Baba, A; Mahjoubi, L; Olomoilaiye, P and Booth, C (2013) Decision support framework for low impact housing design in the UK. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
There is an increasing drive to achieve sustainability agenda, as well as climate change challenges. For UK buildings, design is believed to be the key in delivering the low impact agenda. Hence, a fundamental change to designers' approach in designing for low impact buildings is needed. However, existing design- decision support tools had not addressed in full the expectation of architects to design such buildings. The tools, specifically the Building Performance Energy Simulation (BPES) tools are not fully integrated into the design process, to enable UK architects to make informed decision at the early stage of the design process. Thus, this study seeks to provide a decision support framework that defines the required characteristics of BPES tools for architects to achieve low carbon housing (LCHs) design in United Kingdom (UK). It sets out to determine how UK architects can achieve the design; what the needs of architects are in BPES tools to deliver the design; and what design decision tasks are required, towards development of the framework. Consequently, the research examined low impact housing design. Existing statutory and non-statutory regulations, as well as design and decision support tools, which relate to the design and its delivery, were identified. These were used to frame the questions for the qualitative semi structured, face-to-face and in-depth interviews with architects in practice and in the academia. Data analysis revealed that there is lack of fitness between existing decision support tools, in form of Building Performance Energy Simulation (BPES) tools, and the various stages of the design process. It emerged that architects use BPES tools, primarily at the later stage of the process. Support for the early design stage remains poor, especially at the conceptual stage of the design process. The findings confirmed that design decisions for low impact housing design vary significantly in terms of level of accuracy, flexibility, and detail. At the earlier stages of the process, as relatively little information is available, flexibility and approximation in BPES tools is more relevant to support design decisions. As the design develops, and more information becomes available, precision and higher level of detail is required in BPES tools.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architect; building performance; energy simulation; early design stage; design decision; low impact housing |
| Index terms: | face, building performance, United Kingdom, accuracy, low carbon, designer, interview, energy simulation, data analysis, decision support, level of detail, design process, housing, climate change, early design stage, design decision, housing design, architect, regulation, academia |
| Subjects: | educational institutions, decision analysis, quality assurance, political science, design practice, sustainability assessment, Geography, professional development, design process, psychology, technical documentation, modelling and simulation, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, profession, construction type, climate science, design methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Governance, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Education, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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