<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Engaging End Users in Green Building Design Software</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Mahtab Sabet and Steve Easterbrook Department of Computer Science University of Toronto</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2015</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>-Green building design is a socio-technical process, so it is important to engage end users (e.g. building occupants) in requirements gathering. Given that a majority of software tools used in designing green buildings are aimed at engineers, we must determine the most effective way of communicating information about energy use requirements to end users, who are typically unfamiliar with energy analysis techniques. The green building design community is at an early stage in considering how to include end users in the design process. Research has not yet determined how best to present environmental impact information to end users in order to engage them in the process. Research in green building design can benefit from the lessons learned from Requirements Engineering in the software community. This paper outlines an intended research methodology and a literature review. The research will involve an exploratory case study of a Toronto-based green home renovation company that focuses on a holistic building approach. By following clients through their renovation projects, we hope to explore two research questions: why homeowners renovate their homes, and how the industry currently presents information to end users about green home renovation and green home requirements.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>I. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>Our research is focused on engaging end users in the process
of green building design. A green building is a building that
is designed to be environmentally sustainable throughout its
lifecycle, including construction and maintenance. This usually
involves considering energy efficiency, water conservation,
waste and pollution reduction, responsible materials, and other
factors.</p>
      <p>It is important for end users to be engaged in the design
process because as the people for whom these green buildings
are being built, they can provide a unique perspective. Thus,
while green building professionals would continue to provide
conceptual and detailed design and review energy analysis
results, end users would provide opinions on aesthetic
preferences, review products, and voice concerns about the building
design as it progresses. In turn, end users receive feedback
from professionals and learn more about green buildings.</p>
      <p>This research is part of a larger project to develop a software
platform for the green building design process, and the
requirements analysis for this platform must involve requirements
engineering with end users. Research in engaging end users
in the green building design process is still in a fledgling state,
and can benefit from the knowledge and practices that have
developed around Requirements Engineering in the software
community.</p>
      <p>This paper outlines the intended research design for an
exploratory case study of a renovation company in Toronto
that focuses on green home renovation.</p>
      <p>
        Human-caused climate change threatens to impair our
species’ ability to thrive on our planet. As a society we have
to find ways to reduce our negative environmental impacts,
and focusing on buildings is one place to start. 20-40%
of a developed country’s total energy use can be attributed
to buildings. Green buildings are one way to reduce our
carbon footprint. One report in particular found that LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified
buildings used, on average, “18-39% less energy per floor area
than their conventional counterparts” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>However, if end users are not fully engaged in the design
process for green buildings, then that process can fall short in
many ways, which include buildings that are not as
environmentally friendly as they could be, functional requirements
for the building not being provided for, and end users who
are unhappy with the final product. These shortcomings can
reduce enthusiasm for future green building projects.</p>
      <p>
        Recent research on sustainable buildings reveals that many
buildings perform worse than expected with respect to energy
metrics. Many attribute this to the behaviour of building
occupants [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. One particular study concluded that “design
teams were optimistic about the behavior of the occupants and
their acceptance of systems” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. Another study suggested that
energy wasted by building occupants accounts for 50% of the
total energy used in a building [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. A focus on end users can
improve green building design, performance, and utilization.
      </p>
      <p>A further motivation for our research is to get end users
invested in the environmental performance of their buildings
and provide them with the knowledge and tools to become
conscious energy consumers. We hope that by educating and
engaging end users in green building design, we can improve
the design and performance of green buildings.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>III. LITERATURE REVIEW</title>
      <p>The existing literature highlights three ways in which green
renovations are currently sub-optimal. The first problem is that
of uptake. The literature tries to determine why only some
homeowners choose to undertake green renovations, and what
the drivers are that influence whether green renovations will
be undertaken. Two further problems concern those who do
undertake green renovations. First, the literature considers why
new green features are not used to their best effect. Second,
the literature considers the consequences of green renovations
often being coupled with changes that are not green-oriented.</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>A. Background: Measuring Green Buildings</title>
        <p>
          To understand the context of the literature, one must
understand how green renovations are measured. In their case study,
Fay, Treloar, and Iyer-Raniga [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ] evaluate the effects of using
Life-Cycle Energy Analysis in order to assess sustainable
residential buildings. The authors conducted a case study
using Life-Cycle Energy Analysis for the purpose of assessing
alternative design strategies in a green building.
