Next Article in Journal
Multi-Objective Optimization of a Two-Stage Helical Gearbox Using MARCOS Method
Previous Article in Journal
Introduction of Hybrid Additive Manufacturing for Producing Multi-Material Artificial Organs for Education and In Vitro Testing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Designs
Volume 8
Issue 3
10.3390/designs8030052
designs-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Challenges That Impact the Development of a Multi-Generational Low-Carbon Passive House in a Small City

by
Hanan Wehbi
1,* and
Tahar Messadi
2
1
Environmental Dynamics Program, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
2
Fay Jones School of Architecture and Design, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Designs 2024, 8(3), 52; https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8030052
Submission received: 16 April 2024 / Revised: 18 May 2024 / Accepted: 23 May 2024 / Published: 28 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Sustainability, Challenges and Opportunities to Optimize Building Performance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The impact of the building and construction sector on climate change is becoming more important and recognized. Multiple initiatives around the globe have been utilized to design and develop residential structures, aiming to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions; yet, there are several barriers to effective construction processes. This research outlines the gaps and barriers encountered by key stakeholders that were engaged during the preconstruction phase of a three-story multi-generational low-impact Passive House in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Through direct observation and open-ended interviews, the primary data are collected, and secondary data from a comprehensive literature review are detailed to capture the challenges faced during different phases of the implementation of sustainable residential dwellings. This study highlights the limited knowledge and experience in sustainable building design as a common barrier among participants along with the insufficiency of the regulatory framework governing adopted building codes in Arkansas, in facilitating sustainable building design implementation. These challenges, among others, are then thoroughly examined, and recommendations to address them are described.

1. Introduction

The building and construction sector is a major contributor to global carbon emissions through construction and energy consumption, and addressing climate issues and carbon reduction has become a vital goal worldwide [1]. Passive Houses, Net-Zero-Energy (NZE) Buildings, and Zero-Carbon Buildings are examples of building types developed to achieve this goal and that aim to minimize embodied and operational energy use and carbon emissions throughout the building’s life cycle. Passive Houses are one of these typologies, which offer a promising solution for achieving exceptional energy efficiency and sustainability while ensuring occupant comfort [2].
The construction process can be divided into three main stages: preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction phases. The preconstruction phase focuses on the planning and design, where the project’s size, location, architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical designs are prepared and permitting is ensured to launch the construction works. The construction phase includes bringing down the design drawings’ specification and procurement on site and ensuring all specifications are met. The project completion stage is where the project is finalized and handed over to the owner [3]. Each of these phases presents its own challenges that emerge during the construction process and can affect project completion [4].
The design and construction of low-carbon and energy-efficient houses can have significant challenges during various phases of the project, especially in regions where the concept is still relatively new and unfamiliar [5], and where the design and construction involves a unique set of considerations, such as finding qualified and motivated engineers, complying with regulatory frameworks, managing the material and supply chain, and dealing with the special construction requirements for these types of buildings [2].
The purpose of this research paper is to shed light on these barriers, and to provide insights into the experience of the stakeholders engaged in the design and permitting of the Everly House, also known as the Caja House. The house was designed as a triplex multi-generational low-carbon Passive House in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in a city in a humid subtropical climate of the southern United States. This study is unique in its in-depth analysis of the preconstruction phase from the initial stages that can affect a low-carbon Passive House in the suburbs of a growing small city in the United States. This study provides an overview of the barriers faced by professionals engaged in this study that can inform future sustainable building projects, in areas where similar practices are not common. By examining these barriers and their potential solutions, this study seeks to contribute to the development of strategies and recommendations that can facilitate the design and permitting process for future Passive House projects in a similar context.

2. Literature Review

The Passivhaus standard is generally defined as a low-energy building that achieves indoor thermal comfort [6]. This concept was developed in Europe by the end of 1988 by Wolfgang Feist from Germany and Bo Adamson from Sweden [7]. The design of the first Passivhaus was established in 1991, resulting in a super-insulated building [8]. The concept was formulated according to Passivhaus standards that are reviewed through the Passivhaus Institute (PHI), an internationally recognized research institution that was established in 1996 to provide the guidance, design, and certification of houses meeting the performance standards [2]. In North America, the term Passive House is often used to refer to energy efficiency buildings, where the Passive House Institute (US PHIUS) provides certification for buildings that meet the requirements of PHIUS Standards for building energy modeling. Originally part of PHI, PHIUS was established to tailor the standards to North American climate. A break in the agreement resulted in the two institutions providing for separate Passive House certification in North America [9] with differences in criteria for heating and cooling, air tightness, energy, and the energy modeling tools [10]. For the modeling tool, PHIUS uses Wärme Und Feuchte Instationär (WUFI) while PHI uses the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) as an informing tool for project certification [11]. The decision to choose one of these options for the Passive House certification solely depends on the architect, engineer, and owner [2,12]
The US Department of Energy (DOE) defines an NZE building as an energy-efficient edifice that generates as much or more energy than it consumes over a year through onsite renewable energy sources [13], resulting in a net-zero balance of energy use and emissions [14]. The design of an NZE building demands the implementation of specific energy performance strategies, design concepts, and technologies [15]. The measurement and classification of NZE performance varies, contributing to common challenges and barriers encountered during the implementation of NZE building projects [16]. These challenges result from multidimensional factors that are related to technical knowledge and expertise of professionals, efficient project management, project cost implications, policies and regulatory requirements, and dealing with market barriers [17].
Research conducted in both developed and developing countries has identified many challenges in implementing sustainable building practices that are related to the cost, timing, regulations, knowledge gap, and lack of incentives and support [18]. For instance, a recent study conducted in New Zealand about the slowdown in construction of NZE buildings concluded that legislations and policies are the main challenges in incentivizing and encouraging the adoption of these types of buildings while the impact of financial and technical challenges is limited [19]. The challenges, however, can be different among countries, cities, and states. For example, a study conducted in Nigeria found that the main challenges to adopting sustainable construction practices are related to the lack of experience among professionals, lack of clear strategies to promote sustainable constructions, and lack of demand among different stakeholders to adopt sustainable construction [20].
As for other examples, a study conducted in southern Europe has highlighted technical and social challenges in implementing Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (NZEB) [21], and a study in Portugal found that the main obstacles to implementing the Passive House concept were related to a lack of knowledge among building industry technicians and key actors [22].
This literature review highlights eight categories of barriers and challenges that affect the project implementation phases. The first phase is comprised of the issues arising during the project inception period and includes cultural and social constraints and project management [17,20]. The second phase, or preconstruction phase, covers design and permitting, and includes the technical challenges, knowledge gap, legislative and regulatory barriers, and financial constraints [20,21,22,23]. During the last phase or the construction work, delays are caused by barriers arising from knowledge gaps and project management [23,24].
Results of this literature review highlighting the common barriers and challenges (CBCs) to sustainable buildings including Passive Houses and NZE buildings are summarized in Table 1 below.

