Environmental performance and sustainable architecture a critical review in the context of singapore public housing 1

This chapter forms the background for the research, by 1 tracing back the root of sustainable architecture, 2 reviewing housing design in sustainable development movement, and 3 recognis

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Prelude

More than ever, sustainable development has become a prevailing issue, addressed in architectural literature, education and practice Evolving from a long history and having large scope of coverage, sustainable architecture embodies issues of multi-dimensionality that involves various professions, i.e architecture, building science, ecology, sociology, economics, politics, etc This has inevitably led to fragmentations and discrepancies in sustainable architecture practice This chapter forms the background for the research, by (1) tracing back the root of sustainable architecture, (2) reviewing housing design in sustainable development movement, and (3) recognising the increasing popularity of environmental performance from the practice of building environmental assessment methods

1.2 Sustainable architecture – issues of multi-dimensionality

1.2.1 Tracing the roots

The quest for environmental value in architecture, for a harmonious balance

between man and his surroundings, is not new For centuries, and particularly in

domestic and vernacular architecture, people adopted this approach out of necessity

(Gauzin-Muller, 2002)

The root of environmental concerns in architecture lies on the relationship between human and the environment, and can be traced back for centuries (Gauzin-Muller, 2002), even to the 'hunting and gathering civilization' (Zeither, 1996) The resonance of these practices can be still be found in the primitive and vernacular buildings/shelters that still remain in the less developed parts of the world (Jones, 1998) The characteristics of these buildings/shelters are

the needs to work with nature, to harvest the positive aspects from the ambient environment for survival purposes David Lloyd Jones (1998) noted that 'early societies lived close to nature Their lives were ruled by the seasons; they depended on benign aspects of the seasons, augmented by their own endeavours, for survival.' Along this early evolutional process of human being, it is observed that

'Our forefathers were intelligent enough to invent tools They were capable of art and war They formed societies and developed a distinctive culture in each They were

certainly clever enough to recognise a basic fact of ecology - that not all parts of the

those that were near water bodies, are especially propitious Here, in such places, they had easy access to plant food and water Small animals that came to drink and feed there were easy prey The humans had only to protect themselves from attack from predatory animals or other human tribes and their future would be ensured Here, in such places, they did not have to find sustenance, the environment supported them (Ong, 1998)

This relationship between human and environment, however, has changed in accordance to the change in human's capability and world view David Lloyd Jones documents that this movement is evident in the belief of 'Man is the measure of all things' (Jones, 1998 quoting Protagoras) – a statement that manifests the spirit of the Renaissance Human beings, with their intellect and increase in physical prowess, have the desire of power over their natural environment This world view and spirit shift was amplified in the Industrial Evolution, when humans started to exercise resource- and energy-intensive activities for profit The Modern Movement has neglected many aspects that, when sought to address, form 'a prelude to supporting a diversity of architectural insight and experimentation aimed at twenty-first century environmental needs and priorities' (Porteous, 2002)

In the midst of Industrialisation and Modernism, the notion and practice of ecological architecture, however, did not totally come to an end The architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright

continuously responding to its environment and occupants (Wright, 1954) Paolo Soleri, in the 1960s, invented the term 'arcology' to describe the concept of architecture being consistent with ecology, and to guide his commitment in architectural and urban design

The formal and often-documented starting point of the green movement in architecture is the 1970s, during the oil crisis The event triggered energy consciousness to the public at large, 'not through an awareness of the environmental issues involved, but through the realisation that limited energy supply would have a major impact on the way of life to which we had grown accustomed' (Jones, 1998) Environmental issues have made their way back to architectural discourse, not by rising out of necessity as in the past, but by rising out of the awareness of limited natural resources The event triggered the search for energy conservation strategies, alternative energy, and subsequently the growth of solar homes (Zeither, 1996) On the other hand, the green movement also triggered dialogues between two schools of thoughts: the rationalist and the arcadian While the rationalist puts his faith and thus efforts

in technology development as a mean to overcome the environmental (energy) crisis; the arcadian school calls for a return to nature or a lifestyle of harmony living with nature as in a pre-industrial, ideally pre-urban state (Hagan, 2001)

The application of the green concerns to architecture at this period gave birth to the term 'environmental architecture', which refers to the deployment and application of environmental control strategies – e.g orientating the building, building forms in response to climatic context, facilitating natural ventilation, providing sun-shading devices, and use of light shelves – in architectural design

1.2.2 From environmental to sustainable architecture

In the 1980s, numerous global events and treatises, starting from the concern of environmental sustainability, have developed the notion of sustainable development, and have recognised it as

a prominent issue globally In 1987, the 42nd United Nations Congress marked the emergence of

an official definition of sustainable development in Brundtland's Report Here, sustainable development is defined as ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987)

Following from the UN Congress, the rising awareness of global warming in the early 1990s has paved a pathway for a number of other important global events – i.e the Montreal Protocol (1990), the Rio Earth Summit (1992) and Kyoto Protocol (1996) – in which Green House Gases, CFCs, HCFCs, and rain forest destruction are among the main concerns Agenda 21 – the development plan for the 21st century – was drawn up from the Rio Earth Summit to recommend a set of integrated principles, reaching both social and economic dimensions at the local level, to warrant sustainable development

These global events and the progressions made towards sustainable development have had implications to the development of the built environment It is understandable, as the built environment is an envoy between human (and their activities) and the larger natural environment The term 'sustainable architecture' has also emerged in architectural literature as

an evolution from the concept of 'environmental architecture'

