International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and ConstructionVol 5, No 3, September 2016, 148-160

A Conceptual Framework for Sustainability Indicators in

Retrofitting Existing Housing

Neeti Garg∗, Ashwani Kumar and Satish Pipralia

Department of Architecture, Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India

Abstract: There is an urgent necessity for retrofitting existing housing stock for minimizing their impact on theenvironment, improving social and economic well-being of occupants in line with the triple bottom line approach ofsustainability goals. The current research aims to establish a methodological framework for developing sustainabilityindicators for retrofitting housing complexes as no universal indicators are applicable to existing mid-rise multistoriedhousing stock in the National Capital Region of Delhi. The study proposes post occupancy evaluation surveys andbuilding performance simulation modeling to develop existing residential baseline data, and benchmarks sustainabilityindices of the study area. As such, the main focus is played on strengthening the case for performance gap modelingby exploring the distance between their actual performance and desired levels of target benchmarks. The findingsof the research will be significant to identify critical areas needing more attention and scale up design strategies forretrofitting in a systematic manner to bridge the gaps.

Keywords: Retrofitting, sustainability indicators, occupant surveys, benchmarking, performance modeling

DOI: 10.7492/IJAEC.2016.015

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Urbanization and Sustainability

Most developing countries have witnessed major changesin urban landscapes in the last 20 years at a highexpansion rate primarily due to demographic growthand a high rate of urbanization, thereby leading toirreversible dynamic change in urban structure at a rapidpace (Balachandra and Sudhakara Reddy 2013). Asper report on Indian urban infrastructure and servicesby Ahluwalia et al. (2011), urban population in Indiais projected to be 600 million by 2031, (more thandouble compared to 2001), clearly shifting orbit ofthe focus of economic development onto towns andcities. The economic growth momentum can be sustainedthrough the active role of urbanization in the structuraltransformation of existing economy. Cities and townsof India are visibly deficient in the quality of servicesprovided, even to the existing population (Ahluwaliaet al. 2011). The city infrastructure in terms of roadnetworks, water supply, sanitation as well as housingsupply has not kept up with the growth of urbanizationand population flux, thus this has imposed an extraburden on existing infrastructure and causing seriousenvironmental damages. There is an increased share ofenergy consumption per capita due to a better lifestyle,

higher thermal comfort levels and more indoor living aswell as higher affordability (Paula 2014). Additionally,in the absence of energy supply from the grid, use ofdiesel generator sets as an alternative means of powergeneration is causing serious environmental pollution.The ever deteriorating environmental conditions of citieshave still not triggered the issue of sustainability ascore of city development plans in the public realm inurban planning approach. The concept of sustainabledevelopment can play a central role in urban planningfor balanced growth and for minimizing environmentalimpact. Sustainable development can be referredas the most widely accepted framework models forbalanced development to sustain the city, using resourcesjudiciously, without compromising future needs of society(World Commission on Environment and Development1987). Sustainability implies “ability to be sustained”and refers to a process of using resources judiciously ina manner that the resource is not depleted terminallyand at the same time, we are able to replenish resourcesat a rate faster than consumption as well as byreducing blatant consumption without exhausting naturalresources or causing ecological damage (Burnett 2007;Hammer et al. 2011).

Sustainable development encompasses all three aspects,i.e, environmental in terms of minimizing the impact on

*Corresponding author. Email: 2015rar9038@mnit.ac.in

148

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

the natural environment and choice of use of resources,social in terms of adding quality of life for people aswell as economic in terms of enhancing the financial well-being, and recently it has included people or communitiesas a fourth dimension (Grierson and Moultrie 2011).Pearce (2006) has emphasized sustainable developmentas a process of ensuring increased quality per capitaover time by building four types of capitals: man-made capital by buildings and roads, human resource byknowledge, natural capital by enriched environment andsocial capital (equity and cultural factors). The conceptof sustainable development entails an integration ofprocess for providing a healthy environment, sustainableeconomies and social welfare through concerted effortsmade by active community. In view of major urbanrenewal initiatives undertaken by the Govt. of Indiasuch as developing 100 smart cities across the nationand Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission(JNNURM), there is a shift onto inclusive and sustainableplanning with major reforms in governance and citizenparticipation.

1.2 Sustainability and Built Environment

The availability of resources, their utilization and theirimpact on the economy, the environment and society areimportant considerations for any urban region. UnitedNations Environment Programme (2003) has observedin OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment) countries that 25 - 50% of total energyused is in the construction sector of buildings and aboutone-third of the end-use energy is consumed in HVAC,lighting, equipment and appliances. The common issuesrelating to urban energy use include transportation,building and housing, public health and safety, andan increase in the standard of living (Phdungsilp2005). Rather, energy use per capita has been seen asdevelopment index. Increased energy use in the existingstock of buildings is a serious environmental concernaround the world (Pearce 2006). Incorporating energyefficiency as a prime consideration in the developmentof existing stock can make a big difference to reduce thetotal use of energy and carbon emissions (Ahluwalia et al.2011). Among the different sectors, where energy savingscan be realized, the European action plan for energyefficiency of the European commission has identified thebuilding sector as a top priority (Xavier et al. 2007).Increased energy consumption in the construction of

building and operating energy-used in air conditioning forthermal comfort has also led to an increase in the amountof emission of greenhouse gases, and caused seriousdamages to planet earth emanating from global warming,ozone depletion, acid rain, threats of biodiversity, soilerosion, and depletion of natural resources. Various stepshave been taken at the global level since the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED), which is also known as the Earth Summit inRio de Janeiro in 1992 summit till date. India has alsocommitted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30% ofits present use in the world summit in Paris.

Cities may not be just the aggregation of buildingsand infrastructure or services, but they havemultidimensional attributes in an ecosystem of ecological,cultural, technological, and spiritual and socioeconomicdimensions (Eames et al. 2013). Various attemptshave been made in several countries to decodesustainable development paradigms, taking into accountprimarily environmental concerns; health and safetyand transportation etc. Various terms like Sustainableurbanism, Eco-cities, Green Cities, Sustainable citiesand Smart cities have been coined by several planners.Girardet (2008) in “Cities, People, Planet”, defines a“sustainable city” as one which enables all its citizensto meet their own needs and enhances their well-beingwithout degrading the natural world or the lives ofother people, now or in the future. India under theprogram on National Climate Change Action Plan hasoutlined eight National Missions out of which Ministryof Urban Development (2010) emphasizes sustainabilityby bringing codes for energy efficiency of buildings andintegration of renewable energy (Ahluwalia et al. 2011).There have been a number of models and rating systems

adopted by various countries to address sustainabilityissues. However, the principles and models suitable fordeveloped countries cannot be applied to Indian contextdue to different socio cultural patterns, technological andeconomic constraints, affordability of people, quantum ofthe cities and scale of urbanization. There are alreadyimportant tools for evaluation of the sustainability ofthe built environment in developed countries, but thereis a need for developing a framework for assessingsustainability in developing countries in a realisticmanner, which is having a different local social andeconomic context (De Azevedo et al. 2010). Thus,there is a need to develop a different set of sustainablemodel frameworks by developing a set of indicators andbenchmarks relevant to different regions, taking intoaccount local context, climatic and socio cultural aspectsof the region.

