Towards Sustainable Education by Design: Evaluating Pro-Ecological Architectural Solutions in Centers for Environmental Education

Abstract

The imperative shift towards ecological consciousness in architectural design, driven by the pressing need to mitigate energy consumption and carbon emissions while fostering user well-being, has propelled the discourse on sustainable architecture to the forefront of contemporary dialogue. Concepts such as ecological architecture, sustainable, green, and regenerative design have emerged as pivotal frameworks aimed at aligning architectural practices with environmental imperatives. In this evolving architectural landscape, the centers for ecological education (CEEs) play an important role, embodying the intersection of architecture and ecological education. These centers, with their diverse educational initiatives, provide dedicated spaces for comprehensive ecological education. However, a gap exists in the literature regarding studies focusing on CEEs and the evaluation criteria for such facilities. This article seeks to bridge this gap by evaluating buildings designated for ecological education, aiming to present ecological content while exemplifying sustainable architectural principles. The study employs a research by design approach, combining a literature review with site investigations and qualitative assessments to elucidate the unique challenges and opportunities inherent in designing CEEs. Criteria for assessing the ecological quality of buildings are formulated. Through a comparative analysis, the article identifies key parameters for evaluating CEEs, considering their dual function as educational spaces and architectural exemplars. The evaluation framework developed in this study provides a valuable tool for architects, designers, and policymakers seeking to promote ecological education and sustainable architectural practices.

1. Introduction

The urgent need for a transition in building design to integrate ecological values, reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions, and enhance user well-being has become a critical focal point in contemporary architectural discourse [1,2,3]. This shift emphasizes issues such as resource preservation, environmental protection, ecology [4,5,6], sustainable development [7,8,9], and, more recently, measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change effects [10,11,12]. Concepts such as ecological architecture, sustainable, green, and regenerative design have gained prominence, aiming to align architectural practices with the natural world and minimize negative impacts while fostering environmental rejuvenation [13,14,15]. This movement has been particularly pronounced in Europe since 2010, following the updated “Energy Efficiency Guidelines for Buildings” (EPBD) issued by the EU [16]. These guidelines have driven the integration of energy efficiency and ecological considerations into architectural design. New standards such as WELL have emerged, introducing a comprehensive approach to the built environment’s impact and interaction with its surroundings [1,2,3]. Discussions and practices focusing on environmental conservation in architecture are complemented by various initiatives, including educational ones. Among these, centers for ecological education (CEE) play a pivotal role, embodying the intersection of architecture and ecological education. Ecological education aims to develop ecological consciousness through psychological and pedagogical approaches, promoting environmental awareness [17]. It occurs in both formal (schools) and informal settings, with institutions such as CEEs actively involved. CEEs provide dedicated spaces for comprehensive ecological education.

A facility dedicated to ecological education should not only be sustainable and certified by systems such as BREEAM, LEED, DGNB, and BNB, but also showcase various approaches. Some examples of such approaches include energy consumption and energy production monitors in the entrance hall, water consumption and rainwater harvesting monitors, drinking water stations to reduce plastic use, highlighting local building materials, and implementing sustainable food gardens. These facilities should use easy-to-understand pedagogic concepts, bringing applied concepts into a broader context. Transparency in action and impact, reducing the complexity of sustainability to a degree children can understand, is crucial for motivation. “The architectural building type of educational design serves as a vehicle to transport eco- and archi-friendly values and deeply anchor these values in society from an early age” (p. 236, [18]). Architecture can be a relevant educational agent, supporting its didactic message [19,20]. An environmentally friendly building for a CEE becomes integral to environmental education.

A significant portion of the new centers for environmental education (CEEs) in Poland, for which new facilities are being built, are funded through programs dedicated to environmental education. This further underscores the obligation to implement ecological solutions. It would be illogical and inconsistent to design a CEE in a traditional manner. The very purpose of a CEE is to embody and promote sustainability, and constructing such a center using conventional, non-ecological methods would contradict its fundamental mission. While ordinary buildings can adhere to standard designs, CEEs must be designed with ecological and sustainable principles to avoid undermining their own objectives. A center for environmental education (CEE) differs significantly from other green buildings due to its primary focus on education and community engagement. While both CEEs and green buildings emphasize sustainability through energy efficiency, sustainable materials, and minimal environmental impact, a CEE is uniquely dedicated to educating the public about environmental issues and sustainable practices. This educational mission transforms the building into a dynamic teaching tool.

CEEs incorporate features specifically designed to educate visitors, such as interactive exhibits, demonstration areas, and educational signage. These elements make sustainable practices visible and understandable. Moreover, CEEs actively engage the community through workshops, seminars, and hands-on activities, promoting environmental awareness and action. They collaborate with local organizations, host school programs, and provide resources for sustainable living. This proactive approach contrasts with the more passive role of green buildings, which do not typically serve as platforms for public education and advocacy. Understanding the unique roles of CEEs is crucial for appreciating their importance in promoting sustainability. CEEs are not merely green buildings; they are specialized facilities designed to inspire, educate, and mobilize the public toward sustainable lifestyles and practices. Highlighting these differences underscores the significance of researching CEEs and their impact on fostering a sustainable future.

There is a lack of studies on CEEs, particularly on built examples and evaluation criteria. Demonstrating the relationship between architectural and educational qualities and workable solutions that affect environmental protection is crucial. Corresponding to that gap, this article evaluates buildings and facilities designated for ecological education, aiming to present them as examples of sustainable architecture. The second part of this article presents numerous examples emphasizing the educational value of architectural solutions in ecology education. While several green building certification systems exist, none specifically address CEEs. Thus, this study explores the specific position of the CEE typology in ecological architecture and highlights relevant criteria for their definition. The CEE building in Gliwice, designed by the co-authors, is analyzed based on the adopted criteria. The analysis of Polish implementations provides an objective evaluation, comparing it against similar projects within the same design–legal–financial context.

Polish authors and researchers address sustainable architecture, but there is a lack of comprehensive coverage, particularly regarding Polish realizations of buildings with educational and demonstration functions [21,22,23]. Previous studies in this context mainly focused on defining green architecture based on commercial certifications [21], technological issues [22], or a global view of sustainable development and circularity [23].

The article seeks to answer: How to evaluate environmental education centers? Are existing certification systems appropriate for appreciating the educational role of CEEs? What aspects are important for effective environmental education communication through architectural and urban solutions? Which criteria should be added for CEEs in existing systems? The conclusions aim to fill a knowledge gap on the role of architectural qualities in designing and evaluating environmental education center facilities.

