This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 13 October 2013, At: 14:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & InformationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Challenges and future directions for energy andbuildings researchA. J. Summerfield a & Robert Lowe aa UCL Energy Institute, University College London , Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place,London , WC1H 0HY , UKPublished online: 09 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: A. J. Summerfield & Robert Lowe (2012) Challenges and future directions for energy and buildingsresearch, Building Research & Information, 40:4, 391-400, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2012.693839

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.693839

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

EDITORIAL

Challengesand future directions for energyand buildings research

A. J.Summer¢eld and Robert Lowe

IntroductionIn 2007 Building Research & Information published aspecial issue on the challenges posed by climate changefor the building stock. Its focus was well-timed inaddressing technical strategies and government policyoptions for reducing carbon emissions. In the wakeof the Stern Review (Stern, 2007) and then againwith the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Metz et al.,2007), considerable international impetus existed forgovernments to move from broad carbon reductiontargets to specific sectoral contributions to reduceenergy demand, for instance by increasing the perform-ance of new and refurbished construction via buildingregulations. Lowe’s (2007a) editorial in that specialissue highlighted the need to consider energy supplyand demand for the building stock as a system, andspecifically the implications of decarbonizing the elec-tricity supply in step with addressing energy demandin terms of the interactions influencing the choice andstaging of options available to policy-makers.

Over the intervening five years both anthroprogeniccarbon emissions and energy demand globally havecontinued to track essentially along their upper-scenario levels (IEA, 2011). Although a slight dip wasreported for electricity demand following the 2009global financial crisis, this has since returned tolonger-term growth trends (United States EnergyInformation Agency, 2011). Regions have been differ-entially affected by the crisis and energy price spikethat occurred in the same period, with spillovereffects in many nations on lower consumer demandand carbon prices. However, in recent years Europe,with some of the most aggressive national demandreduction objectives and considerable variationacross member states, has seen little change in overallenergy consumption from building stocks (Eurostat,2012). Where household energy demand has declined,as in the UK, the historical lack of empirical data forenergy policy evaluation has meant that it remains

difficult to determine the extent to which this is dueto specific improvements in energy performance ofbuildings or temporary changes in occupant behaviour.

The objective of the present special issue is to explorethe next challenges in energy and buildings research.In broad terms, the contributing papers address thenature, objectives and culture of research, and the evol-ving relationships between research communities,funders and stakeholders. First, consider the crudedimensions of the research challenge posed by the tran-sition to a low-carbon economy:

. Scale: the absolute magnitude of emissionsreductions is unprecedented.

. Rates of change: demand-side energy research isoften context specific but the evolution of contextcan exceed the rate of which research can beconceived, executed and reported. This leaveslittle room available for correction and policyrefinement.

. Scope and diversity: the transformation encom-passes all sectors of the built environment and allstakeholders from building designers, to owners,to managers, to inhabitants.

. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches:each of the above transcends the perspectivesof engineering or building physics, requiringadditional insights from economics, law, logistics,sociology, anthropology, information manage-ment, etc.

Consider, then, a typical research cycle that may lastfor four or more years: project proposal, funding pro-curement, staff recruitment, study implementation,data analysis and dissemination via discipline specificjournals. The research community faces a policyagenda – as well as an economic, technological and

BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2012) 40(4), 391–400

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2012 Taylor & Francishttp: ⁄ ⁄www.tandfonline.com ⁄journals

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.693839

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

social context – that is evolving at a pace faster thanthe research community and conventional researchpractices can maintain. Arguably, if it is to have signifi-cant relevance for the timely development of evidence-based policy, then the energy and buildings researchcommunity needs to address challenges across alllevels of its activity and consequently be prepared toimplement changes that reach deep into currentresearch culture and practice.

This Editorial is not intended to be an exhaustivecheckbox list of what needs to be done in energy andbuildings research. Instead it attempts to place individ-ual contributions to the issue in perspective bysuggesting the future directions needed across theswathe of activity in energy and buildings research.To that end, points have been structured in an arc asfollows: regional and national energy strategies, con-textual factors, research culture and practice, connect-ing with policy-makers and practitioners, the role ofempirical evidence, constructing and using modelsand tools, and establishing a progressive researchprogramme.

The role of regional and national strategiesThe rising economic role of the People’s Republic ofChina in the global context and its geopolitical impli-cations has been one of the defining developments ofthe current century. It is now abundantly clear thataims to limit climate change to 28C globally willhinge not only just on the energy demand actions andambitions of industrial nations, but also on those ofChina. (Though it should not be forgotten that India,Brazil, South East Asia and Africa also have importantroles.) Li and Yao (this issue) capture the breathtakingscale and pace of China’s urbanization. It is expectedthat this year will mark the point when, for the firsttime, the majority of the Chinese population lives incities (a point that is estimated to have been reachedglobally in 2008; United Nations, 2008). Li and Yaodescribe a continued rate of urbanization that sees anestimated one million people housed in new townseach month, or roughly the equivalent of one newtown with 200 000–300 000 inhabitants and itsassociated infrastructure constructed every week,with this presumably in addition to housing for manyothers who move into existing cities.

