P E R S P E C T I V E

A Natural Balance: Interior Design, Humans,and Sustainability

Linda Sorrento, M.A., Sorrento Consulting, LLC

Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experiencethat reveals the human spirit.

E.E. Cummings

IntroductionWe are at a crossroads in the built environment. On April 22, 1970, noted anthropologist and outspokenenvironmentalist Margaret Mead inaugurated the first Earth Day, an event that continues to work towardincreasing public awareness of the world’s environmental problems, which is reflected in the following speechby Dr. Mead (2012):

No society has ever yet, been able to handle the temptations of technology to mastery, to waste,to exuberance, to exploration and exploitation. We have to create something new, something that’snever existed on the world before. We have to learn to cherish this earth and cherish as it is somethingthat is fragile, that’s the only one, that’s all we have. And, we have to set up a system that’s sufficientlycomplex, to continue to monitor the whole. We have to use our scientific knowledge to correct thedangers that have come from science and technology.

Forty-two years after the first Earth Day, our planet, our home, continues to be neglected. Global demand forenergy continues to increase substantially in the short and long term. Our earth is overheating with 7 billionpeople burning through fossil fuels at an alarming rate. In our haste for progress, we have caused all sorts ofresource shortages and ‘‘ecological’’ challenges, principally through the buildings and places we inhabit.

At the same time there is hope. The leading edge of sustainability1 is poised to move beyond green buildingstrategies associated with a ‘‘mechanistic’’2 view to the idea that buildings should mitigate environmentaldegradation through technology. Some influential thinkers are arguing for an ‘‘ecological’’ approach thatemphasizes a coevolutionary, partnered relationship between humans and the natural environment. Thisapproach is based on strategies of adaptation, resilience, and regeneration that build, rather than diminish,social and natural capital (du Plessis, 2012). The intention is that the built environment would contributemore than it consumes. To encourage people to engage with and respond to environmental issues moreurgently, Raymond Cole (2012, p. 2) argues that reframing our approach to a ‘‘positive vision of humanvalues as more effective in creating change than presentation of alarming facts.’’ The resulting transformation,‘‘embodies traces from prior conditions’’ of conventional and quantifiable green/high-performance technicalsystems, but is ‘‘infused with new aspirations and possibilities’’ for the quality of living systems of enhancinglife for human, other species, and ‘‘ecological’’ systems (Cole 2012, p. 1).

As a result of the demands of reducing energy consumption for the earth to remain fit for human habitation,a new story is quickly unfolding for interior designers. This sustainability and human story has at least twoparts, both of which must involve interior designers. The first is upgrading building infrastructures to improve

© Copyright 2012, Interior Design Educators Council,Journal of Interior Design ix Journal of Interior Design 37(2), ix–xxiii

P E R S P E C T I V E

The sustainability movement’s focus on ‘‘mechanistic’’ solutions to energy efficiency hasalienated humans from buildings and fundamentally changed the basic design goal of

providing and maintaining an appropriate indoor environment for the users.

energy efficiency, and the second is changing the behavior of building occupants through interior design,which may be the more critical component of the two. The story recognizes that more meaningful measuresfor sustainability must include humans but does not understand that humans are the interior designer’s realmunlike other building professions. When the two processes are combined, then interior design can become thenew vision of sustainability. To realize this vision, interior designers will need a new way of thinking aboutpractice informing research and research to practice with our next generation of interior designers at thehelm. In this perspective, I explore this potential through insights from practice of what is pressuring change,stories from current practice, and evolving the field: keeping pace during change.

What Is Pressuring Change?Reducing Energy Consumption Forces a Technology Versus Human DebateConcerns about energy affordability, energy security, volatile global fuel sources, and greenhouse gas emissionshave heightened interest in unlocking the potential of energy-efficient buildings as an energy resource forthe United States economy (Choi Granade et al., 2009). In 2009, commercial buildings in the United Statesaccounted for about 40% of the total energy consumption (costing $350 billion per year) and greenhousegas emissions (Chen, 2009). To counter this trend, green building strategies were developed to transformconventional buildings to green ones through performance goals, assessment methods, and ‘‘ultra-efficient’’building technologies for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting. For green buildings, the termperformance refers to the measurement of and a quantitative metric for energy efficiency, renewable energygeneration, or water consumption (Pyke, 2012). Even with advancements in technology and successes inenergy reduction within, too often today’s green/high-performance buildings3 do not perform to their fulldesign potential. In addition, the design of these newer building technology systems have led to a shift inresponsibility of comfort provision from architects to engineers and control responsibility from occupantsto technology (Cole & Brown, 2009). According to Cole and Brown (2009), effective building controls arecentral to this debate because this is where the building and occupant meet. However, choices for comfort andefficiency balance are difficult to make as ‘‘mechanistic’’ buildings become more disconnected from the user.Often, the occupant’s satisfaction declines when personal comfort is automated and no longer within his orher control (Heerwagen & Diamond, 1992). Furthermore, a building’s energy efficiency can be compromisedby the behavior of its occupants.