1.1. Literature Review

1.1.1. Literature Review—Ecology and Environmental Education

A literature search dedicated directly to the facilities of a center for environmental education does not yield results similar to the issues described in the introduction of this article. The abbreviation CEE can be confused with but also combined with an organization that was founded in Europe in 1994 called the CEEweb for Biodiversity [24]. This organization and those working with it produce publications and reports related to biodiversity and planning strategy activities conducive to action at the strategic level, and planning activities and spatial directions for sustainable development at national, regional, and local scales.

Under the heading of education and architectural solutions, part of the literature refers to the issue of education for sustainable development (ESD). ESD emerges as a crucial focal point for the unfolding era of scientific inquiry and research [25]. ESD competencies focus on the competencies that teachers and educators need to put into place in educational settings to promote sustainability competencies among their students [26]. A diagnosis of education and research in sustainable architecture is presented by Wael Sheta [27] based on, among other data, Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA) [28], an organization engaged in a worldwide discourse on sustainable architecture and urban design through annual international conferences, workshops, and publications. Many studies have been devoted to architectural education and curricula and their effects in terms of deep ecology, e.g., Cisek E. Jaglarz A. [29] and Santos et al. [30].

1.1.2. Literature Review—Certification

Much of the knowledge related to the problems of this article is published in the category of the subject of certification of buildings, their energy requirements [31], and the materials and technologies used [32]. Observing the efforts of designers, scientists, industry journalists, and the construction services market regarding environmental initiatives, there is a noticeable trend towards organizing the subject matter and creating theories of design, as well as several types of standards and certification systems [33,34,35,36,37].

Table 1. Types of commercial building certification systems and their applicable building uses. Building uses that complement CEEs are highlighted in gray.

Certification System (Abbreviation)	Since	Residential	Commercial	Industrial	Public	Educational	Healthcare	Retail
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)	1998	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)	1990	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB)	2009	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE)	2004	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
WELL Building Standard (WELL)	2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

presents various commercial building rating systems, along with the types of building functions that can be rated. Although the table lists the dates when these certification systems originated, it is crucial to note that they are continually refined and updated. For example, LEED version 4 was revised in 2013 into 10 independent evaluation systems [38], including subcategories such as schools. The research by Ji-Myong K. et al. [38] highlights the economic impact of green building certification systems on educational facilities. Like many other studies, it is a detailed examination of a specific group of cases. While rating systems are designated to be applicable across different building functions, the evaluation criteria can vary significantly. Commercial certification schemes typically cover a range of buildings with diverse functions, making it challenging in some cases to categorize CEEs precisely. These buildings often combine educational, public, office, and other functions. Therefore, it is sensible to examine these buildings more closely, potentially outside the scope of standard certification pathways.

Certification systems have become integral to the design process, particularly for commercial buildings. Educational buildings are typically considered as sub-groups within major certification systems such as LEED BD + C, BREEAM International New Construction, DGNB, and BNB. These certification systems encompass a variety of building types, including schools, healthcare facilities, data centers, hospitality venues, and industrial buildings. Each certification system may include different types of buildings based on their criteria. Although certification systems maintain a general approach and sequence in their credits, they often include specific credits that address the unique needs of these various building types, including schools. However, there are no unique criteria specifically tailored for educational buildings. This gap led Tatiana Santos Saraiva et al. [39] to propose adding the criterion ‘Education for sustainability awareness’ to the existing Portuguese certification system SAHSB^PT. Although this addition may be beneficial for schools, where students attend for extended periods, it might not be suitable for CEEs.

Green building certification systems have increased awareness among designers and investors about sustainable and ecological solutions and improved energy efficiency in new buildings. However, their implementation is limited, especially in Poland, where they are well known only to some designers. This is mainly due to their voluntary nature and commercial character. These systems consist of standardized sets of indicators, serving as templates for solutions to be applied in a project, according to which various buildings of the same type are assessed by an independent certification body. They serve as tools for standardizing the process of evaluating buildings’ impact on the environment and health. According to annual publications by the Polish Green Building Council [37], which also maintains a register of certified buildings in Poland, the most popular multi-criteria rating systems in recent years have been the British BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, which accounted for 81.6% of all certified buildings in Poland in the 2023 report), the American LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, 13.8%), and the Polish Green Building (Zielony Dom, developed by PLGBC, 1.6%) [40]. Other commercial rating systems include e.g., DGNB [41,42,43], HQE [43], and WELL [44,45]. Their popularity in Poland is limited, so the authors do not refer to them in the context of Polish implementations.

Other criteria for evaluating buildings in terms of ecology and sustainability are being developed but tend to be more general than commercial criteria, such as the New European Bauhaus Compass [46] or the Davos Building Culture Quality System [47]. In both instruments, the generality of the provisions is linked to a broad understanding of sustainable construction, encompassing environmental, energy efficiency, social, and aesthetic aspects.

Creating criteria for ecological design that address a wide range of environmental issues and allow even a general assessment of whether a designed building is ecological is a challenging task, especially when rejecting commercial rating systems. The search for such an evaluation system, which could also be used to evaluate ecological educational centers, led to the analysis of the “Criteria for Evaluation of Architectural Implementations in Terms of Climate-Responsible Solutions for the Purposes of the Architectural Award of the President of the Capital City of Warsaw” [48]. These criteria have a slightly different specificity than commercial rating systems and are applicable to buildings nominated for the award, but the evaluation method is detailed (with checklists) and publicly available. Generally, green building certification systems provide the advantage of serving as benchmarking systems, awarding different degrees of compliance with points, and thus are an important basis for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of each possible measure. The “Warsaw Award system”, although less comprehensive than multi-criteria commercial rating systems, can guide the design of sustainable and ecological architecture.

In summary, significant progress has been made in developing consistent benchmarking systems through green building certification systems since the inception of BREEAM in 1990. These systems have seen continuous and ongoing improvements. While educational buildings are comprehensively addressed by all major certification systems, specific criteria tailored for CEEs are still lacking.

1.1.3. Literature Review—Recognized Case Studies

In view of the above, research dedicated to selected examples that serve the function of CEE at the interface of education in pro-environmental green solutions seems to be crucial. The following is basic information on selected examples from the world and Poland. Despite attempts, we were unable to find reliable studies of such facilities. We used the following examples as a knowledge base and as guidelines for selecting appropriate CEEs, which were the subject of our own detailed research.

