Successfully reported this slideshow.

“Irrational” Vs “Rational" Behavior: Using Evolutionary Theory & Comprehensive Evaluations to Ensure Building Performance Meets Design Intent

1

Share

Loading in …3
×
1 of 27
1 of 27

“Irrational” Vs “Rational" Behavior: Using Evolutionary Theory & Comprehensive Evaluations to Ensure Building Performance Meets Design Intent

1

Share

Download to read offline

Psychologist Kurt Lewin once described behavior as a function of the individual and the environment. Expanding on this, individual and collective behaviors can be seen as focused on meeting individual and group needs within a given social/cultural and physical environmental context, needs which are shaped by human physiological, psychological and social/cultural factors. And behaviors that are sometimes classified as “irrational” in the narrow economic sense of the word can be quite “rational” if examined using a different set of parameters. For example, an individual’s clothing choice may seem completely “irrational” if the clothing lacks sufficient insulation to keep the individual warm in an overcooled space, particularly if a space heater (and additional energy) is subsequently used to maintain thermal comfort. But this behavior may be completely rational when considering the use of clothing to signal group identity, status, sexuality or to conform to other norms of dress. An evolutionary multi-level selection (MLS) framework may be a more useful way to frame this. Whether or not the choice of clothing is “functional,” “non-functional,” or “neutral” depends on who the subject is (the individual or a larger group), and with respect to what (individual reproductive success, group unity and longevity, etc.). Clothing choice may be functional with respect to signaling individual status but the choice combined with space heater usage may be non-functional with respect to an organization’s efficiency/longevity (via productivity and utility costs) and societal efficiency/longevity (via greenhouse gas emissions). So if behavior is a function of the individual/group and the environment, the creation of truly sustainable, productive and healthy environments requires an understanding of how the relationships among individual/group behavior, their needs and the physical/social/cultural environment play out contextually on a project by project basis. Otherwise alignment won’t be achieved between the plethora of goals and needs of the various individuals and levels of groups involved, from occupants to O&M staff to building owner to the community at large. Without alignment, building performance and occupant productivity and health suffer and do not meet design intent. The only way to achieve alignment is to a) thoroughly engage the key stakeholders involved (including the occupant) from master planning through occupancy and b) comprehensively evaluate built environment experiments after occupancy to verify what’s working, what isn’t and why, so adjustments can be made to existing facilities and their operations and organizations, as well as apply the lessons learned to future projects. In this paper I will a) examine behaviors within the built environment from an MLS perspective and b) discuss methods for comprehensively evaluating building/occupant interrelationships, drawing from multiple master planning and post occ

Psychologist Kurt Lewin once described behavior as a function of the individual and the environment. Expanding on this, individual and collective behaviors can be seen as focused on meeting individual and group needs within a given social/cultural and physical environmental context, needs which are shaped by human physiological, psychological and social/cultural factors. And behaviors that are sometimes classified as “irrational” in the narrow economic sense of the word can be quite “rational” if examined using a different set of parameters. For example, an individual’s clothing choice may seem completely “irrational” if the clothing lacks sufficient insulation to keep the individual warm in an overcooled space, particularly if a space heater (and additional energy) is subsequently used to maintain thermal comfort. But this behavior may be completely rational when considering the use of clothing to signal group identity, status, sexuality or to conform to other norms of dress. An evolutionary multi-level selection (MLS) framework may be a more useful way to frame this. Whether or not the choice of clothing is “functional,” “non-functional,” or “neutral” depends on who the subject is (the individual or a larger group), and with respect to what (individual reproductive success, group unity and longevity, etc.). Clothing choice may be functional with respect to signaling individual status but the choice combined with space heater usage may be non-functional with respect to an organization’s efficiency/longevity (via productivity and utility costs) and societal efficiency/longevity (via greenhouse gas emissions). So if behavior is a function of the individual/group and the environment, the creation of truly sustainable, productive and healthy environments requires an understanding of how the relationships among individual/group behavior, their needs and the physical/social/cultural environment play out contextually on a project by project basis. Otherwise alignment won’t be achieved between the plethora of goals and needs of the various individuals and levels of groups involved, from occupants to O&M staff to building owner to the community at large. Without alignment, building performance and occupant productivity and health suffer and do not meet design intent. The only way to achieve alignment is to a) thoroughly engage the key stakeholders involved (including the occupant) from master planning through occupancy and b) comprehensively evaluate built environment experiments after occupancy to verify what’s working, what isn’t and why, so adjustments can be made to existing facilities and their operations and organizations, as well as apply the lessons learned to future projects. In this paper I will a) examine behaviors within the built environment from an MLS perspective and b) discuss methods for comprehensively evaluating building/occupant interrelationships, drawing from multiple master planning and post occ

More Related Content

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

“Irrational” Vs “Rational" Behavior: Using Evolutionary Theory & Comprehensive Evaluations to Ensure Building Performance Meets Design Intent

