Environmental performance and sustainable architecture a critical review in the context of singapore public housing 1

1
Chapter 1:

Introduction

1.1

Prelude

More than ever, sustainable development has become a prevailing issue, addressed in
architectural literature, education and practice. Evolving from a long history and having large
scope of coverage, sustainable architecture embodies issues of multi-dimensionality that
involves various professions, i.e. architecture, building science, ecology, sociology,
economics, politics, etc. This has inevitably led to fragmentations and discrepancies in
sustainable architecture practice. This chapter forms the background for the research, by (1)
tracing back the root of sustainable architecture, (2) reviewing housing design in sustainable
development movement, and (3) recognising the increasing popularity of environmental
performance from the practice of building environmental assessment methods.

1.2

Sustainable architecture – issues of multi-dimensionality

1.2.1 Tracing the roots
The quest for environmental value in architecture, for a harmonious balance
between man and his surroundings, is not new. For centuries, and particularly in
domestic and vernacular architecture, people adopted this approach out of necessity.
(Gauzin-Muller, 2002)

The root of environmental concerns in architecture lies on the relationship between human

and the environment, and can be traced back for centuries (Gauzin-Muller, 2002), even to the
'hunting and gathering civilization' (Zeither, 1996). The resonance of these practices can be
still be found in the primitive and vernacular buildings/shelters that still remain in the less
developed parts of the world (Jones, 1998). The characteristics of these buildings/shelters are

2
the needs to work with nature, to harvest the positive aspects from the ambient environment
for survival purposes. David Lloyd Jones (1998) noted that 'early societies lived close to
nature. Their lives were ruled by the seasons; they depended on benign aspects of the seasons,
augmented by their own endeavours, for survival.' Along this early evolutional process of
human being, it is observed that
'Our forefathers were intelligent enough to invent tools. They were capable of art and
war. They formed societies and developed a distinctive culture in each. They were
certainly clever enough to recognise a basic fact of ecology -
that not all parts of the
environment were equally hostile nor equally advantageous
. Certain places, particularly
those that were near water bodies, are especially propitious. Here, in such places, they
had easy access to plant food and water. Small animals that came to drink and feed there
were easy prey. The humans had only to protect themselves from attack from predatory
animals or other human tribes and their future would be ensured. Here, in such places,
they did not have to find sustenance, the environment supported them.
(Ong, 1998)
This relationship between human and environment, however, has changed in accordance to
the change in human's capability and world view. David Lloyd Jones documents that this
movement is evident in the belief of 'Man is the measure of all things' (Jones, 1998 quoting
Protagoras) – a statement that manifests the spirit of the Renaissance. Human beings, with
their intellect and increase in physical prowess, have the desire of power over their natural
environment. This world view and spirit shift was amplified in the Industrial Evolution, when
humans started to exercise resource- and energy-intensive activities for profit. The Modern

Movement has neglected many aspects that, when sought to address, form 'a prelude to
supporting a diversity of architectural insight and experimentation aimed at twenty-first
century environmental needs and priorities' (Porteous, 2002).

In the midst of Industrialisation and Modernism, the notion and practice of ecological
architecture, however, did not totally come to an end. The architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright
adheres to the principles of integrity and of working with nature as a living organism that is

3
continuously responding to its environment and occupants (Wright, 1954). Paolo Soleri, in the
1960s, invented the term 'arcology' to describe the concept of architecture being consistent
with ecology, and to guide his commitment in architectural and urban design.

The formal and often-documented starting point of the green movement in architecture is the
1970s, during the oil crisis. The event triggered energy consciousness to the public at large,
'not through an awareness of the environmental issues involved, but through the realisation
that limited energy supply would have a major impact on the way of life to which we had
grown accustomed' (Jones, 1998). Environmental issues have made their way back to
architectural discourse, not by rising out of necessity as in the past, but by rising out of the
awareness of limited natural resources. The event triggered the search for energy conservation
strategies, alternative energy, and subsequently the growth of solar homes (Zeither, 1996). On
the other hand, the green movement also triggered dialogues between two schools of
thoughts: the rationalist and the arcadian. While the rationalist puts his faith and thus efforts
in technology development as a mean to overcome the environmental (energy) crisis; the
arcadian school calls for a return to nature or a lifestyle of harmony living with nature as in a
pre-industrial, ideally pre-urban state (Hagan, 2001).

The application of the green concerns to architecture at this period gave birth to the term
'environmental architecture', which refers to the deployment and application of environmental
control strategies – e.g. orientating the building, building forms in response to climatic

context, facilitating natural ventilation, providing sun-shading devices, and use of light
shelves – in architectural design.


4
1.2.2 From environmental to sustainable architecture
In the 1980s, numerous global events and treatises, starting from the concern of environmental
sustainability, have developed the notion of sustainable development, and have recognised it as
a prominent issue globally. In 1987, the 42
nd
United Nations Congress marked the emergence of
an official definition of sustainable development in Brundtland's Report. Here, sustainable
development is defined as ‘development which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987)

Following from the UN Congress, the rising awareness of global warming in the early 1990s
has paved a pathway for a number of other important global events – i.e. the Montreal
Protocol (1990), the Rio Earth Summit (1992) and Kyoto Protocol (1996) – in which Green
House Gases, CFCs, HCFCs, and rain forest destruction are among the main concerns.
Agenda 21 – the development plan for the 21
st
century – was drawn up from the Rio Earth
Summit to recommend a set of integrated principles, reaching both social and economic
dimensions at the local level, to warrant sustainable development.

These global events and the progressions made towards sustainable development have had
implications to the development of the built environment. It is understandable, as the built
environment is an envoy between human (and their activities) and the larger natural
environment. The term 'sustainable architecture' has also emerged in architectural literature as
an evolution from the concept of 'environmental architecture'.

Unlike 'environmental architecture' which refers to architecture that is responsive to the
environment, 'sustainable architecture' implies a larger coverage that includes the
responsibility of sustaining not only the natural environment, but also the social, economic
and other human related factors, all at the same time. As Dodds (2000) points out from
analysing the WCED's definition of sustainable development, ‘we do not face the choice

5
between ‘
environment
’ or ‘
development
’, but rather the challenge to find ways of integrating
these to achieve ‘
sustainable development’
. The three major themes have become the
hallmarks of the sustainable development literature: concern for the well-being of future
generations; recognition of the need to integrate social, economic, and environmental analysis
and policies; affirmation of the need to improve living standards’ (Dodds, 2000).

The movement from 'environmental architecture' to 'sustainable architecture' has also brought
up many new challenges to architectural theory and practice. These resulted from an attempt
to include of the 'soft side' of social and economic factors, on top of the existing 'hard side' of
environmental science facts and environmentally responsive techniques and technologies. The
dialogue between the rationalist and the arcadian schools has been extended to the more
complicated dialogues with the emerging concept of eco-centricity, as opposed to ego-
centricity. The concept of 'eco-centricity', or 'ecosophy' is developed by Naess (1989) in his
book 'Ecology, community, and lifestyle: outline of an ecosophy', to describe a philosophy of
ecological equilibrium, that thrives for the diversity of both human and non-human life forms
on earth. This concept opposes the ego-centricity that is prominent in sustainable

development. It is noted that the widely-accepted definition of sustainable development by
WCED does not deny the demand of human development, and considers sustainability is a
need for future human generations. The practice places human beings at the forefront, and can
be considered as being ego-centric at the same time.

The diverse and contesting viewpoints in 'sustainable development' and thus 'sustainable
architecture' practices do not end with the dialogues between the rationalist and the arcadian
schools, and between ego-centricity and eco-centricity. The evolution of 'sustainable
architecture' has led to more complex and competing schools of thought in contemporary
discourses. The next section engages in these discussions.


