Williamson, T; Soebarto, V and Radford, A (2010) Comfort and energy use in five Australian award-winning houses: Regulated, measured and perceived. Building Research & Information, 38(5), pp. 509-529. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Building regulations in Australia and elsewhere are increasingly directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving an efficient use of energy and water. These regulations significantly impact on aspirations with regard to the building design. Five case study houses recognized in awards from the Australian Institute of Architects are investigated for whether they met the aim and criteria of the relevant regulations for energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions. Qualitative and quantitative issues surrounding their environmental performance are examined, including occupants' comfort and energy consumption. The findings suggest that the assessment processes underpinning the regulations do not correlate well with measured environmental performance, the perceptions of occupiers, and how these houses are actually designed and operated. The regulatory concept of 'meeting generic needs' fails to account for the diversity of socio-cultural understandings, the inhabitants' expectations and their behaviours. In particular, standards and regulations failed to predict adaptive comfort as well as the low-energy consumption in the five case study houses. A governance challenge is to evaluate the interaction of individual preferences, technical concerns, bio-climatic matters, and the socio-cultural context. The goals and behaviours of inhabitants must be recognized and rewarded because they benefit both the environment and the community.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptive comfort; building regulations; design; energy demand; houses; human agency; post-occupancy evaluation; thermal comfort; thermal performance |
| Index terms: | governance, case study, energy demand, energy efficiency, building design, environmental performance, building regulation, Australia, post-occupancy evaluation, thermal performance, comfort, regulation, thermal comfort, architect, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emission, greenhouse gas, agency, adaptive comfort, preference, energy use, interaction |
| Subjects: | Geography, sustainability assessment, decision-making and reasoning, regulatory law, environmental health, behavioral psychology, political science, environmental engineering, occupational health and safety management, sociology, climate science, data collection methods, profession, business, human factors, energy systems, architectural design, evaluation methods, sustainability and energy |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Governance, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety |
| 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