3. Methodology

Everly Passive House is the case study under investigation for the specific challenges and barriers faced during the preconstruction phase. The Everly Caja residence is a three-story residential house with a total area of around 300 m2 (3300 ft2). The house is designed to operate as a Passive House with low operating energy demand. The house design also considers the material enclosure used to lower carbon emission as well as providing low energy demand.
  • Suite A—An elderly accessible single bedroom house located on the 1st floor; designed for couples; includes one bedroom, and one large bathroom with curb-less shower and wheelchair modification ready.
  • Suite B—Designed as a small family residential floor, and includes three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an office space, an open kitchen, and a living room.
  • Suite C—Designed as a studio and can be combined with Suite B.
This study employs a triangulated approach that combines the use of data from multiple sources [25], among them a literature review, direct observations, and open-ended interviews. The collection of data from multiple sources enhances the validity and reliability of the findings [26], and allows the development of a complete understanding of the problem [25]. The preconstruction phase is critical as it sets the foundation for the project, as it involves finalizing the design, securing permits, and planning for variations. It is during that phase that many challenges are faced, which could potentially lead to not completing the project. These barriers are often related to regulatory and code compliance, design modifications, material selection, and other factors specific to sustainable building practices.
The use of a literature review in this study allows capturing the different barriers faced by sustainable buildings, providing a comprehensive thematic review of these barriers and confirming the findings of this study [27]. On the other hand, the direct observation offers unique opportunities to the researchers to capture, through direct engagement in a real-world setting, interactions and incidents that other methods can miss or misinterpret and help fill the gap between theory and practice [28]. The open-ended interview through purposeful sampling offers selecting participants that play pivotal roles in the preconstruction phase of the Everly Passive House. The richness of the information provides a comprehensive understanding of the challenges. This approach ensures that each participant could offer substantial insights into the encountered challenges and barriers [29].
(a)
Literature Review
A systematic approach is followed in the literature search to ensure a rigorous and comprehensive identification of relevant articles. The review process is focused on the discovery of scientific documents that specifically identify the challenges faced during the preconstruction and construction of sustainable buildings. A combination of keyword searches and database filters are used to identify relevant articles. The search criteria include terms such as “barriers to sustainable building design”, “challenges in sustainable building permitting”, “obstacles in sustainable construction”, and related variations. These documents are then screened based on relevance to the research topic and included for a detailed analysis. Only articles that provide insights on challenges faced during the implementation of sustainable buildings are included for further analysis. Next, the identified challenges are categorized and segregated according to the stage of construction in which they mostly occur. This approach enabled a structured analysis of the challenges, providing a deeper understanding of the barriers at each stage of the construction process.
(b)
Interviews
Interviews were conducted and the key barriers were identified and categorized. The barriers are then classified into themes that share common elements (e.g., communication channels, technical skills, design implementation). The elements represent the factors contributing to each identified barrier, which are identified through a process of a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. The categorization is based on the nature of these barriers (e.g., technical, regulatory, financial) and its impact on the project (e.g., delay, cost increase). Barriers are grouped into themes that share common elements. Themes are analyzed based on the frequency of response, which is quantified by counting the number of times each barrier is mentioned across all interviews [30]. Themes are weighted based on their observed impact on project time and goals, which is assessed by considering the severity of the delay or cost increase caused by each barrier, as reported by the interviewees. Selected comments and quotations from the interviews are included in the analysis to provide a richer understanding of the identified barriers. These direct quotes serve as supporting evidence and offer firsthand perspectives and insights from the respondents [31]. The comments and quotations are selected to represent a range of perspectives and to highlight the challenges faced during the preconstruction phase.
This study employed a purposeful sampling strategy where interviews are directed at city officials, engineers, and architects engaged in the Everly House preconstruction phase, as well as the owner. A total of nine professionals responsible for developing geotechnical, structural, architectural, and mechanical design were identified. The interview questionnaire was shared with these professionals, along with two city representatives and the project owner. We received responses from the structural and mechanical engineers (E1 and E2), the two architects from the architectural firm (A1 and A2), and the two official representatives from the city of Fayetteville (R1 and R2), in addition to the owner who also acts as the main contractor of the house. These seven interviews represent the entirety of this group, thus providing a complete picture of challenges faced during this phase. Follow-up interviews and questions are also shared with some participants for clarification and requesting additional information for this study. The interview questions are conceived to capture the interviewees’ viewpoints and experience in the design and permitting of this house as well as their experience as part of professional bodies and regulatory agencies in the challenges and barriers to implementing sustainable buildings in fast-growing cities. The questions ranged from exploring the dynamics of collaboration and communication among stakeholders to understanding the detailed design challenges and material selection, in addition to the potential challenges that could impact the success of similar projects in the future.
(c)
Direct observation
In addition, the research is based on direct observation to gain insights into the process of developing similar projects as well as to understand common challenges faced during the preconstruction of Everly House. The observation period spanned from August 2022 to May 2023. During this period, the authors closely observed the design and permitting process through direct engagement with the project owner. This engagement consisted of weekly meetings, recorded in written meeting notes, which included progress updates, decisions made, and discussions. The discussions were centered around reasons behind any changes made to the project plan, issues related to design iterations, and other topics. The outcome of the direct observation assisted in scoring the barriers.
A scoring methodology was conducted using a binary scoring system to simplify the analysis in direct observation into ‘observed’ and ‘not observed’ [32], to understand the presence of a specific barrier in each stage of the preconstruction of the project. If the barrier was observed in the planning, conceptual design, or final design and permitting, it was given a score of 1; if not, it was scored as 0. The barrier is then weighed based on the sum of the scores across the three stages where the result ranged from 0 to 3. This method allowed the reflection of the cumulative impact of these barriers on the project, and provided an informative analysis of the relationship between the exploratory variables (observed and not observed barriers) and the dependent variable (the weight) [33].
Additionally, a collaboration folder between the owner and the architectural firm was shared by the project owner with the authors. The folder includes project architectural, mechanical, and structural design plans and material data sheets. This folder serves as an essential source for project documents during the follow-up period and represents a primary source of data for the analysis.
Relevant documents, such as mechanical design reports, structural design calculation notes, WUFI Energy simulation reports, permit draft documents, and relevant regulations such as Fayetteville, Arkansas Energy Code of Ordinances, 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), 2021 International Building Code (IBC) and 2021 International Residential Code (IRC), and Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Volume I, adopted by the state of Arkansas, are reviewed to supplement the observation data.

