Advertisement

Future-Proofed Design of Low-Energy Housing Developments: Case Studies from the UK and Sweden

  • Maria Christina GeorgiadouEmail author
Chapter
  • 946 Downloads
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

This study examines the concept of ‘future-proofing’ the energy design of housing developments so as to achieve low levels of energy consumption and carbon emissions over their lifecycle. This refers particularly to the selection of fabric energy efficiency measures and onsite low- or zero-carbon technologies (microgeneration or local energy networks) at an early design stage. The research adopts a multiple case study method with data gathered from two ‘best-practice’ housing developments in the UK and Sweden, namely North West Cambridge (Cambridgeshire) and Välle Broar (Växjö). The research explores the future-proofed approaches used in the two cases in relation to a pre-established conceptual framework, which involves two aspects, namely adopting lifecycle thinking and accommodating risks and uncertainties. The cross-case analysis reveals that there is widespread experimentation, which demonstrates that future-proofing is still in its infancy. Drivers for future-proofing mostly prompt strategies to accommodate risks and uncertainties in the UK, whereas in Sweden, they lead to the adoption of lifecycle thinking. This is due to unique context-specific governance and institutional factors at both national (country) and local (case study) levels. The chapter concludes with the need to transfer knowledge to mainstream housing construction and inform policy-making in relation to long-term performance over a project’s full lifecycle.