China’s burgeoning growth in renewable energy gener-ation (from research to industrial production andinstalled capacity) is another significant and relatedindicator of policy direction. This is apparentlyaccompanied by an increasing recognition, at thehighest levels, of the importance of addressing energydemand, as expressed in the national economic andpolitical agenda. Yet Li and Yao also cite all-too-familiar issues for implementation including barriers

between key professions and disciplines, such as plan-ning, architecture and engineering, and the need forimproved coordination in the development process toensure initial energy and environmental objectives aremet in practice. The authors recognize a potential lea-dership opportunity for China in energy and buildingsresearch, especially in new build, or more precisely inthe rapid construction of entire new cities. As encoura-ging as that is, leadership requires ambition that moveswell beyond current best practice, such as the useof energy rating certificates or Building InformationModels (BIMs). For instance, around 50% of theenvironmental impact of China’s built environment isaccounted for by embodied energy (Yang and Kohler,2008), mostly cement and steel, the production ofboth of which is more energy and carbon intensivethan in North America, Europe and Japan. Thus inaddition to demonstrating leadership by deliveringlow-carbon new cities and their associated infrastruc-ture (in terms of energy efficiency, environmentalimpact, advanced logistics and construction methods,etc.), it suggests that China might usefully focus onreducing the impact of embodied energy via technol-ogies to decarbonize the main material inputs to thebuilt environment, starting with cement and steel.

These notions of research leadership have emerged sorecently that it is not surprising that the authors areless clear on precisely what such a future role entailsin practice. Yet from outside China, government atvarious levels appears extraordinarily well placed toadopt a leadership role in research as a national stra-tegic ambition. For instance, unlike most Westernnations with privatized energy sectors, the currentstate involvement and ownership of energy utilities inChina conceivably enables authorities to consider man-dating the restructuring of the energy supply sectorfrom one charged purely with energy supply into onecapable of delivering/incentivizing a complex of ser-vices including distributed generation, smart metering,grid management and energy demand reduction. Sec-ondly, within an urbanization programme that pro-vides housing of a standard almost unimaginable formany Chinese families only a few years ago, there is aunique opportunity to build a bottom-up approach toengagement and participation in energy demand andenvironmental objectives. These represent potentiallyhighly effective areas of policy and associated researchdomains that are simply unavailable elsewhere at suchscale.

Kohler and Hassler (this issue) provide a striking con-trast with their perspective on the issue of energydemand in the existing European building stock. Inspite of progress in some countries, such as Germany,addressing increasing electricity consumption remainsa difficult issue across the region as a whole. Oneway forward the author suggests is essentially toreframe the energy demand agenda around heritage

Editorial

392

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

and conservation values of existing buildings. This rep-resents a refreshing and constructive approach. Insome countries architectural conservation has oftenbeen in opposition to energy performance measures,regarding them as a potential threat to conservationvalues. For instance, increased demolition rates fordomestic buildings were one of the more contentiousheadline measures of the 40% house proposal for theUK (Boardman et al., 2005; Lowe, 2007b). In contrast,Kohler and Hassler’s proposal emphasizes energydemand reduction as integral to an appropriate updat-ing and maintenance of the heritage values of the Euro-pean building stock for future generations. With this asa starting point, they present a progressive programmeof measures and highlight the need for a tailored set ofoptions to deliver incremental gains according tospecific local conditions and priorities. This approachemerges also as one potential direction, though notan exclusive priority, for Europe to take a leadershipresearch role that would complement the focus onnew cities in China.

Again focusing on the existing building stock, but usingthe UK as a case study, Skea (this issue) exploresthe theme of adopting an energy systems approachto parts of the roadmap for lowering future energydemand. Legislated targets for national carbonreductions have underscored the policy commitmentto an 80% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050(representing a decline of about one-third by 2025 on2009 levels), so that the focus can shift to finding thebest pathway for these objectives. Contributions toreductions in demand from the built sector then havea crucial role to play in managing the progressive elec-trification of energy demand, such as from the trans-port sector, and reductions in the carbon intensity ofenergy supply through the deployment of low-carbonenergy generation. Skea shifts the focus from ambitioustargets to their implications in terms of options forimplementation in practice and in the process under-lines the need for a more joined-up approach toresearch across disciplines and government initiatives.

If research and policy communities require national oreven regional research ambitions that have a clearunderstanding of existing conditions, further reflectionon each of the above three papers suggests this must beaccompanied by an appropriate roadmap that sets outthe various contextual objectives along the way. Forexample, notwithstanding the effect of globalizationon the construction industry, the international devel-opment of BIM software will undoubtedly needreworking in order to address the local conditions ofa nation such as China. Context remains such a power-ful determinant of outcome in and for the builtenvironment that much of the research effort mustnecessarily remain local, geographically, culturallyand politically (cf. Cole and Lorch, 2003). This is notto say that it is impossible to learn from others, but

that the interpretation of results, insights and practicalachievements from ‘abroad’ to derive concrete valuefor one’s own community itself requires considerableeffort. UK energy researchers have been ponderingfor decades over the question of why Denmark hasbeen able to extend district heating to 65% of thebuilding stock, while in the UK it has languished ataround 1%. But as Lowe (2007a, p. 348) noted,

[t]he extent to which construction even in indus-trialized countries remains ‘embedded’, in Gid-dens’s phrase [Giddens, 1991], is perhaps notcompletely understood by the policy researchcommunity.

The issue of addressing contextual factors in theirvarious multidisciplinary guises lies at the heart of sub-sequent sections.

Re-examining contextual factorsAmbitions for research aligned to a roadmap forenergy demand objectives implicitly raises questionsregarding the extent that the research infrastructure(the network of funding bodies guiding and coordinat-ing research) can support ambitious strategic goals forlowering energy demand. For instance, it is easy topropose multidisciplinary projects that span conserva-tion, the social sciences and engineering; but it is oftendifficult to realize this in practice. The approval of mul-tidisciplinary projects within a competitive fundingmodel can be compromised by a grant review commit-tee with members predominantly from just one of thedisciplines. In times when research budgets face cut-backs, there may be a natural tendency to support pro-jects perceived as low risk and core to the priorities of asingle discipline at the expense of what may be seen ashigher-risk multidisciplinary projects. Governmentsmay also then attempt to initiate alternative pathwaysfor funding research with particular attributes, such asthose with the potential for technological innovationor commercial impact. However, as Skea (this issue)has identified, there is a risk of these initiatives beingpoorly coordinated with other research bodies.

An overview of recent funding structures for energy andbuildings research in the UK, provided by Gupta andGregg (this issue), conveys the confusing array of organ-izations that have emerged (and in some cases alreadyvanished) even just for the domestic sector. In practicethis is likely to have considerable impact on researchersattempting to discover and tailor proposals to the par-ticular interests and requirements of each. The authorsprimarily focus on the need to facilitate multidisciplinaryapproaches to the study of energy demand, especiallybetween the social and physical (including engineering)sciences, and thus posit a ‘satellite and hub’ model toconnect research projects and structure their funding.

Editorial

393

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

There remains room for debate regarding whether this isthe best model, and the authors have not attempted acomparative analysis (which in any case would becontext sensitive). Their underlying point, however, isthat the policy agenda calls for a more deliberative andstructured approach with clear objectives for the charac-teristics of the research to be undertaken, for which the‘satellite and hub’ model is an example, rather thana piecemeal or ad hoc approach. The coordinatedapproach can also have a crucial role in setting out accep-table protocols for research methods and forms of disse-mination that is discussed further below. The researchinfrastructure should not stifle the diversity of researchtopics available and approaches considered for projects.Thus, those involved in the research infrastructure mustensure diversity is maintained and take steps to avoid theemergence of control by a single discipline or approach.Moreover, beyond multidisciplinary approaches thereremains scope for good, but more narrowly focusedresearch that occupies only individual parts of thebroad domain that Gupta and Gregg have suggested.The challenge is therefore to provide the conditions fora coherent, diverse and vibrant ecology of research activi-ties to arise (in the metaphor of coral reefs rather thanopen ocean). It cannot be assumed that this will simplyarise spontaneously by setting energy demand targets.

In addition to the research infrastructure, the inter-related factors that set the wider context or limit thescope of research and the topics available for analysis,and even hinder progress in reducing energy demand,need to be re-examined. Axon, Bright, Dixon, Jandaand Kolokotroni (this issue) illustrate this broad pointwith the example of energy performance of the rentalsector for commercial properties where governanceand action are analysed through the interrelationshipsbetween the legal, economic and social factors. Aresearch programme that just considers one aspect,such as the physical performance of the buildingfabric in this sector of the stock, will have limited usein policy terms if factors such as property ownershipstructures or the lack of direct financial incentive forlandlords to reduce energy demand (as tenants typicallypay for their energy use) are not also addressed. In otherwords, the array of social constructs and governance‘factors’ need to be open for critical evaluation along-side empirical research, rather than taken as assump-tions or as fixed constraints on the parameters ofconventional research. While some of these conditionswill be deeply embedded and difficult to modify, suchas the rights and responsibilities of owners under prop-erty law, they should not be off limits.

Changing research culture and practiceMany of the challenges in energy and buildingsresearch go to the heart of current practice of research.Berker and Bharathi (this issue) provide a useful

background to the discourse responding to Gibbonset al.’s The New Production of Knowledge (1994)and – as the authors put it – the view that:

knowledge producers increasingly need toengage in context and problem-driven researchconducted in interdisciplinary teams.

This is described as ‘mode-2’ research that particularlycharacterizes the realities of current field and socialresearch, which contrasts with conventional (or‘mode-1’) research typified by more passive or objec-tive technical approaches within the laboratory orinstitutional setting. Their small survey of energy andbuildings researchers generated findings as might beexpected, with participants indicating a mixed percep-tion of their own research activity (in terms of mode-1or mode-2 characteristics) and a desire for greaterreflection on research methods. It has, however, pro-vided the authors with a sufficient basis to make thecase for a far stronger acknowledgment of both theactual and potential role of ‘mode-2’ research inenergy and buildings studies. In a similar vein, Schwe-ber and Leiringer (this issue) have created a meta-analysis of research papers across a range of fieldsfrom sociology to construction to survey the methodo-logical characteristics of the energy and buildingsresearch being undertaken. They also suggest that thefindings indicate considerable scope exists within theconstruction research domain for a more interpretivistapproach, whereby greater emphasis is placed onunderstanding the viewpoint of participants or stake-holders (or in more sociological terms – taking steps‘to identify the meanings that mediate behaviour ineach specific circumstance’). It is worth noting that asthe physical aspects of the building system are tigh-tened, it is inevitable that the focus shifts to otherfactors that are often more amenable to investigationvia ‘mode-2’ approaches as they are likely to play agreater role in influencing outcomes. For instance, aninhabitant leaving a window open will have a greaterinfluence on the relative performance of a dwellingmeeting Passivhaus standards than in a poorly insu-lated dwelling. Similarly, poor construction quality inPassivhaus will impact severely on energy performanceand this may be attributed to social factors, such as theskill levels of the workers involved or poor coordi-nation between subcontractors, rather than propertiesof building materials.

This shift in research to ‘mode-2’ practices is notunique to the social sciences. For example, Oreszczynand Lowe (2010) have previously been made asimilar case from a technical perspective for ActionResearch (AR), an approach that involves a reflexiveprocess of progressive problem solving, in order toaddress issues of energy and the built environment.The origins of AR lie as much in disciplines such asproduction engineering as in social science (e.g.

Editorial

394

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

Greenwood et al., 1993). Gansmo (this issue) providesan example of this approach in practice: the municipalplanning process for a new neighbourhood inTrondheim, Norway. The paper makes the explicitcase for a greater role for dialogue between stake-holders within an AR setting. With research thatitself provided a useful illustration of the engagedresearcher using structured dialogue to gather evi-dence, she suggests strategies that encourage dialoguecan lead to both improved outcomes and generatetopics for future study.

It is worth expanding further on the implications ofthis shift in research practice to the type of methodsfamiliar in AR and the social sciences through multidis-ciplinary collaboration, whereby researchers recognizetheir role as protagonists who consider the opportu-nities for engagement or learning from the study.Researchers do not act, however, as a protagonist fora specific party or product (except the ethical standardsof research and wider community) but instead areprepared to undertake sufficient investigations to for-mulate an explanatory critique of what they observe(Bhaskar, 1987). These may take the form of qualitat-ive findings that ideally should be presented alongsideand inform quantitative results. In building andhousehold surveys, for instance, this means that par-ticipants change from being treated as occupants andessentially passive entities to inhabitants and activeagents in the built environment, with individualmotives and actions. Alongside the measurement ofbuilding energy performance, investigations such asstructured interviews would be pursued with inhabi-tants, building managers and others to identify thepotential explanations for differences between actualand predicted performance.

Connecting with policy-makers andpractitionersThe proposed shift in the culture of research to activeengagement is closely related to another challenge:the need to bridge the gap between research and thepolicy-maker communities. The gap can hinder devel-opment of an effective policy agenda. Researchersshould not assume or expect that policy-makers havea pre-existing appreciation of the technical and socialfactors influencing energy demand. Regardless of anyexpressed interest in delivering evidence-based policy,researchers should also be mindful that in a world ofrealpolitik policy-makers may be subject to arbitraryconstraints, timelines and economic pressures, includ-ing those from vested interests. It is therefore under-standable that policy-makers may express the wish tobe provided with unqualified scientific evidence, e.g.a straightforward prediction of how much policy Xwill reduce energy demand compared with policy Yby 2020. But the contingent and emergent nature of

future outcomes often makes it impossible to accedeto such simple requests. AR offers the possibility ofunderstanding the future through harnessing processesthat change it. Specifically, it provides a framework forresearchers to explore with policy-makers and otherstakeholders:

. the level and type of evidence that is feasible anduseful within a given research programme andtimeframe

. after allowing for uncertainty and the weight ofcurrent evidence, determine the extent of furtherevidence needed to enable a decision to proceedregarding policy X versus policy Y

. the potential added-value from a more nuancedapproach, e.g. shifting the emphasis to supportingthe implementation of policy with evidence thathelps identify optimal targeting and timing ofpolicy measures

. an agreed format for the interpretation of findingsthat is both valid and digestible for policy-makersto communicate policy among stakeholders andpotentially in the public arena

. the value of an on-going evaluation processwhereby policy can be refined or adapted as theresearch programme progresses

This formal and informal engagement betweenresearchers and other stakeholders so that theybecome part of the research programme is recognizedin other scientific fields as part of translation researchin moving findings from the laboratory or fieldworkinto practice. It is often considered a crucial aspectof research proposals, for instance in public healthresearch, that needs to be explicitly and convincinglyarticulated (e.g. through stakeholder workshops) forthem to obtain funding.

The second corollary is the resultant expansion of interestin diverse topics, as touched upon previously. Forinstance, understanding the role of innovation is essentialto the implementation and progress of a rapid reductionin energy demand, but has not been discussed at lengthin this issue and is in need of greater attention by theresearch community. What may appear as incrementalgains at the building stock level, e.g. those anticipatedby Kohler and Hassler (this issue), will still require inno-vation at levels other than just technical aspects with con-comitant changes in construction practices, procurementandbusinessmodels. It also spansareas suchas the radicaltransformation of utilities from purely energy suppliersinto energy service providers, and the use of innovativeeducation practices across the sector to deliver new skillsets while maintaining levels of expertise. It includesresearch on ways to identify pathways for the adoption

Editorial

395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

of innovative methods into general construction practice,ways for ideas thatmayoriginateas apointof competitiveadvantage in small and medium-sized enterprises butneed to be adopted by larger development companies.More generally, the research community needs to under-stand how the dynamic environment of progressive andrapid innovation that is characteristic of other industries,such as telecommunications, can be created and adaptedfor the construction industry.

Re-invigorating the role of empiricalevidenceNone of the points raised thus far should underplay theimportance of empirical research for evidence-basedpolicy. On the contrary, one of the fundamental chal-lenges is a reinvigorated effort to obtaining and updat-ing empirical data, including for basic energy andbuilding parameters, and this position is supportedby various papers in this issue (e.g. Kohler andHassler; Skea). To illustrate the point: there is scantpublished evidence anywhere for the distributions ofU-values measured in situ for various constructiontypes representative of the building stock and undervarying conditions (environmental, age, etc.). Wherebuilding surveys occur, U-values are typically deter-mined through visual inspection of the constructiontype and then inferred from established values ratherthan by direct measurement. This raises a series ofquestions which the research community has onlyrecently begun to explore. Are the precise U-valuesassumed by building performance models for eachtype of wall construction a mean, median or someminimum figure? What is the impact of the uncertaintyin U-values, e.g. on compliance with respect to build-ing regulations? What is the impact on businessmodels, if refurbishments financed through futureenergy savings do not deliver the expected reductionin energy demand? Another historical example can befound in the general lack of systematic data collection(for research) on indoor temperature and heating andcooling practices of occupants, the significance ofwhich is underlined by the efforts of those involvedin the development of the adaptive thermal comfortmodel (e.g. Brager and de Dear, 1998; de Dear andBrager, 2002, Nicol and Humphreys, 2002).

This predicament in the face of ambitious energy demandpolicy agendas is startling in comparison with otherscientific domains, from health sciences to meteorology.Top-down energy consumption modelling does notsuffice. As far as the authors are aware, there is no well-established population-based longitudinal study ofdetailed energy demand (beyond annual energy data),including both surveyed building construction and occu-pant socio-demographics and other data. Such infor-mation should form part of the core statisticalknowledge base of all modern nations: energy and

buildings statistics need to be brought into line with thedetail and quality of social and health statistics. Thisdoes not imply that only large studies are of value.Energy and buildings research will continue to require amultitude of small-scale studies, such as interventionstudies, but it is essential that robust population andbuilding stock-based statistics are available againstwhich to contextualize their results. Otherwise it is vir-tually impossible to establish what weight should begiven to findings and determine the priorities for furtherresearch.

In the past it might have been argued that such empiricalstudies were expensive and the topic of energy demand ofsecondary importance compared, for instance, withpublic health. Given the advances and reduction incosts of remote sensing equipment and that detailedenergy data are increasingly being gathered in any case(e.g. as part of smart metering programmes) it hasnever been easier to undertake large-scale and long-term empirical studies. These need not be stand-aloneprojects but, asa further case for the importance ofmulti-disciplinary collaboration, could easily form part of themany existing social and health studies. Such anapproach would also have benefits in terms of improvingthe level of quantitative analysis to that of best practice inother domains.

One of the longstanding challenges of energy and build-ings research has been the issue of data ownership andaccess. Commercial and legal sensitivities abound withenergy and building data. For instance, manufacturersare unlikely to welcome the news that in situ perform-ance of their product is less than the specified value.Developers and designers of buildings are unsurprisinglycoy about comparing the design predictions with actualenergy consumption. These issues are only likely to risein step with the increased financial and legal conse-quences of energy demand in excess of predictions.

The construction and operation of buildings alreadyrelies on a vast array of data from the earliest phases ofthe design process. The planning approval and regulat-ory process, even for extensions and retrofit, increasinglyrequires documentation in digital format for localauthorities. As sophisticated BIMs are developed forconstruction management and facility operation, inter-related datasets are collected and generated. Informationon the constructed entity can then be transferred to thebuilding management system (BMS) that itself provideson-going data collection in order to monitor andrespond to the inhabitants’ needs and maintain buildingservices and conditions. The challenge is, therefore, not alack of data per se, but the unlocking of parts of theseexisting virtual representations for research purposesthat would ultimately benefit society.

Energy and buildings research is far from unique indealing such issues. An overhaul of data ownership

Editorial

396

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

and access is integral to developing an approach toempirical data and analysis in keeping with standardpractice of other scientific disciplines. The medicalsciences demonstrate that protocols for the handlingof sensitive data for research can be both secure andeffective for early feedback, including automaticreporting procedures from across the spectrum offrontline health services for failure rates and side-effects of treatments. Energy and building sciencewould benefit immeasurably if similar data protocolsand reporting procedures were established. Theresearch community needs to engage with all partiesto explore their potential role in such arrangements.One possibility is for researchers to have greateraccess to local authority databases of buildingapprovals and compliance.

This proposed overhaul of the approach to data andevidence used in energy and buildings researchextends formal and standardized protocols formeasurement and data collection to generating anon-ymised datasets amenable to comparative analysis byother researchers. In the UK, the social sciences andparticularly publicly funded research require officialarchiving and documentation of studies as standardpractice and part of the condition of public funding.The failure to consider the importance of archivingenergy and buildings datasets also wastes an importantopportunity at both national and international levels.Moreover, the principle of greater access to datasuggests that detailed methods and supporting dataand findings (for instance, where no significantchanges are obtained) should be published alongsidejournal publications and commercial reports. Analysesthat extend beyond meta-analysis are extremely usefulfor evaluating policy effectiveness through systematicdifferences and similarities in findings across studies.Thus, it should also be priority to set up an on-goinginternational collaboration to provide a systematicreview of energy and buildings research. A modelalready exists in the health sciences with the CochraneCollaboration (n.d.), which aims to provide an inter-national benchmark for the independent assessmentand assimilation of scientific evidence. These charac-teristics of adopting protocols and standards forresearch excellence in empirical data collection, analy-sis and dissemination should be set as the defining goalsof the organizations forming the research infrastruc-ture described in previous sections.

Re-evaluating the formulation and use ofmodels and other toolsIn spite of the paucity of robust empirical data, it isironic that the use of models abounds in energy andbuilding in research and policy, from energy consump-tion of the national building stock, to urban design, toindividual building approvals. The current use of

normative models and the assumption of singularvalues for key parameters have already been discussedas fundamentally flawed due to issues with theirdistribution and uncertainty. There is also potentialconfusion between the use of models to provideenergy ratings of buildings, which estimate energy con-sumption under ‘standard’ occupancy and operatingpatterns and external conditions, versus the predictionof energy consumption under actual conditions andoccupant operation. Partly this may be due to theproprietary nature of many building energy models,even though the procedures and algorithms on whichthey are based are publically available. Thus, it is diffi-cult for operators to ascertain the exact implemen-tation in each case. Although models for determiningcompliance with building regulations require formalapproval, previous research has also indicated substan-tial variability between models even in elementaldesign parameters such as total floor space (Raslanand Davies, 2009).

Calderon and Keirstead (this issue) provide a similardescription of methodological issues for practitionersusing urban energy and carbon models on behalf oflocal authorities for informing the decision-makingprocess. In addition to the need to validate models,they highlight how practitioners (as well as modelbuilders) have a responsibility to understand and com-municate the limitations and assumptions of themodels. They suggest the importance of a culturalchange, again along the lines discussed above,whereby the role of a community of practitionersactively engage in establishing best practice. Some ofthe points about current practice are also reflected inthe review by Salat and Bourdic (this issue) of districtand city-scale models. One interesting feature of theircontribution has been to highlight the importanceof using distinct models (or the same model but opti-mized in different ways) to address the links betweendifferent scales, or what the authors refer to as‘leverages’, rather than expect models to operateacross all scales. This aims to reduce the impact ofsome assumptions used for parameters values wherelittle robust data are available. Again, the importantpoint is the use of an explicit strategy begins toacknowledge model limitations and hence moves thecurrent practice forward. This notion of rethinkingthe role of scale in analytical approaches is echoedin by Koch, Girard and McKoen (this issue) in theiruse of neighbourhood system boundaries, ratherthan single buildings, in evaluating options for ‘zero-carbon’ designs. Their strategy opens up potentialsolutions simply not available under a single buildinganalysis, e.g. by considering the potential for energyload balancing between various types of buildings ina neighbourhood. As noted above, transcending thelimitations of conventional approaches is not onlyessential when considering advanced managementstrategies for including renewables in the energy

Editorial

397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

supply system, but also it creates the possibility toinvestigate the influence of other limitations normallytaken as given, e.g. addressing barriers due to prop-erty ownership structures on neighbourhood-levelenergy systems.

Due to the importance of models, it is worth brieflydelving further into understanding the implications ofaddressing their limitations in terms of the evolvingcontext of tightened building regulations. Theprimary approach currently taken by many buildingenergy models in the residential sector, such as theStandard Assessment Procedure (SAP) used in theUK, is to combine certified subsystem performancedata based on laboratory measurements with asimple conceptual model of energy flows in dwellingsto predict overall energy use. Historically, predictionsmay have been considered sufficiently close to perform-ance, where this has been measured. This is less andless likely to be the case in the future. The difficultyof predicting behaviour of complex systems from sub-system performance suggests that in the future morereliance will need to be placed on empirical feedbackon whole system performance from practice. Thiswill change the relationship between SAP and thehouse building/refurbishment industry from a one-way supply of design predictions to a two-wayrelationship supporting continual refinement of predic-tions based on actual performance in the field.

Donn et al. (2012) also recent suggested an example ofthe kind of model implementation and process thatmay be of greater use in practice compared with con-ventional simulation. In this case it described the useof a fenestration design tool, characterized by thenotion of a sketch. This tool aimed to provide sufficientguidance to support decisions early in the designprocess where various options or strategies can stillbe explored, but without the stifling process of conven-tional detailed simulation. Thus, as with the previouspoints regarding policy-makers and practitioners, thekey question for research lies in understanding whatis exactly needed from models, in terms of robust pre-dictions, at a particular point in policy development orthe design process.

A progressive research programmeIn response to rapidly advancing policy agendas forenergy demand reduction from the built environment,this Editorial and the contributing papers in this issuehave identified the need to focus of a series of key chal-lenges that amount to an across-the-board re-examin-ation of the how, what, and why of energy andbuildings research. This issue should stimulate furtherdebate by providing the basis of what might bedescribed as a progressive research programme alonglines proposed by Lakatos et al. (1980) and it is

therefore characterized by rapid development, novelideas and techniques, and improved predictions. Forthe necessary changes to occur, researchers, policy-makers and other parties need to work towards thefollowing next steps:

. Incorporate research as integral to the national andregional strategic ambition for energy demandreduction from buildings: the ambition for researchleadership in specifically identified areas mustmatch the same level as has been achieved forrenewables, and be focused on the contextualfactors of the nations involved (e.g. new cities inChina).

. Realign the accepted standard of energy and build-ings research, and hence the evidence it generates,with other scientific disciplines, such as the healthsciences.

. Set national and regional trajectories for energydemand on a sectoral basis: these are subject toon-going revision according to research findingsand should incorporate a systematic approach toboth energy and carbon reduction (and accountfor interactions between energy supply, distri-bution and demand). The role of reframing theenergy agenda is integral to other imperatives,e.g. maintaining heritage and conservation values.

. Prioritize contributions and focus research: keysectors such as the existing building stock in devel-oped nations, or embedded energy in cement andsteel production in China.

. Support policy implementation with an over-arching structured research infrastructure:funding and coordinating the scale of researchneeds to be commensurate with the ambitionsinvolved; priority should be provided to multi-disciplinary approaches.

. Address ‘structural’ or contextual factors thatinfluence energy demand and research: there alsoshould be a widening out and linking of research oncontextual factors, such as economic and regulatoryfactors or barriers to innovation, that constrain theeffectiveness of research and policy measures.

. Facilitate change in the culture and practice ofresearch: there is a need to encourage a fargreater role for participatory research, as alreadyestablished in both the social sciences and theapproach of AR, where the aim is to provide expla-natory critiques and change practices alongsidequantitative findings.

. Re-invigorate the role of empirical evidence: large-scale representative and detailed studies of energy

Editorial

398

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

use and buildings (that may be incorporated intoexisting social surveys of inhabitants) need to beestablished and maintained. This would includere-evaluation of basic building parameters andwould also bring data analysis, study documen-tation and the open dissemination of findings intoline with best practice in other scientific domains.

. Unlock data from the range of current sources:potential exists for involving existing bodies orinstitutions (e.g. local authorities or universities)to act as caretakers for the datasets (includingthose from BIM and BMS).

. Establish research collaborations aimed at system-atically evaluating findings: benchmark availablescientific evidence and detect areas of anomaly inneed of further research.

. Re-evaluate the use of models and other policytools: the effective use of energy building modelsneeds to be re-evaluated for their validity, withprotocols for best practice actively developed bycommunities of model developers and operatorsthat are appropriate and tailored to the needs oftheir clients, such as designers or local authorities.

. Formulate a process of research translation: at allstages of the research programme a close relation-ship with policy-makers and stakeholders isneeded, but particularly in terms of the interpret-ation of findings and their implications for policydevelopment.

ConclusionsThe challenges for energy and buildings researchrequire a comprehensive change in almost every facetof the field’s culture and practice, from researchfunding and coordination to the dissemination of find-ings and the use of tools, if they are to have a significantcontribution to the rapidly evolving policy context. Itmay be tempting to dismiss these ideas as unlikely tobe implemented, since it is still possible for energypolicy and research to continue along their own‘business as usual’ scenario. Yet over the next decade,it is plausible that global energy demand and conse-quent carbon emissions will not meet the trajectoryneeded to reach 2050 targets, or those for 2025. Reas-sessment of positive carbon feedback loops, such asfrom the accelerated release of methane, may alsolead to a compression of the available timeline toreduce emissions. Faced with such a scenario, afurther rapid development of the policy agenda mayoccur, with governments using the full panoply oftools for regulation, incentives and social mobilizationat their disposal. From the perspective of preparedness,

researchers should consider advancing this progressiveresearch programme now in order to be in a better pos-ition to advise on the optimal path(s) forward in apotentially far more drastic policy environment.

On the other hand, the remote possibility exists thatclimate change and energy security will be resolved inthe next decade by a shoebox-sized zero-carbonenergy source, like some miraculous vaccine. If thisunlikely proposition were to arise, then considerbriefly the implications for energy and buildingsresearch. Would government funding and resourcessuddenly evaporate if the focus shifted to nominallymore pressing issues? This was the case in the previousdecades of cheap oil. Since energy would have beendecarbonized, would recent energy standards andbuilding regulations be suddenly relaxed in the faceof developers’ demands and the need to address rapidurbanization or lower refurbishment costs? Given theinterconnections between energy use and wider issuesof sustainability and other potential consequences ofprofligate energy use, such a reversion would appearto be mistaken and profoundly short-sighted. Thecurrent exigencies of the carbon reduction agendaalso present an opportunity, whereby energy andbuildings research can establish its role as part of fun-damental scientific research aimed at understandinghow people live and interact with the builtenvironment.

A. J. SummerfieldUCL Energy Institute

University College London, UKa.summerfield@ucl.ac.uk

Robert LoweUCL Energy Institute

University College London, UKrobert.lowe@ucl.ac.uk

ReferencesBhaskar, R.A. (1987) Scientific Realism and Human Emancipa-

tion, Verso, London.Boardman, B., Darby, S., Killip, G., Hinnells, M., Jardine, C.N.,

Palmer, J., Sinden, G., Lane, K., Layberry, R., Wright, A.,Newborough, M., Natarajan, S. and Peacock, A. (2005)40% House. Technical Report. Oxford: EnvironmentalChange Institute, University of Oxford.

Brager, G.S. and de Dear, R.J. (1998) Thermal adaptation in thebuilt environment: a literature review. Energy and Buildings,27(1), 83–96.

Cochrane Collaboration (n.d.) Working Together to Provide theBest Evidence for Health Care (available at: http://www.cochrane.org) (accessed on 1 May 2012).

Cole, R.J. and Lorch, R. (eds) (2003) Buildings, Culture andEnvironment: Informing Local and Global Practices,Oxford, Blackwells.

de Dear, R.J. and Brager, G.S. (2002) Thermal comfort in natu-rally ventilated buildings: revisions to ASHRAE Standard55. Energy and Buildings, 34(6), 549–561.

Editorial

399

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3

Donn, M., Selkowitz, S. and Bordass, B. (2012) The building per-formance sketch. Building Research & Information, 40(2),186–208.

Eurostat (2012) Energy: main tables (available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/data/main_tables) (accessed on 16 February 2012)

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott,P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge:The Dynamics of Science and Research in ContemporarySocieties, Sage, London.

Giddens, A. (1991) The Consequences of Modernity, Polity,Cambridge.

Greenwood, D.J., Whyte, W.F. and Harkavy, I. (1993) Participa-tory action research as a process and as a goal. HumanRelations, 46(2), 175–192.

IEA (2011) World Energy Outlook 2011: executive summary,International Energy Agency (available at: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org).

Lakatos, I., Worrall, J. and Currie, G. (1980) The Methodologyof Scientific Research Programmes, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Lowe, R.J. (2007a) Addressing the challenges of climate changefor the built environment. Building Research & Information,35(4), 343–350.

Lowe, R.J. (2007b) Technical options and strategies for decarb-onizing UK housing. Building Research & Information,35(4), 412–425.

Metz,B.,Davidson,O.R.,Bosch,P.R.,Dave,R.andMeyer,L.A. (eds)(2007) IPCC Secretariat/World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme Climate Change2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nicol, J.F. and Humphreys, M.A. (2002) Adaptive thermalcomfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings.Energy and Buildings, 34(6), 563–572.

Oreszczyn, T. and Lowe, R.J. (2010) Challenges for energy andbuildings research: objectives, methods and funding mechan-isms. Building Research & Information, 38(1), 107–122.

Raslan, R. and Davies, M. (2009) Results variability in accre-dited building energy performance compliance demon-stration software in the UK: an inter-model comparativestudy. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 3(1),63–85.

Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The SternReview, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

United Nations (2008) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007Revision (available at: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007/2007WUP_ExecSum_web.pdf).

United States Energy Information Agency (2011) InternationalEnergy Outlook and Projections, Nova, Hauppauge, NY.

Yang, W. and Kohler, N. (2008) Simulation of the evolution ofthe Chinese building and infrastructure stock. BuildingResearch & Information, 36(1), 1–19.

Editorial

400

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

13

Oct

ober

201

3