6
1.2.3 Plurality in concept, reduction in practice
As the concept of sustainable architecture emerged with its overarching coverage of many
aspects in life, the practice has been open to many interpretations, forming different schools
of thought. The issues of diversity, disparity, and fragmented views of sustainable architecture
have been discussed in many recent literature related to the field (Pearce & Vanegas, 2002).

Seen as an extension from the dialogue between the rationalist and the arcadian schools and
between eco-centricity and ego-centricity, Guy & Farmer's analysis, (2001), based on the
social constructivist theory, shows that in contemporary practice there are six 'contesting
environmental logics'. They are eco-technic, eco-centric, eco-aesthetic, eco-cultural, eco-
medical, and eco-social logics. Referring to these environmental logics, Williamson, Radford
& Bennetts (2003) talked about the three contrasting images of sustainable architecture –
natural
,
cultural
and
technical

. In the
natural
image, the principle of sustainable architecture
is to work
with
, not
against
, to understand, to exploit with sensitivity, and to avoid damaging,
nature and natural systems. In the
cultural
image, the genius loci are rendered as the focus,
which sustainable architecture must respond to, be bound with, and sublimate. In this way, the
cultural connectedness of people to a place provokes a sense of belonging and thus caring for
the local environment. In the
technical image
, the scientific environmental facts and
technologies are the major sources for understanding and solving environmental, even social
and economic problems. Thus, 'sustainability is a matter of developing technical devices that
neutralise or make benefits out of what may temporarily appear to be problems (social,
economic and environmental).' Overlapping images are also noted to be often found in
practice, where 'architects play many games at once, using many images'. (Williamson,
Radford & Bennetts, 2003, pp.25-39).

Williamson, Radford & Bennetts (2003) continue by making reference to Guy and Farmer's
view to the different logics and images in sustainable architecture as represented by corners of

7
a triangle, where the discourse is focussed on the dominant image so that sustainability can be
structured into narrower domains. This act, in fact, has led to fragmentation in sustainable
architecture design approaches. Explanation for such an act lies on the application of

reductionism, a prevailing thinking mode in modern living, in the attempt to acquire an
understanding of sustainable architecture (Williamson, Radford & Bennetts, 2003).

1.2.4 The three domains
Parallel with the unresolved dialogues as described above, strategies and approaches towards
sustainable built environment have progressively evolved and developed. The nature of these
strategies and approaches is diverse, and from time to time, inconsistent with one another, the
phenomenon of which create a maze of fragmented strategies to the development of
sustainable architecture. As a general observation, strategies and approaches derive from three
main fields of knowledge – Science (Building and Ecology), Sociology, and Architecture,
which engage directly in sustainable architecture. Respectively, they form three domains with
different approaches to sustainable architecture:
– Environmental performance
– Socio-economics (including other aspects relating to users)
– (Conventional) Architectural design

The domain of environmental performance, through the emerging practice of building
environmental assessment method, has recently gained momentum and become more and
more popular in the practice of both building design and policy making. Strategies and
approaches from the environmental performance domain are techno-centric, render the
technical image
, and aim at rectifying environmental damage as understood through scientific
studies. Meanwhile, strategies and approaches from socio-economics domain are often ego-
centric, render the
cultural image
, and aim at motivating people to be benign towards the
environment. The strategies and approaches from architectural design domain can be any of,

8
or even a mix of eco-centric, ego-centric and/or techno-centric. They render any of the three

sustainable architecture images, or the overlapping images of,
natural, cultural, and technical
.

Similar to the analysis of Guy and Farmer (2001) and Williamson , Radford & Bennetts
(2003) about contesting images, the three domains (as identified in this thesis) compete
with one another in promoting and make dominant their own belief, interpretations and
strategies towards sustainable architecture. Furthermore, each domain engages in different
persuasions, interests, and agendas in their own field of knowledge. For example,
approaches from the environmental performance domain include promoting the strategic
role of science and technology in the endeavour towards sustainable built environment, and
aim to make environmental performance the ultimate objective for building development
including design, construction and occupancy (see Chapter 2). Meanwhile, the approaches
from architectural design domain have its own agenda of making sustainable design a
mainstream in architectural design and discourse (Hagan, 2001). As a result of the analysis
above and the contestation between the three domains, the approaches towards sustainable
built environment from the three domains are often fragmented, inconsistent, and in conflict
with one another.


