Next Article in Journal
Influence of Favorite Place in House—Outdoor or Indoor—On Energy Consumption and Happiness in Rural Thailand
Next Article in Special Issue
Two-Stage Integer Programing Model for Building Retrofit Planning for Energy Saving in South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability and Ecological Civilization in the Age of Anthropocene: An Epistemological Analysis of the Psychosocial and “Culturalist” Interpretations of Global Environmental Risks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support Systems for Future Urban Energy Retrofitting Scenarios
Article Menu
Issue 8 (August) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2017, 9(8), 1345; doi:10.3390/su9081345

Realising Operational Energy Performance in Non-Domestic Buildings: Lessons Learnt from Initiatives Applied in Cambridge

1
Department of Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Design, NTNU—Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
2
Centre for Sustainable Development, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
3
Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
4
Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 8 May 2017 / Revised: 25 July 2017 / Accepted: 25 July 2017 / Published: 1 August 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability Assessments of Buildings)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [806 KB, uploaded 1 August 2017]   |  

Abstract

The gap between the intended and actual energy performance of buildings is increasingly well documented in the non-domestic building sector. Recognition of this issue has led to the availability of a large range of initiatives that seek to ensure energy efficient building operation. This article reviews the practical implementation of three such initiatives in a case study building at the University of Cambridge. The notionally high-performance office/laboratory building implemented two voluntary design frameworks during building planning and construction: the voluntary rating scheme BREEAM and a bespoke Soft Landings framework called the Cambridge Work Plan. The building additionally meets the energy reporting criteria for the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), a legislative requirement for many publicly owned buildings in the UK. The relative impact of these three approaches for optimising building energy performance is reviewed through a mixed methods approach of building occupant and operator interviews, document analysis and energy performance review. The building’s core functions were revealed to consume 140% more energy than the building logbook estimate for the same needs. This difference, referred to widely as the energy performance gap, is larger than the majority of reported UK university buildings in the energy reporting database CarbonBuzz. The three implemented initiatives are demonstrated to be inadequate for reducing the energy performance gap in the case study, thus a number of alternative energy efficiency approaches are additionally reviewed. Common to the three approaches used in the case study is a lack of verification of actual building performance despite ambitious sustainability targets, due to a heavy focus on the design-stage and few follow-up mechanisms. The paper demonstrates the potential of energy efficiency initiatives that are focussed on operational performance as a core criterion (such as the Living Building Challenge) together with those that ensure the creation of realistic energy estimates at the design stage (such as the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) Technical Memorandum 54). View Full-Text
Keywords: building energy performance; energy performance gap; Soft Landings; BREEAM; EPBD; energy efficiency; green building rating; non-domestic buildings building energy performance; energy performance gap; Soft Landings; BREEAM; EPBD; energy efficiency; green building rating; non-domestic buildings
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Pritchard, R.; Kelly, S. Realising Operational Energy Performance in Non-Domestic Buildings: Lessons Learnt from Initiatives Applied in Cambridge. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1345.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top