Raslan, R M S (2010) Performance based regulations: the viability of the modelling approach as a methodology for building energy compliance demonstration. PhD thesis, University College London, UK.
Abstract
With the increasing international shift from prescriptive to performance-based regulations, a legislative call for the integration of predictive assessment tools in the design process has emerged. In relation to this, the requirements of Article 3 of the Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) were transposed into UK legislation with the introduction of the Building and Approved Inspectors (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (England and Wales) in April 2006. These introduced the ‘National Calculation Methodology' (NCM), a unified compliance demonstration route for energy performance criteria specified in Approved Document Part L (Conservation of Fuel and Power), supported through the use of modelling-based building energy performance prediction (BEPP) tools accredited for the purposes of implementing associated calculations. This thesis presents an assessment of adopting the methodology, utilising a mixed-method research design to investigate key parameters identified as measures by which to quantify the success of this approach. Firstly, the adaptive capability of the UK construction industry is assessed through the analysis of primary data collected from a longitudinal survey. Secondly the applicability of the methodology is analysed through in-depth interviews examining the role of key actors and the varying dynamics of implementation and enforcement. Finally, a comparative evaluation is carried out to assess the adequacy of accredited BEPP tools. The main findings outline the shortcomings of the adaptation strategy adopted by industry and the inconsistent implementation and enforcement strategies employed. The results of the comparative tool study in particular highlight three important issues; a large degree of predictive variability between key compliance benchmarks, the lack of consistency in granting approval (a pass/fail result) between tools and limitations in the scope of their applicability. The research concludes that although a number of positive aspects can be associated with the introduction of a modelling-based approach for compliance demonstration, due to the aforementioned issues, considerable efforts are still required to extend its usefulness as a credible legislative support tool for performance-based regulations.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | conservation; design process; england; evaluation; integration; interview; legislation; regulation; UK |
| Index terms: | survey, strategy, design process, performance-based regulation, legislation, approval, interview, compliance, Wales, regulation, integration, methodology, adaptation, research design, England, variability, conservation, energy performance, enforcement, implementation, modelling, construction industry, dynamics |
| Subjects: | design methods, user focus, research design and methodology, data collection methods, contractual role, analytical methods, energy systems, legal systems, contractual arrangements, environmental policy, health safety and environment, Geography, research methods, management, political science, systems engineering, statistical analysis, regulatory law, industry analysis, organizational analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Governance, Design Practice, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here