        </p>
        <p>The authors discuss the differences between Life-Cycle
Assessment and Life-Cycle Energy Analysis. Life-Cycle
Assessment is an estimate of the total environmental impact of a
product, from raw materials to disposal. It takes into account
energy use, non-renewable resource requirements, and impacts
to surrounding ecosystems.</p>
        <p>In Life-Cycle Energy Analysis, by contrast, an attempt is
made to account for all energy inputs to a product - not only
the direct energy inputs, but also all indirect energy inputs
related to the manufacturing process. A common criticism
of this approach is that the only measure of environmental
sustainability it considers is energy efficiency. This analysis is
not meant to replace methods like the Life-Cycle Assessment;
its purpose is to aid in deciding between energy-efficient
alternatives.</p>
        <p>The Life-Cycle Energy Analysis calculates the embodied
energy and the operational energy of a building. Embodied
energy is the sum of all of the energy that went into creating
a product, including transportation and resource extraction.
Operational energy is the energy used while the product is
in operation. For a building this would be the energy used in
heating and cooling, lighting, or cooking.</p>
        <p>The paper explains that there are tradeoffs between
embodied energy and operational energy over the anticipated life of a
building. Life-Cycle Energy Analysis allows a comparison for
decision-making. The example given is insulation; while it has
a high embodied energy cost, it provides savings in operational
energy over time. Being able to calculate the payback period
for this tradeoff is useful for making decisions about green
buildings.</p>
        <p>The findings from the study suggest that renovating an
existing building is preferable to new construction as renovation
saves the embodied energy cost associated with new buildings.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>B. Reasons for Undertaking Green Renovations</title>
        <p>
          Despite energy-efficient building renovations being
costeffective when regarded from a life-cycle standpoint, they are
still being undertaken at relatively low rates. In his paper,
Jakob [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ] discusses the factors affecting home renovation
decisions. The author considers economic, legal, and technical
frameworks, and conducts a survey on homeowners to assess
their perception of the aforementioned frameworks.
        </p>
        <p>The author suggests that understanding legal and economic
drivers promoting (or preventing) green renovations is vital
to defining policy that will encourage these renovations. It
was found that sustainable renovations are not triggered by
the conditions of the building. For example, while
energyefficient window replacements can be done to most types of
buildings, it is also true that these buildings can be lived in
quite comfortably without the improvements.</p>
        <p>Analysis revealed that one barrier was financial, as home
renovation can demand a high upfront cost. Another barrier
was awareness - when asked whether or not owners would add
insulation to their homes, many stated that insulation was “not
necessary”. This implies that raising awareness and providing
information is vital. In terms of green renovations, it was found
that energy-efficient considerations were triggered by general
renovation activity, such as extensions to the home. This
suggests that part of the key to improving outcomes may be
to learn how to interest homeowners in green renovations for
their own sake, not as part of a general renovation/extension.
This could lead to more green renovations, and also perhaps
ones that a) do not lead to non-environmentally-friendly home
expansion, and b) have total investment by owners in the
positive environmental impacts of the changes, making it more
likely they will learn how to make the most of new green
features.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>C. Why Are New Green Features Not Used to Their Best</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-4">
        <title>Effect?</title>
        <p>
          Stokes, Mildenberger, Savan, and Kolenda [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ] analyze the
barriers to energy conservation behaviour. In studies of
behaviour campaigns, it was found that despite training and
information, participants generally do not maintain behavioural
changes. Significant behaviour change is not observed, even
if participants gain new knowledge or change their attitudes.
The authors suggest that this is due to a “reliance on a
misguided assumption that simply providing information can
shift attitudes, and as a result, behaviors.”
        </p>
        <p>
          Maller and Horne [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ] argue that one cannot hope to make
fundamental changes to behaviour solely through the
presentation of information. The authors suggest that there is a need for
policy that “encourages ‘practice’ as opposed to ‘behaviour’
change.” Current policy places too strong an emphasis on
changing behaviour without considering a systems view. They
suggest that a purely technical focus on building performance
over-simplifies occupant behaviour. Assumptions are made
based on aggregate data, and occupant preferences are usually
not taken into account. This can have negative impacts on
energy use and occupant satisfaction.
        </p>
        <p>
          Vlasova and Gram-Hanssen [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ] find that taking into account
everyday practices of households can help reduce
consumption. The study follows three projects: a do-it-yourself case, in
which the family who lived in the house completed the designs
and carried out the retrofit; a commercial case, in which a
contracting company was involved; and a project which was
initiated by a municipality. The authors conclude that the
do-ityourself project and municipality project were “able to include
feedback loops from the everyday practices of those living in
the house.”
        </p>
        <p>Based on these results, the authors recommend that “policy
focus has to switch from solely being on efficient technology
to acknowledging the significant connections between the
technologies and the everyday habits.” They suggest that
encouraging dialogue between energy advisors and end users
is the best way to support these connections.</p>
        <p>
          Chappells and Shove [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
          ] argue that instead of determining
the most efficient ways of maintaining comfortable
temperatures in homes, we should be challenging the ideas of comfort
and similar attitudes. Similarly, Maller, Horne, and Dalton
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ] suggest that we should challenge social practices that
are energy and water intensive, such as ideas of cleanliness
convenience.
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-5">
        <title>D. Contradictions between Knowledge and Practice</title>
        <p>
          Maller, Horne, and Dalton [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ] explore the narratives around
environmental sustainability and how these shape attitudes
towards green renovations, especially from the point of view
of the those living in the homes being renovated. They discuss
incentives set up by governments and environmental
organizations intended to encourage individual citizens to make
sustainable renovation choices. These incentives generally
come in the form of rebates or other financial incentives, but
other benefits include saving money on energy bills, improving
health and air quality, and protecting the environment.
        </p>
        <p>Their focus on the daily routines and home aspirations
of residents provides a unique perspective to the concept of
green home renovation. The paper focuses on people who are
committed to environmental sustainability, and to what extent
this narrative plays into their housing renovation decisions.</p>
        <p>They conducted interviews with several households who
were undertaking a green renovation. Specifically, they
explored two main renovation domains: “(1) bathrooms and
the practices of bathing and showering; and (2) kitchens and
adjoining living areas and the practices of cooking, socializing
and entertaining.” Several examples are given of households
that want their home to reflect their values of sustainability,
but whose actual renovations are counter to this narrative.
For example, most renovations increased floor size and added
rooms. The authors conclude that using the narratives of
environmental sustainability in green renovations is not an
effective way to reduce consumption in a home.</p>
        <p>Every household has specific daily routines to consider, and
aspirations about their ideal home, and this can sometimes
conflict with green decisions during a renovation. The authors
suggest that a cultural shift is required in order to improve
sustainability practices in the industry. This shift would
encourage responsible resource use, promote a sharing economy,
further the idea of households as producers of energy and
resources, and re-think energy-intensive social norms. The
authors propose that policy-makers should reflect on the daily
routines and aspirations of households in order to encourage
sustainable renovation practices.</p>
        <p>
          The findings by Maller and Horne [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ] indicate that,
despite their passionate stance for protecting the environment,
homeowners often made renovations that were counter to the
sustainability narrative, such as increasing floor size or adding
a pool. This suggests that while one may have genuine concern
for the environment, it takes a back seat to daily routines,
practices, and the evolution of housing design.
        </p>
        <p>Homeowners tend to engage in contradictory practices. For
example, one homeowner expressed that she was in the process
of installing a front loading washing machine because “[i]t
uses less water and less power and is better on your clothes.”
Later in the same interview, this same homeowner expressed
the desire to get a swimming pool. Despite these two ideas
being contradictory (wanting to use less water on the one
hand, while desiring an item that is very water intensive on
the other), many homeowners do not experience cognitive
dissonance, perhaps due to not recognizing the contradictory
nature of their beliefs.</p>
        <p>
          Connolly and Prothero [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ] examine green consumption
generally, and how consumers relate to environmental issues.
Many instances of contradictory behaviour are noted in this
study as well, such as one participant who called himself a
radical environmentalist, but who flew regularly.
