Sustainability and Carbon Reduction  

Photo courtesy of Autodesk

The use of carbon analysis software can help create more sustainable and creative projects when used early in the design process.  

Embodied and operational carbon have become critical design considerations as more commercial and residential projects seek to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate climate change. For architects, the pre-construction design and specification phase presents the best opportunity to address a building’s carbon footprint. While building information modeling (BIM) platforms have been widely used for decades, many architects underutilize the built-in carbon analysis tools available within these systems. These tools provide significant benefits beyond carbon calculations, enhancing project performance and sustainability.

Carbon analysis software facilitates better communication and collaboration between architects, engineers, and clients through visual representations of key variables affecting energy performance, water management, ventilation, and daylighting. The software enables early assessments of factors like wind flow, solar heat gain, and can uncover passive design opportunities, helping architects improve energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and occupant comfort. Additional benefits include reduced traffic noise, improved views, and the integration of biophilic design elements.

This article will define key terms related to embodied and operational carbon, outline steps architects can take to reduce a building’s carbon footprint, and demonstrate how incorporating carbon analysis software improves design efficiency, durability, and sustainability. By prioritizing performance, safety, and occupant well-being, architects can address climate change through informed design practices.

Embodied and Operational Carbon—Measuring the Footprint

The scientific consensus is clear: human activities, particularly the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide (CO₂), are the primary drivers of recent climate change. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global temperatures are on track to rise by 1.5°C (2.7°F) between 2030 and 2035, driven by human-induced emissions. Without urgent action, current policies could push this increase to 3.2°C by 2100, leading to severe consequences for both the environment and human societies.

Experts warn that the impact on our planet and future generations paints a grim outlook. The report highlights how rising global temperatures are fueling more extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, and hurricanes. These climate shifts threaten ecosystems, agriculture, water supplies, and coastal communities worldwide. Biodiversity loss is accelerating, with many species struggling to adapt to rapid environmental changes. Additionally, melting ice caps and rising sea levels pose existential threats to low-lying nations.

To mitigate these effects, the IPCC urges immediate reductions in carbon emissions, increased investment in renewable energy, and widespread adoption of sustainable design practices. Decarbonizing industries, transitioning to low-carbon buildings, and protecting natural carbon sinks like forests are essential.

Globally, buildings account for over 37% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions; of this total, roughly 60% this from building operations (lighting, heating, cooling) and 40% from construction material supply chains. Today, both public and private organizations have responded to this threat by creating initiatives, programs, and incentives to encourage architects, designers, builders, and building owners to reduce the amount of carbon emissions in the building industry. The key to reducing the risk of climate disaster is to have a strong working knowledge of where carbon emissions originate and where they can be reduced in the process of creating a healthy built environment.

Photo courtesy of Autodesk

Evaluating building materials, site orientation, and local environmental factors can greatly reduce the embodied carbon footprint of a project. 

Understanding Carbon Emissions 

Adapting an old adage (“you can’t manage what you can’t measure”) to present-day climate concerns, we can now say that “we can only change what we can measure”, and in terms of realistically addressing the threat of climate change and the need for GHG reduction, this is very true. Quantifying carbon emissions is the first step toward cutting them. In the context of buildings, carbon emissions are broadly classified into two categories: embodied and operational.

Embodied Carbon 

Embodied carbon refers to the total GHG emissions associated with the extraction, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and disposal of building materials. These emissions are released before the building becomes operational and are “embodied” in the materials themselves. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that approximately 15% of global GHG emissions are linked to the production of construction materials such as concrete, steel, and glass. 

Embodied carbon is typically measured using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a process for evaluating the environmental impacts of a project or product over its entire life cycle. LCA is primarily governed by two International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards: ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006. LCAs are now an industry standard and an important tool in being able to compare different building materials and evaluate the impact on materials have on the final project.