4. Results

The barriers can be summarized into six main categories, which were highlighted by the interviewees and observed during the follow-up period. The six categories include 20 barriers faced at different stages, where each barrier is represented as a theme; themes are related to elements representing factors causing these challenges depending on the nature of the barrier, and these elements are used to develop recommendations to overcome these barriers. Table 2 is a summary of the categories, themes, and elements along with weighing these barriers based on their impact on the project timeline ranking from low- to high-impact barriers, and the frequency of times they are mentioned in the interviews.
The preconstruction phase of the Everly project has three main stages: planning, conceptual design development, detailed design and permitting [31]. The barriers are not isolated to one stage but do rather overlap, interact, and result from the difficulties or gaps encountered by the various stakeholders involved in the project. To provide an understanding of the relationship between project participants, project stages, and identified barriers, a diagram has been developed (Figure 1). This diagram briefly explains the relationship between project participants, the three main stages during the preconstruction phase, and the main barriers encountered in these stages.

5. Management and Time Barriers

“A lot of changes came but not all at one time so there were many iterations which made us constantly need to reevaluate how we are meeting the standards”, said A1, a sentiment echoed by E1, “One should get a schematic plan in front of the permitting people as early as possible and to get everyone on board as early as possible.”
For example, the design of the Everly House changed substantially in response to the discovery of zoning requirements for a property in a flood plain that required raising the residential quarters a minimum of 0.6 m from the surface (Figure 2). Moreover, WUFI modeling of the original design revealed the need for additional shading and insulation to meet Passive House energy goals (Figure 2).
Challenges associated with management and time are common among sustainable building projects across the construction project phases (Table 1, e.g., Timing and Managerial Constraints). The Everly House faced similar challenges during the preconstruction phase, and one key barrier that had the highest impact on this project was the lack of an integrated design approach among architectural, structural, geotechnical, mechanical, and sustainable building designs that resulted in multiple design revisions. The inadequacy of coordination was mentioned several times by the design professionals during their interviews, indicating a recurrent theme. A1, for example, noted the multifaceted nature of design alterations stemming from diverse factors such as project location, structural modifications, and regulatory requisites.
To overcome this barrier, it is important to establish clear lines of communication and coordination between architects, structural engineers, geotechnical experts, mechanical engineers, and sustainable building designers from the very early stages of planning. Regular project meetings coupled with the comprehensive documentation of decisions foster alignment amongst all stakeholders with the overarching project vision and objectives. Ultimately, this approach can reduce the number of design revisions, and reduce the project timeline.

6. Sustainable Design Barriers

“We seemed to be looking at the design process from two different directions”, said the owner. In parallel, E2 pointed out that “The impact of design decisions and assumptions is greater than that of any specific tool in Mechanical Engineering and Plumbing (MEP) systems. These systems have historically been oversized due to outdated rules of thumb and dynamic design conditions.”
For example, there is a difference between conventional design and Passive House design assumptions for the thermostat settings. The conventional thermostat setting, initially used in the design of the Everly Passive House, is set between 21 and 24 degrees Celsius (70 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit); however, the Passive House paradigm mandates a much wider range of 20 to 25 degrees Celsius (68 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit). The indoor design temperature assumption affects the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, leading to oversizing due to disparities in thermal requirements, where heating transmission load increases and cooling transmission load decreases when increasing indoor design temperature [34] for the final design. The heating load estimated through WUFI was approximately 17,141 Btu/h while the estimated value through Hourly Analysis Program (HAP) was 14,321 Btu/h, and the cooling load estimated through WUFI was approximately 7737 Btu/h, while the estimated sensible and latent cooling loads calculated in HAP were 21,991 Btu/h and 1640 Btu/h, respectively.
Designers and engineers, by and large, prefer conventional design and material over sustainable design approaches (Table 1, Development and Evaluation and Technical Challenges). The common barrier illustrated in the above example is the lack of alignment between design decisions and the project vision and objectives, which results in suboptimal or incompatible design solutions.
Another barrier stems from the lack of integration between architectural design, HVAC systems, and structural design, hindering the quest for optimal energy efficiency. For example, the designer of a Passive House assumes the infiltration in the HVAC design in all zones to be negligible due to tight construction; however, real-world observations reveal a significant disparity between this assumption and the physical setting, where infiltration occurs through cracks in building envelopes and through natural ventilation caused by opening doors and windows, which allows outdoor air to enter [35]. These examples emphasize how such differences in design assumptions can lead to significant effects on system efficiency and energy consumption.

