“Irrational” Vs “Rational" Behavior: Using Evolutionary Theory & Comprehensive Evaluations to...

“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 Intent2014 BECC Conference Washington DC2014 BECC Conference, Washington DC,

MARCEL HARMON, PHD, PE, LEED-AP O+MDecember 9, 2014

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.


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.


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.

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

LINK BETWEEN ENERGY & OCC. EXPERIENCE

Comparison of EUI Ratios to Temperature ResponsesResponses

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS are a• Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS are a matter of perspective

• Improve ALIGNMENT• Improve ALIGNMENT• Account for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCEand HEALTH impactsand HEALTH impacts

• Increase number of DECISION MAKERS and GROUP UNITY

BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS

Individual

Behavior (Including Needs

Environment

( gDecision 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, 1999Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior

BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTSClothing Variability, Thermal Comfort & Energy Consumption

Space Heater

BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS

Physiological

Psychological

Individual

Behavior (Including Highly

Large Group Needs

Environment

( gDecision Making)

InteractiveSmall Group Needs

IndividualSocial/ 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, 1999Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior© Copyright 2014 M.E. GROUP, Inc.

Marcel.Harmon

Sticky Note

Overview of Slide So there are individual needs like maintaining a degree of personal control or achieving thermal comfort or conforming to one’s predominant social/cultural norms from the previous examples. And the individual is nested within a series of groups of ever increasing size. The needs of these groups, from businesses and schools, to cities, nations or even the whole planet will revolve around such things as profitability, funding, test scores, maintaining infrastructure, economic factors, resiliency and the impacts of climate change. And it’s common for the needs of these nested groups to be in varying degrees of conflict with, or out of alignment with, one another. Like an employee achieving thermal comfort via a space heater at the expense of his/her employer’s bottom line, or at the expense to society at large through an incremental increase in the building’s GHG emissions. Or a building owner value engineering out a lighting control system’s daylight harvesting feature to save first cost at the expense to society at large, through the increase in the building’s GHG emissions (or a 10+ year payback to himself or his own organization). At the same time the individual and the environment are composed of, or influenced by, underlying factors, further complicating this picture. The interaction of the physiological and psychological factors for the individual and the social/cultural and physical environmental factors for the environment impacts the degree of alignment of the individual, small group and large group needs/wants, who’s needs end up driving the process if there is misalignment of needs/wants (what level become the primary level of selection) and what behaviors (including decisions made) are taken to meet needs/wants, as well as what behaviors are possible given the individual/environmental context. And a lack of alignment between a building’s capabilities and occupant needs/wants, as well as a lack of alignment between the individual and group needs/wants, can both contribute to individuals or smaller groups taking actions to meet their own needs at the expense of the larger groups they are a part of (shifting the level of selection down to the individual). As a result, behaviors are more likely to be selfish in nature, or irrational, with respect to the larger group, because they benefit the individual (or smaller group) at the expense of the larger, encompassing group, all else being equal. Behaviors that benefit the larger, encompassing group are often termed pro-social, and alignment increases the likelihood for pro-social behaviors to occur.

IMPROVE ALIGNMENTEAM PROCESS: For Building & Occupant Alignment

EvaluateBackground Data

AlignPhysical

MonitorMetricsac 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 PlanFacility Evaluation(Space Measurements & FPTs; O&M Engagement)

Modifications) Evaluation Plan(Frequency; Records and Engagement)

Address Issues

© Copyright 2011 M.E. GROUP, Inc.

IMPROVE ALIGNMENTDeep key stakeholder engagement needed to assess varying wants/

Audibility & Noise IssuesLike Small School/

Community FeelLike Small School/Community Feel

Deep key stakeholder engagement needed to assess varying wants/ needs/values

21st Century EducationTechnology

InfrastructureInadequacy Thermal DiscomfortThermal Discomfort

Glare or Brightness Problems

Other Lighting Control Issues

More Communication Amongst StakeholdersMore 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 GroupPoor 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 ConcernsDesire 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 ChangesNeed Additional Restrooms

Improving Traffic Flow & Parking

Improving Traffic Flow & Parking

Lack of StorageLack of Storage

Wayfinding Problems

IMPROVE ALIGNMENT

Personal Control, Occupant Inertia & Ease of Blind Control Access


IMPROVE ALIGNMENT

Technology’s perspective from a child


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

QUANTIFY PRODUCTIVITY/HEALTH IMPACTSECM 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 PaybackPhoto Rights: Cervin Robinson, Richard McElhineyArchitects LLC

Savings$3,570,000

(Energy + Productivity)2.1 yrs

QUANTIFY PRODUCTIVITY/HEALTH IMPACTSEvaluation 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 CityOption 2: LightLouver+ Blinds/Shades

(math & reading tasks) over Option 1

Photo Rights: BNIM Architects

INCREASE NUMBER OF DECISION MAKERSAs 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

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.

INCREASE NUMBER OF DECISION MAKERSAs well as GROUP UNITYAs well as GROUP UNITY

• Recognize that BEHAVIOR JUDGEMENTS tt f tiare a matter of perspective

• Improve ALIGNMENT

• Account for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCEAccount for PRODUCTIVITY/PERFORMANCEand 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

Marcel Harmon: [email protected]

Date post:	18-Aug-2015
Category:	Science
Upload:	marcel-harmon
View:	18 times
Download:	1 times

“Irrational” Vs “Rational" Behavior: Using Evolutionary Theory & Comprehensive Evaluations to...

Science