The NAWAREUM—Museum für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (Museum for Renewable Raw Materials) in Straubing, Lower Bavaria, Germany, inaugurated in 2023, houses a partially interactive exhibition and many hands-on exercises in the area of renewable materials, renewable energies, and, in the surrounding garden, nutrition and health aspects [49]. The building follows the passive house standard and uses timber as the main building material, a relative novelty for public buildings in Germany. The energy supply comes from 40 geothermal probes with a heat pump and 130 m² of solar thermal collectors. Furthermore, electrical energy is produced by 270 m² photovoltaic panels on the roof. Compared to conventional public buildings, the NAWAREUM emits only 0.4% of CO₂ emission over a lifespan of 50 years. The building has a strong educational vocation, addressing different age groups.

DuPont Environmental Education Center, built 2009 in Wilmington, USA, is a building that can be presumed as demonstrative. Its wooden structure, several amenities, and location by wetlands aim to manifest the need for wetland protection [50]. The DuPont EEC is exceptional since it is vertical, 4 stories high, to minimize the impact of the built-up area on the environment and to provide views towards wetlands.

The Pocono Environmental Education Center in Dingmans Ferry, Pennsylvania, United States, built in 2005, determined through a detailed environmental assessment that construction on this site would not disrupt the habitat of any known wildlife in the region. Reused, recycled, or recyclable materials were chosen wherever these qualities would not compromise the materials’ performance. Although many details regarding the design have been revealed, most of the sustainable solutions are not obvious or certified [51].

Due to the necessary additional efforts, mostly concerning documentation and costs, surprisingly many CEEs have not been certified under any of the green building certification programs. Under LEED, only 6 projects have been certified [52]. Under BREEAM, no project has been certified under this search string [53]. The same applies to the DGNB database of certified projects [54].

There are various ways of arranging and shaping space for environmental education. Some of them do not take advantage of all the architectural, urban, and technological qualities that seem natural and obvious for centers with such a function. This is most often due to the need to implement the educational mission in the form of workshops or classes, in which the component of space as a pro-ecological value is secondary. There are numerous examples of existing facilities where classes, workshops, and interior space arrangements have been created that use an ecological educational theme.

1.1.4. Literature Review—CEEs in Poland

The common denominator for the realization of the CEEs in Poland was numerous funding programs from various sources, including the National Environmental Protection Fund, funds from the European Union, as well as other local support programs. Below, we have listed some case studies of CEEs that function and fulfill an educational mission, but the facilities in which they are housed do not have the character of demonstrating environmentally friendly architectural solutions. An example of the CEE in Skoczów is the 2021 realization of exhibition spaces in an existing building, the market square [55]. The Wloclawek Ecological Center operates in the Wloclawek Forest District and is located in an undistinguished building with non-representative architecture [56]. The case of the CEE in Warsaw, which operates at the Royal Łazienki park, its directly linked to the palm house [57]. The Center for Environmental Education in Gora Siewierska [58], established in 2022, operates at the community cultural center in the municipality of Psary. The center’s main attraction is the observation tower, which is part of an area of about 1.5 hectares, where numerous educational paths and installations promoting and informing about biodiversity have been placed. The recently finished Sosnowiec Exotarium Environmental Education Center is an example of a building dedicated to plants that should be more associated with a greenhouse. The history of the palm house building in Sosnowiec dates back to 1961, but the entire park, including the new building, which was built at the same time, in 2023, has the status of a zoological garden [59]. The Center for Nature Education of Jagiellonian University should be assessed as a typical building with a museum function, built in 2014 [60]. The Małopolska Environmental Education Center in Ciężkowice [61] was reassembled in 2023, and its mission is linked to the adjacent educational trail trees and the Skamieniałe Miasto reserve. Despite its mission and form, the building itself does not demonstrate environmentally friendly solutions.

All the cases mentioned above show that there is literally no published research on CEEs. Moreover, some CEEs fit into the trend of thinking towards sustainable education, but do not fit into the concept of Evaluating Pro-Ecological Architectural Solutions. Shaping ecological architectural and urban solutions involves various design scales, from spatial planning and urbanism to construction, installations, greenery design, and architectural detail. This complexity results in a lack of ready-made, comprehensive guidelines for designing ecologically accessible solutions. CEEs should adhere to pro-environmental ideas, while considering varying understandings of environmental education and local conditions, and building certification guidelines. An additional challenge for CEEs is effectively communicating, through their architectural features, how specific concepts of sustainability work and showcasing their impact. Scientific research in this field has typically focused on fragmented professional and research perspectives to explore how to shape buildings and the built environment to be environmentally friendly (e.g., [62,63,64]), leaving the specific challenges highlighted by CEEs largely unexplored.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper is based on a literature review focused on ecological architecture, emphasizing studies with criteria for evaluating architecture from an environmental perspective, along with site investigations of architectural implementations. CEEs are considered atypical facilities and a topical issue, as individual centers are being realized in selected locations. The authors focused on educational centers built in Europe and Poland after 2010. The case of the CEE design project in Gliwice was presented and discussed using the research by design method. Based on the literature review, criteria for assessing the ecological quality of buildings were formulated, and a qualitative assessment of the selected case was conducted. Additionally, the analysis considered the specificity of ecological education centers, which impose a demonstration function on spatial and architectural–constructional solutions, fundamentally different from traditional exhibition–educational functions (common in museums, galleries, and schools). The research process was divided into five stages, as shown in Figure 1. The relevant part of the information collected for the study is included in the following tables, and their inter-relationship is illustrated in Figure 2.

Methods for Assessing Buildings in the Context of Ecological Solutions

The issues listed and described as sustainable, ecological, and environmental largely overlap with the criteria in commercial rating systems, as shown in

Table 2. Comparison of criteria for assessing buildings in an environmental context.

