Energy sufficiency in buildings a synonym for passive and low energy architecture PLEA

Architectural Science Review
ISSN: 0003-8628 (Print) 1758-9622 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20
Energy sufficiency in buildings, a synonym for
passive and low energy architecture (PLEA)
Hugo Santos, Pouya Samani & Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes
To cite this article: Hugo Santos, Pouya Samani & Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes (2018) Energy
sufficiency in buildings, a synonym for passive and low energy architecture (PLEA), Architectural
Science Review, 61:5, 292-297, DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2018.1505332
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1505332
Published online: 10 Aug 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 269
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tasr20
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
2018, VOL. 61, NO. 5, 292–297
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1505332
Energy sufficiency in buildings, a synonym for passive and low energy architecture
(PLEA)
Hugo Santos
a , Pouya Samani
a
and Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes
b∗
a Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (INEGI), Porto, Portugal; b University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Energy sufficiency in buildings means making the most of the environmental energy that can be exploited
directly by the building’s physics. To happen this requires a full dialogue with place and proper design
and materials to respond, as much as possible, to the energy needs within the building, typically related
to the provision of comfort and the overall wellbeing of its occupants. It can be said that the Passive and
Low Energy Architecture movement, PLEA, has promoted, for over thirty-five years, all avenues for energy
sufficiency in buildings through the exploitation of ‘sound architectural’ design potentials. Between the
approach of vernacular architecture, particularly relevant in the Mediterranean basin, and the concept of
energy sufficiency, there is an opportunity to facilitate, enrichen and clarify the dialogue with energy service
stakeholders and related policy makers to result in better architectural design, contributing towards the
advancement of PLEA’s perspective, strategy, wisdom and practice.
Received 13 July 2018
Accepted 14 July 2018
Introduction
In developed countries worldwide, energy demand in buildings frequently represents the majority of all primary energy
and, consequently, is responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, representing approximately 40%
and 36%, respectively, in the European Union (European Commission 2016). Simultaneously, people typically spend 80% or
more (Klepeis et al. 2001) of their lives inside buildings in which
thermal comfort and health should be regarded as basic human
needs. These make it ever more challenging to meet objectives
of improved wellbeing, which traditionally might require further
energy for heating, cooling and ventilation, while simultaneously reducing energy demand and GHG emissions. More than
ever, it is imperative that decision makers at all levels and scales,
as well as designers, architects, engineers and builders, are called
upon to play their respective and crucial roles in intelligently
answering these challenges in effective ways, within a framework of effective and clearly prioritised strategies and policies
(de Oliveira Fernandes 2015). This paper presents the arguments
for energy sufficiency as a path towards those goals.
A building is an energy system, balancing energy and mass
inputs and outputs through it, and one that has not been properly designed and/or built will inevitably fail to meet its occupants’ wellbeing requirements or, conversely, demand more
energy to compensate for its shortfalls. The age-old question is
still: what constitutes a ‘properly designed building’? In line with
the tenets of the Passive Low-Energy Architecture (PLEA) movement, we argue that, first and foremost, the building should act
as an extension of its surrounding environment, in full dialogue
with the local climate and incorporating the culture and needs
of the locality that will over decades, and possibly generations,
hrsantos@gmail.com
CONTACT Hugo Santos
∗ Present address: Emeritus professor of the University.
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
KEYWORDS
Energy sufficiency; designing
with the climate; adaptive
comfort
provide its occupants. This it does by implementing adequate
technical solutions that take advantage of natural energy around
the site, like the sun and wind (as well as others) and local
amenities.
While the first buildings were mainly makeshift shelters to
keep humans protected, it was quickly learned how to take
full advantage of the best of the local climate while protecting
against adverse weather, with the limited locally available materials and construction techniques. These aims and constraints
gave birth to a multitude of vernacular architectural and technical passive solutions that were naturally adapted to their specific
time, place, means and culture. The first industrial revolution,
and its subsequent versions, brought the wonder of advanced
and active technologies into use, with the energy-dependent
machine, so loved for their potential to empower humans in the
face of an unruly nature. Architecture was liberated by these
developments that gave true freedom in design to create ideal
shapes and forms, regardless of their context. Human comfort
was no longer a slave of climate.
Modern globalized trends in the development and application of building regulations that often dictate acceptable design
and architecture forms have long been written to favour buildings that are strongly dependent on heating, cooling and ventilation (HVAC) systems, in effect, purposefully isolating them
from their surroundings and completely disregarding local climate potential. While this might be justifiable in extreme climates and other specific contexts such as in some dense urban
environments and specific required features, it is concerning to
frequently find these sorts of regulatory approaches in places
where there is a high potential to run buildings on local natural energy resources, as in temperate regions. Thermal comfort
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
and occupant wellbeing has become increasingly dependent
on strict technological solutions resulting in more intensive
and often arguably unnecessary, commercial energy use with
consequently higher environmental impacts through energyrelated GHG emissions. Continued technological advances and
recent climate change threats, including planetary warming and
extreme weather events, have only further stimulated the drive
to meet thermal energy and indoor air quality needs exclusively
through more and more efficient systems and equipment (paradoxically even less resilient than the passive solutions to potential energy systems’ disruption). In turn architects have been
decoupled from the challenge of designing to create comfort
and wellbeing indoors (Santos, Pereira, and de Oliveira Fernandes 2016).
Current terminology trends reflect this same way of thinking.
For instance, even within the official regulations and directives
at the EU level, all energy-demand reduction options are positioned within a single encompassing classification of ‘energy
efficiency’, challenging the path towards sustainability (Shove
2017). In the eyes of policy-makers and many professionals,
installing a better heat-pump, more insulation, or solar PV panels on the roof, can all equally contribute to making a building
more energy efficient. One could argue, however, that energy
efficiency is only strictly applicable, thermodynamically and precisely, to devices and equipment that have defined and measurable ratios of useful energy output to final energy input. Of
course, that same rationale can be translated into other kinds of
comparisons between some ‘investment’ and an objective ‘outcome’, such as where more thermal insulation can reduce the
cost of heating the building, but these are inexact applications
of the concept that end up having pernicious impacts in practice. As can be very easily grasped in the above examples, many
solutions cannot be adequately defined or quantified using just
the logic of energy efficiency.
It might be reasoned that it is an acceptable simplification
to claim that all ‘energy efficiency’ options ultimately achieve
the same goal of reducing commercial energy demand and thus
should be compared and analysed simultaneously within the
same category. We posit here that this approach leads to a complete disregard of the many qualitative and inherent characteristics of a careful and intelligent passive and low-energy building
design. It also disregards the key role of user behaviour in reducing energy use and decouples occupants from their responsibility as the ‘root demander’ of energy in a building and their
function as a key player in managing, i.e. reducing, energy use in
it. Ultimately, when energy demand in buildings has the potential for such a large impact on the environment, a more rigorous
use of language in relation to its management and reduction
becomes even more required.
This issue of definition is particularly relevant to the PLEA
movement. It is fundamentally rooted on the aforementioned
principles of vernacular and bioclimatic architectures and passive design, using natural and innovative techniques to drive
architectural solutions and urban designs that lie at the heart
of global sustainability objectives. Since the early 80’s, PLEA
has been a driving force in the evolution of solar design expertise, technologies and strategies for buildings to provide thermal comfort for occupants through sensible design without
any additional technical systems, in a ‘design first’ philosophy.
293
The movement often links the putative approaches of today
to enhanced versions of the old solutions/approaches from the
past that were necessarily attuned to their climate and the place.
A design led approach has to be pursued to reduce energy needs
in buildings while providing thermal comfort and healthy indoor
air for residents (Cole, Brown, and McKay 2010).
It is important to note the distinction between ‘energy needs’
and ‘energy demand’. The former refers to the ‘useful energy’
required to achieve a specific purpose, for instance providing
heat for warming a given space, while the latter refers to ‘final
commercial energy’ required to run a device or equipment, for
example electricity to run the electric heater. Energy needs, thus,
are established by the physical and operational characteristics of
a space or activity regarding a specific objective like providing
comfort, renewing indoor air, cooking, lighting, etc., regardless
of technology or equipment. On the other hand, energy demand
is strictly linked to the technology or device used to provide
for a specific need like heaters, ventilators, stove, light bulbs,
etc. Current approaches to reducing energy in the buildings sector completely ignore this distinction, be it in policy texts or
in professional practice. We propose that acknowledging the
concept of energy sufficiency better captures the nuances and
advantages of passive building design, while energy efficiency
should be restricted to specific fields of application, particularly
in the analysis of the technological characteristics of energy systems sensu stricto, be it a piece of equipment or a specific, local,
regional or even larger energy systems at the national level.
Logically and scientifically, the challenge of reducing energy
consumption in buildings must be tackled from its root causes.
In this case, the reduction of energy demand in the buildings sector must firstly explore the potential for reducing energy needs
(sufficiency) necessary in a building to be fit for purpose for
its’ recognised and assumed functions and only then, secondly,
ensure energy demand is managed through the energy efficiency of the justifiably needed equipment. Relying exclusively
on energy efficient equipment to cope with situations that could
have been adequately addressed through the design itself is not
only non-intelligent, but also many might say, unethical and, in
the face of climate change, absurd.
The efforts pursued by PLEA so far, pioneering and opening the path for these approaches, not only require a continuous support in education, practice, industry and the policy
arena, but also require recognition of the paramount importance of an energy sufficiency first step in the design process
(Alcott 2008). This needs to be considered explicitly as a preemptive action and evaluated separately from the subsequent
‘energy efficiency’ optimisation stages. In 2013 the International
Energy Agency (IEA) has explicitly recommended exploring the
energy sufficiency performance of a building prior to considering energy efficiency (Figure 1) and renewable energy contributions to low-energy and low-carbon building design (International Energy Agency 2013).
Recent regulations in Europe are calling for cost-optimal solution packages, implying that a cost–benefit analysis, based solely
on investment cost versus savings on energy over a systems’
lifecycle, can adequately represent the relative merits of the solutions (Thomsen and Wittche 2015). However, experience shows
that many of the calculations based on estimated energy savings are often disconnected from the real-world use of buildings
294
H. SANTOS ET AL.
Figure 1. The path to follow at the design stage to achieve low-energy and low-carbon building by the IEA (adapted from International Energy Agency 2013).
and systems by people (de Wilde 2014). A well-designed building, which relies mostly on passive solutions, is intrinsically more
resilient to time and usage patterns than technical systems usually are. The latter are plagued by rebound effects that act to
increase effective consumption (Azevedo 2014) and to struggle
more drastically with the typical peculiarities of individuals and
cultures.
Thermal comfort models in the 80’s and 90’s were predominantly based on indoor air indicators (namely, temperature and
relative humidity) and were particularly relevant and, even, exacerbated for air-conditioned buildings. They neglected various
factors related to the occupants and their interactions with the
building and the outdoor environment. Subsequently, adaptive comfort models were developed that considered other factors such as the expectation, preference and adaptation of the
occupants that are managed as part of an inter-active feedback
system between the building and its occupants. The adaptive
thermal comfort models (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 2013) are
vitally important in understanding the thermal performance of
free-running buildings and identifying the potential of passive
design strategies, particularly where indoor comfort conditions
can be achieved through passive means. Adaptive comfort models are in tune and syntonic with the passive and solar approach
adopted by PLEA.
Energy sufficiency and PLEA are positioned at a vital meeting
point between science, technology and architecture on the path
towards global sustainability. Design for sufficiency requires a
more informed architectural approach from the outset that also
incorporates design issues related to engineering (such as, for
example, choosing of construction materials that can meet strict
structural and thermal and/or air quality requirements and thus
contribute towards the passive design goals). The need to optimise energy sufficiency need not constrain the creativity of
informed architects, but can also support them in designing
more unique solutions without the need for subsequent corrective technical interventions (de Oliveira Fernandes and Yannas
1989). It is noteworthy that analytical tools can be very useful
in supporting and continuously evaluating new directions and
iterations in the design process, checking solutions against engineering and other client criteria and vice-versa. Equally important are the constraints and opportunities provided by a local
culture or site that can drastically influence the building’s performance and success, and should be incorporated in the architects and engineers early design decisions however apparently
trivial, such as a need for quiet or privacy. The (compound?) solution for each building should be unique, rather than something
that can be generalized and obtained in catalogues (de Oliveira
Fernandes 1989).
Energy sufficiency in buildings
There are two important points to note when conceptually differentiating energy sufficiency and energy efficiency:
1. Energy efficiency and comfort
As alluded above, energy sufficiency provides a better framework for incorporating both qualitative and quantitative perspectives in the analysis and calculations aiming at reducing the
demand for energy (not only in buildings). For instance, it is common to find very low indoor temperatures in houses all around
the Mediterranean basin (Santamouris et al. 2014; Magalhães,
Leal, and Horta 2016), partly because the mild climate always
favoured a culture of adaptation and frugality, therefore investing in better insulated building envelopes is less imperative
than in more severe climates. With the current push for better
building performance, better insulation is now mandatory, but
it shouldn’t be expected for this to be necessarily translated into
actual reductions in energy demand (de Wilde 2014; De Boeck
et al. 2015; Barthelmes et al. 2017), primarily because, in this case,
the benefits will probably be first turned into better indoor living conditions. Such actions might even favour increased energy
demand in cases where people’s renewed expectations for comfort surpass the actual improvements in the building’s passive
performance. None of these aspects can be easily incorporated
within an energy efficiency analysis or cost-optimal calculation. In temperate climates, the correlation between building
interventions and actual energy demand reductions may be
weaker than elsewhere in more extreme climates, firstly because
the energy needs for heating or cooling are, quantitatively,
much lower than in extreme cold or hot regions, and, secondly,
because of the aforementioned typically poor indoor comfort
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
conditions. Instead, by focusing more on aspects such as the role
of passive performance, system-dependent energy needs, and
the users’ behaviours, energy sufficiency should better accommodate the qualitative values and benefits of specific solutions
and regulations.
2. Sufficiency as an intrinsic property of the built environment
Second, energy sufficiency is not only about an explicit approach
to convincing users to reduce their energy use and influence
their behaviours but must mainly be about addressing modifications and adjustments in the built environment that can
implicitly result in natural reductions in energy needs, even if the
users are not aware of them. The latter is especially important
in addressing sufficiency approaches within the building sector
where the objective is to provide thermal comfort and health
for the occupants with little or no requirements for technical
interventions or user action such as by primarily promoting and
exploring solar passive and other low-energy solutions. It should
be further noted that while the concept of sufficiency here is
being presented within a framework of buildings and in proximity with PLEA’s principles, it is in fact broader and pertinent to
more applications, even from an energy-exclusive perspective.
For instance, even within buildings, aspects such as hot water
use, meal preparation, vampiric electricity use (i.e. standby consumption of unused devices), and others, can all be discussed
within the energy sufficiency framework. At a larger level, urban
planning as a background approach, should also incorporate
energy sufficiency principles, be it in terms of rethinking accessibility/mobility, solar rights, urban sprawl and density, solar
energy cooperatives, and others.
Despite seeming to be clear-cut and objective, the concept of sufficiency has yet not been fully recognized by scholars or policymakers, despite the aforementioned IEA document
and many other relevant publications and applications (Princen 2005; Darby 2007; International Energy Agency 2013; Stutz
2014). Many of its most relevant aspects are already well known
and recognized but this knowledge is lost amid a confusion in
terminology and imprecision of concepts that blurs the lines
between passive and technical, ultimately drowning many of the
opportunities that should have been explored. A point in case
are the several academic works discussing sufficiency aspects
but inaccurately attributing them as ‘energy efficiency’ measures, in an attempt to bring them within the common, misused,
terminology. For instance, several papers refer to principles such
as sensible selection of the location and orientation of the building and its openings, thermal protection, solar energy use, etc. as
‘energy-efficient’ architecture (e.g. (Okeil 2010; Junghans 2012;
Manzano-Agugliaro et al. 2015; Chandel, Sharma, and Marwah
2016)). This is also found in texts of regulations and directives,
which ends up having a pernicious impact by opening the door
to the more lucrative, more lobbied for, and frequently easier to
implement technical solutions, despite being known that these
may not be adequate for a specific setting. In this sense, the law
fails to correctly direct actions by ignoring the terminological
nuances, failing to recognise and discuss the inherent differences between various options, or understanding the significant
environmental impacts of not doing so.
295
In the case of temperate climates, and particularly the ones
in the Mediterranean basin, the sufficiency approach shows that
the building must be first designed in a way that captures the
useful energy from the sun, storing it effectively, and later diffusing it back indoors with little or no need for technical systems.
Of course, proper shading should be introduced to avoid excessive solar gains in the summer, giving space to thermal inertia
to maintain adequate indoor temperatures during the hot days.
This is made possible by the large daily thermal amplitudes and
the generally low relative humidity of the air, which can provide
comfort through high thermal inertia, good solar shading during the day, and ample ventilation during the night. There are
many case-studies going back to the 80’s exploring these strategies, such as the example of Casa Termicamente Optimizada
(CTO), in Porto, Portugal (de Oliveira Fernandes, Maldonado, and
Gonçalves 1987).
The PLEA approaches mainly target these sorts of strategies
and many architecture examples worldwide bear testimony to
that. For instance, designing small windows and doors in warmer
temperate climates is one of the evident examples of solar protection in vernacular architecture. There are various such examples of small openings being used in buildings today in southern Portugal, Italy or Greece. Conversely, in colder and windy
winters, even in temperate regions, enclosed balconies which
can serve as buffer zones to increase solar gain and prevent
the heat loss are explored, such as Beira Alta region in Portugal. Examples of patios can be found, for cultural reasons, even
in the South and Central American continents, indicating how
vernacular architecture has been conveyed between countries.
In regions with less favourable climates, either in colder high
latitudes and continental locations, or warmer/humid climates
as in the tropics, it is clear that the potential for passive solutions is severely restricted. Be it because of lower solar resource
availability, higher thermal losses, lower daily thermal amplitudes, or simply because outside conditions are consistently
unfavourable over longer periods, the indoor-outdoor dialogue
must be more contained and controlled in these more adverse
conditions. Thus, the use of energy-reliant technology is generally mandatory. Thermal inertia loses much of its usefulness, and
might even have a pernicious impact here, so solar gains might
be limited, controlled shading might not be as essential, insulation might be essential in very cold climates but not at all in
the tropics, and so on. Even so in these more challenging conditions, a better design will always result in significant reductions
in energy demand, and arguably be even more significant, quantitatively, than in temperate climates, regardless of achieving
near-passive performance.
Furthermore, by reducing the energy needs first, the dimensioning of eventually required systems (HVAC) will result in
smaller, less powerful and less expensive technical solutions,
which are typically easier to install and maintain. This will bring
further benefits to the national grid given the expected reductions in peak power demand and fluctuations, while also facilitating more effective use of the investments in renewable
energy sources. This is essential in helping the conversion of the
national energy system into a more fully renewable-based one,
which can then be achieved with smaller investment and more
quickly.
296
H. SANTOS ET AL.
Discussion and conclusions
It is known that energy efficiency focussed design approaches
tend to struggle with the issues of the rebound effect, facilitating more frequent or intense use of more energy efficient
devices, counting on their lower operation costs, while not actually reducing energy consumption. The result is that energy savings are generally much lower than expected and energy consumption can rise significantly. Furthermore, in addition to this
‘direct’ rebound effect, there may also be an ‘indirect’ rebound
effect when an increase in disposable income still results in
increased energy use elsewhere (Azevedo 2014), or even the
prebound effect (Sunikka-Blank and Galvin 2012), where energy
consumption (and potential benefit of energy efficiency initiatives) is over-estimated. Both rebound and prebound effects
demonstrate that current predictive measures of energy consumption are inadequate as they fail to take into account how
buildings are actually used by their occupants. Energy sufficiency approaches, particularly within the buildings sector, using
PLEA principles, are much less susceptible to these effects. A
building that is designed to be able to passively provide comfortable conditions indoors in moderate climates, will under normal conditions hardly give any justification for its occupants to
resort to additional heating or cooling, if given the option to
instead use whatever flexibility in control they might have to
hand to fine-tune their surroundings, such as by opening windows, closing curtains and so on. The same can be said about the
management of air quality in European homes that is achieved
primarily by pollutant source control coupled with natural ventilation, illumination when daylight is available outside, noise that
is properly controlled from nearby sources, and so on.
Reviewing the PLEA approaches to design, one can conclude
that they contribute to energy demand reduction through sensible design of the building itself and its adaptability to the local
environment and culture. The design solutions PLEA promotes
come long before any ‘energy efficient’ technical add-ons are
even considered at different stages of the building energy flows
(efficiency). PLEA thinking is all about reducing the demand itself
by tackling, primarily, the actual energy needs (sufficiency) of the
building and therefore, the PLEA concept is encompassed within
the concept of energy sufficiency. The foundations of PLEA were
established on the principles of passive, vernacular and bioclimatic architectures that are completely independent from the
secondary additions to building of energy-consuming HVAC systems. These are the implicit approaches of energy sufficiency,
but energy sufficiency is an even broader concept than PLEA as
it also embraces the need to design to optimise user behaviour
contributions as well.
While the concept of energy sufficiency proves to be effective
and applicable within the building sector, nowadays many building designers and occupants disregard potentials of ‘sufficient
design’ and rely on pollution-causing and more costly HVAC
options to make buildings habitable. Regulations too often provide little help in promoting energy sufficiency and in doing
so fail in their roles and responsibilities in directing appropriate
decisions and actions. Currently, construction firms tend to replicate the same building solutions from one country to another
with very different climates, cultures and user behaviours. The
current standardisation of buildings around the globe is based
predominately on non-adaptive thermal comfort models, relying solely on the use of technical add-ons. For instance, in the
United States, the Green Building Council (USGBC) grades buildings through the Leading in Energy and Environment Design
(LEED) certification. However, this certification does not accredit
bioclimatic and passive solar designs. It is noteworthy that while
it is possible to get the silver grade without any improvement
in the energy performance of the building, it was originally
impossible to achieve a high score in Energy and Atmosphere
(EA) category of LEED without using mechanical systems (Shaviv
2008).
Why is there so much attention being paid to energy efficiency, and not enough to energy sufficiency?
Firstly, when discussing energy and buildings at a national
level the expressions ‘energy efficiency’ is used indiscriminately
across the whole system to encompass a wide range of activities, technologies and solutions, thus absorbing the idea of
energy sufficiency under this often-meaningless umbrella. As
described above, this consequently results in bad policies and
the proliferation of higher energy technical solutions.
Secondly, most energy system stakeholders such as politicians and utilities are not yet prepared to accommodate the
impact of energy sufficiency, which allows for better comfort with less commercial energy, as they are wedded to economic growth models that flourish better with energy efficiency
drivers.
Thirdly, energy efficiency is essentially linked to profitable
market opportunities which would be endangered if energy
demand was reduced to the actual passive building energy
needs.
Energy sufficiency is not a proposal from the past, but one
for today and for the future. Understanding and recognising the
importance of the concept of energy sufficiency can lead to the
continued evolution of the PLEA ideals to more effective and
much broader applications and challenges in the real life. This
is a vital, pre-emptive design approach that results in reduced
energy needs, improved occupant wellbeing and happiness at
home and work, lower energy costs and ultimately to a more
environmentally-responsible and resilient built environment.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on and extends upon a conference paper by the
same title presented at the Passive Low Energy Architecture Conference
in Edinburgh, Scotland, in July 2017 (Samani, Santos, and de Oliveira Fernandes 2017). The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of Project
NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000010 – Health, Comfort and Energy in the Built
Environment (HEBE), co-financed by Programa Operacional Regional do
Norte (NORTE2020), through Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional
(FEDER).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of Project NORTE-01-0145FEDER-000010 – European Regional Development Fund (FEDER, Fundo
Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional).
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
ORCID
Hugo Santos
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5331-5901
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7843-5280
Pouya Samani
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5694-3599
Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes
References
Alcott, Blake. 2008. “The Sufficiency Strategy: Would Rich-World Frugality Lower Environmental Impact?” Ecological Economics 64 (4): 770–786.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.015.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55. 2013. “Thermal Environmental Conditions for
Human Occupancy.”
Azevedo, Inês M.L. 2014. “Consumer End-Use Energy Efficiency and Rebound
Effects.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39 (1): 393–418.
doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-021913-153558.
Barthelmes, Verena M., Cristina Becchio, Valentina Fabi, and Stefano P.
Corgnati. 2017. “Occupant Behaviour Lifestyles and Effects on Building Energy Use: Investigation on High and Low Performing Building Features.” Energy Procedia 140: 93–101. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.
11.126.
Chandel, S. S., Vandna Sharma, and Bhanu M. Marwah. 2016. “Review of
Energy Efficient Features in Vernacular Architecture for Improving Indoor
Thermal Comfort Conditions.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
65: 459. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.038.
Cole, Raymond J., Zosia Brown, and Sherry McKay. 2010. “Building Human
Agency: A Timely Manifesto.” Building Research and Information 38 (3):
339–350. doi:10.1080/09613211003747071.
Darby, Sarah. 2007. E" nough is as Good as a Feast - Sufficiency as a Policy.P" roceedings, European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Summer Study, 111–120, Côte d’Azur, France.
De Boeck, L., S. Verbeke, A. Audenaert, and L. De Mesmaeker. 2015.
“Improving the Energy Performance of Residential Buildings: A Literature Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52: 960–975.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.037.
de Oliveira Fernandes, Eduardo. 1989. “The Actors in Building Design: Is There
Any Reason for New Design Team Strategies?” Solar and Wind Technology
6 (4): 329–332. doi:10.1016/0741-983X(89)90051-9.
de Oliveira Fernandes, Eduardo. 2015. “The Built Environment and its Policies.” In Energy Performance of Buildings: Energy Efficiency and Built Environment in Temperate Climates, edited by Sofia-Natalia Boemi, Olatz Irulegi,
and Mattheos Santamouris, 1–15. Basel: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20831-2_1.
de Oliveira Fernandes, Eduardo, Eduardo A. B. Maldonado, and Helder J.
P. Gonçalves. 1987. “Casa Termicamente Optimizada.” Batiment International, Building Research and Practice 15 (1–6): 215–219. doi:10.1080/09613
218708726819.
de Oliveira Fernandes, Eduardo, and Simos Yannas. 1989. “ARCHITECTURE
AND TECHNOLOGY: A Plea for Better Integration.” Passive and Low Energy
Architecture (PLEA), 37–44. Nara.
de Wilde, Pieter. 2014. “The Gap Between Predicted and Measured Energy
Performance of Buildings: A Framework for Investigation.” Automation in
Construction 41: 40–49. doi:10.1016/J.AUTCON.2014.02.009.
European Commission. 2016. “Buildings - European Commission.” https://
ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings.
297
International Energy Agency. 2013. Modernising Building Energy Codes: To
Secure Our Energy Future. Paris: OECD/IEA.
Junghans, Antje. 2012. “Integration of Principles for Energy-Efficient Architecture and Sustainable Facilities Management.” PLEA2012 - 28th conference: opportunities, limits & needs towards an environmentally responsible architecture, Lima, Perú. http://www.plea-arch.org/ARCHIVE/2012/
files/T01-20120125-0019.pdf.
Klepeis, Neil E., William C. Nelson, Wayne R. Ott, John P. Robinson, Andy M.
Tsang, Paul Switzer, Joseph V. Behar, Stephen C. Hern, and William H.
Engelmann. 2001. “The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS):
A Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 11 (3): 231–252.
doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500165.
Magalhães, Sara M. C., Vítor M. S. Leal, and Isabel M. Horta. 2016. “Predicting
and Characterizing Indoor Temperatures in Residential Buildings: Results
From a Monitoring Campaign in Northern Portugal.” Energy and Buildings
119. 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.064.
Manzano-Agugliaro, Francisco, Francisco G. Montoya, Andrés Sabio-Ortega,
and Amós García-Cruz. 2015. “Review of Bioclimatic Architecture Strategies for Achieving Thermal Comfort.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 49: 736. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.095.
Okeil, Ahmad. 2010. “A Holistic Approach to Energy Efficient Building Forms.”
Energy and Buildings 42: 1437. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.013.
Princen, Thomas. 2005. The Logic of Sufficiency. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Samani, Pouya, Hugo R. R. Santos, and Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes. 2017.
“Energy Sufficiency in Buildings, a Synonym for Passive and Low Energy
Architecture (PLEA).” Conference proceedings for passive and low energy
architecture (PLEA) 2017, design to thrive. Volume III:4315–4320. Edinburgh. ISBN 978-0-9928957-5-4
Santamouris, M., S. M. Alevizos, L. Aslanoglou, D. Mantzios, P. Milonas, I.
Sarelli, S. Karatasou, K. Cartalis, and J. A. Paravantis. 2014. “Freezing the
Poor - Indoor Environmental Quality in Low and Very Low Income Households During the Winter Period in Athens.” Energy and Buildings 70: 61–70.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.074.
Santos, Hugo R. R., Mariana Abrunhosa Fernandes Pereira, and Eduardo de
Oliveira Fernandes. 2016. “Housing Design for Temperate Climates: The
Priority to Energy Sufficiency | Australian Policy Online.” 7th international
conference on energy and environment of residential buildings, Brisbane.
doi:10.4225/50/581079ec2f941.
Shaviv, Edna. 2008. “Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA) VS Green
Architecture (LEED).” PLEA 2008 25th conference on passive and Low
energy architecture, Dublin.
Shove, Elizabeth. 2017. “What is Wrong with Energy Efficiency?” Building
Research and Information, 1–11. doi:10.1080/09613218.2017.1361746.
Stutz, John. 2014. “Quantifying Sufficiency.” Tellus Institute. http://www.tellus.
org/pub/Quantifying_Sufficiency.pdf.
Sunikka-Blank, Minna, and Ray Galvin. 2012. “Introducing the Prebound
Effect: The Gap Between Performance and Actual Energy Consumption.”
Building Research and Information 40 (3): 260–273. doi:10.1080/09613218.
2012.690952.
Thomsen, Kirsten Engelund, and Kim B. Wittche. 2015. “Energy Performance Requirements Using Cost-Optimal Levels.” In Implementing the
Energy Performance Directive (EPBD), 2016th ed., 41–56. Lisbon: ADENE.
https://www.epbd-ca.eu/outcomes/2011-2015/CA3-CT-2015-4-Costoptimal-levels-web.pdf.