7. Regulatory, Permitting, and Legislation Barriers

“Additionally the house design doesn’t meet the typical design requirements stated in the fire code for single house, and it was considered a Triplex that requires additional modification to meet standards,” said R1, and “The codes are not written to address Passive [House] design explicitly,” according to R2, who also noted that “The State of Arkansas does not give us much ability to regulate building materials for single-family homes in our zoning codes.”
Even though adopted regulations and policies related to sustainable building design differ among countries, states, and cities [20], regulatory barriers remain common among different projects. The analysis identified several barriers related to regulatory frameworks, permitting processes, and legislative aspects. The inadequate integration of energy efficiency, carbon reduction, and sustainable building design standards within building codes and urban planning regulations emerged as a critical barrier. The house was designed as a single-family house, there was a modification from two to three stories due to requirements for a property in a flood plain, and the house was reclassified as a triplex, which required interior modification and the installation of utilities on the premises. As highlighted by R1, this barrier of code non-compliance causes design modifications and delays in permitting. Even though these codes are not directly related to energy or carbon reduction, they, however, affect the shape and physical layout of the house originally decided on based on sustainable design principles such as the building orientation, number of floors, and internal loads, in addition to carbon reduction and ecological footprint principles that are related to the type of foundation, structural design, and type of material used in addition to the building layout.
The absence of specific and clear guidance on sustainable building design requirements in the adopted building codes can lead to uncertainty among project designers to integrate sustainable building practices into their projects and can also result in a lack of interest in designing for energy saving and carbon reduction. This gap highlights the need to advocate for adopting updated building energy codes and provide consistency and standardization through including clear requirements and guidance to make informed decisions and align the design with code requirements as well as sustainable building practices [18].

8. Knowledge Gap and Experience Barriers

“The lack of literature and experts who knew about these systems made our task more complex,” said E2, and A2 pointed out, “Most of the challenges faced during this [preconstruction] phase is primarily rooted in a general lack of experience in this region with Passive House design and the technologies being used in this house.”
A similar observation was made by the structural engineer (E1) regarding the challenges associated with nontraditional design approaches to reduce the carbon footprint such as the limited use of concrete structures in the project, as well as vertical capacities that include the use of fiberglass composite posts instead of using traditional materials like steel and concrete, and lateral capacities that use bracing systems to enhance lateral stability or hybrid systems such as glulam beams and timber for lateral bracing [36,37]. This lack of familiarity with advanced design strategies and technologies affects the delivery of design drawings in addition to several trade-offs that increase the carbon footprint and oversize the structural beams.
Challenges associated with the knowledge and experience of professionals engaged in the design and implementation of sustainable building projects are another common barrier among similar projects (Table 1, Knowledge Gap). One barrier identified in this study is associated with the gaps in knowledge and experience among design professionals. The lack of expertise and knowledge not only increases the pressure on designers to conduct extensive research but also affects their willingness to embrace innovative approaches during the design phase.
There have been other identified barriers associated with knowledge gaps and experience categories that had a moderate impact on the project and their effects were mainly on the project timeline; these barriers included the lack of awareness and understanding of available energy-efficient technologies such as the Passive House concept and energy-efficient HVAC systems and difficulty in translating theoretical knowledge into practice and were also highlighted by the architects and engineers. Addressing these barriers requires training architects and engineers on sustainable design practices, energy-efficient technologies, and best practices to enhance their knowledge and expertise, and utilizing knowledge-sharing platforms and resources to enhance designers’ awareness and understanding of available energy-efficient technologies and practical design solutions.

9. Material Selection and Supply Chain Barriers:

Although the material selection and supply chain are not highlighted, they are mostly associated with the cost, material information, and decision-making process during the design process [38].
One of the challenges that this research identified is the lack of affordable and sustainable building materials within the local market. Specifically, materials such as hemp wool, cork, and rock wool, which hold immense promise for reducing carbon footprints, are not widely accessible. For example, cork is a material that has these qualities, but it was difficult to import due to supply chain disruptions and high costs. This means that the designers and owner had to spend a lot of time searching for suitable materials to meet the criteria of a low-carbon footprint, Passive House standards, and energy efficiency. This resulted in some compromises in the original envelope material selection and trade-off in the amount of carbon reduction and energy savings without affecting the Passive House thermal enclosure requirements for assemblies, which were thermal resistance values (R-values) of the roof at 11.27–15.15 m2·K/W (64–86 h ft2 °F/Btu), above-grade walls, overhanging floors at 5.64–8.46 m2·K/W (32–48 h ft2 °F/Btu), and below-grade walls and floors at 2.82–4.23 m2·K/W (16–24 h ft2 °F/Btu) [26]. Figure 3 illustrates two wall section changes that occurred between May 2022 and August 2022 due to design changes and estimation of the carbon footprint associated with envelope assembly.
Table 3 below provides detailed information on the thermal characteristics of three different envelope assemblies that were used in the WUFI Energy model of the Everly House. The name of each assembly, its thermal resistance (R-value), its heat transfer coefficient (U-value), and its thickness (inches) are indicated for the wall, roof, and floor/slab components. These values indicated that all selected building envelopes meet the building’s insulation requirements.
The initial design envisioned the utilization of Nexcem blocks combined with mineral wool, and a slab-on-grade foundation, aligning with floodplain and Passive House design considerations. However, budget constraints, along with the carbon footprint associated with the Nexcem blocks and the floodplain permitting requirements for elevating the house on piles, affected the architectural design, leading to the selection of a 2 × 8″ wall configuration, filled with cellulose insulation. While this decision was, in part, driven by the need to navigate budget constraints and logistical hurdles, it represents a tangible example of the reasons why the consequential reduction in the envelope material carbon footprint is the first to be compromised. Although the barrier is related to many gaps from the manufacturer as well as professional knowledge, professionals need to have an early engagement with the supply chain to identify the whole life cycle cost as well as the carbon footprint before the design process, and should also understand the material physical performance, the carbon footprint, and the impact of energy efficiency to meet the project goal and vision.

