Environmental performance and sustainable architecture a critical review in the context of singapore public housing 4

Chapter 14: Conclusion, Implications and Future Research Agenda 14.1 Prelude Starting with the present fragmented and contesting practices towards sustainable architecture and sustainab

Part IV Conclusion

Chapter 14: Conclusion, Implications and Future Research Agenda

14.1 Prelude

Starting with the present fragmented and contesting practices towards sustainable architecture and sustainable housing, as well as the escalating popularity of environmental performance assessment practice, the thesis has:

– identified implication and weaknesses in BEAMs and the concept of environmental performance (Chapter 2, Chapter 8 and Part III);

– shown the impacts of socio-economics and architectural design on building environmental performance (Part III)

– identified additional factors in socio-economics and architectural design that can influence building environmental performance (Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Part III)

To address the solution to the above fragmentation, the thesis, based on theoretical studies, has established the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse (Chapter 5) This framework organises approaches from socio-economics, architectural design and environmental performance domains in an integrated and reciprocal manner The Integrated Framework has been revisited (Part III) with empirical substantiation found in Singapore public housing practice This has led to a systematic approach, assessment criteria, and influencing factors, of specific sustainable performance issues, i.e land use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, material efficiency, and experience of home

This Chapter concludes the research with:

– Positioning the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse

to current theoretical discourses, practices and educations of sustainable architecture,

in order to further underline the thesis standpoints and contributions;

– Synergising and organising the fragmented empirical practices related to Singapore public housing (as analysed in Part III) into the Integrated Framework, in order to fill

in the literature gaps (as identified in section 6.4) and to unveil systematic approach towards sustainable public housing;

– Clarifying the validity of research findings with current movement and development of building environmental assessment methods;

– Discussing the potential to establish Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method through revisiting and compiling the assessment criteria and influencing factors of the

5 sustainable performances (as established in Part III); and

– Identifying agenda for future researches and concluding the thesis

14.2 Positioning the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse

14.2.1 In Design Methodology Movements

The movements of Design Methodology

Alexander Tzonis (2004), in his keynote speech at the first iNTA (International Network for Tropical Architecture) conference, critically reviews the movements in Design Methodology, i.e from Design Methods to Critical Theory, and currently, Sustainable Design In this discussion, the Design Method movement in the 1960s is seen as having its 'reliance on analytical sciences' and the bias for 'universal laws, empirical observations, and problem

Critical Theory 'saw design dealing with unique, 'situated' cases that were not subject to generalizations and rules' (Tzonis, 2004) The argument of the Critical Theory is that:

– Its inquiries 'tried to show that designing as an activity was driven by highly individualistic intentions, power struggles, and collective memories';

– 'Such phenomena could not be dealt by transferring logico-empirical methods applied

in mechanics'; and thus

– 'Having no use of idealized models or problem solving processes fundamental to Design Methods' (Tzonis, 2004)

Sustainable Design, the endeavour at the present, has 're-introduce[d], in a more advanced and rigorous version, the systemic approach of Design Methods while the same time maintaining

a more reflective outlook in defining the elements and operations of the 'system', an approach inherited from Critical Theory' (Tzonis, 2004)

The position of the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse

The Integrated Framework proposed in this thesis is in line with Tzonis's opinion of Sustainable Design that embraces not only the scientific aspect of building science and technologies, but also the contingency, flexibility, quality and innovation dimensions of design Before arriving to this point, the research has already critically reviewed the practice

of BEAMs and has criticised its overtly-relying on scientific, materialist and structural approach, as well as its over-ambition of being the ultimate objectives for architectural design These are reflected in the practice's implied pipe-line framework towards sustainable housing (see section 2.6) and in the Integrated Design Process model (see section 5.3.1)

Bryan Lawson (1997) in his seminal work 'How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified' states that,

One of the popular models for the design process to be found in the literature on design

methodology is that of scientific method Problems of science however do not fit the

description of design problems […] and, consequently, the processes of science and design

cannot usefully be considered as analogous The most important, obvious and fundamental

difference is that design is essentially prescriptive whereas science is predominantly

descriptive Designers do not aim to deal with questions of what is, how and why but,

rather, with what might be, could be and should be While scientists may help us to

understand the present and predict the future, designers may be seen to prescribe and to

create the future, and thus their process deserves not just ethical but also moral scrutiny

The benefits of scientific measurements to design, in Lawson's point of view, lie in the role of informing designer the general approaches (as being opposite to detailed ones) to enhance certain performance:

