Resilience, Residential Buildings and Rating Tools In Australia

Wilkinson, S

Resilience, Residential Buildings and Rating Tools In Australia

Wilkinson, S

Permalink

Publisher:: University of Melbourne
Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: 2018
Issue Date:: 2018-02-08

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (223.02 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Wilkinson, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9266-1858	en_US
dc.date	2018-01-29	en_US
dc.date.available	2017-08-24	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-02-08	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	2018	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/122462
dc.description.abstract	Resilience is emerging as an important component of building and urban design. The Rockefeller Foundation has established the 100RC (Resilient Cities) to demonstrate the scope of issues and the ways in which different cities globally are addressing their issues and challenges. Sixty-eight resilience issues have been identified; some are social, economic, governance or environmental in nature. Our ability to be resilient to chronic and acute resilience issues such as overpopulation and flooding, and to cope with resilience challenges such as heatwaves or lack of affordable housing, increasingly concern city authorities. Rating tools provide benchmark and objective indications of sustainability within buildings or precincts. Since 1990 many have been launched, for example BREEAM, BASIX, and NatHERS. They are developed by government and/or private bodies and can focus on a limited issues such as energy and water, or a wide range of metrics including social and environmental criteria. Some are mandatory, imposed by government, such as the European Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) others are voluntary. Some measure design and construction sustainability, whereas others focus on operational or in use sustainability. A number of questions arise with respect to rating tools used to evaluate building sustainability. For example, what choices are available to people in respect of new build and adaptive reuse for housing? And, given the focus here; do any of the tools, explicitly or implicitly, adopt resilience issues? This paper reviews two Australian sustainable building tools in the residential sector and evaluates their potential contribution to increasing resilience in the two 100RC cities; Melbourne and Sydney.	en_US
dc.publisher	University of Melbourne	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Zero Energy Mass Custom Homes International Conference (ZEMCH)	en_US
dc.title	Resilience, Residential Buildings and Rating Tools In Australia	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.location	Melbourne	en_US
utslib.location.activity	Melbourne Australia	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Built Environment
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CCDP - Contemporary Design Practice
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.finish-date	2018-02-01	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Melbourne	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.start-date	2018-01-29	en_US

Abstract:

Resilience is emerging as an important component of building and urban design. The Rockefeller Foundation has established the 100RC (Resilient Cities) to demonstrate the scope of issues and the ways in which different cities globally are addressing their issues and challenges. Sixty-eight resilience issues have been identified; some are social, economic, governance or environmental in nature. Our ability to be resilient to chronic and acute resilience issues such as overpopulation and flooding, and to cope with resilience challenges such as heatwaves or lack of affordable housing, increasingly concern city authorities. Rating tools provide benchmark and objective indications of sustainability within buildings or precincts. Since 1990 many have been launched, for example BREEAM, BASIX, and NatHERS. They are developed by government and/or private bodies and can focus on a limited issues such as energy and water, or a wide range of metrics including social and environmental criteria. Some are mandatory, imposed by government, such as the European Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) others are voluntary. Some measure design and construction sustainability, whereas others focus on operational or in use sustainability. A number of questions arise with respect to rating tools used to evaluate building sustainability. For example, what choices are available to people in respect of new build and adaptive reuse for housing? And, given the focus here; do any of the tools, explicitly or implicitly, adopt resilience issues? This paper reviews two Australian sustainable building tools in the residential sector and evaluates their potential contribution to increasing resilience in the two 100RC cities; Melbourne and Sydney.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/122462