10. Tools and Software Barriers

“There are many tools being developed to make carbon-neutral design more achievable for designers, but there needs to be a lot more work done in this area to make it easier for architects to navigate the trade-offs involved in specifying materials and building processes for carbon-neutral buildings,” according to A2. The architect’s comments also extend to energy modeling.
For example, the drawings for the Everly House were prepared in ArchiCAD 26, by Graphisoft, Hungary, 2021 software. For the energy analysis, the ArchiCAD file had to be imported into SketchUp and from SketchUp exported into WUFI. This illustrates the lack of integration and compatibility between different software platforms [11]
An attempt was initiated by the authors to develop an energy model for the Everly House using EnergyPlus 22.1 by the U.S. Department of Energy, Golden, CO, USA, and the ArchiCAD file was also faced with similar obstacles, including gaps in translating the geometry into an analytical model that can be used by EnergyPlus. This gap affects the exchange of critical project information, which, in turn, can lead to misunderstandings, discrepancies in data interpretation, and delays in decision-making and design development.
The identified barriers in this category were of moderate to low impact regarding this project; however, this analysis emphasized the importance of software integration, data sharing, and collaborative workflows as key elements to address these barriers, and the respondents emphasized the relevance of software integration, data sharing, and collaborative workflows for developing energy-efficient designs.

