990): 4548.

Terborgh, John. Diversity and the Tropical Rain Forest.New York: Scientific American Library (distributedby W.H. Freeman), 1992.


Wilson, Edward O. Threats to Biodiversity.Scientific American 261 (September 1989): 108112.

World Rainforest Movement. Rainforest Destruction:Causes, Effects and False Solutions. Penang, Malaysia:World Rainforest Movement, 1990.

Hazardous SubstancesBower, John. The Healthy House . New York: CarolPublication Group, 1989.

Buxbaum, Gunter. Industrial Inorganic Pigments.New York: VCH Publishers, 1993.

Dadd, Debra Lynn. Nontoxic, Natural and Earthwise.Los Angeles: Jeremy E. Tarchef, 1990.

Harte, John, Cheryl Holdren, Richard Schneider,and Christine Shirley. Toxics A to Z: A Guide toEveryday Pollution Hazards. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1991.

Jagels, R. Health Hazards of Natural and IntroducedChemical Components of Boatbuilding Woods.American Journal of Industrial Medicine 8 (1985).

Macbeth, R. G. Discovery in Medicine: Chance orScience? The Case of Woodworkers Nasal Cancer.American Journal of Industrial Medicine 19 (1990).

National Institutes of Health. Hazardous SubstancesData Bank. Bethesda Maryland: National Institutes ofHealth, National Library of Medicine, 1994.

Safe Home Digest. Healthy Building Resource Guide.New Canaan, Conn.: Lloyd Publishing, 1993.

HistoryKay, Jane Holtz. The Greening of Architecture.Architecture 80 (May 1991): 6163.

Murtagh, William J. Keeping Time: The History andTheory of Preservation in America. New York: SterlingPublishing, 1990.*

Pawley, Martin. Exogenous Shock. ArchitecturalReview 80 (September 1990): 9496.

Indoor Air QualityBower, John. The Healthy House . New York: CarolPublication Group, 1989.

Coffel and Feidon. Indoor Pollution, At Home/AtWork. Columbine, New York: Fawcett, 1991.

Cone, J., and M. Hodgson, eds. Problem Buildings:Associated Illness and the Sick Building Syndrome.Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus, 1989.

Dobby, John M. Bioaerosols: An Often OverlookedCause of Indoor Air Quality Problems. FacilityManagement Journal (Jan/Feb 1994): 811. [Seewww.ifma.org or call 713/623-4362.]

Enarson, Donald A., and Moira Chan-Yeung.Characterization of Health Effects of Wood DustExposures. American Journal of Industrial Medicine17 (1990).

Groah, William J. Formaldehyde Emissions:Hardwood Plywood and Certain Wood-Based PanelProducts. Washington: American Chemical Society,1986.

Groah, William J., Gary D. Gramp, and Micheal Trant.Effect of a Decorative Vinyl Overlay on Formalde-hyde Emissions. Forest Products Journal 34, no. 4(1984). [www.forestprod.org or [email protected]]

Kindangen, J. and G. Krauss. Investigation of NaturalVentilation with Computational Fluid Dynamics:A Comparison Study with Wind Tunnel Results.Architectural Science Review 39, no. 2 (June 1996).

Kundsin, Ruth B. Architectural Design and IndoorMicrobial Pollution . New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1988.

Levin, Hal. Carpet Installation Product Studies.Indoor Air Bulletin 1, no. 4 (August 1991).

. Controlling Sources of Indoor Air Pollution.Indoor Air Bulletin 1, no. 6 (November 1991).

. EPA Carpet Policy Dialogue. Indoor AirBulletin 1, no. 4 (August 1991).

. IAQ: Whose Responsibility? EPA Journal 19(October/December 1993): 3435.


. Material Emission Rates. Indoor AirBulletin 1, no. 6 (November 1991).

. New Carpet Odor and Carpet Backing.Indoor Air Bulletin 1, no. 4 (August 1991).

. Specifying Low Emitting Materials. IndoorAir Bulletin 2, no. 1 (January 1992).

. Technics: The Myths of Indoor Air Pollution.Progressive Architecture 74 (March 1993): 3337.

Li, Dehong, et al. Effects of Wood Dust Exposureon Respiratory Health: Cross-Sectional StudyAmong Farmers Exposed to Wood Dust. AmericanJournal of Industrial Medicine 17 (1990).

Sheldon, L., et al. Indoor Air Quality in PublicBuildings. EPA/600/6-88/009b. Washington:U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August1988. [To order, call 800/490-9198 or seewww.epa.gov/ncepihom/orderpub.html]

Tucker, W. Gene, et al. Sources of Indoor AirContaminents: Characterization, Emissions, andHealth Impacts. Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences 1990, Vol. 641. [[email protected] or800/843-6927]

Tunel, Isaac. Indoor Air Quality and Human Health.Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1985.

Woods, James E. Office Pollutants: They Can BeControlled. The Office 101 (March 1995): 119120.

Life Cycle AnalysisCole, Raymond J. and Paul C. Kernan. Life-CycleEnergy Use in Office Buildings. Building andEnvironment 31, no. 4 (July 1996): 307317.

Curran, Mary Ann. Life Cycle Assessment.InU.S. Green Building Conference 1994. NIST SpecialPublication 863. [To order, call NTIS, 800/553-6847,or see www.ntis.gov, and request #PB94206364.]

DellIsola, Alphonse J., and Stephen J. Kirk.Life Cycle Costing for Design Professionals. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1981.*

Dhillon, B. S. Life Cycle Costing . New York: Gordonand Breach Science Publishers, 1989.

Flanagan, R., G. Norman, J. Meadows, andG. Robinson. Life Cycle Costing: Theory and Practice.Oxford: BSP Professional Books, 1989.

Kreuze, Jerry G., and Gale E. Newell. ABC andLife-Cycle Costing for Environmental Expenditures.Management Accounting 75 (New York; February1994): 3842.

Lam, Joseph C., and Apple L. S. Chan. Life-CycleCosting of Energy-Efficient Measures for Commer-cial Buildings. Architectural Science Review 38, no. 3(September 1995): 125131.

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle ImpactAssessment. Pensacola, Fla.: SETAC. [To order, seewww.setac.org/setac1.html or email [email protected]]

Vigon, B. W., et al. Life-Cycle Assessment: Inven-tory Guidelines and Principles. EPA 600/R-92/245.Cincinnati: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,1993. [Available from NCEPI: call 800/490-9198, fax513/489-8695, or see www.epa.gov/ncepihom]

LightingChong, Richard. Going for Green: CommonFluorescent and Incandescent Reflector LampsBanned in Canada. Canadian Architect 41 (April1996): 41, 45.

Littlefair, Paul. Daylighting Under the Microscope.Building Services: The CISBE Journal (April 1996).

Passive SystemsAnderson, Bruce, ed. Solar Building Architecture.Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990.*

Brown, G. Z. Sun, Wind, and Light. New York:John Wiley, 1985.*

Bussel, Abby. Projects: Eco-Tectonics. ProgressiveArchitecture 73 (May 1992)

1 an Introduction to Sustainable Architecture

Documents

Transcript of 1 an Introduction to Sustainable Architecture