what is an intelligent building? analysis of recent ... · “users, building systems, and...

What is an intelligent building? Analysis of recent interpretations from an international perspective Article

Published Version

Creative Commons: AttributionNoncommercialNo Derivative Works 4.0

Open access

Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Berardi, U., AlWaer, H., Chang, S., Halawa, E., Ghaffarianhoseini, A. and ClementsCroome, D. (2016) What is an intelligent building? Analysis of recent interpretations from an international perspective. Architectural Science Review, 59 (5). pp. 238257. ISSN 00038628 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2015.1079164 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/67745/

It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. Published version at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2015.1079164

To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2015.1079164

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement .

www.reading.ac.uk/centaur

http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/licence

http://www.reading.ac.uk/centaur

CentAUR

Central Archive at the University of Reading

Reading’s research outputs online

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tasr20

Download by: [176.249.239.54] Date: 23 October 2016, At: 05:11

Architectural Science Review

ISSN: 0003-8628 (Print) 1758-9622 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

What is an intelligent building? Analysis of recentinterpretations from an international perspective

Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseini, Umberto Berardi, Husam AlWaer, SeongjuChang, Edward Halawa, Ali Ghaffarianhoseini & Derek Clements-Croome

To cite this article: Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseini, Umberto Berardi, Husam AlWaer, SeongjuChang, Edward Halawa, Ali Ghaffarianhoseini & Derek Clements-Croome (2016) What is anintelligent building? Analysis of recent interpretations from an international perspective,Architectural Science Review, 59:5, 338-357, DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2015.1079164

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2015.1079164

© 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor &Francis.

Published online: 07 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2624

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Architectural Science Review, 2016Vol. 59, No. 5, 338–357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2015.1079164

What is an intelligent building? Analysis of recent interpretations from an internationalperspective

Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseinia, Umberto Berardib , Husam AlWaerc∗, Seongju Changd, Edward Halawae, AliGhaffarianhoseinif and Derek Clements-Croomeg

aDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Malaya (UM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; bDepartment ofArchitectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada; cSchool of Social Sciences (Architecture & Planning), University of

Dundee, Dundee, UK; dDepartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea; eCentre for Renewable Energy(CRE), Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia; f School of Engineering, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand; gSchool of

the Built Environment, University of Reading, Reading, UK

(Received 26 November 2014; accepted 30 July 2015 )

In recent years, the notion of intelligent buildings (IBs) has become increasingly popular due to their potentials for deployingdesign initiatives and emerging technologies towards maximized occupants’ comfort and well-being with sustainable design.However, various definitions, interpretations, and implications regarding the essence of IBs exist. Various key performanceindicators of IBs have been proposed in different contexts. This study explores the notion of IBs and presents an analysisof their main constituents. Through a comparison of these constituents in different contexts, this study aims to extractthe common features of IBs leading to an evolved definition which could be useful as a reference framework for design,evaluation, and development of future IBs. Findings also scrutinize the long run benefits of IBs, while demonstrating theconstraints and challenges of the current international interpretations.

Keywords: intelligent buildings; key performance indicators; intelligence; sustainable buildings

1. IntroductionOver the past 20 years, many different buildings havebeen labeled as intelligent. However, the applicationof intelligence in buildings has yet to deliver its truepotential.(Clements-Croome 2013)

For the last three decades, the so-called intelligent build-ings (IBs) were only a conceptual framework for therepresentation of future buildings. However, today, IBsare rapidly becoming inherent constituents of influentialpolicies for design and development of future buildings.Undeniably, urbanized areas are expected to be highlyinfluenced by IBs in order to promote smart growth,green development and healthy environments (Hollands2008; Choon et al. 2011; Berardi 2013a). Various stud-ies have tried to map the evolution of the concept of IBs(e.g. Clements-Croome 1997, 2004; Buckman, Mayfield,and Beck 2014). In essence, the emergence of infor-mation and communication technology (ICT), togetherwith the development of automation, embedded sensors,and other high-tech systems are key elements in IBs(Kroner 1997).

The intelligence embedded into IBs are claimed toenable them to be highly responsive to users’ needs,the environment, and the society, and to be effective

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

in minimizing the environmental impacts and naturalresource wastes (Kua and Lee 2002; GhaffarianHoseini2012). Reduction of operational costs through efficiencyin energy management and the capability of being “user-oriented” encompassing improved safety, health, andwell-being are other important goals of IBs (Silva et al.2012; Cempel and Mikulik 2013).

The attention towards IBs began in early 80s in theUSA; at that time, the Intelligent Building Institutiondescribed an IB as “one which integrates various systemsto effectively manage resources in a coordinated mode tomaximize: technical performance; investment and oper-ating cost savings; flexibility”. From the appearance ofthat definition, many new ones have been developed, andwill be analysed in this paper (see Section 2 below) inorder to extract the common features of IBs. As a result,this paper is an attempt to review the available schol-arly studies related to design and developments of IBstowards clarifying the available definitions and identi-fying their most significant key performance indicators(KPI). The paper is exploratory and boldly aims to providea re-conceptualization of IB and to develop an analyti-cal framework for more systematic enquiry. In addition,the paper frames a future research agenda and prepares

© 2015 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered,transformed, or built upon in any way.