11. Conclusions

The research is based on a specific case study in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in the United States, and the findings may not be applicable to other contexts or regions. This study investigated the barriers faced during the preconstruction phase of the Everly Passive House as a case study, where sustainable building practices are not yet widely adopted and prioritized, both among local industry professionals and within state plans and regulations. Open-ended interview discussions were conducted among professionals engaged during this phase, and seven professionals including the project owner responded. A total of 20 barriers were identified through interviews and direct observation, and then were categorized in terms of the management and time, design, regulations and permitting, knowledge gap and experience, material selection, and tools and software. The findings of this study revealed a multidimensional relationship between different project stakeholders and barrier categories that affect the preconstruction phase. These findings align with the literature review conducted, in which technical challenges and legislative and regulatory barriers were more common during the preconstruction phase of this project, providing scientific evidence to support these results.
These barriers have significant impacts on each stage of the preconstruction phase; they affect the feasibility and viability of the project as well as the identification of possible risks and responsibilities. On the other hand, these barriers may compromise the adoption of carbon reduction goals, building energy-efficiency design, and compliance with certification requirements. Sustainable design and regulatory and permitting barriers were found to carry more weight, as they directly influence the foundational aspects of low carbon, energy-efficiency sustainable design, and approval processes, which are critical for the successful implementation of zero-energy and zero-carbon-emission residential buildings. It is important to address these barriers by adopting a multidisciplinary design approach that involves integrating all relevant design disciplines (architecture, HVAC, structural engineering) to work collaboratively during the concept development and final design stages and considering energy performance and environmental impact from the outset and prioritizing sustainable design principles.
In addition to that, the respondents provided valuable suggestions as solutions for problems faced, focusing on the importance of early collaboration and communication among professionals involved in the design and permitting stages; there is importance to developing knowledge and expertise of architects and engineers to implement sustainable building designs and preparing engineers and architects before graduation to incorporate sustainable approaches in their professions. These suggestions were compiled with researchers’ recommendations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and necessary steps to overcome them.
This research is faced with certain limitations that need to be considered. First, some respondents were reluctant to respond to the project; however, the respondents who did participate represent key professionals who exert significant influence over the design and permitting processes of the house. Second, the identified barriers are context-specific and limited to a single case study. In other words, some identified barriers provided in Table 2 may not be relevant to other projects located in different contexts or regions where regulatory frameworks and policies prioritize and incentivize similar projects, while some barriers are identified in other studies, such as design-related challenges and knowledge gaps. Third, the research methodology relies on open-ended interview discussions to capture professionals’ perspective who were directly involved in the project, and it is limited to their professional experience in this project. Fourth, the number of interviewees is limited to seven professionals, and while they provided valuable insights, the limited size may not fully represent multiple perspectives and experiences. Despite the limitations, the findings of this study are expected to be a valuable resource for project owners and professionals engaged in the initial stages of similar projects. The design modifications, retrofitting, and changes in envelope materials are all associated with professionals’ knowledge, interest, and experience in Passive House design requirements and carbon reduction principles as well as the outdated and weak building energy codes and regulations that do not incorporate sustainable building design principles and do not provide comprehensive guidance on energy-efficient and low-carbon design, creating confusion and challenges for architects and engineers during the concept development phase and affecting the timeline of the project. These delays and modifications have affected the project budget and delayed the implementation of the project as well as finalizing the permit documents. Knowing the potential barriers, these stakeholders can utilize these recommendations and develop strategies to overcome them, to ensure successful project design and completion. Additionally, by understanding and addressing these barriers, policymakers, industry professionals, and researchers can work together to overcome these challenges and promote sustainable building typologies.
The research’s novel contribution is its detailed examination of the barrier’s professionals face during the initial stages, providing insights that are scarce in the literature, particularly in a similar context where sustainable building design is not integrated into designers’ approaches and is not prioritized in municipal or state regulations. The aim of this study is to document these challenges and act as a catalyst for future research that could build on these findings and assess the applicability of the recommendations across various contexts. While this study highlights the barriers faced during the preconstruction phase of the Everly Passive House, these findings are specific to this case and may not be generalizable to other projects or regions. Future research could then extend this study to include participants from similar projects in both similar and different contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.W.; methodology, H.W.; validation, H.W. and T.M.; formal analysis, H.W.; investigation, H.W.; resources, H.W.; data curation, H.W.; writing—original draft preparation, H.W.; writing—review and editing, H.W. and T.M.; visualization, H.W.; supervision, T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy reasons.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to appreciate the Everly House owners for generously sharing the project design and details and would like to thank the industry professionals who participated in this study and helped with their valuable experiences and opinions. The Authors would like to acknowledge the support from the Open Access Publishing Fund administered through the University of Arkansas Libraries. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions, which significantly contributed to the improvement in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kabeyi, M.; Olanrewaju, O. Sustainable Energy Transition for Renewable and Low Carbon Grid Electricity Generation and Supply. Sustain. Energy Syst. 2021, 9, 743114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pitts, A. Passive House and Low Energy Buildings: Barriers and Opportunities for Future Development within UK Practice. Sustainability 2017, 9, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Al-Reshaid, K.; Kartam, N.; Tewari, N.; Al-Bader, H. A Project Control Process in Pre-construction Phases. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2005, 12, 351–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alameri, A.; Alhammadi, A.S.A.M.; Memon, A.H.; Rahman, I.A.; Nasaruddin, N.A.N. Assessing the Risk Level of the Challenges Faced in Construction Projects. Eng. Technol. Amp Appl. Sci. Res. 2021, 11, 7152–7157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Souaid, C.; Heijden, H.; Elsinga, M. Perceived Barriers to Nearly Zero-Energy Housing: Empirical Evidence from Kilkenny, Ireland. Energies 2022, 15, 6421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dequaire, X. Passivhaus as a Low-Energy Building Standard: Contribution to a Typology. Energy Effic. 