High-Performance Building Design and Decision-Making Support for Architects in the Early Design Phases

Licentiate Thesis Juan Ren 任娟 October 2013

Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan The Royal Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering Division of Building Service and Energy Systems

ISSN 0284-141X ISRN KTH/IT/M-79-SE

Abstract

Based on the design decision making process from an architect’s point of view, a related literature review, theoretical analyses, and inductive inferences, this thesis proposes a new interpretation of high-performance building (HPB), translates/maps criteria issues related to building environmental assessment (BEA) tools for key design decision making elements, and identifies sources of inspiration for HPB designs. This thesis intends to propose an integrated conceptual model for the design of HPBs to provide direct knowledge-based decision making support to architects in the early design phase. Studies on key design decision making elements, sources of inspiration, and building information modeling are integrated into this genesis of conceptual design.

The concept of the HPB proposed in this thesis emphasizes comprehensive sustainable building performance in environmental, economic, and socio-cultural aspects. The concept takes the view that HPBs should be aesthetically attractive, socio-culturally adapted, safe, healthy, and comfortable, and should operate at a high level of environmental, resource, and economic efficiency throughout their life cycle. This thesis discusses the topics of the necessity, benefits, and design principles of HPBs.

An analysis of the characteristics of BEA tools and HPB design decision making revealed their relationship: the consequence of goals and the mismatch of practices. BEA tools provide the basic information (such as framework, content, evaluation methods, and processes) related to decision making to promote a holistic HPB design at a practical level. However, given the mismatch of practices between BEA tools and HPB design decision making, most such tools are still used for testing and verifying the design results and do not consider the design decision making process. Existing BEA tools primarily guide or indirectly affect the design work but, in practice, play a limited role in directly helping architects make early decisions regarding HPB design.

First, for a detailed comparison, this thesis identified the common criteria issues for the three existing BEA tools: SBTool 2012 (maximum version), LEED NC-v3, and the Chinese Evaluation Standard for Green Building (ESGB). A total of 51 common/similar criteria issues were identified and such issues were found to be primarily allocated in the energy and resources, indoor environmental quality, environmental loads, and site areas. SBTool 2012 contains the widest range and most comprehensive criteria issues of building performance, whereas the LEED NC-v3 and ESGB frameworks poorly cover social- and economic-related issues. Second, this thesis separated the criteria into whether they relate to decision making factors or building performance factors. Third, this thesis mapped HPB criteria issues into HPB

design decision making elements.

This thesis establishes a framework for key design decision elements for Chinese residential buildings by selecting a residential building type in China as a case study for the mapping approach application. The optimum criteria issues for Chinese residential buildings contain 10 primary criteria issues and 35 sub-criteria issues that cover aspects within the entire sustainable performance range and that correspond to key design decision making elements in this framework.

This thesis also proposes two fundamental support approaches to creative design for HPBs: rational technical support and irrational divergent inspirational support. Based on practical design examples, three major types of irrational sources of inspiration in an architect’s design for HPBs have been identified: previous empirics, nature objects and phenomena, and advanced science and technologies.

Finally, a new integrated conceptual model to support an architect’s early design decisions is established based on the BIM platform. The model contains two main aspects of the work: an initial building information model and an optimal building information model for HPBs during the early design stage. This conceptual model is presented as a generic approach that can be customized for different designers and project conditions. The model can also be used as a framework for providing knowledge-based creative support for decision making related to HPB design.

In summary, this thesis intends to provide both a theoretical base and feasible measures for better HPB design and references for developing design decision making support tools for architects to use during the early HPB design process.

Keywords

High-performance building (HPB); sustainable performance; design decision making; building environmental assessment (BEA) tools; architects; design decision elements; sources of inspiration

Preface

The research for this thesis was funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC). The studies were conducted at the Division of Building Service and Energy Systems, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, School of Architecture and Built Environment, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) and at the Department of Architecture, Northwest Polytechnical University in China.

I express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Ivo Martinac, who gave me precious guidance, support, and understanding during my research and daily life in Sweden. His questions, comments, and broad knowledge supported me throughout my research and allowed me to engage in independent thinking and organization. I believe that I will also benefit from these experiences in the future.

I would like to express special thanks to my co-supervisor, Professor Yu Liu (Northwest Polytechnical University, China), for her scientific guidance, warm encouragement, strong support, and guidance through her numerous patient calls and emails along the way.

I would also like to thank the reference group for its assistance and inspiration, and particularly for the contributions from the China National Natural Science Foundation support project, “Decision-making support research for green building design based on building environmental performance assessment systems” (No. 50778153).

Thanks to all of my colleagues and friends for being with me through many happy and unforgettable times.

Finally, I give my most heartfelt gratitude to my dear parents and my husband Yue, for their endless love, care, and support.

Stockholm, May 2013 Juan Ren

- 1 -

List of abbreviations

AHP Analytic hierarchy process ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers BEA Building environmental assessment BEU Building energy utilization BEE Building Environment Efficiency BIM Building Information Model/Modeling/Modeling BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method CASBEE Comprehensive Assessment Systems for Building Environmental Efficiency CFC Chlorofluorocarbon

CO2 Carbon dioxide Computer-Aided-Design CAD D Factors Decision making factors DDS Design decision support DGNB Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen ESGB Evaluation Standard for Green Building GB/T50378-2006 ETS Environmental tobacco smoke GBASBO Green Building Assessment System for Beijing Olympics GHG Greenhouse gas HPB High-performance Building HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning IAQ Indoor air quality IEQ Indoor environmental quality LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design MOHURD Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (China) NABERS National Australia Built Environmental Rating Systems (U.S.) NIBS U.S. National Institute of Building Sciences P Factors Performance factors TIM Transparent insulation materials VOC Volatile organic compounds 3D Three-dimensional

- 2 -

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...... A

KEYWORDS ...... B

PREFACE ...... - 1 -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... - 2 -

CHAPTER 1 ...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND...... 1 1.2 AIMS AND METHODS ...... 3 1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE...... 5 1.4 OUTCOMES AND CONTRIBUTIONS ...... 6 1.5 LIMITATIONS ...... 6

CHAPTER 2 ...... 7

A NEW CONCEPT FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 7

2.1 DEFINITIONS OF A HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDING ...... 7 2.2 BENEFITS OF A HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDING ...... 9 2.3 DESIGN PRINCIPLES OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 10

CHAPTER 3 ...... 14

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND SUSTAINABLE HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDING DESIGN DECISION MAKING ...... 14

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 14 3.2 OVERVIEW OF WORLDWIDE BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS ...... 14 3.3 SELECTIVE BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS ...... 17 3.4 COMPARISONS AND DISCUSSIONS ...... 23 3.4.1 Building Types for Assessment in BEA Tools ...... 23 3.4.2 Criteria Categories ...... 24 3.4.3 Evaluation Methods in BEA Tools ...... 26 3.4.4 Users of BEA Tools ...... 30 3.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEA TOOLS AND HPB DESIGN DECISION MAKING ...... 30 3.5.1 Design Process and Decision Making ...... 30 3.5.2 Relationship between BEA Tools and HPB Design Decision Making ...... 33

CHAPTER 4 ...... 41

IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN DECISION ELEMENTS FROM BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 41

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 41 4.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CRITERIA ISSUES AMONG SBTOOL 2012, LEED NC-V3, AND - 3 -

ESGB ...... 42 4.2.1 Similar Criteria Issues among SBTool 2012, LEED NC-v3, and ESGB ...... 42 4.2.2 In-Depth Analysis of Comparative Topics ...... 46 4.2.3 Discussions ...... 56 4.3 MAPPING CRITERIA ISSUES TO DESIGN DECISION ELEMENTS ...... 59 4.3.1 Basic Hierarchical Structure of Criteria Issues ...... 59 4.3.2 Separating Performance Factors and Decision Factors...... 60 4.3.3 Mapping Criteria Issues to Design Decision Elements ...... 63

CHAPTER 5 ...... 70

FRAMEWORK OF KEY DESIGN DECISION ELEMENTS OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS...... 70

- CASE STUDY OF CHINESE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS - ...... 70

5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS IN CHINA ...... 70 5.1.1. The Necessity to Implement HPBs in China ...... 70 5.1.2 Implementation of HPBs in China ...... 71 5.1.3 Development of Building Environmental Assessment Tools in China ...... 72 5.2 FRAMEWORK OF KEY DESIGN DECISION ELEMENTS FOR CHINESE RESIDENTIAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 76 5.2.1 Optimization of Criteria Issues for Chinese High-performance Buildings – Residential Building Type ...... 76 5.2.2 Identification of Key Design Decision Elements for Generic Chinese Residential High-performance Buildings...... 79

CHAPTER 6 ...... 97

SOURCES OF DESIGN INSPIRATION FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 97

- FROM AN ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE - ...... 97

6.1 SOURCES OF INSPIRATION ...... 97 6.2 THE BENEFITS OF SOURCES OF INSPIRATION IN THE DESIGN OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 98 6.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOURCES OF INSPIRATION IN THE DESIGN OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 98 6.4 INSPIRATION SOURCES IN THE CREATIVE DESIGN FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS .... 100 6.4.1 Sources from Previous Empirics ...... 100 6.4.2 Source from Nature Objects and Phenomena ...... 101 6.4.3 Source from Advanced Sciences and Technologies ...... 103 6.5 SUMMARY ...... 103

CHAPTER 7 ...... 104

INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN MODEL FOR THE ARCHITECT’S EARLY DESIGN DECISION MAKING OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 104

- 4 -

7.1 BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING ...... 104 7.2 BIM FOR EARLY DESIGN DECISION MAKING OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 106 7.3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL TO SUPPORT AN ARCHITECT’S EARLY DESIGN DECISION MAKING OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS ...... 107 7.3.1 Initial Building Information Model of HPB in the Early Design Phase ...... 107 7.3.2 Optimal Building Information Model of HPB in the Early Design Phase ...... 108 7.4 DISCUSSION ...... 109

CHAPTER 8 ...... 117

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ...... 117

8.1 CONCLUSIONS ...... 117 8.2 FUTURE WORK ...... 120

REFERENCES ...... 122

APPENDIX A ...... 151

APPENDIX B ...... 154

- 5 -

- 6 -

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

In the early first century CE, the Roman architect Vitruvius described a good building as satisfying “durability, utility and beauty” (Rowland D., & Howe T.N., 1999). Today, environmental concerns, such as global climate change, environmental pollution, the depletion of resources, and deforestation are important inevitable challenges. Therefore, sustainability has gained increasing attention in the global context. Brundtland Commission Report refers to sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” (Brundtland Commission, 1987)

Buildings are the main contributors to the degradation of the natural environment. Typically, buildings account for 20–40 percent of industrialized countries’ total energy utilization (Juan, Y.K., Peng, G., & Wang, J., 2010). During the twenty-first century, people have become increasingly aware of sustainability. Sustainable building design is no longer just about pursuing energy-saving and environmentally friendly targets from a technical perspective; it is also about improving buildings’ overall performance from functional, aesthetic, and many other perspectives, with an ultimate goal of achieving harmony among humans, buildings, and nature. In this case, paying attention to how buildings should be built is imperative to reducing their tremendous costs, abating the effect on the environment, and maintaining better social and cultural benefits. Therefore, improving building performance has become a critical mission for the sustainability of the entire building industry. This trend calls for architects to accept and accurately understand high-performance buildings (HPBs), follow the guiding principles of sustainability, and maintain a comprehensive inventory of the various building factors to achieve the overall target of high-performance/sustainable building design.

Simultaneously, efforts have been made to develop building environmental assessment (BEA) tools to assist in the decision making process and to assess building performance. The demand for environmental information in various types of decision making situations is an important impetus to developing environmental assessments (Malmqvist, T. , 2008). People began to realize that development of BEA tools,

particularly tools to evaluate the environmental performance of buildings, is necessary for good design (The European Commission Report, 1999) and encourages and regulates sustainable development in the building market (Liu, Y., 2005).

The initial examples of building environmental assessment (BEA) tools largely represented an exercise in structuring a broad range of existing knowledge and considerations into a utilitarian framework, rather than requiring or demanding further research (Cole et al.，2005). Building designers and occupants have been quite concerned about building performance (Cooper, 1999; Kohler, 1999; Finnveden & Moberg, 2005). Substantial work has been done to develop systems to measure a building’s environmental performance during its life cycle, and these systems were developed to estimate the degree of progress made to balance energy, the environment, and ecology, taking into account both the social and technology aspects of projects (Clements-Croome, 2004). Most BEA tools are established at the building level and are based on some form of life-cycle assessment database (Seo et al., 2006).

Wrisberg et al. (2002) listed five possible applications for environmental assessments: strategic planning, capital investments, design and development, communication and marketing, and operations management (Wrisberg et al., 2002). For design, BEA tools are primarily used as design guidelines to provide information and to specify environmental targets to decision makers (designers) during the design stages.

Clarification and identification of similar and different issues among the BEA tools are essential. Further discussions regarding the consequences of these differences on architecture and the environment are also important. However, the manner in which BEA tools influence an architect’s design work during the design process has not been studied as closely (Wallhagen, M., 2010). BEA tools provide limited assistance during the actual architectural design stage, particularly for architects because their primary function is to evaluate building performance and effects. BEA tool criteria could provide information for HPB design, such as indicating the factors that have a negative or a positive effect on the environment or the solutions to be considered for the project. However, because decision making related to design is a behavior based on designers’ (architects’) cognition and judgment, BEA tools cannot provide designers (architects) with the direct information needed to effectively support their decision making. An intricate and interlaced relationship must exist between BEA tools and design decision making, and supplying more practical and specific support to architects during the HPB design process is necessary to improve the quality and efficiency of design.

Furthermore, design decision making in the initial stage has a significant impact on a building’s esthetic form, functionality, environmental load, cost, and other sustainable performance metrics during its life cycle. Therefore, to support architects’ design for successful HPBs, particular attention needs to be paid to the initial design stage in

which potential design alternatives are generated and selected as more promising solutions. However, most existing studies on the decision making support of HPB focus on the technical and scientific aspects. Studies that target architect groups and give them direct design decision making support during the preliminary HPB design phase are rare.

1.2 Aims and Methods

This thesis proposes a new understanding of high-performance building (HPB), translates/maps criteria issues of building environmental assessment (BEA) tools into key design decision elements, and identifies the sources of inspiration for HPB design based on the design decision making process from the architect’s point of view and the related literature review, theoretical analyses, and inductive inference. This thesis intends to propose an integrated conceptual model to provide direct knowledge-based support to an architect’s decision making during the early design of HPBs. The key design decision elements, sources of inspiration, and building information modeling will be integrated into this conceptual design genesis.

This thesis intends to provide the theoretical base and feasible measures for better HPB design and the references for developing design decision making support tools for architects during their HPB design process. The research methods adopted in this thesis include but are not limited to the following: a literature review, a comparative approach, a case study, inductive reasoning, and theoretical analysis, among others.

● Literature review Hart (1998) defined a literature review as “the use of ideas in the literature to justify the particular approach to the topic, the selection of methods, and demonstration that this research contributes something new” (Hart, C., 1998). Webster and Watson (2002) defined an effective literature review as one that “creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed” (Webster, J., & Watson, R. T., 2002). A literature review can establish the need for studies, expand the scopes of searches, and prevent duplication. This thesis adopts the literature review as one method to study the development of sustainable buildings, existing worldwide BEA tools, the development of design, and decision making as a way to provide for a foundation and guidance for the research.

● Comparative approach A comparative approach is the principal method applied in this thesis. This method compares two or more interrelated objective items with the intent to correctly identify and judge the relevant essence and laws. This thesis comparatively analyzes indicators

from selective BEA tools, noting their common issues and the disadvantages that need to be improved in the future. The relationship between BEA tools and design decision making is also established based on their comparative analysis.

● Case study Yin (1994) defined a case study “as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomena within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomena and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (Yin, R.K., 2009). The case study method enables a researcher to meticulously examine the data within a specific context. In most cases, the case study method selects a small geographical area or a very limited number of individuals as subjects. In their true essence, case studies explore and investigate contemporary real-life phenomena through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships (Zainal, Z., 2007). This thesis selects the residential building type in China to illustrate the establishment of a framework for key design decision making elements.

● Inductive reasoning Inductive reasoning is considered a general aspect of human intelligence (Carroll, J. B., 1993) that underlies one’s performance on complex tasks from diverse content domains. In general, reasoning involves inferences drawn from principles and from evidence, whereby an individual either infers new conclusions or evaluates proposed conclusions from what is already known (Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M., 1993). Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from specific premises or observations to reach a general conclusion or an inclusive rule (Christou, C., & Papageorgiou, E. , 2007). Many aspects of this study adopt inductive reasoning as the primary research method. For example, this thesis selected and compared BEA tools and their indicators, studied existing BEA tools in China, and optimized their criteria issues. The inductive reasoning method reasoned out certain key design decision making elements related to Chinese residential HPBs and was used to identify sources of inspiration for HPB design based on specific observations and patterns.

● Theoretical analysis This theoretical analysis method is based on the sort, classification, and statistical analysis of existing materials using the manufacture of abstract thinking to identify the nature of events/internal relations and to develop them into rational knowledge. This thesis uses the theoretical analysis method to analyze identical and different features between BEA and design decision making, then reveals the relationship between BEA tools and design decision making for HPBs.

Note that the previously described research methods are integrated throughout the entire thesis. Analyzing one question may use various research methods. For example,

the inductive reasoning and theoretical analysis methods are adopted together to realize the transformation from criteria issues into key design decision making elements.

1.3 Thesis Structure

According to the aims and methods of this research, this thesis is organized in the following structure and is divided into three parts: the introduction, the main part, and the conclusion.

Figure 1-1 Thesis structure

The introduction includes chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 1 introduces the background (including a brief review of existing studies and theories), aims, and methods of the research. Chapter 2 illustrates the core concept, basic characteristics, and design principles of HPB.

Chapters 3 to 6 comprise the main part of the thesis. Chapter 3 introduces the characteristics of BEA tools, the design decision making process, and their relationship. Chapter 4 identifies similar criteria issues among SBTool 2012, LEED NC-v3, and ESGB, separates performance factors and decision making factors, and establishes a mapping approach to transform criteria issues into design decision elements. Chapter 5 proposes the framework for key design decision elements of HPBs based on BEA tools. Chapter 6 describes the sources of inspiration for HPBs as supplements from more irrational perspectives to support an architect’s design.

Chapters 7 and 8 provide the conclusion. Chapter 7 establishes a conceptual design decision model for HPB based on the building information modeling (BIM) platform, which is particularly useful in supporting architects during their early design phases. Chapter 8 provides conclusions and suggestions for further research in the relevant areas.

1.4 Outcomes and Contributions

The outcomes of this research and its contributions to knowledge are that it: ● Proposes a new concept about high-performance buildings; ● Identifies the relationship between BEA tools and HPB design decision making; ● Summarizes similar criteria issues among SBTool 2012, LEED, NC-v3, and ESGB; ● Establishes a conceptual framework of key design decision elements for the design of high-performance Chinese residential buildings; ● Recognizes the sources of inspiration for HPB designs; and, ● Proposes a conceptual model to support an architect’s decisions during the early design phase for HPBs based on the BIM platform.

In addition, this thesis addresses a comparative study of and recommendations for promoting Chinese BEA tools.

1.5 Limitations

This study has certain limitations. In addition to the time limit and financial constraints that most studies must address, further limitations existed for this study. First, this thesis is based on architects’ perspectives and focuses on the design stage; thus, issues related to other stages in a building’s life cycle (in other words, planning, construction, operations, management, and demolishment) are not addressed. Second, the comparative analysis of criteria issues in selective BEA tools does not involve benchmark, weighting, and application aspects. Third, the conceptual mode for supporting HPB design decision making proposed in the thesis only addresses the early design stage and not the entire process of a building design project. Finally, inevitable limitations also exist with BEA tools and the cases selected for the specific purpose of this research.

Chapter 2

A New Concept for High-performance Buildings

2.1 Definitions of a High-performance Building

The recent decades have witnessed growth in the professional concern and interest in building performance. Many successful new building projects are taking shape today, calling into question the performance of more typical construction endeavors ( Department of Design and Construction of NewYork, 1999). A “high-performance building” (HPB) is also referred to as an “energy saving” or “green” building. Many different concepts of an HPB exist because of the broad range of building performance issues and the novelty of sustainable principles, with the exception of state and local descriptions.

North Carolina’s Triangle J council of the government defines an HPB as follows. High performance entails designing, constructing, and operating facilities with a strong focus on the following principles:  Sustainability, which is a long-term view that balances economics, equity, and environmental effects;  An integrated approach, which engages a multidisciplinary team at the outset of a project to work collaboratively throughout; and,  Feedback and data collection, which quantify both the finished facility and the process that created it and serves to generate improvements in future projects.

Pennsylvania’s definition for a high performance green building from the guidelines for creating green buildings is as follows (Pennsylvania Department of Conmmunity & Economic Development, 2009).  A project created via cooperation among building owners, facility managers, users, designers, and construction professionals through a collaborative team approach;  A project that engages local and regional communities in all stages of the process, including design, construction, and occupancy;  A project that considers the “true costs” of a building’s impact on the local and regional environment; and,  A project that considers the “life cycle costs” of a product or system, which are costs associated with its manufacture, operation, maintenance, and disposal.

By combining different definitions, the U.S. National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) created a committee comprised of both government and industry leaders and provided a good balance by including all interested parties in the HPB definition as follows. “High-performance buildings, which address human, environmental, economic and total social impact, are the result of the application of the highest level design, construction, operation and maintenance principles-a paradigm change for the built environment.” (NIBS, 2010)

Based on this definition, HPBs should primarily have environmental, economic, and social features and performance that are substantially better than standard practices. HPBs maximize operational energy savings, improve the comfort, health, and safety of occupants and visitors, and limit the detrimental effects on the environment (Steele, J., 1997).

Considering that HPBs also fall under the application of “sustainable” or “green” principles, to some extent they are synonymous with green or sustainable buildings and their common goal is better buildings that are more energy efficient, cost effective, and people friendly (Steele, J., 1997). HPBs promise a plethora of benefits, from the social benefits of reduced environmental effects to the economic and “value equation” benefits of operational cost savings, greater occupant comfort and security, and a flexible space (Zerkin, A. J., 2006).

According to these descriptions of an HPB, this thesis proposes a new definition of HPB as follows. A high-performance building is a sustainable building with better environmental, economic, and socio-cultural features and performance than standard practices. An HPB provides aesthetically attractive, socio-culturally adapted, safe, healthy, and comfortable living environments that operate at a high level of environmental, resource-use related, and economic efficiency throughout its life cycle.

This definition presupposes that an HPB is a substantially better sustainable building than standard practices in terms of environmental, economic, and socio-cultural performance. An HPB must be designed and built in the context of larger environmental, economic, and human concerns, and all aspects of the building must be addressed through a cohesive approach during its entire life cycle.

In this thesis, the concept of HPB emphasizes total sustainable building performance based on a triple bottom-line: society, economy, and environment (Figure 2-1). Because an HPB is a facility with energy, environmental, and economic features and a performance that far exceed standard practices, social and cultural performance is also important to this type of building. A building with excellent environmental

performance but without high socio-cultural performance is not an HPB.

The triple bottom-line is comprised of “social, economic, and environmental” factors, and is a common ground for numerous studies on sustainability.

Figure 2-1 Triple bottom-line

2.2 Benefits of a High-performance Building

HPBs also demonstrate a commitment to initiatives that simultaneously benefit the environment, community, and bottom line. The following benefits are briefly discussed to describe the advantages of HPBs for the building industry:

1. Environmental Benefits HPB practices can considerably reduce negative environmental effects and regress prodigality/insalubrity during the entire life of a building. HPBs with improved envelopes and efficient lighting, equipment, and HVAC systems use less energy than conventional buildings. For example, from an energy perspective alone, HPB technologies reduce building energy utilization by an average of 30–50 percent (Conway, B., 2010).

2. Economic Benefits Economic benefits are primarily the result of competitive initial costs, efficient operating and maintenance costs, improved employee performance, and optimal economic performance throughout a building’s life cycle. HPBs cost the same or less than conventional buildings because resource-efficient strategies and an integrated design often allow downsizing of more costly mechanical, electrical, and structural systems. In addition, given the functionality of HPBs, increased employee performance is a very important issue for the following economic benefits of such buildings: (1) Increase productivity and reduce absenteeism and employee turnover The improved lighting and ventilation and fewer air contaminants of HPBs benefit employees’ health and productivity. A one percent increase in worker productivity can result in savings that exceed a company’s entire energy bill (Sev, A., 2011). Meanwhile, HPBs also contribute to preventing and reducing predictable losses in productivity and additional

personal costs resulting from employee turnover. In short, HPBs enhance asset values and profits. (2) Reduce liability Confidence in the industry is growing over the notion that healthy HPB environments could reduce legal claims and liabilities related to the workplace, such as sick building syndrome, exposure to chemical and hazardous materials, and accidents resulting from improper maintenance.

3. Socio-cultural Benefits Socio-cultural benefits often reflect the intangible value to the wider community from occupant comfort. Safety and security, accessibility, and functionality are all beneficial to the performance of an HPB and provide physically and mentally healthy workplaces for employees. In addition, cultural values embedded in HPBs also contribute positively to the image of the enterprise and a city’s fabric.

For any single HPB, these tangible and intangible benefits are not independent but primarily interact with one another and improve overall building performance during an HPB’s life cycle. For example, a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showed that “U.S. businesses could save as much as 58 billion in lost sick time and an additional 200 billion in worker performance if improvements were made to indoor air quality” (Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., & Perlman, J., 2003).

2.3 Design Principles of High-performance Buildings

An HPB design emphasizes an all-inclusive principle that expresses good performance for the entire building, including efficient utilization of land, energy, water, materials, and other resources, which decreases the environmental load and provides a healthy and comfortable working environment. In addition to the conventional building design requirements (function, aesthetic, technology, economy), HPB should also be in accordance with the following basic principles.

1. Efficiency Efficiency is the essential guideline to realizing high-level performance. Energy efficiency is an important factor for the efficient development of an HPB. Reducing energy use and having a preference for renewable energy and passive solar techniques for an integrated building design are strategies that improve the energy efficiency of an HPB. For socio-cultural and economic efficiency performance, HPB demands the coordination and prediction of interactive relationships between buildings and economic/social developments,

and the correct handling of the relationship between short-term and long-term benefits based on specific conditions.

2. Occupant satisfaction Occupants are a building’s core service objects. Their degree of satisfaction with the working environment directly influences the performance of the building. HPBs with high flexibility and adaptability according to occupants’ needs enhance communication between the occupants and the natural environment and provide a comfortable and healthy workplace for employees, thus improving occupant satisfaction. To achieve this, good ventilation, indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acoustics, lighting, and a number of other parameters characterizing a good indoor environment have to be provided.

3. Respect for local conditions Because each HPB and its surrounding circumstances compose a unique organic system, creating designs based on local practical conditions is key for an HPB. An HPB design should respect the local natural, economic, societal, and cultural situation, such as protecting local characteristics including natural scenery and historical relics and taking advantage of the local climate, terrain, materials, and technologies.

Table 2-1 provides a summary of HPB design goals.

Table 2-1 HPB design principles and goals

Key design issues Design principles Design goals

Minimize the consumption of Reduce the use of/efficiently non-renewable resources; use the following resources: Natural resource Actively use renewable resources, Land utilization efficiency control the use of some renewable Water resource (such as water); and, Energy Reduce pollution. Materials Based on human physical and Provide: Indoor and outdoor psychological needs, create a healthy Good acoustics environment and comfortable indoor and outdoor Good lighting environment. Comfortable environment Decrease the following: Solid waste Liquid waste Waste pollution Reduce environmental damage and Environmental load Air pollution waste pollution from the building. Water pollution Noise pollution Light pollution Electromagnetic pollution Smart and Adopt appropriate strategies to Consider and apply user-friendly achieve smart and user-friendly appropriate sustainable performance solutions technologies/solutions. Ensure/improve the following: Economic performance Economic impact Economic Achieve the best input–output ratio Decrease/optimize: performance to reap economic benefits. Construction costs Operation costs Maintenance costs Demolition costs Combine culture with the building’s Socio-cultural Promote culture and geographical features through its compatibility regional/business brand value. design.

HPBs are beneficial to both the natural environment and humans. An increasing number of HPBs have been built to offer owners and users improved worker satisfaction and productivity, improved health, greater flexibility, and enhanced energy and environmental performance (Conway, B., 2010). A building’s design should also consider its environmental, economic, and socio-cultural performance 12

during the entire building design process and should be aware of how such performance is interrelated in an HPB. An HPB should help improve sustainable development practices and technologies in the building industry, and its features should simulate the building’s architecture to invoke a sense of pride. HPBs are also considered genuine assets for investors, every occupant, and the entire community.

Chapter 3

Relationship between Building Environmental

Assessment Tools and Sustainable

High-performance Building Design Decision

Making

3.1 Introduction

When aiming to reduce buildings’ environmental impact and increase their sustainable performance, an objective and quantifying assessment for decision making is needed (Sev, A., 2011). This chapter first provides an overview of building environmental assessment (BEA) tools, and then explains and briefly compares a selection of these tools used worldwide. Finally, after the analysis of BEA tools and HPB design decision making characteristics, this chapter describes their relationship.

3.2 Overview of Worldwide Building Environmental

Assessment Tools

Various building environmental assessment tools have been developed to gauge the “sustainable” performance of a building (Papamichael, K., 2000). “Sustainable” performance is determined through an assessment of various environmental performance criteria that usually consist of site management, energy efficiency, air and atmosphere, materials, water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, transport, global warming, waste and pollution, and ecology. These BEA tools help owners and occupants realize the environmental friendliness of the building facility in which they reside and assist design teams in identifying areas for improvement to keep environmental effects to a minimum (Rao, S.Y., Brownhill A.D., & Howard, N., 2000).

BEA tools for buildings are designed to provide an objective evaluation of resource use, ecological loadings, and indoor quality (Prior, J. J., Raw, G. J., & Charlesworth, J. L.,

2001). These tools can be used to produce guidelines, benchmarks, ratings, and incentives to construct buildings with low environmental impact and to work as environmental management tools (Wallhagen, M., 2010). However, these parameters, indicators, and criteria have been determined in different ways and the result is a large number of different methods for the environmental assessment of buildings.

The history of BEA tools can be traced back to the period during which a comprehensive discussion of “sustainable buildings” occurred and of the energy crisis during the 1970s, fundamental changes in building design concepts were initiated (Liu,Y. , 2005). Since then, significant efforts have been made to realize building operating energy factors and to develop energy-efficient strategies and technologies, resulting in sophisticated computer-based simulation tools to predict the energy requirements for building operations (for example, lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation). Until now, a number of building performance prediction tools have been developed in different countries during the past few decades, such as DOE-2 (U.S.) for whole building energy analysis and life-cycle cost of operation, Delphin (Germany) for combined heat, moisture, and matter transport in porous building materials, IWR-MAIN (U.S.) for current and future municipal and industrial demand for water, LESODIAL (Switzerland) for daylighting, and IDA Indoor Climate and Energy (Sweden) for the simulation of thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and energy utilization in buildings. Many other tools exist. In 2013, the number of tools listed on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Software Tools Directory website reached more than 397 (DOE, 2013). Since the early 1990s, sustainable development has become a significant new agenda at a global level. Methodological approaches to assessing building performance have changed significantly. From the cost-benefit approach in the 1960s to the United Nations Human Development Indexes in the 1990s, this valuable range of precedents can contribute to the selection of a suitable approach to evaluate the “sustainability” of building projects (Murillo F. & Schiller S. D., 2000). People began to realize that “evaluation of environmental performance is necessary for good design” (The European Commission, 1999) .

Therefore, significant research has focused on assessing building performance, a variety of performance assessment tools have emerged, and performance assessment has become a fast-growing area of sustainable building research and practice. Many such tools were developed as rating systems that evaluate building performance across a broad range of environmental considerations, and the evaluations are usually done against predefined criteria and benchmarks in a hierarchy indicator structure. Examples of such tools include the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (U.K.), Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) (U.S.), Comprehensive Assessment Systems for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) (Japan), Miljöbyggnad (Sweden), Evaluation Standard for Green Building (ESGB) (China), National Australia Built Environmental Rating Systems (NABERS)

(Australia), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) (Germany), and SBTool (formerly known as GBTool) (Global versions) (see Appendix A).

Figure 3-1 Worldwide BEA tools

A number of new tools are proposed each year in different countries and regions. Although all of the tools are in various stages of development and have special areas of interest, the use of indicators as a strategy to translate concepts of sustainable development into practical results has been explored internationally, with jurisdictions and organizations everywhere measuring resource consumption, environmental load, human health, and many other factors that represent the sustainability of our urban environments (Campbell E., 2000). Performance prediction tools developed earlier have been used to provide input data for performance assessment tools. Because labeling has become an established way to inform consumers about a product’s credentials, it is applied in building assessment to perform a similar function (Rao, S.Y., Brownhill A.D., & Howard, N., 2000).

“Researchers and government agencies are viewing performance assessments as one of the best methods of moving the performance benchmarks in the marketplace towards a higher level of performance” (GBC Group, 2001). All existing building environment assessment tools have provided a foundation for the research on HPBs.

In summary, BEA tools have performed important functions to encourage and improve HPB development by predicting and assessing building performance. Early studies in this area started from performance prediction tools, which are usually established in the form of computer-based simulation software that addresses single or a few building operation issues; recent studies placed more emphasis on performance assessment tools that are usually established in the form of a rating system that covers a broader range of sustainable issue areas. As Cole (Cole, R.J., 1999) stated, the increase in the development and application of performance assessment tools has provided considerable theoretical and practical experience on their potential contribution in 16

furthering environmentally responsible building practices. “Their most significant contribution to date has clearly been to acknowledge and institutionalize the importance of assessing buildings across a broad range of considerations beyond established single performance criteria such as energy” (Cole, R.J., 1999).

3.3 Selective Building Environmental Assessment Tools

Reijinders and van Roekel (1999) roughly divided BEA tools into two groups: (1) qualitative tools based on scores and a criteria system and (2) tools based on a life-cycle assessment methodology using quantitative input and providing output data on material and energy flows.

Given the limited time and scope of this research, this thesis only focuses on the widely used BEA tools in the first group. The tools selected for a detailed study in this chapter are BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, SBTool, and ESGB, which are considered the typical and representative tools that fit the needs of this study.

 BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method)

BREEAM was launched in 1990 as the first BEA tool in the world (Prior, J. J., Raw, G. J., & Charlesworth, J. L., 2001). BREEAM has been the most widely used tool for assessing the environmental performance of buildings in the UK and is increasingly accepted in the sector as offering practice in environmental design and management (Gu, Z., Wennersten, R., & Assefa, G., 2006) (BREEAM, 2011). BREEAM has established a foundation for best practice in sustainable design, allowing it to become the most effective scheme around the world for the measurement and description of a building’s environmental performance (BREEAM, 2011). The tool was launched as a credit award system for new office buildings, and today it offers various tools to assess different types of buildings.

The goals of BREEAM are to reduce environmental impact, ensure the best environmental practice in design, operation, and management, and increase awareness of the effects of buildings on the environment. Versions of the tools are continuously being developed.

BREEAM utilizes a fixed weighting system developed through a national consultative process (Sev, A., 2011). The assessment involves a comparison of key issues with predictable practices and performance levels, after which credits are awarded in ten categories. Each category has a number of different allocated criteria, with pre-weighed

credits that can be either cumulative or dependent on performance against certain specified standards such as the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP, 2009).

These credits are then added together to produce “a single overall score on a scale of Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding” (BREEAM, 2011).

Figure 3-2 BREEAM rating benchmarks 2011

 LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)

LEED was established in 1998 by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) through a consensus process involving many stakeholders to transform the market for green buildings (Zimmerman, A., & Kibert, C., 2007). Design team members can track their progress toward earning a LEED rating throughout the course of the project without the need for the specialty skills of consultants. LEED, which is well-grounded in science and relates to the market in which it operates, currently makes assessment of nine different types of buildings: • New construction • Existing buildings • Core and shell • Commercial interiors • Retail • Homes • Neighborhoods • Schools • Healthcare

A new version for new construction was launched in April 2009, entitled LEED-version 3 (USGBC 2010).

LEED is a voluntary certification program developed through a consensus process involving key stakeholders to provide an inclusive simple framework for assessing building performance and meeting sustainability goals (Zimmerman, A., & Kibert, C., 2007). To calculate the achieved credits, LEED uses a simple additive approach (1 for 1) with all criteria being weighted equally rather than using a weighting system. 18

All LEED standards have three main types of requirements: • Prerequisites: criteria that must be included before a project can be assessed; • Core credits: given for meeting or exceeding the requirements in the five categories; and, • Innovation credits: given for exemplary performance beyond the core credits.

Figure 3-3 Certification levels of LEED

LEED is described as consensus-based and market-driven, and is based on accepted energy and environmental principles that balance established practices and emerging concepts (Wallhagen, M., 2010).

 CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency)

CASBEE, developed by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium involving committees in the academic, industrial, and government sectors, comprises a variety of tools for different phases of buildings under assessment: planning, design, completion, operation, and renovation (Gu, Z., Wennersten, R., & Assefa, G., 2006; Say, C., & Wood, A., 2008; IBEC, 2010). The assessment process acquires a different characteristic from many other criteria-based tools by employing an additive/weighting approach, which differs from the simple addition of points achieved in all performance areas. On the one hand, this tool covers almost every aspect of construction; on the other hand, the tool is extremely difficult to implement (Sev, A., 2011).

The four main aspects of CASBEE include energy efficiency, resources efficiency, local environment, and indoor environment, and comprise a total of 80 sub-criteria that are further re-categorized into two main groups: Q (Built Environmental Quality), and L (Built Environmental Load) (Horvat, M., & Fazio, P., 2005). To evaluate the sustainability of a green building, CASBEE adopts the value of BEE (Building Environmental Efficiency) as illustrated in the following equation (IBEC, 2010):

Q(Built Environmental Quality) BEE(Building Environment Efficiency) = L(Built Environmental Load)

CASBEE assessment tools have been developed under three principles:  Comprehensive assessment throughout the life cycle of a building; 19

 Assessment of Built Environmental quality and Built Environmental Load; and,  Assessment based on BEE indicator.

The CASEBEE assessment is ranked using five grades: Superior (S), Very Good (A), Good (B+), Slightly Poor (B-), and Poor (C).

 SBTool/GBTool

SBTool (formerly GBTool) is the software implementation of the Sustainable Building Challenge (SBC) assessment method that has been under development as the Green Building Challenge process since 1996 by a group of 14 countries (Sev, A., 2011) The SBC is currently an international collaborative research effort of 21 countries and tends to develop assessment tools to evaluate building sustainability. SBTool is a generic framework and a toolkit that allows local organizations to develop their own rating systems based on regional variations. The system allows third parties to establish indicator weights that reflect the varying importance of issues related to the region. Other objectives of the SBTool are to advance the state-of-the-art of BEA methodologies and to develop an internationally accepted generic framework that can be used to compare existing BEA tools (Cole, R. J., & Larsson, N. K., 1999). The feature of the tool that differentiates it from other tools is its design from the outset that reflects the different priorities, technologies, building traditions, and cultural values of different regions and countries (Gu, Z., Wennersten, R., & Assefa, G., 2006).

Figure 3-4 Scope of SBTool

SBTool is designed to enable users to reflect the different priorities, technologies, building traditions, and cultural values that exist in the various regions and countries involved in the assessment process. For this reason, national teams using various methods, such as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), improve its benchmarks and 20

weights (Chang, K. F, Chiang, C. M., & Chou, P.C., 2007) (Lee, W. L., & Burnett, J., 2006). The criteria and sub-criteria of each performance issue are scored on a linear scale from −1 to +5.

 Miljöbyggnad (Miljöklassad byggnad)

Miljöbyggnad is the Swedish building environmental classification system developed by researchers from KTH, Chalmers, and the University of Gavle in 2005. Twenty-seven companies were involved. The first practical vision named Miljöklassad byggnad came out in 2008.

The aim of Miljöbyggnad was to create a system that environmentally classifies buildings through national and international research and that respects the sector’s need for simplicity and clarity.

Miljöbyggnad provides classifications in three areas: energy, indoor environment, and chemical substances. The area “special environmental requirements” is only relevant to buildings with their own water supply and sewage systems. Each area contains a number of environmental aspects that were selected as the most important in terms of the potential effects of the building on people and the environment. The environmental aspects can be represented in measurable factors or so-called indicators. The system awards marks to these indicators to first produce an assessment of each area and then the entire building. The lowest rated indicator dictates the overall rating.

The contents of Miljöbyggnad (Sweden Green Building Council, 2011) are listed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Example of Miljöbyggnad contents (Adapted from Szczepanowski, C., 2011)

Building Area Area Aspect Aspect Indicator Indicator Class Class Class Class

Energy SILVER Energy use SILVER Bought energy SILVER Energy need BRONZE Heat loss number GOLD Solar heat load BRONZE Energy source SILVER Fraction of energy SILVER carriers Indoor SILVER Noise BRONZE Noise BRONZE environment Air quality BRONZE Radon SILVER Ventilation BRONZE N2O to indoor air BRONZE Moisture SILVER Moisture security SILVER Thermal climate SILVER Thermal climate SILVER winter SILVER Thermal climate GOLD summer Daylight SILVER Daylight SILVER Water SILVER Legionella SILVER

Material and SILVER Documentation SILVER Documentation of SILVER chemicals materials and chemicals

Verification BRONZE Verifying that BRONZE hazardous materials are not built in

Although the range and contents of Miljöbyggnad are less than that of other BEA tools, it has its own advantages for use in Sweden given that its conditions are Swedish-based and it is simple to use and relatively inexpensive. Its rating classes are Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Rated, where Gold represents the best performance class.

Figure 3-5 Miljöbyggnad of Sweden

 ESGB (Evaluation Standard for Green Building GB/T50378-2006)

The ESGB (Evaluation Standard for Green Building) (GB/T50378-2006) was proposed by the former Ministry of Construction People’s Republic of China, without any upgrades or modifications until now. ESGB has two major components: the residential building evaluation system and the public building evaluation system for residential buildings and public buildings, respectively.

Figure 3-6 China Green Building Label

ESGB primarily covers six aspects: land conservation and outdoor environments, energy conservation and energy utilization, saving water and water utilization, saving materials and material resource utilization, indoor environmental quality, and operations management.

ESGB classifies buildings at three levels: one star, two stars, and three stars. The tool also assorts the indicator into three types: the controlled item, the normal item, and the optimized item. These indicators are divided into six aspects by the six assessment scopes. All controlled indicators should meet the requirements, and a building’s rank is judged by the number of indicators that meet the requirements.

3.4 Comparisons and Discussions

3.4.1 Building Types for Assessment in BEA Tools

BEA tools can be used to assess different building types (see Table 3-2). Different BEA 23

tools have developed their own versions that are typically related to different types of buildings.

A comparative analysis shows that BREEAM, LEED, and CASEBEE provide more versions than the others for specific building types. Because SBTool is a generic framework and a toolkit that allows local organizations to develop their own tools, the types of buildings for assessment vary by regions. Miljöbyggnad assesses both new builds and existing premises without specifying building type. ESGB assesses two types of buildings—residential buildings and public buildings, where public buildings refer to all building types with public access, such as government offices, restaurants, schools, hotels, libraries, transport stations, and entertainment facilities. ESGB appears too general and ignores the specific characteristics of different building types. For example, school buildings are considered public buildings in ESGB, but the requirements for such buildings should be different from those of other public buildings. Compared with other existing BEA tools, Miljöbyggnad and ESGB need to develop more specific versions for different building types in the future. Table 3-2 Building types for assessment in selective BEA tools

BREEAM LEED CASBEE SBTool Miljöbyggnad ESGB New Construction       Existing Buildings       Renovations       Office       Residential (multiunit)       Residential (single)       Schools       Healthcare       Retail       Industrial       Others       = has a specific version = no specific version

3.4.2 Criteria Categories

Figure 3-7 to Figure 3-12 show breakdowns in the performance criteria categories for selected BEA tools.

Figure 3-7 BREEAM breakdown credit categories Figure 3-8 LEED breakdown credit categories

Figure 3-9 CASBEE breakdown credit categories Figure 3-10 SBTool breakdown credit categories

Figure 3-11 Miljöbyggnad breakdown credit categories Figure 3-12 ESGB breakdown credit categories 25

Performance criteria are significant aspects of BEA tools and specify building performance targets. Comparative analysis reveals that energy, indoor environment, and materials are important criteria issues in all BEA tools. Miljöbyggnad contains the lowest number of criteria aspects because it seeks to determine the most important impact issues related to building performance to simplify the evaluation. SBTool involves the largest number of criteria issues and is more comprehensive than the other BEA tools. SBTool also proposes modification possibilities to adjust to local conditions. In addition to energy, indoor environment, and materials, the criteria structures are very similar among BREEAM, LEED, and ESGB. These tools also consider sustainable site, water, and waste aspects. BREEAM and LEED, but not the other BEA tools, consider innovation. LEED utilizes an independent category to emphasize regional priority, whereas other BEA tools simply mention the utilization of regional materials. In addition, SBTool contains economic and socio-cultural aspects that are less considered in other BEA tools. Because economic and socio-cultural aspects are essential in practical sustainable buildings, BEA tools are expected to give these aspects greater attention in future developments.

Recognizing that performance criteria thresholds and weightings are closely connected to specific local situations and regulatory standards is crucial. For China, ESGB places the greatest attention on land use with a weighting that reaches 24 percent given the country’s land resource constraints and high population density. Meanwhile, the other criteria aspects in ESGB are almost equal, with respective weightings around 15 percent. However, Miljöbyggnad does not consider land use because of Sweden’s low population density. ESGB sets the same weighting (16 percent) for IEQ and water aspects because water shortage and pollution are significant problems in China today, whereas the other BEA tools do not place as great an emphasis on water aspects because of the abundance of water in their assessment regions. In this situation, the contents and weighting of BEA tools are expected to be developed more specifically for regional characteristics.

3.4.3 Evaluation Methods in BEA Tools

Although BEA tools each have their own and different hierarchical structures and evaluation processes, BREEAM, LEED, Miljöbyggnad, and ESGB adopt quantitative stacking-based methods. This method awards credits to each indicator (option) according to its performance or numbers and adds them together to determine a single overall score. Specific details about how to assess and stack credits are different for each BEA tool. Mandatory issues or baseline requirements in BEA tools ensure that the minimum building performance can be qualified, such as the LEED prerequisites and the ESGB control items. The parameters involved in this method are mostly limited to quantized data and minimally consider economic, service, or socio-cultural

performance. This method also limits the adaption of the weighting system for different regions, users, or phases.

Figure 3-13 BREEAM rating method

Different from BREEAM or LEED, ESGB focuses on the number of options to achieve for satisfactory building performance. The numbers of options required contributes to the final score (rating level) for residential and public buildings. Note that this final rating depends on the minimum number of each component, not on the total numbers achieved. Controlling options are mandatory in ESGB, and all mandatory options should be first completed if the building intends to be evaluated. General options and previous options are optional for rating buildings into three levels. The total number of regular and premium options applied within one building is the final result that this building can obtain. The ESGB rating levels are one-star, two-star and three-star green building.

CASBEE uses a complex assessment method to balance value-addressing issues given the number of measures available. Different from other BEA tools, the building’s final rank depends on the BEE (Building Environment Efficiency) value.

Q(Built Environmental Quality) BEE(Building Environment Efficiency) = L(Built Environmental Load)

Figure 3-14 Division of assessment categories for Q: Built Environmental Quality and L: Built Environmental Load based on the hypothetical boundary (Adapted from JSBC, 2013)

Figure 3-15 represents the BEE values on a graph by plotting L on the x-axis and Q on the y-axis. The BEE value assessment result is expressed as the gradient of the straight line passing through the origin (0, 0). A higher Q value and a lower L value indicate a steeper gradient and a more sustainable building. Using this approach, graphically presenting the results of built environment assessments using areas bounded by these gradients becomes possible. Figure 3-15 shows how the assessment results for buildings are ranked on a diagram as class C (poor), class B-, class B+, class A, and class S (excellent), in order of increasing BEE value.

Figure 3-15 Labeling based on Built Environment Efficiency (BEE) (Adapted from JSBC, 2013)

The SBTool assessment method has the flexibility to import benchmark values according to the regional ones, thus applying it at a local scale. The method is

comprised of two parts: Files A, which include benchmarks and weights intended to be adjusted by third parties to suit local conditions, and Files B, which refer to the specific sustainability performance. One File A can be established that sets weights and benchmarks for many projects, with each one described in a separate File B. The assessment can be carried out during various phases of a project’s life cycle (Pre-design, Design, Construction, Operations). Two types of benchmarks for assessment loadings are used: (1) loadings for data-oriented criteria (hard indicators) and (2) loadings for criteria that are not data-oriented (soft indicators). The SBTool scoring process relies on a series of comparisons between the characteristics of the object building and national or regional references for minimally acceptable practices, “good” practices, and “best” practices.

Figure 3-16 Schematic of SBTool scoring and weighting (Adapted from Larsson, N., 2012)

Based on this analysis, from the designer’s perspective, the CASBEE and SBTool methods are more complex than other BEA tools. The SBTool method contains the largest area of criteria, clear phase partition, and specific project adaption. SBTool considers both quantitative and qualitative evaluated issues. However, the SBTool method is too complex to practically popularize in the building industry, particularly for a designer’s initial self-assessment. The quantitative credits stacking-based method (for example, as used by LEED, BREEAM, or ESGB) is simple and easy to understand and use; however, the contents of the assessment and the weighting system lack flexibility for different users in different phases. Moreover, this method insufficiently considers regional adoptions. Consequently, methods adopted by existing BEA tools still need to find a balance between complexity and simple use in the sustainable building industry. Designers in their early phase of work have difficulty modifying variables and instantly previewing the results of such modifications using BEA tools.

3.4.4 Users of BEA Tools

Different users may use BEA tools for various purposes. For example, designers use these tools to aid in design because they are able to identify systematized and sustainable performance targets and criteria during the design process. BEA tools also help investors and occupants make purchase decisions based on the ecological characteristics of alternatives. The structure of the selected tools leads to broader user groups, including the design team (comprised of, for example, architects, engineers, landscape architects), investors and owners, occupants and clients, facility managers, and consultants. Local or regional authorities are expected to contribute to promoting BEA tools more suitable for the local or regional conditions. SBTool sets a good example that allows authorized users, including local organizations or national teams, to establish their own scope system based on the generic version to reflect the relative importance of performance issues and benchmarks for a specific region.

Although BEA tools are applicable for different users for different reasons, the primary and basic purpose of these tools is to evaluate building performance. In this case, the next sections identify the relationship between BEA tools and designers’ decision making process during design.

3.5 Relationship between BEA Tools and HPB Design

Decision Making

3.5.1 Design Process and Decision Making

The general design decision model is presented with cone icons in Christopher’s paper (Magent, C. S., Korkmaz, S., Klotz, L. E., & Riley, D. R., 2009).

Figure 3-17 Design decision model (Adapted from Magent, C. S., Korkmaz, S., Klotz, L. E., & Riley, D. R., 2009)

In Figure 3-17, the cone’s diameter represents ambiguity in the decision process. As new design options are presented for consideration, ambiguity is significant. As information is gathered and the options are analyzed, ambiguity shrinks. Ultimately, a decision is made, which results in certainty. Ideally, decisions are made with sufficient certainty to be considered commitments on which subsequent decisions can rely. Moreover, the cone icon emphasizes decisions with a more significant effect than others on project performance. For example, typically, the planted roof design has a more significant effect on heat-island deducing than solar shading performance.

Different designers have different views on whether design should focus on its process or on its products (Atkin, B., 1993). The notion that design is a decision making process is consistent with the definition of a decision as a choice from among a set of options and an irrevocable allocation of resources. Decision making and design are so intertwined that the entire decision making process could be viewed as design (Simon, H.A., 1969). The evolution and selection of the design concept undertaken when exploring the solution space make the conceptual design stage a decision-intensive process （Mistree, F., Smith, W., & Bras, B. 1993；Starvey, C.V. 1992；Joshi, S. P., Umaretiya, J. R., & Joshi, S. B. 1991）. Decisions are made on various aspects of the building design and typically involve the selection of design goals, principles, and corresponding design strategies.

Making rational design decisions from a performance point of view originates from ideas presented by Herber A. Simon in The Science of the Artificial (Simon, H.A., 1969). Many engineering design process models were created and Cross (Cross, N., & Cross, N. , 1994) and Birmingham et al. (Birmingham, R., Cleland, G., Driver, R., & Maffin, D., 1997) provided good reviews of some of these models. Various studies on the decision process distinguished the three successive phases in this generic process that are not limited to the engineering design area, and are distinguished as follows. 31

1. Recognition or identification of the problem/need/desire Tools Customer/User observation and interaction include: Kano model* 2. Development of solutions to the problem Tools Brainstorming include: Rough prototyping 3. Selection of the best solution to the problem Tools Concept development include: Expert Prototyping Testing * The Kano model of customer satisfaction is a useful tool to classify and prioritize customer needs based on how they affect customer satisfaction. (Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S., 1984).

From generic design process statements, Bruno presented a more detailed design decision making process that combined practical industry working modes and listed the generic tasks based on the structure elaborated by Bouchart et al. (2002). (Gagnon, B., Leduc, R., & Savard, L., 2012)

I. Planning and problem definition: Tasks: (1) Team formation (2) Definition of the problem, objectives, and context (3) Identification of constraints and other preliminary data (4) Planning of subsequent stages II. Conceptual analysis: Tasks: (1) Identification of the functions that the system must provide (2) Generation of alternative concepts (3) Definition of design specifications based on the functions or mandatory requirements such as regulations III. Preliminary design: Tasks: (1) Elaboration of the alternative concepts (2) Evaluation of the concepts, including technical performance, cost estimation, and risk analysis (3) Selection of the best concept IV. Detailed design: Tasks: (1) Detailed elaboration of the chosen alternative (2) Further evaluation and optimization (3) Identification of requirements for the manufacturing, construction,

operations, and maintenance phases (4) Documentation and communication of the final design

Practical HPB building processes are more complex, multifaceted, and less linear than the conceptual process. Designers often move through some phases in parallel and occasionally both forward and backward. Different stakeholders during the decision making process share the responsibilities. Tradeoffs among functions, goals, and costs are continually weighed against one another, options are considered, and decisions are made (Waage, S. A., 2007).

Decisions during the building design process are always made at different moments, and this thesis primarily focuses on decision making during the initial design phase. The information that supports decision making in this phase can be split into information geared to formulate the problem correctly (for example, background and new insights) and information geared to evaluate the solutions provided by third parties. Designers (architects) are primarily responsible for generation, selection, and integration of alternatives to form one design proposal. Other stakeholders are expected to help designers identify, recognize, and select solutions with diverse information, such as HVAC engineers who are expected to help designers determine the ventilation system most suitable for this project.

Mulder (Mulder, K., 2006) expressed how sustainable design deeply contrasts with conventional designs; “sustainability is not an add-on criterion, it is about all characteristics that a design should meet.” To achieve the goals of HPBs, designers must consider issues related to sustainable performance during all design stages of a project through well-integrated complements to the conventional approach. This process includes, but is not limited to, the consideration of a range of criteria to assess the environmental, socio-cultural, and economic performance of potential solutions. Because BEA tools provide reliable scientific criteria and benchmarks for building performance, a connection between BEA tools and design decision making is inevitable. Their relationship is identified in section 3.5.2.

3.5.2 Relationship between BEA Tools and HPB Design Decision

Making

BEA tools have played the role as a bridge between building environmental assessment and design decision making goals for various stakeholders. This concept is illustrated in Figure 3-18, with three main parts: “Physical Framework,” “Stakeholder Framework,” and “BEA tools.” The Physical Framework contains evaluative building 33

performance, building technical systems, and the environmental impact by technical systems. The Stakeholder Framework contains various potential users and different types of design and decisions processes that stakeholders intend to execute (Baldwin, R., Russel, P., Nibel, S., Boonstra, C., & Lützkendorf, T., 2000).

Figure 3-18 BEA tools and the relationships they create between their objects of focus and those who use them (Baldwin et al. 2000, introduced in Watson, 2004), adapted from (Liu, Y., 2005)

Watson also recognized that BEA tools are the intermediate link between scientific knowledge and the problem-solving process of design, with an interaction between users and information providers. BEA tools are identified according to whether they are within the design realm or the scientific realm. The tools in the design realm may be more suitable for assisting stakeholders’ (including designers’) design decision making process because the design information is fed into tools. The tools in the science realm are more related to calculations or the analysis of objective data.