What a designer really needs is to have some feel for the meaning behind the

numbers rather than precise methods of calculating them As a designer you need to

know the kinds of changes that can be made to the design which are most likely to

improve it when measured against the criteria It is thus more a matter of strategic

decisions rather than careful calculation (Lawson, 1997)

The re-defined and re-clarified roles and position of the environmental performance domain

in the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, especially in its

roles of informing and inspiring architectural design (see section 5.5.2), in fact, corresponds

to Lawson's viewpoint above

Furthermore, the inclusion of the three knowledge domains – socio-economics, architectural design and environmental performance – in the Integrated Framework reflects Dean Hawkes' conclusion drawn out from the discussion of 'objective knowledge and the art and science of

… the exiting possibility of a collaboration between the worlds of architectural

history, design theory and, ultimately of crucial importance, of practice In this, the

aims and methods of each could come together, united in the common purpose of

making the use of historical data relevant to the solution of problems of

contemporary design, with equal relevance to both the technical realm of what is

normally termed 'building science' and the complex cultural issues […] In this way the crippling barrier between art and science in architectural debate may be broken

down (Hawkes, 1996)

14.2.2 In architectural theory discourse

The Integrated Framework, although is meant for architectural practice, suggests that interdisciplinary approach is necessary This is because of the large scope of coverage of the concept 'sustainable development' – including not only the environment but also sociology and economics

On the one hand, the Integrated Framework takes the position of the social constructivist theory (see section 1.2.5), which believes that sustainability is a social constructed notion and resulted from a contesting process among the social constructed ecological logics (Guy and Farmer, 2001) This is so because: unlike the environmental architecture in the 1970s forefronting the environmental design to respond to the oil crisis, sustainable architecture includes not only environmental but also social and economic issues Furthermore, with the well-built foundation and records of ego-centricity in the modern society, where 'Humans Supplant God; Everything Changes' (McKibben, 2000); the main cause of the unsustainable development is rooted from human activities and behaviour These human aspects collectively form socio-economic settings and trends, which are the dominant factors influencing sustainable development Therefore, in the Integrated Framework, socio-economic domain is placed at the forefront with the role to inform architectural design in sustainable housing development

On the other hand, the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse does not undermine and dematerialise scientific aspects and technological solutions of the environmental performance domain It, conversely, acknowledges the role and approaches of the environmental performance domain Unlike the social constructivist theory that questions and challenges the positivistic scientific approach to sustainable architecture, the Integrated Framework recognises the contributions from the bioclimatic approach by Olgyay and Ken Yeang, the 'selective environment' of Dean Hawkes, and the practice of BEAMs

Although accepting both positions, the social constructivist and the environmental performance domain, the Integrated Framework does not mean to step on two stones at the same time, so that conflicts are posed within the framework itself Instead, it brings together different perspectives and carefully organised them under a systematic framework so that positive and reciprocal relationships among the various domains can be surfaced The Integrated Framework, for example, strongly opposes the model of 'Integrated Design Process' and the implied pipeline framework by the practice of BEAMs, where environmental performance criteria are projected as the main and ultimate objectives for the whole architectural design process to respond to, and as the governing issue in sustainable architecture discourse

As the Integrated Framework targets architectural professional in designing sustainable housing, architectural design domain holds most responsibility in the framework in integrating the inputs from both socio-economics and environmental performance domains It

is so because architects have a critical role to play In the words of Jones (1998):

As leaders in the construction process, and providers of a central link between it and those who commission buildings, they [architects] are in a prime position to

influence, cajole and to demonstrate, through their designs, the path to sustainability

in architecture.'

Furthermore, the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse implies that the practice of checklist approach and design principles with unspecified the interconnected among them, often found in literature and practice, are no longer sufficient Sustainable housing performance can not be achieved through the sum of all individual strategies and guidelines, but through the systematic interrelationship and integration among strategies of the three domains of environmental performance, architectural design and socio-economics,

14.2.3 In designers-clients-users relationship

The issue in the triple relationship among designer, clients and users has long been discussed The conventional controversial question is: To whom, between clients and users (if they are not belonged to one group), the designers/architects design for The reason lies in the different interests and agenda of each group For example, budget is often the main concern of the clients but comfort is often the main expectation from the users Zeisel’s user-needs gap model shows that ‘while there might often be good communications between designers and paying clients, both have a gap in their communications with user clients’ (Lawson, 1997 referencing Zeisel, 1984) In a study to confirm the ‘user-needs gap’ model, Cairns (1996) points out that these gaps are not always aware of by either architects or paying clients The issue is particularly crucial to the development of high-rise high-density housing, in which the paying clients are often the developers or an organisation, and the users (residents) are someone else The developing housing environment, where the residents will live, has direct implication to their everyday activities and to a greater extent, implications to the socio-economics and human-environment relationship at large However, these issues are often less perceived by the clients

Figure 14-1: Zeisel's user-needs gap model (Source: Lawson, 1997)

In sustainable architecture design, user dimension can not be neglected The Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, by acknowledging the role of users and the strength of social constructivist theory, suggests that the approach to sustainable housing design process should include both the understanding of desirable environmental performance and the socio-economic context that can define (at certain level) resident behaviour Furthermore, the Integrated Framework can serve as a communicational mean for architects/designers to explain and convey to clients the importance and benefits for involving user consideration in the design In summary, the Integrated Framework has the potential to respond to the gaps between designers and users, and between clients and users, as addressed

in Zeisel's model

14.2.4 In architectural education

The Integrated Framework attempts to address a comprehensive definition and systematic approaches to sustainable housing (architecture) design among plentiful but fragmented and contesting ones in current literature In the Integrated Framework, architectural design is

Framework can expose architectural students to a larger but comprehensive consideration of sustainable architecture In this way, the implication of the Integrated Framework is a response to the often-found educational method that has a distinct separation between design (and conventional approaches in architectural design), socio-economics and environmental performance Borrowing Hagan's words (2003), the student design process in this educational method is described as:

Students develop conceptual frameworks, which often have nothing whatever to do

with “the environment,” and simultaneously research aspects of environmental design

on a need-to-know basis Their intellectual inquiry is therefore both cultural and

environmental, and the dialogue between the two generates the final design The

outcome, however, is limited by the nature of the input Students may successfully

research photovoltaics, reed bed water purification, and recycled materials, but they

are not able to test either their empirical observations or their final decisions

In discussing the application of computer analysis and simulation of environmental performance dominating current architecture course, Hagan points out that:

This is in some ways good—it’s rigorous, concrete, and enables students to see

clearly which decisions are environmentally advantageous—and in some ways

unsuccessful: students don’t have time to integrate the new practice into their

established ways of designing (Hagan, 2003)

The Integrated Framework encourages and facilitates architectural students to engage in a truly interdisciplinary approach as early as during conceptual design stage Furthermore, by understanding the meanings, contributions and implications of socio-economic driving forces,

as well as of environmental performance to sustainable architecture, architectural students can engage in 'an open process of negotiation, criticism and debate' (as in the words of Guy and Farmer, 2001)

14.3 Towards sustainable public housing in Singapore

In substantiating the main discourse of environmental performance and sustainable architecture, the thesis has revealed numerous negative as well as positive examples found in Singapore public housing development in terms of sustainable development (see Part III) They, in a way, have formed a 'discrete' review of how sustainable development has been addressed in the evolution of public housing While the positive examples are brought up and reappraised for continuous application, the negative examples have the role of informing the practice for improvement

There are many positive examples of Singapore public housing practice that have been brought up to highlight the unsatisfactory assumptions and approaches to sustainable architecture of environmental performance domain This thesis, however, does not imply that Singapore public housing is a satisfactory sustainable housing model Before the empirical discussion (Part III), many of these positive examples in fact, came into being without design intentions (e.g spaces and uses under resident personalisation) and were somewhat discrete to one another This has been reflected in the current gaps of available literature related to

Singapore public housing development, and illustrated in Figure 6.7 – The yet to be explored

issues in comprehensively understanding Singapore public housing in terms of sustainable development (section 6.4) As a result of empirical discussion (Part III), the thesis has presented the positive examples found in public housing practice in a systematic way under the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse Therefore, the literature gaps (Figure 6-7) can be filled through the empirical discussion, as illustrated in Figure 14-2

Figure 14-2: A more comprehensive understanding of Singapore public housing in terms of sustainable development