        </p>
        <p>The authors present an interesting idea that individuals feel
personal responsibility for global environmental problems, and
therefore feel empowered to make changes. But as consumers,
they face doubts about which choices they should make.
While this sense of empowerment accompanied by doubt
and insecurity may seem dichotomous, the authors suggest
that these feelings are linked; the feelings of confusion are
a result of the feeling of personal responsibility and duty.
This provides an interesting consideration for our research
as we are examining individuals who are undertaking green
renovations. These are individuals who presumably feel a
personal responsibility to make green choices in their own and
their families’ lives, but feel overwhelmed or confused by the
choices they must evaluate, especially if they are unfamiliar
with the area of home renovation.</p>
        <p>The literature in this area suggests that there are three
ways in which green renovations are not ideal. The first is
that uptake is very low, considering the fact that
energyefficient renovations are cost-effective from a life-cycle point
of view. One of the reasons for this is low awareness. Where
green renovations are undertaken, they are usually done as
part of general renovation activity, and not for their own
sake. This usually means that while certain green features
are included, users are also opting for changes that increase
the home’s environmental impact, such as making the home
bigger. Furthermore, those green features that are added in the
renovation are not used to their full effect. The mere conveying
of information about green features and practices does not
cause users to change their behaviour in environmentally
friendly ways, and so an attempt to address any of these
three issues must go beyond simply presenting information.
Since the literature indicates that information alone does little
to encourage green behaviour, providing information must be
used as part of a participatory design process.</p>
        <p>
          Carroll and Rosson [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ] claim that participatory design
combines two ideas about design. The first is a “moral
proposition”, which states that “users have a right to be directly
included in the process of design.” As the people for whom
green buildings are being built, end users should be involved
in the design process. The second idea about design is a
“pragmatic proposition”, which states that “directly including
the users’ input will increase the chances of a successful design
outcome.” This can be thought of in terms of the participatory
design framework proposed by Sanders, Brandt, and Binder
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
          ], specifically:
1) “probing participants”,
2) “priming participants in order to immerse them in the
domain of interest”,
3) understanding participants’ current experiences, and
4) generating “ideas or design concepts for the future.”
Carroll and Rosson suggest that these two ideas about
design are radical in that they challenge commonly-held
beliefs about the role of a designer as a professional. When
considering green building design, there are already many
different types of professionals who work together, such as
architects, engineers, energy analysts, and construction crews.
Given that building design in general is a well-established
industry with well-defined and rigid roles, green building
design teams would benefit from the new perspectives that
participatory design offers.
        </p>
        <p>
          What emerges, then, from the literature is that the potential
environmental benefit of green renovations is far from being
met because, in spite of the technical building advances that
are available to reduce a home’s environmental impact, we
have not learned how to effectively engage the end users
of green buildings. The literature highlights three metrics
by which the effectiveness of end user engagement can be
measured: the extent to which it induces home owners to take
on green renovations, when they otherwise would not [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ]; the
extent to which it causes end users to prioritize the green
aspect of their renovation, rather than coupling it with other
home alterations that undermine the environmental effect [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref8 ref9">8,
9, 12</xref>
          ]; and the extent to which it enables end users to optimize
the green impact of the concluded renovations [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>Given the above literature review, our research aims to target
a theme common to all these problems, which is how to engage
end users in the green building design process. If there can
be improvements to the current standards of green renovation
projects, especially as they relate to end users and requirements
elicitation, enthusiasm for and performance of green buildings
will increase.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>IV. THE GREEN 2.0 PROJECT</title>
      <p>The Green 2.0 project is being advanced by a large,
transdisciplinary research team that includes researchers in
the disciplines of civil engineering, business, social
studies, and computer science. It seeks to bring green building
professionals (e.g., architects, engineers, construction crew,
energy analysts) and end users together in a social platform
that enables socio-technical analytics of green buildings. See
Figure 1 for more details.</p>
      <p>
        One of the intended results of this platform’s use is to
reduce the problems with existing design processes that have
been identified by many exasperated customers, including
customers who happen to be software engineers. In 2001
Wieringa [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] wrote a Viewpoint article about his experiences
with house building and renovation. In it, he identifies a
problem with coordination of specifications. For example,
some builders do not read specifications, but build the way
they normally do. In one instance he found a builder using an
outdated version of a specification. He compares bad house
engineering to bad software engineering - “Both are examples
of bad systems engineering.” He also points out a problem
with communication and coordination, as there are so many
parties involved in building or renovating a house.
