Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development

Introduction

Energy-Efficient Design in the Built Environment

It is now widely acknowledged that designing buildings that are energy efficient, healthy, and comfortable requires an underlying combination of scientific and creative skill and understanding (Sassi 2006). In order to make informed design decisions that deliver energy-efficient and sustainable buildings, a holistic understanding and demonstration of the core areas that underpin the design and engineering of well-designed building environments are needed particularly in higher education and practice. There are many approaches to defining these “core” areas in both the architectural and engineering literature and practice, some of which include at a conceptual level: thermal comfort, natural ventilation, solar gains, and associated solar protection and daylighting (Pelsmakers 2012; Gething and Puckett 2013).

Energy efficiency in buildings needs to be seen within the context of how buildings are designed, built, commissioned, and used (EU energy performance directive), with the building occupant viewed as an integral part of this process (EPBD 2016). Within the UK and the EU, there has been a growing emphasis placed on reducing energy use and demand in order to meet carbon reduction commitments (EPBD 2016). On an international level, the Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord, and the Paris Agreement show a global commitment to reducing carbon emissions significantly (Chang et al. 2012). In the UK, targets to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 have been set (CCC 2016). Furthermore, the EU requires all new buildings to be nearly “zero carbon” by 2020 (Zero Carbon Hub 2008), which will require on-site renewable generation, even in areas where this may be extremely difficult. At present, EU targets and directives drive UK climate change and energy efficiency policies, but with Brexit on the horizon, this may soon change.

Part of the future challenge is to sustain the ambition of reducing carbon emissions while maintaining achievable targets that can be met by all and in particular the construction industry. Built environment professionals are seen as key to ensuring commitments on carbon reduction is achieved in new and existing retrofitted buildings in the UK (Janda 2009, 2011).

The UK Practice Context in a Climate of Change

In the UK, in particular, between 30% and 50% of the CO₂ emissions are related to the built environment and represent a significant contributor to climate change (Zero Carbon Hub 2008; DECC 2009, 2011). Over recent years, the construction industry has responded to a mitigation agenda by trying to implement low-carbon strategies, leading to tighter EU and UK regulations, codes, and frameworks (HM Government 2008). However, in the wider context of climate change, a clearer set of adaptation strategies is needed to ensure changes in how buildings perform as well as how they are constructed and embedded, enabling buildings that are not only fit for purpose in the present but also in future climate scenarios. Climate change has been described as a “moving target” that requires climate prediction models to put forward a number of scenarios to help devise adaptation strategies (Gething and Puckett 2013). Tackling climate change and the way the design of buildings is approached needs to reflect this new set of “moving targets” and conditions.

While climate change design strategies require long-term strategic adaptation, the UK has focused its energy regulatory framework and its associated environmental design strategies largely on reducing energy consumption and the associated carbon emissions in the short-term. In order to engage in issues of climate change now and in the future, a shift toward addressing future adaptation strategies becomes key (Gething and Puckett 2013). Energy efficiency in building design requires a balance of considering building performance in the context of a changing climate. This is especially important with regard to building performance issues of higher airtightness standards and more controlled ventilation as well the developing agenda on overheating. Applying careful design indicators to the fabric of the building can have a positive impact on the energy use of its active systems. However, there needs to be an understanding of the environmental science behind these indicators, to ensure robust strategies for now and in the future. Also, while there are numerous design guidance indicators, policy, and practice approaches for professionals to achieving energy efficiency, there are few published indicators of how higher education, particularly in the context of architecture, approaches energy efficiency teaching and learning at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