Architectural Science Review 339

the ground for more detailed works in this field. Thereview also covers the current status of IBs from differentparts of the world including Europe and North America,Southeast Asia (Malaysia and Singapore), Far East Asia(Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, and China), Australia and NewZealand.

2. Review of existing definitions of IBsBack to 1988, an IB was defined as “one which has aninformation communication network through which twoor more of its services systems are automatically con-trolled, guided by predictions based upon a knowledge ofthe building and usage, maintained in an integrated database” (Leifer 1988). In that definition, networks, data pro-cessing equipment, automation, telecommunication, andbuilding management systems (BMS) characterize themain constituents of IBs. During 1980s, definitions of IBswere mainly intertwined with the characteristics of auto-mated technology, while later definitions were extended toinclude other features. An international symposium on IBsin Toronto in 1985 concluded that “an intelligent buildingcombines innovations, technological or not, with skillfulmanagement to maximize return on investment” (Pennell2013).

The Intelligent Building Institute (IBI) Foundation in1989 defined an IB as “one which provides a produc-tive and cost-effective environment through optimizationof its four basic elements including structures, systems, ser-vices and management and the interrelationships betweenthem” (Wigginton and Harris 2002). Later, the EuropeanIntelligent Buildings Group (EIBG) in 1998 defined anIB as “one that creates an environment which maximizesthe effectiveness of the building’s occupants, while at thesame time enabling efficient management of resourceswith minimum lifetime costs of hardware and facilities”(Nguyen and Aiello 2013). The IBI and EIBG defini-tions are derived from performance and operation points ofview with focus on comfort, adaptability, reduced lifecyclecosts, and enhanced control over available resources (Bradand Murar 2014). IBs are characterized or associated withapplication of sophisticated operational systems to life-cycle cost efficiency, and ecological performance (Bedoset al. 1990; So and Chan 1999).

During the 1990s, the definitions of IBs expanded toinclude many aspects related to a cohesive linkage between“users, building systems, and environment” as well as thekey dimensions of “quality of life”. This can be illus-trated by reference to the CIB (1995) Working Group W98stating that

an intelligent building is a dynamic and responsive archi-tecture that provides every occupant with productive, cost-effective and environmentally approved conditions througha continuous interaction among its basic elements: places(fabric; structure; facilities); process (automation; con-trol; systems); people (services; users) and management

(maintenance; performance) and the interrelation betweenthem. (Clements-Croome 2004)

Meanwhile, definitions developed in Japan by the Mit-subishi Electric Corporation in 1990 (Bystrom 1990) andShimizu Corporation in 1993 (Yasuyoshi 1993) suggestedthat the human being is the focal point of IBs.

The work of Clements-Croome (1997) was one of thefirst attempts to clarify the concept of IBs, their effec-tiveness, efficiency, and their potentials to respond to thesocial and technological changes. Early definitions of IBmainly focused on the role of technologies and later gradu-ally moved towards the role of user interactions and socialchanges demonstrating a significant attention to the qual-ity of life indices (Wigginton and Harris 2002; Wong, Li,and Wang 2005). In this line, many similar definitions sup-port that future IBs should respond to user expectations andquality of life (Preiser and Schramm 2002; Wigginton andHarris 2002). This is reflected in the following definition:“one in which the building fabric, space, service and infor-mation systems can respond in an efficient manner to theinitial and changing demands of the owner, the occu-pier and the environment” (Arup 2003). Another contendsthat, “intelligent buildings are not just about technology,it is more about their suitability for their planned use andsuccess at fulfilling the brief” (Clements-Croome 2013b).

It can be argued that one of the challenges towardstransforming knowledge into action is the priority given tothe technical dimension of IBs, often resulting in neglect-ing the social and economic perspectives (Cooper andSymes 2008). Current definitions of IBs have graduallyconsidered the users’ interactions and even the social val-ues of users (Jamaludin 2011; Ghaffarianhoseini 2012) andthis transition can be observed in the evolution of the fun-damentals of smart homes including Matilda Smart House(developed at University of Florida), MIT Smart House,and The Aware Home (developed at Georgia Institute ofTechnology) which raise the idea that intelligent livingenvironments must be aware of and responsive to theiroccupants’ demands and activities. In the same scenario,the main focus of IBs has shifted to the concept of learn-ing capability and the relationship between occupants andenvironment (Kaya and Kahraman 2014). Additionally, JiriSkopek describes the benefits of IBs: “In terms of severaldifferent issues – the efficiency aspect, the cost aspect, theenvironmental aspect, the health aspect and the securityaspect” (Gray 2006). Today IBs are enabling the connec-tivity between people, their environment produced by thesystems, and the building to become much more real andeffective.

In contrast, there has been criticism directed towardsIBs which, due to the utilization of integrated automatedsystems, consumes more energy than necessary (Jin 2012).This has led to reconsidering the role of energy-savingfeatures (Cook and Das 2007) such as Building as PowerPlant initiative by Hartkopf (2004) which has been selected

340 A. Ghaffarianhoseini et al.

by the US Congress as the national test-bed for advancedtechnology in buildings. IBs should be eco-intelligent(Goleman 2009) and include ecologically sustainabledesign principles (Ghaffarianhoseini 2012; Ghaffarianho-seini et al. 2013). The essence of existing smart houses indeveloped countries seems to be the embodiment of intel-ligent environment which is highly linked to sustainabilityprinciples (Ghaffarianhoseini et al. 2013a). The incor-poration of passive design techniques with smart activefeatures was seen as a necessity for improving the sus-tainable performance of IBs exemplified by the role ofintelligent facades that offer evidence (Ochoa and Capeluto2008) in achieving effective IB responses to their envi-ronment. Other studies also ascertain that energy-savingstrategies are the inherent components of IB technologies(Strumiłło and Łódz 2014) while recommending integrat-ing user involvement in sustainable energy performance ofbuildings (Janda 2011). In the same way it is articulatedthat “the main objective in intelligent building design is tosatisfy occupants’ need with high energy efficiency” (Yang2013b), while proposing the concept of energy-IB (Nguyenand Aiello 2013) and highlighting the adaptability of build-ings to climate change (Thompson, Cooper, and Gething2014).

From the economic point of view, it is essential todebate about the initial high costs and reliability of theapplication of intelligent technologies such as advancedsensors/actuators and energy management systems in IBsas well as the related operational and monitoring costs.Nevertheless, the ultimate added value of IBs is claimedto influence the economic feasibility of their production.Hence, achieving the following benefits can significantlyaffect the economic conditions, specifically in intelligentoffices: lower healthcare costs, higher levels of workproductivity, higher rental values, higher staff retentionrates due to increased employee satisfaction, as well asminimization of the energy consumption and its operat-ing costs (Clements-Croome 2015). Integrated design thatoffers flexibility and adaptability is essential for IBs tobe economically viable (Hagras et al. 2003). Supportingthe claimed benefits of IBs, the EU study by Clements-Croome (2014) refers to several promising and innovativedesign initiatives; the world’s first full-scale bio-reactivefaçade in Germany towards providing shade and renew-able fuel source based on a collaboration between ColtInternational, SSC Ltd and Arup (Arup 2013); applicationof intelligent skins in building envelope with kinetic lou-vres by El Sheikh (2011) towards responding to dynamicdaylighting and users’ presence; the new offices of Applecompany located in Cupertino in San Francisco Bay (tobe completed in 2016) with 70% use of natural ven-tilation and an overall maximum resource efficiency asdescribed by; design and development of the robotic façadeas a mass-customizable constituent of building envelopefor context-aware dynamic lighting as proposed by theMIT media lab (Lonergan et al. 2015); development of

a climate control technology (local warning concept) fordynamically controlling localized heating in buildingsby MIT Senseable City Lab, application of biomimet-ics in architectural design initiatives towards reducing theenvironmental threats to society such as climate changeimpacts as pointed out by Zari (2010), Vincent (2014), andClements-Croome (2014); and consolidating design to fab-rication as an innovative process towards automation indesign and construction. Emerging technologies that couldbe applied to building sector might pose new possibility forenhanced performance levels of IBs but the actual effec-tiveness and efficiency to prove the benefits would needscrutinized monitoring and analysis.

The aforesaid perceptions, representing the overlap-ping notion of IBs and energy-oriented features of greenbuildings, are clearly demonstrated in the environmen-tally friendly and sustainable strategies applied in severalenergy efficient IBs including the Jean-Marie Tjibaou Cul-tural Center by Renzo Piano in Noumea, New Caledoniabased on the incorporation of the ancient and the mod-ern representing the socio-cultural dimension of sustain-ability and passive design techniques using local mate-rials and natural ventilation (Clements-Croome 2013b;RPBW 2015), the award winning ST Diamond build-ing in Putrajaya, Malaysia, the Sarawak Energy Berhadbuilding in Sarawak, Malaysia, the Twelve West build-ing in Portland, USA with integrated wind turbinesmounted on the roof for electricity generation, the Man-itoba Hydro Place in Canada with 70% energy savingscompared to typical large office towers, and the CapitalTower as a mega-structure in Singapore’s financial dis-trict plus many other prominent examples. The Edge inAmsterdam as the world’s most sustainable office build-ing, Al Bahr Towers in Abu Dhabi, and One AngelSquare in Manchester as one of the most sustainableand innovative buildings in the Europe are among theseexemplary IBs.

Several interpretations of IBs draw attention to themeaning of intelligence in the IB context. The three essen-tial components of intelligence are technology, function,and economy (Huang 2014). The intelligence of IBs canbe classified according to the following characteristics (So,Wong, and Wong 2011):

(1) Environmental friendliness – sustainable designfor energy and water conservation; effectivewaste disposal; zero pollution.

(2) Space utilization and flexibility.(3) Value-giving quality for economic whole lifetime

costs.(4) Human health and well-being.(5) Working efficiency and effectiveness.(6) Safety and security measures – fire, earthquake,

disaster, and structural damages.(7) Culture; meeting client expectations.(8) Effective innovative technology.


(9) Construction and management processes.(10) Health and sanitation.

Likewise, IBs should be “safer and more productivefor the occupants and more operationally efficient for theowners” (Ehrlich 2007) as supported by proposed dimen-sions for productive workplaces (Clements-Croome 2006)to be taken into account including pleasure and joy, safety,consciousness and senses, indoor environmental quality,emotion, and the economic impacts. For instance, in theUK, approximately 90% of the entire operating costs of anybusiness entity belong to the staff salaries and their bene-fits. Thereby, if IBs can provide healthy working environ-ments, which can lead to higher productivity and healthystatus of staff while avoiding staff absenteeism, more andmore private and public sectors would be encouraged toinvest in IBs.

According to Gnerre, Cmar, and Fuller (2007) “Intel-ligent buildings must talk. The business value is onlyachieved when they share what they know, communicatingbetween building systems and with their owners.” Fur-thermore, the significance of sensory design for IBs isreferred to by Kerr (2013) “buildings that do not fulfilthe (sensory design) brief leave occupants intellectually,physiologically, emotionally, behaviourally and spirituallyunstimulated”.

IBs should respond to the needs of their occupants andsociety, be functional and sustainable, and promote well-being of the people (Clements-Croome 2013). This couldbe the response to the claim of the mismatch betweenthe expectations of users and the real products in currentIBs (Naticchia and Giretti 2014). In this regard, the studyrefers back to a basic definition of IB originated from CIBin the 90’s

a sustainable intelligent building can be understoodto be a complex system of inter-related three basicissues People (owners; occupants, users, etc.); Products(materials; fabric; structure; facilities; equipment; automa-tion and controls; services); and Processes (maintenance;performance evaluation; facilities management) and theinter-relationships between these issues. (AlWaer andClements-Croome 2010)

Furthermore, IBs require an intelligent processindicating the importance of collaborative process indesign, implementation, and management (Clements-Croome 2013a). In this line, the study refers to theapplication of building information modelling (BIM) asrecommended by Kensek (2014) due to its highly inclusiveand collaborative notion with great potentials to involvevarious stakeholders.

In a recent study, the importance of buildingsmanagement systems BMS was raised (Johnstone 2013),whereas another study implied the application of intelligentcontrol strategies, including smart grids, smart metering,demand response control, and load shifting/shaving, as

a fundamental component of IBs (Worall 2013). Like-wise, highlighting the important influence of ergonomicaspects in IBs, five intelligent criteria for IBs are identi-fied: input system that receives information by means ofinformation receiver; processing and information analy-sis; output system that reacts to the input in form of aresponse; time consideration that makes the response hap-pen within the needed time; learning ability (Strumiłło andŁódz 2014). Considering the multi-complex and interdis-ciplinary essence of IBs, they should be the product of anintegrated team including clients, consultants, architects,engineers, contractors, and facilities managers in which allteam members play a key role towards meeting the social,environmental and economic targets.

It is crucial to stress the important role of innova-tion as an enabler and new products in IBs such as cloudcomputing (for virtual and thin computers), embedded sen-sors (for personalization and real-time feedback), smartmaterials, self-healing and low embodied (for energy effi-ciency), biomimetics (for economical use of materials andenergy), robotics (for maintenance and internal surveys),using chaos, and complex theory and network science(AlWaer et al. 2013). Definitions of IBs are hence expand-ing to include learning ability as well as self-adjustability(Yang and Peng 2001; Wigginton and Harris 2002; Wong,Li, and Wang 2005; Kaya and Kahraman 2014).

From the above review, it can be concluded that IBexisting definitions can be categorized into three clusters,namely: performance-based, system-based, and service-based definitions as previously pointed out by Wang(2009). The performance-based definitions (such as thedefinitions by IBI and EIBG) predominantly concentrateon the building performance and the expectations andincreasing demands of users (and of society) while con-siderably less attention is given to the integrated technolo-gies and intelligent systems. The service-based definitionsmainly characterize the IBs based on their quality of ser-vices. On the other hand, the system-based definitionsgenerally refer to the technological systems and integratedintelligence used in the buildings but linked to the occu-pants responses. Likewise, the Chinese IB Design Standard(GB/T50314-2000) describes IBs as those buildings which“provide building automation, office automation and com-munication network systems, and an optimal compositionintegrates the structure, system, service and management,providing the building with high efficiency, comfort, con-venience and safety to users”.

Summarizing the analysed definitions, this reviewshows how definitions of IBs have changed over time. Byanalysing the drivers that affect the evolutionary progres-sion of IBs and the role of interdisciplinary collaborationbetween professionals, developers, clients, and policy-makers pathways can be defined that lead to the explorationof the true potentials for IBs (Figure 1). Table 1 summa-rizes the key features and components of IBs derived fromthe available definitions.


Figure 1. Evolutionary progression of IBs.

3. Embedded smartness or intelligence in IBs

3.1. An overview of smart technologies

Should we say intelligent or smart buildings? From col-lected viewpoints, smart can be described by variouscapacities such as reasoning, problem-solving, acquiringknowledge, memory, speed of operation, creativity, generalknowledge, and motivation. A challenge for IBs is to seehow far these aspects of human intelligence are achievablein the design and operation (Clements-Croome 2013).

Beyond the comparison between smart and intelligentterms, the concept of “sentient” buildings is proposed,as the embodiment of highly responsive environments,equipped with sensor networks (Mahdavi 2006). Similarly,the concept of “hybrid” buildings is introduced towardsachieving net zero energy/zero carbon status (Newton andTucker 2010). The “domotic” buildings idea is devel-oped towards the automation of domestic services whilediscussing the challenges of building regulations towardsimplementing advanced technologies (Millán Anglés et al.2014). It is indicated that the concepts of digital and cyberdesigns, plus automation strategies, and advanced tech-nologies are the main constituents of IBs, while the socialand environmental dimensions are essential for a completerepresentation of them (Figure 2).

The embedded smartness in buildings results in anenvironment which

integrate and account for intelligence, enterprise, con-trol, and materials and construction as an entire buildingsystem, with adaptability, not reactivity, at its core, inorder to meet the drivers for building progression: energy

and efficiency, longevity, and comfort and satisfaction.(Buckman, Mayfield, and Beck 2014, p. 104)

Smart technologies as part of IBs have evolved towardsa strong integration of human, collective, and artificialintelligence.

IBs require smart users if they are to be truly inclusive,innovative, and sustainable. The collective intelligence ofbuilding’s users is based on the interpretation of IBs asfacilitators in knowledge access. The artificial intelligenceembedded into the physical environment of the buildingand available to the building’s users becomes the digitalspaces for online problem-solving tools. In this line, thestudy refers to the project Gardens by the Bay in Singa-pore (completed in 2012) and its conservatories, designedby Wilkinson Eyre Architects showcasing the applicationof smart technologies and building automation systems(BAS) for energy efficiency and optimized performances(Clements-Croome 2013a).

Considering the important role of BAS, term“intelligent” is defined to “be classified as a productivesystem designed for the execution of processes intendedto meet the functional specifications that characterize thefacility as intelligent” (Silva et al. 2012).

Developing an intelligently monitored building envi-ronment is becoming an essential standard consideration.This is leveraged while focusing on building energy effi-ciency under the influence of heating, ventilating, and airconditioning (HVAC), lighting, air quality (Shih 2014).Contemporarily, IBs employ networked sensors to mon-itor the indoor air quality (IAQ). This includes monitor-ing various parameters including temperature, humidity,emissions, dangerous contaminants, etc. These monitored


Table 1. Key features and components of IBs based on available definitions.

Period Key features and components Key references

1980s Maximizing return on investment Symposium on IBs in Toronto (1985)Information communication network and automatically controlled system Leifer (1988)Productive and cost-effective

1990s Application of sophisticated operational systems to lifecycle cost efficiency,and ecological performance

Bedos et al. (1990)

Human as the focal point Bystrom (1990) and Yasuyoshi (1993)Dynamic and responsiveThe emergence of information and communication technology (ICT) and

automated systemsKroner (1997)

Maximizing the technical performance, investment and operating costsavings, and flexibility

Clements-Croome (1997)

Responding to the social and technological changes Clements-Croome (1997)Maximizing the effectiveness of the building’s occupants and efficient

management of resources2000–2005 Responding to user expectations and quality of life Wigginton and Harris (2002) and

Preiser and Schramm (2002)The role of user interactions and social changes Wigginton and Harris (2002) and

Wong, Li, and Wang (2005)Responding to the changing demands of the owner, the occupier and the

environmentArup (2003)

Flexibility and adaptability Hagras et al. (2003)2005–2010 The efficiency aspect, the cost aspect, the environmental aspect, the health

aspect and the security aspectGray (2006)

Safer, more productive and more operationally efficient for the owners Ehrlich (2007)Communicating between building systems and with their owners Gnerre, Cmar, and Fuller (2007)Energy-saving features Cook and Das (2007)Incorporation of smart active features and passive design techniques Ochoa and Capeluto (2008)Eco-intelligent Goleman (2009)

2010–2015 People, products, and processes AlWaer and Clements-Croome (2010)User involvement in sustainable energy performance of buildings Janda (2011)Considering the users’ interactions and even the social values of users Jamaludin (2011) and Ghaffarianhoseini

et al., (2011)Ecologically sustainable design Ghaffarianhoseini (2012)Embedded sensors, automation Chen (2013)Innovation as an enabler and new products such as cloud computing,

embedded sensors, and smart materialsAlWaer et al. (2013)

Responding to the needs and social well-being of the occupants and ofsociety

Clements-Croome (2013)

Suitability for their planned use and success at fulfilling the brief Clements-Croome (2013b)Energy-intelligent concept Nguyen and Aiello (2013)Satisfying occupants’ need with high energy efficiency Yang (2013b)Sensory design Kerr (2013)Buildings management systems (BMS) Johnstone (2013)Intelligent control strategies, including smart grids, smart metering, demand

response controlWorall (2013)

Adaptability of buildings to climate change Thompson, Cooper, and Gething (2014)Added values based on technology, function, and economy Huang (2014)Learning capability, self-adjustability, and the relationship between

occupants and environmentKaya and Kahraman (2014)

Energy-saving strategies Strumiłło and Łódz (2014)

parameters provide information for better controlling ofbuilding’s mechanical–electrical systems. This approachaims to facilitate a healthy and comfortable living envi-ronment while rationalizing the energy consumption (Eli-ades et al. 2013). Appropriate monitoring of IBs allowsoptimization of building’s energy performance. This isachieved through identification of ineffective energy usageand promotion of energy-efficient operations (Gökçe and

Gökçe 2013). Thus, application of BMS is a critical fac-tor towards the success of these intelligent environments.BMSs have been evolved following the “manual control-ling, timer scheduling, sensor controlling, visual recog-nition, and vision-based dynamic commissioning” (Shih2014) order. Among these, advanced vision-based anddynamic vision-based approached are of the most effective-ness. Continuous track and detection of building occupants


Figure 2. Key constituents of IBs (Source, Clements-Croome 2013, p. 289).

is also an essential factor in IBs’ monitoring/managementsystems (Shih 2014). In these regards, incorporation ofBIM-based systems and IBs for monitoring and costestimations has become more tangible. Optimal buildingscheduling for construction/maintenance/lifecycle Assess-ment is achievable using these approaches (Lu et al.2015). Eventually, in addition to various role-playing fac-tors, advancements of intelligent devices coupled withtheir widespread utilization, governmental supports andsocial awareness is critical towards cost-effective andaffordable IBs.

IBs is nowadays fostered by the attention to the conceptof smart cities (Lee, Phaal, and Lee 2013), and has becomean emerging target for many policy-makers (Neirotti et al.2014; Albino, Berardi, and Dangelico 2015). From macroto micro level viewpoints, these targets include enhancingthe life quality of inhabitants, and optimizing the use ofresources (Yamagata and Seya 2013). Going forward, it isrecommended that the interchangeably used terms such assustainable, green, healthy, digital, and smart which at leastbelong to one of the four areas of environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and innovative dimensions should allfall under a larger cluster called IB (Figure 3).

3.2. Role of advanced sensors in recent definitions ofIBs

An intelligent building requires real-time informationabout its occupants so that it can continually adapt andrespond.(Keeling et al. 2013)

In the design of IBs, a focus on sensing is expected.Incorporation of more intelligence in IBs highly relies ondeploying embedded advanced sensors, which can lead tothe identification and collection of physical informationwhile transferring the captured information to control sys-tems (Kwon, Lee, and Bahn 2014). There are various bodysensors for integration in IB ambient including accelerom-eters, heat flux monitors, galvanic skin response mon-itors, and skin temperature monitors (Clements-Croome2013a). Meanwhile, IBs have started to be fully inte-grated with sensor networks for the sake of enhancingthe IAQ (Eliades et al. 2013). Wireless sensors and net-works are nowadays considered primarily related to theprogress of radio sensitivity, ultra-low power consump-tion, micro-electromechanical system-based sensors, andenergy harvesting (ON World 2013). Through the advance-ment of self-functional advanced sensors, IBs benefit fromself-adjustability via learning from the environment and


Figure 3. Key clusters of IBs and the interchangeably used terms.

user behavioural patterns (Wong, Li, and Wang 2005; Kayaand Kahraman 2014).

Attention to the heterogeneous systems of IBs encom-passing “high capacity communication infrastructures” and“high performance sensor technologies” has been raisedrecently (Perumal, Sulaiman, and Leong 2013). Mean-while, various studies demonstrate the groundbreakingimpact of multi-agent systems (Yang and Wang 2013).These are utilized to direct, organize, and control the build-ing integrated facilities and carry out multifaceted taskscollaboratively based on autonomous decision-making,automatic actions, and interactions among the agents,while being characterized by the key attributes of pro-activity, reactivity, and social ability (Yang and Wang2013).

New systems provide building occupants with anincreased control; among these, there are smart energymeters that communicate with the energy supplier, allow-ing remote reading, accurate feedback to the occupants onenergy use, and connection to the grids.

4. KPIs of IBS in different regions4.1. Fundamental features in Europe and North

AmericaThe concept of IBs as part of smart city has been quitefashionable in the European policy arena in recent years.Its focus seems to be on the role of ICT infrastructure,although much research has also been carried out on therole of human capital/education, and environmental impli-cations. The European countries stress the role of inno-vation in ICT sectors and provide a toolkit to identifyconsistent indicators, thus shaping a framework of analysisfor smartness (Caragliu, Del Bo, and Nijkamp 2011).

In this context, ambitious targets have been set for2020 aiming to foster European economy to highly sus-tainable energy paths. This policy is a first resolute steptowards the achievement of the low-carbon economy goal,whilst making at the same time the consumed energy moresecure, competitive, and sustainable. In fact, the Directive2010/31/EU promotes with the ultimate goal of ensure thatall new buildings are nearly zero energy by 2020.

Over the last 20 years, it has been increasingly impor-tant to understand the building sustainability assessmenttools that play significant roles to promote and guide thesustainable development at buildings level. In Europe,over time the tools became a roadmap for projects thatwanted to provide higher performance whether for marketdifferentiation, perceived benefits for occupants, organiza-tional mission, or long-term cost savings. These tools sharemuch in common but also evidence differences of scope,approach, and reporting. They make use of measurable cri-teria which align with the sustainable development modelproviding indicators as the basis for measurement of per-formance against the standards (Du Plessis 1999; Finco andNijkamp 2001). In North America, the emergence of theconcept of IB goes back to 1980s. Looking at the Continen-tal Automated Buildings Association (CABA), foundedin 1988 in North America, the development of indus-try standards and indices, and cross-disciplinary initiativestowards developing IBs has been continuously observed.North America especially USA emphasizes the importanceof performance and cost-effectiveness, therefore, varioustechnologies have been developed to support this. Theother characteristic feature of IBs in North America isthe buildings’ tight coupling with advanced and innova-tive information technology. For instance, according toCABA integrated and intelligent building council (IIBC)which promotes larger building automation, a web-basedbuilding automation intelligence rating programme (BiQ)


Table 2. Summary of the key features and performance indicators of IBs from European perspective.

Key features Key components Performance indicators

Building forsustainability

Energy and climate change Substantially intertwined with smartcities index and sustainability ratingsystems (BREEAM, DGNBSeal,HQE, ITACA, etc)

Indoor environmental qualityTransport and accessibilitySite selection and ecologyMaterial, recycling, and wasteWater conservation and efficiencyManagement (i.e. sustainable procurement)Innovation in other low-carbon technologies

Social, behavioural,and perceptualaspects

Health and Well-being (i.e. Thermal Comfort, Productivity) Health and well-being

Multi-functionality Socially and culturally responsivePrivacy, safety and security User-oriented designFlexibility and adaptabilityDynamism and usabilityEase of indoor spaces reconfiguration and adjustability

Cost and whole lifevalue

Lifecycle cost and service life planning Whole life value

Return on investment (ROI) and whole life value Service life planningBuilding operation, controllability, and management Facilities managementBuilding maintenance Skills and knowledgeSkills and knowledge of operating staff

ICT Integration andautomation

Quality of digital communication Optimized automated systems and digitalcommunication

Data, information, and communicationBuilding User InformationUser’s personal control Highly integrated BAS for automatic

monitoring and controlIntegrated building automation and control systemsResponsive and adjustable indoor environment based on users’

behaviours and preferencesEnhanced level of communication

between building and usersIntelligent control strategies (i.e. smart meteringand smart grid)

and monitoring building performance

is developed that illustrates the convergence of informa-tion technology to all building systems while rating theintelligence of building automations towards identifyingsufficient information for guiding future decision-makingand operations and enhancing the intelligence in the archi-tecture, engineering and construction industry (Katz andSkopek 2009). The rate of adoption of building intelligenceand automation systems is dramatically increasing in NorthAmerica, resulting in increasing numbers of buildings withadvanced integrated building systems and controls.

The key learning point here is that the choice of indi-cators will determine the characteristics of assessmentand consequently the types of alternatives considered andselected in decision-making. This can lose sight of the big-ger picture and building stakeholders would need to takea step back from time to time to reflect on the relevanceof the indicators (Berardi 2013b; Bond and Morrison-Saunders 2013). Overall, the identified key features, com-ponents, and performance indicators relevant to IBs arereported in Table 2 (AlWaer, Sibley, and Lewis 2008a,

2008b; AlWaer and Clements-Croome 2010; Brandon andLombardi 2011; Deakin and Al Waer 2011; AlWaer andKirk 2012; AlWaer and Clements-Croome 2013; AlWaer,Bickerton, and Kirk 2014).

4.2. Fundamental features in Southeast Asia(Malaysia and Singapore)

Cities and urban areas in Southeast Asia, particularlyMalaysia and Singapore, are rapidly evolving as a result ofglobalization, emerging intelligent systems, and penetra-tion of ICT. In recent years, considerable attempts towardsintegrating the intelligent and sustainable design conceptsin the future planning of cities are observed in Malaysiaand Singapore. Nonetheless, it is still ambiguous and con-troversial on how the respective concepts and policieswould be implemented.

The implication of IBs in Malaysia and Singaporeis fundamentally intertwined with the concept of greendesign and sustainable developments. Intelligent designin these contexts is characterized as a multi-dimensional


metaphor for creation of buildings that would be labelledas green, and environmentally responsive rather than beingexclusively bound with ICT and digital technologies. InSingapore, IBs are mainly recognized based on the keycomponents of “automation” and “high-tech systems”;in Malaysia, IBs are more influenced by the sustainableindicators.

Back to 1999, it was theorized to transform Singaporeinto an intelligent island through the incorporation of ICTto develop a smart city (Mahizhnan 1999). From the otherside, the inclusion of ICT and advanced technologies pluscreation of smart infrastructures for development of mega-intelligent cities was observed in Malaysia while targetingto ensure an enhanced level of sustainable developments(Siong Ho et al. 2013).

Referring to National Physical Plan 2025 and NationalUrbanization Plan 2006, policies and planning strategiesfor development of intelligent and sustainable commu-nities and cities are established with eight fundamentalmodules including

Shaping national spatial framework, Improvement ofnational economic competitiveness, Modernization ofagricultural sector, Strengthen of tourism development,Management of human settlement, Conservation ofwildlife and natural resources, Integration of all nationaltransportation network and Installation of appropriateinfrastructure. (FDTCP 2006, 2010)

Looking holistically into the essence of IBs in Malaysiaand Singapore, it is inferred that the environmental impli-cations, social dimensions, and economic repercussionscan become an ideally conceptual basis as a general frame-work. To support this thought, recent studies in Malaysiaclaim that IBs, besides being harmonized with advancedtechnologies, must be culturally and environmentallyresponsive in order to ensure a high level of users’ satisfac-tion (Ghaffarianhoseini et al. 2011). Thus, the applicationof IBs in these contexts is beyond the level of technologi-cal integrations, and encompasses any sort of building thatis responsive to the context, environment, and society.