2012, 5, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moreno-Rangel, A. Passivhaus. Encyclopedia 2021, 1, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hopfe, C.; McLeod, R. The Passivhaus Designer’s Manual: A Technical Guide to Low and Zero Energy Buildings; Hopfe, R.S.M.C.J., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pierson, R.; Paquin-Béchard, C. Everything You Need to Know about Passive House Certification. 27 August 2021. Available online: https://www.ecohome.net/guides/2191/everything-you-need-to-know-about-passive-house/ (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  10. AUROSGroup. PHI or PHIUS? What’s Right for My Project? Available online: https://www.aurosgroup.com/post/phi-or-phius-what-s-right-for-my-project (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  11. Antretter, F. WUFI®PlusManual. Fraunhofer IBP 2017. Available online: https://wufi.de/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2017.07_WUFI-Plus-Manual_en.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  12. Phius 2021 Passive Building Standard Certification Guidebook. Phius Certification Guidebook, Version 3.02; 2021. Available online: https://www.phius.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Phius%20Certification%20Guidebook%20v3.02.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  13. ASHRAE. Residential Application. In ASHRAE GreenGuide: Design, Construction and Operation of Sustainable Buildings; ASHRAE: Peachtree Corners, GA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  14. Marszal, A.J.; Heiselberg, P. A Literature Review of Zero Energy Buildings (ZEB) Definitions; Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ahady, S.; Dev, N.; Mandal, A. Toward Zero Energy: Active and Passive Design Strategies to Achieve Net Zero Energy Building. Int. J. Adv. Res. Innov. 2019, 7, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Heffernan, E.E.; Pan, W.; Liang, X.; Wilde, P. Redefining zero? A critical review of definitions of zero energy buildings and zero carbon homes. In Proceedings of the CIBSE Technical Symposium, Liverpool, UK, 12 April 2013. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hafez, F. Energy Efficiency in Sustainable Buildings: A Systematic Review with Taxonomy, Challenges, Motivations, Methodological Aspects, Recommendations, and Pathways for Future Research. Energy Strategy Rev. 2023, 45, 101013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Darko, A.; Chan, A. Review of Barriers to Green Building Adoption. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cielo, D.; Subiantoro, A. Net Zero Energy Buildings in New Zealand: Challenges and Potentials Reviewed against Legislative, Climatic, Technological, and Economic Factors. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Daniel, E.I.; Oshineye, O.; Oshodi, O. Barriers to Sustainable Construction Practices in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the 34th ARCOM Conference, Belfast, UK, 3–5 September 2018; Association of Researchers in Construction Management: Belfast, Ireland, 2018; pp. 149–158. [Google Scholar]
  21. Attia, S. Overview and Future Challenges of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (nZEB) Design in Southern Europe. Energy Build. 2017, 155, 439–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Figueiredo, A.; Rebelo, F. Implementation and Challenges of the Passive House Concept in Portugal: Lessons Learnt from Successful Experience. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Karji, A.; Namian, M.; Tafazzoli, M. Dentifying the Key Barriers to Promote Sustainable Construction in the United States: A Principal Component Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Häkkinen, T.; Belloni, K. Barriers and Drivers for Sustainable Building. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moon, M. Triangulation: A Method to Increase Validity, Reliability, and Legitimation in Clinical Research. J. Emerg. Nurs. 2019, 45, 103–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Turner, S.; Cardinal, L.; Burton, R. Research Design for Mixed Methods: A Triangulation-Based Framework and Roadmap. Organ. Res. Methods 2017, 20, 243–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sharma, P.; Khanna, R.R.; Bhatnagar, V. A Literature Survey and Classification Framework of TRIZ Methodology. In Proceedings of the 2016 Second International Conference on Computational Intelligence & Communication Technology (CICT), Ghaziabad, India, 12 February 2016; pp. 516–522. [Google Scholar]
  28. Abdrabbo, F.M.; Gaaver, K.E. Applications of the Observational Method in Deep Foundations. Alex. Eng. J. 2012, 51, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Palinkas, L.A.; Horwitz, S.M.; Green, C.A.; Wisdom, J.P.; Duan, N.; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2015, 42, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods, 5th ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015.
  31. Lingard, L.; Watling, C. Effective Use of Quotes in Qualitative Research. In Story, Not Study: 30 Brief Lessons to Inspire Health Researchers as Writers; Springer: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 34–43. [Google Scholar]
  32. Harrell, F.E. Binary Logistic Regression. In Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis; Harrell, F.E., Jr., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 219–274. ISBN 978-3-319-19425-7. [Google Scholar]
  33. Miguéis, V.L.; Benoit, D.F.; Van den Poel, D. Enhanced Decision Support in Credit Scoring Using Bayesian Binary Quantile Regression. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2013, 64, 1374–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ozel, M. Effect of Indoor Design Temperature on the Heating and Cooling Transmission Loads. Build. Eng. 2016, 7, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gowri, K.; Winiarski, D.; Jarnagin, R. Infiltration Modeling Guidelines for Commercial Building Energy Analysis; Pacific NorthWest National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, YN, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  36. He, M.; Li, M.; Li, Z. Mechanical Performance of Glulam Beam-to-Column Connections with Coach Screws as Fasteners. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2021, 21, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, X.; Xuan, L.; Huang, W.; Yuan, L.; Li, P. Structural Design and Analysis for a Timber-Concrete Hybrid Building. Front Mater 2022, 9, 844398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akadiri, P. Understanding Barriers Affecting the Selection of Sustainable Materials in Building Projects. Build. Eng. 2015, 4, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Designs 08 00052 g001
Figure 1. Relationship between construction barriers, project participants, and project stages.
Figure 1. Relationship between construction barriers, project participants, and project stages.
Designs 08 00052 g001
Designs 08 00052 g002
Figure 2. Everly House design from May 2022, building is ground-supported and 2 stories above ground level (circled in red) (top) to December 2022, building is raised on piles (circled in red) and three stories above ground level (bottom).
Figure 2. Everly House design from May 2022, building is ground-supported and 2 stories above ground level (circled in red) (top) to December 2022, building is raised on piles (circled in red) and three stories above ground level (bottom).
Designs 08 00052 g002
Designs 08 00052 g003
Figure 3. Wall assembly changes from May 2022 (left) to December 2022 (right).
Figure 3. Wall assembly changes from May 2022 (left) to December 2022 (right).
Designs 08 00052 g003
Table 1. List of Common Barriers and Challenges Identified in Literature.
Table 1. List of Common Barriers and Challenges Identified in Literature.
CategoriesPhaseChallengesReferences
Knowledge GapsAll PhasesLack of awareness, understanding, experience, information, findings, and studies[17]
Development and EvaluationAll PhasesScarcity in methods, tools, applications, technologies, and adopting models for design, construction, and assessment [17]
Technical ChallengesPreconstruction and ConstructionLack of construction skills and quality assurance mechanisms[21]