1.3 Sustainability and Residential Land Use

Built environment in cities including buildings andtransportation contributes to 67% of total energy use(Pérez Lombard et al. 2008). Buildings alone play asignificant role in consuming energy to the tune of 35% ofthe energy use (ECBC 2009). The major land use in anycity comprises of residential land use as much as 35-40%of the total amount in large cities and metropolitan cities.80% of the existing housing stocks in India is designed andconstructed before 2001, when there was no code availableand awareness to design buildings from sustainableplanning principles (Jones Lang LaSalle 2014). Nationalbuilding codes in India has been revised recently toinclude sustainability as Part 11 addendum (Bureauof Indian Standards 2012). The focus of the Energyconservation building code ECBC, 2007 is on conditionedcommercial buildings, which is also not mandatory inmany states (ECBC 2009). Thus, there are no guidelinesor codes for designing residential buildings specifically

149

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

from a sustainability point of view. There have been verylimited studies on understanding built fabric in residentialland use. Recently, guidelines for the design of newresidential buildings for energy efficiency only have beenlaunched (Global Building Performance Network 2014;Bureau of Energy Efficiency 2014). Therefore, keepingin mind huge stock of existing residential buildings withtheir large footprint and continuous consumption ofresources incessantly, it is important to understand issuesconcerning environmental and social impacts from thehousing and take corrective actions by retrofitting themto resource consumption and enhance quality of life.

1.4 Retrofitting Existing Buildings

Based on a report on “Mitigation of Climate Change”published by United Nations’ Inter governmental Panelon Climate Change, it was expected that the largestenergy and carbon savings potential in 2030 will beachieved by retrofitting and renovation of existingbuildings (International Panel on Climate Chane 2013).Given there is an already growing concern about qualityand quantity of energy available in cities, the thrustis to reduce energy consumption by managing thedemand side in existing buildings and also provideunprecedented opportunity to reduce CO2 emission by2050 (Architecture 2030 2014). Owing to the fact thatby 2050, 70% of world’s population will have lived incities, there is a dire need to reengineer systematicallyexisting built environment on various scales (building,neighborhood, city-region) and domains (energy, water,use of resources) with regard to the climate changeand resource constraints (Eames et al. 2013). Eameset al. (2013) have further envisaged “Retrofit 2050Vision” for three different kinds of cities i.e. smart-networked city, the compact city and the self-reliantgreen city; each one is having variations in terms ofindicators for energy, water, waste and resource use,land use, social values, economic growth and urbandensity. Seven European countries collaborated in theproject such as the ENPER-EXIST that was for energyperformance standardization and regulation (Xavier et al.2007). Keeping in mind the largest footprint of residentialbuildings coupled with their highest share in energyconsumption, this paper focuses on the retrofittingexisting residential buildings from sustainability pointof view. Most of the existing residential buildingsstocks are characterized by low thermal comfort, poorindoor air quality, poor lighting conditions, acousticalproblems etc (Indian Society of Heating, Refrigeratingand Air Conditioning Engineers 2015). The retrofittingof existing buildings can lead to significant improvementof the indoor environmental conditions as well as increasein productivity and larger economic saving due toenhanced productivity (Xavier et al. 2007). Retrofitingresidential buildings usually involves multiple benefitssuch as a significant reduction in energy consumption, andhence, cutting energy and maintenance bills, improvingsafety, quality, indoor comfort and aesthetic properties,extending life span of buildings, as well as boosting

market value (Martinaitis et al. 2007; Užšilaityte andMartinaitis 2010). Therefore, retrofitting of residentialblocks/clusters may not be just seen as technological issueof energy or water efficiency, but may be appreciated as anopportunity in a larger framework of integrated approachto improve neighborhood, considering urban aesthetics,safety, parking and landscaping issues, selection ofmaterials from maintenance view point and as well associal and economic structure (Raslanas et al. 2011).Residential buildings have significantly higher potential

to harness passive low energy techniques to saveenergy, and as such the current building industry isadvancing towards net zero carbon buildings or plusenergy buildings with the aim of generating moreenergy than the buildings’ needs (Erhorn-Kluttig et al.2015). The present study aims to develop residentialbaseline data for the segmentation of existing housingwhich uses higher energy and water, understandingtheir characteristics within socio cultural and economiccontext as well as people’s aspirations, assessingtheir performance through a set of sustainability keyperformance indicators, benchmarking their performanceagainst national standards or rating systems, and findingout how much gaps are extant between their performanceand desired levels. Thus, it involves two stage processesnamely casting and scenario building (Eames et al. 2013).The “back casting” involves setting a future goal and thenlooking backwards from that future to the present in orderto strategize and to plan how it could be achieved (Quistand Vergragt 2006). This study would help in analyzingbased on the indicators whose areas are needed to befocused more, and determining what strategies and toolsare needed to bridge the gaps for preparing sustainabledevelopment framework in order to retrofit the existingresidential buildings.

1.5 Existing Residential Buildings Scenario

Many countries have already plans for retrofitting theirexisting residential buildings as their residential buildingaccount for one fourth of carbon emissions. Energyconsumption pattern has the most tangible and directimpact on cutting greenhouse gases (Sustainable EnergyAuthority of Ireland 2014). In Ireland, roadmap has beenworked out to set different trajectories to build fivedifferent levels or scenarios or phases of retrofittingexisting stock and future housing stock. The baselinemeasures include phasing out inefficient lighting andsetting minimum standards for boilers, the otherscenarios like the “Low scenario aim” emphasizes onimproving roof and cavity wall insulation, basic airsealing and heating system controls by 2020, and highenergy scenario aims at integrating renewable energysupply by 2050 by building net positive houses. TheEnergy Performance of Buildings Directive sets a series ofrequirements specifically dedicated to existing buildingsby ENPER-EXIST project on the basis of an applicationof minimum standards, providing general frameworkfor calculating energy use intensity (EUI), and settingtargets of EUI, and finally energy certification of existing

150

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

buildings as well as operation and maintenance of HVAC.As per report of the Central Electricity Authority

(2013), energy use in residential buildings in India hasincreased from 80 Twh in 2000 to 186 Twh in 2012.Global Building Performance Network (2014) in a studyreport titled “Residential Buildings in India: EnergyUse Projections and Savings Potentials”, has projectedscenarios indicating that electricity consumption ispredicted to rise by more than eight times by 2050 underthe business-as usual scenario in 2014. There is a widegap between high demand and limited supply of energy,leading to spiraling prices of energy and water - two majorlimited resources.