9
1.3

The quest to define sustainable architecture

In 'Ecological Design', Sim Van der Ryn and Stuart Cowan (1995) state that we have entered
the second phase of the green design movement. The first phase involved evolving green
theories and writings in the separate areas of the design professions. The second phase was
the overall compilation and coordination of these theories into one unified vision of
sustainability for all the design professions. Since then, there have been many developments

that bring the discourse of sustainable architecture well into this 'second phase'. Authors –
such as James Steele with 'Sustainable Architecture: Principles, Paradigms and Case Studies
(1997), Andrew Scott with 'Dimensions of Sustainability: Architecture, Form, Technology,
Environment, Culture' (1998), Smith et al with 'Greening the Built Environment' (1998),
Williamson et al. with 'Understanding Sustainable Architecture' (2003), Guy and Farmer with
'Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture' (2004), etc. – have contributed progressively to the
knowledge of sustainable architecture. The convergent issue addressed in these books is the
call to bring together various fragmented theories sustainability and incorporating them to
form a holistic understanding of the field. From current literature, the vision of sustainable
architecture may be apparent, but a robust model and framework to achieve this vision still
needs much work. The problem lies with the disparity of different mentalities in approaching
sustainable architecture. Pearce and Vanegas (2002) stated that
Despite the evolutionary history of the concept, the range of perspectives on
how sustainability should be defined and operationalized with respect to the
built environment is extremely broad and sometimes conflicting.

Although there are differences in approaches and objectives among the three domains –
environmental performance, socio-economics, and architectural design – all are relevant and
have certain validities to sustainable architecture. The scope of coverage of sustainable

10
architecture must include all the above domains and importantly the interrelationship among
them. Christopher Day highlighted that:
Ecology is, after all, about relationships – hence essentially about wholeness – the harmony
of diverse and interacting relationships. Wholeness has cultural as well as biological and
technological dimensions. It involves underlying spiritual values and aesthetics as well as
engineering. In anything whole, anything living, these can not be separated (Day, 2002)

Christopher Day continues that it is because of the 'separation' that has led to the crisis of our
time, which is not only about ecological but also social and economic – 'a crisis of spirit and

life as much as one of material resources' (Day, 2002). This crisis undoubtedly refers to
unsustainable development.

Clayton and Radcliffe also highlight that the literature on sustainability from different
professional perspectives are, on the one hand extremely pertinent to the issue, on the other
hand ‘disparate and often fail to connect to an underlying analysis that could link these
suggestions together into a coherent rationale and programme for change’ (Clayton &
Radcliffe, 1996).

Contributing to the call for interdisciplinary practice, Susanna Hagan in her '5 Reasons to
Adopt Environmental Design' has identified that
the intellectual reason
,
the practical reason
,
the technical reason
,
the economic reason
, and
the pedagogical reason
are the five reasons
that architectural design should not exclude, but should integrate, the contributions from
environmental performance domain in pursuing sustainable architecture.

As the awareness has been increasingly recognised, there have been many calls for stepping
back from specific environmental concerns, and viewing sustainable issues in a holistic way.

11
Among these efforts is the call to reframe the often-asked question on the relationship
between sustainability and architecture by Fawcett (1998):

People may ask – 'what does sustainability mean for architecture?' but perhaps the
proper question is – 'what does architecture mean for sustainability?' The former
question suggests a 'weak' approach to sustainability, i.e. an implicit assumption that
sustainability has implications (possibly serious) for our present ways of procuring
the built environment but those ways are basically appropriate. The latter question
recognises sustainability as the overarching concern, in terms of which all social
disciplines and conduct must be reinterpreted and reformulated. (Fawcett, 1998)