Preconstruction and ConstructionInappropriate use of design methodologies coupled with limited input from performance evaluation[20,21,22]
Preconstruction and ConstructionBarriers related to professionals’ knowledge and practice in dealing with new technologies and standards[20,21]
Legislative and Regulatory BarriersPreconstructionAbsence of mandatory standards for innovative construction methods, materials, and design[20,23,24]
Preconstruction and ConstructionLegal and construction barriers leading building owners to invest in renewable energy sources instead of energy efficiency[21,22]
PreconstructionVariation between climate zones requiring different approaches to achieve NZE[21]
ConstructionLack of experience and knowledge among developers, contractors, and builders[23,24]
TimingAll PhasesCooperation and networking[23]
All PhasesKnowledge, tools, and methods[23]
All PhasesRegulations and client understanding[23]
Cultural and Social ConstraintsPreconstruction Preferences of suppliers/institutional buyers[23]
PreconstructionLimited acceptance of the concept itself in the market[22]
Inception PhaseFocus on short-term construction industry benefits rather than incorporating sustainability principles in the design phase[20]
Inception PhaseLack of client demand[20]
Managerial ConstraintsAll PhasesLack of commitment of senior management; lack of sustainable project management[23]
Financial ConstraintsPreconstructionFinancial limitations, insufficiently developed proactive strategies, and constraints related to both financial resources and planning efforts[23]
PreconstructionLack of public policies and incentives for PH-concept-based construction[22]
Table 2. Identified Barriers, Associated Themes, Their Impact, and Their Frequency.
Table 2. Identified Barriers, Associated Themes, Their Impact, and Their Frequency.
CategoriesThemeElements FrequencyWeight
Management and Time BarriersTheme 1: Ineffective project coordination and communication among stakeholders, causing delays and inefficiencies.Communication channels, project meetings, documentation2High
Theme 2: Insufficient project management skills and experience in implementing energy-efficient design strategies.Project planning, selection of designers/firms, scheduling1Low
Theme 3: Challenges in balancing project timelines and sustainability goals, leading to compromises and trade-offs.Project objectives, project schedule, sustainability targets2Low
Sustainable Design BarriersTheme 4: Engineers/designers prioritizing conventional design over sustainable building design strategy.Lack of knowledge and experience in sustainable building design process, considerations, and criteria3High
Theme 5: Limited consideration of energy performance and environmental impact in the early design stages from designs/engineers.Conceptual design, schematic design, design development2High
Theme 6: Lack of integration between architectural design, mechanical systems, and structural design for optimal energy efficiency.Building envelope, mechanical systems, structural systems4High
Regulatory, Permitting, and Legislation BarriersTheme 7: Challenges in complying with energy codes and outdated building energy codes.Energy codes, building regulations, compliance requirements1Moderate
Theme 8: Lack of integration between energy efficiency, carbon reduction, and sustainable building design priorities and urban planning requirements in regulatory frameworks.Building codes, zoning regulations, urban planning guidelines5High
Theme 9: Lack of clarity and guidance on sustainable building design/Passive House and energy-efficient design requirements in adopted building codes.Outdated building codes, design criteria, code interpretations4High
Knowledge Gap and Experience BarriersTheme 10: Gaps in knowledge and experience in designing energy-efficient/net-zero buildings, especially in Passive House design.Design knowledge, technical expertise, training opportunities5High
Theme 11: Limited access to training and educational resources on sustainable design practices.Training programs, educational materials, industry resources1Low
Theme 12: Lack of awareness and understanding of available energy-efficient technologies and best practices.Energy-efficient technologies, innovative solutions, research advancements3Moderate
Theme 13: Difficulty in translating theoretical knowledge into practical design solutions for energy-efficient buildings.Design implementation, application of design principles, technical skills3Moderate
Material Selection BarriersTheme 14: Difficulties in finding feasible and attainable ways to incorporate sustainable aspects in structural design and reducing reliance on concrete.Structural materials, alternative design solutions, construction practices1Low
Theme 15: Limited availability and high costs of sustainable building materials in the local market.Sustainable materials, market supply, cost considerations4High
Theme 16: Challenges in balancing aesthetic considerations and sustainability requirements in material selection.Design aesthetics, sustainability criteria, client preferences1Low
Theme 17: Lack of information and guidance on the environmental impact and life cycle assessment of building materials for the public.Life cycle analysis, environmental product declarations, material databases1Low
Tools and Software BarriersTheme 18: Lack of easily accessible tools and software that integrate sustainable design aspects.Design software, energy modeling tools, simulation platforms3Moderate
Theme 19: Inadequate integration and compatibility between different software platforms used by architects, engineers, and energy consultants.Software compatibility, data exchange, interoperability3Moderate
Theme 20: Insufficient training and expertise in utilizing software tools for energy-efficient design and performance analysis.Software training programs, user proficiency, technical support, modeling capacities 1Low
Table 3. Thermal Performance Characteristics of Different Envelope Assemblies.
Table 3. Thermal Performance Characteristics of Different Envelope Assemblies.
WallRoofFloor/Slab
Envelope Assembly 1Name12″R22 Nexcem with 1.5″Mineral Wool16″TJI with DPC w 5/8 Zip, Intello+, Service Cavity4″ Slab 5″ Mineral Wool
Thermal Resistance (R-Value)5 m2·K/W (27.1 h ft2 °F/Btu)11.72/12.4 m2·K/W (64.2/67.5 h ft2 °F/Btu)1.1 m2·K/W (19.4 h ft2 °F/Btu)
Heat Transfer Coefficient (U-Value)0.2 W/m2·K (0.036 Btu/h ft2 °F)0.06 W/m2·K (0.015 Btu/h ft2 °F)0.2 W/m2·K (0.049 Btu/h ft2 °F)
Thickness 0.34 m (13.5″)0.47 m (18.5″)0.23 m (9″)
Envelope Assembly 2Name2 × 8 w DPC 24″OC W 7/16 Zip Service Cavity16″TJI with DPC w 5/8″ Zip, Intello+, Service Cavity16″ 2 × 4 Truss Floor with Cellulose, ¾″ Hardwood Floor, Intello
Thermal Resistance (R-Value)5.36/6.6 m2·K/W (30.1/37.0 h ft2 °F/Btu)11.72/12.4 m2·K/W (64.2/67.5 h ft2 °F/Btu)11.77/12.08 m2·K/W (65.1/66.8 h ft2 °F/Btu)
Heat Transfer Coefficient (U-Value)0.05 W/m2·K (0.032 Btu/h ft2 °F)0.06 W/m2·K (0.015 Btu/h ft2 °F)0.06 W/m2·K (0.015 Btu/h ft2 °F)
Thickness 0.3 m (12″)0.47 m (18.5)″0.45 m (17.6″)
Envelope Assembly 3Name2 × 8 w 7.5″ DPC w 1″ Thermacork 16″TJI with DPC w 5/8 Zip, Intello+, Service Cavity16″ 2 × 4 Truss Floor with Cellulose, 3/4 Hardwood Floor, Intello
Thermal Resistance (R-Value)8/8.87 m2·K/W (34.6/38.26 h ft2 °F/Btu)11.72/12.4 m2·K/W (64.2/67.5 h ft2 °F/Btu)11.77/12.08 m2·K/W (65.1/66.8 h ft2 °F/Btu)
Heat Transfer Coefficient (U-Value)0.03 W/m2·K (0.028 Btu/h ft2 °F)0.06 W/m2·K (0.015 Btu/h ft2 °F)0.06 W/m2·K (0.015 Btu/h ft2 °F)
Thickness 0.3 m (11.7″)0.47 m (18.5″)0.45 m (17.6″)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wehbi, H.; Messadi, T. Challenges That Impact the Development of a Multi-Generational Low-Carbon Passive House in a Small City. Designs 2024, 8, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8030052

AMA Style

Wehbi H, Messadi T. Challenges That Impact the Development of a Multi-Generational Low-Carbon Passive House in a Small City. Designs. 2024; 8(3):52. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8030052

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wehbi, Hanan, and Tahar Messadi. 2024. "Challenges That Impact the Development of a Multi-Generational Low-Carbon Passive House in a Small City" Designs 8, no. 3: 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs8030052

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop