IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i21p13849-d952739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Architects’ Perceptions about Sustainable Design Practice and the Support Provided for This by Digital Tools: A Study in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Rongrong Yu

    (UniSA Creative, Australian Research Centre for Interactive and Virtual Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

  • Ning Gu

    (UniSA Creative, Australian Research Centre for Interactive and Virtual Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

  • Michael J. Ostwald

    (UNSW Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

Abstract

The fundamental goal of sustainable design for the built environment is to optimise the performance of buildings to minimise their impact on the environment. To achieve this goal, contemporary architects use a range of digital design environments, such as Computer-aided Design (CAD) or Building Information Modelling (BIM) tools. These allow architects to implement sustainable design principles and make optimal decisions about the ecological and energy properties of the building or environment being designed. Past research about architects’ uses of these tools for sustainable design have been focused on their capacity for optimising building performance and meeting architects’ design needs. In parallel, other studies have identified technological barriers and readiness factors for implementing sustainable design in several countries, including Australia. Researchers have suggested that presently, most architects are unlikely to perceive Building Performance Analysis (BPA) as their responsibility. It has also been found that the digital design tools need to more effectively support sustainable design. However, despite this body of past research, to date there is a lack of a more holistic understanding regarding architects’ perceptions about the alignment between sustainability practices and the capacity of digital design environments for supporting these, particularly in Australia. This paper addresses this knowledge gap, by presenting findings derived from semi-structured interviews with 18 professional architects in Australia, each with experiences in sustainable design and the use of digital design tools. The results are used to establish a conceptual model, which illustrates the relationships between a variety of factors affecting architects’ sustainable design practices. The findings suggest that in Australia, architects have more negative than positive experiences regarding their sustainable design practices, due to factors ranging from those related to the practice itself, to the digital design technologies and budget available for supporting their goals. This study also identifies an urgent need to enhance and better align the capabilities of digital design technologies with sustainable outcomes and associated organisational objectives, which the new model can assist in understanding and facilitating.

Suggested Citation

  • Rongrong Yu & Ning Gu & Michael J. Ostwald, 2022. "Architects’ Perceptions about Sustainable Design Practice and the Support Provided for This by Digital Tools: A Study in Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:13849-:d:952739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/13849/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/13849/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abanda, F.H. & Byers, L., 2016. "An investigation of the impact of building orientation on energy consumption in a domestic building using emerging BIM (Building Information Modelling)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 517-527.
    2. Wojciech Bonenberg & Oleg Kapliński, 2018. "The Architect and the Paradigms of Sustainable Development: A Review of Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Xinyu Shi & Xue Fang & Zhoufan Chen & Tyson Keen Phillips & Hiroatsu Fukuda, 2020. "A Didactic Pedagogical Approach toward Sustainable Architectural Education through Robotic Tectonics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Adrian Pitts, 2017. "Passive House and Low Energy Buildings: Barriers and Opportunities for Future Development within UK Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-26, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Säwén, Toivo & Sasic Kalagasidis, Angela & Hollberg, Alexander, 2024. "Critical perspectives on life cycle building performance assessment tool reviews," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    2. Mousa S. Mohsen & Rana Matarneh, 2023. "Exploring the Interior Designers’ Attitudes toward Sustainable Interior Design Practices: The Case of Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-23, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jinhui Ma & Haijing Huang & Mingxi Peng & Yihuan Zhou, 2024. "Investigating the Heterogeneity Effects of Urban Morphology on Building Energy Consumption from a Spatio-Temporal Perspective Using Old Residential Buildings on a University Campus," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, October.
    2. So-Young Lee & Myoung-Won Oh, 2020. "Sustainable Design Alternatives and Energy Efficiency for Public Rental Housing in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-26, October.
    3. Anna Bać & Magdalena Nemś & Artur Nemś & Jacek Kasperski, 2019. "Sustainable Integration of a Solar Heating System into a Single-Family House in the Climate of Central Europe—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Chi, Fang'ai & Zhang, Jianxun & Li, Gaomei & Zhu, Zongzhou & Bart, Dewancker, 2019. "An investigation of the impact of Building Azimuth on energy consumption in sizhai traditional dwellings," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 594-614.
    5. Shen, Meng & Li, Xiang & Lu, Yujie & Cui, Qingbin & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2021. "Personality-based normative feedback intervention for energy conservation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. George M. Stavrakakis & Dimitris Al. Katsaprakakis & Markos Damasiotis, 2021. "Basic Principles, Most Common Computational Tools, and Capabilities for Building Energy and Urban Microclimate Simulations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-41, October.
    7. Lily Warren & Ayotunde Dawodu & Ayomikun Solomon Adewumi & Cheng Quan, 2024. "Can the UK Deliver Zero Carbon Ready Homes by 2050?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Anosh Nadeem Butt & Branka Dimitrijević, 2022. "Multidisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Collaboration in Nature-Based Design of Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    9. Khemakhem, Siwar & Rekik, Mouna & Krichen, Lotfi, 2019. "Double layer home energy supervision strategies based on demand response and plug-in electric vehicle control for flattening power load curves in a smart grid," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 312-324.
    10. José Pedro Carvalho & Fernanda Schmitd Villaschi & Luís Bragança, 2021. "Assessing Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Impacts of Building Construction Solutions with BIM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-23, August.
    11. Muhammed Yildirim & Hasan Polat, 2023. "Building Information Modeling Applications in Energy-Efficient Refurbishment of Existing Building Stock: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-19, September.
    12. Joohyun Lee & Mardelle McCuskey Shepley & Jungmann Choi, 2021. "Analysis of Professionals’ and the General Public’s Perceptions of Passive Houses in Korea: Needs Assessment for the Improvement of the Energy Efficiency and Indoor Environmental Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Ahsan Waqar & Idris Othman & Nasir Shafiq & Hasim Altan & Bertug Ozarisoy, 2023. "Modeling the Effect of Overcoming the Barriers to Passive Design Implementation on Project Sustainability Building Success: A Structural Equation Modeling Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Jungsik Choi & Sejin Lee, 2023. "A Suggestion of the Alternatives Evaluation Method through IFC-Based Building Energy Performance Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-14, January.
    15. Jeongyoon Oh & Taehoon Hong & Hakpyeong Kim & Jongbaek An & Kwangbok Jeong & Choongwan Koo, 2017. "Advanced Strategies for Net-Zero Energy Building: Focused on the Early Phase and Usage Phase of a Building’s Life Cycle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-52, December.
    16. Szodrai, Ferenc & Lakatos, Ákos & Kalmár, Ferenc, 2016. "Analysis of the change of the specific heat loss coefficient of buildings resulted by the variation of the geometry and the moisture load," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 820-829.
    17. Li, Y. & Arulnathan, V. & Heidari, M.D. & Pelletier, N., 2022. "Design considerations for net zero energy buildings for intensive, confined poultry production: A review of current insights, knowledge gaps, and future directions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    18. Ramy Mahmoud & John M. Kamara & Neil Burford, 2020. "Opportunities and Limitations of Building Energy Performance Simulation Tools in the Early Stages of Building Design in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-29, November.
    19. Igor Martek & M. Reza Hosseini & Asheem Shrestha & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Stewart Seaton, 2018. "The Sustainability Narrative in Contemporary Architecture: Falling Short of Building a Sustainable Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Jisoo Shim & Doosam Song & Joowook Kim, 2018. "The Economic Feasibility of Passive Houses in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:13849-:d:952739. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.