Design thinking for innovation in sustainable built environments: a systematic literature review

Abstract Purpose – This systematic literature review investigates the contribution of design thinking (DT) as a process and tool to drive innovation in a sustainable built environment (SBE) and develops a new model for sustainability research integrating DT and future thinking approaches toward achieving a unified DT and foresight notion for future research and applications. Design/methodology/approach – This review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Open-access English articles published between 2000 and 2022 identified using the EBSCOhost, Emerald Insight, DOJA, JSTOR, Scopus and Taylor and Francis database searches were reviewed. The review framework deploys a previously proposed modified Ansoff matrix with an integrated innovation matrix to identify and analyze the challenges and opportunities for innovation growth in SBE. Additionally, a citation analysis was conducted to explore the impact of DT for innovation in SBE, and a proposed framework based on design by drawing on foresight theory was developed. Findings – Research on DT for innovation in SBE faces the challenge of unanticipated impacts. According to the average number of citations per document, innovation associated with new solutions within a new context seems to become highly influential. Additionally, research gaps exist in the integration of foresight and DT into sustainability research to identify new contexts and solutions to SBE. A model of foresight design thinking (FDT) is proposed to guide future research and support the practical application of DT in sustainability. Research limitations/implications – This analysis was limited by the selection criteria as only certain keywords were used and English-only articles were selected. Future research should consider the use of DT for innovation in SBE using various important keywords, which would improve research findings and expand the contribution of DT to SBE. Practical implications – The FDT model offers a new holistic framework for the iterative process of reframing and reperception, focusing on divergent and convergent thinking with the goal of contributing to SBE practices. Social implications – The integrated framework of DT and foresight can contribute to the study and development of sustainable innovation and a strategic shift toward a sustainable society. Originality/value – The integration of DT, foresight and sustainability can broaden the horizons of sustainability research by systematically addressing future challenges related to SBE, which can be translated into feasible and innovative solutions. Thus, the FDT model complements the application of DT in sustainable innovation in this research field.

Design thinking for innovation

in sustainable built environments:

a systematic literature review

Kallaya TantiyaswasdikulFaculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract

Purpose – This systematic literature review investigates the contribution of design thinking (DT) as a process

and tool to drive innovation in a sustainable built environment (SBE) and develops a new model for

sustainability research integrating DT and future thinking approaches toward achieving a unified DT and

foresight notion for future research and applications.

Design/methodology/approach – This review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement Open-access English articles published between 2000 and

2022 identified using the EBSCOhost, Emerald Insight, DOJA, JSTOR, Scopus and Taylor and Francis

database searches were reviewed The review framework deploys a previously proposed modified Ansoff

matrix with an integrated innovation matrix to identify and analyze the challenges and opportunities for

innovation growth in SBE Additionally, a citation analysis was conducted to explore the impact of DT for

innovation in SBE, and a proposed framework based on design by drawing on foresight theory was

developed.

Findings – Research on DT for innovation in SBE faces the challenge of unanticipated impacts According to

the average number of citations per document, innovation associated with new solutions within a new context

seems to become highly influential Additionally, research gaps exist in the integration of foresight and DT

into sustainability research to identify new contexts and solutions to SBE A model of foresight design

thinking (FDT) is proposed to guide future research and support the practical application of DT in

sustainability.

Research limitations/implications – This analysis was limited by the selection criteria as only certain

keywords were used and English-only articles were selected Future research should consider the use of DT for

innovation in SBE using various important keywords, which would improve research findings and expand the

contribution of DT to SBE.

Practical implications – The FDT model offers a new holistic framework for the iterative process of

reframing and reperception, focusing on divergent and convergent thinking with the goal of contributing to

SBE practices.

Social implications – The integrated framework of DT and foresight can contribute to the study and

development of sustainable innovation and a strategic shift toward a sustainable society.

Originality/value – The integration of DT, foresight and sustainability can broaden the horizons of

sustainability research by systematically addressing future challenges related to SBE, which can be translated

into feasible and innovative solutions Thus, the FDT model complements the application of DT in sustainable

innovation in this research field.

Keywords Design thinking, Foresight, Sustainable built environment, Sustainable innovation, Innovation,

Sustainability

Paper type Literature review

1 Introduction

In recent years, climate change, energy shortage and environmental issues have become

primary concerns The built environment is a major energy consumer, whereas the building

Design thinking for innovation

677

The author would like to acknowledge the generosity of Design Innovation for Sustainability, the

research unit supported by the Faculty of Architecture and Planning Research Fund, Thammasat

8 August 2023 Accepted 8 September 2023

Smart and Sustainable Built Environment Vol 13 No 3, 2024

pp 677-710

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2046-6099

construction sector is a considerable consumer of natural resources with a critical impact onenvironmental problems (Abu Dabous et al., 2022) Global environmental crises havesubstantially increased the demand for sustainable building and construction A sustainablebuilt environment (SBE) refers to the approach of maximizing resource savings over thelifecycle of resources, reducing energy consumption and pollution and protecting theenvironment (Xu and Wang, 2020) A fundamental change in the way resources and energyare used in the construction business is reflected in the transition toward SBE (Kibert et al.,

2000) Creative and cutting-edge solutions are imperative for overcoming current obstaclesand creating new sociotechnical and socioecological systems (Patterson et al., 2017) Toaddress these problems effectively and help the world achieve its sustainable developmentgoals (SDGs), innovative sustainability strategies must be developed (WIPO, 2021;Erbguth

et al., 2022)

Over the past 2 decades, design thinking (DT) has gained attention as a tool for generatinginnovative and creative solutions to complex and uncertain problems involving multiplestakeholders (Maher et al., 2018) DT has been identified as a new paradigm for addressingnew, open and complex problems (Dorst, 2011) From a theoretical perspective, design can bedefined as the conscious act of changing an existing situation into a more preferred one(Simon, 1988) and DT represents a way of thinking about a range of design problems whendesigners create solutions under conditions of complexity and uncertainty (Sch€on, 2015).Recently, DT has attracted attention as an emerging approach for coping with complexsocioecological problems (Buhl et al., 2019) DT can be applied in crucial sustainability areas

to address complicated problems (Buhl et al., 2019) Sustainability is also a designrequirement Although design approaches for sustainability are well-established, theintegration of DT with research on SBE remains limited

There is a growing confluence between sustainability and foresight (Floyd and Zubevich,

2010) Strategic foresight is defined as the ability to create a forward-looking view (Slaughter,

1997) and refers to seeing the future in different ways and imagining different possibilitiesthrough scenario building based on trends and uncertainties to fabricate plausible futures(Amer et al., 2013;Voros, 2001) Foresight allows us to conceive a plausible future context fordesign and ideas to provide future solutions (Buehring and Bishop, 2020) The goal offoresight is sustainability in a changing world, and it could be a major tool for tacklingsustainability (Destatte, 2010) Foresight and DT complement each other and allow us toexplore alternative futures that hold new perspectives (Buehring and Bishop, 2020), opening

up the range of stakeholders further increases the likelihood of success

Previous research by the author (Tantiyaswasdikul, 2023) attempted to identify theexisting connections between DT, foresight and sustainability; indicated the practicalapplications of DT for innovative and sustainable future solutions in the built environment;and proposed a framework combining DT and foresight as a foresight design thinking (FDT)model to guide future research on DT in sustainability This study presents further researchaimed at clarifying the sources and impact of SBE Instead of performing only a systematicliterature review, this study deploys a citation analysis to explore the influence of DT oninnovation in SBE This complements previous research (Tantiyaswasdikul, 2023) byproviding a more comprehensive understanding and proposing a new, undetected impact of

DT on innovation in SBE

2 Methodology2.1 Study designThis is a systematic literature review of the applications of integrated DT and SBE to describethe practical applications of such integration and develop a new FDT model Themethodology was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-

SASBE

13,3

678

Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Page et al., 2021) The study involved three recommended

review phases: (1) identification of candidate articles; (2) screening of full-text English articles

for eligibility and keywords, including design thinking, sustainability and built environment;

and (3) definition of the inclusion criteria for the review and qualitative synthesis of the final

sample of eligible articles

The literature was compiled between March 10 and 25, 2023 Relevant articles were

identified from leading academic research databases, including EBSCOhost, Emerald Insight,

DOJA, JSTOR, Scopus and Taylor and Francis using keywords such as design thinking,

sustainability and built environment Only the DOJA database, which provides a specific

topic search, was used DT in building construction In total, 749 documents were obtained

from the Scopus database, 125 from Emerald Insight, 52 from DOJA, 31 from Taylor and

Francis, 30 from EBSCOhost and 21 from the JSTOR database The total number of

documents was 1,008, of which 454 were open-access articles After screening and eligibility

assessment, 65 articles were found to be relevant to DT, sustainability and the built

environment and were selected for further analysis

In addition, this review provides a citation analysis to clarify the influence of DT on

innovation in SBE Citation counts were performed using the extensive Google Scholar (GS)

database on April 15, 2023 Strong connections were found between GS-based metrics and

conventional Journal Impact Factors, such as the Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Knowledge,

particularly the Web of Science (Harzing and Van der Wal, 2008;Kousha and Thelwall, 2007;

Pauly and Stergiou, 2005) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) (Harzing and Van der Wal, 2008;

Pauly and Stergiou, 2005) Given that all academics have access to citation data regardless of

their institutions’ financial capabilities, GS-based metrics offer free access and permit the

democratization of citation analysis (Harzing and Van der Wal, 2008; Pauly and

Stergiou, 2005)

To develop a proposed framework based on opportunities for theory and practice

development in the field of design by drawing on foresight theory, the author deploys an

iterative cycle DT process of empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping and testing

(Stanford D.school., 2010), in a strategic reframing of the Oxford Scenario Planning approach

(Ramirez and Wilkinson, 2016) Based on the theoretical basis of foresight in the theory of

process and impact, when considering foresight as a social process and an intervention in an

organization (Piirainen and Gonzalez, 2015), DT goes through iterative steps to incrementally

develop a design solution in a trial-and-error manner to meet creative solutions Future

scenarios are produced as a design solution through the scenario planning process (Kishita

et al., 2021) using divergent and convergent thinking

2.2 Data description

The 65 documents comprised 58 journal articles and 7 conference papers.Table 1lists articles

on DT integration published in different areas of built environment-related research,

publication and institution The majority of the papers provided methods, strategies, tools

and practices for delivering sustainable solutions (30 papers), followed by papers pertaining to

urban planning and processes for sustainable development (14 papers), while some papers were

related to net zero carbon and CE (12 papers) Six papers were related to inclusive and healthy

neighborhoods and buildings, and four focused on affordable and clean energy In terms of the

most productive publication, Sustainability has the highest number of publications equal to 9

documents (13.8%), followed by Journal of Cleaner Production (6 documents, 9.2%) and

Buildings (3 documents, 4.6%) Five publications, including Architectural Engineering and

Design Management, Design Studies, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,

Procedia Engineering, and Sustainability Science, have similar number of documents

(2 documents, 3%) For the geography of institutions, each document includes both single

Design thinking for innovation

679

681

683

685

687

689

institution publications and multiple institution publications The seven most productivecountries include (1) Australia (10 documents); (2) The Netherlands (7 documents); (3) Germanyand UK (5 documents); and (4) Singapore, Sweden and USA (4 documents).

2.3 Review framework

To clearly identify and analyze the challenges and opportunities for innovation growth inSBE, 65 articles were selected and plotted using a DT and innovation framework Acrossacademic fields, the word“innovation” is frequently used and discussed in diverse contexts.Innovation is associated with creativity and novel solutions; however, the overuse of a wordoften detracts from its value (Banerjee, 2016) Innovation refers to the ability to surpassexpectations and provide novel benefits (Banerjee, 2008) The link between innovation anddesign reflects the importance of creativity as a component of innovation (Martin, 2009), andinnovation requires design and DT to address challenges (Banerjee, 2016)

Innovation is synonymous with advanced technology, creativity and novel solutions(Banerjee, 2016) However, scientific inventions represent only one type of innovation.Innovation involves developing new ways to use or combine current scientific andtechnological information (Souto, 2015) Innovation refers to activities that createknowledge; however, it does not necessarily end with the development of new knowledge(Souto, 2015) The application of new knowledge that fulfills user needs is also an innovation(Souto, 2015) Innovation can be described according to three main types: product, process andorganizational innovation (Souto, 2015) Innovation can help to identify and frame problems innew ways of formulating solutions This study deploys a modified Ansoff matrix with anintegrated innovation matrix proposed by Jacoby and Rodriguez (2007) as the DT andinnovation framework This is a 23 2 matrix with two categories of challenges, familiar andunfamiliar, framed against two categories of solutions, known and unknown (Figure 1).The framework identifies the appropriate types of sustainable innovation growth,recognizes the scope of challenges and deploys an appropriate innovation process andassessment portfolio (Jacoby and Rodriguez, 2007) The mapping outcomes are derived fromthe analysis of the method, process or tool used as a solution in the research study, as well asthe context In the lower left quadrant (A), the challenges are familiar and solutions are

known; this leads to better quality outcomes, contributing to incremental innovation and

offering solutions within the existing context To achieve incremental outcomes, this study

required an execution-focused process and a human-centric approach In this group,

innovation focuses on understanding rather than exploring it

In the lower right quadrant (B), the challenges are unfamiliar and the solutions are known

This generates adaptive outcomes and contributes to evolutionary innovations that apply

existing solutions to a new context In the top-left quadrant (C), the challenges are familiar and

solutions are unknown This leads to the leveraging of outcomes and contributes to evolutionary

innovation, offering new solutions within the existing context For the evolutionary outcomes,

this study required an ideation-focused, human-centric approach Evolutionary outcomes can be

further differentiated based on whether they focus on adding new value to existing or new

contexts These differences can be mapped to DT and innovation frameworks

In the top-right quadrant (D), the challenges are unfamiliar and solutions are unknown

This generates disruptive outcomes, contributes to revolutionary innovation and offers new

solutions within a new context To achieve revolutionary outcomes, this study requires an

exploration-focused process as well as a human-centric and future-oriented approach The

foresight framework is an important tool for exploring plausible futures Revolutionary

innovation refers to the co-occurrence of a radical mindset that defines new challenges and

develops solutions Unfamiliar challenges or unknown contexts and new or unknown

solutions encourage us to break away from existing assumptions and normal sensemaking

and create new mental models of how to approach the challenges (Ringberg et al., 2019) while

simultaneously reframing and reperceiving solutions This creative approach is driven by

new“sensemaking strategies” (Davidsson, 2015) and resembles to scenario planning

Paradoxical cognition refers to “managerial frames and processes that recognize and

embrace contradiction” (Smith and Tushman, 2005, p 523); evolutionary and revolutionary

innovations are built from a paradoxical cognition in order to both pursue exploration and

exploitation—a procedure that calls for reflection to take advantage of chances and/or novel

concepts (Ringberg et al., 2019) Evolutionary and revolutionary approaches require new

mindsets (Ringberg et al., 2019) Considering new contexts and solutions is crucial to increase

the probability of sustainable innovation Each project is fundamentally different, and its

origins are unique What is revolutionary to one project is incremental to another All these

categories are based on the outcome-centric structure of the innovation process (Jacoby and

Rodriguez, 2007) To achieve future-oriented sustainability, the key driving forces rely on

defining new contexts or unfamiliar challenges and exploring new solutions

3 Design thinking for innovation in SBE

Innovation is the key to the success of SBE solutions This matrix offers a theoretical scheme

that illustrates the innovation classification By classifying and summarizing the 65 selected

papers, the status and practical applications of DT in the field of SBE were discussed from the

following four viewpoints, as shown inFigure 2 Most of the innovations associated with the

existing solutions within the existing context or incremental innovation (23 papers, 35.4%);

29 papers (44.6%) were classified as evolutionary innovation, which includes innovation

related to the existing solutions within a new context (16 papers, 24.6%) and new solutions

within the existing context (13 papers, 20%) Thirteen papers (20%) were prioritized as

revolutionary innovations that explored new solutions within a new context

3.1 Existing solutions within an existing context (incremental)

In the lower left quadrant of the matrix, the challenges are familiar and the solutions are known

This leads to better outcomes and contributes to incremental innovation, which offers solutions in

Design thinking for innovation

691

the existing context Such incremental innovation can be defined as an improvement within agiven framework of solutions or as a continuous modification of previously accepted practices(Norman and Verganti, 2014) The challenges in this group include the issues of public servicedesign, household water consumption, product–service systems, performance of urban designers,sustainable strategy, waste sterilization systems, urban community development, urbanlandscape, sustainable practices, slums in the city, building construction waste, architecturaldesign review process, resiliency projects and strategies, urban planning, sustainable supplychain innovation, policymaking for public transport by the local governments, sustainablebuilding, sustainability transition in supply chains, management plans, sustainable solutions inthe built environment and prefabrication construction, as summarized inTable 2.

3.2 Existing solutions within a new context (evolution)

In the lower right quadrant of the matrix, the challenges are unfamiliar and the solutions areknown This leads to adaptive outcomes, contributes to evolutionary innovation and offerssolutions in a new context Radical innovation can be defined as a change in framing or a newcontext The challenges in this group include smart buildings, CE, zero-emissionneighborhoods, zero-energy renovations, climate change, energy-flexible factories,renewable energy infrastructures, sustainable smart cities and sustainability-orientedinnovation, as summarized inTable 3

3.3 New solutions within an existing context (evolution)

In the top-left quadrant of the matrix, the challenges are familiar and the solutions areunknown This provides leveraging outcomes, contributes to evolutionary innovation andoffers new solutions within the existing contexts This radical innovation can be defined as achange in the framing solution and comprises new, unique and discontinuous solutions.Innovation in this category is associated with familiar challenges and contexts However, thesolutions presented in this study are novel The challenges in this group include sustainableliving labs, coastal area management, urban project redevelopment, building informationmodeling (BIM) technology, sustainable design campus, building construction, real estate

Existing solutions within an existing context (incremental) 23 papers

Reference

Familiar challenges (an existing context) Known solutions (existing solutions) Baek and Kim (2018) Public service design Participatory public services using design

thinking (DT) to increase citizens ’ satisfaction with those services

Bermejo-Martın et al.

(2021)

Household water consumption A web-based prototype within the DT

methodology to engage households and mitigate the risks associated with development Bertoni and Ruvald

urban designers

A comparative framework and applied knowledge of professional practice for better understanding of DT in urbanism

Carayannis and

Grigoroudis (2022)

Sustainable smarter specialization strategies

Efficacious multi-criteria approaches that leverages DT philosophies and agile methodologies

facilitate an informal discussion Hooimeijer et al (2017) Urban landscape A DT process for systematic processing of

contextual information on the site under development

Hoolohan and Browne

(2020)

Sustainable practices DT and social practice theory to develop a

toolkit to design interventions that unlock unsustainable practices

Kumar et al (2016) Redevelopment of slums in the

Building construction waste Adaptive reuse of building construction waste

as new building construction material using a

DT process Laovisutthichai et al.

(2022)

Construction waste minimization A DT method to develop practical guidelines

for construction waste minimization Lee and Chiang (2016) An architectural design review

process

A code-checking system using the building information modeling (BIM) technology with the Fuzzy Delphi method based on DT and communication theory

Lochhead (2017) Resiliency projects and strategies Rebuild via a design process

Mensonen and

H €allstr€om (2020) Urban planning A DT approach in the urban planning sector

Nilsson and

G €oransson (2021) Realization of sustainable supplychain innovations

A process model based on a DT model for innovation

Perez et al (2022) Policies for the public transport of

local government

A co-design approach to support the analytical, operational, and political policy capacities of government bodies

Petrova et al (2019) Sustainable building DT, BIM, sustainable building design and

performance assessment, data analysis and AI, and emerging technologies to improve decision-making on design

Pyykk €o et al (2021) Sustainability transition in supply

chains

The Double Diamond design process model to formulate a DT overview and trace potential research gaps

(continued )

Table 2 Existing solutions within an existing

context

Design thinking for innovation

693