Keywords

Energy Future-proofing Housing developments Lifecycle Uncertainty 

References

  1. AECOM (2011a) Carbon reduction strategy part A: energy. Planning Application Document, AECOM, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. AECOM (2011b) Design, access, and landscape statement. Planning Application Document, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. AECOM (2011c) Environmental statement, vol 1. Planning Application Document, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. AECOM (2011d) Sustainability statement. Planning Application Document, AECOM, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. AECOM (2011e) Planning statement. Planning Application Document, AECOM, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahlrot J (2011a) Energy performance of new eco-buildings in Växjö. SESAC Deliverable 16.1, City of VäxjöGoogle Scholar
  7. Ahlrot J (2011b) Monitoring structures. SESAC Deliverable 21b, City of VäxjöGoogle Scholar
  8. Al-Hassan A (2009) The introduction of code for sustainable homes for the UK: potentials and problems. Newcastle University, Forum J, pp 49–62Google Scholar
  9. Anderson J, Shiers D, Steele K (2009) The green guide to specification: an environmental profiling system for building materials and components, 4th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. BBR (2011) ‘Building regulations’ (text in Swedish). http://www.boverket.se/Om-Boverket/Webbokhandel/Publikationer/2008/Building-Regulations-BBR/. Accessed 16 May 2013
  11. Bosher L, Dainty A, Carrillo P, Glass J, Price A (2007) Integrating disaster risk management into construction: a UK perspective. Build Res Inf 35(2):163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. BPIE (2011) Europe’s buildings under the microscope: a country-by-country review of the energy performance of buildings. Buildings Performance Institute Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. BRE (2007) Methodology for environmental profiles of construction products—product category rules for type III environmental product declaration of construction products. Building Research Establishment, WatfordGoogle Scholar
  14. BRE (2008) Background to the green guide to specification. Building Research Establishment. http://www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/page.jsp?id=2069. Accessed 05 Apr 2012
  15. CCC (2008) About us. Committee on climate change. http://www.theccc.org.uk. Accessed 03 Aug 2012
  16. CCC and SCDC (2009) North West Cambridge Area Action Plan, Local Development Framework, Development Plan Document, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District CouncilGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaudry M, Ekins P, Ramachandran K, Shakoor A, Skea J, Strbac G, Wang X, Whitaker J (2009) Building a resilient UK energy system. Working paper under the UKERC Energy 2050 projectGoogle Scholar
  18. Collier U, Löfstedt R (1997) Think globally, act locally? Local climate change and energy policies in Sweden and the UK. Glob Environ Change 7(1):25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. CONCERTO (2011) Energy solutions for smart cities and communities. http://concerto.eu/concerto/. Accessed 31 Aug 2012
  20. Danielski I, Svensson M, Fröling M (2013) Adaption of the passive house concept in northern Sweden—a case study of performance. In: Proceedings of the Passivhus Norden 2013 conference, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  21. DCLG (2010) Code for sustainable homes: technical guide, Department of Communities and Local Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. DCLG (2012) 2012 consultation on changes to the building regulations in England—summary of responses. Department of Communities and Local Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. DEFRA (2007) Draft climate change bill. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. EC (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings (recast), European Commission DG Energy, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. Ehrlen L (2011) Demand side management in Välle Broar, SESAC Deliverable 18. VEAB, VäxjöGoogle Scholar
  26. Ekundayo D, Perera S, Udeaja C, Zhou L (2012) Carbon review and qualitative comparison of selected carbon counting tools. In: Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ COBRA International Research Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Eames M, Kershaw T, Coley D (2011) On the creation of future probabilistic design weather years from UKCP09. Build Serv Eng Res Technol 32(2):127–142Google Scholar
  28. Eriksson M (2010) How to create energy efficient behaviour in a City such as Växjö. SESAC Deliverable D2.1C, VEAB, VäxjöGoogle Scholar
  29. FEBY (2009) Positioning paper: background on implementation of passive house in Sweden. Swedish Forum for Energy Efficient Buildings, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  30. Fremrot G (2011) Energy performance in wooden houses. SESAC Deliverable 16.2, VKAB, VäxjöGoogle Scholar
  31. Georgiadou MC (2014) Future-proofed energy design approaches for achieving low-energy homes: enhancing the code for sustainable homes. Buildings 4(3):488–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Georgiadou MC, Hacking T, Guthrie P (2012) A conceptual framework for future-proofing the energy performance of buildings. Energy Policy 47:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Glass J, Dainty A, Gibb A (2008) New build: materials, techniques, skills and innovation, Energy Policy 36(8):4534–4538Google Scholar
  34. Glass J, Dyer T, Georgopoulos C, Goodier C, Paine K, Parry T, Baumann H, Gluch P (2013) Future use of life-cycle assessment in civil engineering. Proc Inst Civil Eng Constr Mater 166(4):204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenwood D (2010) Really zero? Stakeholder perspectives on policy in England for the 2016 zero carbon homes target. University of Westminster, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Greenwood D (2012) The challenge of policy coordination for sustainable sociotechnical transitions: the case of the zero-carbon homes agenda in England. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 30(1):162–179MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gul M, Jenkins D, Patidar S, Banfill P, Menzies G, Gibson G (2012) Tailoring a future overheating risk tool for existing building design practice in domestic and non-domestic sectors, Build Serv Eng Res Technol 33(1):105–117Google Scholar
