Green Building Simulation Adoption in Taiwanese Architectural Firms

1. Department of Architecture, National Cheng Kung University, visdr207@gmail.com Chuan-HsuanLIN, Ying-Yi CHIH, Yaw-ShyanTSAY Barriers, Challenges, and Driving Forces in Adopting Green Building Simulation in Design Practices: Cases from Taiwanese Architectural Firms

2. Background Introduction Methodologies Results Conclusion • Concerns about healthy living • Promoting energy efficiency in buildings More demand for Sustainable Building &Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) • Light environment • Acoustical environment • Thermal environment • Wind environment • Energy consumption Building performance analysis feedback with simulation tools Arch-Design

3. Background Site Analysis Design Alternatives Schematic Sketches 3D Rough Models Arrangements and Circulation elements Doors, Windows & Partitions Assembly Fixtures and Fittings Interior Finishes Materials and building envelope Design Development Conceptual Design Pre-Design Schematic Design Construction Documents General Architectural Design Process Outline Specification Interior Elevations Reflected Ceiling plans Details System Consultants’ documents Space Program Building Schedule Budget Estimation Codes & Regulations Adoption of GBS tools: Aproject management/firm-level decision

4. Research Objective Design Development Conceptual Design Pre-Design Schematic Design Construction Documents ? Potential variables/factors that may influence the adoption of GBS from perspectives of management Green Building Simulation Tools

5. Methodologies • Qualitative investigation • Semi-structured interviews was conducted with the project managers of architectural firms • Inductive approachfor classification and analysis • In-depth understanding of thoughts on GPS tool practices in Taiwanese architectural firms • Figure out potential variables/factors that might influence the decision of adopting GBS

6. Methodologies • The participants • Founders or Project managers • Various generations of architectural practitioners • 8 participants (50%) active in green building Years of industry experience Age of firm Size of firm Project types

7. Methodologies • The interview Organizations' development in green building Current status on GBS in firms, or obstacles in GBS operation Future directions about GBS practices in architectural industry • Examplesof the interview questions： • “How is the understanding and development situation in green building in your firm?” • “What do you think about green building simulation?” and ”Is your firm using the green building simulation?”If YES, “Please explain the using situation and what are the barriers and benefits of using these software?”If No, “Why not?” • “What are the main factors affect your firm to adopt green building simulation software?” • “How is the situation of acceptance and implementation about green building simulation in architectural industry in Taiwan?”

8. Results • Development of GB practices • In Taiwan, an official green building rating system has also been established to facilitate green (or sustainable) building practices for twenty years • B described that, “Almost every project in their firm needs to assess the green building criteria for certification.” Supported by 10 other respondents (D, E, F, G, I, K, L, M, N and O) • Whose projects usually contained public buildings

9. Results • Development of GBS practices • Only 4 of the 16 firms using GBS tools • 11 participants (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M) said that they relied on intuition, common sense, rules of thumb, or experience on design • C claimed that “The firm cares about the space with good daylight and appropriate ventilation, but at present, designs are developed with common sense, but without scientific verification of analysis or simulation.” • Some respondents (E, F, G, K, L, M, N) stated that when a project is in a competition/according to project requirement, they sometimes seek external help

10. Results • GBS in design workflow of Taiwan • For projects in competition,as M described that “They usually need these GBS tools when their projects are in a competition.” (B, E, F, G, O)

11. Results • Barriers, challenges and driving forces of adopting GBS tools • Technological factors • Ability to operate the tools (A, B, C, F, K, O...) • Scientific data to input (B, I, K, P…) • Ability to interpret the result (G, J, M…) • External information about GBS tool (selection, cost, practical case) • Correctly adopting GBS tools in the design process was viewed as “having a much higher threshold”, according to respondent C

12. Results • Barriers, challenges and driving forces of adopting GBS tools • Organizational factors • Technical employee/cost (A, C, H, L…) • Firm size • Types of projects • “They did not adopt because they have no technical employee” provided by respondents C, G, H, I, M, and N

13. Results • Barriers, challenges and driving forces of adopting GBS tools • Organizational factors • Technical employee • Firm size • Types of projects “In Taiwan's small residential cases, the design is usually very restricted by the condition of the site, scale, budget, and owner's requirement.”(A, P)

14. Results • Barriers, challenges and driving forces of adopting GBS tools • Environmental factors • Reward mechanisms • Requirement and regulation • Competition Respondent B “No verification and reward mechanisms are actually available for architects to actively adopt these GBS tools.”

15. Conclusion • Respondents expressed positive attitude and willingness to GBS even they perceived the difficult of adoption in their process. • Usually, the tasks as GBS are ranked toward the end of that list when a project includes a lot of information that needs to be finished in a short time. • The threshold of technology, inability to afford the cost, lack of urgent requirement, and no positive external support → barriers and challenges • Project in a competition→ main driving force • Employees with related skills(or not) → shortcut (or biggest obstacle) • Firm size influence the staffing and cost • project types have different requirements regarding GBS

16. Conclusion • The study have found that many technological, organizational, and environmental variables may influence the willingnessof adoption GBS. • Direct effect, indirect effect and interaction between variables still need to be confirmed in future work.

17. visdr207@gmail.com ChuanHsuan LIN Thank you for your attention  永續建築設計工學研究室 Sustainable Building Design/Engineering Lab. SBED Lab