Figure 3-19 Conceptual structure of a BEA tool, after Watson (2004, p. 40), adapted from (Liu, Y., 2005)

Watson’s conceptual structure of BEA tools simply describes their basic functions and the relationship among stakeholders, the decision making process, the environment, science, and technology. Because the reliability of building performance assessment was established through scientific logical and methodology, most existing BEA tools are primarily developed in a science realm but are limited to adjusting the design interface according to different stakeholders’ decision making. However, the explanation of the relationship between existing BEA tools and HPB design decision

making is insufficient. The goals, purposes, principles, procedures, and outcomes of BEA tools and design decision making have yet to be stated and clearly compared. In this case, the identification of the characteristics and relationships between BEA tools and HPB design decision making requires additional discussion in this section.

 The relationship between BEA tools and design

Designing for sustainability entails consideration of just more than the building itself; tied to such a design process are additional parameters that designers alone cannot intuitively construct. With many quantifiable aspects such as energy, lighting, and airflow simulations and the efficiency of material and resource use and reuse, sustainable design implementation seeks to use a computational tool. Being able to employ requirements in the early design phase as set out by the building assessment system could offer guidance for designers new to the concept of achieving sustainability goals. BEA tools are used to evaluate and benchmark sustainability (Biswas, T., Wang, T. H., & Krishnamurti, R., 2009).

Current BEA tools were conceived and largely designed to evaluate “objectively” the environmental merits of individual buildings. In practice, they are also used to guide design by influencing the priorities placed on different environmental considerations and associated design strategies (Cole, R. J., Busby, P., Guenther, R., Briney, L., Blaviesciunaite, A., & Alencar, T., 2012).

The analysis of BEA tools and HPB design decision making enables us to summarize their relationship. The evaluation objectives and range points of view show that BEA tools and HPB design have the same common generic sustainability goals, and that both contribute to an HPB achieving high sustainable performance. Although BEA tools and HPB design decision making have different specific sub-goals with several levels, the same inevitable relationship through which sub-targets interact and affect one another is still founded in BEA tools and HPB design decision making. In summary, the consistency of goals exists in BEA tools and HPB design decision making.

Generally, the relationship between BEA and HPB design decision making can make abstract the interdependency and contradictions between goal and process or, in other words, the interacted relationship between object and practice. This section discusses the goal congruence and practice mismatch between BEA tools and HPB design decision making.

 The goal congruence between BEA tools and HPB design decision making

The goals of both BEA tools and HPB design decision making have two aspects: one is about the generic goal of HPB from the entire life-cycle viewpoint and the other is

about the sub-goals from the evaluation or design process viewpoint. Design and evaluation are very important phases during the HPB construction process, and the final generic goals are to allow buildings to achieve high-performance sustainability, minimize environmental impact, and create a safe, healthy, comfortable, and energy-efficient place with low environmental load. These goals promote the development of an HPB in harmony with environmental, socio-cultural and economic aspects. At this generic level, the purposes of BEA and design decision making are consistent.

(1) The goals of BEA tools The U.S. National Institute of Justice (US National Institute of Justice , 1992) stated, “Evaluation activities should meet the information needs of decision makers who fund them,” and that “The purpose of evaluations is to provide feedback to decision makers about program operations and their effectiveness so that their decisions can be as fully informed as possible.” The core objective of BEA tools is to evaluate building performance with respect to design, construction, operation, or other phases of a building’s lifetime. The main purpose of BEA tools is to evaluate whether a building satisfies all requirements regulated in BEA tools and to give a clear grade assessment and certification of buildings within their life cycle.

(2) The goals of HPB design decision making The specific goals of HPB design decision making are to establish an integrated framework, development direction, and suitable alternatives to achieve the final goals of a sustainable HPB. The HPB decision making process also includes pre-integrating the characteristics and relationships of various HPB issues (in other words, ecological issues and non-ecological issues) and controlling the practical process of each phase during the entire life cycle of the building. Thus, the HPB design decision making process is a critical factor in enabling the building to successfully achieve the standards of BEA tools and to guarantee sustainable high performance.

This comparison of the goals of BEA tools and HPB design decision making shows that both make efforts to promote buildings that achieve sustainable high performance goals. They have a common final target and arrange an interrelated and interactive relationship with each other. First, integrated planning and decisions formed during the design phase need to be assessed using BEA tools. This assessment is necessary to ensure the accuracy of building design targets and the correct choice of many alternatives. It also guarantees that the design proposal can be successfully continued in practice. Second, the BEA tools assessment results are expected to provide further feedback during the design decision making process and guidance to decision makers for optimizing their design proposals and contributing new design knowledge.

 The mismatch in practice between BEA tools and HPB design decision making

To analyze the practical relationship between BEA tools and design decision making, analyzing and comparing their practical characteristics is essential. In this thesis, practical characteristics are defined as reflections of operating purposes, procedures, outcomes, and the status of their interactions. For evaluation, practical characteristics are about practices related to the evaluation criteria/process/results of BEA tools and their correlations. For HPB design decision making, practical characteristics are about practices related to the design principles/process/outcomes and their correlations.

(1) Practical characteristics of BEA tools The practical characteristics of BEA tools are represented as a continuous dynamic process expressed by the relationship among evaluation criteria, procedures, methodologies, and results. In other words, the BEA criteria provide the basic content for practicing the evaluation works, whereas the BEA method provides the methodological guidance to practice the evaluation works. Both the BEA method and criteria affect the evaluation procedures to ensure the efficient conduct of an assessment. Practical results of the evaluation express the performance of the building using measurable information. The evaluation procedure is a main line in a series of all related aspects that manifest the practical characteristics.

BEA tools have four main practical characteristics:

 Directivity: all practical work of BEA tools (including collection of previous information) is primary for a building’s performance assessment.  Controllability: the various scientific assessment methods and practical procedures in existing BEA tools (including, for example, working procedures, management principles, practical theory) guarantee that the evaluation can be efficiently and accurately completed.  Objectivity: the mechanism used by BEA tools is to quantify and grade building performance, which requires that a practical evaluation process be based on scientific logical and objective factors. During the building assessment process, the intervention of irrational subjective factors should be minimized and all evaluation results should be built on the basis of rational analysis.  Formularization: the practices of BEA tools must follow a formulary procedure to minimize the intervention of subjective factors to ensure that the evaluation results are scientifically reliable. The work descriptions, responsibilities, and participators of different sequential stages are clear and definite throughout the BEA procedure.

(2) Practical characteristics of HPB design decision making From massive interpretations of sustainable building design today, the practical characteristics of design decision making are more complex than the evaluation. In this research, HPB design and decision making is primarily based on BEA tools. Various

design methodologies provide guidance to ensure the responsibility and creativity of the decision choices. Finally, BEA tools are used to assess all design decision making results to guarantee decision accuracy. The practical characteristics of design decision making are primarily presented in the design process with emphases on guidance for procedures. The principle of design decision making is to optimize the integrated design procedures with the most suitable strategic choices to ensure that design proposals are practiced.

However, no simple linear practice process exists in the design decision making or evaluation phases that are filled with constant repetition and validation. Designers also have their own design habits and procedures. Some designers make the first design decision from the building functional layout whereas some start from the entire form of a building’s geometry. The rational and irrational choices and the objective and subjective practices are concomitant during the design decision making process.

In this case, clearly and uniformly providing phase divisions of the design decision making process is difficult. The controllability of design decision making is less effective than BEA in practice given many undefined influential factors. In addition, objective factors and personalities play more important roles in the building design decision making process than does BEA tools.

 Practice mismatch between BEA tools and design decision making of an HPB

The summary of the practical characteristics of BEA tools and design decision making shows that obvious differences exist between them at a practical level. From the primal functions of BEA tools and design decision making, “evaluation which is the primal use of BEA, may not fit well with decision makers’ interests, and therefore will be seen as irrelevant for at least two reasons. First, the questions that the evaluator chooses to focus the study upon do not correspond closely enough with the decision makers’ principal concerns. Second, the evaluation’s findings may fail to suggest clear and explicit recommendations for action” (US National Institute of Justice , 1992).

Table 3-3 analyzes the different emphasis and considerations between BEA tools and HPB design decision making.

Table 3-3 Different emphasis and considerations between BEA tools and HPB design decision making

Aspects BEA tools HPB design decision making Primal functions Evaluation of building Analysis and determination in the performance results design process Procedures Formulary sequential procedures Lacks formulary linear procedures, with scientific logicality and that constant repeat and validation are objective-based occurs, objective and subjective are mixed Controllability Easy to control, with a rational Difficult to control with uncertain evaluation method and irrational design impact factors appropriate operating mechanism Outcomes Easy to quantize the assessment Difficult to quantize the design results proposals

First, regarding aspects of primal functions, BEA tools direct the building performance results whereas design decision making directs the analysis and determination of the design process. Therefore, their practical behaviors are established on different purposes and responsibilities. Ensuring direct connections between BEA tools and design decision making is difficult; therefore, the dislocation of directive purposes is the most significant mismatch between them.

Second, the formulary sequential procedures of BEA tools are clearly logical relationships, whereas design decision making processes are general abstract expressions that constantly repeat and are validated during design procedures. During the practical procedures, BEA tools are objective-based whereas design decision making is a mix of objective and subjective. Design decision making follows no formulary procedure according to different projects and designers. Practical operational procedures cannot both correspond to and be mismatched with BEA tools and design decision making.

Third, the rational evaluation method and appropriate operating mechanism ensure that BEA tools are much easier to control in practice than design decision making. Various unpredictable irrational factors may affect the process and result of design decisions. This rational and irrational divergence leads to mismatches in controllability between BEA and design decision making.

Furthermore, the assessment results of BEA tools are easily quantified, whereas the results from design decision making are difficult to quantify. This difference also reflects the mismatch in outcomes between BEA tools and design decision making.

In summary, the mismatch in the practical aspects of BEA tools and HPB design decision making is a key obvious feature of their relationship. 39

Given the consequence of their goal, which is to promote building sustainability, BEA tools can provide basic information (such as framework, contents, evaluation method, and process) related to decision making to promote a holistic HPB design at a practical level. Although a BEA tool can be referred to as a type of design support tool, most of these tools are still used to test and verify design results without considering the design decision making process given the mismatch between the tools and HPB design decision making. Existing BEA tools primarily guide or have an indirect effect on design decision making and have a limited role in assisting with the design decision method and the HPB process in practice.

Chapter 4

Identification of Design Decision Elements from

Building Environmental Assessment Tools for

High-performance Buildings

4.1 Introduction

BEA tools contain quantitative and qualitative criteria to integrate environmental, social, economic, and cultural issues into decision making at all levels (Häkkinen, T. 2001& Ding, G.K.C. 2008). These criteria are primarily used to quantify building performance, simplify the evaluation process, and contribute to communications. The criteria are also essential for target setting and monitoring. Furthermore, criteria indicate future development trends in initial HPB development phases (Bell, S., & Morse, S., 2003).

Because BEA tools are some of the most important sustainable building instruments with a solid scientific basis, the relationship between these tools and design decision making is important for this chapter to first identify. Grounded theory is a research method based on collected data to provide an explanation for the major concern of the analyzed population of the selected phenomena/research situation and how that concern is undertaken or treated (Glaser, B., 1992 & Strauss, A., 1987). This chapter adopts the concept of grounded theory and selects the criteria issues for the design phase of different BEA tools to compare to determine the common trend/target and the essential considerable aspects for HPB design decisions. Finally, based on the comparisons, the separation of different criteria issues of BEA tools is expected to establish the mapping approach from these issues to the design decision elements.

As previously illustrated in section 1.5, again note that the comparative work is from an architect’s perspective and the criteria issues from selective BEA tools simply focus on the design phase and do not involve detailed benchmarks, weighting, and calculation aspects.

4.2 Comparative Analysis of Criteria Issues among SBTool

2012, LEED NC-v3, and ESGB

4.2.1 Similar Criteria Issues among SBTool 2012, LEED NC-v3, and

ESGB

This research extracted and compared the similar criteria issues for the design phase among SBTool 2012 (maximum version), LEED NC-v3, and ESGB.

These three assessment systems were selected for comparison primarily because of the following three reasons.

First, the SBTool system is “a rating framework or toolbox, designed to allow countries to design their own locally relevant rating systems.” SBTool considers the regional situations and values in local languages within its generic evaluation framework and methodology, and the tool can provide both relative and absolute results. SBTool is also a valuable intercontinental benchmarking tool that offers information about sustainable building performance to the local industry in regional situations and provides absolute information for international comparisons (iiSBE, SBTool, 2007).

SBTool covers almost all issues related to sustainable building performance, and the scope system can be modified to be as narrow or as broad as desired. SBTool also places higher consideration on socio-cultural and economic performance issues than other assessments. The SBTool 2012 provides “a clear distinction between guidelines for design features and operating strategies”; for example, SBTool 2012 provides selective criteria solely for the design phase of residential buildings. “Designers can additionally specify performance targets and score self-assessed performance” (iiSBE, 2012). Because this research is concerned with design decisions for HPB in both generic and local conditions, SBTool 2012 (maximum version) is selected as a comparative study prototype because it contains all fully developed criteria. The basement structure of the comparative result is based primarily on the SBTool 2012 categories for classifying similar criteria issues.

Second, since its inception in 1998, the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED has established strong credibility among experts and has increased its number of affiliates (Ding, G., & Langston, C., 2002). Although the framework and criteria are less comprehensive and adaptable than SBTool, LEED projects have been successfully 42

established in 135 countries, and its international projects outside the United States comprise more than 50 percent of total LEED registered square footage (USGBC, 2009). LEED is one of the most important and widely used BEA tools in the world, and is used as a reference framework for green building assessment in countries that have no current method of building environmental assessment (Lockwood, C., 2006). LEED v3, launched in 2009, represents the first major change since its inception and provides a new structure that places greater emphasis on incorporating new technology and addressing the most urgent priorities such as energy use and CO2 emissions (LEED, 2009). This research selected LEED NC-v3 for comparative analysis.

Third, ESGB was enacted in 2006 and is the first Chinese national standard for evaluating green residential and public buildings in China. ESGB draws on the advanced experience of other assessments from countries worldwide. It has multi-targets, multi-level contents to comparatively assess building performance. ESGB plays a very important role in building/managing/assessing/developing sustainable buildings in China. Although numerous efforts have been made to improve sustainable building assessments in China, ESGB has undergone no upgrades or modifications until now.

Corresponding design strategies demonstrated in the assessment tools have also been summarized. The comparative method first compares two selective assessment tools, and then compares another assessment tool. The results of these comparisons show that many similar criteria issues are common to all three assessment tools, whereas some similar issues are common to just two tools. This research extracted 51 similar criteria issues for the design phase, 32 common similar criteria issues among SBTool 2012, LEED-NC 2009, and ESGB, and 19 common similar criteria issues between two BEA tools (10 common similar issues for SBTool 2012 and LEED NC-v3 and nine common similar issues for SB Tool 2012 and ESGB). See Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Similar criteria issues among SBTool 2012, LEED NC-v3, and ESGB

Similar Criteria Issues SBTool LEED ESGB 2012 NC-v3 A 1 Contaminated Area Development √ √ √ 2 Native Plantings √ √ √ 3 Open Space(s) √ √ √ 4 Bicycle √ √ —— 5 Pedestrian √ √ √ 6 Density √ √ √ 7 Public Transportation √ √ √ 8 Building Orientation √ —— √ 9 Solid Waste Collection and Sorting √ √ √ 10 Split Gray/Potable Water Services √ √ √ 11 Surface Water Management √ √ √ 12 Onsite Treatment of Rainwater, Storm water, and √ √ √ Gray water 13 Onsite Treatment of Liquid Sanitary Waste √ √ —— 14 Private Vehicles Parking √ √ —— 15 Exterior Lighting Quality √ √ —— B 16 Non-Renewable Energy Utilization √ √ √ 17 Reuse of Building Structure/Components √ √ √ 18 Building Material Efficiency √ —— √ 19 Materials Reuse * √ √ 20 Recycled Content * √ √ 21 Water Utilization for Occupants √ √ √ 22 Water Utilization for Irrigation √ √ √ 23 Water Utilization for Building Systems √ √ √ C 24 GHG Emissions-related Materials √ * * 25 GHG Emissions-related Building Operations √ * * 26 GHG Emissions-related Transport √ * —— 27 Ozone-Depleting Substances Emissions √ √ —— 28 Wastes Release √ √ √ 29 Recharge of Groundwater √ √ √ 30 Biodiversity √ √ √ 31 Wind Conditions √ —— √ 32 Adjacent Property Impact √ —— √ 33 Heat Island Effect √ √ √ 34 Light Pollution √ √ —— D 35 Occupancies Pollutant Migration √ √ —— 36 Indoor Mold Concentrations √ —— √ 37 Indoor VOCs √ √ √ 44

38 Indoor CO2 Concentrations √ √ √ 39 Effectiveness of Natural Ventilation √ √ √ 40 Air Movement of Mechanical Ventilation √ √ √ 41 Effectiveness of Mechanical Ventilation √ √ —— 42 Thermal Comfort √ √ √ 43 Daylighting √ √ √ 44 Glare Control √ √ √ 45 Illumination Quality √ √ √ 46 Outdoor Noise Insulation √ —— √ 47 Indoor Noise Insulation √ —— √ E 48 Spatial/Volumetric Efficiency √ —— √ 49 System Controllability √ √ √ 50 Facility Flexibility √ —— √ F 51 Visual Privacy √ √ —— A=Sustainable Site Aspects

B=Energy and Resource Consumption

C=Environmental Loadings

D=Indoor Environmental Quality

E=Service Quality

F=Social, Cultural, and Perceptual Aspects

√ means included; —— means not included; * means indirectly included

Similar criteria issues primarily focus on energy and resources, indoor environmental quality, environmental loads, and site areas. SBTool 2012 contains the widest range and most comprehensive criteria issues of building performance, whereas the LEED NC-v3 and ESGB assessment frameworks inadequately cover social- and economic-related issues.

Table 4-2 Detailed number of similar criteria issues among SBTool 2012, LEED, and ESGB

SBTool 2012 LEED ESGB Number of common similar criteria 32 32 32 issues among the three BEA tools Number of common criteria similar 10 10 issues between SBTool and LEED Number of common criteria similar 9 9 issues between SBTool and ESGB Total number of similar criteria 51 42 41 issues Number of dissimilar criteria issues 0 9 10 not included

4.2.2 In-Depth Analysis of Comparative Topics

Before classifying the comparative works among SBTool 2012, LEED NC-v3, and ESGB, clarifying that each assessment system has different identified criteria and a classification framework is very important (Table 4-3).

Table 4-3 Comparison of criteria classification frameworks among SBTool 2012, LEED NC-v3, and ESGB

SBTool 2012 LEED NC-v3 ESGB Site Local, Available Sustainable Sites Land Saving and Outdoor Services, and Site Environment Characteristics Energy and Resource Water Efficiency Energy Saving and Energy Consumption Utilization Environmental Loads Energy and Atmosphere Water Saving and Water Resource Utilization Indoor Environmental Materials and Resources Material Saving and Material Quality Resource Utilization Service Quality Indoor Environmental Indoor Environmental Quality Quality Social, Cultural, and Innovation in Design Operations Management Perceptual Aspects Cost and Economic Aspects Regional Priority

SBTool identifies qualities and loads criteria issues, whereas LEED and ESGB consider them in related categories. For example, SBTool considers building energy performing aspects to be in two primary categories (Energy and Resource Consumption and Environmental Loads), whereas LEED and ESGB consider them in just one category. In addition, LEED and ESGB consider aspects related to materials and water in independent categories, whereas SBTool considers them to be in several categories.

Compared with other BEA tools, SBTool contains the widest range and most comprehensive criteria issues for building performance. Moreover, the SBTool is “a generic framework for building performance assessment that can be used to develop for a variety of local conditions and building types” (iiSBE, 2012). SBTool has unique advantages when used in academic comparative studies by different researchers with different backgrounds. For these reasons, this comparative work selected SBTool as a prototype to ensure that each similar criterion issue is compared according to its contents. Nevertheless, additional analysis and supplementary similar criterion issues are stated that are not limited to the scope of SBTool.

1. Site Regeneration and Development, Urban Design, and Infrastructure

Site selection and development for HPBs should reduce the potential onsite pollution from construction activities, with ecological care ensured through protection and restoration of wetlands and the coastal environment, carbon sequestration, soil erosion,

sedimentation, biodiversity, and contaminated area development. HPBs also aim to deliver good communication through easy access to public services and relevant facilities and adequate provisions for cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians (iiSBE, SBTool homepage, 2012) (LEED, 2009).

SBTool considers the HPB site from the “Site Regeneration & Development and Urban Design & Infrastructure” category, which is equivalent to the “Sustainable site” category in LEED and the “Land Saving and Outdoor Environment” category in ESGB. This category has 15 selective similar criteria issues; 10 similar criteria issues are common to SBTool, LEED, and ESGB, LEED does not consider one issue on building orientation, and ESGB lacks four issues on bicycles, onsite treatment of liquid waste, private vehicle parking, and exterior lighting quality.

Although many similar criteria issues are common to these three BEA tools, they place a different emphasis on the same category. SBTool considers building land utilization to be very important. For example, SBTool considers building orientation with respect to three issues: passive solar and natural ventilation in warm and cold seasons. For each issue, SBTool provides detail quantitative strategies such as orienting the long axis of the building within 30° of east–west to obtain good passive solar exposure. Generally, ESGB simply mentions that building orientation will be designed for exposure to good sunshine, ventilation, and other factors without providing detailed quantitative indicators or strategies. Although LEED pays more attention to brownfield redevelopment and public transportation access, it lacks building orientation and morphology. ESGB pays more attention to residence-used land and the outdoor environment but does not consider the safety of cyclists and private vehicle parking limitations.

According to comparative work on similar criteria issues in the “Site Regeneration and Development, Urban Design and Infrastructure” category, this thesis provides the following suggestions for improving ESGB.

(1) Regarding site selection, ESGB simply focuses on the evaluation of ecological issues limited to the housing estate; assessment issues regarding the broader outside surrounding environment should be added. The application to evaluate the surrounding environment could consult content from the Chinese building project approval environment evaluation assessment and complete building measurement data.

(2) Regarding land saving, ESGB should provide corresponding quantified levels of underground spaces utilization, not only simple cognition of whether or not underground space is being used for land saving purposes.

(3) Given the significant increase in the number of private cars in China, encouraging occupiers to use ecological vehicles is essential to sustainable development. Therefore, ESGB should devote significant attention to alternative transportation and limit parking for private vehicles. ESGB could evaluate bicycle storage facilities and low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles supply, among other factors, to encourage occupiers to lower their use of private automobiles to reduce pollution and land used for parking.

2. Energy and Resource Consumption

Because a key function of BEA tools is to improve building performance and alleviate the environmental effects from buildings, most of these tools consider the utilization of “energy” that leads to “carbon emissions” as the most important criterion (Roderick, Y., McEwan, D., Wheatley, C., & Alonso, C., 2009).

Given energy’s significant effect on the environment, this aspect has the largest proportion of credits distributed among the environmental categories (LEED, 2009). Therefore, BEA tools place vital importance on energy design, renewable energy strategies, energy conservation, and monitoring when targeting the efficient use of environmental resources or the care of the surrounding atmosphere, particularly with increasing concerns about many ecological threats such as global warming, the rise in the sea level, and acid rain (Lee, W. L., & Burnett, J., 2006).

Importantly, the identification and classification of energy performance categories among SBTool, LEED, and ESGB differ. SBTool considers energy performance both from the total life cycle of non-renewable energy, including the embodied non-renewable energy in building materials and energy utilization for building operations. Different from SBTool, LEED and ESGB have criteria for building energy utilization but without clear direct criteria for embodied energy assessment in their categories. Some environmental load aspects such as CO2 emissions interact with energy performance and are considered in the energy-related categories in LEED and ESGB, whereas SBTool classifies them into another independent category that primarily focuses on environmental loadings.

Unlike SBTool, which places the criteria of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into another category of “Environmental Loads,” LEED and ESGB have different classifications: GHG emission is in the “Energy and Atmosphere” category in LEED and in the “Energy Saving and Energy Utilization” category in ESGB. Because the comparative work of this thesis is based on the SBTool framework, the criteria issues related to GHG emissions are not included in this category and belong to the category “Environmental Loads.”

 Energy The evaluation of energy utilization under LEED requires the use of supplementary tools and guidance from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Commissioning in the LEED evaluation framework is a prerequisite, without which it cannot be assessed. SBTool takes a different approach to the issue of energy efficiency and evaluates electrical peak demand for building operations (Cole, R. J., & Larsson, N., 2002).

SBTool considers two parts of total non-renewable energy: embodied non-renewable energy and the utilization of non-renewable energy.

Embodied energy is the total energy required for the extraction, processing, manufacture, and delivery of building materials to the building site (BRANZ, 2013). Initial embodied energy is non-renewable energy consumed in the process of acquiring raw materials used to construct the building. Recurring embodied energy is non-renewable energy consumed to maintain, repair, restore, refurbish, or replace materials, components, or systems during the building’s life span (Holtzhausen H.J., Embodied Energy and its impact on Architectural Decisions). Embodied energy in buildings and their constituent materials and components can be used as an important criterion in green building assessment systems (Larsson, N. K., 1999). In LEED and ESGB, the criteria related to embodied energy are included but not clearly listed in the categories. In LEED, “MR C2.1/2.2 Construction Waste Management,” “MR C3.1/3.2 Material Reuse,” and MR C4.1/4.2 Recycled Content” are all synergies to reduce embodied energy, but no clear description about embodied energy exists in these credits. This thesis does not discuss the embodied energy related to transport and the demolition/dismantling process because they do not have much direct relevance to the architectural design in the initial phase.

SBTool does not clearly state renewable energy in this area, whereas both LEED and ESGB show the requirement of renewable energy utilization in their criteria. For LEED, the minimum percentage of renewable energy to the building’s annual energy cost is one percent (LEED, EA C2). ESGB requires that the renewable energy resource proportion to the total energy utilization of a building is greater than five percent (ESGB, 4.2.9). Because renewable energy is an important issue for building energy, this thesis extracts renewable energy utilization as a similar criteria issue.

 Resource Consumption A fundamental aim of sustainable principles is to ensure best practices in terms of resource consumption (energy, material, and water) (Alyami, S. H., & Rezgui, Y., 2012). Energy utilization was previously discussed; here, we analyze the consumption of building materials and water.

• Materials Building materials are important considerations among SBTool, LEED, and ESGB. They have a complicated life-cycle process from the extraction of raw materials until the disposal stage. Kubba (Kubba, S., 2010) mentioned that the universal target of BEA tools is to mitigate the potential consequence of consuming materials. The following five aspects are considered (Alyami, S. H., & Rezgui, Y., 2012):

• Avoid using virgin resources as much as possible; • Use less energy to extract, process, and transport to the construction site; • Use water-efficiency processes in the manufacturing stage; • Avoid using polluted and non-local materials; and, • Encourage the use of recyclable and environmentally friendly material.

SBTool, LEED, and ESGB strongly emphasize the reusability of construction structures and materials. The use of finishing materials and the responsible sourcing of materials are very poorly covered in the framework of LEED (Papadopoulos, A. M., & Giama, E., 2009). Material efficiency of structural and building envelope components to reduce resource consumption are considered in both SBTool and ESGB but not in LEED. This section does not consider the pollutant content of materials, which is involved in the environmental load area.

• Water In recognition of water being a limited and, therefore, valuable resource, the assessment systems seek to effectively manage actions toward water use. These steps aim to ensure a reduction in the consumption of primary water resources by implementing strategies such as rainwater harvesting, gray water recycling, and irrigation system insulation (Alyami, S. H., & Rezgui, Y., 2012).

The comparative work shows that SBTool, LEED, and ESGB consider water use for occupant needs, irrigation purposes, and building systems. However, the different classification framework among SBTool, LEED, and ESGB causes several common similar criteria issues under categories with different names. SBTool 2012 does not give water an independent category and is primarily included in three categories: “Site Regeneration and Development, Urban Design and Infrastructure,” “Energy and Resources Consumption,” and “Environmental Loads.” However, LEED lists water in an independent evaluation category as “Water Efficiency” and ESGB lists water in “Water Saving and Water Resource Utilization.” Thus, the criteria of water aspects in LEED and ESGB are dispersedly compared according to the SBTool framework.