2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ANDMETHODOLOGY

The present paper seeks answer to define how aconceptual framework needs to be constructed so asto develop benchmarks and indicators for retrofittingexisting housing stock. At the same time, how thisframework can lead to enhanced understanding oranalysis of gaps in current situation and targets to beachieved so as to develop design programs or strategyfor combating barriers in the process? The goal of thisresearch is to synthesize key benchmarks into indices ofenvironmental, economic, and community sustainability,so that the progress towards the goal of sustainability canbe measured holistically over a timeframe.Thus, this paper aims at analyzing existing

sustainability indices for retrofitting residential builtstocks in National Capital Region of Delhi, India bytaking stock of existing situation through studying theircharacteristics and benchmarking their performance toscale up design strategies in a systematic manner atdifferent levels to bridge the gaps. The study hasbeen conducted particularly in context of mid-riseapartments using mixed mode ventilation for thermalcomfort as this segment is having the largest sharein housing typology and contributing most to theenergy consumption (Cushman & Wakefield 2015; GlobalBuilding Performance Network 2014). For meetingresearch objectives, this study endeavors to look forsustainable indicators applicable to existing buildingsand housing schemes available in current green buildingrating systems in India. The study proposes qualitativeand quantitative surveys by conducting post occupancyevaluation (POE) surveys and modeling the sustainabilityindex of existing stock’s performance. A pilot survey ofhouseholds have been conducted to construct and testhypothesis for detailed research required for identifyingsustainability indicators and benchmarking standardsand finally results can be used in building performancesimulation software to identify retrofitting strategies.

3 SUSTAINABILITY BENCHMARKING

In wake of fast depleting limited resources and consequenteffects of global warming, there is no other alternativeexcept to turn to sustainable practices for future survival.

For achieving sustainability goals, benchmarking is usedas a tool in many sectors such as transportation,industrial and education etc. as well as buildings, as atool to measure sustainability (Bantanur et al. 2012).Sustainability benchmarking is a most commonly usedtool across the world to assess performance of a particularbuilt fabric from sustainability parameters and improviseprojects to meet continually rising higher thresholds ofsustainability (Sharma 2010). Benchmarking facilitatesthe identification of the gaps existed in the performanceof the buildings, and retrofitting them to achievesustainability goals by optimizing their functions in linewith desired targets and thresholds (Grayson 2010). Notwo places which are in different climatic zones andcultural context within country or different countriesare identical and need to be analyzed from differentsustainability parameters (Reed et al. 2009). There isno room for universal indicators and indices in view ofvarying standards of adaptive thermal comfort, lightingand indoor air quality for different building typologiesand for different climatic zones as well as socio culturalfactors. Various sustainability indicators applicable toexisting buildings have been analyzed in section 3.4, butthere is a need to develop key performance indicators forbenchmarking sustainability and enhancing performancefor retrofitting existing housing stock consuming higherresources.

3.1 Role of Urban Sustainability Indicators

For sustainable development and sustainable urbanizati-on, sustainability indicators play major role in measuringor benchmarking performance of a project at city level,neighbourhood level or building level (Soares and Ribeiro2011). It is well said that what cannot be measured,cannot be managed (Hart 2014). Indicators are definedas a specific, observable and measurable characteristicto reflect the progress of process or impact of anaction for achieving a specific outcome (Shen et al.2011). Characteristics of good indicators include validity,reliability, precision and measurable (Heink and Kowarik2010). Indicators along with their metrics can help todefine various parameters of sustainability such as social,economic, environmental and governance, and they helpyou in understanding where you are, which way you aregoing to and how far you are from the target (Shen et al.2011). Sustainability indicators must take into accountcarrying capacity of natural resources both renewableand non-renewable, ecosystems, diversity, communityengagement, urban aesthetics in tune with nature, socialcapital and human capital (skill, health and education).Various researchers and international agencies haveattempted to create inventory of indicators showing widerange of key performance indicators for benchmarking theprojects or rating systems for projects ranging in scalefrom neighbourhoods to cities and metropolitan regions.Shen et al. (2011) have compared nine sustainabilitypractices from developed and developing countriesincluding India, and suggested a list of indicators calledIUSIL - International Urban Sustainability Indicators

151

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

List, listing 115 indicators in 37 categories. In developingcountries particularly, sustainability indicators musttake local context into account, and prioritize localneeds, and foremost, they should lead to programsand policies in order to deliver at various levelsby developing mechanisms and potential technologicalsolutions (Chaudhary et al. 2012). Different frameworksor methods have been developed to organise a setof indicators for a sustainable community, combiningmultiple indicator variables in a single indicator variablecalled “Index” for reducing complexity of data analysisand presentation (Zimmerman 2002).Different frameworks have been designed for different

sustainability indicators with different intended purposes.They range from simple frameworks like “Category orList” for including checklist for easy understanding andidentifying the problem areas; “Goal Indicator Matrix”measuring the goals of a community or deciding boundaryconditions, targets and scoping; “The Driving Force StateResponse” framework showing measures of causes ordriving forces for improving conditions and working outstrategies for working out effective action plan to “TheEndowments Framework Balance” among measures ofauditing future reserves and taking stock or assessmentof existing situation or baseline conditions (Hart 2014).Energy efficiency is recognised to play pivotal role inachieving sustainability goals by taking into account theresources limitations. Retrofitting existing stock from theview point of energy efficiency can be a significant step.

3.1.1 Environmental Dimensions of SustainabilityIndicators for Housing

Meadows et al. (2004) have cited an environmentaleconomist Herman Daly by suggesting three importantprinciples of sustainability to be embedded in arelationship of housing to natural systems. These includeequilibrium between the rate of use of renewable resourcesand their rate of regeneration; the rate of use of non-renewable resources needs to be less than or equal tothe rate at which they can be replaced by sustainablerenewable resources, and finally the rate of pollutionemissions must be less than or equal to the rate at whichthey can be absorbed and processed by the environment.Based on the above definition, Sustainability Institute(2009) suggested indicators to be based on source andmanagement of supply and demand of energy and waterin households, building materials used in settlements anddisposal and recycling of waste generated by households.Thus, the focus is on enhancing building performancein eco-efficient manner by taking the advantage ofpassive solar techniques, harnessing passive means suchas wind towers, double skin facades and integration withrenewable energy systems so as to minimize their impacton environment and yet at the same time promotingcomfort and healthy living. There has been a greaterthrust on environmental sustainability as sustainabilityissues have been driven by environmental concerns.However, in order to accomplish the sustainability goal,“triple bottom line” approach which consists of socialequity, economic prosperity and environmental quality

should be taken into consideration (Elkington 1997).

3.1.2 Social Dimensions

Social dimensions assume more significant role in thecontext of residential fabric. The concepts of physicalas well as psychological security and social interaction orcommunication are inherently embedded in the ecosystemof housing (Hendler and Smeddle 2009). The featuresof social sustainability ascribed to good residential areainclude active community engagements, high degree ofsocial interaction, equity with inclusive planning (mixeduse neighbourhoods, mixing of different income groups,barrier free access to all areas, informal sector, safety andsecurity, walk ability with good pedestrian spaces), goodurban aesthetics, use of parks or green spaces, accessto basic services and public transportation systems,social infrastructure such as schools, banking, retail,community halls, clubs etc. (Hartkopf and Loftness1999; General Services Administration 2014). Thus socialindicators such as equity, social interaction and presenceof social infrastructure can be taken as constructs ofbenchmarking of neighbourhood design and can behelpful in enhancing quality of life in neighbourhoods.Additionally, inclusive city planning by creating universalspaces for physically disabled and mixed land use andcrime free spaces by extending visibility, street lighting,surveillance, open parks and landscaping etc. serve asconfidence building measures, and augments social capitalof a place (National Crime Prevention Council 2003).

