The Discrepancy between As-Built and As-Designed in Energy Efficient Buildings: A Rapid Review

Christine Eon, Jessica K. Breadsell, Joshua Byrne and Gregory M. Morrison
Additional contact information
Christine Eon: Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth 6102, Australia
Jessica K. Breadsell: Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth 6102, Australia
Joshua Byrne: Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth 6102, Australia
Gregory M. Morrison: Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth 6102, Australia

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, issue 16, 1-28

Abstract: Energy efficient buildings are viewed as one of the solutions to reduce carbon emissions from the built environment. However, studies worldwide indicate that there is a significant gap between building energy targets (as-designed) and the actual measured building energy consumption (as-built). Several underlying causes for the energy performance gap have been identified at all stages of the building life cycle. Focus is generally on the post-occupancy stage of the building life cycle. However, issues relating to the construction and commissioning stages of the building are a major concern, though not usually researched. There is uncertainty on how to address the as-designed versus as-built gap. The objective of this review article is to identify causes for the energy performance gap in buildings in relation to the post-design and pre-occupancy stages and review proposed solutions. The methodology applied in this research is the rapid review, which is a variant of the systematic literature review method. Findings suggest that causes for discrepancies between as-designed and as-built energy performance during the construction and commissioning stages relate to a lack of knowledge and skills, lack of communication between stakeholders and a lack of accountability for building performance post-occupancy. Recommendations to close this gap during this period include better training, improved communication standards, collaboration, energy evaluations based on post-occupancy performance, transparency of building performance, improved testing and verification and reviewed building standards.

Keywords: rapid review; as-built; as-designed; energy performance gap; energy efficiency; low carbon; buildings (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6372/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6372/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6372-:d:395952

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().