Editorial

Citation

Proverbs, D.G. and Shelbourn, M. (2015), "Editorial", Structural Survey, Vol. 33 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-03-2015-0019

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Structural Survey, Volume 33, Issue 2

Welcome to the second issue of the current volume. This provides an opportunity to reflect on the outcomes of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) published in December. I attended a REF event organised by the Council of Heads of the Built Environment (CHOBE) in March where five of the Unit of Assessment’s (UoA’s) 16 panel members including the Chair of the panel, Professor Alan Penn, were able to share their experiences. UoA 16 (architecture, built environment and planning) brought together the fields covered by sub-panels H30 and H31 in RAE2008. REF2014 received 45 submissions for the UoA, including a headcount of 1,113. This is 43 staff fewer than were submitted to H30 and H31 in 2008. HESA data, however, suggest growth in numbers of those working in the field overall, while it is clear that some units have grown more than might be explained by the merger of the two RAE sub-panels. Thus there also appears to have been increased selectivity of staff submitted to the exercise, and this has resulted in a reduction in volume of staff submitted to the UoA in relation to the overall sector population. The UoA continues to renew itself with 18.9 per cent of staff submitted (210) classified as early career researchers, and 1,410 doctoral degrees awarded during the period.

The biggest change to REF2014 has been the introduction of impact case studies with 146 included in the UoA 16 submissions. The average overall quality profile for the UoA included 69 per cent rated at three stars and four stars. Another striking characteristic of the UoA is the diverse range of outputs submitted including designs, digital or visual media and web sites. University’s seem to be able to find something positive to take out of the outcomes and are promoting this on their web sites. The key now will be towards planning for REF2020 and to learn from the experience of evidencing impact and investing in ways to support this a little more strategically than has been the case for REF2014.

This issue of the journal includes five fascinating papers covering a range of topical issues associated with sustaining the built environment. Wilkinson provides a novel means of quantifying the uptake of sustainability across all stock over time using existing policy frameworks. Adopting a qualitative approach involving focus groups in Australia and the UK, the author reports that it is technically feasible to collect data on sustainability measures within the building approvals systems and proposes a conceptual approach to do this. Wilkinson seems sceptical of the likely take up of the system, which is disappointing given the potential impact of the approach in measuring progress towards improving the sustainability of new buildings.

A team of researchers from the Dublin Institute of Technology provide an account of the evolution of the construction of Dublin City Council’s housing, with emphasis on wall technology. Using available literature and available archives the team report the technological developments and observe some poor practice in the types of technology adopted. They also report problems encountered in carrying out the study caused by the paucity of the documentation and recording of this information.

Gohardani et al. report on a study which aims to promote energy saving measures concurrent with major planned renovation/refurbishment in residential buildings. The research scope is confined to residential buildings in Sweden and with tenants as the owners and governors. The article presents a novel approach for building owners to renovate a building in terms of improved performance, energy efficiency and indoor comfort in combination with planned renovations/refurbishment. The researchers conclude that it is important such energy saving considerations are made at an early stage of the decision-making process due to the snowball effect which entails.

Bruce et al. describe the factors influencing the retrofitting of existing office buildings based on a case study in Adelaide, South Australia. The research explores the barriers preventing investment in the re-use of low-grade multi-storey building stock in order to identify attributes that determine whether an existing building is suitable for retrofitting. The research adopts semi-structured interviews with key industry practitioners to investigate existing practices and barriers facing low-grade building retrofits and what “ideal” multi-storey building features represent a successful investment opportunity. They report that tenant commitment is necessary before any project goes ahead and that there exist many barriers influencing the investment decision.

Arayici and Read present a study of whether soap can be used as a sustainable alternative to petroleum-based thermal insulation. The paper proposes the use of soap based insulation made from recycled materials as a sustainable alternative to petroleum counterparts. The team use a laboratory-based series of experiments and iterative tests to investigate the characteristics of soap-based insulation. They conclude that soap-based insulation is better performing than the petroleum counterparts in terms of financial and environmental costs and end of life disposals, but performs relatively poorer in weight, thermal resistance and working performance. It is hoped the team will continue to progress this important research and seek to address these weaknesses.

All five papers included in the issue represent interesting perspectives associated with sustainability and demonstrate the diversity in methodological approaches that may be used.

David G. Proverbs and Mark Shelbourn