3.1.3 Economic Dimensions

Economic indicators in a housing estate are reflectiveindex of how well the neighbourhood is performing interms of social parameters and affordable for residentsof the area. Thus, economic and social parameters areintertwined with one another in providing an affordablesustainable housing in which its denizens are enjoyingquality of life. Hendler and Smeddle (2009) haveunderscored housing as an asset that is dependent onlocation, design and social security reflected by its marketvalue, affordability of physically maintaining the assetsby its denizens, and finally life cycle cost of the long-term economic value of the asset over the total financial,environmental and social liabilities.Other economic indicators include housing shortage,

equity of land, affordability of housing (income to priceratio) by different income groups, housing supply rate,housing stock being added every year, housing typologies,floor area per person in housing, lack of slums, housing-required major repairs, overcrowding in housing etc (Hart2014). Various schemes have been launched by public andprivate agencies in partnership in India in the last 20 yearsto address housing shortage. A large stock of the housingneeds repair due to poor operation and maintenance,affecting health and productivity of the occupants andenergy consumption in buildings, thereby impactingnational economy indirectly. Thus, total value of builtenvironment may be seen in a perspective of nationalproductivity, quality of life and energy consumption

152

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

(Pearce 2003). Proliferation of poor or deteriorating builtenvironment is already costing national economy, societyas well as serious damages to the environment. Benefitsof retrofitting existing housing stock can be ascertaineddirectly by lifecycle-cost analysis of retrofitting measuresand their payback period, but its role in improving healthconditions of the occupants are not lessen. This willlead to better economic conditions of people and help inminimising the impact on the environment.

3.2 Role of Occupant Surveys

In order to understand characteristics of existingresidential buildings within domains of sustainabilityframework i.e. environmental, socio-cultural andeconomic dimensions, findings on occupant surveys canact as the linchpin of the development of sustainabilitykey performance indicators for a particular contextconsidering the people’s aspirations and local specificcontext of study area. Post occupancy evaluation studiescarried out under normal daily life routine of subjects,with their entire psycho-behavioural, environmentaland social context, can serve as feedback and feedforward loop to continually evaluate and evolve relevantsustainability indicators (Kumar 2014b). Dahlanet al. (2008) suggested that subjective evaluationusing occupant surveys is found to be more reliablein assessing sustainability. Post occupancy evaluationsurveys are more helpful in addressing sustainabilityissues as they can best provide candid account ofwider variations/diversity found in case of residentialbuildings in terms of occupant use, occupant age, builtenvironment, psychological comfort and satisfaction aswell as wide variations in energy use, even withinbuildings of similar built up area and building geometrywithin the same location (Preiser 1995). Findings onPOE surveys can be useful to bridge the performancegaps, since invariably buildings are not found to performas expected and enable the use of realistic parametersto produce realistic models for sustainability (Menezeset al. 2012; Hassanain and Mudhei 2006; Vischer 2002;Leaman 2003). As proposed in draft addendum No. 1to National Building Code of India 2005 to incorporatea new part 11, Approach to sustainability, it is requiredto conduct occupant surveys annually for the first threeyears of building operation for obtaining feedback fromusers subsequent to commissioning and handover stageof building to the owner (Bureau of Indian Standards2012). Field-based occupant surveys can play vital role inestablishing sustainability indicators, benchmarking theirperformance against national standards or rating systemsand finding out how much gap is extant between theirperformance and desired levels for mixed mode ventilationmid-rise apartments in National Capital Region of Delhi.

3.3 Analysis of Current Building RatingSystems

There is a vast repository of building software toolsand green building rating systems across the globe

for evaluating energy efficiency, renewable energy andsustainability within buildings. Criterion Planners(2014) in its report on Global Survey of UrbanSustainability Rating Tools, have listed 63 ratingsystems prevalent across the globe combined withmajor players among them namely BREEAM, LEED,CASBEE, GREEN STAR and HK-BEAM, SB TOOL,ARCHITECTURE 2030, ONE PLANET. The currentbuilding rating systems in India are GRIHA, IGBC,BEE, and they have developed criteria or credits andstar rating systems for different levels of performancesachieved by green buildings, but do not directlyaddress sustainability parameters per se. They includewell-defined environmental parameters as improvementover base-case, and accordingly allowing for credits tomeasure sustainability. The wide range of environmentalperformance design and assessment tools provide buildingdesign professionals and other project stakeholders witha choice of tools to aid the planning, design, evaluationand management of energy efficient buildings (Folienteand Tucker 2007).Recently GRIHA has revised point systems more

sternly, giving higher points of reward as you come closerto best practice target levels. Primarily benchmarkinginvolves setting range from reference case i.e. “distancefrom reference case or base case” to “distance to target”i.e., and subsequently, best practice can be attained byintermediate levels of achievable targets (Burnett 2007).Use of the “whole building performance simulation” asa tool is a common practice to benchmark variouskey performance indicators at building level such asenergy performance index or energy use intensity or atbuilding systems level such as lighting power densityor coefficient of performance of heating, ventilationand air conditioning (HVAC) systems. However, untilnow, thrust of performance standards is limited toenvironmental parameters with scant regard for otherparameters i.e. social and economic dimensions ofsustainability as indicators of these two parameters arelargely inconspicuous by their absence. Commonly-used-sustainability rating systems in India are discussed in thefollowing section along with relevant sections for existingbuildings for sustainability issues with their weights andunderlying parameters.

3.3.1 GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated HabitatAssessment)

GRIHA, designed as National Rating System anddeveloped by the ministry of new and renewable energyand developed by TERI, The Energy & Resource Instituteis in its inception since 2007. It has undergonemajor revisions in 2015 to reflect the current scenarioand development in green buildings and revised itsbenchmarks for meeting sustainability goals better. Itintegrates all relevant Indian codes and standards suchas National Building Code 2005, the Energy conservationbuilding code 2007, environmental policies of India(MoEF) and local bye-laws. It also encourages theintegration of traditional knowledge on architecture withpresent day technology. The GRIHA Version (2015) has

153

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

Figure 1. Point wise breakup of various parameters in GRIHA (GRIHA Version 2015)

listed 31 criteria in 9 categories as shown in Figure 1with addition of two new sub-categories namely Socio-Economic Strategies with 6% weight; and PerformanceMonitoring and Validation with 8% weight as illustratedin Figure 1.The parameters such as Criteria 12 Indoor air quality

has been added to ensure healthy living conditions andentails monitoring of CO2, temperature and relativehumidity at the occupied spaces as per nationalstandards. The revised point weight break up is shownin Figure 1. Also, in order to achieve higher threshold, anew concept of non-linear point distribution for landscapewater reduction has been introduced as shown in Table1.