      </p>
      <p>
        Wieringa also brings up the problem of specifications not
being understood by users. Berry [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ] also identifies this
problem in his own Viewpoint from 1998. Berry lists elements
of similarity between house and software requirements
engineering, including:
“the importance of the client understanding the plans/
specifications in validating that the plans/specifications
capture his/her intent”
“the usefulness of a model/prototype in the client’s
understanding of the plans/specification.”
      </p>
      <p>
        The developments that have been made in Requirements
Engineering in the software community are very relevant to
this application. For example, engaging users by using multiple
approaches to requirements elicitation, or using goal models
for exploring trade-offs. This can also be extended into a
participatory design framework, as discussed by Sanders et
al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ]
      </p>
      <p>
        The goal of the Green 2.0 project is to solve the issues
common to building design. Because the proposed platform
hosts engineers, architects, construction crews, energy
analysts, and end users, coordination and communication is done
in one place. Specifications are updated for all to see, so there
is no risk of using an outdated copy. The social aspects of
the platform present information to end users, which has a
beneficial impact on customer acceptance. Research suggests
that when people are presented with visual information on
an environmentally beneficial practice, such as using recycled
water, they are more likely to buy in to that practice [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ]. It
is therefore important to think about how information about
green buildings is presented to end users in order to engage
them in the process, which is the motivation behind our
research.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>V. RESEARCH DESIGN This section will outline the proposed research design for the case study.</title>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>A. Research Questions</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>There are two research questions in this study:</title>
      <p>1) Why do homeowners renovate their homes?
We suspect that there are a variety of reasons
people choose to renovate their homes (e.g., aesthetic
improvements, health impacts, to save money on
energy bills). But do these reasons differ for those
who choose green renovations? Are people who opt
for green renovations more environmentally conscious?
Are they familiar with the language commonly used
when discussing sustainability? Will their information
requirements differ from those who choose a traditional
renovation?
2) How does the industry currently present information
to end users about green home renovation, and what
is missing?
We hope to determine the effectiveness of the various
methods of presenting information to end users. For
example, if a customer wants to save money on energy
bills, how is the return on investment presented? When
selecting materials such as floors or windows, how are
the tradeoffs between aesthetics, price, and sustainability
shown? Do end users easily understand the information
being presented to them, and how does the information
influence their decision-making process?</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>B. Case Description and Unit of Analysis</title>
        <p>To help answer these research questions, we will conduct
an exploratory case study on a renovation company in Toronto
that focuses on green home renovation. This company’s
mandate is based on a holistic building approach, with the goal of
minimizing the environmental impact of renovation. Through
observation and a series of interviews, we hope to follow
a renovation project from inception to completion. The unit
of analysis will be pieces of information given to the client,
such as reports or graphs. By conducting interviews with the
client at regular intervals throughout the project, we hope to
determine the effectiveness of each piece of information.</p>
        <p>Given that this is an exploratory case study in an area that
is currently not very well understood by software engineers,
we suspect that more questions will emerge from the data, and
that this study could lead to larger projects in the future.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-2">
        <title>C. Data Collection and Analysis</title>
        <p>Data collection methods for this project will mostly consist
of interviews with clients of the green home renovation
company being studied, spread out over the course of the
renovation project. At the project’s inception, we will conduct
an open-ended interview with the clients, with a focus on the
information that they received. As the project progresses, we
will check in with the clients to see how they feel about the
information they received at the beginning of the project, and
any new information they received. At the end of the project
we will conduct a retrospective interview, to find out which
pieces of information were ultimately useful, if there is any
information that was missing, or if any improvements could
be made to the way the information is presented.</p>
        <p>Although the focus at this point is on information, we hope
that through the open-ended interviews, new data will come
to light that will prove interesting.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>VI. CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>The urgency of bringing our species’ energy consumption
under control is great, but potential energy savings in
buildings, which account for such a significant share of energy
use, are being lost even in what are intended to be green
buildings, due to a lack of common ground between building
end users and all those involved in designing and constructing
buildings. The interdisciplinary Green 2.0 project aims to close
this gap between the vision for green buildings and their
execution, by creating a platform for all parties involved in
the building, from design to end-use, to communicate with
each other. As a preliminary step, the proposed case study
of a green building company in Toronto will elucidate how
end users currently receive information about their buildings
during design and construction, and how such information can
be more effectively communicated in order to improve ultimate
energy use.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>ACKNOWLEDGMENT</title>
      <p>We would like to thank CANARIE for their support of this
project.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Newsham</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Mancini</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Birt</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but</article-title>
          ...',
          <source>Energy and Buildings</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>41</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>8</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>897</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>905</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>GhaffarianHoseini</surname>
          </string-name>
          , N. Dahlan,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
            <surname>Berardi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , A. GhaffarianHoseini,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Makaremi</surname>
          </string-name>
          and M. GhaffarianHoseini, '
          <article-title>Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: A review of current theories, implementations and challenges', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews</article-title>
          , vol.
          <volume>25</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>17</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Torcellini</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Deru</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Griffith</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Long</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Pless</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Judkoff</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Lessons learned from field evaluation of six high-performance buildings'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings Proceedings</source>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Schipper</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Bartlett</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Hawk</surname>
          </string-name>
          and E. Vine, '
          <string-name>
            <surname>Linking</surname>
          </string-name>
          Life-Styles and
          <article-title>Energy Use: A Matter of Time?', Annual Review of Energy</article-title>
          , vol.
          <volume>14</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>1</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>273</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>320</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1989</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Fay</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Treloar</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
            <surname>Iyer-Raniga</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case study'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Building Research &amp; Information</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>28</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>1</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>31</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>41</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2000</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Jakob</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>The drivers of and barriers to energy efficiency in renovation decisions of single-family home-owners'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>CEPE</source>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Stokes</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Mildenberger</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Savan</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Kolenda</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Analyzing Barriers to Energy Conservation in Residences and Offices: The Rewire Program at</article-title>
          the University of Toronto',
          <source>Applied Environmental Education &amp; Communication</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>11</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>2</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>88</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>98</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Maller</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Horne</surname>
          </string-name>
          , 'Living Lightly:
          <article-title>How does Climate Change Feature in Residential Home Improvements and What are the Implications for Policy?'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Urban Policy and Research</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>29</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>1</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>59</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>72</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Vlasova</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Gram-Hanssen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Incorporating inhabitants' everyday practices into domestic retrofits'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Building Research &amp; Information</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>42</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>4</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>512</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>524</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Chappells</surname>
          </string-name>
          and E. Shove, '
          <article-title>Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Building Research &amp; Information</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>33</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>1</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>32</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>40</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Maller</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Horne</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Dalton</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Green Renovations: Intersections of Daily Routines, Housing Aspirations and Narratives of Environmental Sustainability'</article-title>
          , Housing,
          <source>Theory and Society</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>29</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>3</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>255</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>275</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Connolly</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Prothero</surname>
          </string-name>
          , 'Green Consumption:
          <article-title>Life-politics, risk and contradictions'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Journal of Consumer Culture</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>8</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>1</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>117</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>145</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Carroll</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Rosson</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Participatory design in community informatics'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Design Studies</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>28</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>3</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>243</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>261</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Sanders</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Brandt</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Binder</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference on - PDC '10</source>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Wieringa</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Software Requirements Engineering: The Need for Systems Engineering</article-title>
          and Literacy',
          <source>Requirements Engineering</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>6</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>2</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>132</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>134</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2001</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Berry</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>Software and House Requirements Engineering: Lessons Learned in Combating Requirements Creep'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Requirements Engineering</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>3</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>3-4</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>242</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>244</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Dolnicar</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Hurlimann</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Nghiem</surname>
          </string-name>
          , '
          <article-title>The effect of information on public acceptance - The case of water from alternative sources'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Journal of Environmental Management</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>91</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>6</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1288</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1293</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>