Reframing Sustainability Rating Systems to Emphasize Interconnected Benefits Increases Sustainable Design Practices among Engineers

Abstract

Engineering design and construction teams commonly use decision tools, such as rating systems, to manage the complexity of infrastructure projects. However, these systems often focus predominantly on environmental dimensions, potentially overlooking the holistic economic and social aspects of sustainability. This can hinder decision-makers from recognizing the benefits, thereby inadvertently impeding optimal sustainability performance. This research explores a potential solution: reframing the goals of credits on rating systems to explicitly highlight the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and financial dimensions. The aim was to amplify engineers’ motivation towards higher levels of sustainability performance. The study examined the effect of the goal-framed credits by comparing the sustainability scores between engineering professionals (n=42) who used the original Envision system and the reframed version when evaluating a case project. The control group participants averaged a score of 95.4 Envision points (37%), while the intervention group averaged 121.8 Envision points (48%). The reframed credits significantly increased engineering professionals’ sustainability goal setting. Emphasizing financial and social objectives on credits from the Envision rating system, rather than solely focusing on the existing environmental goals, had a favorable influence on professionals’ sustainable design choices. This reframing, by emphasizing the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and financial dimensions of each decision, appears to amplify the awareness, motivation, and selection of higher levels of sustainability achievement, thereby increasing their perceived value and leading to a shift in sustainability-oriented decision-making. The findings suggest that reframing rating systems to better emphasize the interconnectedness of the environmental, social, and financial dimensions of each decision can serve to help engineering teams set higher goals for sustainable performance. For infrastructure project managers, architects, and designers, this research highlights the significance of considering economic and social aspects alongside environmental concerns. By doing so, it can further empower stakeholders to make more well-rounded and sustainable decisions that benefit both their projects and the communities they serve. Small changes in how decision tools are worded, or framed, can have a significant effect on project goal setting. A better understanding of how framing affects design cognition can also help inform how project managers, architects, and designers present information to their clients. Subtle changes in the decision tools and the way information about projects is expressed cost little compared to the actual cost of infrastructure, offering inexpensive and easy to implement strategies to influence and nudge project teams toward setting higher sustainability goals during the design and construction of infrastructure projects.