Table 1. Non-linear point distribution for rewardingsustainability measures (GRIHA Version 2015)

Reduction in waterrequirement in designcase versus base case

GRIHA V 2015 GRIHA V3

30% 1 140% 2 250% 4 3

GRIHA LD (2015) has been recently put into practicethat the total site area for large development should begreater than or equal to 50 hectares in housing townshipsor complexes by private builders or public sector agencies.The GRIHA LD emphasizes on qualitative aspects ofdevelopment and concept of self-sufficiency in the energy,water and solid waste management. It also dovetailsthe concept of carbon foot print analysis with carryingcapacity from ecological point of view and emphasis onlow carbon life style. A minimum benchmark of EPI of 75kwh/m2/yr (with 25% improvement over base case of 100kwh/m2/yr) has been fixed in residential buildings in hotand dry or composite climates. The social and economicdimensions are addressed in much detail by introducingfacilities for construction workers and service staff duringoperational stage of building, increasing environmentalawareness, inclusive planning by taking care of EWS ofsociety, space for informal sector and universal spaces,no smoking zones in public areas, social infrastructurefacilities such as health centers and schools for lowerincome group as well as urban farming for fruit andvegetables.

3.3.2 IGBC Green Residential Societies RatingSystem

Indian Green Building Council (2015), IGBC GreenResidential Societies rating system, has been recentlylaunched in 2015, addressing existing multi-dwellingcommunities. Indian Green Building Council (IGBC)is a voluntary rating system, developed on lines ofan international rating system, LEED ((Leadershipin Energy and Environmental Design) for existingbuilding developed by the US Green Building Council.The sustainability issues addressed in existing greenresidential societies are addressed towards achievablegoals under various heads, as listed in Table 2. Someof social sustainability indicators have been given placein “Facility Management Section”.IGBC has also developed special rating system for

existing buildings “Green Existing Building O&M RatingSystem” in 2013 addressing sustainability parameters andbenchmarking for existing buildings, focusing on siteand facility management and O&M. For reducing carbonfootprint, it has defined performance-based benchmarksfor EPI, use of onsite and offsite Renewable Energy andenergy metering. For health and comfort, it mandatesoccupant surveys to be conducted every 6 monthsafter commissioning and handing over buildings andmonitoring for Fresh Air ventilation, CO2, comfortablethermal environment at 26±20◦C and 30-70% RH. It alsospells out credits for providing facilities for differentlyabled People, thus advocating universal spaces.

3.3.3 National Building Code (NBC) Part 11:Approach to Sustainability

National Building code has been recently revised to addpart 11 dealing with sustainability in a comprehensivemanner. It underscores design parameters to beimplemented above benchmarking standards given inthe code in order to develop deeper understanding ofperformance of building as per climate zone, functionand context, and imbibes on the traditional wisdomconcepts of sustainability. It further emphasizesbuildings’ long-term scenario by identifying optimumlevels, and take decision-making process of measurablelevel for making judicious choices over lifecycle of theproject (Bureau of Indian Standards 2012). It also

154

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

Table 2. Sustainability parameters for existing multi-dwelling societies rating (Indian Green Building Council 2015)

Facility management 25 pointsFM Credit 2 Maintenance of facility 4FM Credit 3 Access to basic amenities (Social infrastructure) 2FM Credit 6 Heat island reduction roof 50%,75% 6FM Credit 7 Covered external lighting fixtures : 50, 75, 95% 3FM Credit 8 Design for differently Abled 3FM Credit 9 Facilities for health & wellbeing (recreational). 2Sustainable water practices 29 pointsSWP Credit 1 Rain water harvesting : 10, 20, ... 100% 10SWP Credit 2 Landscape areas: 20, 25, ... 40% 5SWP Credit 3 Water sub metering 4SWP Credit 4 Water efficient fixtures : 40, 50, ... 90% 6SWP Credit 5 On-site STP: 50, 75, 95% 3SWP Credit 6 Automatic water level controllers 1Energy conservation 22 pointsEC Credit 1 CFC free appliances 3EE Credit 2 Efficient lighting fixtures: 25, 50, 75, 95% 4EE Credit 3 EC Credit 3 Solar power for street & Common Area Lighting: 20, 30 ... 80% 7EE Credit 4 Energy metering 2EC Credit 5 Solar water heating systems: 20, 30. ... 70% 6Waste management 10 pointsWM Credit 1 Waste segregation 4WM Credit 2 Organic waste management - 20, 40, 60, 80, 90% 5WM Credit 3 E-waste management 1Innovative practices 14 pointsIP Credit 1.1 Water meters for dwelling units (50, 75, and 100%) 3IP Credit 1.2 Reuse of treated waste water for landscaping 1IP Credit 1.3 Fresh water treatment plant 1IP Credit 1.4 Electric charging points for vehicles in common areas (2.5%, 5%) 2IP Credit 1.5 LPG/CNG gas geysers for water heating (20, 40%) 2IP Credit 1.6 Day-Light/Motion sensors in common areas 1

further focuses on balancing buildings’ envelope by eco-friendly materials and high technology end solutions,disaster preparedness, reduced embodied and operationalenergy, integrated water management and trackingoperation and maintenance with the aid of occupantsurveys. It also provides guidelines for integrateddesign approach, building orientation, shading, thermalmassing, reduced footprint and reduced volume, buildingform, natural ventilation, optimum day lighting, buildingservice life with life cycle analysis approach to befollowed optionally. Section 13.4 of NBC, Buildingperformance Tracking (Measurement and Verification)clearly spells out techniques of building performanceassessment subsequent to commissioning and handoverstage of building to the owner. Regular Monitoring ofthe performance shall be carried out, which will provideinformation whether set environmental performance andtargets have been met or not.

3.3.4 Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC)The Energy Conservation Building Code ECBC (2009),launched by Bureau of energy efficiency in 2007 underthe Energy Conservation Act, 2001, provides significantparameters for reducing energy consumption relating tobuilding envelope, electrical and mechanical equipment,lighting and service hot water heating for various climatezones of the country. The code is applicable to buildingcomplexes having connected load of 100 kW or greater

or a contract demand of 120 kVA or greater or havingconditioned area of 1000 sqm and above. The codealso applies to additions to multifamily dwelling existingunits. Two approaches i.e. Prescriptive Approach settingbenchmarks for individual components and option oftrade-off between sub components and the other option“Whole building simulation approach” considering EPIand unmet hours showing total performance of system byenduser, are defined in ECBC for meeting benchmarkingstandards. Based on EPI of whole building simulationapproach, Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) awards starrating to energy efficient green buildingsalso in tune withthe recognition of exemplary buildings.

3.4 Benchmarking Standards in VariousRating System

There have been major revisions and new categoriesintroduced both within IGBC and GRIHA in 2015,pushing the sustainability boundaries and settingthresholds to higher levels and encouraging betterpractices in sustainability. IGBC has come up exclusivelywith rating systems for existing buildings O and M aswell as for existing multifamily dwelling units. There isa strong tendency towards the environmental parameterssuch as energy and water in both rating systems. Thereis a great variation between baseline and top line valueof all rating systems. Buildings with five-star rating in

155

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

Table 3. Comparison of sustainability parameters for different rating systems applicable to existing multi-dwellingsocieties

Sustainability criteria IGBC Green ResidentialSocieties rating system GRIHA LD NBC Part 11:

Approach to SustainabilityCarbon footprint andcarrying capacity

√x x

Ecology√

x√

Site planning√ √ √

Facility management√

x xIEQ

√ √ √

Health and well being√ √

xMaterials

√ √ √

Renewable Technologies√ √ √

Energy√ √ √

Water and waste water√ √ √

Waste management√ √ √

Solid waste management√ √ √

Transport x x xPollution

√ √ √

Social x√

xInnovation

√x x

GRIHA and platinum rated in IGBC and BEE five-starrated are quite different in performance levels. GRIHAalso takes into account social and economic indicatorspartly as shown in Table 3. ECBC is just a tool toassess performance of conditioned buildings, primarilyapplicable to commercial and institutional buildings, withstar rating systems awarded by BEE.Another major difference is baseline case for both rating

systems followed by based-case modeling in ECBC andIGBC, whereas GRIHA prescribes absolute benchmarksfor comparing proposed case and is easily understood. Forexample, EPI based-case is kept at 100 kwh/m2/year forresidential buildings for three climate zones (composite,warm and humid, and hot & dry climates), eventhough GRIHA has more focus on passive buildingdesignby promoting low carbon architecture comparedto high performance building design to save energy inair conditioning in IGBC. GRIHA LD has focus onboth qualitative aspects as well as self-sufficiency inenergy, water and waste. Renewable energy and recycledmaterials also find more attention in GRIHA and draftaddendum to NBC, part 11 for sustainability as comparedto IGBC practices (Kumar 2014a).There is a greater thrust regarding the occupant surveys

by explicitly earmarked credits for health and well-beingin IGBC O and M for existing buildings endorsed byproposed framework through draft addendum of NBCfor sustainability and GRIHA. Table 3 shows comparisonof sustainability parameters for different rating systemsapplicable to existing multi-dwelling societies.Thus GRIHA takes into account the passive solar design

building techniques, renewable energy, occupant surveysand social indicators in large developments like housingcomplexes or townships. IGBC has set guidelines forrating of existing multifamily dwelling units, settingachievable goals for sustainability. ECBC does notconsider existing residential buildings, and has inclinationtowards energy performance of buildings. No single rating

system addresses core issues of sustainability, and hencethere is a need to develop sustainability indicators forexisting multifamily mid-rise residential apartments in aholistic manner.

3.5 Building Performance Evaluation UsingSustainability Indicators

Sustainability indicators are useful to quantify buildingperformance, target setting and prepare roadmapfor delineating strategies for taking corrective stepsto address problems and achieve target benchmarks(Balachandra and Sudhakara Reddy 2013). Buildingperformance simulation tools are widely used tounderstanding complex dynamic interaction systems ofbuildings and design high performance buildings byapplying highest levels of design, construction, operationand maintenance principles (Hensen 2002). The USDepartment of Energy (Department of Energy 2014)has listed 416 building software tools along with abrief description of the salient feature of each toolincluding expertise required. Most codes and standardsrefer to the whole building performance simulationfor evaluating various indicators and comparing effectsof various parameters for making rational choices ofappropriate building fabric and program in order toachieve sustainability.National housing Bank, India developed IT based

toolkit for energy-efficient residential buildings, knownas “EnEFF: resBuild India” in collaboration withThe Energy Resources Institute (TERI), FraunhoferInstitute for Building Physics (IBP), Germany andKfW Development Bank (KfW), Germany. It gathersinformation on various parameters such as weather orclimate zone, housing unit type Break up of Conditionedand Unconditional Floor plate, Total exposed andunexposed wall and roof area, Window Wall Ratio,Solar Heat Gain Coefficient factor of type of glass used

156

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

Table 4. Various parameters for US residential energy consumption survey (International Energy Agency 2014)

Demographics Characteristics Region & Metropolitan& Climate Energy End-uses Appliances &

Electronics

Number of occupants Year of construction Urban vs. Rural Energy byfuel type Space heating Count

Annual income Floor area Housing unit type Energy byend-use Space cooling Age

Relation to poverty line Ownership type Water heating UsageEnergy payment method Size

and Local shading devices, Orientation and ThermalConductance (U value) of materials used in apartments,Building services such as Lighting power density,Coefficient of Performance of Air conditioning systemsinstalled and Solar water heater and Campus lighting.US Residential Energy Consumption Survey has listedindicators for tracking as shown in Table 4. In orderto assess requirements of additional indicators, a field-based study will be taken for conducting post-occupancyevaluation surveys. IES VE Virtual Environment 2015,virtual environment software has been identified forsimulating based-case and study area for its capabilityto carry naturally ventilated building or mixed modebuildings along with a lot of attributes and input optionsand lifecycle approach.

On the one hand, there is a need to developbaseline for existing residential societies in group housing,situated in National Capital Region of Delhi. POEsurveys can provide valuable feedback on the designquality, functional aspects and thermal comfort. Onthe other hand, there is a need for objective andrigorous performance evaluation techniques and stepby step process to provide systematic and easy tounderstand structure for measurement, evaluation andcontinuous improvement of buildings (Kumar 2014a).A pilot questionnaire survey and simulation of testmodelling case can help to determine sample size and,finally develop a set of indicators proportionate to allthree dimensions of sustainability for a specific caseof retrofitting existing residential buildings in diverseclimate. Comparison of various benchmarks achievedin the simulation output against design intent can behelpful in formulating strategies for high performing

buildings in the near future (Grierson and Moultrie 2011).Selection of a well-designed existing residential complexfor developing best case scenario, its POE surveysand then building performance simulation modelling,and finally its analysis, can serve as blueprint forsetting achievable targets in various sustainability-relatedindicators. Thus analysis of baseline data of exemplarson extreme side of scale will help in understanding theconcept of threshold values of indicators, and also help inbridging the gaps and fixing targets for retrofitting.

4 PERFORMANCE OF GAPMODELLING

Sustainability indicators for each of the dimensions ofthe existing housing study area are to be comparedwith base case developed using maximum and minimumthreshold values of sustainability indicators. Maximumvalue of a particular sustainability indicator will bederived from best case scenario and worst value willbe determined from worst case scenario (Balachandraand Sudhakara Reddy 2013). Mapping the standardisedindicator values will be undertaken on the radar showinghypothetical best case scenario and proposed case or “asis” case as shown in Figure 2. The distance betweentwo values will indicate the gap in the performance ofa particular housing project under study. It will alsoreflect that which areas are needed more attention, andwhich areas of interventions needed special attention orno attention. The dimensions of the gap for the studyarea will also inform how far we are from achievingtargets.Retrofitting measures to be taken can be classified

Figure 2. Benchmarking urban sustainability

157

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

into two or more than two scenarios. Immediate effortscan be undertaken for the easily achievable results i.e.low-hanging fruits. The other scenario can be built upusing high hanging-fruit, but needing time and efforts,which can be done in phased manner. Remeasuringbuilding performance after retrofitting can lead to betterunderstanding of the subject and further innovations asindicators are means to achieve the objectives and are notan end in themselves. Thus the conceptual frameworkmodel identified for working out sustainability indicatorsfor assessing sustainability of existing house, shall involvefollowing steps:

1. Assess existing building rating systems fromsustainability parameters and establish the missingindicators by expert interviews and other stakeholders;

2. Conduct Post-occupancy evaluation surveys toestablish the indicators which are relatively important;

3. Develope residential baseline data for assessingthe current performance of residential buildingsor complexes. It may include standardized plantypologies, construction specifications, buildingenvelope parameters, operational schedules, plugloads, energy and water audits and currentenvironmental awareness programs and practices inuse;

4. Identification and study of existing exemplarresidential complex with best practices, to establishsustainability benchmarking and best case scenario;

5. Analysis of baseline data and POE surveys to developsustainability indicators and formulate sustainabilityindices;

6. Building performance evaluation of the study area bycalibrating building model in line with baseline data,performing building performance simulations and findout sustainability indices with respect to benchmarks;

7. Performance gap modelling of indices and to find outdimensions of gaps and identification of critical areasdeserving more attention;

8. Identifying retrofitting measures and building’sscenario;

9. Compare remeasure performance with pastperformance or current practices i.e. self-referentialbenchmarking and best case scenario.

5 CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to retrofit huge existing housing stockconsuming natural resources incessantly for reducingcarbon emissions. There are different performancestandards for different building typologies, climaticzones, built-geometry, diversity in building use andsocio cultural factors, and there is a need to developsustainability indicators to assess sustainability forretrofitting of existing muilti-story mid-rise housing stockof NCR of Delhi. The existing building rating systemsin India are having thrust primarily on environmentalsustainability and are undergoing major revisions toinclude social and economic sustainability parameters.

Despite having largest footprint and high concerns ofhealth and well-being of occupants, there are very limitedstudies on retrofitting of existing residential buildings. Aconceptual framework model is proposed for developingsustainability indicators in a holistic manner to facilitatebenchmarking of existing residential townships andcampuses, that in turn, can help stakeholders tounderstand and apply retrofit measures for sustainingquality of life over life cycle of the project. The studyconcludes that a residential baseline data for assessingperformance of existing mid-rise multi-storey housingstock needs to be developed by using post occupationevaluation surveys and expert interviews. The dataobtained is to be compared with existing exemplarresidential complex with best practices to establish bestcase scenario. After defining sustainability indicators forexisting study area, it will be possible, based on the dataof POE surveys and outputs of building performancesimulation tools, to find out how much gap is extantbetween their performance and desired levels by process ofback casting and scenario building. Accordingly, scenariobuilding process will help in identifying different levels ofscenarios and help in framing policy for taking correctiveactions.Thus this study would help in providing careful

analyses through indicators that what areas are neededto be focused more, and what strategies and tools areneeded to bridge the gaps for preparing sustainabledevelopment framework for retrofitting the existingresidential buildings. The methodology used in this studycan be helpful to incorporate key indices of sustainabilityinto retrofitting existing housing stock to create visionplan with the aim of reducing carbon footprint, achievingsocial equity, quality of life and economic well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research paper is based on research being conductedby the author as part of PhD under supervision ofDr. Ashwani Kumar and Dr. Satish Pipralia atDepartment of Architecture and Planning, MalviyaNational Institute of Technology, Jaipur. The authorthankfully acknowledges the support of Dr. ParveenKumar from Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University ofScience and Technology, Murthal and the various otherexperts and professionals for their expert comments anddiscussions in shaping the conceptual framework modelfor existing housing complexes in National Capital Regionof Delhi.

REFERENCES

Ahluwalia, I. J., Munjee, N., Mor, N., Vijayanunni, M.,Mankad, S., Lall, R., and Sankaran, H. (2011). Reporton Indian urban infrastructure and services. Ministryof Urban Development, New Delhi, India.

Architecture 2030 (2014). Roadmap to zero emissions, thebuilt environment in a global transformation to zeroemission. New Mexico, United States.

158

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

Balachandra, P. and Sudhakara Reddy, B. (2013).Benchmarking Bangalore City for sustainability: Anindicator-based approach. Indian Institute of Science,Bengaluru, India.

Bantanur, S., Mukherjee, M., and Shankar, R. (2012).“Benchmarking: As a tool for sustainable buildings.”National Conference on Energy Efficient Design ofBuildings: Seeking Cost Effective Solutions, Gwalior,India.

Bureau of Energy Efficiency (2014). Design guidelinesfor energy-efficient multi-storey residential buildingscomposite and hot-dry climates. New Delhi, India.

Bureau of Indian Standards (2012). India’s draftamendment No.1 to the 2005 national building code (SP7:2005). New Delhi, India.

Burnett, J. (2007). “Sustainability and sustainablebuildings.” HKIE Transactions, 14(3), 1–9.

Central Electricity Authority (2013). Growth of electricitysector in India from 1947 to 2013. New Delhi, India.

Chaudhary, A., Sagar, A. D., and Mathur, A. (2012).“Innovating for energy efficiency: A perspective fromindia.” Innovation and Development, 2(1), 45–66.

Criterion Planners (2014). A global survey of urbansustainability rating tools. Portland, United States.

Cushman & Wakefield (2015). Growth in population tolead to housing demand. New York, United States.

Dahlan, N. D., Jones, P. J., Alexander, D. K.,Salleh, E., and Dixon, D. (2008). “Field measurementand subjects’ votes assessment on thermal comfortin high-rise hostels in malaysia.” Indoor and BuiltEnvironment, 17(4), 334–345.

De Azevedo, N., Rêgo Silva, J., and Maciel Silva, P.(2010). “Definition of indicators for sustainable socialhousing: In search of a model.” International Journalfor Housing Science and Its Applications, 34(2), 79–92.

Department of Energy (2014). Department of Energybuilding tools directory. Washington, D.C., UnitedStates.

Eames, M., Dixon, T., May, T., and Hunt, M. (2013).“City futures: Exploring urban retrofit and sustainabletransitions.” Building Research & Information, 41(5),504–516.

ECBC (2009). Energy conservation building code userguide. Bureau of Energy Efficiency, New Delhi, India.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The TripleBottom Line of 21st Century Business. CapstonePublishing, North Mankato, United States.

Erhorn-Kluttig, H., Erhorn, H., and Reiß, J. (2015).“Plus energy - a new energy performance standardin germany for both residential and non-residentialbuildings.” Advances in Building Energy Research, 9(1),73–88.

Foliente, G. and Tucker, S. (2007). “Performancesetting and measurement for sustainable commercialbuildings.” YourBuilding, Sydney, Australia.

