The development of a simple multi-nodal tool to identify performance issues in existing commercial buildings

Australia’s building stock includes many older commercial buildings with numerous factors that impact energy performance and indoor environment quality. The built environment industry has generally focused heavily on improving physical building design elements for greater energy efficiency (such as retrofits and environmental upgrades), however there are noticeable ‘upper limits’ to performance improvements in these areas. To achieve a stepchange improvement in building performance, the authors propose that additional components need to be addressed in a whole of building approach, including the way building design elements are managed and the level of stakeholder engagement between owners, tenants and building managers. This paper focuses on the opportunities provided by this whole-of-building approach, presenting the findings of a research project undertaken through the Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre (SBEnrc) in Australia. Researchers worked with a number of industry partners over two years to investigate issues facing stakeholders at base building and tenancy levels, and the barriers to improving building performance. Through a mixed-method, industry-led research approach, five ‘nodes’ were identified in whole-of-building performance evaluation, each with interlinking and overlapping complexities that can influence performance. The nodes cover building management, occupant experience, indoor environment quality, agreements and culture, and design elements. This paper outlines the development and testing of these nodes and their interactions, and the resultant multi-nodal tool, called the ‘Performance Nexus’ tool. The tool is intended to be of most benefit in evaluating opportunities for performance improvement in the vast number of existing low-performing building stock.

The 10 Australian ecosystems most vulnerable to tipping points

We identify the 10 major terrestrial and marine ecosystems in Australia most vulnerable to tipping points, in which modest environmental changes can cause disproportionately large changes in ecosystem properties. To accomplish this we independently surveyed the coauthors of this paper to produce a list of candidate ecosystems, and then refined this list during a 2-day workshop. The list includes (1) elevationally restricted mountain ecosystems, (2) tropical savannas, (3) coastal floodplains and wetlands, (4) coral reefs, (5) drier rainforests, (6) wetlands and floodplains in the Murray-Darling Basin, (7) the Mediterranean ecosystems of southwestern Australia, (8) offshore islands, (9) temperate eucalypt forests, and (10) salt marshes and mangroves. Some of these ecosystems are vulnerable to widespread phase-changes that could fundamentally alter ecosystem properties such as habitat structure, species composition, fire regimes, or carbon storage. Others appear susceptible to major changes across only part of their geographic range, whereas yet others are susceptible to a large-scale decline of key biotic components, such as small mammals or stream-dwelling amphibians. For each ecosystem we consider the intrinsic features and external drivers that render it susceptible to tipping points, and identify subtypes of the ecosystem that we deem to be especially vulnerable. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

Exploring the boundary between the siphon and barometer in a hypobaric chamber

Siphons have been used since ancient times, but exactly how they work is still a matter of debate. In order to elucidate the modus operandi of a siphon, a 1.5 m high siphon was set up in a hypobaric chamber to explore siphon behaviour in a low-pressure environment. When the pressure in the chamber was reduced to about 0.18 atmospheres, a curious waterfall-like feature appeared downstream from the apex of the siphon. A hypothesis is presented to explain the waterfall phenomenon. When the pressure was reduced further the siphon broke into two columns - in effect becoming two back-to-back barometers. This experiment demonstrates the role of atmospheric pressure in explaining the hydrostatic characteristics of a siphon and the role of molecular cohesion in explaining the hydrodynamic aspects.

Navigating the social dimension of sustainability decision making of mega-projects

Until recently, sustainable development was perceived as essentially an environmental issue, relating to the integration of environmental concerns into economic decision-making. As a result, environmental considerations have been the primary focus of sustainability decision making during the economic development process for major projects, and the assessment and preservation of social and cultural systems has been arguably too limited. The practice of social impact and sustainability assessment is an established and accepted part of project planning, however, these practices are not aimed at delivering sustainability outcomes for social systems, rather they are designed to minimise ‘unsustainability’ and contribute to project approval. Currently, there exists no widely recognised standard approach for assessing social sustainability and accounting for positive externalities of existing social systems in project decision making. As a result, very different approaches are applied around the world, and even by the same organisations from one project to another. This situation is an impediment not only to generating a shared understanding of the social implications as related to major projects, but more importantly, to identifying common approaches to help improve social sustainability outcomes of proposed activities. This paper discusses the social dimension of sustainability decision making of mega-projects, and argues that to improve accountability and transparency of project outcomes it is important to understand the characteristics that make some communities more vulnerable than others to mega-project development. This paper highlights issues with current operational level approaches to social sustainability assessment at the project level, and asserts that the starting point for project planning and sustainability decision making of mega-projects needs to include the preservation, maintenance, and enhancement of existing social and cultural systems. It draws attention to the need for a scoping mechanism to systematically assess community vulnerability (or sensitivity) to major infrastructure development during the feasibility and planning stages of a project.