The sustainability movement’s focus on ‘‘mechanistic’’ solutions to energy efficiency has alienated humansfrom buildings and fundamentally changed the basic design goal of providing and maintaining an appropriateindoor environment for the users. In a recent discussion with my colleague on the board of the NationalAcademy of Environmental Design, Susan Piedmont-Palladino, Curator, National Building Museum andProfessor, Virginia Tech’s Washington Alexandria Architecture Center, posited:

There is a sense that there are two distinct realms in this discussion: the realm of things, the perfor-mance of which can be quantifiably improved, such as information and communication technology;and the realm of humans, whose participation in the technological world is ad hoc and pragmatic, buteven that use gradually changes how we use space and place. Further, the people who are researchingand innovating in one don’t often intersect with the other. Researchers pushing instrumentation andsmart systems as the path to better building performance often see the humans as outliers or worse,obstacles. But humans are, of course, the whole point of design and their–our–senses and responsesto conditions are also information. (Personal Interview, January 26, 2012)

Journal of Interior Design x Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Qualitative data about the actual operational performance and its association with designintentions, specific green strategies, and human’s physical, neurocognitive, and

psychosocial response to buildings were, and still are, lacking.

Clearly, both sides have admirable goals in mind, but are not talking to each other in many cases. Thisdisconnection puts buildings and humans at odds with one another. And, it is something that the interiordesigner could help to prevent and/or ameliorate, if only more of the stakeholders, including interior designers,would recognize and act on this fact.

Differing Perspectives Applied to High Performing Buildings

People are the legitimate barometer for the built environment; however, our perception of ourenvironment is complex, unrecorded and not analyzed.

Chris Pyke, Ph.D., Vice President of ResearchU.S. Green Building Council

Efforts in green building community in the United States have been led by broad interdisciplinary, practitioner-led coalitions seeking to advance design, construction, and operation of built environments to promote humanhealth, well-being, and the protection and restoration of the environment (Pyke, 2012). One discipline thatis often underemphasized here, however, is interior design. Many early practitioners believed that marketinterventions could permanently shift distributions across practices toward higher performance and greaterachievement. Certain groups and areas, such as real estate, insurance, and governmental regulations, con-nected early with green building processes of valuing green performance through quantitative data andanalysis. However, qualitative data about the actual operational performance and its association with designintentions, specific green strategies, and human’s physical, neurocognitive, and psychosocial response tobuildings were, and still are, lacking.

Figure 1 shows today’s different practice perspectives across the green building industry as applied to high-performance buildings. High-performance buildings must fulfill a number of, at times, competing technical(objective) and human (subjective) requirements. Figure 1 can be used as a lens for seeing the complexity ofthese agents. It demonstrates that the green building environment consists of many heterogeneous agents withindependent goals, which make sustainability difficult to navigate and progress.

An important goal for green building practice would be to interrelate these diverse agents in a whole system.The application of the sum of all parts from diverse agents with cohesive interactions can lead to rapidcoevolution toward good high-performance building structures that do not ignore the users. Currently, thebuilding bubbles in Figure 1 are driven by quantitative statistics, which, without qualitative perspectives fromthe occupant bubbles, can reveal misleading tendencies about performance. These agents are maturing atdifferent rates as sized by bubble sizes (a larger circle indicates robust activity and the smaller indicates lesseractivity). It appears that the objective, quantitative realm is overtaking qualitative, subjective interpretation.In addition, engineering and technology practices are overtaking architecture, interior design, and humans.

The key in the upper left of Figure 1 will be used as an underlying theme for Figures 1 to 3. The ‘‘Environment’’mechanisms are deployed by the physical elements of the building; ‘‘Behavioral’’ mechanisms are devised byindividual cognitive and overt behaviors; and ‘‘Social’’ mechanisms are devised by individual cognitive andovert behaviors. Conceived by Virginia Kupritz (2000), these elements represent one model to provide humanresources professionals with a template to examine a range of human factors pertinent to their particularsituation. Notice that the behavioral and social key bubbles are shown in gray, symbolizing inactive anddisengaged status for Figure 1.