  38. Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2006) Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build Environ 41(7):940–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gustavsson L, Joelsson A, Sathre R (2010) Life cycle primary energy use and carbon emission of an eight-storey wood-framed apartment building. Energy Build 42(2):230–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gustavsson L, Pingoud K, Sathre R (2006) Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11(3):667–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. IPCC (2007) Fourth assessment report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Jenkins D, Patidar S, Banfill B, Gibson G (2011) Probabilistic climate projections with dynamic building simulation: predicting overheating in dwellings. Energy Build 43(7):1723–1731Google Scholar
  43. Jenks M, Jones C (eds.) (2010) Issues and concepts. In: Dimensions of the sustainable city. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  44. Jewell J, Clarkson H, Goodman J, Watt I (2010) The future climate for development: scenarios for low income countries in a climate-changing world, forum for the future in partnership with the Department for International Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Jones Lang LaSalle (2010) From sandbags to solar panels: future-proofing. UK Real Estate for Climate Change Resilience, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Karlsson A (2003) ENSYST, Version 1.2. Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. Kildsgaard I, Prejer E (2011) Documentation of project’s development, planning, and building phases—building’s energy performance. IVL, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  48. Killip G (2008) Building a greener future: transforming the UK’s existing housing stock. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Lane K, Sinden G, Killip G, Peacock A, Natarajan S (2005) Background material B: foresight scenarios for the UK domestic sector, 40% house project. Environmental Change Institute, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Leaman A, Stevenson F, Bordass B (2010) Building evaluation: practice and principles. Build Res Inf 38(5):564–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moffatt S, Suzuki H, Iizuka R (2012) Eco2Cities guide: ecological cities as economic cities. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. NHBC (2013) Designing homes for the 21st century: lessons for low energy design. National House Building Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. NHBC (2014) Technical extra approved document part L: 2013, Special edn. National Housing Building Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Nielsen J (2006) On the design of buildings in relation to climate change. In: Proceedings of the world conference for accelerating excellence in the built environment, Birmingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Brien G, Brodowicz D, Ratcliffe J (2009) Built environment foresight 2030: the sustainable development imperative. The Futures Academy, Dublin Institute of Technology, DublinGoogle Scholar
  56. Pelsmakers S (2012) The environmental design pocketbook. RIBA Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Pitts A (2008) Future proof construction—future building and systems design for energy and fuel flexibility. Energy Policy 36(12):4539–4543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Planning Source (2015) What government’s decision to scrap the zero carbon housing goal means for planners? http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1357297/governments-decision-scrap-zero-carbon-housing-goal-means-planners. Accessed 26 Jan 2016
  59. Ravetz J (2008) State of the stock—what do we know about existing buildings and their future prospects? Energy Policy 36(12):4462–4470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sahagun D, Moncaster AM (2012) How much do we spend to save? Calculating the embodied carbon costs of retrofit. In: Proceedings of retrofit 2012 conference, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  61. SAP (2010) Standard assessment procedure. Department of Energy and Climate Change. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/sap/sap.aspx. Accessed 30 Nov 2011
  62. Sathre R (2007) Life-cycle energy and carbon implications of wood-based products and construction. Doctoral thesis, eco-technology and environmental science. Department of Engineering, Physics and Mathematics, Mid Sweden UniversityGoogle Scholar
  63. Serrano E (2009) Documentation of the Limnologen project: overview and summaries of sub projects results. Faculty of Mathematics, Science and Technology, School of Technology and Design, Växjö University, VäxjöGoogle Scholar
  64. SESAC (2011a) City report on energy performance in Växjö, City of VäxjöGoogle Scholar
  65. SESAC (2011b) Innovative sustainable construction: together for the low-energy city with a high quality of life. SESAC Final Project Report, CONCERTOGoogle Scholar
  66. Soetanto A, Dainty A, Glass J, Price A (2006) Towards an explicit design decision process: the case of the structural frame. Constr Manag Econ 24(6):603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stasinopoulos P, Smith M, Hargroves K, Desha C (2009) Whole system design: an integrated approach to sustainable engineering. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. TCPA (2006) Sustainable energy by design: a TCPA ‘by design’ guide for sustainable communities. Town and Country Planning Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. UBT (2009) The soft landings framework for better briefing, design, handover and building performance in-use, usable buildings trust in partnership with the Building Services Research and Information Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. UKCP09 (2010) What is UKCP09? UK Climate Projections, http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/21678. Accessed 10 May 2013
  71. UN (2010) Buildings and construction as tools for promoting more sustainable patterns of consumption and production, sustainable development innovation brief. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. UNEP (2009) Buildings and climate change: summary for decision-makers, sustainable buildings and climate initiative. United Nations Environment Programme, ParisGoogle Scholar
  73. WCED (1987) Our common future, World commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  74. ZCH (2009) Defining a fabric energy efficiency standard for zero carbon homes, task group recommendations. Zero Carbon Hub, London, p 20Google Scholar
  75. ZCH (2010) Carbon compliance for tomorrow’s new homes—a review of the modelling tool and assumptions. Zero Carbon Hub, LondonGoogle Scholar
  76. ZCH (2011) Carbon compliance—setting an appropriate limit for zero carbon new homes, findings and recommendations. Zero Carbon Hub, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Property and Construction, Faculty of Architecture and the Built EnvironmentUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations