Architecture and Sustainable development, Proceedings of PLEA 2011, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (July 2011)

ISBN xxx-x-xxxx-xxxx-x - ISBN (USB stick) xxx-x-xxxx-xxxx-x @ Presses universitaires de Louvain 2011

What do young people tell us about sustainable lifestyles when they design sustainable schools?

Post-Occupancy Evaluation of New Schools with the Participation of Children

AndreaWheeler1, Dino Boughlagem1, Masoud Malekzadeh1

1Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: The UK government created a unique educational opportunity with the recent school building programme. Its aims were described as transforming learning and embedding sustainability into the life experience of every child. However, how do young people understandthese aims, and the concepts of sustainable lifestyles and sustainable communities, now theyhave begun to be translated into school design? This paper reports on the recently suspended programme and discusses the value of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE)as a way of capturing successes and failures of what has been implemented so far.POE provides an opportunity for young people to critically engage with why our energy use and our relationship with the natural environment has to change. POE can also examine the gap between predicted and actual energy performance of a building and human behaviour is key in such investigations. The focus on innovative technologies is in danger of ignoring the human factors involved in reducing our impact on the environment. Current approaches used in Education for Sustainability can also ignore the complex social aspects of encouraging sustainable lifestyles. This paper describes an emergent POE approach developedand used to carried out research with young people in the UK using this method. It examines reoccurring themes across case studies and describes young peoples’ experience with contradictory adults’ behaviours.If we are to meet the needs of future generations, we will all have to be able to design for ourselves – albeit in negotiation with others – environments in which we can live in different ways. Participatory post-occupancy assessments hence have multiple benefits, whilst for architects, they provide feedback on the performance of buildings; for young people they are also creative opportunities to begin to explore sustainable development, with all the philosophical and political complexities this entails, and to begin to rethink and redesign their lifestyles.

Keywords: energy, participation, post-occupancy assessment, children, schools

xx.xsection name 1

PLEA2011 - 27th International conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 13-15 July 2011

1.INTRODUCTION

Developing initiatives that allow children to engage with architects and designers to design their own schools and to think critically about sustainable lifestyles, is an educational opportunity that can drive change in schools:innovative, collaborative and art-based research activities are ways to explore more authentic relationships with the environment.Ways that not only develop an understanding of energy efficient and sustainable architecture, or how architects design, but also to develop a critical relationship with some of the complex global and ethical issues of sustainability. The potential benefits for schools are both educational and environmental: children can discover their own sense of a relationship to the world and others and at the same time rethink and rewrite their own lifestyles. The approach developed within a workshop environment, which this paper examines, demonstrates the ease with which children can be inspired to both critical engagement with the problems of sustainability and to creative alternative designs of their environments. This contradicts common knowledge that children and young people lack motivation or interest in the problems of sustainable development; and suggests an approach which may have significant impact in determining the difference between the predicted and actual energy performance of buildings

1.1.Building Schools for the Future

Building Schools for the Future (BSF) was launched in 2004 to rebuild or refurbish every secondary school in England over a 15-20 years period. Local authorities would enter into public-private partnerships, known as Local Education Partnerships (LEPs), with private sector companies. Funding for BSF came from PFI and government funds, and was targeted at local authorities, with the most deprived schools first, through a standard formula using GCSE results and free school meal uptake.

The environmental ambitions of the programme and its holistic intentions were evident from the outset [1]. However, in July 2010 it was announced that the £55 billion 20 year BSF programme was to be cancelled as part of a series of cuts by the new coalition government. Only schools that had already signed contracts would go ahead with their construction phases. At the point when the programme was cancelled, 185 schools had received BSF funding.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, argued that the scrapping of the BSF programme willhelp to reduce the cuts that would have otherwise been necessary to teaching budgets, Michael Gove, the Education Secretary,commented that the impact of the Spending Review on schools, would ensure money was spent more efficiently [2].Nevertheless, the UK Government still require buildings to meet carbon emission reduction targets. Policy imperatives are still driving the need for accurate and holistic means of evaluating building performance and there is significant difference between the predicted and actual performance of the newly built schools.

This paper argues that it is the school culture, demonstrated in the relationship between the ethos of the school and community values that plays the most pivotal role in determining the factors contributing to this difference. Working with children is a way not only to explore this school culture, but also to transform it. If architects are genuinely to build sustainable schools (putting aside for a moment the problem of what this actually means or indeed how we might measure it), we need integrated approaches to school design which include attention to the role school culture plays in determining behaviours and influencing the actual energy performance of schools.

2.The Sustainable School

Today school buildings contribute around 2% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, roughly the same as all the energy and transport emissions of Birmingham and Manchester combined. This is equivalent to 15% of the country's public sector emissions [6]. The Sustainable Development Commission's carbon footprint for the schools estate has estimated that in England, the sector emits 9.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Energy use in school buildings represents 37% of this.The recent UK Zero Carbon Schools Taskforce, set up to identify how to create low carbon and energy efficient schools, has identified many problems with the design of new “sustainable”schools. Equally, within the educational context, the government's aim that every school would be a “sustainable school” by 2010 has been described as over ambitious [3]. It has been argued that whilst the framework for sustainable schools extends the school's commitment to include care for people at a distance,to futuregenerationsand to the rest of the living world,the current drive towards greater individualism, illustrated through testing and competition contradicts and erodes this ambition [4]. An integrated approach to Education for Sustainability in the Sustainable Schools programme on the other hand, suggests that: thought needs to be directed to what and how students are taught (exploring sustainability through the curriculum); how the school campus is managed and led (through exemplar buildings and grounds); and how the school can act as catalyst for change in the wider community (through engagement with the community). These educational goals areconstantly being undermined: by new buildings that are often far from exemplary in terms of their environmental performance;by parents travelling long distances by car; and by the schools themselves eroding an integrated approachby the privatisation of school catering and avoidance of locally sourced food [4].

There is a real lack of clear thinking about creating sustainable schools both in terms of architecture and education. There is also a worrying decline in attention to educational purpose within the educational policy context which shows a rise in the use of spatial language (and an interest in the effect of environment on learning), and a shift in emphasis from the activities of the teacher to the activities of the student. The concepts of“environments for learning” or “learning spaces” are examples [5].

What is evident is lack of clarity in the meaning of zero-carbon and even sustainability.What does behavioural change, and a consequent change in school culture, entail? However, the benefit of using the adapted POE method we developed is that it allows us to explore these questions with children and in so doing examine the performance of the environment in which this happens. This, we argue, addresses a significant need in understanding how to involve children and as a result demonstrates a demand children were enthusiastic to take on.

2.1.The Value of Post-Occupancy Evaluation Methods

It is commonly known that discrepancies exist between predicted/optimised and actual performance of buildings, resulting in additional redesign and refurbishment costs. Whilst some of the causes of the performance shortfalls can be attributed to the inherent limitations associated with the use of simulation tools, other causes are related to less easily determined factors that come into effect during the construction, operation and influence by users (including children) of the building. It is evident that delivering and operating highly efficient buildings is a process that requires a holisticview of the building process [7].Bill Bordass[8] argues that good building performance in practice requires: a good client; a good brief; a good team; specialist support; a good robust design; enough time and money; an appropriate specification; a good contractor; a well-built well-controlled building with post-handover support; and. management vigilance to achieve a truly energy efficient environment. Within each of these requirements we could add “sustainable”. However, new “sustainable”schools are uniquely problematic because, as Bordass states, the fabric performance is not as good in practice, the building systems and controls are too complicated; the response to patterns of use is poor - leading to avoidable waste; and, importantly policy factors driven by educational objectives are mandating more intensive use of energy [8]. The need for a holistic perspective towards the design of sustainable schools does seem obvious and engaging people in the problem could significantly reduce this demand.

2.2.The Zero Carbon Schools Taskforce

The Zero Carbon Schools Task Force was established in early 2008 by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, with the remit to advise on what needs to be done to reach the goal that all new school buildings will be carbon neutral by 2016. (The work of the group came to an end in December 2009). For the Zero Carbon Schools Task Force, the five steps necessary to achieving a zero or low carbon school also include behavioural change. Described as the Carbon Hierarchy, these are: engagement with school communities; reducing demand (assisted by engagement leading to behaviour change); driving out waste by better design (which will need more knowledge and skills in the design and construction industries); decarbonising school energy supplies; and neutralising any residual emissions [6]. The final report from the group argues that low and zero carbon will only be achieved if action is taken across a range of fronts including technical, financial and social. Whilst the Task Force was reporting during a period of intensive new building, it did also comment on the importance of reviewing use and demand in schools. In a climate governed by cuts in public funding this becomes even more significant: retrofit have a far greater impact than new build.

Further recommendations include: that the Partnership (the delivery body for the Building Schools for the Future programme) develops a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) process for all schools within BSF and a methodology for an in-depth energy study which is applied annually to a sample of schools [Recommendation 25]. Other recommendations include: the gathering and publication of performance data to monitor progress [Recommendation 26]; a targeted programme of energy reducing refurbishment work (linked to behaviour change) to cut emissions in existing schools [Recommendation 27]; and education and engagement initiatives for staff, students and communities [Recommendations 3, 4, 5] [6].

The group suggest the active engagement of students and staff, a programme of behavioural change and a POE process for all new schools. But the limitation in time and scope of the work of the taskforce, means that there is no realistic suggestion on how this can be achieved in practice, or any mention of the barriers that the context and school culture can present. The apparently contradictory directions of behavioural change and technological innovation influencing policy and individual behaviour only demonstrateswhere the complexity lies.

2.3.Predicted and Actual Energy Use in Buildings

A focus on the technological features in sustainable schools will not provide the answer to realising sustainable schools. Energy efficient building technology and ICT in new schools often does the opposite of what it should Presence detection in corridors can force lighting to come on during the day (children are first to demonstrate these contradictions to us). Bunn [9] argues for a sustainable design which is ergonomic and democratic, design solutions that truly meets users' needs - not designers’ beliefs or what teachers ought to have (whether or not they really want it or need it). For example, he writes: "Hand-held remotes have been given to school-appointed eco-warriors to control lights. Pupil power can be as powerful as BEMS whenit comes to truly intelligent lighting control"[9]. There is increasing acknowledgment of the need to provide integrated approaches that address both technical performance and occupant behaviour [10].And like many advocating behaviour change, Vale and Vale suggest a focus on facilitating change in occupants’ lifestyles driven by “ethical principles” rather than just changing building design [11]. For Leaman, Stevenson and Bordass, however, the future also lies in evidence-based qualitative and quantitative feedback as a routine part of their services and responsibilities [12].Post-occupancy assessment methods are significant in that they provide such means to explore both qualitative and quantitative dimensions, and examine the human factors including the values of users contributing to the energy performance of buildings. However, using POE methods to work with the culture of organisations and investigate people's values and beliefs does also raise not just opportunities, but also methodological issues. POE methodologies can allow an examination of the physical, technical and management factors influencing the actual performance and they can also allow, in principle, an assessment of attitudes and perceptions determining the energy performance of buildings, providing the potential for an integrated approach. Whilst they are by definition methods that involve users of the school buildings being assessed, POE is yet to explore the problems and potential of methods focused on children within the context of sustainable school buildings. It is after all, one thing to advocate for the inclusion of children’s perceptions in POE, but quite another to develop an approach which is both suitable and appropriate for their age and experience, and which allows them to engage critically with the problems of sustainable design and lifestyle change.

3.RESEARCHING WITH CHILDREN

Those experienced in working with children suggest the importance of involving them in design and the legal imperative [15]. However, working with children can be a challenging experience for many and the entry of child actors into what is often generally understood as adult responsibilities and influence can be somewhat threatening. Adrian Leaman even argues that their role in post-occupancy evaluations can be limited [13]. Moreover, there is a wealth of literature to suggest that children, and even teachers, have limited knowledge of sustainability. Nevertheless, Chernley and Flemmingadvocate that involving children in consultations with architects – when the opportunity arises – has significant educational value. Central to their own research, was the observation that children and young people can engage with architects and other building professionals to explore the role of natural daylight, natural ventilation, insulation, reducing energy demand and renewable energy technology in sustainable design [14].Hence, whilst researchers in Children’s Studies have developed ways of working with children in the context of designing a sustainable school [16]. Others have questioned some of these approaches and researchers’potential complicity in a simply political agenda: young people, are eager to absorb other people’s preoccupations and prejudices; and (in a criticism of activities to use children as motivators of change) ‘…are not there to cure parents bad habits” [17]. Involving children as researchers in projects towards school change does, nevertheless, appear already to have a proven transformative potential [18, 19]. Frost argues that in pursuing an educational assessment, through what she calls an “emergent collaborative action research methodology”, knowledge generated was less partial, more contextualised and hence more valuable [20].