Journal of Interior Design xi Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Figure 1. Different perspectives applied to high-performance buildings describes the drivers behind therelationships of buildings and occupants (Pyke, 2011).

Reconciling Humans and Buildings in the Provision of ComfortSince the advent of ‘‘mechanistic’’ buildings in the mid-twentieth century, building inhabitants have becomeincreasingly disconnected from the outdoors. This, coupled with comfort provisioning artificially derived ina laboratory considering only human physiology, created a ‘‘one size fits all’’ thermal comfort. Althoughtechnically correct, these design standards have been found to be too narrow to be tolerated comfortablyby the building inhabitants. While this conventional practice, with its bias toward a more uniform andrigid temperature range, is the norm, not everyone is convinced that this approach is optimal (Nicol,2011). Moreover, this approach focuses only on a single variable—temperature. To actually improve humanhealth and well-being, the impact of many variables (health, productivity, satisfaction) within sustainabletechnologies need to be considered. Research in this area, particularly from pioneers Gail Brager, BillBrowning, Judith Heerwagen, and Vivian Loftness, is beginning to identify patterns of the multiple kinds ofeffects that green/high-performance buildings have on people (Heerwagen, Gray, & Loder, 2011). They arefinding that a host of cultural, physical, psychosocial, and neurocognitive contextual factors shape a person’sengagement with and enjoyment of environmental conditions.

Journal of Interior Design xii Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Figure 2. Impact of buildings on people illustrates the interrelationships for human-responsive buildings(Heerwagen et al., 2011).

As a starting place, Figure 2, adapted from Heerwagen et al. (2011), presents a structure for furtherexploration of the three main areas in which buildings appear to have a consistent effect on people’s physical,psychosocial, and neurocognitive functions. Figure 2 shows that when a person’s physical functions arecompromised by a building, it can impact the individual’s cardiovascular and respiratory systems, vision,skin, biorhythms, and sleep, which can, in turn, increase healthcare costs and absenteeism. Furthermore, whena person’s psychosocial functions are compromised by a building, his or her emotional experience, well-being,and social supports also can be affected, thus reducing satisfaction and engagement with the environmentand other humans. And finally, when a person’s neurocognitive functions are compromised by a building, itcan impact the individual’s attention, concentration, memory, and alertness, which affects productivity. Thekey in the upper left of Figure 2 shows that the ‘‘Environment,’’ ‘‘Behavioral’’ and ‘‘Social’’ bubbles are nowin color symbolizing active engaged status for all three mechanisms impacting humans.

While many interior designers are aware of at least some of these effects of buildings on inhabitants, mostresearch about these human functions remains discipline specific (usually social sciences) and out of reach

Journal of Interior Design xiii Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Over the past several years, green building practice has been reframed by adding a fullrange of disciplines with qualitative, broader perspectives, and visions such as

environmental behavior and design, biomimicry, biophilia, and regenerative design.

Figure 3. Integrative thinking for the redefining of the practice of sustainability (Reed, 2012).

from the complex array of stakeholders within the built environment (Heerwagen et al., 2011). In the future,greater advancement could be made within a multidisciplinary field, which could sit at the intersectionof science, technology, humans, and culture. Interior design could and should be at the forefront of thatfield. Interior designers could help shape how and what the researchers in the physical, neurocognitive, andpsychosocial sciences think about the buildings. And conversely, the research in these areas can help interiordesigners think about human interaction with interior environments, particularly sustainable ones.

Integrative Thinking: Reframing SustainabilityOver the past several years, green building practice has been reframed by adding a full range of disciplineswith qualitative, broader perspectives, and visions such as environmental behavior and design, biomimicry,4

biophilia,5 and regenerative6 design (Cole, 2012). Thus, practice has been infused with new aspirations andpossibilities toward attaining a deeper shade of green. This transition from a ‘‘mechanistic’’ to an ‘‘ecological’’living systems worldview7 and regenerative paradigm is being precipitated by the need for a systems-approachmanner to connect buildings and humans. The premise held by du Plessis (2012) and others is that thesechanges are necessary for the earth to remain fit for human inhabitation and for humans to intelligentlymitigate human impacts.

Journal of Interior Design xiv Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

The living systems ’ecological’ worldview is a different way of thinking about, seeing, andengaging with the world than those that have dominated green building eco-efficiency

approaches to sustainability.

The living systems ‘‘ecological’’ worldview is a different way of thinking about, seeing, and engaging withthe world than those that have dominated green building eco-efficiency approaches to sustainability (Mang& Reed, 2012). Adopting it will require a higher level of interrelationships between natural, human, andbuilt systems, and the disciplines within them. Boecher et al. (2009, p xiii) describe the achievement of abroader integration of systems within the sustainability movement as an ‘‘integrative design process (IDP)8’’.IDP is emerging as a natural companion to green building practice because it stimulates collaboration amonga diversity of practitioners with different disciplinary backgrounds and viewpoints to make human- andnatural-systems-based connections and interrelationships. The term integration means identifying the varietyand uniqueness of systems and connects them into a whole—including human, biotic, and earth systems.Boecher et al. (2009) believe that to achieve the health of the whole, we must ask ourselves how the process ofbuilding can be a catalyst for a discovery path that addresses the interrelationships of all living and technicalsystems in the service of sustaining the health of all life (p. xiii).

Figure 3 conceptually depicts the trajectory of integrative thinking from technical systems design to livingsystems design (Reed, 2012). As the figure indicates, energy reduction is today’s main target of sustainability.However, this target is not simply a mathematic equation with an x/y coordinate system, but a conceptualdepiction with a human/earth responsibility. Some believe the concept in Figure 3 provides the path to truesustainability. The key in the upper left of Figure 3 shows that the ‘‘Environment,’’ ‘‘Behavioral,’’ and ‘‘Social’’bubbles are shown in color symbolizing active engaged status for all three mechanisms impacting humans.

Researchers find that the data-driven technical systems of conventional and green/high-performance designrequire more energy with less occupant engagement for comfort. In contrast, the pattern-driven living systemsof restorative and regenerative design require less energy with more human engagement, understanding, andcapacity. Realizing this, some of the leaders in sustainability are using the gift of nature to overtake the‘‘machine as a metaphor’’ thinking for sustainability. This is not to say that technology and efficiency are notimportant, but it is the understanding of the role of technology that is important. The target in Figure 3 isenergy reduction without loss of the human factor. Today’s ‘‘mechanistic’’ view may see buildings as machineswithout feelings. In contrast are the ‘‘ecological’’ interrelationships acquainted with human and earth systems.Once we realize that technology is not intended to be used as ‘‘man’s dominion over nature,’’ then we canmove our understanding of technology toward a fusion of nature and human spirit. This philosophy canbecome the driving change. The future trajectory is important, but it is even more important that the interiordesigner as user-advocate be in the center of this ‘‘ecological’’ interrelationship bubble, which is decisive fordeeper engagement of humans and what is defined as the deepest level of green as we know it.

Stories from Practice: United States Green Building HeadquartersEnergy efficiency or human factors alone are not determinates of project success; rather, it is theinterdependence in which each part affects and needs each other. When the United States Green BuildingCouncil (USGBC) needed a new headquarters in 2008, slated as one of the first projects to use the latestversion of LEED® for Commercial Interiors, the new requirements demanded the greatest opportunitiesof interdependence for our multidiscipline team to create something that was more than the sum of itsparts, pushing the limits of each profession. At the same time, we hoped to avoid problems of unintendedconsequences, tradeoffs, and a single solution by one profession, which could lead to a bigger problem forthe whole. In our project, we discovered that our ideas, inspirations, and innovations connected all our teammembers in ways we did not expect.

Journal of Interior Design xv Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

We recognized that the most vital and, at the same, time viable development grew out ofan understanding of the occupant experience in and around our sustainable interiors.

Each aspect and step required holistic viewpoints beginning with the USGBC’s desire of market acceptance forsustainability by showcasing sustainable design with a high aesthetic representing an organization (USGBC)that had come of age. Not surprisingly, given the project significance, we had high aspirations for the projectto serve as an active learning opportunity, beginning with the site selection, and continuing throughout theproject process and the life of the interior. As USGBC’s former director of LEED® for Commercial Interiorsand prime team member representing both the objectives of interior design and USGBC’s ideals, I was joinedby a team of creative experts that combined building technology systems (mechanical, structural engineering,and information technology) with human systems (lighting, acoustics, biophilia,9 environmental graphics,and ergonomics) bridged by architecture and interior design.

Our journey began as a small core team—USGBC Chief Operating Officer, real estate broker, architect,engineer, and me culling through the best of the few locations in Washington, DC. Some sites were simplynot feasible, worth the energy efficiency improvements, or deficient for human health or well-being. Aftera week, of racing around Washington, DC, we found it! A couple of gutted floors in a 1975 building, thearchitect and engineers found the aesthetic and energy efficiency potential they needed, and I had my humanchecklist covered—near to mass transportation, the staff’s neighborhoods, abundant natural light, views tothe exterior, base building systems that could provide plentiful fresh air, and wide column spacing allowingflexibility all lent themselves to healthier and better interiors.

With the site selected and the ‘‘green’’ lease signed, the team engaged in brainstorming iterative madness,evolving what was virtually a blank canvas knowing that while efficient technologies and great design were agiven, they were never sufficient. We recognized that the most vital and, at the same, time viable developmentgrew out of an understanding of the occupant experience in and around our sustainable interiors. Thefollowing are three examples of our most notable cooperative partnerships for connections, opportunities,and innovations to balance and harmonize energy efficiency and human behavior.

The ‘‘Eco-Corridor’’ and HVAC SystemCharacterized by light carpet and varying temperatures, this 8-ft-wide perimeter next to the full heightwindows brightens the office while significantly curtailing energy consumption. They are shown in Figures 4and 6. This was our first white board collaboration initiated by the mechanical engineers when they proposedthe idea—why not make the peripheral areas colder in the winter and hotter in the summer? If we zonedthis corridor separately, the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems could slash overallenergy consumption by 5%. Immediately, I thought about the workers adjacent to the corridor questioningwhether their comfort was the tradeoff. After I raised the question, everyone agreed we needed to predict ourworkers’ thermo comfort before moving forward. Our modeling showed positive results for achieving energyefficiency while balancing occupant comfort. Yet, while successful on paper, the ideas might not manifestitself as intended, and, therefore, flexibility was built into the HVAC system and our ‘‘eco-corridor’’ was born(Figures 4 and 6).

Daylight Management and Lighting Power Density ReductionSetting the tone for lighting management, we looked toward strategies to use our best natural resource toenergy reduction—the sun. Refer to Figures 5 and 6 for our modeled and actual sun angles and controls. Oursecond white board collaboration was initiated by the lighting designer when the team proposed setting a

Journal of Interior Design xvi Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Figure 4. United States Green Building Council headquarters, Washington, DC: The workspace, energy, &atmosphere eco-corridor and HVAC system (Envision Design, PLLC, 2009).

goal of 50% energy reduction. Okay, we joked, short of issuing miners’ caps to everyone for light, how wouldwe achieve this goal? To accomplish this, we decided to be aggressive in reducing artificial electric lightingthrough active strategies supplemented with passive (free) strategies using natural daylighting. Within ouractive approach, we eliminated artificial ceiling lighting to only use lighting where it was absolutely neededfor work tasks. Ambient foot candles were kept low supplemented by task lighting to raise light levels onlyat work surfaces. Corridors did not have specific dedicated ceiling lighting as the lighting spilled out fromthe perimeter, glass-enclosed offices, or open workspaces. Questioning the comfort tradeoff, I was concernedabout the proximity of the workers to the lower light levels, especially, the workers furthest from the naturaldaylight perimeter. We found that gloomy/bright variances in light levels did have an impact on the user.While important to energy reduction, the active strategies for ambient/task lighting combinations will takefurther study to function appropriately for occupant’s comfort.

The passive approach used natural daylighting. Instead of constructing a material-intensive, intrusive lightshelf mounted between columns to bounce daylighting, we used light colored carpet tiles at the perimeter toact as the light shelf shown in Figures 5 and 6. This strategy along with other interior design decisions ofplacement, height, and color of furniture as well as the light color of the walls, ceilings, and floors alloweddeeper penetration of natural light into the interior, which improved natural light levels by over 200% upto 30 ft from the windows. When I raised the question of the comfort tradeoff, we modeled daylighting,plotting the seasonal sun angles to locate the workstations to prevent glare with the height of the workstationpanel. In addition, the motorized shades systems were automatically set to raise and lower with the clouds,time of day, and season. However, the passive solution was not perfect from the user standpoint—it as tooksome tweaking, training, and behavioral changes for employees to be comfortable. We learned that interiordesign is often underrated for its effect on daylighting. When building designs do not take interior designconsiderations into account early on, the effects of daylighting may be thwarted. This became my job too.

Journal of Interior Design xvii Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Figure 5. United States Green Building Council headquarters, Washington, DC: The workspace, energy &atmosphere daylight management and lighting power density reduction (Envision Design, PLLC, 2009).

Advanced Integration of SensorsComfort provisioning and control have always been, and will remain, a critical performance requirementof buildings (Cole & Brown, 2009). However, according to Cole and Brown (2009) ‘‘occupant’s pleasure,comfort and productivity are closely linked with their real and perceived control over interior environments’’(p. 44). Therefore, sensors can have a significant tradeoff if not closely tied to occupant behavior. We targetedfour key indoor environmental areas for automated control. The daylighting and shades are controlled bydaylight-sensing photocells. The thermal/thermostat adjustment, demand-controlled ventilation, acousticaltreatment, and dedicated power receptacles are controlled by occupancy sensors. Shades going up and down,lights going on and off, and temperature up and down without occupant direct control took a period ofadjustment among the occupants. As predicted by comfort adaptation research, there was a longer period ofpsychological adaptation, occupant understanding, and mechanical adjustment after moving in.

Key OutcomesIf you only look at metrics, energy savings have the biggest return on investment and the reduction inlighting load is the biggest part of that. The advanced control systems used at USGBC provided quickpayback—included turning off lights when spaces were unoccupied, dimming lights when sun is lighting thespace, adjusting thermostats in unoccupied areas, and turning off miscellaneous equipment in unoccupiedspaces. While energy use can be monitored, quantified, and managed through the building systems and

Journal of Interior Design xviii Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Not only was I, the interior designer, an advocate for the users, I also had to be theeducator of the users in the how to make the most of the interiors’ sustainable design

elements.

Figure 6. United States Green Building Council headquarters, Washington, DC: The perimeter. An‘‘eco-corridor,’’ characterized by light carpet and varying temperatures, brightens the office whilesignificantly curtailing energy consumption (Envision Design, PLLC, 2009).

controls, buildings really do not use energy, people do. While the latter is not entirely true, it is significantenough to warrant using buildings as tools to engage and educate in order to build human capabilities towardenergy savings. The space we provided for the people who work and visit USGBC is the way our teamworked and continues on all fronts. Whether it is use of mass transit or alternative commuting options, notturning on lights when they are not needed, segregating waste streams to make composting possible, usingbike share (instead of a cab), correctly using the occupancy sensor-controlled electric outlets or low-impact,chemical-free pest control techniques, USGBC staff make the most of the opportunities the space affords thembecause they are actively engaged with it. But it did take some education (sometimes tough) on my part asinterior designer to help them learn to accept and use the innovations we had incorporated into the interiors.Not only was I, the interior designer, an advocate for the users, I also had to be the educator of the users inthe how to make the most of the interiors’ sustainable design elements.

Evolving the Field: Keeping Pace during Change

People wish for an easy technical fix that our left brains can understand. But this issue is really abouta change of heart—changing the way we live, not just the way we design buildings.

Joel Todd, Chair, LEED Steering CommitteeU.S. Green Building Council (Gould & Hosey, 2007, p. 231)

Journal of Interior Design xix Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Interior designers must be in the forefront of changing how others in the building andsustainability industries see the world and, in turn, our work. What happens now is the

important question for interior designers, educators, and students.

This Perspective essay has reviewed key concepts in the evolution of sustainability, which are raising thequestions of where and how the interior designer’s work fits in. It has shown that interior design has somethingvaluable and unique to offer to this new vision of sustainability. But, more important, it emphasizes thatinterior designers must be in the forefront of changing how others in the building and sustainability industriessee the world and, in turn, our work. What happens now is the important question for interior designers,educators, and students.

I have shown that approaches to sustainability vary, and clearly there is no single correct approach to achievingimproved environmental performance. We have seen that it is also impossible to discuss what constitutessustainability without consideration of the role of the human. This perspective shows that there are competingdemands of buildings versus occupants, in particular in the provision of comfort, health, and well-being,while providing and maintaining operational efficiencies in energy required. Of course, there have alwaysbeen competing demands in the built environment, but only recently has there been an urgent need for interiordesigners to seize their role as advocate for the occupants. Given an evolving context for sustainabilityand the broad range of potential stakeholders and interpretations, the relationship between interiordesigner and sustainability is a continuing and unfolding process, and one that warrants increasingacknowledgement and engagement of interior designers, educators, and, more important, students. Thetime is now to put interior design at the forefront of putting occupants first, no matter what approach tosustainability is chosen.

As this perspective indicates, there are compelling arguments regarding the need to change current buildingpractice to include new environmental theories, emphases, and strategies. For interior designers, this is anopportunity to help guide the future of sustainability toward a more occupant-centered one. If we refuse toget involved or make our case, then some other practitioners or researchers will do it for us. This will meaneducating ourselves about the various approaches to sustainability, including the ‘‘mechanistic,’’ ‘‘ecological,’’and everything in between. These competing objectives for interior design likely will require designers toreassess their technical skills and psychological and cultural literacy. Educators will need to change how toteach students to participate in the integrative design process. Research by interior designers and educatorsneeds to be formulated and supported to understand complex, cross-disciplinary issues and to sustain thisover the long term of evolving sustainable design practice.