An LCA evaluates the sustainable attributes of a building product or material on multiple environmental indicators. Some of the main areas addressed in an LCA include resource depletion and the consumption of fossil fuels, water, and rare minerals. Energy consumption is also a key consideration, as LCAs track both renewable and non-renewable energy use, providing a comprehensive view of the total energy demand across a product’s life cycle.

Beyond energy and resources, LCAs assess air pollution and human health impacts. The presence of particulate matter, ozone-depleting substances, and smog-forming compounds is considered to determine potential harm to both human populations and the environment. Similarly, water pollution is evaluated through indicators such as nutrient runoff, which can lead to eutrophication (oceanic dead zones) and acidification (acid rain).

Land use and biodiversity loss are also major concerns in LCAs, as deforestation, habitat destruction, and ecosystem degradation often result from industrial and agricultural activities. These factors are critical in understanding how land transformation affects wildlife and ecological balance. 

One of the most significant aspects examined in LCAs is greenhouse gas emissions and their contribution to climate change. The urgency of climate change has led to industries prioritizing “global warming potential” (GWP) as the preferred impact indicator. Industry-wide, there has been alignment on the use of the GWP-100 metric, which describes climate impact from emissions over 100 years. Using a time horizon helps compare emissions from multiple sources, all relative to carbon dioxide emissions. Because of this, the units of embodied carbon are kilograms (or tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent.

To quantify embodied carbon emissions, an LCA will break down the total GWP from a cradle-to-gate perspective, or from extraction to manufacturing. Standards like EN 15978 help define the occurrence of embodied carbon to better clarify not only the total amount of embodied carbon, but also where and how the carbon originates in the process. 

These are classified as embodied carbon stages:

• A1 – Raw Material Supply: Emissions from extracting and processing raw materials (e.g., mining, logging, or recycling).
• A2 – Transport: Emissions from transporting raw materials to the manufacturing site.
• A3 – Manufacturing: Emissions from producing construction materials (e.g., cement production, steel fabrication).
• A4 – Transportation: This accounts for the emissions generated from transporting materials from the manufacturing facility to the construction site. These emissions depend on factors such as the distance traveled, the mode of transportation (truck, rail, ship, etc.), and fuel type. 
• A5 - Construction and Installation: This includes emissions from on-site construction activities, such as energy use for machinery, waste generated during installation, and auxiliary materials used (e.g., formwork, adhesives, or temporary structures).

A1-A3 emissions are considered the product stage and are estimated based on a “bill of materials,” which is a list of all the materials used in a building product or material. Stages A4-A5 are defined as the construction process stage. The architect has much more influence over the design and specification of building products and materials, so reducing embodied carbon amounts in stages A1-A3 is generally the focus of the design team. However, sourcing materials and products domestically or locally produced will impact transportation (A4) emissions. Likewise, identifying and choosing opportunities to reduce waste, like optimized framing in residential construction, or expedite and simplify installation, such as modular or prefabricated options, can affect carbon calculations during the construction and installation phase.

Photo courtesy of Autodesk

In both commercial and residential projects, carbon analysis software can guide the architect to more sustainable designs through the incorporation of natural daylighting and lowered solar heat gain. 

Operational Carbon 

Operational carbon encompasses the GHG emissions resulting from the energy consumed during a building’s use phase, including heating, cooling, lighting, and appliance operation. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) states that buildings in the United States account for about 70% of electricity use and approximately 30% of operational GHG emissions.

As with embodied carbon, operational carbon can be parsed into different stages to better identify and ultimately manage the total carbon footprint of the project. The building use stages (B1-B5) focus on the operational phase of a building’s life cycle, where operational carbon emissions are generated. These emissions come primarily from energy use, maintenance, repairs, and material replacements.