Firstly, there are positive influences from designing public housing with good environmental performances to sustainable housing performances but these influences are rather insubstantial Secondly, the socio-economics factors, i.e the increasing of resident affluence trend, the rise of resident consumption, the tendency of smaller household, and resident behaviour in Singapore public housing context, significantly outpace the attempts of environmental performance domain in its influences towards high sustainable housing performance Therefore, the role of education, public housing policies making, promoting and facilitating positive resident behaviours are important Thirdly, there are evidences that architectural design of public housing in applying (both intentionally and unintentionally) spiritual, qualitative, contextual, holistic and innovative approaches have significant potentials

to contribute to sustainable housing performance

With insights into the past and current practices of public housing, the research projects objectives for future sustainable public housing development They are land-use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, material efficiency, and resident's experience of home The Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse contributes a working and monitoring method The process towards sustainable public housing, implied by the Integrated Framework, is an evolutionary one, which starts with persuading physical improvement of the built environment as well as environmental performance by architectural

Outpace

Some influences

Sustainable housing performances

Significantly influence

Significant role in contribution

design as far as possible within the acceptance boundary defined by socio-economics domain The results are expected to have a more sustainable-driven socio-economics domain, which forms a higher level of sustainable platform for architectural design and environmental performance domains to operate This is in line with the proposition of Smith, Whitelegg and Williams (1998), which is:

In the short term, only limited changes can be made in physical sense but more

significant changes can be made in lifestyles In the medium term, but starting

immediately, the built environment can be changed in form to reflect and facilitate

those lifestyles The requirement is for steering rather than overnight radical change,

whereby over a period of time gradual change to behaviour and action leads to

substantial changes to the built environment Sustainable development is itself a

process and not an end-point; the objective is for sustainability to be the overarching

guide to policy and behaviour permanently

14.4 Current state of building environmental assessment method

Since at the beginning of the thesis, the state of BEAMs has developed to an assessment tool that can be both monitoring and design tools to achieve high environmental performance (GBTool 2005) This section discusses how these changes may influence the findings of this thesis

The current new development of GBC is GBTool 2005, the objective of which is to assess different phases of pre-design, design, construction and operation of a case study building, and can be used as both assessment tool and design tool to aim at high environmental performance As described in GBTool 2005:

The Pre-Design phase assessment is intended to indicate the future potential

sustainable performance of the project, based on the information available at the end

of the Pre-Design phase."

The Design phase assessment is intended to indicate the future potential sustainable

performance of the project, based on the information available at the end of the

Design phase Because the information available during the Pre-Design and Design

phases are likely to undergo some changes during the evolution of the project, these

two assessment modules are primarily intended for self-assessment purposes, and

not for certification purposes

The Construction phase assessment is intended to provide a relatively factual

assessment based on performance indicators available at the end of the construction

and commissioning phase, but before occupancy However, relatively few

indicators are available in this phase

Assessment during the Operations phase is intended to provide an objective and factual

indication of the Actual performance of the project, and the results may be useful for

certification purposes We recommend that projects should be occupied for a period of

at least one year before an Operations assessment is carried out (iiBSE working paper.)

From the perspective of the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, this new framework of the GBTool 2005 can better serve sustainable architecture design with its role of informing and knowledge-based, especially in its informing of different focus considerations at different phases of pre-design, design and construction

The environmental performance assessment at the Design phase of GBTool 2005 – its measurement methodology and structure – is inherited from GBTool2kV1.81 (2002), which is applied to derived primary data for this research The difference in GBTool 2005 is the re-organisation the existing environmental performance criteria of GBTool2kV1.81 and a number

of additional criteria in a new structure (Table 14-1)

Assessment structure of

GBTool2kV1.81 Assessment structure of GBTool 2005

Resource Consumption Energy and Resource Consumption

Environmental Loadings Environmental Loadings

Indoor Environmental Quality Indoor Environmental Quality

Functionality and Controllability of Building Systems Long-Term Performance

Service Qualities

Social and Economic aspects

Table 14-1: Comparison of assessment structure of GBTool2kV1.81 and that of GBTool 2005

The introduction of a distinctive 'Social and Economic Aspects' in the new GBTool 2005 reflects an awareness of their importance as indicated in this research While many of these environmental performance criteria under these aspects are adopted from the 'Service Qualities' in GBTool2kV1.81, there are some newly introduced criteria (Table 14-1) Social and economic aspects in GBTool 2005 are of different types to those discussed in this thesis (which are about resident affluence, resident consumption, resident mobility, resident sense of belonging, resident every activities, changes in household structure, social incentive, economic incentive, educational means, and policy making) However, their inclusion is encouraging and indicates a step forwards by the practice of BEAMs

Social and Economic aspects

Cost and Economics

Life-cycle cost

Planned measures to minimize construction cost

Measures planned for minimization of operating and maintenance cost

Measures planned for affordability of residential rental or cost levels (new criterion) Planned measures to maximize support of Local Economy (new criterion) Planned measures to minimize Externality costs - not yet operational

Social Aspects

Planned measures to minimize construction accidents (new criterion) Measures planned to maximize security for building users (new criterion) Access for physically handicapped persons (new criterion) Access to direct sunlight from living areas of dwelling units

Access to private open space from dwelling units

Visual privacy from the exterior in principal areas of dwelling units

Access to views from work areas

Table 14-2: Newly introduced criteria among the performance criteria in 'Social and Economic Aspects' of GBTool 2005

On the other hand, along the new developments of GBC is the strong push towards the line framework (under criticism in Chapter 2) as the approach towards sustainable architecture This is evident in the criterion 'to encourage the use of an Integrated Design Process (IDP) in designing the project' under 'Site Selection, Project Planning and Development' (GBTool 2005) This direction of development amplifies the opposition to the reciprocally interdisciplinary spirit as highlighted in this thesis

pipe-In summary, despite the new developments, the main criticism of BEAMs and environmental performance domain as presented in this thesis remain true

14.5 Towards Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method

14.5.1 Issues in sustainable building assessment

The shift to building sustainable assessment is a possible direction for future development of building environmental assessment practice (Cole, Howard, Ikaga & Nibel, 2004) However, before proceeding, there are issues (covered in recent literature) that need to be clarified, particularly the following two:

– Absolute vs relative assessments (Cooper, 1999): Absolute assessments are considered to be more appropriate and meaningful in assessing sustainability, so that the progress (against targets or time frames) can be monitored

– The issue of scale (Cole, 2001): individual building is considered as too small a scale

to address sustainable development issues The economic and social attributes of sustainable development can be better address at planning and master planning level This section looks into how the findings in this thesis can contribute to the shift towards architecture sustainable assessment and address the above two related issues

14.5.2 Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method

The Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse can serve as a foundation to establish Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method (ArchSAM) At the macro level, the overall structure is divided into 5 issues of sustainable architecture performance, deriving from the Integrated Framework, i.e Land use Efficiency, Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation, Material Efficiency, and Experience of Home The sustainable performance of 'experience of home' can be replaced by 'sense of belonging' for other building types rather than housing (Figure 14-3)

Assessment criteria of the 5 sustainable architecture performances include:

– Selectively relevant environmental performance criteria from Green Building Challenge, together with

– Other criteria related to socio-economics and architectural design aspects or combination of all the three domains of sustainable architecture These criteria derived from extensive empirical analyses and discussions in Part III

At the second strategic hierarchy, each of the sustainable performances comprises of the three domains of environmental performance, socio-economics and architectural design The influencing factors from each domain are also identified

Figure 14-3 brings together all the five separated diagrams of the assessment criteria and influencing factors of the five sustainable housing performances (Chapter 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13), to form a structure for Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method In this process, those criteria and factors, which are specific to housing building type, are adjusted in terms of word usage, so that they are applicable to other building types as well Figure 14-3 is a

preliminary structure of ArchSAM, where:

– The assessment criteria are indicatively discussed based on the discussions in this thesis – The influencing factors, from all three domains – socio-economics, architectural design and environmental performance – can be looked up for improving the five sustainable architecture performance issues It is noted that there exist many cross-interactions, which mean factors of one sustainable performance issue can also

influence the others These cross-interactions are not graphically represented in the preliminary structure of ArchSAM to avoid over-complication to the diagram

SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE PERFORMANCE

Land Use

Criteria: Criteria: Criteria: Criteria: Criteria:

2 Net primary renewable energy used for building operations over the life-cycle per net usable square metre (MJ/m2/year)

non-3 Non-renewable energy used over the life-cycle per occupants (MJ/person/year)

1 Net consumption of potable water (as in GBC)

2 Percentage of storm water and sanitary water harvested and treated/used on site and off site (new criterion)

3 Level of generating occupants familiarity &

appreciation to onsite water conservation strategies/feature (new criterion)

1 Re-use of existing structure or on-site materials (as in GBC)

2 Amount and quality of off-site materials used (as in GBC)

3 Avoidance of solid waste from clearance

of existing structures onsite, from construction process (as in GBC)

4 Amount of solid waste and ratio of recycle materials : re-usable materials : solid waste (new criterion)

5 Level of making occupants appreciate and participate in material efficiency practices (i.e

reduce/reuse/recycle) (new criterion)