Williamson et al (2003) further elaborated the discussion:
The associated question of 'What does sustainability mean for architecture?' forefronts
architecture and looks for ways in which it must adapt. The question of 'What does
architecture mean for sustainability?' forefronts sustainability and positions
architecture as one amongst many contributing factors in achieving a meaningful
human existence in a milieu of uncertainty.' (Williamson, Radford & Bennetts, 2003)

To sum up, the raising awareness of sustainable development has challenged the thinkings
and practices of professionals. The values of being environmental friendly and of balancing
nature and human relationship have been added into the objectives of architecture; posing
different questions, thinking and approaches towards sustainable architecture practice. In
response to this new challenge, there are many different viewpoints from the architectural
professional. For some, these environmental concerns are merely additional values assigned
to the conventional architectural practice, and thus the practice of sustainable architecture is
all about providing and adding in a number of additional 'environmental' features such as sun
shading devices, solar panels, etc. For others, sustainable issues in architecture (e.g. the
relationship between climate, human, and architecture) have long been a primary concern in
architectural practice, and perhaps can be dated back to Vitruvius (Hawkes, McDonald &

12
Steemers, 2002). From this perspective, the discourse of sustainable architecture is not new
and the belief is that conventional architectural practice has already well equipped to embark

upon the present-day sustainable issues if conventional architectural design techniques are
properly explored.

For other writers, the practice of architecture should undergo a major revolution. This
includes rethinking the approach and design process in architectural practice. The 'Implied
pipe-line framework towards sustainable architecture' from the environmental performance
domain (section 2.6) is one example. In each of the above perspectives, the three domains of
sustainable architecture practice – namely environmental performance, socio-economics, and
architectural design – are addressed at different levels of importance, and even 'contesting'
one other as in the social constructivist theory (Guy & Farmer, 2001).

1.4

Housing design in sustainable development movement

The above prolonged discourse is even more significant in housing, as this building type is the
best envoy between human daily activities and the environment. As a general observation, the
notion of housing has evolved over time, from mere shelter for individuals, to promoting social
well-being, to being responsible to the environment, and currently towards sustainability.

To the architectural design professional, the issue of over-simplistic theories in housing
design is known, and a call to have an interdisciplinary perspective into sustainable housing
has been made. Rudlin and Falk, in their book ‘Building the 21
st
Century Home’, state d:
For much of the twentieth century the housing debate has focused not on the wider
impact of housing development but on improving conditions for the tenants of social
housing. This had led professionals to postulate in bricks and mortar (and concrete and
steel), what is good for people, what will promote their health, communities, family

13
life and comfort […] Sustainable housing is defined as much by the economic forces,
the social trends, and policy as by physical design (Rudlin & Falk, 1999).

Similarly, Brian Edwards (2000) recommends that design holds the key role in developing
sustainable housing. However, he continues, that architects need to realise that buildings
alone do not make sustainability, especially social sustainability. Other equally important
areas include urban planning, social mix, employment opportunities, and social amenity.

From the sociologist's perspective, there have been an increasing number of studies to make
the connection between environmental issues to housing studies. Bhatti (1994 & 2001)
attempted to integrate conventional housing studies (that associate mainly with socio-
economic approaches) to the environmental discourse. He suggests that ‘we need to look at
housing using a holistic model, thus stepping back from specific aspects of policy or energy
use, to examine how the whole of the housing system operates and how key parts interact'
(Bhatti, 2001).

In brief, working towards sustainable housing is an inevitable direction for housing
development. How this can be achieved required much effort in research and practice. From the
literature review, the main problem of sustainable housing development, as with sustainable
architecture in general, lies on the disintegration of the related constituent domains –
environmental performance, architectural design, and socio-economics. Gaining insight to the
dynamic interaction among the approaches and strategies of the three domains, both from the past
and the present trends, can undoubtedly provide a strong foundation for further understanding,
and form an integrated framework for sustainable housing design and discourse.

14
1.5

Research approach, objectives and scope

1.5.1 Research approach
The above literature analysis has formed a milieu to position this research. In recognising
the disintegrating and contesting phenomenon among different domains, this thesis attempts
to look into the causes of the issue, and by doing so, to seek for a way to integrate
positively the approaches of all the three domains into an integrated framework for
sustainable housing design and discourse. In this integrated framework, the roles,
contributions and scope of influence, of each domain are visible; the conflicts and potential
conflicts among the domains should be minimised; and the reciprocation among them
should be promoted.

As this research is written from an architectural background and perspectives, the proposed
framework is for architectural design and discourse in addressing sustainable housing.
However, with the interdisciplinary spirit, the research will be carried out with
acknowledging the advantages and contributions from the socio-economics and
environmental performance domains.

This endeavour will start with the investigation into the most tangible domain –
environmental performance – by critical reviewing its practice of BEAMs, which are
measurable and has recently emerged and been gaining popularity.

With strong technical and quantitative base, BEAMs have been formed with the vision to
rectify the environmental problems associated with building development (Macnaughton &
Urry, 1998). However, with their inherit reductionist, materialist, quantitative, structural,
and hierarchical approaches, BEAMs pose conflicts to sustainable architecture, which also
encompasses human, social, economic, and policy dimensions. The differences between

15
environmental performance (as evaluated by BEAMs) and architecture approach are aware
of among architectural professional, but the viewpoints towards this practice are diverse

(Cam & Ong, 2004).

In this context, the hypothesis of this research is formed as below:
–

The practice of building environmental assessment methods is not comprehensive
enough to enable sustainable housing, due to the lack of consideration on socio-
economic and other factors related to resident behaviour. Socio-economic and
architectural design factors are significant and may even supersede building
environmental performance considerations in sustainable design.

The thesis will explore the above relationship through a number of studies on the practices of
Singapore public housing. Understanding this relationship allows us to establish a framework
that integrates all these aspects of the study in approaching sustainable housing.

1.5.2 Research objectives
The driving force of this research is the disintegrating and contesting phenomenon of
sustainable architecture with the current popularity of BEAMs. From here, the research will
be carried out with the following objectives:
(a)

To understand and identify implications and weaknesses in BEAMs and the concept
of environmental performances;
(b)

To review the significant impacts of socio-economics and architectural design on
building environmental performances and sustainable housing;
(c)

To address solution to the above fragmentation and contestation, by theoretically

establishing and empirically substantiating the Integrated Framework for
Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse. In this framework, the roles,
contributions and scope of influence of each domain – socio-economics, architectural

16
design, and environmental performance – should be visible; the conflicts and
potential conflicts among the domains should be minimised; and the reciprocation
among them should be promoted;
(d)

To establish systematic approaches to sustainable housing performance issues, their
criteria and influencing factors; and
(e)

To promote 'sustainable architecture' being in line with 'good architecture'.

1.5.3 Research methodology
The research methodology addresses the hypothesis (see section 1.5.1) at two levels:
theoretical establishment and empirical substantiation.

•

Theoretical establishment:
–

A critical review of the practice of building environmental assessment method, an
explorative study of the significance of resident behaviours and socio-economic
settings, and approaches from architectural design;
–

Theoretically construct an integrated framework for sustainable housing design
and discourse, based on the above studies of the three domains – environmental
performance, socio-economics and architectural design;

•

Empirical substantiation:
–

Construct primary empirical data from applying a suitable building environmental
assessment method to evaluate the environmental performances of 30 case studies,
selected from the current housing stock of Singapore public housing. The selection
of case studies are carried out with objectives of good representative of all
different typical housing design types and spread throughout different decades in
the evolution of public housing;

17
–

Empirically verify the theoretically critical review of the practice of building
environmental assessment method by correlating analysis the environmental
performance of public housing case studies at two levels – (1) intra-relationship of
dominant environmental performances with other related environmental
performance, and (2) inter-relationship between the environmental performances
and pertinent socio-economic trends (secondary empirical data). The secondary
empirical data are obtained from various reports and publications from
governmental bodies, scholars and researchers in the field.
–

From empirical understanding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

of the practice of building environmental assessment method, shift the discussion
of how to achieve high environmental performances to forming strategies to
achieve high sustainable housing performances (see section 5.5 for the
terminology definition). These strategies will be formed through the application of
the Integrated Framework for Housing Design and Discourse, and the supported
case examples found in the practice and observations of the 30 case studies of
Singapore public housing. Assessment criteria of sustainable housing
performances as well as factors influencing the sustainable performances will also
be included in the discussion.


18

Figure 1-1:
Diagram of research methodology.


1.5.4 Scope of discussion
The research addresses issues related to sustainable architecture, a research field with very
large scope of coverage by definition. To balance between being holistic and being
throughout in discussion of each sub-topics to reflect the nature of the research field, the
thesis scopes its discussions to the followings:
–
The discussion focus on sustainable housing, as this building type is the best envoy
between users and the surrounding environment.
–
The term housing refers to the context of the research data – i.e. high-rise high-density
public housing in Singapore.
–
In assessing environmental performance of public housing case studies, not all of the

criteria of the selected building environmental assessment method will be addressed,

19
due to local practice and data unavailability. For example, criteria related to life-cycle
analysis of embodied energy will be omitted due to data unavailability. Due to most
local building materials being imported, together with the controversial computing
methodology and complicated process of collecting data, life-cycle analysis of
embodied energy of local building deserves a whole research in itself.
–

The main objectives of the thesis is include
o

to identify the negative implication and weakness of building environmental
performance and BEAMs;
o

to reveal the significant impacts of socio-economics and architectural design
on building environmental performance; and
o

to establish theoretically and substantiate empirically the Integrated
Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, as well as to
derive from there systematic approaches towards sustainable housing
performance; and
o

to extend the application of the Integrated Framework to form a preliminary
structure of the Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method (ArchSAM) to
indicate an overall framework and direction for future research.

20
1.6

Thesis structure

This thesis is made up of fourteen chapters, grouping in three parts. Part I carries out
theoretical construction for the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and
Discourse. Chapter 2 critically reviews the practice of building environmental assessment
method in environmental performance domain. In this review, the mixed viewpoints to this
practice from the architectural professional are revealed. The chapter also unfolds the implied
pipe-line framework towards sustainable architecture from the environmental performance
domain. Chapter 3 looks into socio-economics domain, including aspects related to resident
behaviour. The objectives are:
–

to identify the influences of socio-economic factors
–

to identify the possible contributions or solutions from these non-environmental
aspects to environmental issues.
Chapter 4 focuses on the approaches from conventional architectural design towards
sustainable housing development. These approaches include spiritualist, qualitative,
contextual, inclusive and innovative approaches. They are presented as being opposite to the
approaches of building environmental assessment practice – materialist, quantitative,
structuralist, exclusive, and pre-defined approaches. Chapter 5 integrates the three domains as
analysed in the previous 3 chapters and form the Integrated Framework for Sustainable
Housing Design and Discourse. In this process, the chapter also reveals the multidirectional

pathways towards sustainable housing, and acknowledge the importance of
interconnectedness among the three domains.

Part II of this thesis constructs the primary empirical data – the environmental performance of
public housing through case studies – for empirical discussion in Part III. Chapter 6 provides
a brief revisit to the evolution of Singapore public housing – the context where this research is
based on. It is followed by a review of literature on Singapore public housing. The three

21
mainstream studies found in literature review are positioned against the Integrated Framework
for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, in order to reveal the yet-to-be-explored
issues. This highlights the limited understanding of sustainability dimension of Singapore
public housing. Chapter 7 rationalises the selection of 'Green Building Challenge' (GBC) – an
advanced international established building environmental assessment method – as the
method to derive primary empirical data for the research. The Chapter also presents
localisation and customisation of GBC for suitable application in Singapore high-rise high-
density public housing. Chapter 8 explains the process of selecting case studies and their
environmental performance assessments, followed by brief report on the assessment
outcomes, which are also the primary empirical data for further discussions in Part III.

Part III compiles a set of empirical analyses and discussion in order to substantiate the
theoretically critical review of the practice of BEAMs and the theoretically-constructed
Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse. Part III includes 5
chapters, each of which focuses on one ultimate sustainable housing performance issue – land
use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, material efficiency, and experience of
home. The format for each chapter is structured around the following discussions:
–

Elaborate how each of the corresponding environmental performance criteria is
measured, and empirically analyse their interrelationship with other environmental

performance criteria;
–

Correlate the environmental performance of Singapore public housing through
case studies against the socio-economic data to understand the relationship among
these two domains;
–

Shift the discussion from the strategies to achieve high 'environmental
performance' to the strategies to achieve 'sustainable housing performance' based
on the application of the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design
and Discourse; and

22
–

Shed some thoughts to assessment criteria of sustainable housing performance and
highlight factors (from all the three domains of sustainable architecture) that can
influence sustainable housing performance.

Chapter 14 concludes the thesis by reflecting how the research hypothesis has been addressed,
and discussing the validity and contributions of the research. This is done through positioning
the critical review of the practice of BEAMs and the established Integrated Framework for
Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse into the larger context of contemporary theories
and practices related to the field. Finally, the chapter establishes a preliminary structure and
principles for future development of Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method, and
identifies agenda for future research.

Part I Integrated Framework for Sustainable
Housing Design and Discourse –
Theoretical Establishment







24
Chapter 2:

Building Environmental Assessment Method and
Sustainable Housing

2.1

Prelude

This chapter attempts to clarify the relationship between the practice of building
environmental assessment methods and sustainable built environment (including housing). At
the first glance, it seems logical that building environmental assessment methods, with its
objective of delivering environmental-friendly buildings, will ultimately contribute to
sustainable housing development. However, due to a wide scope of sustainable housing that
includes resident behaviours, lifestyle, and socio-economic aspects, the techno-centric

practice of building environmental assessment methods is not comprehensive enough to
solely address housing issues. The discussion starts with the analysis of BEAMs' inherent
characteristics, highlighting the paradox of the practice that leads to mixed views from the
architectural professional. The discussion is then followed with the study of the implication of
the practice in its mentality towards sustainable housing development; and concludes with
criticism to such practice.

2.2

Environmental performance and building environmental assessment method

2.2.1 Introduction and background
The practice of BEAMs is derived from the concept of environmental performance, which is
better understood through 'performance requirement' and 'performance indicator'. Williamson
et al (2003) explained
Performance requirements are qualitative statements describing goals of overall design
outcomes or products and subsystems […] The act of satisfying a requirement is delegated
to a functional element, usually a building component, including their aggregation into a

25
whole building. A performance requirement […] is represent by a performance indicator.
The performance indicator is any quantifiable measure that adequately represents the
specific performance requirement, for example, temperature limits to describe comfort
satisfaction. These provide quantitative statements of the desired attributes of a final design
outcome and enable functional elements to be assessed in relation to agents (stress) that
affect how a building behaves. (Williamson, Radford & Bennetts, 2003)

Based on performance, the practice of BEAMs has recently been gaining momentum, and is
widely accepted in contemporary practices and policy-making pertaining to the development
of the building environment (Guy, 2001). By definition, BEAMs are ‘techniques developed to

specifically evaluate the performance of a building design or completed building across a
broad range of environmental considerations’ (Cole, 1998). There are three main components
of BEAMs: Criteria, Time, and Scale (Figure 2-1). In the Criteria dimension, there are
ecological concerns (e.g. resource use and environmental loading), and human concerns (e.g.
indoor environmental quality). The Time dimension relates to life-cycle assessment of
building, such as embodied energy in construction materials, and the consideration between
short-term versus long-term benefits. The Scale dimension represents the intrinsic link
between environmental performance and life-cycle assessment of building materials and
components, as well as the impact of building to its immediate and larger context.

Figure 2-1
: Three dimensions of environmental assessment – Scale, Time and Criteria (Source: Cole, 1999)