BREEAM [35,36]	LEED [35,36,37,38]	Zielony Dom (Greenhome) [40]	Criteria of the Warsaw Award [48]
Management—project brief and design, lifecycle cost and service life planning, commissioning and handover, aftercare.	Integrative process Comissioning (in energy and atmosphere)	Investment Management—integrated design, lifecycle cost assessment of buildings, responsible construction practices, municipal waste management, technical building assessment, building usage monitoring.	Sustainable Facility Use—proximity to services, shared internal spaces, inclusivity, potential for functional adaptation. Due to the specificity of the criteria, integrated design, post-occupancy evaluation, commissioning, and aftercare issues were not included.
Health and Wellbeing—visual comfort, indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acustic performance, accessibility, hazards, private space, water quality.	Indoor Environmental Quality—enhanced indoor air quality strategies, low-emitting materials, construction indoor air quality management plan, indoor air quality assessment, thermal comfort, interior lighting, daylight, quality views, acustic performance.	User Health and Comfort—water quality testing, access to natural light, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, acoustic comfort, biophilic design inside the building, pro-social solutions/universal design.	Comfort and Health—indoor air quality, natural ventilation, thermal comfort, daylighting, acoustic comfort, greenery in the building.
Energy—reduction of energy use and carbon emissions, energy monitoring, external lighting, low carbon design, energy efficient cold storage, energy efficient transportation systems, energy efficient equipment, drying space, flexible demand side response.	Energy and Atmosphere—enhanced comissioning and verification, optimized energy performance, advanced energy metering, demand response, enhanced refrigerant management, green power and carbon offsets, depending on location.	Optimization of Energy Consumption—nearly zero-energy building (nZEB) standard, energy-saving solutions, passive house standard, zero-energy building.	Energy Efficiency, Installations—energy performance, use of renewable energy sources, building air tightness, monitoring of utility consumption, emission of pollutants, internal transport, internal lighting installation, technical equipment, water consumption.
Transport—public transport accessibility, proximity to amenities, alternative modes of transport, alternative modes of transport, maximum car parking capacity, travel plan, home office.	Location and transportation—neighborhood development location, sensitive land protaction, high priority site, surrounding density and diverse uses, accesss to quality transit, bicycle facilities, redeced parking footprint, green vehicles.	-	Mobility—access to public transportation, pedestrian priority, car parking, bicycle parking, electromobility.
Water—water consumption, water monitoring, water leak detection and prevention, water efficient equipment.	Water Efficiency—outdoor and indoor water use reduction, cooling tower water use, water metering.	Water Management—water consumption measurement, rainwater management, greywater recycling systems.	Water is included in the criteria Sustainable Facility Use (rainwater) and Energy Efficiency, Installations (water inside the building).
Materials—lifecycle impacts, landscaping and boundary protection, responsible sourcing of construction products, insulation, designing for durability and resilience, material efficiency, construction waste management, recycled aggregates, operational waste, operational waste, speculative finishes, adaptation to climate change, functional adaptability.	Materials and Resources—building lifecycle impact reduction, building product disclosure and optimization —environmental product declarations, sourcing of raw materials, material ingredients, source reduction—mercury, lead, cadium, copper, furniture, design for flexibility, canstruction and demolition waste management.	Materials and Resources—natural materials, material reuse, eco-friendly materials, lifecycle assessment (LCA) analysis, low-VOC (volatile organic compounds) materials.	Design Solutions: Structure, Materials, Details—structural design, insulation materials, facade materials, finishing materials, transparent partitions, solar reflectance of the building envelope, shading elements on facades, elimination of thermal bridges, insulation of building partitions.
Land use and ecology—site selection, ecological value of site and protection of ecological features, minimizing impact on existing site ecology, enhancing site ecology, long-term impact on biodiversity.	Sustainable Sites—site assessment, site development—protect or restore habitat, open space, rainwater management, heat island reduction, light pollution reduction, site master plan, tenant design and construction guidelines, places of respite, direct exterior acess, joint use of facilities.	Location and Site—sustainable site, reduction of urban heat island effect, landscaping.	Site Development—history of site use, natural context, biologically active terrain, trees on the site, water retention, recreational area, fencing, green roof and walls, light pollution.
Pollution—impact of refrigerants, nox emissions, surface water run-off, reduction of night-time light pollution, reduction of noise pollution	Construction acitivity pollution, light pollution reduction (in: Sustainable Sites), refigerant management, enhanced refigerant management (in: Energy and Athmosphere), storage and collection of recycables, construction and demolition waste management (in: Materials and Resources), low-emitting materials (in: Indoor Environmental Quality)	-	Issues related to pollution are not categorized separately but are included, for example, in Site Development (light pollution) or in the criterion Energy Efficiency, Installations (emissions to the atmosphere).
Innovation—the innovation category provides opportunities for exemplary performance and innovation to be recognized that are not included within, or go beyond the requirements of the credit criteria.	-	-	In each category, there is room for adding innovative solutions; this is the last sub-criterion within each criterion.

. In Table 2, commercial assessment systems are juxtaposed with Warsaw Award system criteria, aligning their analogous components for better comparison. These criteria were developed by a group of experts from the Warsaw branch of the Association of Polish Architects, including Justyna Biernacka (architect), Piotr Jurkiewicz (architect), Jerzy Kwiatkowski (engineer, specialist in energy efficiency and installations), Kinga Zinowiec-Cieplik (landscape architect), and Anna Tofiluk (architect)—a co-author of this article.

The rating sheet (a type of checklist) contains six main criteria, further broken down into sub-criteria. Each sub-criterion addresses issues related to carbon footprint, energy efficiency, circular economy, water management, the heat island effect, biodiversity, social inclusiveness, and health and well-being. Auditors fill out the assessment sheet by awarding points, which are then summed up. Comparing the results allows for the evaluation of which of the analyzed objects are best in terms of climate-responsible and environmentally friendly solutions. However, the assessment system does not set a level of scoring above which a building can be considered ecological. Nevertheless, this tool can be used to evaluate buildings not associated with awards to determine whether designers have considered all relevant environmental issues. The conclusions from Table 2 will help generate new evaluation criteria for CEEs, which will be further discussed in the text with reference to the Center for Environmental Education in Gliwice.

In the context of ecological education centers (CEEs), it is essential to establish aspects or issues that are important for their unique mission and functionality. While existing commercial rating systems such as BREEAM and LEED offer valuable benchmarks for assessing sustainability in various building types, including commercial structures, they may not fully capture the educational and community engagement aspects integral to CEEs. Therefore, Table 2 serves as a comparative tool, aligning analogous components of these commercial rating systems with aspects from the “Warsaw Award System” to highlight areas of overlap and identify potential gaps in addressing CEE-specific objectives.

Overall, the comparison presented in Table 2 serves as a starting point for identifying key considerations in evaluating CEEs and underscores the need for tailored evaluation criteria that reflect their unique role in promoting environmental literacy and stewardship. According to the literature shown at the end of the article, the versions referenced in Table 1 are BREEAM International New Construction Version 6 and LEED v4.1.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Architectural and Environmental Solutions in Buildings of Centers for Environmental Education

In response to public discussions about environmental and climate threats, as well as legislative changes on both European and national scales, environmental education facilities have begun to emerge in Europe and Poland. These facilities, referred to in Poland as centers for environmental education (CEEs), include the following examples (Figure 3):

(a)

Mazurian Biodiversity and Nature Education Center, KUMAK, Urwitałt, Mikolajki, Kwadratura [65,66,67]

(b)

CEE in Czechowice-Dziedzice, architect: Konior Studio [68]

(c)

CEE in Wisła, architect: Marcin Jagiełło [69]

(d)

CEE “Hydropolis” in Wrocław, architect: Design Studio ART FM and EKA Studio [70]

(e)

CEE currently under construction in the Młociński Forest in Warsaw, architect: Kwadratura [71]

(f)

CEE in Gliwice, architect: Studio BB [72,73,74]

Table 3. Quantitative comparison of the selected features of the case studies in Poland.

	a KUMAK Urwitałt	b CEE Czechowice-Dziedzice	c CEE Wisła	d CEE Wrocław	e CEE Warsaw I	f CEE Gliwice
Year	2017	2020	2019	2015	2024	2023
Location, landscape, building surrounding	SU, forest, lake side	Sub, MT, heritage site, park/garden/green space	U, ST, park/garden/green space	U, LC, heritage site, adaptation, new part of the building	Sub, LC, including a modernized forester’s lodge, forest	LC, city’s outskirts, on heap waste, green area around
Transport—public transport accessibility	-	>1000 m	<500 m	<250 m	<500 m	>1000 m
Green and blue infrastructure solutions—site	Nature trail	Nature trail	Nature trail	No	Nature trail	Nature trail
Green and blue infrastructure solutions	Natural materials of benches, natural wood, water retention pond, insect houses	Retention basins with water gates—flood protection and hydroclimatic education, bird shelters	Observation tower	No data	No data	Green wall inside, sheep grazing area, beehives for biodiversity, graywater system for flushing toilets, topographical design—landscape and view protection
Building form and envelope (compact and simple form of the building)	+ “cylindrical form”	+ Simple, cuboidal form with a gabled roof	+ Simple, cuboidal form with a gabled roof, view tower	Does not apply	+/− Slightly fragmented but rather compact form	+/− Slightly fragmented but rather compact form
Building form and envelope No. of floors	2	2	2	1—new part	1	1
Building form and envelope—Total Floor Area [m2]	2562	821	480	4000 in total	1170	503
Materials—Construction and materials—structure	TT—prefabricated concrete e	Timber—GLT structural elements	TT	TT—new part	Prefab panel based on timber structural elements	TT + Timber GLT beams
Construction and materials Facade finishing material	Corten (metal) cladding	Plaster	Wood	Copper, metal cladding	Wood	Wood, plaster
Green roof	Yes	No	No	above underground part	Yes	Yes, extensive
Renewable energy sources and installations—Own RES	Heat pump, PV	PV	Heat pump	No data	Heat pump, PV—planned	PV, heat pump
Energy—Other environmentally friendly solutionsand additional remarks

compares the basic features of these buildings and provides background information for the CEE building in Gliwice, which is discussed and evaluated in detail later in the text. The criteria typology refers to the elements presented in Table 2. In Table 3 and

Table 4. Quantitative comparison of the selected features of the case studies in Europe.

	a AEC, Hénin- Beaumont, France	b DC, Assen, Netherlands	c NELC, Amsterdam, Netherlands	d SCEA, Olomouc, Czech Republic	e KCEV, Vrchlabí, Czech Republic	f CEEIPL, Paredes de Coura, Portugal
Year	2014	2015	2015	2007	2014	2007
Location, landscape, building surrounding	Sub, park, post-industrial (former coking plant)	U/park	U/garden	U/park	Sub./park	Existing complex of agricultural colony
Transport—public transport accessibility	<200 m	<500 m	<200 m	>500 m	<500 m	>1000 m
Green and blue infrastructure solutions	Nature trail—park connections	Amphitheatre and educational gardens	Gardens for pupils, nature trail	Nature trail	Nature trail	No
Green and blue infrastructure solutions—Other Environmentally friendly solutions and additional remarks	Recovered rainwater for watering greenhouses and for flushing toilet, topographical design—landscape	Solar tower + ground tube system to heat or cool air Natural, community gardens, sheep grazing area	Energy neutral, Trombe wall	4-month heating only	Topographical design—landscape and view protection	New object—part of revitalization of Complex of agricultural colony
Building form and envelope (compact and simple form of the building)	+ Egg-shaped building plan, compact	+/− Not very compact form of building	+ Optimal orientation of the roof—solar collectors	+ Compact, south. orientation, partially in the ground	+ Compact, partially in the ground	+ Compact
Onsite eco-education solutions
Building form and envelope—No. of floors	1	2	2	2	2	2
Building form and envelope—Total Floor Area [m2]	953	2000	281	1586	962	No data
Construction and materials—Structure	Steel structure + timber boxed construction filled with straw bales	Timber—GLT	LT, plywood	Wooden frames, RC	RC	RC
Construction and materials—Facade finishing material	Wood, the wood brick	Metal, wood	Wood, concrete	Wood	Glass	Wood
Construction and materials—Green roof	Yes, extensive	Yes, semi-intensive	No (slope roof, PV)	Yes, extensive	Yes, extensive	No
Renewable energy sources and installations—Own RES	PV, two wind generators recovered wood pellet boiler	Biomass (use of recycled wood), solar power	Sollar collectors	Biomass and solar energy heating and ventilation using heat recovery, pellet furnaces, earth heat exchanger, solar collectors	Heat pump	No data

, the following terms and abbreviations are used: small cities (SC)—under 20 k people, medium (MC)—20 k to 100 k, large (LC)—100 k + (classification according to the division in use in Poland); U—urban, Sub—suburban; traditional technology (TT) means masonry/reinforced concrete elements and possibly wooden roof or flat reinforced concrete slab roof; RES—renewable energy sources. Public transport accessibility is measured as: <250 m—access to public transport stop in approximately 5 min, <500 m—access to public transport stop in approximately 10 min, >1000 m—public transport is at a non-walking distance.

Table 4 contains a comparison of examples of European centers for environmental education (Figure 4):

(a)

Aquaterra Environmental Centre (AEC) in Hénin-Beaumont, France, architect: Tectoniques [75]

(b)

Duurzaamheidscentrum (DC)in Assen, Netherlands, architect: 24H Architectur [76]

(c)

Nature & Environment Learning Centre (NELC) in Amsterdam, Netherlands, architect: Bureau SLA [77]

(d)

Slunakov Center for Ecological Activities (SCEA) in Olomouc, architect: Projektil Architekti [78]

(e)

Krkonose Mountains Centre for Environmental Education (KCEV) in Vrchlabí, architect: Petr Hajek Architekti [79]

(f)

Center for Environmental Education and Interpretation of the Protected Landscape of Corno de Bico (CEEIPL) in Paredes de Coura, architect: Atelier da Bouça [80]

3.2. CEE in Gliwice—Case Study

The genesis of CEEs in Gliwice dates back to 2019 and is closely linked to the location and role of the city’s landfill since the 1970s. The CEE building (Figure 5) for the Waste Management Company in Gliwice was designed as a demonstration project to raise environmental awareness. The facility was built on the site of a local waste landfill, where numerous ecological initiatives are implemented, as demonstrated in the credits awarded to the project: points for selective collection of municipal waste, a “second life for things” point, a distribution point for compost and fertilizer from recycled waste, and a waste segregation and disposal point. The CEE was established in the vicinity of the waste landfill in Gliwice and serves two primary functions: ongoing supervision of waste storage and management, and providing ecological education for children and youth. The design of the social office and educational facility features a one-story building with an unconventional floor plan and a green roof adapted for pedestrian traffic, harmonizing with the surroundings. The building’s shape was inspired by the adjacent hill, a reclaimed landfill (Figure 5g). The roof has an ascending form and allows access to the building. A nature trail with information panels, photovoltaic panels, and beehives were designed on the roof. Since the opening of the CEE in Gliwice in September 2023, the facility has welcomed over 500 visitors per month. Most visitors have been children, but adults and professionals have also frequented the center. The CEE in Gliwice offers two types of tours: (1) a general presentation of the facility and its features, and (2) a presentation with workshops on rubbish segregation or other ecological topics. Each tour includes exterior trails for sightseeing. On some occasions, playground facilities are used for exterior activities.

The area in front of the building entrance is designated for educational events, with urban furniture creating a graphic symbol of recycling. Seating steps have been incorporated into the rising roof area, creating an outdoor space for environmental education. Two nature trails were proposed from the entrance area: the first leads to the roof of the building (Figure 5h), and the second leads to the reclaimed landfill, where visitors can walk through and see part of the landfill before reclamation (Figure 5b). A detailed description of the environmental solutions in the Gliwice CEE is provided in

Table 5. CEE in Gliwice—the environmental characteristics analysis of the building.

Environmental Assessment Criteria	CEE in Gliwice Built-Up Area: 604 m2, Usable Area: 1679.3 m2 (Including Green Roof), Floor Area of 503 m2
Location, landscape, building surrounding Site Development—history of site use, natural context, biologically active terrain, trees on the site, water retention, recreational area, fencing, green roof and walls, light pollution.	The building was constructed on a reclaimed plot of land that previously housed a landfill. The biologically active area significantly exceeds local planning regulations. An extensive green roof and new plantings, including trees, were planned. Existing trees that interfered with construction were transplanted. The landscaping project aims to establish ecological connections with the broader natural context. Rainwater is managed entirely within the investment area. Permeable surfaces and retention basins were used with ecological adjustments to accommodate plant and animal habitats. Light pollution has been eliminated. Sheep graze on the site; beehives have been installed. The site is fenced in a manner that does not ensure the continuity of small animal migration routes.
Location, landscape, building surrounding—Mobility—access to public transportation, pedestrian priority, car parking, bicycle parking, electromobility.	Public transport does not reach the facility; visitors are primarily transported by coaches (school trips). Access by car is also possible, with provisions made for electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking. The site prioritizes pedestrian traffic, including the needs of people with disabilities.
Location, landscape, building surrounding—Sustainable Facility Use—proximity to services, shared internal spaces, inclusivity, potential for functional adaptation.	Due to its affiliation with the Waste Management Company, the building is located approximately 5 km from the city center and far from human settlements, resulting in a lack of both public transportation and services in the immediate vicinity. However, the facility is open to external users and encourages their activity, education, and integration. The educational and exhibition interiors allow for changes in exhibitions and the possible introduction of new functions.
Construction and materials—structural design, insulation, finishing and facade materials, transparent partitions, solar reflectance of the building envelope, shading elements, elimination of thermal bridges.	The building has a compact form with a green roof. Glazing on the southern side is protected from overheating by a deep extension of the roof. The flat roof has a skeletal structure (relatively easy to dismantle) with trapezoidal sheet metal supported by beams made of glued laminated timber. The wall construction is traditional, made of locally produced wall blocks with good insulation properties, insulated with 20 cm of thermal insulation, which has allowed achieving higher thermal insulation of partitions than required by regulations. The facade is clad with boards made of local wood.
Construction and materials: Additional remarks	Preliminary trench excavations revealed a large mass of fill material (over 3 m) (Figure 4b), consisting of material of various origins. These were waste-mixed with soil that was not effectively managed during the initial stages of the landfill’s operation. It is worth noting that in the 1970s, when the landfill was being established, regulations, general knowledge, and the amount of waste were quite different from current conditions. The extremely poor ground conditions necessitated the design of a raft foundation and several 9 m piles (Figure 5d), which is highly unusual for a single-story building.
Renewable energy sources and installations—energy performance, use of renewable energy, building air tightness, monitoring of utility consumption, emission of pollutants, internal transport, internal lighting installation, technical equipment, water consumption.	Graywater installation for toilet flushing has been provided. This water is supplied by the water supply system and comes from treated leachate from the remaining landfill compartments through a treatment plant aimed at ensuring closed-loop management within the enterprise. Photovoltaic cells have been installed. Lighting with LED light sources along with daylight control, presence sensors, and motion sensors are used. Heat is provided by a heat pump. The ventilation system is designed with heat recovery. Traditional ventilation with operable windows is also possible. No elevator—the building is single-story.
Renewable energy sources and installations—Comfort and Health—indoor air quality, natural ventilation, thermal comfort, daylighting, acoustic comfort, greenery in the building.	The interiors are well illuminated with natural light and can be naturally ventilated. Air exchange with heat recovery is ensured. Additionally, a skylight is designed where there are no windows. It is also significant due to the designed green wall, which improves the microclimate inside (Figure 5f). The green wall is connected to an automatic irrigation system, which uses water filtered from leachate from waste compartments.

, based on the analysis of the rating systems presented in Table 2. From the comparison of different building rating systems in an environmental context in Table 2, a group of criteria emerges that should be considered the most important. These are the environmental assessment criteria based on the criteria of the Warsaw Award.

4. Discussion

A summary of the key issues assessed in the various environmental rating systems is shown in Table 2. It is worth noting that the assessment and certification systems listed are much more complex tools than the limited size of the table can show, but the summary highlights the leading issues in assessing the sustainability of facilities.

From the comparison of the assessment systems listed in Table 1, a group of criteria has emerged that should be considered important in the context of green building design; they coincide with the criteria developed for the Architecture Award in Warsaw [39]. Therefore, for a detailed analysis of the selected building (a case study of the CEE in Gliwice), these available criteria were used. Alongside the analysis of the selected building (Table 4), more general analyses of green solutions in other buildings with similar functions built in recent years in Poland and Europe were conducted (Table 3 and Table 4). This allows us to compare Polish and European realizations and to show the broader background for the detailed analysis of the CEE building in Gliwice.

Based on the analysis of the collected photographic documentation, source documents of CEE designs, our own research and design experience, and the tables, the following can be stated regarding European projects (outside Poland):

• CEEs are typically located in areas of varying sizes, often surrounded by park-like environments and within a landscape context. These locations serve educational purposes through the establishment of pathways related to environmental education.
• In some cases, CEEs are located close to protected areas, which results in a better understanding of environmental protection issues, while external pathways showcase the local environment.
• In most facilities, natural surroundings have been complemented with green and blue infrastructure solutions to support water retention and biodiversity.
• The buildings have a compact form conducive to energy efficiency and are oriented to favor passive solar gains (with shading elements).
• Some buildings are partially embedded in the ground, which promotes energy efficiency.
• In over half of the analyzed buildings, wood is primarily used as a construction material, in line with the principle of a low carbon footprint and the “design for disassembly” concept. Other environmentally friendly solutions for building materials have also emerged, such as thermal insulation made from straw.
• Water management is emphasized in some projects, with rainwater tanks for watering plants and solutions allowing the use of graywater for toilet flushing.
• Wood is commonly used as facade material and for internal finishes, a material with a low carbon footprint associated with nature.
• Green roofs are applied to almost all buildings.
• Due to environmental and ecological reasons, passive and traditional solutions are often used in the analyzed projects, such as Trombe walls or solar chimneys and ventilation systems with underground heating/cooling, which are also significant educationally.
• Renewable energy sources were used in almost all CEEs.
• Designers ensure that buildings intended for environmental education also represent a high level of environmental solutions. The basic design concept in most buildings is to create an ecological building that can serve as an example of environmental education and responsible landscape management.

In reference to Polish buildings, the following should be noted:

• Similar to European CEEs, environmental education centers in Poland are located in areas of various sizes, typically surrounded by parkland and in a landscape context. These locations serve educational purposes through the creation of paths related to environmental education.
• The buildings generally have a compact form similar to European ones; however, they utilize building orientation and passive solar gains less frequently.
• In Polish buildings, wood is less commonly used as both structural and finishing material, typically complementing traditional solutions rather than being the primary material.
• The use of green roofs is not very common in Polish CEEs.
• Polish designs predominantly feature the use of photovoltaic cells and heat pumps.
• Apart from exceptions, Polish projects generally do not pay particular attention to the reuse of graywater or other water management solutions.

In most cases, the impetus for CEE implementation is generated by entities whose existing activities are directly related to resource management (waste management companies, water and sewerage, forests, national parks, or others). The centers usually appear under different names, such as Center for Ecology Education (CEE) and Environmental Education Center (EEC). Some of them implement research (Center for Ecological Research and Education) in their name and activity profile. The educational activities of newly formed CEEs are partially linked to the ongoing activities of their parent entities. For example, the Nature & Environment Learning Centre in Amsterdam aligns closely with the needs outlined in the education program for elementary schools in the Netherlands and beyond. The KUMAK center in Urwitałt is also exceptional, as it was funded as a research center by the Faculty of Biology at Warsaw University. Many environmental education initiatives are implemented in existing spaces where an educational program is key and does not require additional infrastructure.

A survey of the literature shows that there are few cross-sectional studies devoted to CEE and architectural–urban issues. For this reason, the authors believe that the importance of this article is significant and contributes a lot to science, since the realization of such facilities is relatively new, and it is expected that more will be created. This is especially important in the face of efforts to address the climate crisis and popularize a common awareness of the problem.

There are relatively few comprehensive cross-sectional studies devoted to CEE activities, mostly case studies. In a study conducted in Greece, Pitoska and Lazarides [81] point to the positive impact of CEEs on the local community. Tsaliki [82] considers whether CEEs are a luxury or a necessity and describes the scope and activities of CEEs in Greece.

In all cases, buildings have been constructed that can be considered unique due to the unusual architectural solutions adopted, which have not been used in educational buildings before. In two cases, the form of the buildings clearly refers to the existing neighborhood and landscaped area (KCEV and CEE Gliwice), while the others clearly cut off from their surroundings. Five of the ten cases studied had green roofs forming a hill, with the possibility of climbing over grass or a path. This type of architectural form is associated with nature and provides additional biologically active space, unlike typical roofing materials. In the Duurzaamheids center in Assen and the CEE in Czechowice-Dziedzice, a viewing tower plays an important role, offering an opportunity to admire the surroundings. The tower at the Dutch center alludes to termite mounds, creating a ventilation chimney that naturally cools the building. However, these viewing towers do not impact certification-based assessment outcomes.

The authors assume that the experimental nature of building elements designed for educational purposes is crucial and may take precedence over their optimization and efficiency in achieving specific goals. Despite the varying nomenclature of the centers (consistent across Poland: CEE) and their diversity in Europe, they share a common goal of ‘educating’ through their unique qualities. This differentiates the European centers from the others. According to the survey, the usable area of the individual cases varies from 500 to 2000 sqm, with the exceptional Hydropolis in Wrocław exceeding 4000 sqm. Wroclaw relies on extending an existing historic building with a new pavilion. None of the cases studied were higher than two stories, typically being single-story buildings. Evaluation systems are unable to indicate all the strengths and weaknesses of specific solutions, as certain elements may be mutually exclusive within the context of educational objectives. It is important to remember that recognized certification systems are not perfect and can only assist in evaluating the degree of sustainability of buildings.

It is difficult to point to one or a few CEE implementations that should be considered exemplary, since they all differ in their characteristics, which are determined by location. CEEs can be evaluated through several criteria: the effectiveness of the educational message delivered at the facility (e.g., CEE Wroclaw, NELC Amsterdam) through a significant number of visitors thanks to the urban location, the possibility of implementing education over a longer period of time, workshops along with a stay at the facility (SCEA in Olomouc, CEEIPL in Paredes de Coura), realization of the mission to educate in spaces also outside the building in the immediate vicinity (AEC, Hénin-Beaumont, CEE Gliwice, CEE Urwitałt), and realization with materials with a low carbon footprint (CEE Urwitałt, CEE Warsaw). It is difficult to evaluate CEEs in terms of energy efficiency due to a lack of data. In this case, building certification would be the optimal solution.

The comprehensive analysis of all structures has facilitated the identification of architectural solutions emblematic of buildings designed for educational purposes. These solutions, while holding environmental importance, concurrently enhance visitors’ comprehension of ecological matters. Below are these solutions categorized according to their contextual application. They are regarded as distinctive attributes of architecture, exemplifying pro-environmental and sustainable practices and serving as formative design directives for such facilities.

Environmental solutions in the architecture of environmental education centers—aspects.

1. 

Location, landscape, building surroundings:

• Design that integrates landscape values, harmonizing with the surroundings, with minimal impact on the natural environment.
• Preferred location contributing to the revitalization and reclamation of degraded areas.
• Accessible location with proximity to public transportation, ideally close to potential users’ residences.
• Buildings surrounded by biodiversity (greenery and animals), serving as an educational element.
• Consideration of the possibility of designing social gardens (depending on the location).

2. 

Green and blue infrastructure solutions:

• Ensuring biodiversity and connections with the broader natural context.
• Rainwater retention within the site, its reuse, and implementation of ponds and retention basins (also to enhance biodiversity).
• Use of collected rainwater for subsequent irrigation or other purposes.

3. 

Building form and envelope:

• Compact, cohesive building forms conducive to energy efficiency and minimizing thermal bridges.
• Implementation of green roofs.
• Utilization of passive methods for solar thermal energy collection (winter)—large south-facing windows with shading options (summer).
• Exposure to environmental solutions in building architecture.
• Facade materials associated with nature, such as wood.

4. 

Construction and materials:

• Construction easy for future disassembly (design for disassembly), consequently skeletal—wooden and/or steel.
• Low carbon footprint materials, including wood and local materials.
• Natural materials for thermal insulation.
• Finishing materials based on wood, exposed and used sparingly (the less the material consumed, the lower the carbon footprint).

5. 

Renewable energy sources and installations:

• Utilization of passive temperature-regulating solutions within spaces, such as solar chimneys with underground installations, Trombe walls, etc., and incorporating them as architectural features.
• Graywater recovery and its use, e.g., for toilet flushing.
• Implementation of renewable energy sources and, where possible, showcasing them, such as photovoltaic panels and wind turbines.

5. Conclusions

Undoubtedly, the considerations and formulated results presented in this study have limitations. There is a lack of significant but difficult-to-obtain comparative data for individual buildings regarding energy consumption on an annual scale and the general energy characteristics of the building, which are often the primary assessment criteria [83,84,85]. This is an important indicator of energy efficiency and environmental friendliness of the object, albeit only partially within the scope of architectural activities focused on in this article. Additionally, the analysis of buildings throughout their lifecycles [86,87,88] was also omitted. This is another important aspect in today’s discussion on environmental issues in construction, but it is a complex matter that can only be briefly mentioned in an article of this scope, similar to the carbon footprint of building materials and circular solutions.

Further in-depth studies will produce very detailed conclusions and shed new light on the assessment method adopted. These may include the availability of data on energy demand and CO₂ emissions and their comparison with reference buildings performing similar functions, distinguishing between buildings that can be considered outstanding (energy self-sufficient) and others. It would also be interesting to compare the costs incurred for the implementation and maintenance of one square meter of building space and space dedicated exclusively to educational purposes. However, these data are difficult to compare due to the different timings of implementation and different local specifics, including the technical characteristics of the facilities.

Additionally, it is crucial to study the effectiveness of the educational mission served by CEEs, including the number of visitors served, their age, and the time they spend visiting the facility, as well as the type of classes, courses, and presentations they attend. Quantitative and qualitative research, such as user surveys, can provide valuable guidelines for designing future environmental education centers.

The ecological aspects and solutions discussed can serve as a starting point and inspiration for new projects. CEE buildings combine educational, public, office, and other functions. Therefore, the authors believe that further research into the assessment of these buildings is crucial. However, it is important to remember that environmental design is still a rapidly developing field, subject to ongoing discussions, and that the design methods themselves are constantly evolving to incorporate new aspects. Green building certification systems (GBCSs) play an important role in the sustainable development of the construction sector and have been applied for decades: BREEAM since 1990, LEED since 1998, DGNB since 2007. All green building certification systems are continuously being improved and are on a very high level today.

Currently, there is a lack of accredited professionals, who are fundamentally important in implementing the systems. Therefore, the formation of specialists in this area is of utmost importance, and the obvious starting point is the academy: we need green building certification systems as a module in architecture and civil engineering, at least on the master’s level. While starting with GBCSs is time-consuming and costly, once streamlined in the planning and execution process, the additional effort is small and inexpensive.

The article succeeded in answering selected research questions. Facilities that are centers for environmental education cannot be evaluated only through the prism of certification or energy efficiency because of their educational role. The article develops an authors’ method for evaluating CEEs that draws on evaluation systems. However, it seems that the dedicated CEE evaluation method itself can be developed. The concept of environmental education expressed through architecture can be realized in different ways. The conditions of the location and the format of the activities carried out by the centers are important. In exceptional cases, the architectural form can be considered a sufficient means of communication in conjunction with the mission and events it carries out.

The discussion regarding methods for assessing the sustainability of architectural solutions in buildings requires continuation. While there is significant knowledge in this area, it is not universally widespread, and it remains a developing field.