Future-proofed energy design for dwellings: Case studies from England and application to the Code for Sustainable Homes

This paper investigates 'future-proofing' as an unexplored yet all-important aspect in the design of low-energy dwellings. It refers particularly to adopting lifecycle thinking and accommodating risks and uncertainties in the selection of fabric energy efficiency measures and low or zero-carbon technologies. Based on a conceptual framework for future-proofed design, the paper first presents results from the analysis of two 'best practice' housing developments in England; i.e., North West Cambridge in Cambridge and West Carclaze and Baal in St. Austell, Cornwall. Second, it examines the 'Energy and CO2 Emissions' part of the Code for Sustainable Homes to reveal which design criteria and assessment methods can be practically integrated into this established building certification scheme so that it can become more dynamic and future-oriented.Practical application: Future-proofed construction is promoted implicitly within the increasingly stringent building regulations; however, there is no comprehensive method to readily incorporate futures thinking into the energy design of buildings. This study has a three-fold objective of relevance to the building industry:Illuminating the two key categories of long-term impacts in buildings, which are often erroneously treated interchangeably:- The environmental impact of buildings due to their long lifecycles.- The environment's impacts on buildings due to risks and uncertainties affecting the energy consumption by at least 2050. This refers to social, technological, economic, environmental and regulatory (predictable or unknown) trends and drivers of change, such as climate uncertainty, home-working, technology readiness etc.Encouraging future-proofing from an early planning stage to reduce the likelihood of a prematurely obsolete building design.Enhancing established building energy assessment methods (certification, modelling or audit tools) by integrating a set of future-oriented criteria into their methodologies. © 2012 The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.

The adoption of sustainable remediation behaviour in the US and UK: a cross country comparison and determinant analysis.

The sustainable remediation concept, aimed at maximizing the net environmental, social, and economic benefits in contaminated site remediation, is being increasingly recognized by industry, governments, and academia. However, there is limited understanding of actual sustainable behaviour being adopted and the determinants of such sustainable behaviour. The present study identified 27 sustainable practices in remediation. An online questionnaire survey was used to rank and compare them in the US (n=112) and the UK (n=54). The study also rated ten promoting factors, nine barriers, and 17 types of stakeholders' influences. Subsequently, factor analysis and general linear models were used to determine the effects of internal characteristics (i.e. country, organizational characteristics, professional role, personal experience and belief) and external forces (i.e. promoting factors, barriers, and stakeholder influences). It was found that US and UK practitioners adopted many sustainable practices to similar extents. Both US and UK practitioners perceived the most effectively adopted sustainable practices to be reducing the risk to site workers, protecting groundwater and surface water, and reducing the risk to the local community. Comparing the two countries, we found that the US adopted innovative in-situ remediation more effectively; while the UK adopted reuse, recycling, and minimizing material usage more effectively. As for the overall determinants of sustainable remediation, the country of origin was found not to be a significant determinant. Instead, organizational policy was found to be the most important internal characteristic. It had a significant positive effect on reducing distant environmental impact, sustainable resource usage, and reducing remediation cost and time (p<0.01). Customer competitive pressure was found to be the most extensively significant external force. In comparison, perceived stakeholder influence, especially that of primary stakeholders (site owner, regulator, and primary consultant), did not appear to have as extensive a correlation with the adoption of sustainability as one would expect.