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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Jisoo Shim & Doosam Song & Joowook Kim, 2018. "The Economic Feasibility of Passive Houses in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Aiman Mohammed & Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman Tariq & Anne Wai Man Ng & Zeeshan Zaheer & Safwan Sadeq & Mahmood Mohammed & Hooman Mehdizadeh-Rad, 2022. "Reducing the Cooling Loads of Buildings Using Shading Devices: A Case Study in Darwin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Huan Zhang & Yajie Wang & Xianze Liu & Fujing Wan & Wandong Zheng, 2024. "Multi-Objective Optimization with Active–Passive Technology Synergy for Rural Residences in Northern China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-25, March.
    13. Xingwei Xiang & Qian Wu & Ye Zhang & Bifeng Zhu & Xiaoji Wang & Anping Wan & Tongle Huang & Luoke Hu, 2021. "A Pedagogical Approach to Incorporating the Concept of Sustainability into Design-to-Physical-Construction Teaching in Introductory Architectural Design Courses: A Case Study on a Bamboo Construction ," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-29, July.
    14. Gao, Hao & Koch, Christian & Wu, Yupeng, 2019. "Building information modelling based building energy modelling: A review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 320-343.
    15. Jacek Kasperski & Anna Bać & Oluwafunmilola Oladipo, 2023. "A Simulation of a Sustainable Plus-Energy House in Poland Equipped with a Photovoltaic Powered Seasonal Thermal Storage System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    16. Zhonghao Chen & Lin Chen & Xingyang Zhou & Lepeng Huang & Malindu Sandanayake & Pow-Seng Yap, 2024. "Recent Technological Advancements in BIM and LCA Integration for Sustainable Construction: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-30, February.
    17. Maria Rosa Trovato & Vittoria Ventura & Monia Lanzafame & Salvatore Giuffrida & Ludovica Nasca, 2024. "Seismic–Energy Retrofit as Information-Value: Axiological Programming for the Ecological Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-37, March.
    18. Babak Raji & Martin J. Tenpierik & Andy Van den Dobbelsteen, 2017. "Early-Stage Design Considerations for the Energy-Efficiency of High-Rise Office Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28, April.
    19. Sonja Oliveira & Elena Marco, 2018. "Role of ‘Community Spaces’ in Residents’ Adaptation to Energy-Efficient Heating Technologies—Insights from a UK Low-Energy Housing Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Xingwei Xiang & Xiaolong Yang & Jixi Chen & Renzhong Tang & Luoke Hu, 2020. "A Comprehensive Model of Teaching Digital Design in Architecture that Incorporates Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-29, 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.