UCL Environment Institute, University College London
Pearson Building, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT
ENERGY AND OUR
BUILT ENVIRONMENTS:
UCL Environment Institute
The UCL Environment Institute Seminar Series Report
UCL Environment Institute
UCL ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE
UCL Environment Institute
Energy and our Built Environments
An Anglo-American Symposium
University College London
24-25th March 2011
UCL Environment Institute
Report by
Professor Yvonne Rydin
UCL Environment Institute
University College London
Dr. Ian Hamilton
UCL Energy Institute
University College London
Support for the symposium from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Science & Innovation
Network and UK Government Foresight is gratefully acknowledged.
Energy and our Built Environments
Executive Summary
2
•
Tackling energy and carbon emissions associated with the built environment is important from
the perspective of energy security, the climate change agenda, health and well-being and
equity for vulnerable households.
•
While action can effectively be taken at regional and local scales, national leadership is
essential for driving change across multiple locations, integrating initiatives and encouraging
learning.
•
Behaviour by occupiers is a major driver of energy outcomes. Decisions need to be made about
the balance between more sophisticated building management systems (which manage on
behalf of the occupier) and incentivising behavioural changes by large numbers of occupiers.
•
Effective building codes require knowledge of environment and occupant behaviour, supported
by accurate modelling of building physics and effective implementation, including continual
monitoring and evaluation post-occupancy, with a broader understanding of potential unintended
consequences.
•
A focus on zero-carbon as the key policy goal may distract attention from the cheap and easy
means of achieving significantly greater energy efficiency and away from dealing with the
existing stock.
•
Local planning frameworks have the potential to deliver energy and carbon reductions through
integrating urban development with infrastructure systems, and through integrating among the
infrastructure systems themselves.
•
Such planning could result in the avoidance of expensive increase of infrastructure capacity
but this will also require action at scales beyond the local level.
•
The benefits to communities need to be demonstrated to avoid local resistance; these could
include financial and service benefits from local authority energy schemes.
•
New economic models are needed to incentivise developers and building owners to invest
in energy efficiency and carbon reductions. These need to be developed to support decision
making for individual properties and the building sector as a whole
•
The constraints on technological innovation posed by the insurance and development industries’
current attitudes to liability need to be addressed.
Energy and our Built Environments
Energy and the Built Environment
It is well accepted that the built environment – considering both buildings, networked infrastructures,
and the urban areas more generally – constitutes the single largest category of energy use. According
to UNEP in 2007, 30-40% of all primary energy is used in buildings worldwide (1). Therefore, for
reasons of energy security, climate change and equity it is important to find ways to reduce energy
consumption in the built environment, the associated carbon emissions and the burden that energy
bills place on the most vulnerable households. This must be done whilst ensuring health and well-being
of the occupants is not negatively impacted. In addition, there are economic opportunities offered
by such a restructuring of the energy sector as part of a ‘Green’ Deal or a shift towards the green
economy posited by ecological modernisation theorists, for example by reducing externalised costs
and realising new market opportunities (2).
The difficulty is that such shifts have proven to be much more difficult to achieve than expected for a
multitude of reasons, stemming from a lack of understanding, limited incentivisation, and the disjointed
design through commission and operation of buildings (3). The discussion at this workshop highlighted
some of the reasons why this is the case and suggested some possible ways forward. The key to
the analysis is the recognition of the inter-connectedness of energy and built environment systems
and, furthermore, of different elements within energy systems and within built environment systems
(as illustrated in Figure 1). For example, land transportation networks over account for nearly thirty
percent of all energy consumed. Yet when new electric vehicle technologies are in widespread use,
they could become net energy producers, and furthermore, when integrated intelligently into built
environment, can reduce overall energy consumption significantly.
The complexity of these multiple inter-relationships can seem daunting. One way of approaching this
by simplifying but not over-simplifying the issues to be considered is to adopt a co-evolution framework.
This was the central concept of the UK Government Foresight report Powering Our Lives (2008). It
stresses that way that changes, often told in terms of a story of technological progress, are actually the
result of interconnections between technological, social, economic and governance dynamics (4). In
this report on the discussions at the workshop held at UCL on 24-25th February 2011, some of these
interconnections are brought out. The aim here is to highlight the similarities and variations between
the English and American experiences and draw some common lessons. Six areas are covered:
national leadership and carbon targets; building codes; local planning frameworks; investor behaviour;
occupant behaviour, and data on the built environment. An added opportunity here is infrastructure.
3
Energy and our Built Environments
Figure 1 Complex Inter-Relationships of Energy and Built Environment
Systems
National leadership and carbon targets
In the UK, statutory carbon emission targets have been established by the Climate Change Act 2008.
The act mandates an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 (5). This is set
in the context of emerging European policy (Energy Plan for Europe, 2007; Energy Road Map 2050,
2011). In the USA, the possibility of equivalent legislation has been curtailed by the failure of the
Waxman Markey Bill to pass through both Houses of Congress. In the absence of targets set down in
legislation, however, President Obama remains committed to the 17% cut in GHGs that was the US
negotiating position in the post-Kyoto process.
In both cases, current studies suggest that UK and USA will not meet their rather different targets.
A report by the World Resources Institute in 2010 suggested that existing American policies would
at best lead to a 14% cut (6). Energy consumption is rising by 2% p.a. in USA and while, under
the Recovery Act 2009 there is to be considerable expenditure on employment in energy efficiency
schemes (around $5b), as the emphasis has been on ‘shovel-ready jobs’, many of these schemes are
based on old and not always appropriate plans.
Meanwhile the European Council have stated that UK is not currently on track to reach their more
stringent carbon targets (7). The dash-for-gas has already occurred here leaving less possibility of
low the carbon content of electricity generation by that means. Other means of decarbonising the
electricity grid are being sought with increased investment in renewable energy (albeit from a very low
starting point). Investment has also occurred in energy efficiency and latest European figures suggest
a cut in energy use by 5% from 2000 to 2008 (8).
4
Energy and our Built Environments
The impact of statutory targets of course depends on how high the hurdle is set, as well as whether the
hurdle is cleared. What such targets do beyond this though, is to create a sense of central government
leadership. In the UK this has resulted in a degree of buy-in to carbon reductions across government,
with each government department having its own targets. However many of the individual policy
instruments, such as the Climate Change Levy and the CRC Energy Efficiency scheme, are still not
being set at a sufficiently high standard to deliver emissions reductions.
In the USA, the absence of Federal action under the last administration spurred, in part, much action
at the state and particularly the city level, for example the C40 group of cities that are tackling climate
change independently of national government actions, or the EPA’s ‘The Small Cities Climate Action
Partnership’ in the US. This is commendable but there are doubts as to whether such local action
can scale up sufficiently at the national level. There has been a tendency to map out the action
that is happening at the local level and forget the gaps of inaction in between. In addition, without
Federal / national government leadership there can be a lack of integration between initiatives with
both economic and technological consequences. Multiple local initiatives can also result in a lack of
consistent and comparable evaluation and monitoring and this can inhibit learning between localities.
Building codes
Another key difference between UK and USA concerns national-level building codes. In the UK
Building Regulations are standardised across England and Wales (although Scotland has a different
set). In USA there are no standard Federal buildings codes, with the exception of the HUD Code for
manufactured homes; these are set at state level. This leads to considerable variability; for example,
some eleven states do not require energy modelling as part of compliance with their codes; several
others are using standards that have been unchanged for many years. That said, some states are
highly innovative in their setting of building codes, using such regulation to force technological change.
This has been the case in California for many decades with changes in building codes every 3-4 years
bringing new developments up to higher standards including standards of energy efficiency. One point
of interest for the future is the extension of building codes in Europe to cover embodied carbon (i.e.
the carbon embodied in the manufacture and potentially transport of building materials). A new EU
directive is likely to cover this.
However implementation is at least as important as the presence of such regulation. Research at
UCL has demonstrated the limitations of the current modelling of building physics that underpins
English building regulations. For example, there is considerable heat loss through cavities in party
walls when it had been assumed that detached, semi-detached and end-of-terrace properties were
more thermally inefficient than properties linked on both sides (9). Again, conservatories have been
assumed to offer opportunities for solar gain and hence reduced energy demands; however, as they
have been used as additional living rooms throughout the year, often connected by open space to the
rest of the property, they are a locus of considerable heat loss (10); furthermore double glazed garden
rooms use twice the energy of single glazed rooms as they encourage year-round use. The long term
benefits of stronger building codes are also shown to lead to better thermal performance and lower
energy demand over time (11).
This points to the need for better modelling of building energy use based on post-occupancy evaluations.
Currently there is some 20% uncertainty in models used for regulation compliance (12);
5
Energy and our Built Environments
using these to achieve 10% energy savings is not sensible. However, while improved modelling is
important, as discussed below, occupier behaviour will also be significant in determining energy
outcomes. This is unlikely to be fully captured in the implementation of building codes since they focus
on building fabric and service system performance.
Another issue concerning building codes is their use to drive new development down to zero carbon
standards. This is the goal in the UK with the stated government intention that all new housebuilding
should be zero-carbon by 2016 and all new non-domestic buildings by 2019 (13). It has been argued
that such goals have been a distraction in the UK, taking attention away from cheaper and easier
solutions to reducing energy demand, i.e. the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency.
It may also have prevented the development of Building Regulations for improving the energy
efficiency of existing dwellings (as has been the case in German under the EnEv 2009 regulations).
With non-domestic buildings this goal has led to a protracted debate about how far off-site renewable
should be allowed to count towards the zero-carbon goal; it is interesting to note that in California they
are pursuing zero-carbon developments entirely through on-site measures.
Despite the potential for energy efficiency in buildings, the actualisation of energy savings through
efficiency remains elusive. A report by the World Economic Forum (14) highlighted that implementing
energy efficiency measures at scale were suffering from market and institutional failures, such as lack
of access to capital, a need for incentives and a lack of skills. The application of building codes in both
new and existing development in both the UK and US offer a route towards achieving this efficiency,
but must concentrate on mechanisms that bring about implementation.
Local planning frameworks
Turning to planning for urban places and spaces (as opposed to building codes focussing on built
form and fabric) raises a wide range of energy-related issues including transport, urban greening,
water use and waste management. These can be dealt with within urban planning systems in a variety
of ways: development permitting, zoning, urban design, place making and strategic planning. One
particularly important role for local planning is the potential to take a strategic view on infrastructure so
as to reduce carbon emissions and energy demand. This suggests a planning approach that looks at
the inter-relationships between urban development, energy systems and transport infrastructure (and
potentially also blue and green infrastructure and waste systems) and beyond the typical remit. For
example, in Austin local projects are integrating systems for dealing with solid waste and waste water
into energy and potable water systems through biogas production, composting and reed beds.
However, this integrated approach often requires action beyond the local level because of the scale
of some of the infrastructure involved. In addition, network and planning boundaries are not always
so aligned and can cause barriers to achieving connection or system(s) integration, this is especially
the case in large and complex urban agglomerations or urban areas with multi-tiered government
structures. This is particularly the case with transport systems; Portland and San Diego are cited
good examples of integrating transport and urban planning but this is in a metropolitan area of some
1.4million people. Decentralised energy offers the potential for integration at more local levels but this
may face constraints in connecting to networks and grids for distribution at larger scales(primarily of
electricity but potentially of innovative fuels and heat).
6
Energy and our Built Environments
The central question is how planning of infrastructure and urban development can maximise low or
zero carbon sources of energy but also reduce the demand for energy so that expensive investment
in expanding existing capacity is not required. Energy strategy planning can combine with urban
development planning to identify such pathways. Generation, storage and demand patterns for energy,
electricity and heat can then be balanced over space and time. Effective decision support tools are
required that can help planners and developers make more informed decisions to maximise efficiency
and low carbon urban networks and development. There is often very little consideration for integrated
infrastructure in the existing planning process.
In the UK, there is a live debate as to how the shift towards localism in the planning system will interface
with an integrated infrastructure and low carbon development approach. In the USA the lack of Federal
funds and leadership has already put the emphasis on the local level. There is considerable political
will to act on the low carbon urban agenda in some states and cities; however, this is patchy. The
result can be unevenness of action and potential fragmentation in energy and transportation systems,
affecting their efficiency. From a developer perspective, an emphasis on locally determined schemes
may create some difficulties; they currently tend to prefer standardised development solutions that
can be deliver in multiple locations and a level playing field in terms of planning regulation across the
country.
Local authorities, currently the USA and increasingly in the UK under the Localism Bill and as accredited
installers in the Green Deal and Energy Bill (15), have the potential to be energy suppliers and derive
an income from this role. Austin Energy is owned by the City of Austin and is a source of revenue to the
authority. It has adopted a business model that reduces demand for energy to avoid expenditure on
expanding energy production and distribution capacity. In Birmingham, the local council has created a
special development and refurbishment delivery company that will directly assess, finance and install
housing retrofits and micro-generation under the UK Government’s Green Deal. Financial benefits
can also accrue to communities from involvement in low carbon projects either directly or through
reduced local taxation.
This can help persuade local communities as well as local councils of the benefits of action. This, together
with timely and open public consultation, can overcome the threat of NIMBYism that a localist planning
system may raise. Such participation is expensive and requires intellectual capacity. Communities need
tools to understand the problem including evaluation of the status quo and future pathways. NREL in
the US, have suggested that setting a local delivery agenda for low carbon infrastructure will require a
policy framework approach using a suite of policy measures. This would involve setting a foundation
that prepares the market, through consist codes, setting enabling legislation and transparency; to
create markets where they lack through standards, education, financing and public engagement; and
to expand markets through removing restrictions and offering further incentives (16).
Investor behaviour
The policy frameworks of national carbon targets, building codes and local planning can only set the
context for behavioural change, what is then required is action on the part of investors in the built
environment and (as discussed below), the owners, managers and occupiers of that environment. It
is clear that we have had the necessary technology to reduce energy demand and to generate low
7
Energy and our Built Environments
carbon energy for at least the past 20 years. What has been lacking is an economic model – supported
by regulation and other policy – that ensures its adoption and implementation.
New economic models are now emerging. In the UK the feed-in-tariff is encouraging take up of
micro-generation technologies by both homeowners and commercial organisations. The Green Deal
aims to support retrofitting by providing loans that will accompany the built stock (rather than the
borrower) and enable investment costs to be paid off from energy bill savings. Berkeley had a similar
system for a time but this was adversely affected by reassessments of property risk in the aftermath
of the US mortgage crisis.
The key to any such model is the demonstration of returns from investment in decentralised renewable,
urban energy systems or energy efficiency measures. At present there is insufficient data and
evidence of the impact on property values. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, for example,
are developing guidance for valuers to include sustainability in their assessment of housing (17),
noting that sustainability related issues are not routinely factored into valuations. However, it seems
that property markets are not very responsive to energy savings, but this depends on the significance
of energy bills within total expenditure.
Householders who own their home are also investors that must be convinced of the value of investing
in energy efficiency, which often have long term paybacks in excess of 10 years, nonetheless there
is a choice. For poor households, and in particular vulnerable households, the cost of energy use in
their houses may be large; yet these households have the least capacity to invest. These deprived
households may be concentrated in the rental sector and have little impact on owner-occupied markets
and house prices. Recent UK data has shown that private rented dwellings have the highest proportion
of energy inefficient homes, as compared to owner and social occupied (18). For many commercial
organisations, energy bills are not a large proportion of expenditure and there may be more leverage
in emphasising energy security, enhanced internal comfort and the effect on employee productivity, or
other co-benefit of low carbon solutions. Investment in energy efficiency tends to be on this basis of
achieving these comfort and productivity gains, for example, the New York Times building deployed a
low carbon design for the daylighting of the headquarters that also generated productivity gains (19).
Another problem is the different timescales that developers and energy suppliers will approach
investment in energy efficiency measures, which will have an impact on investment calculations. It
may be helpful to identify solutions that fit within a range of different timescales for returning a profit.
Retrofit and new build also require different financial incentives as will owner occupied and tenanted
properties. There is scope for identifying financial models in which new development funds retrofit in
the wider locality. Collective procurement of innovative technology can also drive down costs and uplift
viability.
Liability is a major issue, particularly in the commercial sector. Here concerns over the risks of system
failure may inhibit the adoption of low carbon technologies. The insurance and construction industries
need to rethink such liability issues. Building performance is often an issue cited during litigation
proceedings against contractors and designers, for this reason and others, designers and engineers
tend to ‘oversize’ to avoid under performance of building services systems. Although, poor energy
efficiency is currently not a cause for redress but system failure of an innovative building energy
system would be. Demonstration projects to show that innovative schemes can be low risk can be
important here.
8
Energy and our Built Environments
Occupier behaviour
While much can be done to deliver low carbon and low energy technological solutions at the scale of
the building, the development and even the neighbourhood, outcomes still depend on the behaviour
of the occupiers of the built environment. Such behaviour is currently shaped by ‘taken-for-granted’
routines and can be difficult to shift. Institutional arrangements such as leases and contracts can be
important in (re)shaping such behaviour but they need to be carefully designed. For example, UK
Ministry of Defence property is affected by 10 year-old facilities management contracts established
under Private Finance Initiative arrangements which inhibit change for energy efficiency.
Occupant behaviour is often the target of education programmes that attempt to inform householders
or business on how their actions could reduce their energy expenditures. These programmes have
had limited success in achieving both investment in efficiency and changing behaviour. Research
in the US has highlighted the discrepancy between attitudes, understanding and behaviour and that
efforts to improve the public’s understanding of energy use could achieve considerable savings (20).
This can mean that many efficiency programmes are perceived to be ‘regressive’ that ask occupants to
limit their demand, e.g. turning the thermostat down, rather than proactive. Programmes that engage
with a wider range of behaviour trends are likely to be more successful.
It has also been suggested that more sophisticated building management systems may remove the
reliance on changing individual behaviour. Certainly current systems are often poorly designed and
do not take into account all the sub-systems involved in use of a building. There is also potential for
dealing with common failures in current systems to render them more reliable; 15-30% energy savings
could be possible from this route.
The question is whether building more sophisticated into building management systems will result
in further savings or whether it will build in more potential failures and create excessive cognitive
demands on building managers and building users. It may be that important choices have to be made
about the degree of complexity that a building management system should aim for. There is a general
lack of understanding of occupant behaviour and their interaction with control systems. Figure 2
below highlights how the energy performance of a building can be affected by controls and behaviour,
in particular how occupant behaviour can override a well-controlled building and vice versa. A well
controlled building can only operate as efficiently as the occupants allow it to do so, by the same
condition, users can effectively and efficiently operate buildings with poor controls through good
practice.
9
Energy and our Built Environments
Figure 2 Building controls and occupant behaviour relationships
carbon energy for at least the past 20 years. What has been lacking is an economic model – supported
The question becomes, therefore, whether buildings – even domestic buildings – should move towards
the status of contemporary cars and domestic appliances, where regular servicing and expert care is
the norm rather than maintenance, repair and operationalisation by the occupier?
It should be recognised that humans are adaptive and also value-driven. Interestingly it appears
that occupants are likely to be more tolerant of differences in indoor temperature if they hold more
environmentally conscious values. For example, recent research in the UK has shown that behaviour
and attitudes accounted for a considerable variation in energy and water demand between similar
dwelling types (21). They also adapt their expectations of indoor comfort over time and space to
meet what are perceived to be the prevailing norms; this has been highlighted in a recent review (22).
Building systems could use a variety of instant feedback systems to utilise these features and influence
behaviour. The signal for attaining the standard of ‘eco-driving’ on certain cars is a relevant example.
But smart systems can also cede a degree of control, not just to the building manager but to the
energy company. Automated demand response systems can send price and other signals to building
managers and users when the supplier needs to shed load during peak periods. In Austin, in some
houses, the energy company can switch of air conditioning for up to 20 minutes at a time to manage
load. External control may be particularly important in cases of multiple occupancy of buildings in order
to avoid tensions between different occupiers’ decisions about energy use. It is suggested that while
some 15% savings can be achieved with guidance to users, bigger savings need interactive tools and
modelling platforms.
10
Energy and our Built Environments
Data on the Built Environment
Developing energy efficiency intervention programmes for the built environment that are capable of
achieving significant and sustained reduction in energy demand requires nothing less than a step
change in the available information on the state and operation of the existing built environment. The
fact is, however, that such data has in the past been difficult to come by, for reasons of lack of interest,
limited investment in high quality data, poor coordination and limited connection between existing
datasets, and issues of confidentiality (23-25). These issues have been widely discussed in the UK (26)
and a call for a data observatory to facilitate and provide a robust basis for delivering energy efficiency
and low carbon energy into the built environment. In the UK, the Government has sought to develop
databases that draw together information on the UK’s housing stock and its energy performance, which
now contains information on the energy performance of over 11million homes. There is, however, still
an overwhelming need for high quality data on the built environment, in particular for joined up data
that connects geospatial features with a fine resolution of operation and socio-economic information.
This will undoubtedly require a balance between data protection, confidentiality and access.
Summary
The Anglo-American Symposium brought together US and UK experts in energy and the built
environment with the aim to discuss current best practice and research, policies and drivers, gaps and
barriers, opportunities and parallel activities. The guest speakers and round table expert discussions
offered insight into many of the issues surrounding energy and the built environment, captured in the
above text. The hope and expectation of the symposium was to share information, initiate collaboration
and new partnerships, and to strengthen our existing ties.
11
Energy and our Built Environments
Referenced Works
1
United Nations Environment Programme. Buildings and Climate Change: Status, challenges and
opportunities. Paris, France: 2007.
2. United Nations Environment Programme. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable
Development and Poverty Eradication. Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme; 2011.
3. Lovins A. Energy-efficient buildings: Institutional barriers and opportunities. Boulder, Colorado: E Source;
1992.
4.
F
oresight. Powering our Lives: Sustainable Energy Management and the Built Environment - Final Project
Report. London, UK: HMSO.
5.
U
nited Kingdom Parliament. Climate Change Act 2008. 2008.
6. Bianco N, Litz F, Gottlieb M, Damassa T. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States
Using Existing Federal Authorities and State Action. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute; 2010.
7. Van Rompuy H. Speech by President of the European Council at the at the Low Carbon Prosperity
Summit [Internet]. 2011 Feb 9 [cited 2011 Jun 14]; Available from: www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/
NewsWord/en/ec/119239.doc
8. European Commission. Energy Efficiency Plan 2011. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2011.
9. Lowe RJ, Wingfield J, Bell M, Bell JM. Evidence for heat losses via party wall cavities in masonry
construction. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology. 2007 May 1;28(2):161 -181.
10. Oreszczyn T. The energy duality of conservatory use. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference of
Architecture: Solar Energy in Architecture and Planning. Florence. 1993. p. 17–21.
11. Summerfield AJ, Lowe RJ, Bruhns HR, Caeiro JA, Steadman JP, Oreszczyn T. Milton Keynes Energy
Park revisited: Changes in internal temperatures and energy usage. Energy and Buildings. 2007
Jul;39(7):783-791.
12. R
aslan R, Davies M. Results variability in accredited building energy performance compliance
demonstration software in the UK: an inter-model comparative study. Journal of Building Performance
Simulation. 2009.
13. CLG. Building a Greener Future: policy statement. London, UK: 2007.
14. W
orld Economic Forum, Accenture. Energy Efficiency: Accelerating the agenda. Geneva, Switzerland:
World Economic Forum; 2010.
12
Energy and our Built Environments
15. D
ECC. The Green Deal - A summary of the Government’s proposals. London, UK: Department of Energy
and Climate Change; 2010.
16. NREL. State and Local Clean Energy Policy Primer: Getting from here to clean electricity with policy.
Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2011.
17. RICS. Sustainability and Residential Property Valuation [Internet]. London, UK: Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors; 2011 [cited 2011 Jun 9]. Available from: https://consultations.rics.org/consult.ti/
sustainability/viewCompoundDoc?docid=878388&sessionid=&voteid=&partId=878388
18. CLG. English Housing Survey: Household report 2008–09. London, UK: 2010.
19. L
ee E, Selkowitz S, Hughes G, Clear R, Ward G. Daylighting the New York Times Headquarters Building:
Final Report. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 2005.
20. A
ttari SZ, DeKay ML, Davidson CI, Bruine de Bruin W. Public perceptions of energy consumption and
savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010 Aug;107(37):16054-16059.
21. G
ill ZM, Tierney MJ, Pegg IM, Allan N. Low-energy dwellings: the contribution of behaviours to actual
performance. Building Research & Information. 2010;38(5):491.
22. H
inton E. Review of literature relating to comfort practices and socio-technical systems. London, UK:
King’s College London; 2010.
23. L
owe R, Oreszczyn T. Regulatory standards and barriers to improved performance for housing. Energy
Policy. 2008 Dec;36(12):4475-4481.
24. O
reszczyn T, Lowe R. Challenges for energy and buildings research: objectives, methods and funding
mechanisms. Building Research & Information. 2010;38(1):107.
25. D
ietz T. Narrowing the US energy efficiency gap. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
2010;107(37):16007 -16008.
26. F
oresight Commission, DECC. Foresight-DECC Workshop: The data needs of energy management and
the built environment. 2009 Dec 4.
13
Energy and our Built Environments
Appendix 1
Programme and participants at UCL Anglo-American Symposium on
Energy and the Built Environment, 24-25th March 2011
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
14
May Akrawi
Judith Britnell
Stephen Brown
Sarah Cary
Daniel Castro
Tim Dixon
Chris Goodier
Chris Hedley
Ian Hamilton
Marianne Knight Sam Kotis
Rob Lowe
Alexi Marmot
Michael C. Neuman
Andrew Miller
Tadj Oreszczyn
Jon Parke
Bob Paterson
Helen Pearce
Alan Penn
Gareth Roberts
Yvonne Rydin
Seth Schutlz
Steve Selkowitz
Rob Shaw
Allan Shearer
Ine Steenmans
Catalina Turcu
Adam VanDevort
Lorna Walker
Jin Wen
Tim Wood
British Consulate-General, Houston
Oxford Brookes University (Friday only)
UCL and ex-Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
British Land
Georgia Technical University
Oxford Brookes University (Thursday only)
Loughborough University
Investment Property Databank (dinner only)
UCL
UCL Environment Institute
US Embassy London
UCL
UCL
Texas A&M University
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
UCL
Government Foresight
University of Texas at Austin
LDA Design (Thursday only)
UCL (dinner only)
Sturgis Carbon Profiling
UCL
Clinton Foundation
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LDA Design (Friday only)
University of Texas at Austin
Buro Happold
UCL
US Embassy London
Lorna Walker Consultants
Drexel University
Tim Wood Consulting Ltd.
Andrew Wright
De Montfort University
Energy and our Built Environments
PROGRAMME
Thursday 24th February 2011
9.30
COFFEE/TEA available
10.00
Welcome from
Professor Yvonne Rydin, Director of the UCL Environment Institute
Professor Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser
10.30
Introductions from participants
11.15
The Policy Context for Energy Management and the Built Environment
UK – Yvonne Rydin
USA – Robert Paterson
11.45
Round table discussion
12.45
Summing up the morning’s discussion
1.00
LUNCH
2.00
Focussing on Buildings
UK
• Tadj Oreszczyn
• Alexi Marmot
USA
• Jin Wen
• Steve Selkowitz
3.00
TEA/COFFEE
3.15
Round table discussion
4.45
Summing up the day’s discussion; opportunities under FCO-SIN (May Akrawi)
5.00
CLOSE
In the evening, a Symposium Dinner was held at Acorn House. Many thanks to the
Government Office for Science for supporting this dinner.
15
PROGRAMME
Friday 25th February 2011
9.30
COFFEE/TEA
10.00
Focussing on Urban Areas
UK
• Lorna Walker
• Seth Schultz
USA
• Michael Neuman
• Allan Shearer
11.00
Roundtable Discussion
12.30
Summing up symposium discussion and Next Steps
1.00
LUNCH
2.00
CLOSE
In the afternoon there was a tour for USA visitors of two major commercial developments
in London exploring their sustainability dimensions. Many thanks to Sarah Carey of British
Land for organising this tour. 16