Unlike 'environmental architecture' which refers to architecture that is responsive to the environment, 'sustainable architecture' implies a larger coverage that includes the responsibility of sustaining not only the natural environment, but also the social, economic and other human related factors, all at the same time As Dodds (2000) points out from analysing the WCED's definition of sustainable development, ‘we do not face the choice

between ‘environment’ or ‘development’, but rather the challenge to find ways of integrating these to achieve ‘sustainable development’ The three major themes have become the

hallmarks of the sustainable development literature: concern for the well-being of future generations; recognition of the need to integrate social, economic, and environmental analysis and policies; affirmation of the need to improve living standards’ (Dodds, 2000)

The movement from 'environmental architecture' to 'sustainable architecture' has also brought

up many new challenges to architectural theory and practice These resulted from an attempt

to include of the 'soft side' of social and economic factors, on top of the existing 'hard side' of environmental science facts and environmentally responsive techniques and technologies The dialogue between the rationalist and the arcadian schools has been extended to the more complicated dialogues with the emerging concept of eco-centricity, as opposed to ego-centricity The concept of 'eco-centricity', or 'ecosophy' is developed by Naess (1989) in his book 'Ecology, community, and lifestyle: outline of an ecosophy', to describe a philosophy of ecological equilibrium, that thrives for the diversity of both human and non-human life forms

on earth This concept opposes the ego-centricity that is prominent in sustainable development It is noted that the widely-accepted definition of sustainable development by WCED does not deny the demand of human development, and considers sustainability is a need for future human generations The practice places human beings at the forefront, and can

be considered as being ego-centric at the same time

The diverse and contesting viewpoints in 'sustainable development' and thus 'sustainable architecture' practices do not end with the dialogues between the rationalist and the arcadianschools, and between ego-centricity and eco-centricity The evolution of 'sustainable architecture' has led to more complex and competing schools of thought in contemporary discourses The next section engages in these discussions

1.2.3 Plurality in concept, reduction in practice

As the concept of sustainable architecture emerged with its overarching coverage of many aspects in life, the practice has been open to many interpretations, forming different schools

of thought The issues of diversity, disparity, and fragmented views of sustainable architecture have been discussed in many recent literature related to the field (Pearce & Vanegas, 2002)

Seen as an extension from the dialogue between the rationalist and the arcadian schools and between eco-centricity and ego-centricity, Guy & Farmer's analysis, (2001), based on the social constructivist theory, shows that in contemporary practice there are six 'contesting environmental logics' They are eco-technic, eco-centric, eco-aesthetic, eco-cultural, eco-medical, and eco-social logics Referring to these environmental logics, Williamson, Radford

& Bennetts (2003) talked about the three contrasting images of sustainable architecture –

natural, cultural and technical In the natural image, the principle of sustainable architecture

is to work with, not against, to understand, to exploit with sensitivity, and to avoid damaging, nature and natural systems In the cultural image, the genius loci are rendered as the focus,

which sustainable architecture must respond to, be bound with, and sublimate In this way, the cultural connectedness of people to a place provokes a sense of belonging and thus caring for

the local environment In the technical image, the scientific environmental facts and

technologies are the major sources for understanding and solving environmental, even social and economic problems Thus, 'sustainability is a matter of developing technical devices that neutralise or make benefits out of what may temporarily appear to be problems (social, economic and environmental).' Overlapping images are also noted to be often found in practice, where 'architects play many games at once, using many images' (Williamson, Radford & Bennetts, 2003, pp.25-39)

Williamson, Radford & Bennetts (2003) continue by making reference to Guy and Farmer's view to the different logics and images in sustainable architecture as represented by corners of

a triangle, where the discourse is focussed on the dominant image so that sustainability can be structured into narrower domains This act, in fact, has led to fragmentation in sustainable architecture design approaches Explanation for such an act lies on the application of reductionism, a prevailing thinking mode in modern living, in the attempt to acquire an understanding of sustainable architecture (Williamson, Radford & Bennetts, 2003)

1.2.4 The three domains

Parallel with the unresolved dialogues as described above, strategies and approaches towards sustainable built environment have progressively evolved and developed The nature of these strategies and approaches is diverse, and from time to time, inconsistent with one another, the phenomenon of which create a maze of fragmented strategies to the development of sustainable architecture As a general observation, strategies and approaches derive from three main fields of knowledge – Science (Building and Ecology), Sociology, and Architecture, which engage directly in sustainable architecture Respectively, they form three domains with different approaches to sustainable architecture:

– Environmental performance

– Socio-economics (including other aspects relating to users)

– (Conventional) Architectural design

The domain of environmental performance, through the emerging practice of building environmental assessment method, has recently gained momentum and become more and more popular in the practice of both building design and policy making Strategies and approaches from the environmental performance domain are techno-centric, render the

technical image, and aim at rectifying environmental damage as understood through scientific

studies Meanwhile, strategies and approaches from socio-economics domain are often

ego-centric, render the cultural image, and aim at motivating people to be benign towards the

environment The strategies and approaches from architectural design domain can be any of,

or even a mix of eco-centric, ego-centric and/or techno-centric They render any of the three

sustainable architecture images, or the overlapping images of, natural, cultural, and technical

Similar to the analysis of Guy and Farmer (2001) and Williamson , Radford & Bennetts (2003) about contesting images, the three domains (as identified in this thesis) compete with one another in promoting and make dominant their own belief, interpretations and strategies towards sustainable architecture Furthermore, each domain engages in different persuasions, interests, and agendas in their own field of knowledge For example, approaches from the environmental performance domain include promoting the strategic role of science and technology in the endeavour towards sustainable built environment, and aim to make environmental performance the ultimate objective for building development including design, construction and occupancy (see Chapter 2) Meanwhile, the approaches from architectural design domain have its own agenda of making sustainable design a mainstream in architectural design and discourse (Hagan, 2001) As a result of the analysis above and the contestation between the three domains, the approaches towards sustainable built environment from the three domains are often fragmented, inconsistent, and in conflict with one another

1.3 The quest to define sustainable architecture

In 'Ecological Design', Sim Van der Ryn and Stuart Cowan (1995) state that we have entered the second phase of the green design movement The first phase involved evolving green theories and writings in the separate areas of the design professions The second phase was the overall compilation and coordination of these theories into one unified vision of sustainability for all the design professions Since then, there have been many developments that bring the discourse of sustainable architecture well into this 'second phase' Authors – such as James Steele with 'Sustainable Architecture: Principles, Paradigms and Case Studies (1997), Andrew Scott with 'Dimensions of Sustainability: Architecture, Form, Technology, Environment, Culture' (1998), Smith et al with 'Greening the Built Environment' (1998), Williamson et al with 'Understanding Sustainable Architecture' (2003), Guy and Farmer with 'Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture' (2004), etc – have contributed progressively to the knowledge of sustainable architecture The convergent issue addressed in these books is the call to bring together various fragmented theories sustainability and incorporating them to form a holistic understanding of the field From current literature, the vision of sustainable architecture may be apparent, but a robust model and framework to achieve this vision still needs much work The problem lies with the disparity of different mentalities in approaching sustainable architecture Pearce and Vanegas (2002) stated that

Despite the evolutionary history of the concept, the range of perspectives on

how sustainability should be defined and operationalized with respect to the

built environment is extremely broad and sometimes conflicting

Although there are differences in approaches and objectives among the three domains – environmental performance, socio-economics, and architectural design – all are relevant and have certain validities to sustainable architecture The scope of coverage of sustainable

architecture must include all the above domains and importantly the interrelationship among them Christopher Day highlighted that:

Ecology is, after all, about relationships – hence essentially about wholeness – the harmony

of diverse and interacting relationships Wholeness has cultural as well as biological and

technological dimensions It involves underlying spiritual values and aesthetics as well as

engineering In anything whole, anything living, these can not be separated (Day, 2002)

Christopher Day continues that it is because of the 'separation' that has led to the crisis of our time, which is not only about ecological but also social and economic – 'a crisis of spirit and life as much as one of material resources' (Day, 2002) This crisis undoubtedly refers to unsustainable development

Clayton and Radcliffe also highlight that the literature on sustainability from different professional perspectives are, on the one hand extremely pertinent to the issue, on the other hand ‘disparate and often fail to connect to an underlying analysis that could link these suggestions together into a coherent rationale and programme for change’ (Clayton & Radcliffe, 1996)

Contributing to the call for interdisciplinary practice, Susanna Hagan in her '5 Reasons to

Adopt Environmental Design' has identified that the intellectual reason, the practical reason, the technical reason, the economic reason, and the pedagogical reason are the five reasons

that architectural design should not exclude, but should integrate, the contributions from environmental performance domain in pursuing sustainable architecture

As the awareness has been increasingly recognised, there have been many calls for stepping back from specific environmental concerns, and viewing sustainable issues in a holistic way

Among these efforts is the call to reframe the often-asked question on the relationship between sustainability and architecture by Fawcett (1998):

People may ask – 'what does sustainability mean for architecture?' but perhaps the proper question is – 'what does architecture mean for sustainability?' The former

question suggests a 'weak' approach to sustainability, i.e an implicit assumption that

sustainability has implications (possibly serious) for our present ways of procuring

the built environment but those ways are basically appropriate The latter question

recognises sustainability as the overarching concern, in terms of which all social

disciplines and conduct must be reinterpreted and reformulated (Fawcett, 1998)

Williamson et al (2003) further elaborated the discussion:

The associated question of 'What does sustainability mean for architecture?' forefronts

architecture and looks for ways in which it must adapt The question of 'What does

architecture mean for sustainability?' forefronts sustainability and positions

architecture as one amongst many contributing factors in achieving a meaningful

human existence in a milieu of uncertainty.' (Williamson, Radford & Bennetts, 2003)

To sum up, the raising awareness of sustainable development has challenged the thinkings and practices of professionals The values of being environmental friendly and of balancing nature and human relationship have been added into the objectives of architecture; posing different questions, thinking and approaches towards sustainable architecture practice In response to this new challenge, there are many different viewpoints from the architectural professional For some, these environmental concerns are merely additional values assigned

to the conventional architectural practice, and thus the practice of sustainable architecture is all about providing and adding in a number of additional 'environmental' features such as sun shading devices, solar panels, etc For others, sustainable issues in architecture (e.g the relationship between climate, human, and architecture) have long been a primary concern in architectural practice, and perhaps can be dated back to Vitruvius (Hawkes, McDonald &

Steemers, 2002) From this perspective, the discourse of sustainable architecture is not new and the belief is that conventional architectural practice has already well equipped to embark upon the present-day sustainable issues if conventional architectural design techniques are properly explored

For other writers, the practice of architecture should undergo a major revolution This includes rethinking the approach and design process in architectural practice The 'Implied pipe-line framework towards sustainable architecture' from the environmental performance domain (section 2.6) is one example In each of the above perspectives, the three domains of sustainable architecture practice – namely environmental performance, socio-economics, and architectural design – are addressed at different levels of importance, and even 'contesting' one other as in the social constructivist theory (Guy & Farmer, 2001)

1.4 Housing design in sustainable development movement

The above prolonged discourse is even more significant in housing, as this building type is the best envoy between human daily activities and the environment As a general observation, the notion of housing has evolved over time, from mere shelter for individuals, to promoting social well-being, to being responsible to the environment, and currently towards sustainability

To the architectural design professional, the issue of over-simplistic theories in housing design is known, and a call to have an interdisciplinary perspective into sustainable housing has been made Rudlin and Falk, in their book ‘Building the 21st Century Home’, state d:

For much of the twentieth century the housing debate has focused not on the wider

impact of housing development but on improving conditions for the tenants of social

housing This had led professionals to postulate in bricks and mortar (and concrete and

steel), what is good for people, what will promote their health, communities, family

life and comfort […] Sustainable housing is defined as much by the economic forces,

the social trends, and policy as by physical design (Rudlin & Falk, 1999)

Similarly, Brian Edwards (2000) recommends that design holds the key role in developing sustainable housing However, he continues, that architects need to realise that buildings alone do not make sustainability, especially social sustainability Other equally important areas include urban planning, social mix, employment opportunities, and social amenity

From the sociologist's perspective, there have been an increasing number of studies to make the connection between environmental issues to housing studies Bhatti (1994 & 2001) attempted to integrate conventional housing studies (that associate mainly with socio-economic approaches) to the environmental discourse He suggests that ‘we need to look at housing using a holistic model, thus stepping back from specific aspects of policy or energy use, to examine how the whole of the housing system operates and how key parts interact' (Bhatti, 2001)

In brief, working towards sustainable housing is an inevitable direction for housing development How this can be achieved required much effort in research and practice From the literature review, the main problem of sustainable housing development, as with sustainable architecture in general, lies on the disintegration of the related constituent domains – environmental performance, architectural design, and socio-economics Gaining insight to the dynamic interaction among the approaches and strategies of the three domains, both from the past and the present trends, can undoubtedly provide a strong foundation for further understanding, and form an integrated framework for sustainable housing design and discourse

1.5 Research approach, objectives and scope

As this research is written from an architectural background and perspectives, the proposed framework is for architectural design and discourse in addressing sustainable housing However, with the interdisciplinary spirit, the research will be carried out with acknowledging the advantages and contributions from the socio-economics and environmental performance domains

This endeavour will start with the investigation into the most tangible domain – environmental performance – by critical reviewing its practice of BEAMs, which are measurable and has recently emerged and been gaining popularity

With strong technical and quantitative base, BEAMs have been formed with the vision to rectify the environmental problems associated with building development (Macnaughton & Urry, 1998) However, with their inherit reductionist, materialist, quantitative, structural, and hierarchical approaches, BEAMs pose conflicts to sustainable architecture, which also encompasses human, social, economic, and policy dimensions The differences between

environmental performance (as evaluated by BEAMs) and architecture approach are aware

of among architectural professional, but the viewpoints towards this practice are diverse (Cam & Ong, 2004)

In this context, the hypothesis of this research is formed as below:

– 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

The thesis will explore the above relationship through a number of studies on the practices of Singapore public housing Understanding this relationship allows us to establish a framework that integrates all these aspects of the study in approaching sustainable housing

1.5.2 Research objectives

The driving force of this research is the disintegrating and contesting phenomenon of sustainable architecture with the current popularity of BEAMs From here, the research will

be carried out with the following objectives:

(a) To understand and identify implications and weaknesses in BEAMs and the concept

design, and environmental performance – should be visible; the conflicts and potential conflicts among the domains should be minimised; and the reciprocation among them should be promoted;

(d) To establish systematic approaches to sustainable housing performance issues, their criteria and influencing factors; and

(e) To promote 'sustainable architecture' being in line with 'good architecture'

– Theoretically construct an integrated framework for sustainable housing design and discourse, based on the above studies of the three domains – environmental performance, socio-economics and architectural design;

• Empirical substantiation:

– Construct primary empirical data from applying a suitable building environmental assessment method to evaluate the environmental performances of 30 case studies, selected from the current housing stock of Singapore public housing The selection

of case studies are carried out with objectives of good representative of all different typical housing design types and spread throughout different decades in the evolution of public housing;

– Empirically verify the theoretically critical review of the practice of building environmental assessment method by correlating analysis the environmental performance of public housing case studies at two levels – (1) intra-relationship of dominant environmental performances with other related environmental performance, and (2) inter-relationship between the environmental performances and pertinent socio-economic trends (secondary empirical data) The secondary empirical data are obtained from various reports and publications from governmental bodies, scholars and researchers in the field

– From empirical understanding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

of the practice of building environmental assessment method, shift the discussion

of how to achieve high environmental performances to forming strategies to achieve high sustainable housing performances (see section 5.5 for the terminology definition) These strategies will be formed through the application of the Integrated Framework for Housing Design and Discourse, and the supported case examples found in the practice and observations of the 30 case studies of Singapore public housing Assessment criteria of sustainable housing performances as well as factors influencing the sustainable performances will also

be included in the discussion

Figure 1-1: Diagram of research methodology

1.5.4 Scope of discussion

The research addresses issues related to sustainable architecture, a research field with very large scope of coverage by definition To balance between being holistic and being throughout in discussion of each sub-topics to reflect the nature of the research field, the thesis scopes its discussions to the followings:

– The discussion focus on sustainable housing, as this building type is the best envoy between users and the surrounding environment

– The term housing refers to the context of the research data – i.e high-rise high-density public housing in Singapore

– In assessing environmental performance of public housing case studies, not all of the

due to local practice and data unavailability For example, criteria related to life-cycle analysis of embodied energy will be omitted due to data unavailability Due to most local building materials being imported, together with the controversial computing methodology and complicated process of collecting data, life-cycle analysis of embodied energy of local building deserves a whole research in itself

– The main objectives of the thesis is include

o to identify the negative implication and weakness of building environmental performance and BEAMs;

o to reveal the significant impacts of socio-economics and architectural design

on building environmental performance; and

o to establish theoretically and substantiate empirically the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, as well as to derive from there systematic approaches towards sustainable housing performance; and

o to extend the application of the Integrated Framework to form a preliminary structure of the Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method (ArchSAM) to indicate an overall framework and direction for future research

