Ventilation regulations and occupant practices: Undetectable pollution and invisible extraction

Few, J; Shipworth, M and Elwell, C (2024) Ventilation regulations and occupant practices: Undetectable pollution and invisible extraction. Buildings & Cities, 5(1), pp. 16-34. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

This sociotechnical investigation examines the use of ventilation systems in homes in London, UK. These homes were built with ventilation systems as described by guidance in the UK Building Regulations Approved Document F. These systems are assumed to provide adequate ventilation rates. However, previous measurements in these homes show that ventilation rates are inadequate. Using social practice theory as a framework to analyse the qualitative data, the intended use of the ventilation systems is compared to participants' actual practices of manipulating the indoor air, revealing discrepancies between the two. Occupants had limited knowledge of indoor pollutants but were highly motivated to control and interact with the smells and air in their homes. They primarily used technologies that were not part of the planned system, because the latter’s functioning was opaque to occupants and not well connected to their other practices. The highlighted discrepancies in four case study homes between planned and actual ventilation system operation help to identify how future systems could be improved to ensure adequate ventilation rates and good indoor air quality in airtight homes.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building codes; building regulations; energy; housing; indoor air quality; occupants; public health; social practice theory; sociotechnical; ventilation
Index terms: social practice theory, housing, pollutant, ventilation, case study, London, indoor air quality, public health, investigation, regulation, building regulation, building code, pollution
Subjects: regulatory law, Geography, theoretical framing, data collection methods, environmental health, political science, construction type, air quality
Topics: Geographical Context, Legal Issues, Governance, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Engineering Principles, Sustainability
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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