Guidance structure and knowledge (A decision making toolkit?) Isabel Carmona “Green Deal for Real” conference 25 th September 2012

Contents Background: Thinking about saving energy and carbon: TRIAGE system for EH Retrofit and Green Deal measures STBA Responsible Retrofit Developing guidance structure: Context dependencies Decisions, decisions People and behaviour Complexity and interactions Current knowledge – future knowledge Way forward

Background to the Triage study Triage study by William Bordass Associates for English Heritage: Historic and traditional buildings will be required to play their part in reducing national and global carbon emissions. Enthusiasts are pushing for major energy upgrades to all housing, some of which may prove to be ill advised. To improve understanding and insight: can we make more explicit the trade-offs between energy and carbon saving opportunity, technical risks and heritage risks? Is there a simple and communicable way of doing this?

Thinking about Saving energy and carbon: it’s not just about heating and the fabric It is also as much a social as a technical enterprise. Engaging people comes first (objectives), second (getting things done) and third (habits and waste avoidance)... Electricity is important, particularly in carbon terms and in non-domestic buildings, but increasingly so in domestic. Demand can be reduced by individual behaviour, it doesn’t always need technical interventions. Efficiency can be improved - sometimes radically, with new equipment, some of which is equally well suited to old as to new buildings. Energy supplies can be decarbonised, often with little or no direct effect on the end-user building.

Multiplier effect: ENGAGE PEOPLE … AND, for example: 1.Halve the demand X 2.Double the efficiency X 3.Halve the carbon in the supplies and … you’re down to one-eighth of the carbon Step 1 can be more difficult in historic buildings, especially for heating, but steps 2 and 3 remain.

The basic triage process Take a measure. Assess it for: - Energy (and carbon) saving opportunity; - Technical risk (e.g. of damp and decay); - Heritage risk (to substance or appearance). Report each facet as traffic lights (see below). Reach an overall conclusion (and report in the same way). TRIAGE KEY FEASIBLE TAKE CARE AVOID

Triage: From an example - one aspect at one stage in the process only

To a prototype an Excel workbook, aimed at expert designers

Operating the triage system Analyse context - (to give an idea of what is possible) Identify options- (e.g. external or internal insulation) Use Triage system: assess likely performance of each item under the three facets (technical opportunity, technical risk, heritage risk). Seek appropriate solutions: where everything is green. If some technical risk aspects of the final design are amber, you should monitor and report the outcome, so that we can understand what works and what doesn’t and make better decisions next time. Options in red may sometimes have potential if the context changes. Combine the options into appropriate packages (time/money filters). TRIAGE KEY FEASIBLE TAKE CARE AVOID

Retrofit and Green Deal Measures January to March 2012 – STBA Report on Responsible Retrofit of Traditional buildings looked at: Existing research and guidance for traditional buildings energy performance as existing and retrofitted buildings Providing a guidance structure to collate the best practice research and guidance (and ideas for a decision tool – upgrade analysis)

Gaps Building performance data mainly based on modelling - not corresponding to actual use data Heat loss of walls – gap between theoretical assumptions and measured reality Physics of moisture behaviour within fabric not thoroughly understood and accuracy modelling of moisture uncertain Little on floors and roofs performance Value of secondary glazing found on research not reflected in guidance Gaps also on thermal bridging detailing and practice and on air tightness Uncertainty on ventilation requirements needed by traditional buildings and great uncertainty on the performance of MVHR (poor design, installation and maintenance) Little on lighting, overheating, occupant interaction, user health

Gaps on links between Ventilation to health of occupants Retrofit to thermal comfort Lifestyle to energy use and the possible rebound effects of retrofit Thermal mass to energy and comfort Energy conservation and building conservation (particularly repair and maintenance) Energy efficiency and heritage values Energy efficiency and community

Guidance Structure –Learning based approach, based on a guidance structure: iterative, open, contextual, systemic, holistic, with feedback mechanisms –Linked to public knowledge centre to guide research, training, and to log, analyse and integrate feedback

Upgrade measures Ideally the upgrade measure should achieve the desired saving of energy without creating a technical risk to the building or the occupant whilst maintaining or improving the heritage value of the building A. Changes to fabric: normally this would include improving the insulation properties of the building elements. It can also mean making building features operational (for instance recovering the use of timber shutters). B. Changes to services and energy source: improving the efficiency of the engineering systems and decarbonising supply C. Behavioural changes: improving the way people interact with the building by designing better interfaces or increasing the involvement of users and maintenance staff

External Wall Insulation example

Contextual factors A. Heritage value – and any specific planning requirements - listed building or in a conservation area? B. Ownership, tenure and income – who are the beneficiaries? C. Number of similar units – would the measure be easier to implement in a group of properties? D. Fabric sensitivity – fragile or robust to change? Extreme caution is needed. E. State of repair – any repairs needed before intervention? Usable features? F. Exposure – to the rain and wind – will determine whether some measures are suitable or not G. Current energy performance – is there room for improvement through behaviour, control and management first; or is the building operated frugally, making the proposed measures less economic? H. Locality – is it an isolated building, semi-detached or terrace, a block of flats, or a street? I. Community – is the property in a isolated rural location with plenty of space around, in a suburb, or tight onto the street in an urban environment? J. Date of property – this will determine the materials and techniques used in construction. Materials expertise needed? Previous changes? K. Interest and involvement of the owner and occupier in design and in operation – what is their level of interest and motivation? Is a robust (fit and forget) approach needed, or can measures that require more maintenance or user involvement be included?

Contextual factors A. Heritage value – and any specific planning requirements - listed building or in a conservation area? B. Ownership, tenure and income – who are the beneficiaries? C. Number of similar units – would the measure be easier to implement in a group of properties? D. Fabric sensitivity – fragile or robust to change? Extreme caution is needed. E. State of repair – any repairs needed before intervention? Usable features? F. Exposure – to the rain and wind – will determine whether some measures are suitable or not G. Current energy performance – is there room for improvement through behaviour, control and management first; or is the building operated frugally, making the proposed measures less economic? H. Locality – is it an isolated building, semi-detached or terrace, a block of flats, or a street? I. Community – is the property in a isolated rural location with plenty of space around, in a suburb, or tight onto the street in an urban environment? J. Date of property – this will determine the materials and techniques used in construction. Materials expertise needed? Previous changes? K. Interest and involvement of the owner and occupier in design and in operation – what is their level of interest and motivation? Is a robust (fit and forget) approach needed, or can measures that require more maintenance or user involvement be included?

Internal Wall Insulation example Moisture content and orientation

Internal Wall Insulation example Current research

Internal Wall Insulation example

Contextual factors A. Heritage value – and any specific planning requirements - listed building or in a conservation area? B. Ownership, tenure and income – who are the beneficiaries? C. Number of similar units – would the measure be easier to implement in a group of properties? D. Fabric sensitivity – fragile or robust to change? Extreme caution is needed. E. State of repair – any repairs needed before intervention? Usable features? F. Exposure – to the rain and wind – will determine whether some measures are suitable or not G. Current energy performance – is there room for improvement through behaviour, control and management first; or is the building operated frugally, making the proposed measures less economic? H. Locality – is it an isolated building, semi-detached or terrace, a block of flats, or a street? I. Community – is the property in a isolated rural location with plenty of space around, in a suburb, or tight onto the street in an urban environment? J. Date of property – this will determine the materials and techniques used in construction. Materials expertise needed? Previous changes? K. Interest and involvement of the owner and occupier in design and in operation – what is their level of interest and motivation? Is a robust (fit and forget) approach needed, or can measures that require more maintenance or user involvement be included?

Internal Wall Insulation example

Decisions TechnicalEnergy SavingHeritage Moisture risk for orientation (Medium): Swansea N Wall choose reduced insulation thickness: eg. 50mm model to EN15026 – confirm system suitable Energy Saving still warrants Green Deal funding? Develop Insulation and thermal bridging detailing In construction quality check (thermal imaging) Build in monitoring (moisture monitoring protocol) State fabric maintenance checks Consider in-use restrictions Moisture risk for Location (HIGH): Swansea No internal heritage features assumed User energy consumption – assumed standard Less saving makes it not viable for funding Less saving but still viable for funding Watching brief on moisture – feedback monitoring results Report actual U-value achieved CONSIDER: Complexity? Timing? Internal Wall Insulation example

Contextual factors A. Heritage value – and any specific planning requirements - listed building or in a conservation area? B. Ownership, tenure and income – who are the beneficiaries? C. Number of similar units – would the measure be easier to implement in a group of properties? D. Fabric sensitivity – fragile or robust to change? Extreme caution is needed. E. State of repair – any repairs needed before intervention? Usable features? F. Exposure – to the rain and wind – will determine whether some measures are suitable or not G. Current energy performance – is there room for improvement through behaviour, control and management first; or is the building operated frugally, making the proposed measures less economic? H. Locality – is it an isolated building, semi-detached or terrace, a block of flats, or a street? I. Community – is the property in a isolated rural location with plenty of space around, in a suburb, or tight onto the street in an urban environment? J. Date of property – this will determine the materials and techniques used in construction. Materials expertise needed? Previous changes? K. Interest and involvement of the owner and occupier in design and in operation – what is their level of interest and motivation? Is a robust (fit and forget) approach needed, or can measures that require more maintenance or user involvement be included?

Energy Use Parity Projects analysis of 40 homes in London, built within 5 years of each other around 1900, within one mile of each other, unusual houses removed People and Behaviour

Other issues: Thermal Comfort – low energy use but low comfort? Health – air quality (ventilation) Lifestyle practices – ventilation customs, drying clothes, clothing customs, cultural variations. We need to understand before changing: Work with the users and check what level of complexity is possible (fit and forget or highly managed?) Clear communication and managing expectations Improving User motivation

Contextual factors A. Heritage value – and any specific planning requirements - listed building or in a conservation area? B. Ownership, tenure and income – who are the beneficiaries? C. Number of similar units – would the measure be easier to implement in a group of properties? D. Fabric sensitivity – fragile or robust to change? Extreme caution is needed. E. State of repair – any repairs needed before intervention? Usable features? F. Exposure – to the rain and wind – will determine whether some measures are suitable or not G. Current energy performance – is there room for improvement through behaviour, control and management first; or is the building operated frugally, making the proposed measures less economic? H. Locality – is it an isolated building, semi-detached or terrace, a block of flats, or a street? I. Community – is the property in a isolated rural location with plenty of space around, in a suburb, or tight onto the street in an urban environment? J. Date of property – this will determine the materials and techniques used in construction. Materials expertise needed? Previous changes? K. Interest and involvement of the owner and occupier in design and in operation – what is their level of interest and motivation? Is a robust (fit and forget) approach needed, or can measures that require more maintenance or user involvement be included?

People and Behaviour sheer interest and knowledge can make a success of a situation that might otherwise be risky; but if occupants are careless or lacking in interest, many good intentions could easily be undermined Assessing how involved users are and what is their knowledge and motivation can be used to help judging technical risk and the need for robust design and clarity.

Complexity and interactions There is no single answer – there are great context differences between situations, but understanding the context will help to suggest suitable solutions. There is uncertainty of the data and outcome - but we are learning Interactions are complex : it is a thinking process of taking risks knowingly and allowing for learning from the outcome. You might want to increase airtightness (draught proofing and/or new windows), but need to consider ventilation strategy – you find out that complex user maintenance is not possible or uncertain, so decide to retain a more natural ventilation solution and don’t make house too air tight, the building has character anyway and the old windows are fine (even if single glazed) so in the end you repair them and draughtproof them but keep an eye on air quality (monitor CO 2 ), informing the user about opening windows if too hot (but switch heating off first!). Current knowledge gaps: feedback and monitoring should help to fill those gaps and inform our future knowledge

Way forward Guidance structure to make decisions considering context and user and aware of the risks What are the risks (known or suspected) How to minimise them (if worth taking) – checks, quality control, maintenance needs What to monitor and watch out for and what feedback is needed Building up and collecting knowledge