There are widespread concerns in recent practice discussions and policy documents, of an urgent need for upskilling and retraining of architects to enable an “energy-literate” workforce (RIBA Journal 2017; Zero Carbon Hub 2014). The UK Construction Strategy 2016–2020 continues to call for upskilling and retraining of built environment professionals to meet the needs of a low-carbon economy (HM Government 2016). Outside the UK, in the USA, there have been calls on the architecture profession to promote greater energy analysis in design (AIA 2012). Despite the widespread calls for upskilling, the UK architecture professional body RIBA that validates courses and provides guidance on graduate attributes makes no mention of how higher education or the profession should respond. There are also no accounts of how higher education institutions are preparing future architecture graduates and in particular what students’ views may be on the topic. Similar concerns are voiced in a range of domains on sustainability wide agendas. In 2004, Martin and Jucker (2004: 421) highlighted that graduates across a range of disciplines were not equipped to meet the future challenges of the sustainability agenda.

Energy-Efficient Design: The Educational Approach in UK Architecture

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and the Architectural Registration Board (ARB) monitor and validate architecture education in the UK. Criteria for validation and prescription of courses are based on the requirements of Article 46 of the EU Qualifications Directive as well as the Quality Assurance Agency Subject Benchmark Statement (RIBA 2011). Prescription/validation criteria include specific learning outcomes across a range of built environment concerns. Energy efficiency issues are not prominent within descriptions of required graduate attributes; however, broad aspects relating to wider environmental and sustainability issues are included. The following discussion outlines key energy-efficient design parameters as viewed by the authors, suggesting a greater need for their systematic inclusion in architecture education at an early stage of an undergraduate pathway. The subsequent section examines two studies conducted by the authors on how energy efficiency parameters are being taught, learned, and viewed across UK architecture-accredited institutions.

The teaching and learning of energy-efficient and sustainable design principles in architecture (among many design and construction issues) tend to emphasize the passive performance of the built fabric, including the type of construction, layout, orientation, and color of the building, all of which play a role in a building’s performance. In addition to these “passive” considerations, there is also a requirement for acknowledging “active” measures and systems including mechanical and electrical building services (primarily heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems). These systems need to be carefully designed, coordinated, and specified to reduce in-use energy while helping provide a healthy and comfortable environment. More recently, electrical building services have taken a more central role, not only within lighting design but also in the changes to requirements for space for equipment, the routing cables for IT, security, and fire. Both the mechanical and electrical systems require an understanding of user behavior, all of which can constrain or enable the design of energy-efficient buildings. Energy used by the intrinsic performance (regulated loads) of the building needs to be considered in relation to and with the energy demands arising from the use of buildings. User behavior becomes key when considering the overall energy demand of a building (unregulated loads). At present, there is a growing interest from building occupiers and owners to monitor the energy use in buildings over time through metering and monitoring systems. This is reinforced by the need to display an energy certificate to comply with the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive for any building above 500 m2, and these need to be renewed yearly if the building is over 1000 m2 (EPBD 2016).

In addition to developing skills and understanding on energy-efficient and sustainable design principles, knowledge on the national and international measurement, monitoring, evaluation, and certification of building performance is also needed. A growing number of sustainability assessment schemes (the UK BREEAM and CSH, the American LEED, the Japanese CASBEE, the Australian GREEN Star, the French HQE, the German DGNB, etc.) have been and are being developed globally. Energy-efficient design learning and teaching need to be considered not just within a national domain but also on a global level in order to meet the wider challenges of the global sustainability agenda. For over 20 years, the UN has been championing for a greater inclusion of a sustainable development principles and indicators within higher education (QAA 2014; UNESCO 2014). Today, even with firm commitments within higher education institutions, these principles seem still slow in the uptake (QAA 2014). The 17 UN global goals for sustainable development include no poverty, no hunger, good health, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, renewable energy, good jobs and economic growth, innovation and infrastructure, reduce inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption, climate action, life below water, life on land, peace and justice, and partnerships for the goals – as well as the core knowledge of energy-efficient designs need to be at the heart of any curriculum, but are they?

Learning from Architecture Design Education: A Case of Two Studies

In order to explore the approaches to teaching and learning energy-efficient design in the UK, the authors draw on research from two separate case studies undertaken in UK architecture undergraduate curricula. The premise of both studies was to understand how students and educators accounted for energy efficiency in design studio learning, in terms of teaching approaches and assessment. Study 1 examined students and educators’ views of teaching and learning energy efficiency in a third year architecture design studio in one institution (Oliveira and Marco 2016), while study 2 discussed views across nine institutions throughout the UK (Oliveira et al. 2017). Though the empirical settings varied, the unit of analysis (“students and educators’ view of teaching, learning, and assessing energy efficiency”) was the same across studies.

Up until now, most studies that have examined some aspects of energy efficiency teaching in higher education curricula have not focused on particular disciplinary approaches nor have they included design professions. Rather the emphasis has been mostly placed on measuring energy literacy and understanding students’ energy-efficient behavior in campus buildings. Cotton et al. (2015) examine a large sample of 1100 university students, with an emphasis of measuring attitudes, behavior, and knowledge, suggesting curricula in higher education need to enhance knowledge on energy-saving measures as a way of improving informed decision-making.

Within built environment research, there has been some work carried out to understand how sustainability wide issues rather than specifically energy efficiency is taught. Pan et al. (2012) reflect upon conflicting approaches to how sustainability should be taught among and between students, lecturers, and the institution. Cotgrave and Alkhaddar (2006) outline barriers to achieving environmental literacy in the construction education sector. Limitations are described as being contained within the nature and structure of higher education in the UK in areas such as academic indifference and approaches to teaching, lack of communication between industry and academia, and lack of student engagement. Altomonte et al. (2012) suggest that deficiencies lie at a European level in university architectural education structural curriculum setups. They explore the outcomes of a European project “Environmental Design in University Curricula and Architectural Training in Europe” (EDUCATE), suggesting that barriers to implementing sustainability in architectural education lie in educational policy and organizational barriers at a strategic European level. For a more detailed account of the literature, see also Oliveira et al. (2017).

The following sections discuss key themes that emerge in the two studies: “The Design Studio as Disabling or Enabling Energy Efficiency Teaching and Learning Practice,” “The Importance of Personal Journeys,” and “Explicit Versus Implicit Assessment Practice.” Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of how educators’ views and students’ experiences may lead to a new approach to design studio energy efficiency pedagogy that allows for prescriptive reflective elements not necessarily shaped by design studio staff or the need for a portfolio with overwhelming emphasis placed on visual attainment.

The Design Studio: Disabling or Enabling Energy Efficiency Teaching and Learning Practice?

The design studio is central to how architecture curricula are delivered in the UK (Salama 2015). Within the two studies, several aspects of the design studio shaped how and if energy efficiency was accounted for including the design studio brief/portfolio (study 1) and design studio staff priorities (study 2). See also Fig. 1 below.

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1

Design studio across students, design studio, and non-design studio educators’ views

The Design Studio Brief/Portfolio (Study 1)

In most discussions with educators across the institutions, the importance of the design studio brief would be regularly brought up. The design studio brief was viewed as the locus of overall learning, where content taught elsewhere would be “tested and trialed.” Educators who taught other aspects of curricula, however, observed how their views would often be excluded when design briefs were being written. Study 1 examined the effects of a non-prescriptive design brief on student’s experience of a design process. Students were given freedom and flexibility to develop their own interpretations of site and explain in a group setting the “needs” of a site. Students were found to group objects of place (routes to site, ways out of site, within the site) in relation to individual interpretations of “what a city needs” through three areas of focus: usage, activity, and motivations.

For instance, students were asked to imagine possible site using drawing on experiences (individual and group) of a city as well as learning on architecture urban theories and history. In addition, students were encouraged to discuss and debate future possibilities of site use based on learning within and out with the course to date. In most instances, students would discuss their decisions in the context of how it “may appear in a portfolio” rather than how it could address the brief or fulfil a city need.