General Services Administration (2014). Facilitystandards for public buildings service. Washington,D.C., United States.

Girardet, H. (2008). Cities People Planet: UrbanDevelopment and Climate Change. John Wiley & Sons,

Hoboken, United States.Global Building Performance Network (2014). Residentialbuildings in India: Energy use projections and savingspotentials. New Delhi, India.

Grayson, R. (2010). Social, developmental &organizational psychology applied to camp. NationalCrime Prevention Council, Singapore.

Grierson, D. and Moultrie, C. M. (2011). “Architecturaldesign principles and processes for sustainability:Towards a typology of sustainable building design.”Design Principles and Practices, 623–634.

GRIHA LD (2015). GRIHA LD guide. New Delhi, India.GRIHA Version (2015). GRIHA version 2015 guide. NewDelhi, India.

Hammer, S., Kamal Chaoui, L., Robert, A., andPlouin, M. (2011). “Cities and green growth: Aconceptual framework.” OECD regional developmentworking Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris, France.

Hart, M. (2014). “Housing - sustainable measures -housing indicators.” Available at:<http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/>.

Hartkopf, V. and Loftness, V. (1999). “Global relevanceof total building performance.” Automation inconstruction, 8(4), 377–393.

Hassanain, M. A. and Mudhei, A. A. (2006). “Post-occupancy evaluation of academic and research libraryfacilities.” Structural Survey, 24(3), 230–239.

Heink, U. and Kowarik, I. (2010). “What are indicators?On the definition of indicators in ecology andenvironmental planning.” Ecological Indicators, 10(3),584–593.

Hendler, P. and Smeddle, L. T. (2009). SustainableNeighbourhood Design Manual. National Departmentof Housing, Cordaid, Netherlands, Chapter Sustainablehousing.

Hensen, J. (2002). “Simulation for performance basedbuilding and systems design: Some issues andsolution directions.” Proceedings of 6th InternationalConference on Design and Decision Support Systemsin Architecture and Urban Planning, Avegoor, TheNetherlands.

Indian Green Building Council (2015). IGBC GreenResidential Societies rating system. Hyderabad, India.

Indian Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (2015). ISHRAE position paperon indoor environmental quality. New Delhi, India.

International Energy Agency (2014). Tracking progressindicators. Paris, France.

International Panel on Climate Chane (2013). Climatechange 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Geneva,Switzerland.

Jones Lang LaSalle (2014). Affordable Housing in India:An inclusive approach to sheltering the bottom of thepyramid. Chicago, United States.

Kumar, P. (2014a). “Building performance assessmentand evaluation of existing buildings for energyefficiency: Case study of students’ accommodation in auniversity campus.” Tekton, 1(1), 76–95.

Kumar, P. (2014b). “Evaluation of thermal comfortof naturally ventilated university studentsâĂŹ

159

Grag et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 5 (2016) 148-160

accommodation based on adaptive thermal comfortmodel and occupant survey in composite climate.”International Journal of Architecture, Engineering andConstruction, 3(4), 298–316.

Leaman, A. (2003). “Post-occupancy evaluation.”Presentation at Gaia Research SustainableConstruction Continuing Professional DevelopmentSeminars. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Martinaitis, V., Kazakevičius, E., and Vitkauskas,A. (2007). “A two-factor method for appraisingbuilding renovation and energy efficiency improvementprojects.” Energy Policy, 35(1), 192–201.

Meadows, D., Randers, J., and Meadows, D. (2004).Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update. Chelsea GreenPublishing, White River Junction, United States.

Menezes, A. C., Cripps, A., Bouchlaghem, D., andBuswell, R. (2012). “Predicted vs. actual energyperformance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performancegap.” Applied Energy, 97, 355–364.

Ministry of Urban Development (2010). National missionon sustainable habitat. New Delhi, Inida.

National Crime Prevention Council (2003). Crimeprevention through environmental design guidebook.Singapore.

Paula, C. (2014). “Sustainable habitat for developingsocieties.” 30th International PLEA Conference,Ahmedabad, India, 1–2.

Pearce, D. (2003). The social and economic value ofconstruction: The construction industry’s contributionto sustainable development. Construction IndustryResearch and Innovation Strategy Panel, London,United Kingdom.

Pearce, D. (2006). “Is the construction sectorsustainable?: Definitions and reflections.” BuildingResearch & Information, 34(3), 201–207.

Pérez Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., and Pout, C. (2008). “Areview on buildings energy consumption information.”Energy and Buildings, 40(3), 394–398.

Phdungsilp, A. (2005). “Towards sustainable urbanenergy use in cities: A metabolism approach.”Proceedings of the 2005 World Sustainable BuildingConference, Tokyo, Japan.

Preiser, W. F. (1995). “Post-occupancy evaluation: Howto make buildings work better.” Facilities, 13(11), 19–28.

Quist, J. and Vergragt, P. (2006). “Past and future ofbackcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation and

a proposal for a methodological framework.” Futures,38(9), 1027–1045.

Raslanas, S., Alchimoviene, J., Banaitiene, N., et al.(2011). “Residential areas with apartment houses:Analysis of the condition of buildings, planning issues,retrofit strategies and scenarios.” International Journalof Strategic Property Management, 15(2), 152–172.

Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., and Schulte, K. W.(2009). “International comparison of sustainable ratingtools.” Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 1–22.

Sharma, N. (2010). “Sustainability benchmarking - thecase of Thule.” M.S. thesis, Lund University, Lund,Sweden.

Shen, L. Y., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N., and Zhang,X. l. (2011). “The application of urban sustainabilityindicators - a comparison between various practices.”Habitat International, 35(1), 17–29.

Soares, A. and Ribeiro, A. (2011). “Applicationof urban sustainability indicators to the city ofcoimbra: Evaluation of urban sustainability data andregulations.” International Conference Virtual City andTerritory, Lisbon, Portugal.

Sustainability Institute (2009). Sustainable neighbourhooddesign manual: A non-technical guide. Lynedoch,South Africa.

Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (2014).Residential energy roadmap to 2050. Dublin, Ireland.

United Nations Environment Programme (2003).Sustainable building and construction. Nairobi, Kenya.

Užšilaityte, L. and Martinaitis, V. (2010). “Search foroptimal solution of public building renovation in termsof life cycle.” Journal of Environmental Engineeringand Landscape Management, 18(2), 102–110.

Vischer, J. (2002). Learning from Our Buildings: A State-of-the-practice Summary of Post-occupancy Evaluation.National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., UnitedStates, Chapter Post-occupancy evaluation: Amultifaceted tool for building improvement, 23–34.

World Commission on Environment and Development(1987). Our common future. New York, United States.

Xavier, L., Peter, W., and Vandaele, L. (2007).Applying the EPBD to improve the energy performancerequirements to existing buildings-ENPER-EXIST.Belgian Building Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium.

Zimmerman, A. W. (2002). “Developing a set ofsustainability indices for the state of oregon.” M.S.thesis, Graduate School of the University of Oregon,Eugene, United States.

160