Odina Olimova (1), O.N. Babakandov (2)
Ecological thinking has increasingly emerged as a central paradigm in contemporary architectural theory, driven by escalating environmental degradation, climate change, and the growing recognition of complex interactions between the built environment and natural systems. Despite the expansion of green and sustainable architecture discourse, prior studies often remain fragmented, focusing separately on environmental performance, materials, or digital tools, without integrating ecological theory, architectural heritage, and technological innovation into a coherent framework. This study aims to systematically examine the evolution of ecological thinking in architectural theory and to clarify its role in shaping sustainable and adaptive design paradigms. The research adopts a qualitative methodology based on systematic literature review, historical–theoretical analysis, and comparative evaluation of architectural paradigms, drawing on peer-reviewed journal articles, theoretical monographs, and recent studies on sustainability, biomimicry, and digital design technologies indexed in major academic databases. The findings reveal a clear paradigm shift from mechanistic and form-oriented architectural models toward holistic, system-based, and interactive ecological approaches, in which architecture is understood as an adaptive component of broader environmental, cultural, and technological systems. The results also demonstrate that digital tools such as Building Information Modeling, data-driven design, and artificial intelligence increasingly support ecological thinking by enabling life-cycle analysis, adaptive responses, and integrative decision-making. The novelty of this study lies in synthesizing ecological theory, traditional architectural knowledge, and contemporary digital technologies into an integrated theoretical perspective, rather than treating them as isolated domains. The implications suggest that ecological thinking should be positioned not merely as an environmental strategy but as a foundational architectural paradigm, informing theory development, guiding sustainable design practice, influencing policy on the built environment, and reshaping architectural education toward interdisciplinary and ecologically grounded curricula.Keywords : Ecological Architectural Theory, Sustainable Design Paradigms, Systems-Based Design, Biomimetic Architecture, Digital Design TechnologiesHighlight :
Ecological thinking redefines architecture as integrative systems linking environmental, cultural, technological, and social dimensions.
Architectural paradigms shift empirically from mechanistic models toward holistic, adaptive, and system-based ecological frameworks.
Digital technologies actively support resource-aware, responsive design, strengthening ecological integration across architectural practice.
B. Cook, “Odum’s Ecosystem Approach and Architectural Systems Thinking,” Research in Urbanism Series, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.7480/rius.7.2021.
M. Lu, G. Wang, and J. Zhou, “An Explorative Study of the Ecological Design of Residence Architecture in Ming and Qing Dynasties,” MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 120, no. 02008, 2017, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201712002008.
N.-L. Perret, E. Heberle, and L.-E. Perret, “Multi-Benefit Decision-Making Process for Historic Buildings,” Heritage, vol. 8, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.3390/heritage8010001.
R. Wang, Z. Abdul-Samad, and H. Salleh, “Systematic Literature Review of BIM Application in the Life Cycle of Green Buildings,” Advances in Building Energy Research, vol. 18, no. 1, 2024, pp. 1–22, doi: 10.1080/17512549.2023.2269874.
F. L. Wright, The Future of Architecture, Moscow, Russia: State Publishing House of Architecture and Construction Literature, 1960.
A. V. Ikonnikov, Architecture of the Twentieth Century: Utopias and Reality, Moscow, Russia: Progress-Tradition, 2001.
Y. S. Lebedev, Y. I. Rabinovich, and E. D. Polozhay, Architectural Bionics, Moscow, Russia: Stroyizdat, 1990.
G. A. Golitsyn and V. M. Petrov, Harmony and Algebra of the Living, Moscow, Russia: Znanie, 1990.
D. Dagenais, “Designing with Nature in Landscape Architecture,” WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, vol. 113, 2008, pp. 3–12, doi: 10.2495/SC080011.
M. Grose, “Gaps and Futures in Working Between Ecology and Design,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 132, 2014, pp. 69–78, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.001.
O. N. Babakandov, “Arbo Architecture: Architecture and Nature Harmony,” KIUT Publication, vol. 1, no. 1, 2025, pp. 1–10.
B. O. Nuritdinovich, “Forms That Are Transparent and Reflect the Environment in Modern Architecture,” International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1–5.
B. O. Nuritdinovich, “Bionic Ideas in Architectural Environment and Landscape Design,” ACADEMICIA: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, vol. 11, no. 5, 2021, pp. 1301–1304, doi: 10.5958/2249-7137.2021.01234.5.
M. Yusupova, “Islamic Architecture of Uzbekistan: Development and Features,” Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012, pp. 51–63, doi: 10.32350/jitc.22.04.
M. Yusupova, Evolution of Architecture of the Sufi Complexes in Bukhara, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999.
M. A. Abbasova-Yusupova, “Znachenie I Mesto Khanaka-Mavzoleya Khodzha Akhmada Yassavi V Evolyutsii Arkhitektury Sufiiskikh Obitelei Tsentralnoi Azii Epokhi Amira Temura,” Architecture and Civil Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, 2025, pp. 1–7.
O. Olimova, “Analysis of Iranian University Technoparks: Contribution to Sustainable Development,” Sustainable Civil Building Management and Engineering Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, 2025, pp. 12–18, doi: 10.56789/scbmej.v2i3.2025.