Design Studio Staff Priorities (Study 2)

In study 2, most students and educators viewed curricula within programs as driven primarily by a school “design agenda” and largely shaped by design studio staff. Design studio staff were viewed to set parameters of what is valued in design with many students noting how particular motivations and ambitions set the scene regardless of a student’s interests. In most cases issues of energy efficiency were described as secondary to “form, shape, and aesthetics.” For educators not teaching design studio, the school design agenda was described as setting the tone of the course. Overall, educators discussed a strong placement of design studio teaching at the core of the curriculum overshadowing other aspects of curricula such as environment and technology. One participant initially conveyed a successfully integrated course, describing energy-related content as central to research in the school but not a big design driver.

…Well, it’s very central in terms of our research and that does filter down a little into our teaching but … It’s not a big driver in terms of the design agenda and to be brutally honest, I think it’s considered as an add-in when it comes to design agenda in the school …. (Participant 16 Case 26)

A number of participants discussed curriculum changes over time and a sense of losing “a very explicit thread of thinking things through sustainably” (Case 21). The syllabus overall is described as containing the required energy-related content but somehow “losing its thread in design studio.” When discussing how the content related to energy efficiency was delivered, educators who mainly taught in design studio conveyed a sense of uncertainty and need for implicit outcomes. For one student, energy-related content was not rated highly, or it was not viewed as part of the overall architectural ambition on the agenda of the studio module.

In terms of tutorials … energy related content in my experience is not (on) the agenda so to speak … if you choose to push it yourself you’ll probably find support. (Participant 25 Case 26)

Other students noted how their design projects’ integration of energy content depended on tutors’ personalities; this experience varied from year to year. Student 28 (Case 21) observed the importance of having an inspirational technology lecturer “who was capable of igniting interest.” She also noted how exposure to practical examples was paramount to the understanding of environmental issues including energy discussing how “there is a difference between passing a brick in a lecture theatre and going on a site” (Case 26). Another student similarly discusses how learning on sustainability issues often does not occur through formal teaching but through passion from particular tutors.

Yeah, tutor Y is passionate about it, but we’re not taught it in studio, you’re encouraged to apply it by the different tutors. For example, last year, we weren’t that encouraged to apply it, this year we have been …. (Participant 27 Case 26)

Students conveyed challenges with managing an architectural aspiration and a building that fulfilled all the required environmental and energy efficiency credentials. For many students in study 2, studio tutors are seen to initially “push” an architectural ambition and then laterally ask students to “see how it works energy wise” (Case 26). Students recognize the fact that their initial starting point in design often “had nothing to do with sustainability.” For most students, schools are seen as being “relatively non-prescribed in terms of architectural style.” However, energy-related content is often viewed as a practical “prescribed” aspect of research rarely “filtering into teaching.” For many students, the starting point in a project was seen as a clear pathway to how the project and career in some cases might end up. Though most students reflect upon not being able to fully explore their interests including with regard to energy efficiency in design studio, in study 1 students are seen to revert to group dynamics when given the choice to pursue individual interests in a studio brief.

The Importance of Personal Journeys (Studies 1 and 2)

Educators as well as students discussed their experience of teaching and learning as a personal journey in both studies, often comparing life experiences to experiences in education settings. Overall, both emphasize the need for energy-related content and current lack of application. However, although both identify need, there is a shared observation of difficulties of adapting or extending current complex curricula. Educators discuss their teaching as being driven by a personal stance, while students discuss their learning being guided by a tutor’s particular personal approach. See also Fig. 2 below.

Energy-Efficient Design and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2

Design studio students and educators’ reflections and dependencies

Educators’ Evaluation: Personal Experience, Need, and Motivation

Educators often discussed how particular approaches needed to change by reflecting upon personal judgement or knowledge in a particular area.

