Traditionally plants are incorporated into building designs for aesthetic reasoning and as an addition to the building fabric. Greenery has the power to function as a building service in many ways, from regulating temperature, to use as external cladding to air conditioning.

The Green Infrastructure Design Challenge, organised by the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), ARCC and UKCIP tasks people to re-imagine the use of plants in building design and implement them as a building service.

London South Bank University (LSBU) is happy to be a part of the Green Infrastructure Design Challenge for the third year running. LSBU is committed to supporting innovation, and challenging the status quo through academic-industry collaboration. The team sit on campus in the Clarence Centre for Enterprise and Innovation. The building has been the subject of the challenge for the past three years as it has some interesting features.

The Clarence Centre is located in central London on St George’s Circus, a major interchange south of Waterloo. The building was renovated in 2014 and converted the old Duke of Clarence Pub and a line of terrace houses into the Innovation Centre it is now. The offices are on the second floor; they are shallow in plan and are naturally ventilated, with opening windows on to the busy London Road and on the other side to a quiet courtyard.

The Clarence Centre and its occupants are currently subject to a number of research projects including the EPSRC funded project Managing Air for Green Inner Cities (MAGIC) and an LSBU sponsored PHD with the Blind and Shutters Association, which will determine the impact of blinds on internal environmental quality and occupant satisfaction and performance. The office’s indoor environmental quality has also been tested by an LSBU tenant in the University Technopark CETEC.

The Sustainable Communities Institute at LSBU is happy to be a part of the Green Infrastructure Design Challenge, and for the offices to be subject to what we expect will be, outstanding interventions using green infrastructure. We look forward to seeing the designs.

The 2018 Green Infrastructure Design Challenge was launched at CIBSE Build2Perform Live and is open for entry to individuals or teams. Closing date for entries is 19 February 2018 and shortlisted designs will be showcased and the winner announced at ecobuild 2018 (Excel, London, 06–08 March). Find out more about the competition.

The Sustainable Communities Institute provides access to LSBU expertise and facilities to support the development of novel solutions to sustainability problems in the built environment.

A French Marxist from the 1960s, Guy De Bord, wrote of the collage, a concept that grew out of integrating past or present artistic works to make a new creation. This was generally used by De Bord and his buddies to create satirical parodies, however, there is an underlying concept here that recognises we have vast amounts of information already and perhaps opportunities lie in piecing it together in the right ways by the right people. And I put it to you that this is the lynchpin behind casual stalking – that the right people are out there with the right information, we simply need to bring it together. This is particularly true along the research to innovation continuum.

So how does casual stalking work? A great example is when you’re putting an event together. You have a rough idea of who should be there – we repeat ad-nausea ‘know your audience’ – but actually this is the most difficult task. And it isn’t just about putting ‘bums on seats’… everyone is busy, you need to make sure what you are offering is worth the effort of attending. Perhaps the principles of casual stalking are difficult to apply to a 30,000 visitor trade show, but you can certainly give it a good shot in your event promotion.

We’ve got LinkedIn and Google to help you find the exact person in an organisation to target. And you should be bold – in sales it’s called the ‘cold call’ and it hasn’t gone out of style no matter how much we’ve advanced in the technology stakes. If you can talk to the person, you can explain to them why they need what you are offering.

This approach might not work for everyone, for example if you are actually selling something on a commercial basis. It is a unique position that the ARCC network operates in, at the boundary of research and the policy and practice communities, and as such we have no vested interest in ‘selling’ other than enhancing the impact of research. Casual stalking to increase sales might very well be considered the wrong strategy for probably all businesses, however, to engage in market research, or make contact with a university research project is probably an appropriate use of this technique.

And the times they are a changin’, as Bob Dylan so rightly said… Let’s consider how casual stalking applies to policy engagement in the modern era. The direction of the serving government at any point is an essential landscape that industry and academia need to understand, and it’s by no means a simple task. It takes going to the right events, knowing the right people, and maintaining relationships. But we have a different civil service these days – certainly in Australia, where we have short-term Executive Contracts – and here in the UK there are far greater staff rotations between departments, with a focus on transferable skill sets which brings a fabulous diversity of approach to the complex task of policymaking. However, it CHANGES THE GAME of engagement. Hence my invitation to casually stalk with me!

This IS a thing – I’m pretty sure that this is the way forward for knowledge exchange, to broaden engagement opportunities beyond the usual suspects, of having the right approach to getting information out there to the right people. With the booming global population being a factor in almost all decision-making, it impacts on knowledge exchange, engagement and communications too… but it DOES NOT have to simply mean more data and bigger contact spreadsheets, it is important to actively pursue your fundamental audience (in the most professional manner, of course).

Do we always get it right? No way… sometimes you’ve assumed incorrectly, you’ve not quite hit the nail on the head, but part of engagement is the process that you go through, of introducing who you are and what you do. By the law of averages you’ll more likely than not find something of common interest, and a different opportunity may arise.

So how does one go about casual stalking? Well, if you want to know more then I’m going to leave it to you to hunt me down

Our exhibition

Our stand was based in the low carbon theme and we managed to squeeze in three of our technologies:

1. Luminescent Solar Concentrators are an example of the emerging next generation of building integrated photovoltaics, designed to absorb both specular and diffuse incident light, and guide it to the edges, where discrete solar panels can be attached to generate electricity. This removes the need for solar tracing technologies – which help orientate panels towards the sun as it moves – required in conventional concentrated photovoltaics.

2. Thermochromic materials with the ability to respond to the ambient temperature and modulate the amount of infrared radiation that enters a window. These temperature responsive, “smart” windows can significantly reduce the need for air-conditioning, especially in countries with temperate climates.

3. Low surface energy materials that repel water and are also antireflective. We demonstrated 6 inch, Si-wafers (the workhorse material in solar cell applications) that self-clean and are also black with their reflectivity suppressed to <2%.

In addition, we presented a paint-based technology that can convert almost any surface – even fabrics and paper – into superhydrophobic. This latter technology was developed in Professor Ivan Parkin’s group in the UCL Department of Chemistry.

BRE Academy talks

We gave two seminars at the BRE academy talks. On Tuesday, Mark Portnoi, a PhD student in the photonic innovations lab, presented our latest developments on luminescent solar concentrators. I gave a talk on “smart” thermochromic windows and self-cleaning surfaces on Wednesday.

Both of these talks were very well attended and it was good to see that they were received positively by the public. Most of the questions were around the sustainability of the materials used, the cost and payback time of our technology, and the lifetime if these products were introduced into the market. These are very useful questions that we scientists do not necessarily think of when we initially embark on a research project, but ultimately we need to have reliable answers to.

Overall assessment

The event was very well organised and the help of ARCC, and particularly of Briony Turner and Tanya Wilkins, was exceptional. Days were intense and long but we all came together as a group and managed to put together a very strong stand. We interacted with a variety of people from architects to property developers and from policy makers to fellow academics, which is only possible at an event of the scale and prestige of Ecobuild. The BRE academy talks and in general the many seminars that were concurrently organised all around the exhibition were very informative and educational.

I would definitely recommend to everyone to attend in the future.

Facilities managers are in the best position to operate buildings sustainably, but there are no organisational drivers to motivate them to do so; the focus is on service delivery for the organisation that owns or occupies the building.

There is compliance to minimum standards, and we have schemes such as the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme and Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) that enforces the gathering of energy use information, but this is not driving sustainable practices – organisations just pay the bill as it’s a small proportion of their overall operational costs.

So what do we need to know?

We need to transfer our knowledge from academic and practice based research of how buildings operate and ensure that sustainable design intentions take into consideration how the building will actually be used.

