Article ID: CBB745455255

Green Design Tools: Building Values and Politics into Material Choices (November 2021)

unapi

Green design tools are emerging as a new response to the dilemmas that architects and designers face in preventing the toxic impacts of building construction. Environmental health advocates, scientists, and consulting firms are stepping in to provide designers with new tools—including science-based assessment methods, standards, databases, and software—intended to help structure and inform decision-making in sustainable design. We argue that green design tools play an important but largely uninvestigated role in giving designers new forms of influence while mediating how designers’ values are translated into actual design choices. Tool makers embed their own values and politics into the construction of the tools, which function as “black boxes”—their internal operations are understood as less important than their outputs for informing sustainable design. Using the green building movement as a case study, we consider three tools for selecting environmentally benign materials: the GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals, Pharos, and the Health Product Declaration. Examining controversies about the scientific validity of green design tools, we suggest that they are rooted in value conflicts and tensions in the politics of chemical knowledge. Transparent engagement with values and politics among tool developers and users could strengthen the legitimacy and credibility of green design tools.

...More
Citation URI
https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB745455255/

Similar Citations

Article Kris Hartley; (November 2021)
Public Trust and Political Legitimacy in the Smart City: A Reckoning for Technocracy (/isis/citation/CBB172268665/)

Article Nassim JafariNaimi; (March 2018)
Our Bodies in the Trolley’s Path, or Why Self-driving Cars Must *Not* Be Programmed to Kill (/isis/citation/CBB556129964/)

Article Allison Loconto; Scott Prudham; Steven Wolf; (2024)
Environmental governance through metrics: guest introduction (/isis/citation/CBB894684908/)

Article Mattia Andreoletti; David Teira; (2019)
Rules versus Standards: What Are the Costs of Epistemic Norms in Drug Regulation? (/isis/citation/CBB881753075/)

Article Natasha D. Schüll; (March 2022)
Afterword: Shifting the Terms of the Debate (/isis/citation/CBB889022961/)

Article Emmanuel Henry; Valentin Thomas; Sara Angeli Aguiton; Marc-Olivier Déplaude; Nathalie Jas; (September 2021)
Introduction: Beyond the Production of Ignorance: The Pervasiveness of Industry Influence through the Tools of Chemical Regulation (/isis/citation/CBB736985993/)

Article Jenny Andersson; Erik Westholm; (2019)
Closing the Future: Environmental Research and the Management of Conflicting Future Value Orders (/isis/citation/CBB589179620/)

Article Emmanuel Henry; (September 2021)
Governing Occupational Exposure Using Thresholds: A Policy Biased Toward Industry (/isis/citation/CBB676852860/)

Article Alexander Rushforth; Thomas Franssen; Sarah de Rijcke; (2019)
Portfolios of Worth: Capitalizing on Basic and Clinical Problems in Biomedical Research Groups (/isis/citation/CBB805796865/)

Article Cook, Brian R.; Kesby, Mike; Fazey, Ioan; Spray, Chris; (October 2013)
The persistence of ‘normal’ catchment management despite the participatory turn: Exploring the power effects of competing frames of reference (/isis/citation/CBB350967664/)

Article Brian Salter; (January 2022)
Markets, Cultures, and the Politics of Value: The Case of Assisted Reproductive Technology (/isis/citation/CBB380652953/)

Article David Moats; Liz McFall; (2019)
In Search of a Problem: Mapping Controversies over NHS (England) Patient Data with Digital Tools (/isis/citation/CBB339833803/)

Article Carmen McLeod; Sarah Hartley; (July 2018)
Responsibility and Laboratory Animal Research Governance (/isis/citation/CBB564349730/)

Article Sara M. Grimes; (January 2015)
Configuring the Child Player (/isis/citation/CBB047050197/)

Article Malte Ziewitz; (January 2016)
Governing Algorithms: Myth, Mess, and Methods (/isis/citation/CBB061486372/)

Authors & Contributors
Henry, Emmanuel
Prudham, Scott
Rijcke, Sarah de
JafariNaimi, Nassim
Kris Hartley
Greenhough, Beth
Concepts
Technoscience; science and technology studies
Governance
Power (social sciences)
Science and politics
Technology and politics
Expertise
Time Periods
21st century
20th century
Places
Hong Kong
United States
Sweden
China
Canada
Great Britain
Institutions
National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
Comments

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment