Abstract
Built-environment designers (architects, landscape architects and urban designers) shape the spatial and material conditions that support or hinder pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs). This study examines the gap between designers’ aspirations (the PEB outcomes they wish to enable) and their perceived reality (feasibility judgements under present institutional and project conditions) across five domains where designers exert material influence: recycling, energy conservation, sustainable transport, food growing and biodiversity-supportive gardening. Survey responses from UK-based design practitioners (n = 577) reveal a pervasive aspiration–reality gap, with aspirations exceeding perceived feasibility across all domains. The gap is smallest for lower dependency interventions and largest for higher dependency measures requiring organisational or political coordination. Around one-quarter of variance is attributable to between-person differences, with the remainder being intervention specific. Aspirations and perceived realities are strongly aligned across domains. Alignment is strongest in stewardship-dependent domains (food-growing; biodiversity-supportive gardening) and weakest in sustainable transport. This pattern suggests designers calibrate ambition to perceived delivery pathways, but coupling loosens where pathways are externally controlled or contested. These findings highlight the need to reduce institutional constraints shaping feasibility judgements and strengthen designers’ behavioural-design capability and the professional sustainability baseline. Together, these measures can help to enable the facilitation of low-carbon, resource-efficient lifestyles.
Practice relevance
Built-environment designers (architects, landscape architects and urban designers) reported aspirations that exceeded what they judged feasible under current delivery conditions. Narrowing this gap depends less on exhorting higher ambition than on making PEB-supportive design routinely deliverable in practice. Three near-term priorities are as follows. (1) Institutional reform (procurement, approvals, stewardship): embed behavioural criteria in briefs and approvals; move procurement beyond lowest capital cost; streamline pathways for high-dependency measures (notably sustainable transport); and resource long-term stewardship. (2) Professional empowerment (capability and confidence): strengthen behavioural-science literacy, evidence-based briefing, and user-centred stewardship guidance through continuing professional development and professional standards. (3) Strengthen the evidence base: normalise post-occupancy evaluation and operational feedback; use these data to test perceived feasibility against delivered interventions and realised behavioural/operational outcomes; codify learning into repeatable guidance and specifications.