We need to examine how buildings perform in use and understand what features can be added to improve sustainability. This requires performance measurements and understanding of how the architecture and engineering systems interact, and the impacts on each other.

We need to understand how the procurement route influences the performance of the building in use. For example, do Private finance initiative (PFI) projects, where the commitment is long-term, ensure whole life value and efficiency are serious considerations during construction?

What next?

We need to think long-term during the building design phase and improve the value of sustainable facilities management.

We need to develop better procurement practices for projects that ensure delivery of buildings that operate more sustainably.

We need to regulate building performance evaluations, especially for high-energy users. And the Landlord and Tenant partnerships need to embrace resilience and energy efficiency with commitments from both parties as neither can do it alone in this scenario.

We must also create a culture where the industry undertakes post-occupancy evaluations on a regular basis to ensure lessons are learnt and shared so we don’t keep making the same mistakes, and operators of buildings are compelled to run the facilities energy-efficiently.

Firstly, delegates were asked to consider what information do we know we are not using, and why?

The discussions concluded that the causes and impacts of the urban heat island (UHI) effect are well understood, however, less is known about available tools and models to help designers and planners combat the issue. Concerns were also raised about accessing models and data without getting entangled in the inherent complexities, and as a result using a lot of time that design fees would not cover.

Participants identified the wealth of information held by the GLA, and I suspect there are other useful GLA data sets and innovations we didn’t hear about as the event was not London focused. BRE have a UHI map of London and have also mapped the effects of the UHI in a specific year (2008).

To sum up, there is a fair amount of knowledge and data available, with more for London than anywhere else.

What do we need to know?

How should we examine the impact of hybrid areas? ‘Hybrid’ was understood to mean tall buildings and green roofs. This raised the question should we aim for a city that is one huge tower block surrounded by green areas, or dispersed low-rise buildings, like parts of Paris?

Participants commented on how much additional concrete is needed for green buildings, and queried how much green buildings do actually affect the urban climate. Mention of blue infrastructure was also made – while we are all aware that green and blue areas are important to ease urban climate challenges, there appear to be few metrics to measure the impacts. Establishing legal minimum / maximum standards for developers is an important task that needs to be addressed.

As more cities collect big data, questions were raised about how we actually analyse and use big data, and what the socio-economic impacts are.

Air quality is an area of concern across the UK – there are a number of useful tools to measure air quality which will help to enable mitigation strategies. While authorities such as the GLA and Kingston are working together to explore the impacts and solutions, more data is required from cities other than London.

Delegates discussed how useful mapping of the urban climate would be, and the need for a guide on how urban form relates to microclimates in order to help practitioners.

What’s next?

The workshop confirmed that it is vital for academics and practitioners to continue to mix: academic tools can be demonstrated and further developed to help practitioners, while practitioners can help researchers to understand what information would be most valuable, and the depth of detail they require for their designs.

Delegate’s suggestions and comments:

What do we need to know?

Models and planning processes capable of accounting for how cities evolve (land use, planning, human behaviours) in climate change scenarios.

New measurement protocols and parameterisation, capable of being used in different environments with cross-comparison of results possible.

Improved understanding of how green and particularly blue spaces can mitigate the UHI.

Better definitions –particularly of high density and appropriate density in relation to quality of built environment.

Research to reveal how air quality and thermal quality correlate within the urban heat climate to inform urban form and building design with regard to ventilation and passive cooling.

How to link measurement of city performance (heat, pollution) with investment.

Building-level fire safety standards exist. Are there wider area standards, for coping with multiple building emergencies in a dense urban setting?

What do we already know but are not using, and why?

Real time and empirical data for validation of models –suggestion that practitioners might not be aware of what’s available.

Current planning policy:

• Evidence presented suggests policy on daylight, sun and wind need updating.
• A microclimate perspective reveals negative unintended policy consequences e.g. air source heat pumps are encouraged but add to microclimate overheating.

Making urban research models more accessible could be helped by:

• Establishing if they better than commercial “black box” models?
• Improving the user interface and data set compatibility and integration with existing planning tools
• If specific real time datasets are required, consideration as to whether local authorities should be mandated to collect them.

How are we going to tackle or take it forward?

Produce a standard for city modelling and a standard data-sharing clause in funding bids, taking into account confidentiality, intellectual property and privacy laws.

Research outputs need to be disseminated quickly and simply to practice and industry.

The event did not disappoint. The presentations were excellent and varied, and we had some great discussions on our table between the talks. Having a modeller, a university researcher, engineers and a planner (me) around the one table proved a great combination, and I think we all enjoyed talking through the issues and thinking about the gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed.

I found the presentations from Prof Sue Grimmond on urban climate and heat island modelling particularly interesting. High-density development can exacerbate summer temperatures which are already rising as our climate warms. This can have direct negative impacts on comfort, health and wellbeing and can also have knock-on impacts on active cooling demand in buildings, further exacerbating the urban heat island (UHI). Prof Grimmond’s presentation demonstrated that UHI modelling has developed much further than I had realised; for example, see the UMEP tool online. This could open up opportunities for the Greater London Authority to research and develop policies requiring high density schemes in central London to model their impact on the UHI (taking into account building geometry, albedo, vegetation, shadowing, anthropogenic heat sources, etc.), and demonstrate how their impact would be mitigated e.g. through significant street tree planting or retrofit of green roofs.

Lee Chapman’s presentation on big data and advances in the availability of cheap, internet connected heat sensors was also thought provoking. Given increasing concerns about overheating in buildings as peak summer temperatures rise with climate change, particularly in dense urban areas, it made me think that the availability of these sensors could open up new opportunities for research collaborations between policymakers, developers and academia to cost effectively collect better data on summer indoor temperatures for different types of homes. Such data will be extremely valuable for improving the robustness of thermal modelling sometimes used for assessing planning applications.

Lastly, I would highlight Dr Paul Littlefair’s presentation and in particular his emphasis on the health and wellbeing benefits of daylight and sunlight. This seems to reinforce the argument made by Chris Twinn and others that performance standards for sunlight and daylight should be introduced into policy, since the widely used BRE approach on site layout planning is for guidance only. Perhaps such policies could also consider setting differential standards for certain types of area / development. For example, higher sunlight and daylight standards may be justified for public spaces in high-density urban areas where they will be important amenity spaces for large numbers of people year round.

I look forward to more of these valuable opportunities to bring together researchers, practitioners and policymakers working on urban environmental issues in future.

This blog represents the personal views of the author.

Event chair, Dr. Gerald Mills summarised the day with the following points:

• We need to develop a framework for the science of cities, which takes a holistic approach. Not only accounting for the urban fabric and atmosphere but its inhabitants and their actions.
• There are mismatches in scale and actions between different fields. It appears from the discussions that the neighbourhood scale should be more prevalent in our work.
• We need a common set of urban data that is not only available to all who require it but also needs to be maintained and updated. Decisions are required as to what our data requirements are and how to collate/collect it.
• Our models of the urban atmosphere, fabric and energy use need to be continually developed and evaluated so that we have the tools available to meet future challenges. We need to account for processes over a range of scales while addressing those we don’t fully understand or represent (e.g. interactions between outdoor and indoor climate).

The event was a good starting point and highlighted the need to work together to improve our cities using an interdisciplinary approach. How we achieve this though still needs to be determined.

For those of us in the urban climate research community, the day provided much insight into the activities of other groups and fields. Reflecting on the day, I feel there are 4 key areas which as a community we need to focus on going forward.

Scale

• Ensure understanding of all scales that impact on urban processes and how they link, not only in our own research but those used by practitioners.
• Focus research on linking scales, as there often seems to be a disconnect in many fields who are single scale focused and use assumed boundary conditions which in themselves may be inaccurate.
• Continue to educate and share knowledge on the importance of scale both within and outside the urban climate community, in particular the neighbourhood scale which practitioners seemed interested in.

Data

• Are we making the best use of the data we already have? Probably not. We need to improve the communication of what datasets are available and how we share them, to aid understanding of processes and evaluate models.
• Community effort to identify and access data sets from other fields, industry and non-traditional observations (e.g. ‘Big data’ and ‘Crowdsourcing’).
• Need to overcome barriers which we cannot solve on our own. For example, how to store, process and maintain large data sets in accessible formats, and make a stronger case to industry to share data of a sensitive or commercial nature for our research (could be achieved through anonymising and aggregating data at relevant scales).

Models & tools

Our models need to be accessible and user-friendly to practitioners and policymakers to ensure that the latest science is being applied (not rules of thumb) to solve real world problems. In doing so we need to ensure clear communication of assumptions made, uncertainty and limitations, while ensuring best practice in their use. We need to demonstrate to practitioners that our models are fit for purpose – this could be achieved through the use of benchmarking data and case studies.

Knowledge exchange

Greater effort is required to find out what practitioners and policy makers require so that our research has utility and impact. Improvement in the exchange of knowledge between disciplines of urban climate science and engineering to ensure we are not ‘re-inventing the wheel’ but are moving the field forward. This could be achieved through publication in trade journals or presenting work outside of our field. Collaborative interdisciplinary research is a necessity to answer the big questions concerning future cities. We need to work hard to form such links both within and outside our institutions and with industry. This could be achieved by joining and contributing to knowledge exchange networks such as CIBSE Resilient Cities.

Welcome to UK Construction Week 2016!

We wanted to share the latest research directly with industry, to start conversations with professionals about the research arena, and outline the opportunities of working with universities in a move towards a more adapted and resilient future.

Our stand was designed around four main themes:

• Future materials; showcasing self-healing cement from Cardiff, Cambridge and Bath Universities as well as other natural materials from the Bath BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials, and perceptions into eco-construction materials from the University of Leeds. Testing facilities at The Hive were also promoted.
• Flood Risk; particularly for SMEs, with guidance from Sheffield and Huddersfield Universities.
• Building performance; modelling tools to help reduce energy use from Oxford Brookes and Heriot-Watt Universities, as well as research into future weather from the University of Bath.
• Design for safety in construction through the University of the West of England.

The skills development element of the event was one of the drivers to getting involved – the event maintained a strong focus on sustainability, despite other significant industry challenges such as post-Brexit uncertainty, and skills shortages.

The lessons here have been really valuable for our network, in building relationships with the event organisers, relevant stakeholders, and in taking bold steps to support the interaction between research and industry.

Another great benefit of being at such a large industry event was the ability to meet with other exhibitors we hadn’t had the opportunity to engage with before. For the ARCC network, this included membership bodies who could benefit from increased exposure to adaptation and resilience research for the construction industry. We also found other universities that weren’t aware of our knowledge exchange network, so there is always some common ground to be found!

We set out to achieve meaningful impact for the research through a coordinated presence at UK Construction Week; and we think we did a great job for us and our research partners; 35 on-stand interactions, 3 seminar presentations, and some great social media activity with over 4,200 Twitter impressions for our campaign in the lead up, and during the event.

The ARCC knowledge exchange network is funded by EPSRC and has a broad remit to bring together research, and the policy and practice communities in the built environment and infrastructure sectors. We promote co-operative working between practitioners and academics, and particularly help researchers to share research knowledge more widely in ways that industry can use.

There is still an opportunity to be involved with our next big industry event, Ecobuild 2017 in London from 7-9 March. It’s the UK’s largest industry event dedicated to creating a more sustainable built environment… If you are a researcher working on future materials and processes research, please get in touch.

The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect occurs when heat is absorbed and released by buildings and other manmade surfaces in urban environments, resulting in higher temperatures in cities compared to their rural surroundings. The effect is more pronounced in highly built-up areas with a lack of green surfaces and trees. Exposure to extreme heat can have detrimental impacts on human health, especially amongst the elderly and the chronically ill. As our climate warms, these adverse health effects will be exacerbated.

We compiled satellite temperature data with information on social, environmental and economic factors that contribute to urban heat vulnerability, including population density, health, mobility and quality of housing. This allowed us to identify areas where the population is most at risk, and provide estimates of the resilience of ageing and elderly populations in each city at a high spatial resolution.

For London, the study found that the elderly in Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets are most at risk of heat-related illnesses during periods of hot weather, especially for those suffering from health and mobility issues, and / or living in poor quality housing.

We envisage the project outcomes will help architects, engineers, planners, urban designers, property developers, local authorities and policymakers to take into account the health, age and vulnerability of people, and aid the design, planning and management of climate-ready urban environments.

UCL IEDE was a leading academic partner in this 2-year collaborative research project. Led by Arup, the project involved academic and industry partners from UCL, King’s College London, Climate UK, HelpAge International and the Satellite Applications Catapult. UCL IEDE’s Dr Anna Mavrogianni and Prof Mike Davies’ contributions built on the outputs of the EPSRC-funded project LUCID, which studied London’s Urban Heat Island.

Our consultancy was commissioned to help them do this, and the Lessons learnt have just been published (pdf, 3.6 MB).

The report reveals just why the members of UKCIP’s ARCC coordination team have been so successful in helping network members to exchange knowledge. It’s because of the set of strategies and tactics that they have developed and deployed. These are described in detail in the report.

The coordinators exercise a specific set of soft, interpersonal skills when doing so. They observe network members closely, listen to them attentively, and try to empathise with them to understand what they need.

And they do need to pay close attention.

The network has 750 members – ranging from funders, policy makers and project managers, through early career researchers to professional institutions, trade associations, and design practitioners. Each of these has different wants and needs. But the coordination team only has a relatively small resource base from which to support them all.

So the team has learnt to be highly responsive.

The ARCC coordination team at UKCIP constantly have to maintain a careful balance between the various types of engagement they provide to allow network members to choose what to access and when – depending on their current level of interest and capacity to absorb what is on offer.

When it is done well, the crucial work of a coordination team is often invisible. But it requires an appropriate and continued investment if it is to provide strong and energised support to its members over time.

It isn’t often that research councils undertake detailed assessments of the programmes they fund. Our consultancy has been lucky to have been involved in two of these. The first was in 1997 for the Planning Directorate of what is now DCLG. They wanted to know what policy-relevant results the Sustainable Cities Programme had generated.

With hindsight, it is easy to see that this programme would have benefited from the expert co-ordination ARCC has delivered for the EPSRC-funded built environment and infrastructure research.

Research funding in specific areas with dedicated knowledge exchange coordination will create more significant impact – rather than just being left to be the sum of their parts.

And it is precisely these efforts to synthesize the impact of multiple funded projects has been such a key focus of ARCC throughout.

Translating the results from multiple research projects into digestible formats for non-academic audiences, the report reveals, is not a trivial task. It calls for a high level of expertise that, in turn, requires dedicated investment of time and resources.

As the report shows, members of the ARCC network clearly judge that this is money well spent.

And network members’ diverse needs also change and evolve during the life of network. In fact, you can help the network to succeed. You can enhance your involvement by being clear, not only about what you are looking for, but what you have to offer, what you see as being of value, and how you judge this.

Ideally, being a member of a research network is a two-way street with knowledge being exchanged not just across discipline boundaries but continuously back and forth between academics and practitioners too.

As someone who has been involved with research council funding and programme review for many years now, my own judgment is that the report also makes clear why such knowledge exchange mechanisms need to be a central and permanent feature of research council funding.