My personal take on it – ‘cos I teach a lot of similar simulation, digital simulation and I think, probably from my perspective because it’s now becoming so embedded in the software and still kind of user friendly, that I think it’s so easy now, why would a designer not want to run a simulation, or not want to because the actual in their design, so my view would be that that should become just part of the routine tools of an architect. Probably, with a lot of our staff because they’re not familiar with those teacher tool skills, they probably see it as a very onerous task, for example, to run an energy simulation…. (Case 27)

Also, educators often referred to their experience of being a student and ways energy-related content was taught. One participant discussed his experience of being a student as not very user-friendly and not particularly enjoyable as one of “doing spreadsheets and calculations.” He compared his experience to current students’ environment filled with “user-friendly tools” and being highly enjoyable making learning an approachable one.

Students’ Evaluation: Increasing Individuality

During study 1 students were tasked with discussing future site needs in a city context. During this phase most students focused primarily on personal hobbies, individual preferences, and likes as a way of developing the brief with less attention devoted to the site overall or to environmental requirements such as energy efficiency. Students discussed their interpretations and views of (phase 1) group work where they were asked to assess how the project could address a city needs. At this point during phase 2, they combine individual interests, and a city needs to find common ground in devising their briefs.

One of the students discusses her interest and passion for books noting the practice of reading books is being lost and needs to be revived. She then goes on to highlight the lack of literature festivals in Bristol or spaces where writers and book enthusiast could meet.

I want to consider the revival of the book…what people need in city B is a place to write…to retreat. (Student A)

Throughout phase 2 students combine group thinking with individual motivations for the brief by advocating site uses based on personal interpretations and likes. In the case of the student motivated by cycling, the site use was motivated by a personal ambition and passion. The student viewed cycling as an essential part of everyday life; in his view it was necessary for city B to have a site where cycling was a celebrated activity.

Explicit Versus Implicit Assessment Practice (Studies 1 and 2)

Assessment of energy-related content was mostly loosely discussed with most educators not engaging in describing technique or detail. For some, there was an uncertainty of how the issues were assessed at all:

… thinking about the construction teaching narrative across the undergraduate programmes and it’s made me think about it and think that, actually, it’s not particularly explicit, so I might be being slightly over critical, self-critical, but I’m not sure how well we are assessing it now …. (Case 21)

For other participants being specific about what was assessed, it became a difficult issue to describe noting how many aspects of architectural curricula are often not explicit.

… one of the things that’s probably true, and will remain true no matter what we do to some extent, but what we, collectively, not just our institution, but what we do often, I think, on architectural courses, is we cover a whole load of stuff that is not explicitly mentioned in learning outcomes, or criteria, or even synopsis, or whatever in a module and part of the task. (Case 12)

For many students, time and confidence to pursue a project’s sustainable ambition were seen as a major stumbling block. Students conveyed a sense of having to rush through modules, complete work quickly, and move on to the next task without being able to explore and experiment fully.

… I feel like I haven’t totally resolved my building as much as I would have liked to, to the point of really understanding exactly how all the details work, how the windows fit. At the moment, it’s like resolving the outside, it takes so long, that the inside kind of suffers as a lack of it. Even just thinking about, like I don’t know every material finish on the interior of my building …. (Case 26)

Although most participants recognized the need for change, many observed difficulties in implementing any change. For educators, curricula were seen as stretched whereby new issues would continually be added, while current ones “were never taken away.” This “packing in” of curricula was viewed as making students engagement more difficult. For others, lack of engagement was viewed as widespread among staff and students. Staff was increasingly given additional tasks “asking many to do something extra, even if it is just respond to, can sometimes be a problem.” Staff were then viewed to “stick to what they know” and defer expertise to others. For many, shortage of time was seen as an important factor that contributed to a lack of in-depth teaching.

And I do wonder, we move so quickly through the curriculum, that you just never get the chance to really slow things down and to start to really have long discussions about some of the work they’re doing. (Case 21)

For students, growing complexity of curricula was also discussed. However, in students’ discussions, complexity was viewed as covering subjects broadly, disengaged staff and curricula needing to respond to students’ needs more readily and in more integrated ways.