• B1 - Use: Covers emissions directly related to the building’s normal operation, such as material degradation or emissions from finishes and coatings (e.g., VOC off-gassing).
• B2 - Maintenance: Includes activities needed to keep the building functional, such as repainting, cleaning, and servicing HVAC systems. 
• B3 - Repair: Accounts for carbon emissions from fixing damaged components, such as replacing broken windows or repairing leaks. 
• B4 - Refurbishment: Involves major renovations or upgrades to extend the building’s lifespan or improve performance. While refurbishment may generate carbon emissions, it can also reduce long-term operational carbon by improving energy efficiency (e.g., adding insulation or upgrading lighting).
• B5 - Replacement: Covers emissions from replacing building elements that reach the end of their service life, such as roofing, flooring, or HVAC systems. 
• B6 – Operational Energy Use: Emissions from energy use related to heating, cooling, lighting, and equipment operation.
• B7 – Operational Water Use: Emissions for energy used for heating/distributing water.

By and large, operational carbon is primarily associated with energy use (heating, cooling, lighting, and equipment operation), which falls under B6 (operational energy) and B7 (operational water use). 

Buildings that rely on electricity produced by fossil fuels like coal and natural gas will typically have daily operational carbon emissions higher than buildings that rely on hydroelectric power or renewable energy sources. However, the impact of the design of a building may play a greater role over the entire life of the building than current energy sources. As the energy economy transitions from fossil fuel energy generation to alternatives like solar, wind, and nuclear, the operational carbon amount will change based on the energy source.

However, most architects are not endowed with a crystal ball that can accurately predict when and to what extent future lower-carbon energy generation sources may come online. The practical approach to effectively manage operational carbon emissions design of the building should be to design a project that balances the occupant needs for comfort, safety, and wellness with the sustainable goals of the project, regardless of future energy generation considerations.

The design, style, and sizing of the heating and cooling systems, site orientation, insulation, and building enclosure all play critical roles in determining the amount of energy consumed and ultimately operational carbon emissions. According to the most recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2018, U.S. commercial buildings consumed approximately 6.8 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs) of energy, with electricity and natural gas being the predominant energy sources. The distribution of energy consumption by end use found that space heating, cooling, and ventilation accounted for 49% of the total energy use of the building. Lighting was the next largest consumer of energy, with 17%.

End of Life Carbon 

While aesthetically we may hope to create a “timeless” design that lasts the ages, the reality is that most of the buildings constructed today have a practical life-span between 50-100 years.  When the practical service life of the building ends, energy is consumed, and carbon is potentially generated or released during the following stages:

• C1 – Deconstruction/Demolition: This is the carbon emissions from machinery and energy used to dismantle the building. An LCA may include potential dust and pollutants created from this process.
• C2 - Transportation: Emissions generated to haul debris to landfills, recycling centers, or reuse sites. This is typically fuel for trucks and equipment.
• C3 – Waste Processing: This is the amount of carbon generated during the sorting, breaking down (shredding/crushing), or repurposing materials after they have left the jobsite. Physical labor also has a carbon emission associated with it.
• C4 – Disposal: This has the highest carbon emissions output of the end-of-life stage and includes materials deposited in landfills (methane emissions) and incineration.

Most of the choices related to the carbon generated during a building’s final stage of life are beyond the scope of the architect. However, there are several ways an architect can effectively impact carbon emissions related to this final stage. Selecting materials that are easily recyclable, such as aluminum and steel, can have a significant impact. Likewise, the use of materials that can be reused immediately, like paving stones and potentially mass timber structural elements, reduces the overall carbon footprint for the current project but can reduce the embodied carbon on the next project they are used. In this way it is possible to use highly durable and reusable building materials as an effective carbon storage method for multiple projects.

Built to Last 

Relative to the end-of-life stage, the most significant contribution an architect can make to reduce the overall amount of carbon emissions is to design a building that is highly sustainable and adaptable.

When discussing sustainable design, durability is a key component that directly impacts the longevity of a building. The quality and effectiveness of the building exterior, for example, impact everything from operational energy use for occupant comfort to mitigating water intrusion and avoiding structural compromise. Light design that incorporates natural daylighting but controls solar heat gain and glare has a profound impact on how attractive the building will be to future occupants and owners, and can be the deciding factor between refurbishment and replacement.

Adaptability is also a major factor in the life span of a building. Designing a project with the expectation that market demand, use, and occupant needs will change over time creates a building that can meet expectations for both functional and operational use longer. This can be as basic as incorporating movable partitions to structurally designing the building for potential photovoltaic solar options in the future.

Embodied and operational carbon emission levels are increasingly becoming a global concern, even as the sustainable building movement fights headwinds from economic and political interests. The overwhelming majority of scientific research informs us that without a deliberate and immediate focus on reducing carbon emissions, the stability and potential prosperity of our species are at risk. Now with an understanding of how embodied and operational carbon are created during the design, construction, and demolition stages, we can move on to how architects can leverage technology to reduce GHG in projects.

Reducing the Carbon Footprint 

Returning to the concept that you can only change what you can measure, once the sources for potential carbon emissions have been identified and quantified (measured), architects and designers have a starting point to impact carbon footprint outcomes (change). The total embodied carbon of a traditional commercial building represents approximately 25% of the lifetime emissions of the project. One of the most effective ways to lower the embodied carbon footprint is through material selection. Choosing materials such as sustainably sourced timber or recycled materials is a good start. The EPA’s C-MORE (see sidebar) initiative highlights opportunities to minimize emissions through strategic material choices.

Additionally, local sourcing of materials plays a crucial role in reducing transportation emissions. Procuring materials from nearby suppliers not only supports regional economies but also contributes to lower embodied carbon by minimizing the environmental impact of long-distance transportation.

Reducing operational carbon emissions requires a focus on energy efficiency. High-performance insulation, energy-efficient windows, and advanced HVAC systems help lower energy demand for heating and cooling. The inclusion of renewable energy is another impactful approach. Utilizing on-site renewable energy sources, such as solar panels or wind turbines, can offset operational emissions and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This transition to clean energy enhances building sustainability while lowering long-term energy costs.

Integration of smart or intelligent building management systems that analyze real-time data to adjust lighting, heating, and cooling, ensuring efficiency, can further reduce operational carbon output. These systems may also increase overall occupant comfort and well-being through active indoor environmental quality monitoring (IEQ) to maintain humidity and fresh air ventilation levels.

Over the functional life of the building, the pre-construction design phase is the best opportunity to reduce both the embodied and operational carbon emissions. Long before permits are pulled and materials ordered, the overall carbon footprint will be determined by the design and material selection process.

Overcoming Barriers to Early-Stage Carbon Analysis 

Despite the benefits of early-stage carbon analysis, several barriers hinder its widespread adoption. One of the primary challenges is budget constraints, as sustainability initiatives often compete with cost considerations. Many projects operate under tight financial limitations, making it difficult to justify investments in carbon analysis tools and strategies. This can be specifically problematic for firms that have to competitively bid on projects.

Improving building performance is similar to improving automotive performance from a financial perspective. Each component of a car that improves the handling, acceleration, occupant comfort, and safety is a piece of advanced technology that a manufacturer has invested in. These research and refinement costs naturally increase the price tag of the final product with each upgrade or option. The same applies to building materials and products. State-of-the-art glazing technologies can deliver outstanding energy performance results while offering controlled solar heat gain, UV protection, and durability from severe weather events, but improved technology comes with an increased financial investment. Striking a balance between performance to improve efficiency and reduce carbon, while satisfying the financial constraints of a project, requires a commitment from both the firm and the client.

Photo courtesy of Autodesk

Communication within the design team, clients, and other stakeholders requires a purposeful and often technology-based solution to ensure sustainable design goals meet expectations and can be successfully executed by the building team. 

Another potential challenge in carbon reduction design is that knowledge gaps exist within design teams, as not all professionals fully understand how to incorporate carbon analysis effectively into their workflows. Without the necessary expertise, the potential for reducing embodied carbon in buildings remains underutilized. One typical approach outsource the task to an expert in the field. While this can provide accurate information, in competitive bidding situations, it may not be financially viable, timely, or a functional option should the firm win the project. Incorporating elements to satisfy carbon reduction goals from assets outside the core design and engineering team can lead to miscommunication and version control issues in design plans.

Finally, competing priorities among clients and stakeholders can lead to sustainability taking a back seat. Often, decision-makers focus on factors such as aesthetics, function, and cost, relegating carbon impact considerations to a lower priority.

Technology-driven solutions can streamline carbon analysis and integrate it seamlessly into the design workflow. Integrating carbon assessments at the conceptual design stage allows architects to explore different materials, orientations, and structural systems, optimizing for both embodied and operational carbon.

Carbon Analysis Tools and Design 

Typically, 100% of the project data isn’t available until the project is built. This is a problem for decision-making, since many of the most impactful decisions are made earlier in the process when relatively little data is available.  This results in a classic Catch-22 situation for the architects where conflicting needs between cost, carbon, and aesthetic expectations clash. Without a full design of the building and specifying what structural elements, materials, and floor plans will be included, how can the total carbon footprint be measured with an LCA? Creating a full design to that level of detail and performing a carbon analysis traditionally requires considerable time, expense, and technical expertise from a carbon analysis professional. In the end, will the project perform as planned?

The current model of sustainable design relies heavily on “gut” feelings and assumptions by the design team to try and meet sustainability goals, be they carbon or simply operational energy use. This process creates many opportunities for frustrating and time-intensive challenges, such as:

• How can a firm deliver multiple design options, all with a confident carbon footprint calculation?
• What if the design changes but the carbon footprint expectations stay the same?
• How will local wind and solar exposure impact the design if it changes?

Carbon tracking and meeting sustainability goals in design is at the specific juncture where data and technology can help with the design process and overcome most, if not all, the challenges to early-stage carbon analysis of a building. To leverage this technology, it is important that architects understand the engine running the carbon analysis machine. As expected, machine learning and artificial intelligence are part of the equation.

Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Carbon Analysis Software 

It can’t be overstated that the early design stage is the best opportunity to create a sustainable building design that is durable and results in a lowered embodied, operational, and end-of-use carbon footprint. Modern design software now offers built-in carbon analysis capabilities, which enable architects to assess the carbon impact of their designs in real time. This makes it easier to experiment with different options, provide multiple designs to clients, and optimize the building for sustainability in a user-friendly, fast, and cost-effective fashion.

Two types of computer automation used to power carbon analysis software are machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI). While technically AI is the broader concept that encompasses machine learning, in practical applications, ML often leads the process by handling data analysis and pattern recognition that AI then incorporates into the architect’s design preferences and choices. 

Here’s how it works. ML relies on a database of previous projects using actual building performance measurements to assess how different building materials, structural choices, and systems contribute to a building’s overall carbon footprint. With all these historical references, ML then focuses on training algorithms to learn from the data and improve their accuracy over time without being explicitly programmed for every scenario. For example, an ML process might analyze field data and LCAs from 100 past projects, incorporate 50,000 bills of materials along with EPDs, to calculate a general operational carbon footprint for a building of similar size and structure. 

This calculation takes time, and the more complex the data, the longer it takes. Wind analysis, for instance, is an incredibly complicated calculation process with potentially millions of data points to interpret. It is geolocation-specific as well, which means the calculation is variable over the course of a year. Ultimately, though, the measurements of wind flow, velocity, friction, and impact on the building can all be quantified as data that can be applied to a building design. ML can process all the data points, compare previous expectations of performance with actual performance, and improve the calculation methodology when referencing new projects. The more data or projects ML algorithms are trained with, the more accurate the output.

Artificial intelligence, on the other hand, refers to the broader capability of machines to mimic human intelligence in decision-making, problem-solving, and pattern recognition. AI is the interface that interacts with the architect to update and adjust potential design options to help achieve specific goals. In design software, AI can recommend material alternatives and adjust building orientation or insulation strategies to achieve a specific carbon emissions threshold.

The use of AI bridges the gap between the architect and ML data to provide results in real-time. AI uses the powerful calculations of ML algorithms already established to quickly update designs and provide options based on the design. The architect can then evaluate these options, adjust structural and material choices, and find the balance between performance, cost, and aesthetics that best suits the project. The architect can input changes to the design, like changing the building height or orientation, and instantly see accurate carbon emission calculations. What previously might have taken hours to calculate is available within seconds.

Visual representation used in carbon analysis software is another valuable tool to help adjust the carbon footprint and overall sustainability of a project. Drop and drag features to adjust building type, size, and orientation can be calibrated with local wind patterns, shading, the potential for onsite renewable power generation, water conservation, and more. What would normally be a heavy lift for modeling software can be done quickly and accurately because of the underlying pre-existing data.

The visual representation of carbon analysis software facilitates better communication and collaboration between architects, engineers, and clients. The design of buildings is all about trade-offs and compromises between cost, performance, function, and expectations. Through visual representations of key variables affecting energy performance, water management, ventilation, and daylighting, architects can share plans with clients and explore potential design options. The early stages of design can be more fluid and flexible, but still backed by accurate carbon estimates and performance expectations.

Photo courtesy of Autodesk

For established design firms, embracing technology can be a successful approach to finding, hiring, and retaining tech-savvy architects. 

Embracing Innovation 

The only constant of technology is change, yet for many experienced practitioners, the potential benefits of investing in the latest innovation are often tempered by the suspicion that new technology solutions may simply duplicate an existing process or require extensive training and expertise to upskill. Knowing when and to what extent to commit to new work systems or processes can be a challenge for design firms that have enjoyed historical success through tried-and-true methods. However, there’s an opportunity for design firms to look to the latest technologies and AI to unlock more time for design and leverage new sustainability workflows. Marta Bouchard, Director of Sustainability Solutions at Autodesk, has kept an eye on the confluence of sustainable design and emerging technologies, including the use of AI and ML. “AI speeds up tedious, time-consuming tasks, giving architects more time and headspace for human-powered work like creative design and exploration,” says Bouchard.

By integrating AI and machine learning into design software, Bouchard believes that architects can more easily incorporate sustainability into their workflows, making informed decisions earlier and with more efficiency. “Today’s architects can tap into the countless works that have come before through AI-powered insights. Our focus is on making that intelligence intuitive and accessible, so that they can explore options, run simulations, and be guided towards more sustainable decisions,” says Bouchard.

When looking at the design industry, Bouchard notes that several outdated challenges or misconceptions about the integration of sustainable design software still exist. “There’s a perception that you need to be a subject matter expert in sustainability to put it into practice, but that’s not true,” says Bouchard. “That misconception is holding people back from being able to incorporate sustainable design into their projects.” Bouchard believes that the tools to help inform sustainable choices are already built into their everyday workflows. “Sustainable design is no longer locked behind specialized tools or advanced training,” says Bouchard. “Features like carbon analysis are built into the software that architects are using every day, making it easier to design responsibly.”

The Flywheel Effect 

“Not long ago, architects would each be at their own computer, managing separate files and sending them back and forth to collaborate,” says Bouchard. “Today, cloud-based platforms allow for real-time collaboration on the same model across teams, both inside and outside of the firm. We are living in a digitally connected age, and architecture planning and design are riding that wave. Architects can fast-track their work and improve their collaboration with cloud-connected technology because they’re getting immediate design insights and real-time feedback with software that would have taken hours or days to render or analyze, or receive collaborative feedback.”

For the leadership of firms, Bouchard believes there is an opportunity to embrace technology and empower the younger generation. “Senior leaders recognize that the future of architecture rests with the next generation of designers—creative thinkers, planners, and problem-solvers,” says Bouchard. “They’ve grown up in a digital world, are fluent in technology, and thrive in constant change. This generation seeks purpose and impact in their work. The intersection of AI and sustainability offers both, helping firms not only stay competitive but also attract and retain the talent that will lead them forward. Think of it as a flywheel,” he suggests. “Once set in motion, leveraging the best technology available to them, these users will become super users of technology—think of the business and sustainable outcomes this can drive.”

Improving the Design for the Occupant 

This ability to respond quickly to different design considerations may uncover opportunities to go further down the path of passive design and sustainability. Trade-offs with financial consequences, such as using locally sourced, recycled, or salvaged building materials instead of new materials imported from overseas, may be less of an issue for clients; these choices enable a more sustainable design.

Carbon analysis software can be used to promote a more comfortable, safe, and healthy indoor environment for occupants as well. Both engineers and architects can utilize this technology to adjust building mechanical systems, site orientation, solar exposure, ventilation, and water mitigation strategies that provide improved indoor environmental quality (IEQ) while satisfying budget and scope constraints.

The concept of biophilia has taken hold of the design community and continues to be a popular buzzword to promote occupant well-being. Individuals residing in major countries spend over 90% of their lives indoors. Older traditional building design often relied on function and curb appeal more than creating a space where occupants could thrive from an emotional, mental, and physical health perspective. Biophilic design can reduce stress, enhance creativity and clarity of thought, improve our well-being, and expedite healing. Studies have also shown an increase in productivity, fewer sick days, higher test scores in students, and shorter recovery times for patients in hospitals.

At its core, biophilia seeks to incorporate natural elements into the built environment. When approaching the design of a building, biophilia encourages the space to provide access to nature, natural daylighting, operable windows, and the inclusion of elements like water features and gardens. 

For the architect, the challenge of biophilic design is incorporating these elements while maintaining the performance expectations of the building, given the constraints of the location. With carbon analysis tools incorporated into the design software, the designer can quickly and more easily alter plans to achieve these healthful goals. The ability to adjust the orientation of the building to maximize views, consider the impact of localized microclimates, and evaluate tradeoffs that would enhance the impact of the building on occupants.

Examples include using exposed mass timber structural beams as opposed to steel beams hidden behind the walls. Another might be to design a rooftop garden and incorporate access and egress that satisfy safety, structural, and maintenance requirements. Ultimately, the ability to “play” with the design and feel confident in the carbon evaluation from the beginning of the project opens worlds of possibilities for design options, and occupants can share in these benefits.

Conclusion 

Will AI take or replace the role of the architect? Most likely not. The general perspective is that AI is a tool that is fast and efficient at certain tasks, specifically those related to calculations and rapid analysis modeling, but it is not appropriate for all tasks. The “human element” will always be required in relation to the aesthetics and design, and the function of the built environment. The benefit of AI is that by leveraging the computation technology, it allows architects to focus their time and resources less on calculations and more on the actual design process. Given the potential benefits, the integration of carbon analysis software into the design process should not be a significant challenge for the architects, engineers, or firms. 

As the architectural industry continues to prioritize sustainability, carbon analysis software offers a practical and necessary tool for reducing embodied and operational carbon. By leveraging these technologies in the early design phases, architects can make informed decisions that not only minimize a building’s environmental impact but also enhance occupant well-being, energy efficiency, and long-term performance.

The integration of carbon analysis into standard design workflows is no longer an experimental or optional step—it is an essential part of responsible, forward-thinking architecture. With increasingly stringent regulations and growing client demand for sustainable solutions, architects who embrace these tools will be well-positioned to lead the industry toward a lower-carbon future.

Andrew A. Hunt is Vice President of Confluence Communications and specializes in writing, design, and production of articles and multimedia presentations related to sustainable design in the built environment. In addition to instructional design, writing, and project management, Andrew is an accomplished musician and voice-over actor, providing score and narration for both the entertainment and education arenas. www.confluencec.com,  https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-a-hunt-91b747/