Abstract
Reductions in energy demand by universities in the UK are increasingly called for due to both national carbon reduction policies and a specific target set out by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The University of Cambridge has set its own targets to reduce carbon emissions and energy consumption, but behavioural, organisational and policy barriers are continually impeding the achievement of these targets. This paper focuses on three studies performed in various buildings at the University. The first study investigates the organisational and behavioural aspects of reducing energy demand. The second study explores the energy performance gap in new buildings and the significance of occupants’ behaviour. The third study explores the potential and actual performance of renewable energy sources in the University Estate. These three different angles of exploration converge in similar findings that are interpreted as starting points to be addressed when improving the energy performance of buildings. It is argued that to reduce the environmental impact of the University, a number of recommendations should be considered in future energy reduction schemes. These are: the inclusion of sub-metering and unregulated loads; the need to set long term targets; improving communication flows between all stakeholders; improving staff training and information exchange; and developing closer understanding of occupants’ behaviour and related impacts on energy consumption.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The World Resources Institute developed a classification of emission sources around three ‘scopes’: ‘Scope 1’ emissions are direct emissions that occur from sources owned or controlled by the organisation (e.g. Boilers, vehicles); ‘Scope 2’ accounts for emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the organisation; ‘Scope 3’ covers all other indirect emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the organisation, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the organisation – for example, commuting and procurement. Scope 3 emissions are not included in HEFCE targets.
- 2.
Plug loads include task lighting, lifts and escalators, catering equipment, non-centrally controlled heating, computer and laboratory equipment, among other demands. The proportion of energy demand represented by these ‘unregulated’ loads varies widely with building construction and use, but commonly exceeds one half total demand. Unregulated energy loads are generally electrical in nature.
- 3.
The merit of the Merton Rule has been debated heavily in recent years, and Government focus on localism in planning controls has led to changes in many legally binding local policies on renewables.
- 4.
Survey based on the Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality survey conducted by the Centre for the Building Environment a the University of California Berkeley (2010).
- 5.
Life cycle carbon value given by Edenhofer et al. for PV is 46 kg CO2eq/MWh and for onshore wind is 12 kg CO2eq/MWh. Values for UK grid carbon intensity given by DEFRA, 2013 are 491 kg CO2eq/MWh in 2011.
- 6.
If instead of using the most optimistic estimates, mid-range estimates were used, this figure drops to 5800 t of CO2 (5200 tCO2 from wind and 600 tCO2 from solar PV).
References
Anand, C. K., et al. (2015). Integration of sustainable development in higher education—A regional initiative in Quebec (Canada). Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 916–923.
Ahmad, M., & Culp, C. H. (2006). Uncalibrated building energy simulation modeling results. HVAC&R Research, 12(4).
Azar, E., & Menassa, C. C. (2012). A comprehensive analysis of the impact of occupancy parameters in energy simulation of office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 55, 841–853. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.002
Bordass, B., Cohen, R., & Field, J. (2004). Energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Closing the credibility gap. Building Performance Congress. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Energy+Performance+of+Non-Domestic+Buildings+:+Closing+the+Credibility+Gap#0
Bordass, B., et al. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 3: Technical performance of the Probe buildings. Building Research and Information, 29(2), 114–128.
BSRIA. (2011). BSRIA response to the commission of enquiry into achieving best value in the procurement of construction work, 44(3942728), pp. 2–5.
Buchs, M., Edwards, R., & Smith, G. (2012). Third sector organisations’ role in pro-environmental behaviour change—A review of the literature and evidence. Available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/339808/
Carbon Trust. (2011). Closing the gap: Lessons learned on realising the potential of low carbon building design (p. 24). Available at: http://dare.uva.nl/aup/nl/record/172826
Carbon Trust. (2012). Degree days for energy management. Available at: http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/guides/energy-efficiency/degree-days
DEFRA. (2013). Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems at home and abroad. British Government, London. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-biodiversity-and-ecosystems-at-home-and-abroad
Demanuele, C., Tweddell, T., & Davies, M. (2010). Bridging the gap between predicted and actual energy performance in schools. World Renewable Energy Congress, XI(September), 1–6.
De Wilde, P. (2014). The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: A framework for investigation. Automation in Construction, 41, 40–49.
Feola, G., & Nunes, R. (2013). Failure and success of transition initiatives : A study of the international replication of the transition movement. Walker Institute for Climate System Research, 4(August). Available at: www.walker-institute.ac.uk/publications/research_notes/WalkerInResNote4.pdf
Gasch, R., & Twele, J. (2011). Wind power plants: Fundamentals, design. Construction and Operation Second Edition: Springer.
Goulden, M., & Spence, A. (2015). Caught in the middle: The role of the facilities manager in organisational energy use. Energy Policy, 85, 280–287. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515002323
Grabs, J., et al. (2015). Understanding role models for change: A multilevel analysis of success factors of grassroots movements for sustainable consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615015280
HEFCE. (2010). Carbon reduction target and strategy for higher education in England, 01(September), 1–31. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2010/201001/
Heiskanen, E., et al. (2010). Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioural change. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7586–7595. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.002
Joint Research Centre European Commission. (n.d). Photovoltaic geographical information system. Available at: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php. Accessed December 15, 2014.
Kastner, I., & Matthies, E. (2014). Implementing web-based interventions to promote energy efficient behavior at organizations—A multi-level challenge. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 89–97. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.030
Lopes, M. A. R., Antunes, C. H., & Martins, N. (2012). Energy behaviours as promoters of energy efficiency : A 21st century review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 4095–4104. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.034
MacKay, D. (2008). Sustainable energy-without the hot air. UIT Cambridge Ltd. Available at: http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/217849 and https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/217849
Mara, F. (2011). Sainsbury Laboratory, Cambridge by Stanton Williams. The Architects’ Journal. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/sainsbury-laboratory-cambridge-by-stanton-williams/8617531.fullarticle
Menezes, A. C., et al. (2012). Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap. Applied Energy, 97, 355–364.
Ralph, M., & Stubbs, W. (2014). Integrating environmental sustainability into universities. Higher Education, 67(1), 71–90.
Ruparathna, R., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2016). Improving the energy efficiency of the existing building stock: A critical review of commercial and institutional buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 1032–1045. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364032115010540
Smith, D. A., & Seyfang, G. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 4016(4), 37–41. Available at: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/30684/
UK Parliament. (2008). Climate change act 2008 (pp. 1–103). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/pdfs/ukpga_20080027_en.pdf
University of Cambridge. (2010). Carbon management plan 2010–2020. Available at: http://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/carbon-management-plan.pdf
University of Cambridge. (2013). Energy and carbon reduction project: Annual report 2013.
Way, M., & Bordass, B. (2005). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings—Involving design and building teams in improving performance. Building Research and Information, 33(4), 353–360.
Wellcome Trust & Cancer Research UK. (2012, September). The Gurdon Institute introducing behavioural change towards energy use. Available at: http://www.gurdon.cam.ac.uk/files/green/gurdon-behavioural-change.pdf
Zero Carbon Hub. (2010). carbon compliance for tomorrow’s new homes a review of the modelling tool and assumptions. Carbon, pp. 1–54. Available at: http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/resourcefiles/CARBON_COMPLIANCE_GREEN_OVERVIEW_18Aug.pdf
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Roger Brugge, Richard Barker, Lucian Carata and David Titterington for the provision of wind speed data and Stephen Andrews from the Sainsbury Laboratory for his assistance. Also we thank the University of Cambridge Estate Management, particularly Joanna Chamberlain, Malcom Masklin, Chris Lawrence, Emily Dunning, Claire Hopkins and Paul Hasley for their continued assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Forman, T. et al. (2017). Improving Building Energy Performance in Universities: The Case Study of the University of Cambridge. In: Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L., Castro, P., Newman, J. (eds) Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education . World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47868-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47868-5_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47867-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47868-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)