We need inspiring tutors to show us that and off we go, we’re good, we can take it from there I think, yeah, get some interesting engineers, or crazy builders, or something like that. (Case 26)

Another student recognized the increasing complexity of curricula and time limitations suggesting “inserting more” meant that something had to get taken out unless it was condensed.

Embedding Energy Efficiency in Architecture: Toward a Porous Design Studio Practice?

There have been long-standing historical concerns regarding the content and mode of delivery in UK architectural education, overall in relation to the mode of delivery (Salama 2015) and specifically with environmental concerns including knowledge of energy efficiency not being sufficiently well attained by its graduates (The Oxford Conference 2008). In contemporary schools of architecture, it is acknowledged that many students find it difficult to relate their experiences in lectures (through which in most instances environmental teaching including energy efficiency is delivered) to their experiences in studios (Altomonte et al. 2012). Although it is known that extensive information in the lectures regarding building technology, human behavior, and culture are conveyed, little of this information seems to in most cases influence directly the forms and the practice of design in studios (Altomonte 2009).

At the heart of the problem, as the discussion in this chapter and existing research on design studio pedagogy suggests, is a mistaken conception – built deep into the modern curricular structure – about how knowledge is acquired and applied (Gelernter 2014). Gelernter (2014) examines alternative models of knowledge as offered by Jean Piaget and Bill Hillier, finding ways through which the acquisition of design knowledge can be integrally related to its use. In the final section of this chapter building upon suggestions made by Gelernter (2014), the consequences of these alternative models for design education are discussed, and the outline of an alternative curricular structure is proposed; essentially a case is made for a more “porous” studio whereby knowledge delivered via lectures on environmental concerns including energy efficiency devolves to the studio in a more fluid reciprocal manner (than currently observed in the two studies examined here).

The studies discussed in this chapter highlight students’ views and their calls for a more ambitious approach to teaching and learning energy efficiency. Scholarship in the field of architecture design education suggests student led individuality building, and non-prescriptive design briefs are needed (Batterman et al. 2011; Rutherford and Wilson 2006). Study 1 shows, however, that this may not be a sensible path to take with lack of prescription often leading to brief dependence and a “fallback” on personal preferences, likes, and motivations. The deep engagement with brief development for many students in study 1 became a personal voyage (into highlighting importance of cycling, foraging, or literature, for instance) to the detriment to fully developing and engaging with environmental aspects of energy-efficient design. Studies discussed in section “Learning from Architecture Design Education: A Case of Two Studies” also highlight the issue of disengagement between education delivered via “lectures” and the design studio approach not just in students’ views but also in educators’ reflections. For many educators difficulties were found in a lack of perceived communication, disciplinary differences, and (mis)understanding between different forms of delivery and assessment in lectures (where most of energy efficiency content was delivered) and studio. Structural complexities associated with modular delivery have been highlighted in prior work by Salama (2015) suggesting some solutions lie in restructuring makeup and delivery of the lecture content. Discussions conveyed in this chapter extend his view, offering a qualitative examination of the issues, highlighting also the need for a potential reexamination of the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed of design studio educators, who conveyed a disengagement (in most instances) with the content delivered via lectures.

There is a dearth of research that has analyzed how particular areas of the syllabus such as energy efficiency have been included by different architecture institutions, especially within design studios. Detailed analysis of both how skills, knowledge, abilities, and awareness has been interpreted in architectural education regarding energy efficiency content as well as a wider consideration of the effects of incorporating specific approaches such as non-prescriptive briefs or transdisciplinary methods is needed. Future work could examine views and concerns from students across institutions and between different built environment curricula within courses that set non-prescriptive briefs within transdisciplinary environments. Also, further research could delve deeper into understanding how increased levels of brief flexibility, interpretation of energy efficiency learning, and assessment impact on both the student and educator experience in design education domains.