1.6 Thesis structure

This thesis is made up of fourteen chapters, grouping in three parts Part I carries out theoretical construction for the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse Chapter 2 critically reviews the practice of building environmental assessment method in environmental performance domain In this review, the mixed viewpoints to this practice from the architectural professional are revealed The chapter also unfolds the implied pipe-line framework towards sustainable architecture from the environmental performance domain Chapter 3 looks into socio-economics domain, including aspects related to resident behaviour The objectives are:

– to identify the influences of socio-economic factors

– to identify the possible contributions or solutions from these non-environmental aspects to environmental issues

Chapter 4 focuses on the approaches from conventional architectural design towards sustainable housing development These approaches include spiritualist, qualitative, contextual, inclusive and innovative approaches They are presented as being opposite to the approaches of building environmental assessment practice – materialist, quantitative, structuralist, exclusive, and pre-defined approaches Chapter 5 integrates the three domains as analysed in the previous 3 chapters and form the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse In this process, the chapter also reveals the multidirectional pathways towards sustainable housing, and acknowledge the importance of interconnectedness among the three domains

Part II of this thesis constructs the primary empirical data – the environmental performance of public housing through case studies – for empirical discussion in Part III Chapter 6 provides

a brief revisit to the evolution of Singapore public housing – the context where this research is based on It is followed by a review of literature on Singapore public housing The three

mainstream studies found in literature review are positioned against the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, in order to reveal the yet-to-be-explored issues This highlights the limited understanding of sustainability dimension of Singapore public housing Chapter 7 rationalises the selection of 'Green Building Challenge' (GBC) – an advanced international established building environmental assessment method – as the method to derive primary empirical data for the research The Chapter also presents localisation and customisation of GBC for suitable application in Singapore high-rise high-density public housing Chapter 8 explains the process of selecting case studies and their environmental performance assessments, followed by brief report on the assessment outcomes, which are also the primary empirical data for further discussions in Part III

Part III compiles a set of empirical analyses and discussion in order to substantiate the theoretically critical review of the practice of BEAMs and the theoretically-constructed Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse Part III includes 5 chapters, each of which focuses on one ultimate sustainable housing performance issue – land use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, material efficiency, and experience of home The format for each chapter is structured around the following discussions:

– Elaborate how each of the corresponding environmental performance criteria is measured, and empirically analyse their interrelationship with other environmental performance criteria;

– Correlate the environmental performance of Singapore public housing through case studies against the socio-economic data to understand the relationship among these two domains;

– Shift the discussion from the strategies to achieve high 'environmental performance' to the strategies to achieve 'sustainable housing performance' based

on the application of the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse; and

– Shed some thoughts to assessment criteria of sustainable housing performance and highlight factors (from all the three domains of sustainable architecture) that can influence sustainable housing performance

Chapter 14 concludes the thesis by reflecting how the research hypothesis has been addressed, and discussing the validity and contributions of the research This is done through positioning the critical review of the practice of BEAMs and the established Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse into the larger context of contemporary theories and practices related to the field Finally, the chapter establishes a preliminary structure and principles for future development of Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method, and identifies agenda for future research

Part I Integrated Framework for Sustainable

Housing Design and Discourse – Theoretical Establishment

Chapter 2: Building Environmental Assessment Method and

Sustainable Housing 2.1 Prelude

This chapter attempts to clarify the relationship between the practice of building environmental assessment methods and sustainable built environment (including housing) At the first glance, it seems logical that building environmental assessment methods, with its objective of delivering environmental-friendly buildings, will ultimately contribute to sustainable housing development However, due to a wide scope of sustainable housing that includes resident behaviours, lifestyle, and socio-economic aspects, the techno-centric practice of building environmental assessment methods is not comprehensive enough to solely address housing issues The discussion starts with the analysis of BEAMs' inherent characteristics, highlighting the paradox of the practice that leads to mixed views from the architectural professional The discussion is then followed with the study of the implication of the practice in its mentality towards sustainable housing development; and concludes with criticism to such practice

2.2 Environmental performance and building environmental assessment method

2.2.1 Introduction and background

The practice of BEAMs is derived from the concept of environmental performance, which is better understood through 'performance requirement' and 'performance indicator' Williamson

whole building A performance requirement […] is represent by a performance indicator The performance indicator is any quantifiable measure that adequately represents the specific performance requirement, for example, temperature limits to describe comfort satisfaction These provide quantitative statements of the desired attributes of a final design outcome and enable functional elements to be assessed in relation to agents (stress) that affect how a building behaves (Williamson, Radford & Bennetts, 2003)

Based on performance, the practice of BEAMs has recently been gaining momentum, and is widely accepted in contemporary practices and policy-making pertaining to the development

of the building environment (Guy, 2001) By definition, BEAMs are ‘techniques developed to specifically evaluate the performance of a building design or completed building across a broad range of environmental considerations’ (Cole, 1998) There are three main components

of BEAMs: Criteria, Time, and Scale (Figure 2-1) In the Criteria dimension, there are ecological concerns (e.g resource use and environmental loading), and human concerns (e.g indoor environmental quality) The Time dimension relates to life-cycle assessment of building, such as embodied energy in construction materials, and the consideration between short-term versus long-term benefits The Scale dimension represents the intrinsic link between environmental performance and life-cycle assessment of building materials and components, as well as the impact of building to its immediate and larger context

Figure 2-1: Three dimensions of environmental assessment – Scale, Time and Criteria (Source: Cole, 1999)

The main objectives of BEAMs are:

- To be an economic incentive method targeting players in building industry (Prior, 1991);

- To raise public awareness ‘by providing a common and verifiable set of criteria and targets

so that building owners striving for higher environmental standards will have a means of demonstrating that effort’ (Cole, 1998);

- To be a common communication tool between designing, constructing, and sale of buildings (Cole, 1998)

2.3 The evolution of building environmental assessment methods

2.3.1 The rise of building environmental assessment methods

Acknowledging the severe environmental impact of building development and operation, the practice of building environmental assessment emerged as a mean to encourage and to promote development of environmental friendly buildings The first BEAM is Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) established in 1991

by Building Research Establishment in the United Kingdom (UK) With its simple and explicit score system, the practice has been well received and gained popularity in the UK

Since the success of the first model, BEAMs have gained momentum with the adoption of BREEAM in several countries e.g HK-BEAM in Hong Kong and BEAM in Singapore, as well as the development of many other methods, of which a dominant alternative is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) These first-generation BEAMs’ main objective is to provide an economic incentive tool to encourage developers and architects to deliver environmental-friendly buildings

Green Building Challenge (GBC), a method established by an international joint effort,

Raymond Cole and Nil Larson and an International Framework Committee comprised of members from 14 nations, the first version of GBC was established in 1998 marked by International Sustainable Building Conference in Canada The objective of GBC is not a commercial tool, but rather a research and testing tool acting as a generic framework for global practice and national adaptation In the words of Raymond Cole (2001):

'The Green Building Challenge (GBC) process is a unique international collaborative effort that draws on the individual and collective experience of the

participating countries The process consists of the definition, structuring and

scoring of a range of collectively agreed performance criteria – the GBC

assessment framework, the development of a software version to operationalize the

framework – GBTool, its testing on case study buildings and the presentation of

the results at major conferences.'

Since its emergence, GBC has constantly been improved and such improvements are marked

by bi-annual or tri-annual international conferences Partly due to the fact that GBC is not a commercial tool, it has a relatively complex system (in comparison to other first generation BEAMs – in terms of the number of criteria, relationship between criteria, and the weighting structure – to express a more holistic approach to building environmental assessment) The vision of GBC future development is to include the integration of environmental performance

as the main component in building design process (Larsson, 2004); and a ambitious intention

to develop GBC from it current function as building environmental assessment to sustainable building assessment (Cole, Howard, Ikaga, & Nibel, 2004) Both issues will be elaborated and discussed in later chapters of the thesis

2.3.2 Review dominant existing building environmental assessment methods

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method – BREEAM

Established by the Building Research Establishment in the UK in 1991, BREEAM / New Homes was developed with the objective to enhance the environmental aspect of single house dwelling through market incentive BREEAM framework includes 15 criteria, arranged in 3 scales of environmental impact – global, local and indoor issues (Prior et al, 1991):

Global issues: CO2 production due to energy consumption 6 Credits

CFC and HCFC emission 1 Credit

Local issues: Natural resources and recycled materials 5 Credits

Storage of recyclable materials 1 Credit

Water economy 1 Credit

Ecological value of site 2 Credits

Local public transport Required but no credit awarded Indoor issues: Controlled ventilation 1 Credit

Cooker hood 1 Credit

Volatile organic pollutants of indoor origin 1 Credit

Wood preservatives 1 Credit

Non-gaseous indoor pollutants 2 Credit

Lighting 3 Credit

Smoke alarms 1 Credit

Storage for hazardous substances and medicines 1 Credit

Credits achieved through the criteria will be tabulated and the total credit will be stated in the certificate The simple and straightforward approach of BREEAM has made the method accepted widely in building industry not only in UK but was also adapted by other countries

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – LEED

Established by the United States (US) Green Building Council, LEED is a voluntary and driven building rating system It only applies to office buildings for assessing their environmental performances LEED version 2.0 includes 71 criteria arranged to 6 areas, which are:

Sustainable sites,

Water efficiency,

Energy and Atmosphere,

Materials and Resources,

Indoor environment quality, and

Innovation and design process (USGBC, 2001)

The benchmarks of criteria are based on existing proven technology Scores obtained from the criteria will be tabulated and the total score will determine the ranking of environmental performances, which are divided at four levels – bronze, silver, gold, and platinum

Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method – HK-BEAM (Residential)

Established by Centre of Environmental Technology, Hong Kong in 1999, HK-BEAM (residential) targets high-rise residential buildings to evaluate their environmental performances HK-BEAM framework includes 54 criteria, which originated from the global, local and indoor issues of BREEAM system (CET, 1999), and are re-arranged to 5 areas aligned to building production process:

Site planning and layout,

Building and premise design,

Material use and specifications,

Construction practice, and

Operation and maintenance (CET, 1999)

The sum of credits from individual criteria will determine the ranking of the housing environmental performances under 4 levels – fair, good, very good, and excellent

Singapore building environmental assessment method – BEAM

BEAM was an academic exercise to develop a tool for evaluating the environmental performance of Singaporean public housing The framework of BEAM is organised based on BREEAM model, in which environmental criteria are arranged in accordance to 3 scales of a building’s environmental impact – global, local, and indoor issues The benchmarks for criteria in BEAM are established based on site measurement and field survey Data gathering for the assessment is based mainly on site measurement of existing or completed housing The weighting among criteria was formed through a survey of experts The result of assessment is the sum of scores achieved through 11 criteria

Global Issue

Table 2-1: Framework of BEAM for Singaporean public housing (Compiled based on Lee et al, 2001)

Green Building Challenge – GBC

Green Building Challenge (GBC) is an international collaborative effort to develop a common

framework building environmental assessment tool for international application A feature

that sets GBC apart from existing BEAMs is that the method is designed from the onset to

allow users to reflect the different priorities, technologies and building traditions that exist in

various regions and countries GBC consists of a single Microsoft Excel workbook with 16

worksheets for customizing and inputting local context, benchmarks, weightings, and datasets

of building to be assessed, together with assessing data and reporting the results of environmental performances

The organising structure of GBC follows a nesting system of four hierarchies, which are: environmental issues, environmental categories, environmental criteria, and sub-criteria (figure 23) There are 6 environmental issues in GBC framework However, GBC only operates 4 environmental issues currently They are resource consumption, environmental loading, quality of indoor environment, and quality of service The other two issue Economics and Construction Management have not fully been established and their presences in GBC are mainly to act as a 'crude view' of the issue (Cole, 2002) GBC communicates assessment result through a nesting system of charts with ranking between -2 to 5, where 0 is the standard

of typical practice in the region, -2 is the worst, 3 is the best practice in the region, and 5 is best practice without giving concession to any other factors, e.g cost

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORIES

Net life-cycle use of primary energy Use of land and change in quality of land Net consumption of potable water Re-use of existing structure or on-site materials

Resource Consumption

Amount and quality of off-site materials used Emission of green house gas from building operations Emission of ozone-depleting substances

Solid wastes Liquid effluents

Environmental Loadings

Environmental impacts on site and adjacent properties Air Quality and Ventilation

Daylighting and Illumination

Indoor Environmental Quality

Noise and Acoustics Flexibility and adaptability Controllability of systems Maintenance of performance Privacy and access to views Quality of amenities and site development

Building Operations Planning

Table 2-2: The environmental performance parameters of GBC

2.4 Critique

BEAMs provide many physical and technical-based criteria to reduce environmental degradation as a result of building design, construction and operation However, from architectural perspective – where the ‘loose fit […] between form and performance: a space in which cultural pressures can produce strange distortions’ (Maxwell’s foreword in Hawkes, 1996) – the practice of BEAMs is insufficient and can be considered to fail The main reason

is that the practice of BEAMs requires a pre-determined solution which is rectified through technical and physical means It, however, does not reflect the user’s dimensions Williamson

et al (2003) explained:

People are strangely absent from this image They are assumed either as keen

participants whose aims are identical … or they are ‘designed’ out of participation

because they can not be trusted For example, There is a strong image that the

building itself the use of energy, not its occupants […] This contributes to the

impression that issues to do with occupancy are not a major concern when

considering the environmental aspects of design

The discussion continues with the popularity of solar-efficiency in building design, which argues that energy use is dependent on the form of the building and building fabric ‘This denies the significance of other determinants of energy use that are arguably far more important including the occupants and their lifestyle’ (William son et al, 2003)

2.4.1 Materialist approach

BEAMs, by focusing on building environmental performance per se, imply that the current environmental crises are that of a physical and materialist nature Therefore, the practice believe that ‘rational science can and will provide the understanding of the environment necessary to rectify environmental bads’ (Macnaughton & Urry, 1998) As for socio-

economic considerations, the practice of these methods does approach the issue from the

‘soft’ side, which is promoting b uilding industry and users’ awareness of environmental issues through economic incentive – rating the environmental performance of buildings The bottom line of the practice is, however, still a belief on technical and institutional solutions In view to this, Kellert (1999) expressed his dissatisfaction with the over-reliance of environmental performance aspects:

The primary criteria of success typically focus on processing energy, waste, and other resources, and associated impacts on air, water, and occasionally lighting quality These systems’ functions are certainly critical and greatly affect a range of significant environmental problems, including pollution, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss Yet, these benefits are largely abstract and depersonalised The average person or group living, working, recreating, or being educated in the built environment remains, for the most part, aloof and apart from these rewards, the gains residing mainly in the realm of institutional improvements (Kellert, 1999)

2.4.2 Quantitative approach

The practice of building environmental performance concentrates on quantifiable environmental factors and it lacks qualitative aspects This has raised a number of questions, namely the reliability of the quantifiable factors, and the acceptability from user perspectives The following are two such examples Addington (2003) analysed the conceptual difference between architectural thinking and building performance criterion on comfort levels of lighting While building environmental performance is interested in the minimum ambient lighting level (lux) in

a room, the architectural professional is interested in enhancing visibility, e.g it is more visible and more quality to see a bright object in a dark ambient lighting level, compared with seeing the same object in a bright ambient lighting

Figure 2-2: A clearer visibility of the grey strip in a dark ambient environment (left) than in a bright ambient

lighting (right) (Source: Addington, 2003)

In thermal comfort, the assumption made in environmental performance is to maintain a certain range of temperature, humidity, and air velocity In view to this, Ong and Hawkes (1997) point out that ‘existing thermal standards tend to work towards thermal neutrality Such criteria are perhaps too narrow and too simplistic to reflect the attraction of real places’

A number of issues are raised from thermal comfort practice Firstly, the assumption undermines individual needs to thermal environment from personal response and tolerance levels (Ong, 1997), as well as different thermal demands from various kinds of activities which may happen in the same place Secondly, the thermal comfort assumption takes away the aesthetics of providing different thermal environment spatially and temporally to enrich human’s sense and experience in place (Hes chong, 1979) Last but not least, thermal comfort only reflects the quantitatively physical factors but neglects human psychological need – an important factor, on which comfort level relies (Ong & Hawkes, 1997)

2.4.3 Structuralist approach

BEAMs, adopting a structuralist approach, contain identical environmental performance criteria and weighting system among criteria in a regional context The approach undoubtedly undermines the contingency at each building contextual situation, which is often constructed by its local social, economic, historical, and aesthetic aspects as well as geographical condition A building that can achieve the best environmental performance score is often the one in ideal conditions, where it has full supports from site conditions, social context and user cooperation However, very few buildings, in practice, are in such ideal conditions that allow best performances to be achieved in terms of environmental sustainability In these situations, building environmental performance practice is unable to provide satisfactory responses, due to the relatively inflexibility of the structural system in response to each individual design

Take natural ventilation and acoustic performances of a building as an illustration In a scenario that the building is located in tranquil site, the building can adopt a permeable design with ample and large openings, allowing the user to enjoy natural ventilation and serenity of the area Both natural ventilation and acoustic performances are greatly achieved However, in a reverse scenario that the building is located in a high ambient noise area, the structural system of BEAMs has little

to say in responding to this dilemma The only implied suggestion comes from the built-in weighting system that prioritises one performance over the other

Furthermore, building design responds not only to environment-related issues alone, but also with many other aspects, e.g user expectations and social and economic objectives The inflexible structuralist approach of building environmental performance does not address, or addresses very little, about those non-environmental issues Furthermore, the building environmental objectives do not always coincide with those non-environmental ones, resulting

in inconsistencies and conflicts in building design This issue will be further discussed in

– economic issues of long-term cost, short-term cost, utilisations, adaptability, etc

These considerations often do not support, and at worse, conflict with one another As a result, the discourse on sustainable built environment often turns out to be a discourse on making hierarchy among the sub-issues under sustainable development Prioritisation is often used as a mean to facilitate these hierarchical making processes

As discussed in the structuralist approach, BEAMs do not take into account socio-economic factors and user expectations This is the first level of extreme prioritisation of the practice The second level of prioritisation lies in the weighting system that is built in the practice The implication is that when facing choices among difference environmental performances, comparison will be carried out and decision will be made to trade off one (or more) environmental performance(s), which is (are) considered to be the less important one(s) for better achievement of the more important one(s) This is seen as an 'exclusive approach' in building design On the one hand, this approach is credited for facilitating decision-making process On the other hand, it is criticised for superficially solutions to discrepancies These solutions by-pass and discourage the exploration for the potential reciprocities among the seem-to-be inconsistencies to avoid compromises The 'exclusive approach' of BEAMs is also against holistic consideration in sustainable development

2.4.5 Pre-defined solutions

Based on materialist approach, it is assumed in BEAMs that a model of good environmental building can be predefined and used as a goal to assess other building design through the use of objective technical analysis (Farmer and Guy, 2002) These methods, therefore, imply the promotion of certain physical design prototypes, techniques, and technologies, all of which may narrow user’s experiences in the built environment and discourage the innovative solutions in architectural design

Due to the complexity in relationship to the environment, human beings often seek for the opposite or the ‘out of norm’ conditions for stimulation and relaxation ‘Thermal Delights in Architecture’ by Heshong (1979) highlights number of illustrations that man seeks experiences

in different thermal environments The potential for these phenomena and aesthetic values happened in the built environment can be achieved through innovative design This opportunity

is limited in the practice of BEAMs

2.5 The paradoxes

2.5.1 The contributions of building environmental assessment methods

In section 2.4, the practice of building environmental assessment methods has been critically reviewed, particularly on their drawbacks However, it was not to undermine and discredit the practice, which do have contributions towards sustainable architecture

Firstly, as acknowledged by Hagan (2003), environmental performance does contribute to buildings that are open to the outdoor environment These buildings, with environmental conscious design, are exposed more to natural factors These factors, with their constant fluctuation, e.g solar intensity, wind pattern, humidity, daylighting level, etc., result in

Therefore, it is important to understand the environmental performances of the building to safeguard the minimum standards for a comfortable living environment

Secondly, there has been a social trend of forming common grounds among users’ diverse perceptions and expectations towards the built environment, especially in terms of comfort levels These common grounds derived from increasing globalisation and highly mobility of human beings, both of which allow people experience and compare different environmental settings leading to a virtual common preferable environment BEAMs, with appropriate application, can contribute to architectural design in respond to these commonly-accepted users’ requirements and expectations

Thirdly, sustainable architecture design can be enhanced and be more persuasive if there is a mean to quantify and to benchmark the attempts made It is essential to have a methodology

to indicate whether what have been doing is comprehensive; and whether they are, or at least potentially, in the right track (Williamson et al, 2003)

Fourthly, the practice of BEAMs has established a link between building's environmental issues and its economic aspects, through its rating system and incentive practice The benefits of being environmental-friendly, although are not directly visible in its own senses to the people/users (as stated by Kellert, 1999), are at least indirectly perceived through economic terms Therefore, the practice of building environmental assessment methods does play a role in promoting the awareness of environmental issues in building development to different players in the building industry, users of the building, public and society at large

2.5.2 Mixed viewpoints from sustainable architecture

From architectural perspective, there have been various viewpoints to the practice of building environmental performance, both positively and negatively The practice is:

– criticised due to its conceptual difference to architectural practice (Lawson, 1997, Kellert, 2000; Addington, 2003);

– marginally acceptable to integrate in a larger systematic approach, including ethical practice (Williamson, Radford & Bennetts, 2003);

– acknowledged with condition to facilitate users’ preference and controllability in the

‘selective environment’ by Hawkes et al (2002); and

– acknowledged as increasingly necessary to safeguard the liveable and comfortable environment for users (Hagan, 2003)

To this point, the paradox of the practice of BEAMs has been revealed On the one hand, the practice is criticised for its insufficiencies and disadvantages towards sustainable architecture

On the other hand, it shows the contributions towards building environmental sustainability The paradox is also reflected on the mixed viewpoints among architectural professionals The solution to this paradox lies on how to apply the practice of building environmental assessment methods, especially its integration to a larger context of strategies and approaches Detailed discussion will be carried out in Chapter 5

2.6 The implied pipe-line framework towards sustainable housing

2.6.1 The techno-centric approach

In current literature, BEAMs are assigned with many different roles:

– To be an incentive tool for promoting environmental-friendly building to the public