3. Environmental Loads

SBTool evaluates the category “Environmental Loads” from five sub-categories, whereas LEED and ESGB do not include this category in their frameworks. This thesis selected the corresponding similar criteria issues from different categories of LEED and ESGB to compare with the SBTool prototype related to environmental loadings.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are significant impact factors on building environmental loadings. Compared with LEED and ESGB, SBTool lists GHG emissions as an independent aspect to evaluate from various perspectives (for example, embodied energy, primary energy utilization, ozone-depleting substances). LEED and ESGB involve criteria issues from different categories but related to GHG emissions.

For example, several indicators are directly/indirectly relevant to CO2 emissions both in the “Energy and Atmosphere” (EA) and “Materials and Resources” (MR) categories of LEED (Table 4-3). LEED-NC v3, released in April 2009, made the assessment of carbon emissions and energy performance mandatory for buildings in the U.S. (Stancich, R., 2009).

Regarding other atmospheric emissions related to environmental loads, acidifying emissions and photo-oxidants aspects are less considered in LEED and ESGB. The regulation of ozone-depleting substances, such as CFC-11, is included in both SBTool and LEED but not in ESGB. SBTool and ESGB, more strongly than LEED, consider the impact from adjacent property for daylight or solar energy through design strategies.

Note that the criterion “recharge of ground water” is considered in the environmental load area, which will affect the project site in SBTool. However, because ground and underground water storage are still the main sources of water in some parts of the world (Environment-agency, 2011), this criterion is also relevant – to some extent – for evaluation in water resource consumption.

Table 4-4 Features of GHG emissions evaluation in LEED (Adapted from Thomas S. N., Chen Y., & Wong J. M.W., 2013 )

LEED Categories Criteria Issues Relevance to Evaluation CO2 emissions method

Energy and EA 1: optimize energy Direct Quantitative Atmosphere efficiency performance

EA 2: onsite renewable Direct Quantitative energy

EA 3: enhanced Indirect Qualitative commissioning

EA 5: measurement and Direct Qualitative verification

EA 6: green power Indirect Qualitative

Materials and MR 3: materials reuse Direct Quantitative Resources MR 4: recycled content Direct Quantitative

MR 5: regional materials Direct Quantitative

4. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)

SB Tool and LEED use the same name, “Indoor Environmental Quality,” for this category, and ESGB uses “Indoor Environment Quality.” Alyami’s study on building assessment tools described that SBTool and LEED cover the main indoor environment criteria differently: the central criterion in LEED is low-emitting material, whereas the dominant criteria in SBTool are the HVAC system, lighting, and illumination (Alyami, S. H., & Rezgui, Y., 2012). ESGB regulates basic indoor lighting, noise insulation, and air quality requirements and pays greater attention to the self-regulating function of buildings, such as utilizing the layout design or envelope structure to improve buildings’ thermal comfort performance.

Comparative analysis shows that SBTool, LEED, and ESGB have 13 similar common criteria issues in the IEQ area that all emphasize indoor air quality, ventilation, thermal comfort, and daylighting evaluations. However, compared with LEED and SBTool,

ESGB is less concerned with occupancies’ pollutant migration, ventilation effectiveness, and glare control. SBTool covers many key criteria to some extent, with greater consideration for the sonic environment, whereas the LEED evaluation process seems to neglect consideration of acoustic performance (Papadopoulos, A. M., & Giama, E., 2009). Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control is an important prerequisite issue in LEED, but is not mentioned in SBTool and ESGB.

Discussions on ESGB: According to comparative work of similar criteria issues in the “Indoor Environmental Quality” category, this thesis provides several suggestions for improvements to ESGB.

(1) SB Tool, LEED, and ESGB all stated the basic requirement for daylighting. In SBTool and LEED, the minimum value for the daylight factor is 2 percent. However, ESGB does not regulate the daylight factor but borrows the daylighting regulations in China’s “Lighting Design Standards.” The minimum requirement for this regulation is “Glazing - floor (area) ratio is 1/7,” which equals daylight factor 1 percent (MOHURD, 2001) as half of the SBTool and LEED criterion. The daylighting criterion and requirement in ESGB requires improvement.

(2) SBTool and LEED have more detailed regulations for indoor air quality and

ventilation efficiency than ESGB. Indoor mold, VOCs, and CO2 concentrations, among others, are a clearly demonstrated index in LEED and SBTool. These issues in ESGB are mentioned but without more detailed quantity evaluations. All of these evaluations need to use other indoor pollutants regulations that are unrelated to building performance or sustainable building assessments.

(3) ESGB does not include criteria for ETS whereas LEED has strict compulsive requirements for ETS control. For residential buildings, LEED prohibits smoking in common areas and the design building envelope and systems to minimize ETS transfer among dwelling units (LEED, 2009). ETS control criteria should be considered for ESGB to promote smoking bans and occupiers’ health.

5. Service Quality

A number of building characteristics facilitate both higher quality of operation and attendant services. These have indirect but significant effects on resource use, environmental loads, and indoor environmental quality (Cole, R. J., & Larsson, N., 2002). SBTool considers quality of service at great length, whereas LEED and ESGB focus on this area. Table 4-1 shows common similar criteria issues related to service

quality among SBTool, LEED, and ESGB. “System Controllability” is a similar common criterion among the three BEA tools. Other similar criteria issues include “Spatial/Volumetric Efficiency” and “Facility Flexibility,” which are extracted from SBTool, LEED, and ESGB, and include service aspects from their own contents but are not completely covered.

Note that several criteria issues under the “Service Quality” category are absent in LEED and ESGB. For example, a mandatory criterion in SBTool – “F1.1 Access for mobility-impaired persons on site and within the building” – is absent in LEED and ESGB. “E4.5 Adaptability to future changes in type of energy supply” as a minimum scope criteria in SBTool is also absent in LEED and ESGB.

6. Social, Cultural, and Perceptual Aspects

Buildings are not simply related to environment and resources issues; to a significant extent, they affect or are affected by social, cultural, and perceptual aspects. Based on the sustainable triple line, HPBs should also perform well in society, including in social, cultural, and perceptual contents. SBTool considers social, cultural heritage, and perceptual issues at great length. However, neither LEED nor ESGB pays much attention to these issues. SBTool, LEED, and ESGB have just one common similar issue, “Visual Privacy,” under the “Social, Cultural, and Perceptual” aspects.

Note that several criteria issues under “Social, Cultural, and Perceptual” aspects are absent in LEED and ESGB. For example, the mandatory criterion in SBTool, “occupant egress from tall buildings under emergency conditions,” is absent in both LEED and ESGB. Otherwise, the criteria in this area play an important role, particularly during the design phase.

7. Cost and Economic Aspects

Attaining superiority in the construction industry is the goal that attracts the interest of most key stakeholders; therefore, sustainable principles must be built on a careful consideration of the financial aspect. Thus, to meet best practices, environmental assessment methods must be concerned with the sustainable management of life-cycle costs, construction costs, and operating maintenance costs (iiSBE, SBTool homepage, 2012).

One of the barriers confronting most environmental assessment methods is financial issues. SBTool covers a wide range of economic aspects, whereas the assessment

framework of LEED and ESGB poorly cover these issues (Grace, K.C.D., 2008) (Lee, W. L., & Burnett, J., 2006). SBTool, LEED, and ESGB have no similar criterion issue related to the “Cost and Economic” aspects. Because HPB also refers to high economic performance, this financial aspect should be added to the considerations for HPB assessment and design decision making.

4.2.3 Discussions

1. Comprehensive Comparison Discussion of SBTool, LEED, and ESGB

SBTool, LEED, and ESGB cover the main aspects of sustainable high performance buildings: reduce resource consumption and environmental loads and provide human comfort and healthy buildings with high environmental, socio-cultural, and economic performance. Although these three assessment systems have different names, frameworks, and practice methods, they all have the same characteristics and are based on sustainable principles; have their own clear hierarchical structure; and their common target is providing standards or guidance to improve the development of sustainable buildings.

The results of the comparative analysis found 51 similar criteria issues for the design phase, 32 common similar criteria issues among SBTool 2012, LEED-NC 2009, and ESGB, and 19 common similar criteria issues between two assessment tools (10 common similar issues for SBTool 2012 and LEED NC-v3 and nine common similar issues for SBTool 2012 and ESGB). The similar criteria issues primarily focus on energy and resources, indoor environmental quality, environmental loads, and site areas. SBTool 2012 contains the widest range and most comprehensive criteria issues for building performance, whereas the LEED NC-v3 and ESGB assessment frameworks poorly cover social and economic issues.

2. Discussion on ESGB

Table 4-5 lists problems related to ESGB, which are analyzed and discussed based on the results of the comparative analysis.

Table 4-5 Similar criteria issues absent in ESGB

Categories (Based on SBTool 2012) Similar criteria issues absent in ESGB Sustainable Site Aspects (4) 4. Bicycle; 13. Onsite Treatment of Liquid Sanitary Waste; 14. Private Vehicles Parking; 15. Exterior Lighting Quality Energy and Resource Consumption (0) Environmental Loads (5) 24. GHG Emissions-related Materials*; 25. GHG Emissions-related Building Operations*; 26. GHG Emissions-related Transport; 27. Ozone-Depleting Substances Emissions; 34. Light Pollution Indoor Environmental Quality (2) 35. Occupancies Pollutant Migration; 41. Effectiveness of Mechanical Ventilation Service Quality (0) Social, Cultural, and Perceptual Aspects (1) 51. Visual Privacy * means included indirectly

Similar to other existing BEA tools, ESGB in China was developed with similar functions but is based on different assumptions, components, and frames, resulting in a lack of comparability of the results within China and worldwide. Furthermore, ESGB lacks valuable cases for data validation and a detailed study. Thus, ESGB did not develop its own complete business operation system to encourage sustainability development on a broader scale.

First, compared with other BEA tools, the criteria in China’s ESGB are too qualitative and general (Yang et al., 2009; Zhou, 2008; Yang, M., Xu, L., & Jian, G., 2009), making it difficult to measure and grade real building performance. In addition, ESGB has no clear weighting/grading systems for different strategies and lacks positive or negative behaviors related to a building’s sustainable performance. For example, one criterion in ESGB, “4.1.5 Indigenous plants adapted to a local climate and soil condition shall be grown, and the plants shall be those having little care, strong weather resistance, few diseases and insect pests, and no harm to the human body,” does not show a clear distinction between the effect that one indigenous plant has or that ten indigenous plants have on the same project area. If quantitative criteria were used, such as the ratio of indigenous plants to total project landscape area with corresponding grades and credits, the assessment would be clearer and easier to operate. Therefore, additional quantitative criteria need to be added to ESGB to clearly assess/grade different design strategies.

The mixed use of quantitative data assessments and qualitative optional requirements in ESGB causes misunderstandings and confusions among users. It also reduces scientific reliability and comparative value. Moreover, too many general and 57

qualitative descriptions in BEA tools may result in simply seeking options or equipment but are not concerned with real building performance. In this case, deviations may exist between BEA results and practical building performance.

Furthermore, overlaps and intersections exist in some detailed content of the ESGB framework. For instance, “4.1.16 Permeable flooring shall be used for paving a non-motor vehicle road, ground parking lot or any other hard ground in a residential quarter, and plants shall be used as sunshades. The area ratio for the outdoor permeable ground shall not be less than 45%” has been divided into the category of “4.1 Land Saving and Outdoor Environment” but can also be included in “4.3 Water Saving and Water Resource Utilization.” “4.2.3. A residential building with a central heating or air-conditioning system shall be equipped with room temperature regulating and heat quantity metering facilities,” and “4.2.4 The shape, orientation, between-building distance and window-wall area ratio of a building shall be reasonably designed by using the natural conditions of the site so as to provide the building with good sunshine, ventilation and daylighting, and sun shading facilities shall be provided as required” are included in the category, “4.2 Energy Saving and Energy Utilization,” but they can significantly affect “4.5 Indoor Environmental quality.” For one specific building project, regardless of the category into which detailed criteria is divided, the total number of criteria should be constant. However, given the weighting systems of different categories, criteria belonging to different categories change the final assessment results.

Moreover, based on the comparative work of SBTool 2012 and LEED, ESGB lacks several criteria issues, such as bicycle, privet parking, and others. Some of the criteria issues can be divided into existing structural categories. For instance, ETS control is related to indoor environmental quality. Additionally, some criteria issues such as GHG emissions and embodied energy are hardly divided into the existing ESGB framework. In this case, greater attention should be paid to developing new indicators to respond to these aspects of environmental loads, climate change, carbon footprint, and others.

In particular, ESGB ignores economic and socio-cultural criteria. This problem also exists in other BEA tools, such as LEED. One main reason for the exclusion is that the relationship between each economic and cultural aspect is very complex, and extracting and comparing related indicators is difficult, particularly from the whole life-cycle perspective. To be widely recognized and used, most BEA tools select the environment criteria for easy quantification and comparison. Given the development of sustainability and BEA tools, economic and socio-cultural criteria should be adapted by an increasing number of BEA tools.

A large variety of conditions in different regions in China are present in climate, culture, economics, technology, and even the ambitions of the developers. These conditions are

not effectively and sufficiently reflected in existing BEA tools. Applying one national standard without considering local situations is difficult (Yin, Y., & Dong, L., 2009) and criteria that are more region-specific should be considered. For instance, because water shortage is a significant problem in northern China, water saving/reuse/recycle-related criteria attract greater attention. In southern China, where water resources are abundant, reducing water pollution and flood protection should be highlighted.

Although ESGB encourages the application of sustainable technologies, incentives for adopting sustainable technologies/strategies are limited in option-based assessments. For example, cheap technologies may be applied in buildings to pursue related credits; however, the expensive and sophisticated but higher efficiency performance technologies may be less considered.

To summarize, ESGB has been established in China with the intent to regularize and direct sustainability development in the country. It is still in the preliminary stage of development and has its own restrictions and problems in different perspectives that need to be investigated in further studies.

4.3 Mapping Criteria Issues to Design Decision Elements

4.3.1 Basic Hierarchical Structure of Criteria Issues

According to research by Liu (Liu, Y., 2005), the common elements and general framework of EPA tools can be described as a basic hierarchical structure of sustainable building issues and supporting elements. Other tools are more or less established around environmental issues organized in a hierarchical structure from higher to lower levels and contain issues from broader to narrower scopes. Individual indicators are established at the bottom of the structure. Criteria are based on each indicator; weights may be determined for issues at each level; and benchmarks may be determined for each indicator. In this general framework, indicators and criteria are the essential elements and weights and benchmarks are optional.

Figure 4-1 General conceptual framework for existing BEA tools (Adapted from Liu, Y., 2005)

Figure 4-1 simply represents the general conceptual framework of existing BEA tools. In fact, the hierarchical structure can have a larger or smaller number of levels, and different tools will have different names for each level. However, the higher levels (for example, issue groups categories and issue areas) in the hierarchical structure cover broader and more generic issues that are not very sensitive to definite conditions. The lower levels (for example, issues and indicators) in the hierarchical structure cover more comprehensive and detailed issues that are more sensitive to definite conditions. The supporting elements (weights, criteria, and benchmarks) are mostly sensitive to peculiar conditions.

Importantly, because this study compares lower level content in hierarchical structures and is concerned with upper level content as general evaluation areas from different BEA tools, “criteria issues” in this thesis is synonymous with “indicators” and is related to upper level content in Figure 4-1; weights and benchmarks are not involved.

4.3.2 Separating Performance Factors and Decision Factors

According to Liu et al. (2006), criteria issues in BEA tools can be classified into two types: one type is decision making (D) factors related to stakeholders and their activities and the other type is performance (P) factors related to building performance.

 “P factors describe the targets/results of building activities (include plan, design, construction, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, demolition) and derive from building environmental science research and are typically more general and stable. They can normally be assessed quantitatively and the results may be comparable in

larger (country) or smaller (building project) spatial scales” (Liu, Y., 2005).

 “D factors describe the strategies/process” of building activities, which lead to certain performance targets. These factors are more special and flexible and, as such, are usually assessed qualitatively and the results are normally compared only in small (building project) spatial scale” (Liu, Y., 2005).

Figure 4-2 Classification of indicator issues in BEA Tools (Adapted from Liu, Y., 2005)

Because the core goals of building activities focus on building (environmental, socio-cultural, or economic) performance, P factors are the “central and key” elements in BEA tools and D factors are the “surrounding and supporting” elements under the guidance of building performance goals.

Figure 4-3 Relationship between performance (P) factors and decision making (D) factors (Adapted from Liu, Y., 2005)

A noticeable problem is that the common mixed use of performance (P) factors and decision making (D) factors exists in the three selective BEA tools, both at the issue area level and at more detailed levels. For example, in LEED, “Indoor Environmental Quality” is a P factor and “Innovation in Design” is a D factor. Moreover, under the

“Water Efficiency” area, “Water Use Reduction” is a P factor, whereas “Innovative Wastewater Technologies” (LEED, 2009) is a D factor. Similarly, under the “Environmental Loads” category in SBTool, “GHG emissions from primary energy used for all purposes in facility operations” is a P factor, whereas “Changes in biodiversity on the site” is a D factor (iiSBE, SBTool homepage, 2012). Under the “Land Saving and Outdoor Environment” category in ESGB, “The daily average heat island intensity of a residential quarter shall not be higher than 1.5 °C” is a P factor, whereas “Underground spaces shall be reasonably developed and utilized” is a D factor (MOHURD, 2001).

Because P factors are more related to final building performance evaluations and D factors are more related to design decisions, they are distinct issues that reflect the relationship between BEA and HPB design decision making related to criteria views.

The coexistence of P and D factors enable existing BEA tools to combine performance measures with practical strategies. D factors listed in BEA tools as knowledge support intend to guide building activities and express options for sustainable practice. In other words, they also reflect the congruence of goals between BEA and HPB design decision making.

However, listing D factors together with P factors in BEA tools may also cause problems that reflect the mismatch in practice between BEA and HPB design decision making.

First, P factors describe the “targets” of building activities, whereas D factors describe the “strategies”/“processes” of HPB practice (such as design, plan, and management) and reflect the dislocation in directivity and purpose mismatch between BEA and HPB design decision making. Second, P factors are raised from building science studies, thus are more general and stable. They can be assessed quantitatively and the results may be comparable on different spatial scales. D factors come from building practice and are, by nature, more special and flexible. They are usually assessed qualitatively and the results are normally comparable only on small spatial scales. In other words, P factors are similar to the nature of BEA with rational logical features and are the core issues for building evaluation works. D factors inherit features from design decision making and are rational and irrational and, thus, difficult to quantify and compare.

Zimmerman et al. (2002) stated that when D factors are included in BEA tools, the feature-based assessment (assessment based on D factors) inevitably encourages “feature-based design and maintenance” of buildings rather than design and maintenance based on performance. Mixing listed D and P factors in the same BEA tool may also confuse users and the purpose, and the overall evaluation results may be incomparable to some extent because of these mismatches (Zimmerman A., Aho L.,

Bordass W, Geissler S. & Jaaniste R., 2002).

This thesis takes the view of Liu (Liu, Y., 2005) that clarifying and separating P and D factors in BEA tools could avoid mismatch problems and help purify and strengthen the core function of performance assessment and decision making tools. Furthermore, for this research, a clear separation of P and D factors can contribute to proposing a new and comprehensive framework for HPB design decision elements of BEA tools. This work gives direct information support to designers for the overall goals of HPBs, to which aspects they should pay close attention, and the design decisions that are suitable to optimize the sustainability of HPBs.

4.3.3 Mapping Criteria Issues to Design Decision Elements

Nils Larsson (2012) showed “the relationship between criteria, design strategies or project elements with performance factors, which in turn are linked to loadings, which in turn are linked to impacts” in BEA tools.

Figure 4-4 Building-scale example of the relationships between Design Strategies, Performance Factors, Loadings, and Impacts (Adapted from Larsson, N., 2012)

Note that the structure of the SB Method assumes that, “although there may be direct relationships between performance factors and loadings, there is not necessarily any such direct relationship between guidelines and performance factors” (Larsson, N.,

2012). As an example, Figure 4-4 shows that the P factor “Daylighting” has a simple relationship with “Interior Environmental Quality” under the “Loadings and Quality” category, but one can count various design options that promote good daylighting.

From this relationship analysis between environment and building design, “measures” are the intermediate link that connects them. In this thesis, “measures” contain the following two aspects: 1. As impact issues about environmental issues from general to specific levels;

for example, impact issues regarding global warming include CO2 emissions, methane emissions, and ozone-depleting substances emissions, among others; and, 2. As specific design strategies under sustainable principles; for example, the corresponding design strategies regarding the efficient utilization of natural resources include selecting highly efficient energy-consuming devices or systems, promoting the utilization of renewable energy according to local conditions, and reusing old building materials and structures, among others.

BEA tools involve content related to environmental, economic, and socio-cultural performance. In 2006, Liu proposed (Liu, Y., Prasad, D., Li, J., Fu, Y., & Liu, J., 2006) a comprehensive generic framework for the classification of environmental building factors, with two combined hierarchy structures – one for P factors and one for D factors.

Figure 4-5 Comprehensive generic framework for the classification of environmental building (EB) factors, with two combined hierarchy structures each for performance (P) and decision making (D) factors (Adapted from Liu, Y., Prasad, D., Li, J., Fu, Y.,

& Liu, J., 2006 )

From Liu’s work, the P factors group includes two categories: Sustainable Environment and Health & Well Being, which are abstracts of two main sustainable performance targets. The D factors group includes four categories: Sustainable Technology, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Plan, and Sustainable Management, which cover four main sustainable building practicing areas. Each issue category 64

under the P factors group has a cross relationship with the issue categories under the D factors group and vice versa.

As explained in the preceding section (see Figure 4- 3), P factors are the target, core, and independent elements for building assessment work, whereas D factors are the method, supportive, and dependent elements. In the scientific realm, identifying a set of generic P factors and indicators is possible such that the performance targets can be clarified and the assessment results can be compared. However, whether defining a set of generic D factors and indicators is possible and desirable is a question that requires further investigated.

First, a limited number of detailed performance targets (P factors) can be identified for HPB development; however, to achieve each performance target, an unlimited number of detailed decision making possibilities (D factors) can be explored in different professional areas. For example, “reduce fossil fuel energy utilization” is an important and generic performance target of HPB development. In different building professional areas, a large variety of D factors can be identified as relevant to achieving this target: building engineers can apply many energy-saving technologies; architects, planners, and managers can apply different building designs, plans, and management strategies and methods; and, in addition to existing HPB technologies, strategies, and methods, new ones are constantly emerging. Therefore, identifying a limited number of detailed generic P factors is possible; however, identifying a limited number of detailed D factors is practically not feasible.

P and D factors in the two structures have a twofold relationship. On the one hand, each D factor may relate or contribute to different performance targets. For example, “utilization of solar energy” may contribute to a reduction of fossil fuel “energy utilization,” a reduction of “air pollution,” and an improvement in “indoor environmental quality.” On the other hand, each P factor may relate to different decisions regarding a variety of building activities. For example, to reduce “fossil fuel energy utilization,” “passive building design” solutions can be applied to lower the demand for energy; new “solar energy technology” can be applied to use renewable resources instead of fossil fuel energy; and new “operation management” control systems can be applied to improve the efficiency of energy usage.

P factors are related to performance prediction (P) tools and D factors are related to decision making support and assessment tools. The complex and close relationship between performance and decision making factors implies a complex and close relationship between performance assessment and decision making tools.

However, Liu’s framework does not include social and economic factors given the limitation in the scope of that period of the research. Social and economic factors are

receiving increasing attention. Because living standards are much lower in developing countries than in developed countries, social and economic issues are more important than environmental considerations for the building industry in these developing countries (Libovich, A., 2005). In addition to financial factors, another important concern should be social factors, including considerations for architectural aesthetics and psychology, the local culture and heritage, and building accessibility and adaptability, among others. For example, when designing a shopping mall, although the building’s physical environmental performance seems good, without appropriate functional layout or an attractive and delightful appearance, the shopping mall will not be known as having a good sustainable design because it does not fit the basic architectural requirements needed to attract customers. In this respect, environmental sustainability objectives shall also consider critical social and economic priorities (Gibberd, J., 2005). Both environmental and economic aspects must be considered when classifying HPB criteria issues.

Mapping methodology

According to this generic framework for the classification of HPB criteria issues and a comparative analysis of SBTool 2012, LEED NC-2009, and ESGB, this thesis adapts the approach from the China National Natural Science Foundation support project, “Decision-making support research for green building design based on building environmental performance assessment systems” (No. 50778153) (Liu, Y., Guo, L., Yao, J., Ren, J., etc., 2008), a new mapping approach from which HPB criteria issues to HPB design elements are proposed.

1. HPB criteria issues belonging to decision (D) factors The method to transform HPB criteria issues belonging to D factors into HPB design elements is based on an analysis of corresponding design strategies, from which decision-related issues are extracted and then HPB design elements are summarized.

For example, BEA indicators of HPB site evaluation are usually more related to decision makers’ activities. The requirements and strategies related to an HPB site enable the extraction of various design decision making factors. Because “surface water management” is a similar criteria issue related to D factors in BPA tools, it enables us to identify “storm water runoff” as an important factor for site selection and as an HPB design element.

Table 4-6 Similar criteria issues related to D factors

Categories (Based on SBTool 2012) D factors related to criteria issues 1. Contaminated Area Development; 2. Native Plantings; 4. Bicycle; 5. Pedestrian; 7. Public Transportation; 8. Building Orientation; 9. Solid Waste Collection and Sorting; 10. Split Sustainable Site Aspects (12) Gray/Potable Water Services; 11. Surface Water Management; 12. Onsite Treatment of Rainwater, Storm water and Gray water; 13. Onsite Treatment of Liquid Sanitary Waste; 14. Private Vehicles Parking 17. Reuse of Building Structure/Components; 18. Building Material Efficiency; 19. Materials Energy and Resource Consumption Reuse; 20. Recycled Content; 21. Water (7) Utilization for Occupants; 22. Water Utilization for Irrigation; 23. Water Utilization for Building Systems 28. Waste Release; 29. Recharge of Environmental Loads (5) Groundwater; 30. Biodiversity; 31. Wind Conditions; 32. Adjacent Property Impact Indoor Environmental Quality (1) 35. Occupancies Pollutant Migration 48. Spatial/Volumetric Efficiency; 49. System Service Quality (3) Controllability; 50. Facility Flexibility Social, Cultural, and Perceptual 51. Visual Privacy Aspects (1) Total 29 (57%)

2. HPB criteria issues belonging to performance (P) factors Given the complex relationship between P factors and their corresponding D factors, to transform HPB criteria issues belonging to P factors into HPB design elements, we first need to determine the “correspondence rules” between them.

A comparative analysis of similar HPB criteria issues and strategies shows that an intermediate set could establish a bridge to transform P factors into D factors and vice versa. Issues of this intermediate set may be impact issues of building performance (P factors) as well as the objects of design decisions (D factors). The thesis adopts the name “impact factors” for this intermediate set from Guo (2009) (Guo L.W., 2009).

For example, qualitative and quantitative requirements exist for “non-renewable energy utilization,” a key performance indicator of BEA tools. The building layout, envelope, HVAC, and others are all impact factors that influence the non-renewable energy performance of buildings. Many design strategies are proposed based on these 67

impact factors, such as “making a good choice for building orientation,” “optimizing the shape coefficient of a building,” “calculating the appropriate area ratio of window to wall,” “improving the heat storage performance of envelope materials,” and others. According to these strategies, we conclude that “orientation,” “shape coefficient,” “area ratio of window to wall,” “materials heat storage performance,” and others are the correlative HPB design elements.

Table 4-7 Similar criteria issues related to P factors

Categories (Based on SBTool 2012) P factors related to criteria issues 3. Open Space(s); 6. Density; 15 Exterior Sustainable Site Aspects (3) Lighting Quality Energy and Resource Consumption 16. Non-Renewable Energy Utilization (1) 24. GHG Emissions-related Materials; 25. GHG Emissions-related Building Operations; Environmental Loads (6) 26. GHG Emissions-related Transport; 27. Ozone-Depleting Substances Emissions; 33. Heat Island Effect; 34. Light Pollution 36. Indoor Mold Concentrations; 37. Indoor

VOCs; 38. Indoor CO2 Concentrations; 39. Effectiveness of Natural Ventilation; 40. Air Movement of Mechanical Ventilation; 41. Indoor Environmental Quality (12) Effectiveness of Mechanical Ventilation; 42. Thermal Comfort; 43. Daylighting; 44. Glare Control; 45. Illumination Quality; 46. Outdoor Noise Insulation; 47. Indoor Noise Insulation Service Quality (0) 0 Social, Cultural, and Perceptual 0 Aspects (0) Total 22 (43%)

The comparative analysis shows that, among 51 similar criteria issues, 29 criteria issues related to D factors account for almost 57 percent of the total and 22 criteria issues related to D factors account for almost 43 percent of the total. D factors related to criteria issues primarily focus on the categories of “Sustainable Site Aspects” and “Energy and Resource Consumption,” whereas P factors related to criteria issues primarily focus on “Environmental Loads” and “Indoor Environmental Quality.” Similar criteria issues related to “Service Quality” and “Social, Cultural, and Perceptual Aspects” are related to D factors.

From the proportion of P factor-related and D factor-related criteria issues, we see that there are more D factor-related criteria issues than P factor-related, also indicating that 68

BEA tools are still in the developing phase and have more qualitative issues than quantitative issues. In the early stage of establishing a sustainable concept, the criteria issues of BEA tools play more important roles in guiding a sustainable building than evaluating building performance. Nevertheless, the sustainable concept has become deeply rooted in consciousness, and BEA tools are expected to become more mature and place greater emphasis on building performance evaluation. SBTool 2012 proposed a good exploratory tool for soft criteria (not data-based criteria) through a scalar scoring system. “It is a stepped mechanism that can be linked to text statements that describe performance aspects in a way that provides an assessment framework that supports judgments that are as objective as possible” (Larsson, N., 2012).

Table 4-8 Example of the scalar scoring system for soft criteria from SBTool 2012

E4.3 Adaptability constraints imposed by structure or floor-to-floor heights. Adaptation to another building use is not possible because of the layout of core and -1 columns that is unsuitable for the new occupancy. Adaptation to another building use would result in sub-optimal functionality of the 0 new occupancy. Typical floor load capacity is sufficient for residential use. Adaptation to another building use would result in acceptable functionality of the new 3 occupancy. Typical floor load capacity is sufficient for normal commercial use. Adaptation to another building use would result in high functionality of the new 5 occupancy. Typical floor load capacity is sufficient for heavy commercial use.

This approach promotes changing awkward situations using soft indicators, whereas many BEA tools only describe suggested behavior as guidance but do not carry their responsibilities to performance evaluation and gradation.

In this case, the guidance system for HPB design decision making will be developed separately from BEA tools. They will work together to promote sustainable building development.

Chapter 5

Framework of Key Design Decision Elements of

High-performance Buildings

- Case study of Chinese Residential Buildings -

5.1 Development of High-performance Buildings in China

5.1.1. The Necessity to Implement HPBs in China

Statistics show that the total residential building area in China is approximately 40 billion m2. Total building energy utilization is 16 billion tons of standard coal, which accounts for 20.7 percent of the total energy utilization in China (Xiao Y. J., & Qiao Z. C., 2009). Because the building area of northern China accounts for 70 percent of the building area of the entire nation and it requires heating in the winter, the energy utilized for heat in northern China constitutes 45 percent of the total urban building energy utilization throughout the country. Poor thermal insulation of the building envelope and the low efficiency of heating systems results in energy used for heating at approximately 25 kg/m2, or two to four times as high as that of northern Europe, which has a similar climate (Cai, W. G., Wu, Y., Zhong, Y., & Ren, H., 2009). Meanwhile, the hot summer area in southern China also accounts for a high percent of energy utilization for air conditioners.

Buildings consume energy, resources, and raw materials and release waste and GHG gas that affect the environment. In 2007, the building sector accounted for 31 percent of China’s total final energy; China is also the second largest building energy user in the world, and is ranked first in residential energy utilization and third in commercial energy utilization (IEA, 2007). “Since China continues its socioeconomic transformation, energy utilization and correlated emissions from the building sector will increase” (Eom, J., Clarke, L., Kim, S., Kyle, P., & Patel, P., 2012).

5.1.2 Implementation of HPBs in China

According to Xiao Yuejun et al. (2009), development of the sustainability concept in the building industry has gone through three developmental stages: the energy-saving and environmental protection stage, the ecological afforestation stage, and the comfortable and healthy stage. The energy-saving environmental protection stage started to recognize the inseparable relationship among humans, buildings, and the surrounding environment. Then, a large number of strategies for ecological afforestation protection were popularized. In the third stage, the comfort and health of humans in buildings were also considered.

During the 1970s and 1980s, buildings’ thermal insulation performance and renewable resource utilization earned widespread respect and development. In the meantime, environmental issues and protection of the ecological system were gradually being recognized in China. The concept of the green/sustainable building was introduced into China in the 1990s and related studies were in the initial stage and lacked practical experience during this period. However, the Chinese government made significant effort to spread and research green/sustainable buildings on a large scale. In 2006, green buildings were included in China’s 11th five-year plan and highlighted as a core content of urban development. The 2006 Chinese national standard, the Evaluation Standard for Green Building (ESGB), provided a clear authoritative definition of green buildings in China: “a building which during its life cycle, to a maximum degree, can save resources such as energy, land, water and material, help protect the environment, help diminish pollution, provide healthy, suitable and high-performance spaces for people to use, and coexist harmoniously with nature.”

In 2012, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD) published the 12th Five-Year Building Energy Efficiency Plan, which stated that building energy efficiency should have a total energy-saving potential of 116 million tons of coal equivalent (tce): “the development of green buildings and implementation of building energy codes could have a potential of 45 million tce, heating reform and residential building retrofitting could have a potential of 27 million tce, large commercial buildings and government office building energy efficiency retrofits, together with better management and operation, could have a potential of 14 million tce, with a further potential 30 million tce from renewable energy and building integration” (Xu, W., 2012). Promoting green buildings is one path to achieving the goal of decreasing energy utilization by 16 percent and carbon emissions by 17 percent for every sector of total national construction by 2015.

Green ecological residential building types were previously developed in China and

then spread to all building types. Since the green building evaluation work, called Green Building Labels (GBL), issued and managed by the Chinese government in 2008, the number of GBL projects has increased substantially each year, with 353 Gables appearing in China as of the end of 2011 (Ye, L., Cheng, Z.J., et al., 2013). Today, green/sustainable buildings in China do not only pursue simple energy- or resource-saving targets; total building performance has gained significant attention for the natural environment and for society and human health. In this case, Hopes are expected to be further studied and developed in China in the future.

5.1.3 Development of Building Environmental Assessment Tools in

China

Several energy-efficient standards for buildings have been established in China, such as the Residential Building Energy Conservation Design Standard (issued in 1996), the Residential Building Energy Conservation Design Standard of Hot Summer and Cold Winter Region (issued in 2001, updated in 2003), the Public Building Energy Conservation Design Standard (issued in 2005), and the Specification for Energy Efficient Constructional Quality Acceptance (issued in 2007). Today, in most regions of China, the lowest building energy efficiency is 50 percent, and some large cities such as Beijing and Shanghai set higher standards for building energy efficiency, at a minimum 65 percent (Cai, W. G., Wu, Y., Zhong, Y., & Ren, H., 2009).

In 1996, research on the Chinese Green Building System was listed as a key funding area for the Ninth Five-Year Plan by the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Since then, a series of green building documents and regulations, such as the Residential Green Building Elements and Technical Guidelines, China’s Eco-house Technical Evaluation Handbook, the Assessment System for Green Buildings of Beijing Olympic Games, Green Building Technical Guidelines, Evaluation Standard for Green Buildings, Rules for the Implementation of Green Building Evaluation Logo, and others, were released.

Compared with developed countries, Chinese BEA tools were initiated much later and incorporated a lot of valuable components from foreign standards. According to Yong Geng, et al. (2008), the entire development progress of BEA tools in China can be categorized into three stages. In China, the representative BEA tools and studies during the three stages are related more to the residential building type.

1. First Stage: China’s Eco-house Technical Evaluation Handbook

To improve the overall eco-efficiency of Chinese buildings, China began to design a 72

green building evaluation system in the early 2000s. In 2001, China’s Eco-house Technical Evaluation Handbook was prepared (Li, C., 2010). Later, three upgraded editions were released, in 2002, 2003, and 2007, to incorporate the most recent progress. All four editions were edited based on a combination of both the LEED standard from the United States and realities in China.

The latest edition of China’s Eco-house Technical Evaluation Handbook consists of two chapters and four appendices (Nie, M.S., Qin, Y.G., Jiang, Y., Zhang, Q.F., & Cai, F., 2007). The first chapter introduces eco-residence concepts and the assessment system. This chapter can also guide the planning, design, and construction of ecologically friendly residential buildings. The assessment system has five primary indicators: site and the residential environment, energy and the environment, indoor environmental quality, the water environment, and material and resource use. The second chapter focuses on the assessment method and related issues. The assessment is based on the five indicators and considers three stages: prerequisite assessment, assessment for the planning and design stage, and assessment for the operation and maintenance stage. The Eco-house Technical Evaluation Handbook was the first green building assessment guideline in China but was designed only for residential buildings and not for commercial and other buildings (Xing M.Q., 2008).

2. Second Stage: Released Green Building Assessment System for the Beijing Olympics (GBASBO)

To host a “green Olympics” in Beijing, a special research project on developing GBASBO was initiated in November 2002 (Zhu, Y.X., 2005). GBASBO was developed primarily by referencing the Japanese CASBEE standard. To meet the special requests of a “green Olympic Games,” Chinese realities were considered, particularly the local conditions in Beijing.

One feature of this assessment system is that it was the first to officially raise the concept of a green building in China. The progress of the assessment contains four stages: the planning stage, the design stage, the construction and final inspection stage, and the operation and management stage (GOBAS-Group, 2003). Different from other green building standards, this assessment system requires each stage to be evaluated separately and for the entire process to be evaluated.

Figure 5-1 GOBASBO method (Adapted from Jiang, Y., & Lin, B.R., 2004)

Figure 5-1 shows how GOBASBO functions, where the x-axis represents both resource consumption and environmental loads for constructing one building and the y-axis represents the overall quality of one building. When applying this system, a higher x-value means greater resource consumption and environmental effects for one building, whereas a higher y-value means better performance for one building. The total value of x is an aggregated score for resource consumption and environmental impact during each stage. As such, the total value of y is an aggregated score from its quality performance in each stage.

Table 5-1 Detail GBASBO criteria (Geng, Y., Dong, H.J., Xue, B., & Fu, J., 2012)

Stage Q/L Primary Criteria Issues Weight 1. Planning Q Location quality 0.15 Service and function 0.45 Outdoor physical environment 0.40 L Impact on surrounding environment 0.35 Energy utilization 0.35 Materials and energy 0.10 Water resources 0.20 2. Detailed design Q Outdoor environmental quality 0.10 Indoor physical environment 0.30 Indoor air quality 0.35 Service and function 0.25 L Impact on surrounding environment 0.05 Air pollution 0.10 Energy utilization 0.40 Materials and energy 0.30 Water resources 0.15 3. Construction Q Safety and health 0.70 Construction quality 0.30 L Impact on surrounding environment 0.55 Energy utilization 0.15 Materials and energy 0.20 Water resources 0.10 4. Test, Q Outdoor environmental quality 0.10 commissioning, Indoor physical environment 0.20 and operation stage Indoor air quality 0.15 Service and function 0.20 Green management (greening, service, 0.35 waste management) L Impact on surrounding environment 0.10 Energy utilization 0.30 Water resource 0.15 Green management (energy and water 0.45 saving management)

Table 5-1 demonstrates the detailed scoring weight for each stage of one building project. A final assessment grade for one building in zone A indicates a good green building with greener performance, lower resource consumption, and lower environmental impact. Analogously, a final assessment grade in zone B or in zone C

indicates that the building will be constructed with a lower green performance than in zone A. Final assessment grades in zone D or zone E indicate that the green performance of the building design is not good and needs to be improved/revised before being constructed.

GBASBO is China’s first local green building evaluation and certification system; however, it was specially tailored only for Beijing Olympic venue construction and is not fit for other regions or other types of buildings (Cheng, Y., Dong, H.J., Xue, B., & Fu, J., 2012).

3. Third Stage: Evaluation standard for green building (GB/T 50378–2006)

To further promote the development of green buildings, the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (MOHURD, formerly the Ministry of Construction) released a national green building evaluation standard on March 16, 2006 (GB/T 50378–2006). The ESGB was the first Chinese national standard for green buildings and became effective on June 1, 2006. ESGB considers the entire life cycle of a building and is suitable for both residential and public buildings. Detailed indicators for each aspect are further categorized into mandatory items, regular items, and premium items. In total, ESGB has 76 options for residential buildings, including 27 mandatory options, 40 regular options, and nine premium options. Public buildings have 83 options, including 26 mandatory options, 43 regular options, and 14 premium options. The rating levels are one-star, two- star, and three-star (highest).

This section does not include much of a discussion on ESGB because various detailed discussions on the standard are included in the preceding section.

5.2 Framework of Key Design Decision Elements for

Chinese Residential High-performance Buildings

5.2.1 Optimization of Criteria Issues for Chinese High-performance

Buildings – Residential Building Type

This thesis adapted the research framework from the China National Natural Science Foundation support project, “Decision-making support research for green building design based on building environmental performance assessment systems” (No. 50778153) (Liu, Y., Guo, L., Yao, J., Ren, J., etc., 2008). First, based on the analysis 76

of SBTool, LEED, ESGB, and the other Chinese building performance evaluation tools, this thesis proposes a generic HPB criteria framework for Chinese residential buildings as a case study.

According to distinguished studies on the D and P factors in the preceding section, the following optimal options exist for a generic HPB criteria framework:

 Decrease the criteria related to the D factors, such as site selection, construction indoor air quality management plan (in LEED) and use of vegetation to provide ambient outdoor cooling and shading of buildings by deciduous trees (in SBTool), among others.

 Change several criteria related to D factors into P factors, change land saving into floor space ratio, and change utilization renewable energy into renewable energy utilization efficiency.

 Specify the range and contents of some P factor-related criteria issues. For example, several criteria about the site aspects of BEA tools should be specified for each quantitative criterion within outdoor climate, lighting, wind and acoustic conditions, air quality areas.

 Include a building’s economic and socio-cultural criteria issues. Three main criteria issues contain 10 sub-criteria to cover socio-cultural aspects, and three criteria issues assess a building’s economic performance.

This framework takes the two perspectives of resource and energy to assess building materials. Consideration of embodied energy aspects has been shown in this framework.

Note that the criterion “quality of services” actually belongs to a building’s socio-cultural performance and is also related to the environmental and economic performance. For example, automatic illumination control in a stairwell at night is one reflection of the construability of “quality of services”. Appropriate control and necessary illumination levels influence occupant safety, which is socio-cultural performance. Additionally, energy utilization for illumination and electricity bills depend on the automatic system.

Based on these optimizations, Table 5-2 proposes a generic HPB criteria framework for Chinese residential buildings.

Table 5-2 Generic HPB criteria framework for Chinese residential buildings

Environmental Performance A. Siting A1. Outdoor climate A2. Outdoor lighting conditions A3. Outdoor wind conditions A4. Outdoor acoustic conditions A5. Outdoor air quality B. Energy B1. Building energy saving B2. Energy utilization efficiency B3. Renewable energy utilization efficiency C. Indoor Environmental Quality C1. Indoor thermal conditions C2. Indoor lighting conditions C3. Indoor acoustic conditions C4. Indoor air quality D. Water D1. Water utilization efficiency (municipal supply water) D2. Gray water D3. Rainwater E. Materials and Resources E1. Resource consumption of building materials E2. Energy utilization of building materials E3. Floor space ratio F. Environmental Loads F1. Atmospheric emissions F2. Solid waste impacts F3. Liquid waste impacts F4. Impacts on project site Economic Performance G. Financial Aspects G1. Life cycle costs G2. Investment profits for environment G3. Affordability to occupants Socio-cultural Performance H. Quality of Services H1. Safety & Security H2. Functionality & Usability H3. Flexibility & Adaptability H4. Durability & Reliability H5. Controllability I. Cultural Aspects I1. Cultural heritage I2. Cultural adaptation I3. Cultural renovation J. Social Aspects J1. Humaneness J2. Artistic qualities

5.2.2 Identification of Key Design Decision Elements for Generic

Chinese Residential High-performance Buildings

By adapting the mapping approach that transfers HPB criteria issues into HPB design elements in section 4.3.3, Table 5-2 shows the corresponding key design decision elements according to the optimal generic HPB criteria for Chinese residential buildings. Finally, the new framework of key design decision elements for generic Chinese residential HPBs is established in this section (Table 5-3). The framework of key design decision elements for generic Chinese residential HPBs intends to give architects directly information support and improve the design quality of HPBs in China. This framework also represents one demonstration to promote different versions for other building types and regions.

Table 5-3 Framework of key design decision elements for generic Chinese residential HPBs

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements A. Siting A1. Outdoor climate Heat island effect Planning according to wind direction Roof: high-albedo/vegetated roof surface Landscaping: native/adapted trees, large shrubs Paved areas: open grid paving/high-albedo materials Shade structures/facilities design A2. Outdoor lighting Site selection Avoid shading by adjacent conditions buildings Daylighting Availability of daylighting and building spacing Prediction and simulation of outdoor lighting Artificial illumination Illumination modes and technology Lighting pollution Glass curtain wall Neon light or strong light advertising Outdoor light-blocking measures A3. Outdoor wind Building layout Design according to wind conditions and terrain conditions Control building spacing Building blocks planning Prediction and simulation of outdoor wind conditions Landscape layout Plant layout Water ground layout A4. Outdoor acoustic Site selection Select site far from noise conditions sources

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Investigation and measurement of noise sources adjacent to site Site planning Limitation of noisy spaces Function-based site planning Traffic facilities Traffic noise monitoring and control Construction process Construction noise monitoring and control Acoustic insulation Insulating screen Insulating vegetation Simulation of sound insulation performance Outdoor acoustic absorption design Quiet construction equipment A5. Outdoor air Site selection Select site far from quality atmospheric pollution source Assessment of site atmospheric quality Manage and remove site pollution source Traffic facilities Encourage public transport and bicycles Building materials Select environmentally friendly materials Building products Select low environmental impact products Building equipment Select low emitting equipment Building construction Management of site air quality Waste management Collection and management of waste Operation and Real-time monitoring of monitoring outdoor air quality B. Energy B1. Building energy Building layout Building orientation 81

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements saving Building form Building shape coefficient Appropriate partitions of building thermal zones Thermal insulation design Prediction and simulation of building energy utilization Building envelope Thermodynamic performance of envelope materials Building tightness Window to wall area ratio Roof insulation design Wall insulation design Window insulation design Door insulation design Floor insulation design Building shading design Daylighting Daylighting utilization Active, passive, or mixed solar house design Natural ventilation Adaptation to prevailing winds Building form and layout Utilizing vegetation for sheltering and directing air movement Orientation and opening schemes of windows and doors Utilization of buoyancy effects (stack-effect) Building virescence Wall plants Vegetated roof Orientation and varieties of outdoor plants B2. Energy Energy planning Selection of energy

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements utilization efficiency systems and facilities Thermal comfort and air quality systems design/management Green electricity Prediction and simulation of building energy utilization Energy saving Energy saving standards Energy saving systems Energy saving facilities Appropriate construction methods Debugging and testing Debugging and testing of basic building systems Waste heat recovery Waste heat recovery and reutilization B3. Renewable Solar Solar thermal systems energy utilization efficiency Solar photovoltaic systems Wind Wind power generation Geothermal energy Geothermal energy systems (e.g. heat pumps)

Bioenergy Biogas Biofuel C. Indoor C1. Indoor thermal Building layout Building orientation Environmental conditions Quality Building form Building shape coefficient Appropriate partitions of building thermal zones Thermal insulation design Prediction and simulation of indoor thermal environment Building envelope Thermodynamic performance of envelope 83

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements materials Building tightness Window to wall area ratio Roof thermal insulation design Wall thermal insulation design Window thermal insulation design Door thermal insulation design Floor thermal insulation design Building shading design Ventilation Adaptation to prevailing winds Building shape and layout Utilizing vegetation for sheltering and directing air movement Utilization of buoyancy effects (stack-effect) Mechanical ventilation Airflow rate Building virescence Wall plants Vegetated roof Orientation and varieties of outdoor plants Heating and cooling Indoor temperature Optional heating and cooling systems Adjustable temperature and humidity systems Monitoring and Real-time monitoring of operation indoor temperature and humidity C2. Indoor lighting Building layout Building orientation conditions Availability of daylighting and building spacing 84

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Orientation according to specific room functions Simulation of indoor lighting performance Daylighting Compliance with indoor luminance standards Orientation and opening schemes of windows and doors Area ratio of window to floor Utilization of reflected light Utilization of light-conducting systems Building shading design Shading with vegetation Artificial illumination Compliance with indoor luminance standards Selection of illumination methods and techniques Choice of appropriate lighting systems Occupancy controlled fixtures Lighting pollution Control of indoor glare Use of indoor light curtains C3. Indoor acoustic Building layout Internal (space) noise conditions mitigation and management Building orientation Appropriate partitions of building functional zones Simulation of indoor acoustic performance Noise from Noise attenuation through outside/inside external structures environment External window noise 85

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements attenuation design Wall noise attenuation design Floor sound insulation design Door and internal window sound insulation design Internal sound absorption design Noise from building Building equipment systems operational noise reduction Building pipeline operational noise reduction C4. Indoor air quality Indoor air pollutants Selection of (IAQ) environmentally friendly materials Selection of low environmental impact products Selection of low-emission equipment Waste collection and management Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control IAQ monitoring during construction phase IAQ monitoring before occupancy Ventilation Adaptation to prevailing winds Building shape and layout Utilizing vegetation for sheltering and directing air movement Orientation and opening schemes of windows and doors 86

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Utilization of buoyancy effects (stack-effect) Mechanical ventilation Airflow rates Air-admitted areas and locations Monitoring and Real-time monitoring of operation IAQ D. Water D1. Water utilization Water efficiency Estimation and evaluation efficiency (municipal of water quality and supply water) consumption Consideration of rainwater or gray water Selection of water systems according to local water resources and climate Leak-proofing measures for pipe networks Sewage treatment systems Use of appropriate water metering system Water saving design Supervision of water quality and hydraulic pressure Use of water-efficient equipment Water-efficient plumbing products and facilities High-efficiency fixtures/dry fixtures Construction-related water consumption Sewage treatment and reutilization Onsite/Municipal water treatment Water saving landscape Drought-resistant plants High-efficiency irrigation D2. Graywater System planning Graywater source selection 87

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Estimation and assessments of graywater quantity and quality Graywater utilization modes Graywater system selection Safety protection of graywater systems Graywater quantity and quality monitoring Water utilization Utilization for water planning landscapes and plant irrigation Utilization for sanitary ware and car washing Utilization for cleaning and fire-fighting Utilization for building construction Utilization for heating or cooling water Utilization for groundwater recharge D3. Rainwater System planning Estimation and assessment of rainwater quantity and quality Rainwater utilization modes Selection of rainwater treatments according to local climate, topography, and geomorphology Rainwater collection Rainwater recycling facilities Storm water drainage systems Roof rainwater collection Surface storm water runoff pathway planning 88

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Alternative surfaces (e.g. vegetated roofs, pervious pavement, grid pavers) Rain gardens or vegetated swales Regulation of deicing salt utilization Rainwater utilization Utilization for water planning landscape and plants irrigation Utilization for sanitary ware and car washing Utilization for cleaning and fire-fighting Utilization for groundwater recharge E. Materials E1. Resource Nonrenewable resource Prioritized use of and Resources consumption of consumption renewable and recyclable building materials materials Efficiently use of nonrenewable resource Natural and environmentally friendly materials Resource recycling Salvaged materials Recycled content value of materials Degree of reuse of existing structure/component Resource recovery Utilization of rapidly renewable materials Resource saving Materials with low environmental impacts during manufacturing Minimization of purpose-specific material use Reduce materials for temporary facilities Management of 89

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements construction waste E2. Energy Non-renewable energy Prioritized use of utilization of building utilization renewable and recyclable materials materials Natural and environmentally friendly materials Energy recovery Utilization of renewable composite materials, such as transparent insulation materials (TIM) and solar photovoltaic materials. Energy saving Materials with low environmental impacts during manufacturing Utilization of recycled materials Utilization of local materials Minimization of purpose-specific material use Reduce the materials for temporary facilities Resource-efficient retrofitting of existing building structures Management of construction waste E3. Floor space ratio Regulations Local regulations/standards Project cost Cost for land/construction Cost for facilities/landscape cost Cost for maintenance and operation Market demand Target markets/customers Layout area Per-capita residential use land index 90

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Appropriate building morphology Environmental quality Density Green space rate on the site Per capita public green space area Appropriate building morphology F. F1. Atmospheric Green House Gas Carbon emission Environmental emissions (GHG) emissions evaluation throughout the Loads building life cycle Ozone-depleting Minimize the utilization of substances emissions chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-based refrigerants Acidifying emissions Minimize SO2 equivalent emissions F2. Solid waste Waste reduction and Resource-efficient impacts management management of internal furnishing process Construction waste reduction and management Responsible user-behaviors Waste recycling Composting Power generation by waste incineration F3. Liquid waste Sewage management Resource-efficient impacts management of internal furnishing process Construction waste reduction and management Responsible user behaviors Efficient sewage systems Onsite or municipal sewage treatment 91

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Sewage quality and quantity monitoring Reuse and recycle Wastewater recycling systems Efficient water consumption F4. Impacts on Recharge of ground Minimization of project site water watercourse pollution Site biodiversity Maintain or Increase the biodiversity of site Natural disaster Mitigation and management of sediment or erosion process G. Financial G1. Life-cycle cost One-off investment Land cost Aspects Construction cost Landscape cost Municipal public amenities cost Transport facilities cost Maintenance cost Initial investment compliance with the local economy and average design price Operating cost during Building daily operating building life cycle cost Building maintenance cost Building renovation, transformation, and demolition costs Building residual value after utilization G2. Investment Environmental Investment into profits for protection inputs environmental pollution environment treatment Investment into resources and ecological environment protection

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Investment into ecological management and research Environmental Direct use value of protection outputs ecosystem services Indirect use values of ecosystem services Option value of ecosystem services Life-cycle value of the ecosystem services G3. Affordability to Affordable rent or cost Compliance with average occupants for target market per capita income customers H. Quality of H1. Safety and Occupant egress under Building height Services security emergency conditions Location and width of exist stairs or other means of egress Location and characteristics of safe outside refuge area Function preservation Building envelope thermal outside design performance conditions Backup generation facility characteristics Utility data on power interruption history Personal security Security of accessing and using buildings H2. Functionality and Functionality design Provision of exterior usability strategies access and unloading facilities for freight or delivery Efficiency of vertical transportation systems Extent of usability Ratio of net functional net design to total net space area H3. Flexibility and Flexibility design User adaptation adaptability strategies 93

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Potential for horizontal or vertical extension of the structure Adaptability design Adaptability constraints strategies imposed by structure or floor-to-floor heights Adaptability constraints imposed by building envelope and technical systems Adaptability to future changes in type of energy supply H4. Durability and Durability design Operating functionality reliability strategies and efficiency of key facilities systems Adequacy of the building envelope for long-term maintenance Durability of key materials Reliability strategies Retention of as-built documentation H5. Controllability Control efficiency Efficiency of facility management and control systems Partial-load operational options for technical systems Local and personal Degree of local control of control lighting systems Degree of personal control of technical systems by occupants I. Cultural I1. Cultural heritage Maintenance of Designing in harmony Aspects heritage value with local climate Designing in harmony with local culture and economy Respecting and inheriting local life habits

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Protecting and regenerating of local traditional architecture Protection and inheritance of regional historic landscape Retention of existing cognizance of the region Use of local materials Use of local construction and production technologies I2. Cultural adaption Cultural composition Urban scale and skyline Street dimension Appropriate design and development of new urban landscape I3. Cultural Cultural vitality Owner participation renovation Public building information and guide J. Social J1. Humaneness Humanity Consideration of Aspects user-specific human needs (children, elders, families, etc.) Access-friendly design (Adaptation to the needs of handicapped users) Perceptual Belonging and identity design (Sense of space) View quality Visual privacy Access to direct sunlight Communication Outdoor open space design Creating connections between outdoor and indoor spaces/users Universality J2. Artistic Qualities Aesthetic style 95

Criteria Issues Impact Factors Key Design Decision Elements Innovation

Chapter 6

Sources of Design Inspiration for High Performance

Buildings

- From an Architect’s Perspective -

As the interaction between art and science, esthetics and technology, design factors and ensemble, and choice and optimization of design alternatives, design for HPBs are more complex than designs for conventional buildings. Architects should follow sustainable guiding principles and maintain overall consideration of various building factors to achieve the total building sustainable performance target. The design decision making in the initial stage has a significant effect on a building’s esthetic form, functionality, environmental load, cost, and other sustainable performance factors during the entire life cycle. Therefore, to support a successful design for architects, particular attention needs to be paid to the initial design stage during which potential design alternatives are generated and roughly selected for the most promising solutions. However, most studies on HPB design support focused on technical and scientific sustainable efforts, and a study on how to find design inspiration from architects’ irrational and divergent thinking during the initial phase is rare.

Different from the rational design decision making support on which BEA tools for HPBs are based in the previous chapters, this section adopts the irrational design view based on the sustainable design principle to analyze the benefits of common design sources of inspiration, characteristics, and utilization in HPBs. This section supplements the HPB design decision support study in this thesis and intends to explore sustainable design ideas in architects’ minds, improve design creativity, and supply knowledge-based design decision support for HPBs.

6.1 Sources of Inspiration

“Across all cultures and times, good design joins our sensuality with inspiration, creativity, place, form, and materials. Good design feels right, and is a pleasure

behold and experience for reasons that we understand at an intuitive level but have difficulty explaining” (Pretty, J., et al., 2007). Sources of inspiration are the initial predisposing factors of creative design thinking, the starting points of design, and refer to the certain type of element that can stimulate design inspiration. Sources of inspiration are not induced by logical inference but are accompanied by a sudden flash of an idea in a designer’s mind. Sources of inspiration are bursts of design inspiration. They are also the sudden epiphanies from flash ideas or some causal stimulated factors after design starts. With sources of inspiration, design can start clearly and reasonably.

6.2 The Benefits of Sources of Inspiration in the Design of

High-performance Buildings

Sources of inspiration enable architects to fully mobilize the brain’s enthusiasm; generate design ideas rapidly and neatly, and then burst out a spark of design inspiration. Sources of inspiration induce architects to quickly grasp the essence of a design, integrate design images, and deepen design contexts. Design thinking by architects in the primitive stage is always fuzzy and uncertain; however, as architects discover sources of inspiration, their design thinking gradually becomes clearer and may even be based on a sudden epiphany, and they are then able to continue to deepen and modify design ideas and complete intelligible design proposals. According to the entire design process – from the initial architect’s brain activities to two-dimensional (2D) concept sketches, three-dimensional (3D) models, to the final completed design – sources of inspiration play an important role in the design support for HPB.

6.3 Characteristics of Sources of Inspiration in the Design of

High-performance Buildings

Sources of inspiration can produce a spark of creative design inspiration and provide excitement and happiness to architects during design activities. From sources of inspiration come a strong desire and they also enable a strong desire to take over and the pursuit of design through the senses. Generally, sources of inspiration in the design of HPBs have the following characteristics.

Comprehensive 98

“Inspiration sources widespread exist in the periphery of designers. Inspiration for apparel often comes from appreciation of qualities of the world around us” (Mete, F., 2006). Architects draw from various sources of inspiration in daily life. These sources may take the form of basic geometric shapes, works of art, objects and phenomena from nature and everyday life, as well as abstract texts, architectural precedents, design sketches, diagram, and technical drawings such as plans and sections (Cai, H., Do, E. Y. L., & Zimring, C. M., 2010). In this case, architects must be “open to inspirational sources and the different ways of seeking inspiration wherever they may lie” (Mete, F., 2006).

Diversity Design sources of inspiration have a wide range of features. They are not only just some kind of physical object but can also be personal life experiences and emotional elements of architects. The creative elements of design sources of inspiration could be visual, tactile, acoustical, or just mental activities. Given the diversification and stability of the sources of inspiration, architects need to screen and identify the sources that could be truly beneficial to the implementation of design ideas.

Continuity Exposure to sources of inspiration can sometimes lead to designing fixation or “a blind adherence” to a certain set of ideas or concepts (Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M., 1991). Design sources of inspiration are not fleeting but are the origins of design ideas and should be the catalysts for creative thinking throughout the entire design process. In a real design process, the sources of inspiration are transformed into practical ideas. A shallow surface understanding of sources of inspiration cannot be converted into good design work.

“Sources of inspiration and its individual explanation, visually and technically, play an important role in the design process, in increasing creativity.” Different modalities and representations of sources of inspiration have different effects on design performance. The responses also vary according to a designer’s level of expertise. “Architects must learn most of all to keep their eyes open, to develop their skills of observation, to absorb innovation ideas, blend them and translate them” into HPBs that people want (Mete, F., 2006).

6.4 Inspiration Sources in the Creative Design for

High-performance Buildings

Two fundamental support approaches exist in the creative design for HPBs: (1) rational technical support, such as sustainable building materials, renewable energy systems, and passive technological utilization, among others and (2) irrational divergent inspirational support, such as several approaches originating from the universe of nature, the arts, or previous buildings, among others. From the irrational divergent inspiration support view, this section attempts to analyze these three major types of sources of inspiration in an architect’s design for HPBs: previous empirics, natural objects and phenomena, and advanced science and technologies.

6.4.1 Sources from Previous Empirics

For HPBs, existing sustainable buildings, traditional sustainable design strategies, and design standards or conditions as previous empirics play an important role as sources of inspiration for design. Strategies practiced by indigenous and local cultures have maintained their environments and provide resources for many years, making them an extraordinary source of knowledge from which innovative solutions can be derived to meet present and future challenges (Laureano, P., 2000). The vernacular is designed through immediate response and has had the fortunate ability to be modified to suit occupants’ thermal needs, resulting in practical, non-stylistic buildings (Bezemer,V., 2008). Vernacular architecture tends to respond to climate conditions using passive, low-energy strategies to provide for human comfort; these strategies are integral to the form, orientation, and materiality of the buildings. This architecture also demonstrates an economical use of local building resources; therefore, it is an ideal resource for sustainable design (Wahid, A., 2012).

In this case, vernacular architecture is one the most important previous empiric sources of ideas for HPB designs today. Vernacular buildings offer lessons in responses to climate, energy use, and notions of environmental quality. Architects often turn to the past ethnic or folk vernacular buildings for ideas. They seek inspiration from local conditions for distinctly unique and adaptive HPB design. The impulse is thoroughly practical but the results are often elegant solutions to common problems.

100

Figure 6- 1 Cave-dwelling in the cold and dry zones of China with a firm soil

Figure 6- 2 Wooden storied house in the warm and humid zone of China

6.4.2 Source from Nature Objects and Phenomena

During millions of years of evolution, nature has developed highly effective ecosystems with optimized energy flows, material cycles, and spatial organization (Stremke, S., & Koh, J., 2010). Nature provides inspiration for the design of sustainable buildings. Biotical architecture is the representative of learning from nature.

Harare’s Eastgate Centre, which deservedly stands as an iconic biomimetic building, is without air conditioning, but its indoor environment is cool and pleasant in the local hot climate. Otherwise, the energy utilization of this building is coequal 1/10 the dimensions of a conventional building. The lead architect, Mick Pearce, drew his inspiration from the mound-building termites of southern Africa. These termites maintain a constant temperature in their mound towers, and the mound serves as a climate-control infrastructure for the termite colony’s subterranean nest. Termites often close and open the ports in the nest tower to create air convection between the indoors and outdoors: cool air gets in from the bottom port and hot air flows out from the top chimney. Pearce reasoned that the architectural principles of the termite

101

mound, honed to seek efficiency by relentless refining of natural selection, could inspire buildings that perform equally well (Turner, J. S., & Soar, R. C., 2008).

Figure 6- 3 a The Eastgate Centre and b Macrotermes mound (Adapted from Turner, J. S., & Soar, R. C., 2008)

The inspiration from nature for sustainable design should not only focus on objects; the natural phenomena can also give architects exclusive creative design ideas. Wang Hui designed the Apple Primary School in the Tibetan village of Taer Qin. The school is located 4,800 m high, in the flat, lunar-like landscape of the Tibetan plateau and at the foot of a sacred mountain. The plateau’s strong wind is the main characteristic of the local climate and, without abundant natural climate resources, the orientation and layout are problems for architects. The inspiration from this situation is from Wang Hui’s trip to Venice, where the view of boats blocking the river gave him the idea of blocking the wind for this school’s design. The complex rooms and exterior walls are like a sequence of blocking boats and provide recreational spaces that are protected from the wind (Pasternack, A., 2008).

Figure 6- 4 Appearance and planning of Apple Primary School

102

6.4.3 Source from Advanced Sciences and Technologies

Sustainability has developed along with the rapid progress of science and technology. In addition to modification, previous empirics simulate new sustainable design ideas, and architects constantly search for inspirations from newly developed or invented science and technologies. The design style of an HPB often uses the technical possibilities of building materials and equipment as its starting point. For example, the development of glass, such as low-e glass with good thermal insulation, inspires architects to attempt more transparent building envelope forms and large-scale openings in HPB design practice. Without the advanced thermal property improvements of materials, this transparent design idea cannot be realized in real buildings to attain sustainable goals. In addition, advancement of digital tools provides inspiration for HPB design. Many IT design software packages for architects are able to implement diverse ideas into a generation form. The object of this trust is to supply IT technical support to designers to explore and formulate sustainable design in the initial stage when architects explore and develop their own ideas.

For instance, Frank Gehry is famous for designing the sculptural building appearance with a peculiar irregular curve modeling. However, the traditional design method primarily based on the documentation and delivery system cannot capture his inspiration and innovative designs. Therefore, Gehry and his team initiated new ways that use advanced 3D aerospace technologies, such as the Catia software system, to design and translate the complex geometries of his famous unique architectural forms.

6.5 Summary

Note that design inspiration sources are only effective guiding factors to form design proposals. However, architects cannot simply focus on them and ignore other crucial design factors, such as local climate and geographical conditions, related to virtual building sustainable performance surrounding the environmental impact, occupants’ functional requirements, and the investment budget, among others. The final target of HPB design is the pursuit of comprehensive sustainable optimal performance among various building design factors. In sum, architects need to induce sources of inspiration as the foundation for irrational divergent design thinking. Furthermore, according to specific design objectives and requirements, they recombine and optimize design factors within the limitation conditions using rational comprehensive thinking methods. Based on these continuous scientific choices and extractions of design alternatives, architects complete the design optimization and obtain final HPB design proposal.

103

Chapter 7

Integrated Conceptual Design Model for the

Architect’s Early Design Decision Making of

High-performance Buildings

7.1 Building Information Modeling

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC, 2006) defines building information model/modeling/modelling (BIM), as “a data rich, object-oriented, intelligent and parametric digital representation of the facility, from which views and data appropriate to various users’ needs can be extracted and analyzed to generate information that can be used to make decisions and improve the process of delivering the facility” (AGC, 2006). However, BIM is both a digital representation of a facility’s physical and functional characters and a set of interacting policies, processes, and technologies that generate “a methodology to manage the essential building design and project data in digital format throughout the building’s life cycle” (Penttilä, H., 2006). BIM provides a shared knowledge resource for information about the facility for a client or user to use and maintain throughout the project’s life cycle (NIBS, 2007). “It makes explicit the interdependency that exists between structure, architectural layout and mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services by technologically coupling project organizations together” (Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G., 2010).

BIM has been widely promoted and used for the building industry in many countries. In the United States, the National Building Information Modeling Standard (NBIMS) is being developed as a national standard for the use of BIM in building design and construction (NIBS, 2007), the U.S. General Services Administration has begun to require BIM on its building projects (GSA, 2006), and the AGC has developed The Contractor’s Guide to Using BIM (AGC, 2006). Wisconsin and Texas now require BIM on most state projects (Blackwell, M., 2009) (Napier, B., 2008). Efforts to standardize the practice of BIM are also underway within the U.S. Armed Forces, the European Commission, Scandinavian countries, and Singapore (Fallon, K. K., & Palmer, M. E., 2007).

104

BIM uses parametric 3D computer-aided-design (CAD) technologies and processes to design and construct a facility. It can also incorporate four-dimensional (4D) (including the time dimension) and five-dimensional (5D) (including the time and time-based cost dimensions) designs. BIM is significant in that it combines the work of each organization into a single model, producing a consolidated 3D building information model. This model, with its related spatial, material, financial, and other project-related performance information, supposedly enables all stakeholders to deliver work more efficiently (Succar, B. , 2009; Sacks, R., Kaner, I., Eastman, C. M., & Jeong, Y. S. , 2010; Love, P. E., Edwards, D. J., Han, S., & Goh, Y. M., 2011).

Figure 7-1 Entire scope of BIM (Adapted from Granroth, M., 2011)

BIM makes more efficient contributions to the cooperation between stakeholders in the building process (Schlueter, A., & Thesseling, F., 2009). The stakeholders involved in the BIM process are “owners, planners, real estate agents, mortgage bankers, designers, engineers, cost and quantity estimators, specifiers, lawyers, construction contractors, subcontractors, fabricators, code officials, facility managers, maintenance, renovation and restoration, disposal and recycling, scoping, testing and simulation, safety and occupational health, environmental, plant operations, energy, space and security, network managers, risk management, and occupant support” (Granroth, M., 2011). These stakeholders use, process, provide, and share information during the building process. BIM provides the relevant design information for every step during the process. The design strategies produced by every step are accessed and edited during the design process, and performance simulation feedback is provided quickly.

Because the scope of BIM expands at such a rapid rate, no program to date has been able to manage its entire scope of BIM (Granroth, M., 2011). This thesis does not address the aspects of software utilization and simulation given the limitations of the author’s background and of the scope of this research. BIM is expected to be used as the basic platform for proposing a design decision making support concept. 105

7.2 BIM for Early Design Decision Making of

High-performance Buildings

The early design and preconstruction phases of a building are the most critical times to make decisions regarding sustainability features (Azhar, S., Brown, J., & Sattineni, A., 2010). Because BIM allows for multidisciplinary information to be superimposed within one model, it enables sustainability measures to be incorporated throughout the design process (Autodesk, Inc., 2008).

Kriegel and Nies (Krygiel, E., & Nies, B., 2008) indicated that BIM can aid in the following aspects of sustainable design: • Building orientation (selecting a good orientation can reduce energy costs); • Building massing (to analyze a building’s form and to optimize the building’s envelope); • Daylighting analysis; • Water harvesting (reducing a building’s water needs); • Energy modeling (reducing energy needs and analyzing renewable energy options can contribute to low energy costs); • Sustainable materials (reducing material needs and using recycled materials); and, • Site and logistics management (to reduce waste and carbon footprints).

The combination of sustainable design strategies and BIM technology has the capability of revolutionizing traditional architectural design and of expeditiously delivering a high-performance design (Azhar, S., Carlton, W. A., Olsen, D., & Ahmad, I., 2011). BIM offers several advantages to designing a building that achieves high sustainable performance.

Using BIM, abundant information on various building aspects, such as planning, design, construction, management, and costs, are included in a single building information model. Furthermore, numerous sustainable design strategies can be investigated and tracked in a single building information model. For example, designers can input geographical information into a BIM and analyze the climate, resources, adjacent constructions, and other elements. Designers can then decide the position and orientation of the building to adapt local/surrounding situations and decrease environmental impacts (Hardin, B., 2009). Different from the traditional drawing software, BIM software puts these drawings into a single building information model. A BIM’s advanced parametric change technology ensures that changes in one part of the model are consistent throughout the entire model, meaning that users do not have to revise or update drawings or links (Autodesk, Inc., 2008).

106

A BIM can be used to improve design decision making for HPBs. A BIM contributes to reducing the amount of multifarious work and simplifies and facilitates the evaluation and decisions made regarding suitable options in the early design process. “Currently, it is possible to export BIM models more-or-less directly (and more-or-less completely) to third party software programs” (Malin, N., 2007), such as BIM solutions from Autodesk – Autodesk® Revit® Architecture software and Autodesk® Revit® MEP software – are interoperable with Autodesk® Ecotect® Analysis software. Web-based Autodesk® Green Building Studio® is a subscription entitlement to Ecotect® for analysis of whole building energy, carbon emission, and water usage. Autodesk® Ecotect® Analysis offers a wide range of visualizing simulation and building energy analysis functionality (Autodesk, 2010).

7.3 Conceptual Model to Support an Architect’s Early

Design Decision Making of High-performance Buildings

Base on the BIM platform, this thesis proposes a new integrated design concept model for HPB in the early design phase.

7.3.1 Initial Building Information Model of HPB in the Early Design

Phase

First, two information support steps begin synchronously at the start of the HPB design process. One is the building site environmental analysis, which includes the considerations of local climate, the economy, culture, and other design condition aspects. The other is the key design decision making elements of HPB that are transformed from BEA tools by designers.

Then, based on the situation of a practical building project, designers integrate all of the various design strategies and select them to execute the work that gives form to the creative building.

Furthermore, with BIM-related technical support and the inspirations originating from design resources, designers establish an initial design information model including a building’s geometric shapes, spatial functions, site environment, construction materials, cost, and cultural information using BIM software.

107

Figure 7-2 Initial building information model of HPB in the early design phase

7.3.2 Optimal Building Information Model of HPB in the Early Design

Phase

Support from the initial building information model is not sufficient for all HPB design decisions. Consequentially, designers require building performance evaluation tools to evaluate preliminary design decisions to further improve a building’s sustainable performance. Diverse building performance simulation tools based on the BIM platform provide designers with essential building performance analysis and evaluation, including for building energy, thermal performance, natural ventilation, and daylighting, among others. All of these software tools give designers quick and efficient information feedback. In addition, on-the-ground feedback from workplace design gives designers direct information support to improve employees’ productivity; alternatively, feedback from residents encourages more sustainable living habits. These ground studies from occupants enhance confidence in the investment and provide other benefits to an HPB.

These design strategies’ evaluations and information feedback enable designers to optimize and improve the HPB design information model and to play an important role in supporting the achievement of sustainable performance goals. 108

Figure 7-3 Optimal building information model of HPB in the early design phase

7.4 Discussion

This section attempts to briefly illustrate the implications of HPB design decision making support platforms in China as an example for discussion purposes. The building project used as a case study is a detached house in Beijing, China.

When this building project started, the designers first used the building site’s environmental survey to analyze multifaceted design conditions, such as climate, temperature, humidity, wind direction, topography, social culture, economic, and other related aspects.

Local climate conditions are very important and should be considered at the beginning of a project. Climate effects play a crucial role in decision making for energy saving and passive design strategies for solar and natural ventilations. The weather tool within Ecotect provides a visual and quantitative analysis for local weather/sites.

The following demonstrations of Beijing’s climate are from the Weather tool. The analysis of the conditions of this project site begins to provide design decision support information.

109

Figure 7-4 Beijing climate data

Figure 7-4 indicates that the mean yearly diurnal temperature is 10 °C, indicating the need for sufficient thermal insulation with decent thermal inertia to reduce both heat loss and night ventilation. Sunshine is abundant throughout the year at an annual average of 6.5 hours per day, and daily global solar radiation values on the horizontal are in the range of 2–7 kWh/m², indicating potential passive solar gains and solar controls for climate-responsive building designs.

Figure 7-5 Weather tool showing a psychometric chart when using multipassive strategies

110

The yellow polygon frame in the psychometric chart shows the thermal comfort area in Beijing. Multipassive analysis methods enlarge the thermal comfort area and increase the periods (months) through the yellow frame. These changes indicate that passive methods have a good effect on promoting a building’s thermal comfort in Beijing. Thus, designers are more attentive to passive design strategies in this project.

Figure 7-6 Comfort percentages of selective passive strategies

Figure 7-7 Weather tool showing the optimum orientation

111

The Weather tool shows that the optimum orientation in Beijing is South East 17.5°.

Figure 7-8 Site conditions model from the modeling software

Figure 7-9 Insolation radiation analysis for one year for the project site

Then, according to Chinese BEA indicators, designers use the transformation approach to obtain key design decision making elements and roughly collect the corresponding appropriate design strategies for this building. Support information is detailed in Table 5-3 in section 5.3.2.

Based on this information, designers continue complex architectural form-giving considerations to develop initial building design proposals. Sources of inspiration, combined with architects’ rational and irrational thinking during the form-giving stage, provide information support.

112

Figure 7-10 Vernacular architecture in northern China as a design inspiration source

Then BIM software Revite can be used to establish the initial digital building information model for this project.

Figure 7-11 Initial building image model from the architect

Further, building performance simulation software such as Ecotect® and IES analyze this initial building model for environmental impact, energy utilization, daylighting, thermal comfort, and other building performance issues.

For example, Chinese BEA tools provide that the indoor coefficient of lighting for more than 75 percent of the main functional working spaces in an office should be a minimum 300 lux (reference plane height is 0.75 m). For instance, architects select the design strategies: using construction to reflect daylighting inside and decreasing the office room depth to improve sustainable daylighting performance in this office building. However, these two strategies could lead to the negative effect of glare in the interior work environment. In this case, building environmental performance simulation results and quick feedback by BIM software as Ecotect® are important. Using such feedback, architects can adjust the depth of an office building and design parameters for reflected construction in a timely manner.

The site environmental analysis shows that thermal isolation is a very important factor

113

in Beijing during the summer and winter. The generic HPB criteria framework for Chinese residential buildings (in section 5.3.1) shows that the C1 indoor thermal conditions and the C2 interior lighting conditions are two important criteria issues for C Indoor Environmental Quality. Based on the framework of the key design decision elements for generic Chinese residential HPBs (in section 5.3.2), “building shading design” is a key design decision element related to both C1 and C2. Therefore, when a designer makes a design decision on building shading, indoor thermal and lighting quality must be integrated into the analysis.

For example, in the detached house project, consider the shading design of the south window. To ensure that the room has good sun shading in the summer and maximum sunshine in the winter, implementing exterior vertical fixed and horizontal moved louvers on the south window are a selective shading design strategy. The material for the louvers is wood, the size of one louver section is 50 mm × 200 mm, and the space between louvers is 300 mm. Simulation data are provided from Shi (Shi, Y., 2011).

Figure 7-12 Different rotation angles for vertical louvers (Adapted from Shi, Y. 2011)

Figure 7-13 Incident solar radiation of a window under different rotation angles of the vertical louvers in summer (Adapted from Shi, Y. 2011)

114

Figure 7-14 Comparison of the amounts of incident solar radiation in the summer under different vertical louver rotation angles (Adapted from Shi, Y. 2011)

From this analysis of incident solar radiation, when the rotation angle of the vertical louvers is approximate 30° west, this room has the lowest solar radiation during the summer of Beijing. Therefore, from the C1 indoor thermal conditions view, the exterior vertical louvers with a rotation angle of approximately 30° represents one adjustable shading design strategy for this building.

Nevertheless, according to the support information from sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, the outside vertical louvers still need to be analyzed for their effects on the C2 interior lighting conditions to assess whether they are suitable for this building. Assuming that the exterior luminance in Beijing is 5000 lux, the analysis for the interior lighting environment by Ecotect® is as follows.

When exterior vertical louvers are used for south window shading, the minimum critical luminance of interior daylighting is 90 lux, the minimum daylight factor is 1.8 percent, and the indoor uniformity of daylighting is good. The indoor daylighting results meet the criteria of the Chinese BEA tool.

According to this simulation analysis, the exterior vertical louvers with a rotation angle of approximate 30° west were determined to be an optimal shading design strategy for this building.

In the practical design process, more design aspects of louvers (such as materials, space and one louver section size) are analyzed for optimization. For example, inappropriate metal louvers in urban commercial buildings may lead to glare or light trespassing. Furthermore, other criteria, such as cost issues, need to be considered.

115

Figure 7-15 Analysis of interior daylighting with the best rotation angles for vertical louvers (Adapted from Shi, Y. 2011)

With the assistance of building performance simulations, ground feedback, and design solution optimization, architects constantly adjust design decision information models in the early design phase and eventually obtain the optimal building information model to realize high performance for the building.

Through this process, the HPB integrated design concept model is succinctly summarized: BEA indicators and specific design conditions are combined and considered at the beginning of the project’s design phase. The key design decision making elements and design resources provide essential information support for HPB during the initial decision making process. Furthermore, the design information model based on the BIM platform contributes to easy modification of design strategies. Otherwise, all initial design information will be put into one building model and contribute collaboratively with various professional stakeholders to efficiently provide designers with high performance design decision making guidance in the early design phase.

Granroth (2011) mentioned that the rapid expansion in the scope of BIM has prevented any program from being able to manage the entire scope of BIM to date. Moreover, different design habits of architects, the building delivery process in different regions, and other practical, special, and uncertain factors that lead the real design process of each building cannot be in strict accordance with the unified model/steps. Consequently, the integrated design concept model illustrated in this section is a generic conceptual approach. The detail information in every step can be adjusted according to the actual situation. Different designers can adapt this conceptual design model within project conditions, and can use them as a framework to provide the knowledge support needed for HPB design decision making.

116

Chapter 8

Conclusions and Future Work

8.1 Conclusions

This thesis, based on the design decision making process from an architect’s point of view and by using the related literature review, theoretical analyses, and inductive inferences, proposes a new understanding of a high-performance building (HPB), translates/maps criteria issues of building environmental assessment (BEA) tools into key design decision elements, and identifies sources of inspiration for HPB designs. This thesis intends to propose an integrated conceptual model to provide direct knowledge-based support to an architect’s early design decision making for HPBs. The key design decision elements, sources of inspiration, and building information modeling is integrated into this conceptual design genesis. This thesis intends to provide a theoretical base and feasible measures for better HPB design and references for developing design decision support tools for architects during the HPB design process. The following paragraphs present conclusions from this research.

1. A high-performance building (HPB) is a sustainable building with better environmental, economic, and socio-cultural features and performance than standard practices. HPBs should be aesthetically attractive, socio-culturally adapted, safe, healthy, and comfortable, and should operate with a high level of life cycle environmental, resource, and economic efficiency. HPB emphasizes sustainable performance of the entire building within the triple bottom line (environment, society, and economy) and is a substantially better sustainable building than standard practice in terms of environmental, economic and socio-cultural performance. HPBs must be designed and built against a backdrop of stronger environmental, economic, and human concerns, and all parts of a building need to be addressed through a cohesive building approach during its entire life cycle.

2. The relationship between BEA tools and HPB design decision making is about the consequences of goals and the mismatch of practices. From the evaluation objective and range perspectives, BEA tools and HPB design have the same common generic sustainability goals, both contribute to HPBs achieving high sustainable performance. The analysis of the practical characteristics of BEA and design decision making from primal functions, procedures, controllability, and outcome-related aspects shows obvious differences/mismatches between them at a practical level. Given the

117

consequence of goals, BEA tools provide the basic information (such as framework, contents, evaluation method, and process) that relate to decision making to promote a holistic HPB design at a practical level. BEA tools also refer to another type of design support tool. However, given the mismatch in practice between BEA tools and HPB design decision making, most BEA tools are still used to test and verify the design results and do not consider the design decision making process. Existing BEA tools mostly guide or indirectly affect design work but play a limited role in directly assisting an architect’s early design decision making for HPBs in practice.

3. Similar criteria issues for the design phase among SBTool 2012 (maximum version), LEED NC-v3, and ESGB have been summarized through a comparative analysis. Most similar criteria issues are common to all three assessment tools, whereas some similar issues are common to just two of the three assessment tools. The design phase has 51 similar criteria issues; SBTool 2012, LEED NC-v3, and ESGB have 32 common similar criteria issues; and two BEA tools have 19 common similar criteria issues between them (10 common issues for SBTool 2012 and LEED NC-v3, nine common issues for SBTool 2012 and ESGB). Similar criteria issues primarily focus on energy and resources, indoor environmental quality, environmental loads, and site areas. SBTool 2012 contains the widest range and most comprehensive set of criteria issues for building performance, whereas social- and economic-related issues are poorly covered by the LEED NC-v3 and ESGB assessment framework.

4. Liu et al. (2006) classified criteria issues in BEA tools according to whether they are related to decision making (D) factors or performance (P) factors. P factors describe the “targets/results” of building activities (including plan, design, construction, operations, maintenance, refurbishment, and demolition). P factors derive from building environmental science research and are typically more general and stable. D factors describe the “strategies/processes” of building activities that lead to certain performance targets. These factors are more special and flexible, and are usually assessed qualitatively. Moreover, adapting the approach from the China National Natural Science Foundation support project, “Decision-making support research for green building design based on building environmental performance assessment systems” (No. 50778153) enables the proposal of the mapping approach from HPB criteria issues to HPB design decision elements. The transformation method from HPB criteria issues that belong to D factors to HPB design elements is based on an analysis of corresponding design strategies. To realize the transformation from HPB criteria issues that belong to P factors to HPB design decision elements, “impact factors” as correspondence rules should be identified. Moreover, the awkward assessment situation of soft indicators should be considered.

5. The comparative analysis shows that, among 51 similar criteria issues for the design phase from SBTool 2012 (maximum version), LEED NC-v3, and ESGB, 29 criteria

118

issues relate to D factors and account for approximately 57 percent of the total, and 22 criteria issues relate to P factors and account for approximately 43 percent of the total. D factor-related criteria issues primarily focus on the categories of “Sustainable Site Aspects” and “Energy and Resource Consumption,” whereas P factor-related criteria issues primarily focus on “Environmental Loads” and “Indoor Environmental Quality.” Regarding “Service Quality” and “Social, Cultural, and Perceptual Aspects,” similar criteria issues are related to D factors. The proportion of D factor- and P factor-related criteria issues show more D factor-related than P-factor related criteria issues, and that BEA tools are still in the development phase with more qualitative issues than quantitative issues.

6. The framework of key design decision elements for Chinese residential buildings has been established. By adopting the mapping approach, which transfers HPB criteria issues into HPB design elements in section 4.3.3, this study identified the corresponding key design decision elements based on generic HPB criteria issues for Chinese residential buildings in section 5.3.1. A total of 10 primary criteria issues and 35 sub-criteria cover the aspects within the entire sustainable performance range related to environmental, economic, and social performance areas. Various key design decision elements are proposed according to these optimum criteria issues. The optimum criteria issues are primarily optimized as P factors. The framework of key design decision elements for generic Chinese residential HPBs intend to provide architects with direct information support and improve the design quality for HPBs in China. This framework also represents one demonstration to promote different versions for other building types and regions.

7. “Sources of the inspiration and its personal interpretation – visually and technically – play an important role in the design process, in increasing creativity” (Mete, F., 2006). Generally, sources of inspiration in the design of HPBs have the following characteristics: comprehensive, diversity, and continuity. Two fundamental support approaches exist in the creative design for HPBs: (1) rational technical support, such as, for example, sustainable building materials, renewable energy systems, and passive technologies utilizations and (2) irrational divergent support for inspirations, such as several that originate from the universe of nature, arts, or previous buildings, among others. Three major types of irrational sources of inspiration in an architect’s design for HPBs are previous empirics, nature objects, and phenomena, advanced sciences, and technologies. Different modalities and representations of sources of inspiration have different effects on design performance. The responses also vary according to the designer’s level of expertise. Most importantly, architects must learn to keep their eyes open, develop their observation skills, absorb innovation ideas, and blend and translate them into HPBs that people want (Mete, F., 2006).

119

8. A new integrated conceptual design HPB model to support an architect’s early design decision making was established on the BIM platform (section 7.3). The conceptual design mode contains two main parts of work: an initial building information model and an optimal building information model of HPB in the early design phase. BEA indicators and specific design conditions are combined and considered at the beginning of the project design. The key design decision elements and sources of inspiration provide essential information support for HPB in the initial decision making process. Furthermore, the design information model based on the BIM platform also contributes to easily revising design strategies. Otherwise, all initial design information is put into one building model and contributes collaborative work for various professional stakeholders. This conceptual model intends to efficiently give an architect high performance design decision making guidance in the early design phase. As a generic approach, the integrated conceptual design model can be adopted by different designers and project conditions and can be used as a framework to provide the knowledge support for HPB design decision making.

8.2 Future Work

This thesis is the first step in knowledge-based support toward the development of an entire design decision making support system. Specific to the integrated conceptual design model of HPB for an architect’s early design, this thesis also provides preliminary open study results. In this case, the following several suggestions for future work are presented. 1. Further research on HPB design decision making support can adopt the filter system theory as a research method and refine the research for different regions and building types. 2. A qualitative and quantitative study of HPB design decision elements should be done, in which the Delphi technique, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and appointing a panel of experts are considered. 3. Research on design decision support (DDS) instruments should continue toward the establishment of one practical DDS tool for architects. A literature retrieval, a field survey, and an interview can be combined to investigate architects’ attitudes and applications of DDS tools during the HPB design process. 4. Vernacular architecture is an important source of inspiration for HPB design. In future work, subjects related to vernacular architecture (for example, design strategies, construction techniques, and cultural inheritance) should attract more attention and concerns. 5. Moreover, future work should consider combining practical HPB projects to verify and revise the study results. Doing so would be conducive to improving the scientific reliability of research and would provide more efficient support and assistance for HPBs.

120

In summary, the architect as a main stakeholder plays an essential role in promoting and developing HPBs. The design decision support research that an architect faces has important practical significance. Developments in sustainable building theories/technologies and the application of HPBs should further the design decision support for HPBs.

121

References

ABARE. (2006). Australian energy: national and state projections to 2029-2030. ABARE.

Achermann, M.& Zweifel, G. (2003). RADTEST radiant cooling and heating test cases. A Report of Task 22, Subtask C.Building Energy Analysis Tools.Comparative Evaluation Tests. IEA International Energy Agency, Solar Heating and Cooling Programme.

Ad V.D. (2006). Ad V.D. The Trias energetic-An integrated design approach. 4th Annex 44 Forum. Torino,Italy.

AGC. (2006). The Contractor's Guide to BIM. Arlington, VA.: Associated General Contractors of America.

Al-ajmi, F. F., & Hanby, V. I. (2008). Simulation of energy consumption for Kuwaiti domestic buildings. Energy and buildings, 40(6), 1101-1109.

Al-ajmi, F. F., & Loveday, D. L. (2010). Indoor thermal conditions and thermal comfort in air-conditioned domestic buildings in the dry-desert climate of Kuwait. Building and Environment, 45(3), 704-710.

Alanne, K. (2004). Selection of renovation actions using multi-criteria “knapsack” model. Automation in Construction, 13(3), 377-391.

Alanne, K. (2007). Applications of decision analysis in the seessment of energy technologies for buildings. Helsinki,Finland: PhD thesis,Helsinki university of technology.

Alanne, K., & Saari, A. (2004). Sustainable small-scale CHP technologies for buildings: the basis for multi-perspective decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8(5), 401-431.

Al-Homoud, M. S. (1997). Optimum thermal design of office buildings. International Journal of Energy Research, 21(10), 941-957.

Alyami, S. H.& Rezgui, Y. (2012). Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5, 52-62.

Ardente, F., Beccali, G., Cellura, M., & Lo Brano, V. (2005). Life cycle assessment of a

122

solar thermal collector: sensitivity analysis, energy and environmental balances. Renewable Energy, 30(2), 109-130.

ASHRAE. (2007). Standard 62.1. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. Atlanta: American society of heating, refrigerating, and air conditioning engineers. ASHRAE.

Atkin, B. (1993). Stereotypes and themes in building designs: Insights for model builders. Construction Management and Economics, 11(2), 119-130.

Autodesk. (2010). Autodesk Ecotect Analysis. Retrieved 12 11, 2012, from http://usa.autodesk.com/ecotect-analysis/

Autodesk, Inc. (2005). Building informationmodeling for sustainable design. Retrieved from http://www.federalnewsradio.com/pdfs/Building Information Modeling for Substainable Design-white%20paper.pdf.

Autodesk, Inc. (2008). Improving building industry results through integrated project delivery and building information modeling. Retrieved from http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_and_ipd_whitepaper.pdf.

Azhar, S., Brown, J., & Sattineni, A. (2010, June). A case study of building performance analyses using building information modeling. In Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC-27), Bratislava, Slovakia.

Azhar, S., Carlton, W. A., Olsen, D., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis. Automation in construction, 20(2), 217-224.

Bala, B. K., & Siddique, S. A. (2009). Optimal design of a PV-diesel hybrid system for electrification of an isolated island—Sandwip in Bangladesh using genetic algorithm. Energy for sustainable Development, 13(3), 137-142.

Baldwin, R., Russel, P., Nibel, S., Boonstra, C., & Lützkendorf, T. (2000, October). Results of IEA-ECBCS Annex 31 work on environmental assessment of buildings and related tools. In proceedings of the Sustainable Building Conference.

Balocco, C., Papeschi, S., Grazzini, G., & Basosi, R. (2004). Using exergy to analyze the sustainability of an urban area. Ecological Economics, 48(2), 231-244.

123

Balta, M. T., Dincer, I., & Hepbasli, A. (2011). Development of sustainable energy options for buildings in a sustainable society. Sustainable Cities and Society, 1(2), 72-80.

Battisti, R., & Corrado, A. (2005). Environmental assessment of solar thermal collectors with integrated water storage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(13), 1295-1300.

Bazmi, A. A., & Zahedi, G. (2011). Sustainable energy systems: Role of optimization modeling techniques in power generation and supply—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(8), 3480-3500.

Beghi, A., Cecchinato, L., Cosi, G., & Rampazzo, M. (2012). A PSO-based algorithm for optimal multiple chiller systems operation. Applied Thermal Engineering, 32, 31-40.

Beheiry, S. M., Chong, W. K., & Haas, C. T. (2006). Examining the business impact of owner commitment to sustainability. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(4), 384-392.

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2003). Measuring sustainability: learning from doing. Routledge.

Bhat, I. K., & Prakash, R. (2009). LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(5), 1067-1073.

Biswas T.,Wang T. H.& Krishnamurti R. (2009). FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE BUILDING DESIGN-Through Sustainable Building Ratings Integration. Carnegie Mellon University.

Björk, F., Kilkis, S., & Molinari, M. (2012). Energy quality management and low energy architecture. In World Renewable Energy Forum, WREF 2012, Including World Renewable Energy Congress XII and Colorado Renewable Energy Society (CRES) Annual Conference (pp. 4558-4564). American Solar Energy Society.

Björk, H. & Rasmuson, A. (2002). A method for life cycle assessment environmental optimisation of a dynamic process exemplified by an analysis of an energy system with a superheated steam dryer integrated in a local district heat and power plant. Chemical Engineering Journal, 87, 381–394.

Blackwell M. (2009). Texas Adopts Building Information Modeling (BIM) capability

124

for State Design and Construction Projects. Austin, TX: Texas Facilities Commission.

Blarke, M.B. (2008). The missing link in sustainable energy: techno-economic consequences of large-scale heat pumps in distributed generation in favour of a domestic intergation strategy for sustainable energy. PhD thesis,Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.

Blarke, M. B., & Lund, H. (2008). The effectiveness of storage and relocation options in renewable energy systems. Renewable Energy, 33(7), 1499-1507.

Blum, P., Campillo, G., Münch, W., & Kölbel, T. (2010). CO2 savings of ground source heat pump systems–A regional analysis. Renewable Energy, 35(1), 122-127.

Boonstra, C. & Liitzkendorf, T. (2000). RESULTS OF IEA-ECBCS ANNEX 31 WORK ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS AND RELATED TOOLS. In International Conference Sustainable Building 2000, 22-25 October 2000, Maastricht, The Netherlands: proceedings. Uitgeverij Æn e as B V.

Bourouni, K., Ben M’Barek, T., & Al Taee, A. (2011). Design and optimization of desalination reverse osmosis plants driven by renewable energies using genetic algorithms. Renewable Energy, 36(3), 936-950.

Boverkets Byggregler (2009). Boverkets Författningssamling (The Swedish Building Regulations). The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Karlskrona.

Boyle, G. (2004). Renewable energy. Oxford University Press.

Brager, G. S., & de Dear, R. J. (1998). Thermal adaptation in the built environment: a literature review. Energy and buildings, 27(1), 83-96.

BRANZ. (2013). Level.org.nz. Retrieved 03 12, 2013, from http://www.level.org.nz/material-use/embodied-energy/

BREEAM. (2011). Building research establishment environmental assessment method. Retrieved 12 19, 2011, from http://www.breeam.org/index.jsp

Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our common future: Report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press.

125

Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, 17(3), 233-247.

Building network’s energy statistics. (2005). Enova report 2005:2. Building network’s energy statistics.

Cai, H., Do, E. Y. L., & Zimring, C. M. (2010). Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design. Design Studies, 31(2), 146-168.

Cai, W. G., Wu, Y., Zhong, Y., & Ren, H. (2009). China building energy consumption: situation, challenges and corresponding measures. Energy Policy, 37(6), 2054-2059.

Caldera, M., Corgnati, S. P., & Filippi, M. (2008). Energy demand for space heating through a statistical approach: application to residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 40(10), 1972-1983.

Campbell, E. (2000, October). The use of benchmarking as a tool for implementing sustainable urban development. In International Conference Sustainable Building (pp. 22-25).

Carmody, J., Guzowski, M. & Wise, J. (2000). The Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide: A web-based design decision support. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable 2000, (pp. 418-420). Maastricht.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chang, K. F., Chiang, C. M., & Chou, P. C. (2007). Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005—searching for suitability in Taiwan. Building and Environment, 42(1), 310-316.

Chaturvedi, S. K., Chen, D. T., & Kheireddine, A. (1998). Thermal performance of a variable capacity direct expansion solar-assisted heat pump. Energy conversion and management, 39(3), 181-191.

Cheng, E. W., & Li, H. (2002). Construction partnering process and associated critical success factors: quantitative investigation. Journal of management in engineering, 18(4), 194-202.

126

Cheung, S. O., & Suen, H. C. (2002). A multi-attribute utility model for dispute resolution strategy selection. Construction Management & Economics, 20(7), 557-568.

Cheung, S. O., Lam, T. I., Leung, M. Y., & Wan, Y. W. (2001). An analytical hierarchy process based procurement selection method. Construction Management & Economics, 19(4), 427-437.

Chiou, H.K., Tzeng, G.H. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical evaluation with grey relation model of green engineering for industry. International Journal Fuzzy System, 3(3), 466–475.

Chow, T. T., Fong, K. F., Chan, A. L. S., Yau, R., Au, W. H., & Cheng, V. (2004). Energy modelling of district cooling system for new urban development. Energy and Buildings, 36(11), 1153-1162.

Chowdhury, A. A., Rasul, M. G., & Khan, M. M. K. (2008). Thermal-comfort analysis and simulation for various low-energy cooling-technologies applied to an office building in a subtropical climate. Applied Energy, 85(6), 449-462.

Christof, D. (2006). Regional and local strategies of development of use of renewable energy. P. Wroclaw, Poland.

Christou, C., & Papageorgiou, E. (2007). A framework of mathematics inductive reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 55-66.

Chwieduk, D. (2003). Towards sustainable-energy buildings. Applied Energy, 76(1), 211-217.

CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). (2004). Types of Tools, Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Building. In Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems. Birmingham, UK.

CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). (2004). Types of Tools, Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings. Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems. Birmingham, UK. Retrieved from http://www.annex31.org

Cole, R. J., & Larsson, N. K. (1999). GBC'98 and GBTool: background. Building Research & Information, 27(4-5), 221-229.

Cole, R. J. (1999). Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions.

127

Building Research & Information, 27(4-5), 230-246.

Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Information, 33(5), 455-467.

Cole, R. J., & Larsson, N. (2002). GBTool user manual. Otawa: Green Building Challenge.

Cole, R. J., Busby, P., Guenther, R., Briney, L., Blaviesciunaite, A., & Alencar, T. (2012). A regenerative design framework: setting new aspirations and initiating new discussions. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 95-111.

Congradac, V., & Kulic, F. (2009). HVAC system optimization with CO2 concentration control using genetic algorithms. Energy and Buildings, 41(5), 571-577.

Connolly, D., Lund, H., Mathiesen, B. V., & Leahy, M. (2010). A review of computer tools for analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems. Applied Energy, 87(4), 1059-1082.

Consoli, F.,Allen, D., Boustead, I., et.al. (1993). Guidelines for life cycle assessment: A Code of Practice. Society of environmental Toxicologicy and Chemistry (SETAC). Brussel, Belgium.

Conway, B. (2010). Office Building. Retrieved 2 20, 2011, from WBDG: http://www.wbdg.org/design/office.php

Cornelissen, R. L., & Hirs, G. G. (2002). The value of the exergetic life cycle assessment besides the LCA. Energy conversion and management, 43(9), 1417-1424.

Cottrell, M. (2010). Guide to the LEED Green Associate Exam (Vol. 17). Wiley. com.

Cowan, J. P. (1993). Handbook of environmental acoustics. Wiley. com.

Crawford, R. H. (2009). Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind turbines and the effect of size on energy yield. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2653-2660.

Crawley, D. B., Hand, J. W., Kummert, M., & Griffith, B. T. (2008). Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs. Building and environment, 43(4), 661-673.

128

Cross, N., & Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: strategies for product design (Vol. 58). Chichester: Wiley.

Crowe, T. J., Noble, J. S., & Machimada, J. S. (1998). Multi-attribute analysis of ISO 9000 registration using AHP. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15(2), 205-222.

Davis, K., & Energy, E. M. (2003). Greenhouse Gas Emission Factor Review. Final Technical Memorandum. Edison Mission Energy. Irvine, CA, Austin, TX.

Deng, H. (1999, August). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. In Fuzzy Systems Conference Proceedings, 1999. FUZZ-IEEE'99. 1999 IEEE International (Vol. 2, pp. 726-731). IEEE.

Denholm, P., & Kulcinski, G. L. (2004). Life cycle energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions from large scale energy storage systems. Energy Conversion and Management, 45(13), 2153-2172.

Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. (2010). Rewables 2010 Global status report.

Dewulf, J., & Van Langenhove, H. (2002). Assessment of the sustainability of technology by means of a thermodynamically based life cycle analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 9(4), 267-273.

Dey, C., & Lenzen, M. (2000, November). Greenhouse gas analysis of electricity generation systems. In ANZSES Solar 2000 Conference, Griffith University, Queensland (pp. 658-668).

Diaf, S., Notton, G., Belhamel, M., Haddadi, M., & Louche, A. (2008). Design and techno-economical optimization for hybrid PV/wind system under various meteorological conditions. Applied Energy, 85(10), 968-987.

Dincer, I. (2002). The role of exergy in energy policy making. Energy policy, 30(2), 137-149.

Ding, G., Langston, C. (2002). A methodology for assessing the sustainability of construction projects and facilities. Proceedings of Environmental and Economic Sustainability – Cost Engineering Down Under. Melbourne,April.

Ding, G. K. (2008). Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of environmental management, 86(3), 451-464.

129

DiPippo, R. (1999). Small geothermal power plants: design, performance and economics. GHC Bulletin, June, 1.

Djuric, N., Novakovic, V., Holst, J., & Mitrovic, Z. (2007). Optimization of energy consumption in buildings with hydronic heating systems considering thermal comfort by use of computer-based tools. Energy and Buildings, 39(4), 471-477.

DOE. (2001). High-performance commercial buildings - a technology roadmap. Representatives of the building envelope industry,Office of Building Technology, U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. (2013). Building energy software tools directory. Retrieved May 2nd, 2013, from http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/

Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2009). Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 136(4), 459-467.

ECBCS-Annex 37- Low Exergy Systems for Heating and Cooling. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 31, 2012, from Http://www.ecbcs.org/annexes/annex37.htm

ECBCS-Annex 49- Low Exergy Systems for High Performance Buildings and Communities. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 31, 2012, from Http://www.ecbcs.org/annexes/annex49.htm

El-Shimy, M. (2009). Viability analysis of PV power plants in Egypt. Renewable Energy, 34(10), 2187-2196.

Engelbrecht, A. P. (2007). Computational intelligence: an introduction. Wiley. com.

Environment-agency. (2011). Environment agency homepage. Retrieved July 2011, from http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/

Eom, J., Clarke, L., Kim, S., Kyle, P., & Patel, P. (2012). China’s building energy use: A long-term perspective based on a detailed assessment. PNNL, Richland CrossRef.

130

European committee for standardization. (2002). EN 12464-1. Light and lighting - lighting of work places - part 1: indoor work places. Brussels,Belgium: European committee for standardization.

European committee for standardization. (2002). EN 12665. Light and lighting e basic terms and criteria for specifying lighting requirements. Brussels,Belgium: European committee for standardization.

European Communities. (2003, 1 4). Directive 2002/91/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings. Official Journal of the European Communities, pp. 65-71.

Fallon, K. K., & Palmer, M. E. (2007). General Buildings Information Handover Guide. Principles, Methodology and Case Studies (NISTIR 7417), August.

Fesanghary, M., Asadi, S., & Geem, Z. W. (2012). Design of low-emission and energy-efficient residential buildings using a multi-objective optimization algorithm. Building and Environment, 49, 245-250.

Flanders, S. N., Schneider, R. L., Fournier, D., Deal, B., & Stumpf, A. L. (2001). Planning, Engineering, and Design of Sustainable Facilities and Infrastructure. An Assessment of the State of Practice (No. ERDC-TR-01-3). ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER CHAMPAIGN IL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LAB.

Fong, K. F., Hanby, V. I., & Chow, T. T. (2006). HVAC system optimization for energy management by evolutionary programming. Energy and Buildings, 38(3), 220-231.

Forscungszentrum Jülich Institure for Energy Research. (2006). Systems analysis and tecnology evaliation.

Frontczak, M., & Wargocki, P. (2011). Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Building and Environment, 46(4), 922-937.

Fryda, L., Panopoulos, K. D., & Kakaras, E. (2008). Integrated CHP with autothermal biomass gasification and SOFC–MGT. Energy Conversion and Management, 49(2), 281-290.

Gagnon, B., Leduc, R., & Savard, L. (2012). From a conventional to a sustainable engineering design process: different shades of sustainability. Journal of

131

Engineering Design, 23(1), 49-74.

GBC Group. (2001). GBTool overview. Retrieved from http://greenbuilding.ca/gbc2k/gbc-start.htm

Geem, Z. W., Kim, J. H., & Loganathan, G. V. (2001). A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation, 76(2), 60-68.

Geng, Y., Dong, H., Xue, B., & Fu, J. (2012). An overview of Chinese green building standards. Sustainable Development, 20(3), 211-221.

Ghiaus, C. (2006). Experimental estimation of building energy performance by robust regression. Energy and buildings, 38(6), 582-587.

Gibberd J. (2005). Assessing sustainable buildings in developing countries – the sustainable building assessment tool (SBAT) and the sustainable building life-cycle (SBL). Proceedings of the world sustainable conference (pp. 1605– 1612). Tokyo: SB05 Tokyo National Conference Board.

Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: CA: Sociology Press.

GOBAS-Group. (2003). Green Olympic Building Assessment System. Beijing, China: Architecture and Building Press.

Govin, O. V., Diky, V. V., Kabo, G. J., & Blokhin, A. V. (2000). Evaluation of the chemical exergy of fuels and petroleum fractions. Journal of thermal analysis and calorimetry, 62(1), 123-133.

Gowri, K. (2005). Desktop tools for sustainable design. ASHRAE Journal, 47 (1): 42-46, 47(PNNL-SA-43599).

Granroth, M. (2011). BIM-Building Information Modelling-Orientation in modern working methods, Simulation,Theory to Practice. Stockholm: KTH-Royal Institute of Technology.

Greening, B., & Azapagic, A. (2012). Domestic heat pumps: Life cycle environmental impacts and potential implications for the UK. Energy, 39(1), 205-217.

Green, M. A. (1999, September). High-efficiency silicon solar cells. In Asia Pacific Symposium on Microelectronics and MEMS (pp. 49-59). International Society for Optics and Photonics.

132

Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological review, 114(2), 211.

Gross, R., Heptonstall, P., Anderson, D., Green, T., Leach, M., & Skea, J. (2006). The costs and impacts of intermittency. UK Energy Research Centre, London.

GSA. (2006). GSA BIM Guide Overview. Washington, DC: United States General Services Administration.

Gu, Z., Wennersten, R., & Assefa, G. (2006). Analysis of the most widely used Building Environmental Assessment methods. Environmental Sciences, 3(3), 175-192.

Gunnarsen, L. (2003). Section 3.1 Thermal climate. Lund,Sweden.

Guo, L.Y. (2009). Research on the Decision-making Control Factors for Green Building Design Based on Building Environmental Assessment System, Master Thesis. NorthwesternPolytechnical University.

Husmann, H. J., & Tantau, H. J. (2001). Integrated optimization of energy supply systems in horticulture using genetic algorithms. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 31(1), 47-59.

Hamdy, M., Hasan, A., & Siren, K. (2011). Impact of adaptive thermal comfort criteria on building energy use and cooling equipment size using a multi-objective optimization scheme. Energy and Buildings, 43(9), 2055-2067.

Hamdy, M., Hasan, A., & Siren, K. (2011). Applying a multi-objective optimization approach for Design of low-emission cost-effective dwellings. Building and environment, 46(1), 109-123.

Hardin, B. (2011). BIM and construction management: proven tools, methods, and workflows. John Wiley & Sons.

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. Sage.

Hatziargyriou, N., Donnelly, M., Papathanassiou, S., et al. . (2000). CIGRE technical brochure on modeling new forms of generation and storage. CIGRE TF38.

Haupt, R. L., & Haupt, S. E. (2004). Practical genetic algorithms. John Wiley & Sons.

133

Heo, E., Kim, J., & Boo, K. J. (2010). Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(8), 2214-2220.

Hepbasli, A. (2005). Thermodynamic analysis of a ground‐source heat pump system for district heating. International Journal of Energy Research, 29(7), 671-687.

Hepbasli, A. (2008). A key review on exergetic analysis and assessment of renewable energy resources for a sustainable future. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(3), 593-661.

Hepbasli, A. (2010). A review on energetic, exergetic and exergoeconomic aspects of geothermal district heating systems (GDHSs). Energy Conversion and Management, 51(10), 2041-2061.

Hepbasli, A., & Akdemir, O. (2004). Energy and exergy analysis of a ground source (geothermal) heat pump system. Energy Conversion and Management, 45(5), 737-753.

Hermann, W. A. (2006). Quantifying global exergy resources. Energy, 31(12), 1685-1702.

Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. U Michigan Press.

Holst, J. N. (2003, August). Using whole building simulation models and optimizing procedures to optimize building envelope design with respect to energy consumption and indoor environment. In Proceedings of the 8th IBPSA conference, Eindhoven, Netherlands (pp. 507-14).

Horvat, M., & Fazio, P. (2005). Comparative review of existing certification programs and performance assessment tools for residential buildings. Architectural science review, 48(1), 69-80.

Houri, A. (2006). Solar water heating in Lebanon: Current status and future prospects. Renewable energy, 31(5), 663-675.

Hsieh, T. Y., Lu, S. T., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International journal of project management, 22(7), 573-584.

134

Hu, X.L., Chen, L.Y., Lei, H.P. (2009). China’s low carbon development pathways by 2050-Scenario analysis of energy demand and carbon emissions. Beijing: Science Press.

Huang, W., & Lam, H. N. (1997). Using genetic algorithms to optimize controller parameters for HVAC systems. Energy and Buildings, 26(3), 277-282.

Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. In Economic and mathematical systems. Now York, USA: Springer.

Häkkinen, T. (2001). City-related sustainability indicators. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from State-of-the-art: http://cic.vtt.fi/eco/crisp/state-of-the-art2.pdf iiSBE. (2007). SBTool, http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2007. Retrieved January 1, 2013 iiSBE. (2012). Retrieved January 2013, from http://www.iisbe.org/sbmethod iiSBE. (2012). SBTool homepage. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://iisbe.org/sbtool-2012

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2007). Analysis of energy supply options and security of energy supply in the Baltic states. International Atomic Energy Agency.

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2008). Cuba: a country profile on sustainable energy development. International Atomic Energy Agency.

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2009). Wind energy, Annual report 2008. IEA wind.

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2010). International energy outlook-Highlights. Washington D.C.,USA: IEA.

International organization for standardization. (1993). ISO 7730. Moderate thermal environments e determination of the PMV and PPD indices and specification of the conditions for thermal comfort. Geneva, Swizerland: International organization for standardization.

135

Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3-11.

Jiang, Y.& Lin, B.R. (2004). Research on Evaluation System of Green Olympic Buildings. Construction Science and Technology, 23, 28-29.

Jóhannesson, G. (2005). Building energy–A practical design tool meeting the requirements of the EPBD. In Proceedings of the 7 th Symposium on Building Physics in the Nordic Countries. The Icelandic Bulding Research Institute, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. (1993). Precis of deduction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 323-323.

Joseph, J. R.& William, D. B. (1994). Greening the building and the bottomline:increasing productivity through energy-efficient design. Snowmass: Rocky Mountain Institute.

Joshi, S. P., Umaretiya, J. R., & Joshi, S. B. (1991). Decision-making in preliminary engineering design. AI EDAM, 5(1), 21-30.

JSBC. (2013). CASBEE. Retrieved from http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm

Juan, Y. K., Gao, P., & Wang, J. (2010). A hybrid decision support system for sustainable office building renovation and energy performance improvement. Energy and Buildings, 42(3), 290-297.

Jungmeier, G., Resch, G., & Spitzer, J. (1998). Environmental burdens over the entire life cycle of a biomass CHP plant. Biomass and Bioenergy, 15(4), 311-323.

Kannan, R., Leong, K. C., Osman, R., Ho, H. K., & Tso, C. P. (2006). Life cycle assessment study of solar PV systems: An example of a 2.7 kW distributed solar PV system in Singapore. Solar energy, 80(5), 555-563.

Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-bequality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39-48

Kapelan, Z., Savic, D. A., & Walters, G. A. (2005). Decision-support tools for sustainable urban development. Proceedings of the ICE-Engineering Sustainability, 158(3), 135-142.

136

Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., & Perlman, J. (2003). The costs and financial benefits of green buildings. A Report to California’s.

Kayo, G., & Ooka, R. (2010). Building energy system optimizations with utilization of waste heat from cogenerations by means of genetic algorithm. Energy and Buildings, 42(7), 985-991.

Keysar, E., & Pearce, A. R. (2007). Decision support tools for green building: facilitating selection among new adopters on public sector projects. Journal of Green Building, 2(3), 153-171.

Kibert, C.J. (2008). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. Hoboken, NJ.: John Wiley & Sons.

Kilkis, S. (2007). A Rational Exergy Management Model for Curbing Building CO2 Emissions. ASHRAE Transactions, 113(2), 113-123.

Kilkis, S. (2011). A rational exergy management model to curb CO2 emissions in the exergy-aware built environments of the future (Doctoral dissertation, KTH).

Koroneos, C., Spachos, T., & Moussiopoulos, N. (2003). Exergy analysis of renewable energy sources. Renewable energy, 28(2), 295-310.

Krey, V., Martinsen, D., & Wagner, H. J. (2007). Effects of stochastic energy prices on long-term energy-economic scenarios. Energy, 32(12), 2340-2349.

Krygiel, E., & Nies, B. (2008). Green BIM: successful sustainable design with building information modeling. Wiley. com.

Kwiatkowski, J., Woloszyn, M., & Roux, J. J. (2011). Influence of sorption isotherm hysteresis effect on indoor climate and energy demand for heating. Applied Thermal Engineering, 31(6), 1050-1057.

Kwok, A. G., & Rajkovich, N. B. (2010). Addressing climate change in comfort standards. Building and Environment, 45(1), 18-22.

Lai, A. C. K., Mui, K. W., Wong, L. T., & Law, L. Y. (2009). An evaluation model for indoor environmental quality (IEQ) acceptance in residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 41(9), 930-936.

Lam, J. C., Hui, S., & Chan, A. L. (1997). Regression analysis of high-rise fully

137

air-conditioned office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 26(2), 189-197.

Larsson, N. (2012, October 24). Retrieved from iisbe: http://www.iisbe.org/system/files/SBTool%202012%20user%20guide%2026O ct12.pdf

Larsson, N. (2012, April). Overview if the SBTool assessment framework. Retrieved January 2013, from http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2012

Larsson, N. K. (1999). Development of a building performance rating and labelling system in Canada. Building Research & Information, 27(4-5), 332-341.

Laureano, P. (2007). Ancient water catchment techniques for proper management of Mediterranean ecosystems. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 7(1), 237-244.

Lee, K. S., & Geem, Z. W. (2005). A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering optimization: harmony search theory and practice. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 194(36), 3902-3933.

Lee, W. L., & Burnett, J. (2006). Customization of GBTool in Hong Kong. Building and environment, 41(12), 1831-1846.

LEED. (2009). LEED Homepage. Retrieved January 2012, from http://www.usgbc.org

Lenzen, M. (2010). Current state of development of electricity-generating technologies: A literature review. Energies, 3(3), 462-591.

Li, B., & Yao, R. (2009). Urbanisation and its impact on building energy consumption and efficiency in China. Renewable Energy, 34(9), 1994-1998.

Li, C. H. (2010). Regional characteristics on green building and the development of assessment system in china. Advanced Materials Research, 113, 598-601.

Libovich, A. (2005). Assessing green building for sustainable cities. Proceedings of the world sustainable conference (pp. 1968–1971). Tokyo: SB05 Tokyo National Conference Board.

Liu, Y. (2005). A Holistic Approach to Developing Generic vs. Regionally Specific

138

Frameworks for Sustainable Building Tools-Including a survey about local architects’ perceptions, preferences and expectations in China, Doctoral thesis. NSW, Australia: The University of New South Wales.

Liu, Y., Prasad, D., Li, J., Fu, Y., & Liu, J. (2006). Developing regionally specific environmental building tools for China. Building Research & Information, 34(4), 372-386.

Liu, Y., Guo, L.Y., Yao, J.L., Ren, J., etc. (2008). Decision-making support research for green building design based on building envionmental performance systems. National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Lockwood, C. (2006). Building the greenway. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 129– 137.

Love, P. E., Edwards, D. J., Han, S., & Goh, Y. M. (2011). Design error reduction: toward the effective utilization of building information modeling. Research in Engineering Design, 22(3), 173-187.

Lund, H. (2003). Excess electricity diagrams and the integration of renewable energy. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 23(4), 149-156.

Lund, H., & Münster, E. (2003). Management of surplus electricity-production from a fluctuating renewable-energy source. Applied Energy, 76(1), 65-74.

Lund, H., & Andersen, A. N. (2005). Optimal designs of small CHP plants in a market with fluctuating electricity prices. Energy Conversion and Management, 46(6), 893-904.

Lund, H., & Mathiesen, B. V. (2009). Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Energy, 34(5), 524-531.

Lund, H. (2006). Large-scale integration of optimal combinations of PV, wind and wave power into the electricity supply. Renewable Energy, 31(4), 503-515.

Lützkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. P. (2006). Using an integrated performance approach in building assessment tools. Building Research & Information, 34(4), 334-356.

Mackley, C., MacLennan, P., Miller, A., and Curwell, S. (2000). Environmental education for the building industry: An internet resource. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Building 2000, (pp. 174-176).

139

Maastricht.

Maffin, D. (1998). Engineering design models: context, theory and practice. Journal of Engineering Design, 9(4), 315-327.

Magent, C. S., Korkmaz, S., Klotz, L. E., & Riley, D. R. (2009). A design process evaluation method for sustainable buildings. Architectural engineering and design management, 5(1-2), 62-74.

Malin, N. (2007). Building Information Modeling and Green Design. Environmental Building News, 16(5).

Maric, D. M., Meier, P. F., & Estreicher, S. K. (1993). {H, B},{H, C}, and {H, Si} pairs in silicon and germanium. Physical Review B, 47(7), 3620.

Mendez, V. H., Rivier, J., Fuente, J. D. L., Gomez, T., Arceluz, J., Marin, J., & Madurga, A. (2006). Impact of distributed generation on distribution investment deferral. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 28(4), 244-252.

Mendler, S., & Odell, W. (2000). The HOK guidebook to sustainable design. John Wiley & Sons.

Messner, S., Strubegger, M. (1995). User’s guide for MESSAGE III. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Mistree, F.& Smith, W. (1993). A decision-based approach to concurrent design. In H. a. Parsaei, Concurrent Engineering-Contemporary Issues and Modern Design Tools (pp. 127-158). London: Chapman & Hall.

Moeller J.&Jensen, H. (1995). Design Reference Year, DRY. A new Danish reference year, Technical report No.DTU-LV-MEDD-281,CNN:contract ENS-1213/92-0023. Technical University of Denmark.

MOHURD. (2001). GB/T 50033-2001 Standard for daylighting design of buildings.

Molinari, M. (2012). Exergy and Parametric Analysis: Methods and Concepts for a Sustainable Built Environment (Doctoral dissertation, KTH).

Moradi, M. H., & Abedini, M. (2012). A combination of genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization for optimal DG location and sizing in distribution systems. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 34(1), 66-74.

140

Mulder, K. (2006). Sustainable development for engineers. Greenleaf Publishing.

Murillo, F. & Schiller, S. D. (2000). Evolving approaches to evaluate sustainable housing projects. In C. e. Boonstra (Ed.), International Conference Sustainable Building 2000 Proceedings (pp. 256-258). Netherlands: Technical Publishers.

Napier, B. (2008). Wisconsin leads by example. J. Building Info. Model, 30-31.

National resouces Canada. RETScreen International. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 12, 2012, from

Natural Resources Canada. (2003). Energy efficiency trends in Canada 1990-2001. Ottawa,Canada: Natural Resources Canada.

Navai, M., & Veitch, J. A. (2003). Acoustic satisfaction in open-plan offices: review and recommendations. Institute for Research in Construction.

Ng, S. T., Chen, Y., & Wong, J. M. (2012). Variability of building environmental assessment tools on evaluating carbon emissions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review.38.131-141.

NIBS. (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences.

NIBS. (2010). High Performance Buildings Report. Retrieved 12 5, 2010, from http://www.nibs.org/client/assets/files/hpbc/NIBS_HighPerformanceBuildings _Report.pdf

Nicol, J. F., & Humphreys, M. A. (2002). Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings. Energy and buildings, 34(6), 563-572.

Nie, M.S., Qin, Y.G., Jiang, Y., Zhang, Q.F. & Cai F. (2007). China’s Eco-house technical evaluation handbook (4th ed.). Beijing: China building industry press.

OFEE (Office of the Federal Environmental Executive). (2003). Federal Commitment to Green Building: Experiences and Expectations. Washington,DC. Retrieved from http://ofee.gov/sb/fgb.html.

Ooka, R., & Komamura, K. (2009). Optimal design method for building energy systems using genetic algorithms. Building and Environment, 44(7), 1538-1544.

141

Ould Bilal, B., Sambou, V., Ndiaye, P. A., Kébé, C. M. F., & Ndongo, M. (2010). Optimal design of a hybrid solar–wind-battery system using the minimization of the annualized cost system and the minimization of the loss of power supply probability (LPSP). Renewable Energy, 35(10), 2388-2390.

Ozgener, L., Hepbasli, A., & Dincer, I. (2004). Thermo-mechanical exergy analysis of Balcova geothermal district heating system in Izmir, Turkey. Journal of energy resources technology, 126(4), 293-301.

Ozgener, L., Hepbasli, A., & Dincer, I. (2005). Thermodynamic analysis of a geothermal district heating system. International Journal of Exergy, 2(3), 231-245.

Ozgener, O., & Ozgener, L. (2007). Exergy and reliability analysis of wind turbine systems: a case study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(8), 1811-1826.

Papadopoulos, A. M., & Giama, E. (2009). Rating systems for counting buildings’ environmental performance. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 28(1-3), 29-43.

Papamichael, K. (2000). Green building performance prediction/assessment. Building Research & Information, 28(5-6), 394-402.

Pasternack, A. (2008, May). School in Tibet. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from Icon Magazine Online: http://www.iconeye.com/read-previous-issues/icon-059-%7C-may-2008/schoo l-in-tibet

Pedersen, L., Stang, J., & Ulseth, R. (2008). Load prediction method for heat and electricity demand in buildings for the purpose of planning for mixed energy distribution systems. Energy and Buildings, 40(7), 1124-1134.

Pettersen, T. D. (1994). Variation of energy consumption in dwellings due to climate, building and inhabitants. Energy and buildings, 21(3), 209-218.

Pennsylvania Department of Conmmunity & Economic Development. (2009, 11). High Performance Building Program Guidelines. Retrieved 3 5, 2011

Penttilä, H. (2006). Describing the changes in architectural information technology to understand design complexity and free-form architectural expression architectural expression. ITcon, 11, 395-408.

142

Prior, J. J., Raw, G. J.& Charlesworth, J. L. (2001). BREEAM/New homes: version 3/91. In an environmental assessment for new homes. Garston: Watford: IHS Press.

Priyantha, D.C., Wijayatunga, W.J.L.S., Fernando, S., et al. (2003). Lighting energy efficiency in office buildings: Sri Lanka. Energy Conversion and Management, 44, 2383–2392.

Qiu B.X. (2010). Six Fields With Highest Potential of Building Energy Saving and Their Perspectives in China. Urban Studies, 17(5), 1-6.

Rao, S.Y., Brownhill A.D. & Howard N. (2000). EcoHomes: the environment rating for homes. London: Construction Research Communications by permission of Building Research Establishment.

Rehman, F. U., & Yan, X. T. (2011). Application of context knowledge in supporting conceptual design decision-making. International Journal of Product Development, 13(1), 47-66.

RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute). (2004). Green Building Sources. Snowmass, CO.: Rocky Mountain Institute.

Roderick, Y., McEwan, D., Wheatley, C., & Alonso, C. (2009, July). Comparison of energy performance assessment between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star. In Eleventh International IBPSA Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, 27-30 July 2009 (pp. 1167-76). Integrated Environmental Solutions Limited.

Rolfsman, B. (2002). CO 2 emission consequences of energy measures in buildings. Building and Environment, 37(12), 1421-1430.

Rosen, M. A., & Dincer, I. (2003). Exergy methods for assessing and comparing thermal storage systems. International Journal of Energy Research, 27(4), 415-430.

Rowland D.& Howe T.N. (1999). Vitruvius Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryozo O., Kazuhiko K. (2007). Optimal design method for building energy systems using genetic algorithms. Building and Environment, 44, 1538–1544.

Olofsson, T., Andersson, S., & Sjögren, J. U. (2009). Building energy parameter

143

investigations based on multivariate analysis. Energy and Buildings, 41(1), 71-80.

Ooka, R., & Komamura, K. (2009). Optimal design method for building energy systems using genetic algorithms. Building and Environment, 44(7), 1538-1544.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill .

Sacks, R., Kaner, I., Eastman, C. M., & Jeong, Y. S. (2010). The Rosewood experiment—Building information modeling and interoperability for architectural precast facades. Automation in construction, 19(4), 419-432.

Sahlin, P., Eriksson, L., Grozman, P., Johnsson, H., Shapovalov, A., & Vuolle, M. (2004). Whole-building simulation with symbolic DAE equations and general purpose solvers. Building and Environment, 39(8), 949-958.

Sakulpipatsin, P., Boelman, E. C., van der Kooi, H. J., & Itard, L. C. M. (2008). Exergy efficient building design. VSSD.

Sam, K. (2010). Chapter6-chossing materials and products. In In Green construction project management and cost oversight (pp. 221-266).

Say, C. & Wood, A. (2008). Sustainability rating systems around the world. CTBUH Review, 2(2), 18–29.

Schleisner, L. (2000). Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities. Renewable energy, 20(3), 279-288.

Schlueter, A., & Thesseling, F. (2009). Building information model based energy/exergy performance assessment in early design stages. Automation in Construction, 18(2), 153-163.

Sev, A. (2011). A comparative analysis of building environmental assessment tools. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 28(3), 231–245.

Sharp, T. (1996). Energy benchmarking in commercial office buildings. ACEEE summer study of energy efficiency in buildings, 4, 321-329.

Shen, W. X. (2009). Optimally sizing of solar array and battery in a standalone photovoltaic system in Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 34(1), 348-352.

144

Sherwani, A. F., & Usmani, J. A. (2010). Life cycle assessment of solar PV based electricity generation systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(1), 540-544.

Sheu, J. B. (2004). A hybrid fuzzy-based approach for identifying global logistics strategies. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 40(1), 39-61.

Shi, Y. (2011). The Application of the BIM Technology in the Design of Solar Building. Tianjing University.

Simon, H.A. (1969). The Science of the Artficial. Cambridge, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Stancich, R. (2009). Choosing green building certification. Retrieved June 2nd, 2010, from http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6094

Stanislav, H.Z. (2003). Systems and Control. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Starvey, C.V. (1992). Engineering Design Decisions. London: Edward Arnold.

Steele, J. (1997). Sustainable Architecture: Principles, Paradigms, and Case Studies (8th ed.). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: England: Cambridge University Press.

Stremke, S., & Koh, J. (2010). Ecological concepts and strategies with relevance to energy-conscious spatial planning and design. Environment and planning. B, Planning & design, 37(3), 518.

Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375.

Sun, F. (2013). Chinese Climate and Vernacular Dwellings. Buildings, 3(1), 143-172.

Sun, S.M., Li, W.Q., Ma, R. (2010). Analysis on present development situation and trend of green architecture in our country. Shanxi Architecture, 36(14), 13–14.

145

Sweden Green Building Council. (2011). MILJÖBYGGNAD-a Swedish certification that cares about People and the Environment. Retrieved from Sweden Green Building Council: http://www.sgbc.se/dokument-och-manualer

Szargut, J. (2005). Exergy Method: Technical and Ecological Applications. Boston, USA: WIT Press.

Szargut, J., Morris, D.R., Stewart, F.R. . (1998). Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical, and metallurgical processes. Edwards Brothers Inc.

Szczepanowski, C. (2011). Miljöbyggnad –Environmentalbuilding, Sweden GBC. Nordic Green Building Councils Conference. Stockholm: Sweden GBC.

The European Commission. (1999). A Green Vitruvius: principles and practice of sustainable architectural design. London: James & James.

Tremeac, B., & Meunier, F. (2009). Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250W wind turbines. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 13(8), 2104-2110.

Triangle J Council of Governments. (2001). High Performance Guidelines: Triangle Region Public Facilities,Version1.0. Triangle J Council of Governments.

Trusty, W. B. (2003). Understanding the green building toolkit: picking the right tool for the job. In proceedings of the USGBC Greenbuilding International Conference & Expo, Pittsburgh, USA.

Turner, J. S., & Soar, R. C. (2008, May). Beyond biomimicry: What termites can tell us about realizing the living building. In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Industrialized, Intelligent Construction (pp. 221-237).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Air Emissions.

US National Institute of Justice . (1992). Evaluating Drug Control and System Improvement Projects, Guidelines for Projects Supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/guide/documents/chapter_5_nij_guide.htm

USGBC. (2009). USGBC. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://new.usgbc.org/leed

Van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority

146

theory. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 11(1), 199-227.

Bezemer,V. (2008, January). Can Vernacular Architecture in the Tropics assist with Modern Passive Ventilation Design in Domestic. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Can+Vernacular+Architecture+ in+the+Tropics+assist+with+Modern+Passive+Ventilation+Design+in+Domes tic.&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcambodi architecture.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F06%2Fvernacular_architecture _cooling.pdf&ei=sK85UrOTH4Tx4QSH5YHYAQ&usg=AFQjCNG1SPX6R Bu96XHdkS9xfR6DRoV3vw

Voll, H. (2008). Cooling Demand and Daylight in Commercial Buildings The Influence of Window Design. Chalmers University of Technology,.

Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R., & Rivard, H. (2005). Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization. Building and Environment, 40(11), 1512-1525.

Waage, S. A. (2007). Re-considering product design: a practical “road-map” for integration of sustainability issues. Journal of Cleaner production, 15(7), 638-649.

Vafaie, H., Brown, N. F., & Truong, L. (2006, November). Methodology for the selection of intelligence analysis tools. In Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 2006. ICTAI'06. 18th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 55-62). IEEE.

Wahid, A. (2012, March). Adaptive Vernacular Options for Sustainable Architecture. Journal of the International Society for the Study of Vernacular Settlements, 2, pp. 74-87.

Wallhagen, M. (2010). Environmental Assessment of Buildings and the influence on architectural design (Doctoral dissertation, KTH).

Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R., & Rivard, H. (2005). Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization. Building and Environment, 40(11), 1512-1525.

Wang, Y.& Sun, T. . (2012). Life cycle assessment of CO2 emissions from wind power plants: Methodology and case study. Renewable Energy, 43, 30-36.

Watson, S. (2004). Improving the Implementation of Environmental Strategies in the

147

Design of Buildings: towards a life-cycle based, front-loaded, framework for building environmental assessment during design. PhD thesis, University of Queensland.

Weber, C., & Shah, N. (2011). Optimisation based design of a district energy system for an eco-town in the United Kingdom. Energy, 36(2), 1292-1308.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). ANALYZING THE PAST TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE: WRITING A. MIS quarterly, 26(2).

Veitch, J. A. (2001). Psychological processes influencing lighting quality. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 30(1), 124-140.

Wetter, M. . (2009). GenOpts Generic Optimization program. User manual 3.0.0. Technical report LBNL-2077E. Building Technologies Program, Simulation Research Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory .

Wetter, M. (2001, August). GenOpt®," Generic Optimization Program. In Seventh international IBPSA conference (pp. 601-608).

Winkelmann, F.C., Birdsall, B.E., Buhl, W.F., et al. . (1993). DOE-2 Supplement, Version 2.1E, LBL-34947. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Wong, J. K., & Li, H. (2008). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Building and Environment, 43(1), 108-125.

Wong, L. T., & Mui, K. W. (2009). Efficiency assessment of indoor environmental policy for air-conditioned offices in Hong Kong. Applied Energy, 86(10), 1933-1938.

Wrisberg et al. (2002). Analytical Tools for Environmental Design and Management in a Systems.The Combined Use of Analytical Tools. Dordrecht, Neitherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wuppertal Institute. (2002). Material Input Per Service Unit Mannual.

Wang, X., & Ben, H. (2005). Exergy analysis of domestic-scale solar water heaters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 9(6), 638-645.

Xiao Y.J., & Q,Z.C. (2009, December). The Problems and Countermeasures for Implementing Green Building in China. In Information Management,

148

Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, 2009 International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 114-118). IEEE.

Xing, M.Q. (2008). Study on building design pattern based on "Evaluation Standard for Green Buildings". Master thesis. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University.

Xu, W. (2012). China Building Energy Efficiency Technology Roadmap. IEA HPC Newsletter, 30, pp. 16-18.

Y.Mishing. (2006). Diffusion Process in Advanced Technological Materials. In D.Gupta. Norwich, NY: William Andrew.

Gupta, D. (2005). Diffusion processes in advanced technological materials. Access Online via Elsevier.

Yang GS., Zhou YP. (2010). Research on the Government Incentive of Green Buildings in China. 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science (MASS 2010). Wuhan: China: IEEE.

Yang G.S.& Zhou Y.P. (2010, August). Research on the Government Incentive of Green Buildings in China. In Management and Service Science (MASS), 2010 International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

Yang, H., Zhou, W., Lu, L., & Fang, Z. (2008). Optimal sizing method for stand-alone hybrid solar–wind system with LPSP technology by using genetic algorithm. Solar energy, 82(4), 354-367.

Yang M, Xu L& Jian G. (2009). The characteristics of development of Chinese green building. The 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU): The New Urban Question- Urbanism Beyond Neo-Liberalism. Amsterdam/Delft.

Yang, Y. I. N., & Liang, D. O. N. G. (2009). Regional factor's impact on green building assessment systems and their development in China. Construction Energy Conservation, 12, 016.

Yao, R., Li, B., & Steemers, K. (2005). Energy policy and standard for built environment in China. Renewable Energy, 30(13), 1973-1988.

Ye, L.,Cheng, Z.J.,et al. (2013). Overview on Green Building Label in China. Renewable Energy, 5, pp. 220–229.

149

Yin, Y. & Dong, L. (2009). Regional factor’s impact on green building assessment systems and their development in China. Construction Conserves Energy, 226, 37–39.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage.

Yohanis,Y.G.& Norton, B. (2002). Life cycle operational and embodied energy for a generic single-story office building in the UK. Energy, 27(1), 77–92.

Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, (9), 1-6.

Zak, S. H. (2003). Systems and control (Vol. 388). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zerkin, A. J. (2006). Mainstreaming high performance building in New York City: A comprehensive roadmap for removing the barriers. Technology in Society, 28(1), 137-155.

Zhang, X., Platten, A., & Shen, L. (2011). Green property development practice in China: costs and barriers. Building and Environment, 46(11), 2153-2160.

Zhou, L., & Haghighat, F. (2008). Optimization of ventilation systems in office environment. Part I. methodology. Building and Environment, 44, 651-656.

Zhou, Y. P., Wu, J. Y., Wang, R. Z., Shiochi, S., & Li, Y. M. (2008). Simulation and experimental validation of the variable-refrigerant-volume (VRV) air-conditioning system in EnergyPlus. Energy and buildings, 40(6), 1041-1047.

Zhu, Y.X. (2005). Green Olympics buildings assessment and green building materials evalution. China Building Materials, 7, 95-96.

Zimmerman, A., Aho, L., Bordass, W., Geissler, S. & Jaaniste, R. (2002). Proposed framework for environmental assessment of existing buildings. (P. T. D., Ed.) International Conference Sustainable Building 2002 Proceedings, p. 113.

Zimmerman, A., & Kibert, C. J. (2007). Informing LEED's next generation with The Natural Step. Building Research & Information, 35(6), 681-689.

150

Appendix A

Overview of existing BEA tools

BEA Tools Developer Home page(If set) ABGR Australian Building Department of Greenhouse Rating Commence, NSW, 2005 AccuRate CSIRO, 2006 BASIX Building Department of https://www.basix.nsw.gov.au/b

sustainability Index Infrastructure, Planning asixcms/ and Natural Resources, 2004 BEPAC Building Canada, 1993 environmental performance assessment criteria

CASBEE Comprehensive Japan, 2004 http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/

assessment system english/overviewE.htm for building environmental efficiency CEPAS Comprehensive HK,2001 http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/d

environmental ocuments/index_CEPAS.html performance assessment scheme CPA Comprehensive UK,2001 project evaluation DGNB Deutsches Gu¨ Germany http://www.dgnb-system.de/en tesiegel fu¨ r Nachhaltiges Bauen DQI Design quality UK http://www.dqi.org.uk/website/d

indicator efault.aspa Eco-Quantum Netherlands http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainf

ohub/tool2.vm?tid=205

EMGB Evaluation manual Tainwan,1998 for green buildings

151

EPGB Environmental Department of Public performance guide Works and Services, for building NSW ESGB Evaluation China,2006 Standard for Green Building GB/T50378-2006 GBCS Green Building Korea http://www.greenbuilding.or.kr/

Certification eng/html/sub02_1.jsp System GHEM Green home China,2001 evaluation manual

Green Mark Singapore http://www.greenmark.sg/

GreenCalc+ Dutch http://www.greencalc.com/index

.html GreenStar Green Building Council http://www.gbca.org.au/green-st

ar/ HKBEA Hong Kong Hong Kong, 1996 http://www.beamsociety.org.hk/

M building en_index.php environmental assessment method

HQE Haute Qualité France http://assohqe.org/hqe/ Environnementale

LEED Leadership in USA,2000 http://new.usgbc.org/leed energy and environmental design Miljöbyggnad Sweden http://www.sgbc.se/certifierings

system/miljoebyggnad NABERS National Australian Department of http://www.nabers.gov.au/publi building Environment and c/WebPages/ContentStandard.as environmental Heritage, 2001 px?module=0&template=3&incl

rating system ude=homeIntro.htm

NatHERS Nationwide House CSIRO http://www.nathers.gov.au/ Energy Rating Scheme PromisE Finland http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/proj6/

environ/ympluok_e.html

152

SBAT The Sustainable South Africa http://www.csir.co.za/Built_envi Building ronment/Architectural_sciences/

Assessment Tool sbat.html

SBTool( Green building International,1995 http://iisbe.org/sbtool-2012 GBTool) challenge

SPeAP Sustainable project http://www.arup.com/Projects/S

appraisal routine PeAR.aspx

153

Appendix B

The integrated conceptual model to support an architect’s early design decision making of HPB

154