  1. 1. “Irrational” Vs “Rational” Behavior: Using Evolutionary Photo Rights: robertoerosalesblog.com Irrational Vs. Rational Behavior: Using Evolutionary Theory & Comprehensive Evaluations to Ensure Building Performance Meets Design Intent 2014 BECC Conference Washington DC2014 BECC Conference, Washington DC, MARCEL HARMON, PHD, PE, LEED-AP O+M December 9, 2014
  2. 2. SLOW FLOW OF PROGRESS IN AEC INDUSTRY 62%62%+ The 2012 global average share of non‐The 2012 global average share of non‐ green building activity. Source:  McGraw Hill Construction. 2013. World Green Building Trends: Business  Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities in Over 60Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities in Over 60  Countries. A SmartMarket Report.
  3. 3. SLOW FLOW OF PROGRESS IN AEC INDUSTRY Life Cycle Costs of a Facility 92% 6%2% Salaries of Occupants Costs of O&M Original Design & Construction Sources:  Cotts, D.G., The Facility Management Handbook, Second Edition, 1999 Sapp, D. Facilities Operations & Maintenance. Updated by the Facilities O&M  Committee. Last updated: 11‐09‐2011. http://www.wbdg.org/om/om.php. 
  4. 4. SLOW FLOW OF PROGRESS IN AEC INDUSTRY 50% ‐ 80%50% ‐ 80% The percentage of high performance  buildings with actual energy consumption  found to exceed predicted consumption. Sources:  Burman, E., D. Mumovic, and J. Kimpian. 2014. Towards measurement and verification of  f d th f k f th E di ti fenergy performance under the framework of the European directive for energy  performance of buildings. Energy: 77(1):153–163. Carbon Trust. Closing the Gap – Lessons Learned on Realising the Potential of Low Carbon  Building Design. Carbon Trust, London.  P A C M K l k t i 2007 P t O P f f Fi L E S h l iPegg, A. C., M. Kolokotroni. 2007. Post‐Occupancy Performance of Five Low‐Energy Schools in  the UK . ASHRAE Transactions, 113 (Part 2). Turner, C. and M. Frankel. 2008. Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction  Buildings. Report Prepared by New Buildings Institute for the U.S. Green Building Council.
  5. 5. LACK OF PERSONAL CONTROL, FRUSTRATION & IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE& IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE Leaving lights on as a sign of protest & statement of New Mexico Elementary School personal control
  6. 6. LINK BETWEEN ENERGY & OCC. EXPERIENCE Comparison of EUI  Ratios to Temperature  ResponsesResponses
  7. 7. KEY TAKEAWAYS • Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS are a• Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS are a  matter of perspective • Improve ALIGNMENT• Improve ALIGNMENT • Account for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCE and HEALTH impactsand HEALTH impacts • Increase number of DECISION MAKERS and  GROUP UNITY
  8. 8. BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS Individual Behavior  (Including  Needs Environment ( g Decision  Making) Needs Based on research spanning from:Based on research  spanning from: Kurt Lewin, 1936 Principles of Topological Psychology  to  Elliott Sober & David Sloan Wilson, 1999 Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior
  9. 9. BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS Clothing Variability, Thermal Comfort & Energy Consumption Space Heater
  10. 10. BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS Physiological Psychological Individual Behavior  (Including Highly  Large Group Needs Environment ( g Decision  Making) Interactive Small Group Needs Individual Social/  Cultural Individual  Needs Based on research spanning from: Physical Based on research  spanning from: Kurt Lewin, 1936 Principles of Topological Psychology  to  Elliott Sober & David Sloan Wilson, 1999 Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior© Copyright 2014 M.E. GROUP, Inc.
  11. 11. IMPROVE ALIGNMENT EAM PROCESS: For Building & Occupant Alignment Evaluate Background Data Align Physical Monitor Metricsac g ou d ata (HR & Building) Engage Bldg Population (Interview, Observe, & Survey)  ili l i ys ca (Facility, O&M Modifications) Social (Behavior, Organization Policy  Modifications) et cs (Energy and Water; Survey  Results; Productivity and  Health) Evaluation Plan Facility Evaluation (Space Measurements & FPTs;  O&M Engagement) Modifications) Evaluation Plan (Frequency; Records and  Engagement) Address Issues © Copyright 2011 M.E. GROUP, Inc.
  12. 12. IMPROVE ALIGNMENT Deep key stakeholder engagement needed to assess varying wants/ Audibility & Noise IssuesLike Small School/ Community Feel Like Small School/ Community Feel Deep key stakeholder engagement needed to assess varying wants/ needs/values 21st Century EducationTechnology Infrastructure Inadequacy Thermal DiscomfortThermal Discomfort Glare or Brightness Problems Other Lighting Control Issues More Communication Amongst Stakeholders More Communication Amongst Stakeholders Concern W/ Direction Being TakenConcern W/ Direction Being Taken Community FeelCommunity Feel Student Centered Maintenance, IT & Custodial IssuesMaintenance, IT & Custodial IssuesTechnology Collaboration & Small GroupCollaboration & Small Group Poor Indoor Air QualityPoor Indoor Air Quality Lack of Temp ControlLack of Temp Control Desire/ Appreciation for Operable Windows Issues Cafeteria/ Lunch/ Nutrition Problems Health ConcernsHealth Concerns Desire for Multi- Levels of Lighting Approval of Direction Being TakenApproval of Direction Being Taken Technology Not Only Answer Improve/Maintain AestheticsImprove/Maintain Aesthetics Improve PlaygroundImprove Playground gy Desire/Appreciation f D li hti Additional Training Needed Safety & Security C Space Size, Configuration & Flexibility for Daylighting Dislike Fluorescent Lighting Improving Athletic Fields/FacilitiesImproving Athletic Fields/Facilities Class Size (# of Students)Class Size (# of Students) Missouri School District Concerns & Desired Changes Plumbing Issues & Desired Changes Need Additional Restrooms Improving Traffic Flow & Parking Improving Traffic Flow & Parking Lack of StorageLack of Storage Wayfinding Problems
  13. 13. IMPROVE ALIGNMENT Personal Control, Occupant Inertia & Ease of Blind Control Access New Mexico Elementary School
  14. 14. IMPROVE ALIGNMENT Technology’s perspective from a child New Mexico Elementary School
  15. 15. QUANTIFY PRODUCTIVITY/HEALTH IMPACTS Direct Estimate • Multivariate Regression  Analysis Direct Measure • Field Setting Analysis • Looking for Correlations • Looking for Average  Impacts • Lab Setting Quantified Productivity/ Performance & Health ImpactsQuantified Productivity/ Performance & Health Impacts  Indirect Estimate • Using previous research  informed by ethnography W t d Ti• Wasted Time • IEQ Impacts
  16. 16. QUANTIFY PRODUCTIVITY/HEALTH IMPACTS ECM Estimated  Total  Implementation  Costs $9 167 000$9,167,000 dECM Estimated  Annual Energy  Savings $872,000 Conrad Duberstein U S Simple Payback Conrad Duberstein U.S.  Courthouse and Post Office’s  Energy Conservation  Measure (ECM) Total Cost  ECM Estimated  Annual  Productivity  Simple Payback  (Energy Only) 10.5 yrs Simple Payback  (Energy + and Estimated Payback Photo Rights: Cervin Robinson, Richard McElhiney Architects LLC Savings $3,570,000 (Energy +  Productivity) 2.1 yrs
  17. 17. QUANTIFY PRODUCTIVITY/HEALTH IMPACTS Evaluation of Design Daylighting Options Using Productivity Impacts 3  ‘ 8  ‘ 11  ‘ 0  ‘ Option 1: Frit Glazing Option 2 3% ‐6% increase  in performance  ( th & di University of Missouri, Kansas City Option 2: LightLouver + Blinds/Shades (math & reading  tasks) over Option 1 Photo Rights: BNIM Architects
  18. 18. INCREASE NUMBER OF DECISION MAKERS As well as GROUP UNITY $2,000,000 Utility & Productivity Impacts As well as GROUP UNITY $1,682,706 $500 000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $283,537 ‐$500,000 $0 $500,000 ‐$1,603,252 ‐$1,500,000 ‐$1,000,000 ‐$2,000,000 2011‐2012 Utility Costs Estimated Annual Utility Savings Estimated Annual Productivity Improvement (Dollar Equivalent) Kansas School District
  19. 19. INCREASE NUMBER OF DECISION MAKERS Kansas School District: addressing elementary As well as GROUP UNITY Kansas School District: addressing elementary  school space restrictions/lack of flexibility issues  were estimated to: Eli i 18 400 22 400 h• Eliminate 18,400 – 22,400 person‐hours per  school‐year of wasted teacher/staff time spent  scheduling and coordinating use of space.  • Equates to approximately 2.16% ‐ 2.63% of the  total labor hours annually “spent” by the  elementary school teachers/staff.  • Translates to approximately $722,970 – $883,630 worth of teacher/staff time.
  20. 20. INCREASE NUMBER OF DECISION MAKERS As well as GROUP UNITYAs well as GROUP UNITY
  21. 21. • Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS  tt f tiare a matter of perspective • Improve ALIGNMENT • Account for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCEAccount for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCE and HEALTH impacts • Increase number of DECISION MAKERS and  GROUP UNITY Image Source: http://surveyingproperty.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate- change-and-built-environment_11.html
  22. 22. Marcel Harmon: marcel.harmon@megroup.com

×