1 Level of premise mobility (new criterion)

2 Types of occupants interaction to the physical environment (new criterion)

Socio-Economics: Socio-Economics: Socio-Economics: Socio-Economics: Socio-Economics:

- Occupant consumption

- Occupant lifestyle

- Economic forces, e.g fuel cost, incentive, etc

- Social incentive

- Education and campaign

- Social activity patterns

- Policies, e.g

taxation, green labelled products, etc

- Population growth

- Occupant behaviours

- Occupant awareness of / attitude towards water conservation

- Economic forces, e.g water tariff, incentive, etc

- Social incentive

- Education and campaign

- Policies, e.g

taxation, types of water treatment infrastructure, compulsory use of NEWater etc

- Occupant affluence

- Occupant consumption

- Occupant daily activities

- Occupants' attitude towards material efficiency practices

- Economic incentive

- Social incentive and settings

- Education and campaign

- Policies and regulations related to construction waste, and recycle materials

- Dwelling process through occupant everyday activities and interaction with the physical built environment

- Occupant affluence leading to aspiration for moving to new flats

- Economic context, e.g estate cost, etc

- Economic incentive, e.g upgrading programmes, etc

- Policies to control minimum occupancy period

- Social Incentive, e.g promoting

Land Use

- Innovative design

- Inclusive design:

solving potential conflicts of interests

as views, visual and aural privacy

+ Level of design for occupant everyday activity patterns

+ Level of effective greening

- Spiritual approach:

reveal meaningfulness &

beauty of onsite water conservation strategies/features

- Innovative design

- Inclusive design:

solving potential conflicts of interests, e.g

water retention and mosquito breeding

- Innovative design

- Inclusive design, e.g

make good existing building with minimum inconveniences to the occupants

- Qualitative design

- Contextual design: to respond to local infrastructure &

+ Level of creating identity

+ Room for growth + The extent of diversity

+ The extent of facilitating interaction

- Quantitative information, and scientific methodologies related to energy-efficiency

- Alternative energy sources

- Potential conflicts among related environmental performances

- Knowledge-based, e.g water conservation technologies, onsite grey water treatments, etc

- Quantitative information:

meteorology data, amount of fresh water resource / water

consumption, etc

- Knowledge-based, e.g

construction methods, recycling technologies etc

- Quantitative information

- New technologies, e.g

prefab & dry construction, etc

- Benchmarking

- Knowledge-based, e.g comfort level, healthy environment, etc

- Level of indoor environmental performances

- Level of service quality environmental performances

Figure 14-3: Preliminary structure of Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method (ArchSAM)

The preliminary structure of ArchSAM also embeds its standpoints in the discourses of scale issue and of absolute-relative assessment as raised in section 14.5.1 Firstly, ArchSAM forefronts relative assessment through the acknowledgement of impacts from local socio-economics factors in pursuing sustainable architecture It is suggested not to assess the sustainable performance of a project based on absolute criteria and benchmarks for all regions around the world, in order to

– avoid the unreasonable requests for building designs in certain region, which can lead to disappointment, frustration, and thus giving up attempts to deliver sustainable architecture; – avoid imposing strategies, techniques, technologies, and user behaviours; which has been identified to have side-impacts to sustainable development; and

– avoid undermining diversities and local-specific opportunities for sustainable development

At this point, the preliminary structure of ArchSAM also addresses its viewpoint over the scale issue, that is: scale of project, be it individual building or city, should not be an issue in sustainable assessment By taking relativism in assessment, ArchSAM highlights the positive aspects and also recognises the imperfections in terms of sustainability at the building scale There is nothing wrong with these imperfections because they are the nature of ecosystems, in which buildings are a sub-component Ecosystems operate at different scales and follow the principles of: the macro-level systems absorb the imperfections of the micro-level systems (Ong, 1996) It is particularly crucial, however, to maintain minimum imperfections at more micro-level systems to avoid straining the absorbing capacity of the macro-level systems Therefore, there should not be a compromise to have sustainable assessment at individual building scale

The preliminary structure, and the above two standpoints of ArchSAM – relative assessment and scale of built environment for sustainable development, has laid foundation for future

14.6 Agenda for future research

The future research agenda, as informed from the current thesis, can be identified in both longitudinal and latitudinal directions:

– Testing the application of the Integrated Framework to actual housing design process to gain practical feedbacks for improvements

– Develop the preliminary structure of Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method (ArchSAM) (Figure 14-3) as an assessment tool to monitor the endeavour of sustainable architecture practice

– Research on the application of the Integrated Framework to the design and discourse

of other building types, e.g office building, commercial building, and industrial building It is foreseeable that each building type will have its own agenda and different combinations of multi-directional pathways in contributing towards sustainable performance

14.7 Thesis conclusion

With observation of the present fragmenting and contesting practices towards sustainable architecture, and the growth in popularity of BEAMs, the research hypothesis has been (section 1.5.1):

– The practice of building environmental assessment methods is not comprehensive enough to enable sustainable housing, due to the lack of consideration on socio-economic and other factors related to resident behaviour Socio-economic and architectural design factors are significant and may even supersede building environmental performance considerations in sustainable design

In substantiating the hypothesis theoretically and empirically, the research has met its main objectives, as laid out in section 1.5.2

14.7.1 Failure of environmental performance over significances of socio-economics

Firstly, within the environmental performance domain, there are often conflicts among different environmental performance criteria (section 2.4.3 & Part III) In response to these conflicts, the weighting system in building environmental assessment method suggests prioritisation and trade-offs between various environmental performance criteria This practice is not in line with the holistic practice of sustainable architecture and does not promote innovation in architecture design

Secondly, current over-estimation of the role of environmental performances has led to making them the main objective in design process – e.g the Integrated Design Process (IDP) framework

by NRCAN This implies a pipe-line framework towards sustainable housing, where resident

design, and residents are expected to co-operate with the built environment in order to achieve the performance objectives (section 2.6.2) This framework has many loopholes (section 2.6.3) and fails in actual practice (Part III)

Thirdly, environmental performance domain embeds materialist, quantitative, structural, exclusive and pre-defined approaches These approaches contribute to environmental sustainability through the physical built environment itself but ignore many factors related

to the occupants, represented through socio-economics aspects This limitation can lead to

a point where environmental performances of a building may not work at all When correlating socio-economic data with environmental performances in the context of Singapore public housing (Part III), the research shows many discrepancies between two domains Furthermore, socio-economic factors can influence significantly on environmental performances For example, level of domestic energy consumption closely correlates with resident affluence, resident consumption, lifestyle, and everyday activities; but does not / slightly associate with environmental performances of thermal comfort, natural ventilation, and daylighting (Chapter 10)

Fourthly, socio-economics domain is not only significant in terms of its factors impacting the environmental performance, but also plays a role in sustainable housing Theoretical study and empirical substantiation in Chapter 3 revealed the contributions of socio-economics domain through its approaches: social incentive, creating positive social setting, economic incentive, policy making, education, and public campaign These approaches have certain influences to resident everyday activities leading to more sustainable lifestyle This is the main thrust towards sustainability

14.7.2 Architectural design vs environmental performance

Among the three domains in the multi-directional pathways towards sustainable housing (Figure 5.1), architectural design domain is the most popular node which connects the most number of pathways, and has the most direct contributions to sustainable housing This has made architecture the central role in the overall endeavour

Architectural design considers many possibilities beyond the practice of BEAMs These include spiritualist, qualitative, contextual, inclusive and innovative approaches These considerations have significant impact on building environmental performance, although their starting point may not be building environmental assessment practice or directly relevant

Examples of these approaches that encompass sustainability are readily available However, prior to this research, their relationship with environmental performance was not explicitly established The thesis has incorporated architectural design into the Integrated Framework, and illustrated how architectural design can contribute to sustainability without complying with building environmental assessment method through many examples found in Singapore public housing practice

14.7.3 Contributions of the Integrated Framework for Housing Design and Discourse

In order to respond to the fragmentation and contestation in sustainable architecture practice, the thesis has theoretically established (Chapter 5) and empirically substantiated (Part III) the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse The framework recognises the multidirectional pathways towards sustainable housing (Figure 5.1), and acknowledged the importance of interconnectedness among the three domains: socio-economics, architectural design and environmental performance

The Integrated Framework addresses sustainable housing in a more holistic and systematic manner The framework identifies 5 ultimate sustainable performance goals: land use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, material efficiency, and experience of home In the framework, the roles, approaches, contributions as well as the operational boundary of each domain – socio-economics, architectural design, and environmental performance – towards the

5 sustainable housing performances are clarified Therefore, the conflicts and potential conflicts among the domains can be minimised; and the ideal reciprocations can be promoted

Through the position against the larger context of architecture theory movement and practice (section 14.2), the Integrated Framework has been proven in terms of:

– its validity to contemporary architectural design movements (section 14.2.1),

– its multi-disciplinary standpoints among different schools of thought related to sustainable architecture (section 14.2.2),

– its usefulness not only as design and discourse framework, but also as communication tool for architects to convey to clients sustainable objectives and the importance role of users in achieving sustainable objectives (section 14.2.3), and

– its usefulness in architectural education as a framework to encourage student to truly engage in (1) multi-disciplinary approach to architectural design, and (2) the process of negotiation, criticism and debate (section 14.2.4)

Furthermore, in the process of empirical justification of the Integrated Framework (Part III), the thesis has reviewed the evolution of Singapore public housing in terms of sustainable development, and provided numerous immediate and practical lessons and contributions to the prospect of developing sustainable public housing in Singapore (section 14.3)

14.7.4 Systematic approaches to sustainable housing performance and preliminary

development of ArchSAM

The systematic approach to each of the five sustainable housing performance issues (Part III)

is the further development from the Integrated Framework Regarding land use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation and material efficiency, the approaches are similar and

as in described below:

– The socio-economic settings need to be analysed and understood to gain insights into their interconnectedness (both positively and negatively) with the other two domains (architectural design and environmental performance), and subsequently about their influences (both positively and negatively) to the sustainable housing performances; – Appropriate strategies can then be set for both socio-economics and architectural design domains so that: positive aspects from socio-economic settings will be preserved and enhanced, and negative aspects will be minimised;

– Environmental performance domain provides inputs to architectural design and economics domains in terms of information provision, knowledge-based inputs, inspiration, and safeguarding minimum building environmental performance standards From time to time, it provides direct contributions to sustainable housing performance

socio-Being different to the systematic approaches to the above 4 sustainable housing performance issues; the approach to 'experience of home' only encompasses one direct

approaches and strategies from architectural design, environmental performance, and even socio-economics domains provide opportunities, facilitating the dwelling process to occur and that can then lead to the 'experience of home' This highlights the significance role of resident everyday activities to the endeavour towards sustainable housing

The discussions on appropriate assessment criteria and influencing factors from all three domains to the 5 sustainable performances are developed further from the systematic approach Criteria for each sustainable performance are selected from both existing relevant environmental performance criteria, and newly-established criteria in reflecting the interconnectedness of all three domains of sustainable architecture The compilation and organisation of the criteria from five sustainable performances (Figure 14-3) forms preliminary structure of Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method (ArchSAM)

ArchSAM has great potential in contributing to assessment practice of sustainable architecture through its advancement over current existing building environmental assessment methods These advanced features are:

– Reflecting and promoting multi-disciplinary approaches, which include all the three domains of sustainable architecture – socio-economics, architectural design, and environmental performance

– Acknowledging contextual conditions, both physical and socio-economic settings, through taking relativism stand in its assessment

– Being concise but throughout with a simple structure of 5 sustainable performance issues and 16 criteria

– No rigidly prescribed technical methods/technologies to achieve high sustainable performance but identifying all the possible factors from socio-economics, architectural design and environmental performance domains that can influence the

However, before turning the preliminary structure of ArchSAM into a comprehensive assessment method for application in practice, there is a need for further research, especially – identifying the measurement method for all the criteria and their implications, and – benchmarking performances (especially to meet the method's relativism stand) They are open for future researches

14.7.5 'Sustainable architecture' is compatible with 'good architecture'

In the present context of a fragmented and disparate sustainable architecture practice, the thesis has clarified and identified the roles and position of architectural design They are:

– Understanding the socio-economic milieu, including policies and aspects related to users; – Possessing knowledge of building environmental performance;

– Reconciling and balancing different interests and requirements of socio-economics and environmental performance domains;

– Making more intentional accidental designs (coming into sight through the unexpected resident use of spaces) that contribute to sustainable housing performance; and

– Exploring new ideas, built forms, design techniques and strategies through trial and error, with the objectives to continuously renew, make fresh, and make revolution to the endeavours towards sustainable architecture

Although the above tasks are necessary, they are not all for architecture professionals Jones (1998) lays down the challenge:

A sustainable architecture appropriate to the demands of the next millennium will

not materialize solely through applying the remedies of revivifying building

physics to the architecture of the last decade […] An enduring sustainable

architecture will emerge and convey the multifarious concerns of our time […]

The challenge is to reach a point where Green architecture is indistinguishable