We also will need to make stronger cases for evidence-based design within the sustainability movement aswe have done in healthcare. Evidence-based design practices can help describe the criteria for sustainabilityand human qualitative measures. While current green practice is premised on measurable quantifiableperformance targets—on perceived certainty in the outcomes, a new ‘‘ecological’’ design approach willrequire ‘‘a qualitatively different type of acceptance by clients and stakeholders of a building’s current andpotential merits’’ (Cole, 2012, p. 5). Client education is a major part of the interior designer’s job description.

Here are some ways you can get involved. First, become a resource. As the practice quickly evolves, establishindustry/university collaborative research solutions to provide substantial, holistic, and far-sighted researchon interiors. Reach out to nonprofit organizations such as the National Academy of Environmental Design10

and the USGBC11 for research resources and to develop research skills and to learn the specifics aboutsustainability strategies. Engage with your institution for real-time green project experience12 as your campusplans any construction or improvement projects with an eye on sustainable interiors. Be visible and stand outin the role of interior designer on these project teams.

Journal of Interior Design xx Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

As interior design evolves as a profession, we continue to grapple with identity and value. While we ourselvessee the value that we bring to the built environment, others do not. So we are often left out of importantdiscussions around the design table. Our active involvement with sustainability as it struggles to provideenergy efficiency without ignoring the human being can and will open doors for us to bring our mostvaluable interior design abilities and skills to the discussion—that of a person-centered focus. Of any barriers,constraints, and recognition, Penny Bonda, prominent writer, lecturer, and founding chair USGBC LEED forCommercial Interiors, said in 1994, ‘‘While the LEED system was being developed,’’ she recalls, ‘‘I mentionedthat maybe we should have a version for interiors. One of the [USGBC] board members said, ‘Why? Interiorsdon’t matter.’ I said ‘Well, actually, that’s where the people are.’’’ (Gould & Hosey, 2007, p. 202).

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

Margaret Mead

References

Boecher, J., Horst, S., Keiter, T., Lau, A., Sheffer, M., Toevs, B., et al. (2009). The integrative design guide to green building: Redefining thepractice of sustainability. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Chen, A. (2009). Berkeley Lab: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Working toward the very low energy consumption building of thefuture. Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2009/06/02/working-toward-the-very-low-energy-consumption-building-of-the-future/

Choi Granade, H., Creyts, J., Derkach, A., Farese, P., Nyquist, S., & Ostrowski, K. (McKinsey & Company) (2009). Unlocking energyefficiency in the U.S. economy: Executive summary. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from McKinsey & Company website: http://mckinsey.com/USenergyefficiency

Cole, R. (2012). Regenerative design and development: Current theory and practice. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 1–6. RetrievedFebruary 3, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.617516

Cole, R., & Brown, Z. (2009). Reconciling human and automated intelligence in the provision of occupant comfort. Intelligent BuildingsInternational, 1(1), 39–55. Retrieved February 3, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/inbi.2009.0007

du Plessis, C. (2012). Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 7–22.

Envision Design, PLLC. (Designer) (2009). United States Green Building Council Headquarters [Print], Washington, DC.

Gould, K., & Hosey, L. (2007). Women in green: Voices of sustainable design in green. Bainbridge Island, Washington: Ecotone LLC.

Heerwagen, J., & Diamond, R. C. (1992). Adaptations and coping: Occupant response to discomfort in energy efficient buildings.Proceedings of ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings, Vol 10, Berkeley, CA, ACEEE, 83–90. Retrieved January 25,2012, from http://epb.lbl.gov/homepages/Rick_Diamond/Coping_aceee_92.pdf

Heerwagen, J., Gray, W., & Loder, A. (2011, October). In J. Heerwagen (Chair). Why research matters: New approaches to measuregreen building and workers’ health, stress and productivity. Paper presented at Greenbuild® conference & expo.

Kupritz, V. W. (2000). A conceptual model of privacy regulation for hrd and organizations. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38,29–59. Retrieved February 7, 2012, from http://www.cci.utk.edu/node/8929

Mang, P., & Reed, B. (2012). Designing from place: A regenerative framework and methodology. Building Research & Information, 40(1),23–38. Retrieved February 15, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.621341

Margaret Mead Speaks at First Earth Day. (2012). The History Channel website. Retrieved 1:20, March 3, 2012, fromhttp://www.history.com/audio/margaret-mead-speaks-at-first-earth-day.

Nicol, F. (2011). Adaptive comfort. Building Research & Information, 39(2), 105–107.

Piedmont-Pallandino, S. (2012, January 26). Interview by L Sorrento [Personal Interview]. Technology and human debate.

Pyke, C. (2011, August 12). Interview by L. Sorrento [Personal Interview]. Different perspectives applied to high performance buildings.

Pyke, C. U.S. Green Building Council (2012). Using information technology to transform the green building market. Washington, DC: U.S.Green Building Council.

Journal of Interior Design xxi Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

Reed, B. (2012, February 23). Interview by L. Sorrento [Personal Interview]. ‘Integrative Thinking’ for the redefining of the practice ofsustainability.

Notes1Sustainability here means sustaining life—‘‘a practice by which living things contribute to the interrelationships that ensure the viability ofeach over the long haul’’ (Boecher et al., 2009, p. 42).

2Mechanistic view here means a ‘‘20th century energy-intensive mechanical systems within buildings that are located remotely fromspaces they served’’ (Cole & Brown, 2009, p. 39).

3‘‘Green/high-performance design’’ here means to ‘‘realize high efficiency and reduced impact in the building structure, operations, andsite activities. This term can imply a more technical-efficiency approach to design and may limit an embrace of the larger natural systembenefits’’ (Boecher et al., 2009, p. 45).

4Biomimicry here means an innovative method that seeks sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies, forexample, a solar cell inspired by a leaf. The goal is to create products, processes, and policies—new ways of living—that are welladapted to life on earth over the long haul. http://www.biomimicryguild.com/guild_biomimicry.html.

5Biophilia here means to design to recognize that the positive experience of natural systems and processes in our buildings andconstructed landscapes is critical to human health, performance, and well-being. Biophilic design is about humanity’s place in natureand the natural world’s place in human society, where mutuality, respect, and enriching relationships can and should exist at all levelsand should emerge as the norm rather than the exception. http://www.biophilicdesign.net/.

6Regenerative design here refers to a ‘‘design process that engages the whole of a system which we are a part. By engaging all the keystakeholders and processes of the place-human, earth systems, and the consciousness that connects them-the design process builds thecapability of the people to engages in continuous and healthy relationship.’’ (Boecher et al., 2009, p. 45).

7Living systems worldview here refers to ‘‘pattern-driven practices that restore and regenerate natural systems.’’ (Boecher et al., 2009,p. 45).

8Integrative Design Process (IDP) here means ‘‘a discovery process that optimizes—(i.e., makes the best use of, or creates synergybetween)—the interrelationships between all the elements and entities that are directly and indirectly associated with building projects inthe service of efficient and effective use of resources.’’ (Boecher et al., 2009, p. 45).

9Biophilia here means to elements of nature which were included in the space in the form of indoor plants, images of nature, a waterfeature (reception area), natural materials, and long distance views to the outside. The images of nature are in the form of photographsprinted on a clear film and adhered to the workstation glass panels as shown in Figure 6. In addition, the use of ‘‘natural’’ materials,such as the reclaimed gum wood in lieu of highly refined or clearly man-made materials help evoke the sense of nature.

10National Academy of Environmental Design, http://www.naedonline.org/.11U.S. Green Building Council, Center for Green Schools, Research to Practice Program, http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/r2p2.12U.S. Green Building Council, Center for Green Schools, Higher Education, http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/green-campus.aspx.

Linda Sorrento, FASID, IIDA, LEED AP® BD+CPrincipal Sustainable PracticeSorrento Consulting, LLC

A deep concern for how interior environments affect human health and performance has informed every facetof Linda Sorrento’s career as a sustainable design advocate, interior designer, researcher, and educator. In2011, Linda launched her consulting firm to focus on projects for improving occupant experience in andaround green buildings. Prior to her consulting practice, Linda was the Senior Director of EducationPartnerships and Director of LEED for Commercial Interiors for the United States Green Building Council

Journal of Interior Design xxii Volume 37 Number 2 2012

P E R S P E C T I V E

(USGBC). Linda is a principal developer of REGREEN, the USGBC/ASID green residential renovation andinterior remodeling program. Linda practiced as a corporate interior designer for 29 years, cultivating adiverse work experience with major corporate clients and manufacturers. During that time, she was anassistant professor of interior design at George Washington University and Northern Virginia CommunityCollege. Linda is a Fellow of the American Society of Interior Designers, past ASID National Board ofDirectors, and past ASID Washington Metro Chapter President. She currently serves on the boards of theHealthy Building Network, National Academy of Environmental Design, Marymount University RestonCenter and Northern Virginia Community College Interior Design Program. Linda holds a bachelor’sdegree in interior design from Syracuse University and a master’s degree in interior design from MarymountUniversity.

Journal of Interior Design xxiii Volume 37 Number 2 2012

Journal of Interior Design xxiv Volume 37 Number 2 2012