Purpose and expansion of IBs are not limited to acertain functionality, but instead, three key fundamentalsare set for IBs as sufficient telecommunication systems,advanced networking infrastructure, and emerging auto-matic control systems (CABA 2006).

For the context of Malaysia and Singapore, sustainablebuilding assessment organizations and the developed toolsinclude Green Building Index (GBI) and Green MarkScheme (BCA). GBI; encompasses six main constituentsof criteria for evaluation of green buildings (GBI 2013)which are partially associated with the KPIs of IBsin Malaysia.

On the other hand, Green Mark Scheme (Singapore)embraces five main components as the assessment crite-ria for green building rating including energy efficient,

water efficiency, environmental protection, indoor envi-ronmental quality, and other green features and innova-tion, hence, similarly, these components are directly linkedto the KPIs of IBs in Singapore (BCA 2013). Accord-ing to Building and Construction Authority in Singa-pore, analysing the KPIs, it is postulated that IBs couldbe characterized by interrelated key features including“highly automated”, “high level of control”, “effective inreducing operational costs”, “effective in reducing energyconsumption”, “world-class working environment”, and“automatic control of HVAC, IAQ, energy and lightingsystems and life safety detections” (BCA 2013). Like-wise, in Singapore, IBs are essentially required to beentirely designed based on two major components of“ICT infrastructure” and “intelligent facility management”(BCA 2013).

The discussed initiatives and developed strategiestowards a more sustainable and greener future aretremendously promising in Malaysia and Singapore. Inaccordance with the elaborated thoughts, the design anddevelopment of IBs are not only limited to portray thebuildings as energy efficient, automatically responsive, andwell integrated with ICT, but are targeted to ensure func-tional flexibility, improved maintenance, optimized pro-ductivity, and comfortable living environments. Overall,the identified key features, components, and performanceindicators of IBs are reported in Table 3.

4.3. Fundamental features in far East Asia (Korea,Hong Kong, Japan, and China)

IBs in Asian region represent a manifestation of built-in technological advances reflecting a highly sophisti-cated integration of materials, components, and systemsinto a building. Recent tendency over the spread of IBsystem in far eastern Asia is the coexistence of “smart-ness” and “sustainability” embedded in the concept ofIB. This means that energy conservation or environmentalsoundness become a crucial integral part of IB system inaddition to the traditional domains of building automation,and telecommunication. Nevertheless, it is noted thatsustainability is beyond the one-dimensional focus onenergy-oriented aspects related to the environmental per-formance and impact of buildings, and the recent studiesshow more and more attention to the user-oriented issuesof quality of life and users’ well-being.

In China, the concept of IBs has attracted the atten-tion of the governmental sectors and professional bodies in1990s and has become highly widespread in the followingyears (Wang et al. 2004). Beijing Development Build-ing could be considered as the first IB project developedin China followed by Shanghai Jinmao Building (88F),Shenzhen Diwang Building (81F), Guangzhou ZhongxinBuilding (80F), Nanjing Jinying International CommercialBuilding (58F) as described by Wang et al. (2004). Today,


Table 3. Summary of the key features and performance indicators of IBs from Malaysian and Singapore perspectives.


Building sustainability Energy efficiencyIndoor environmental quality sustainable site planning andmanagementMaterial and resourcesWater efficiencyEnvironmental protectionInnovation in other green features

Substantially intertwined withsustainability indicators andsustainability rating systems (GBIand GMS)

Social and Behaviouraldimensions

Privacy Socially and culturally responsiveFlexibility User-oriented designMulti-functionalityDynamismWell-being

Renewable energy,efficiency, andconservation

Energy efficiency Greater attention to the renewableenergy-harvesting and energy-savingand conservation systems

Highly equipped with on-site and off-site renewable energysources (specially solar energy)

Self-energy-harvesting systems and techniquesOptimized energy-saving operations and conservation

Economicrepercussions

Investment evaluation Higher level of economic benefits basedon lifecycle analysis and long-termbenefits

ICT Integration andautomation

Highly automated and responsive Optimized automated systems anddigital communication

Self-adjustable based on new behavioural patterns Highly integrated with advanced BASfor automatic monitoring and control

Fully integrated with WSN Enhanced level of communicationbetween building and user foroptimization of safety, security, andwell-being

Effective managementand environmentalservices

Improved level of building services

Security and safety Personal safety and security, data, information, andcommunication.

Greater level of security compared to“standard” buildings.

the spectrum of the application of IBs has become widenedto be applied in several public buildings such as ShenzhenLibrary and Art Center (Wang et al. 2004).

Unlike USA and UK emphasizing the performanceaspects of IBs, China is said to be focusing on sys-tem aspects while Japanese IB are more service oriented.Especially, in China, three automatic systems (“3A”)-communication automation, office automation (OA),and building management automation systems-could beextended to “5A” by adding fire automation and compre-hensive maintenance automation systems (Wang 2010).

As a part of system oriented perspective of IBS, Chi-nese government has been actively pursuing the integra-tion of IT and IBS in the form of Information Systems,Intelligent Systems, and Infrastructure Systems. TypicalIB systems in China include Equipment Scheduling Sys-tem, Optimum control System, Monitor Systems, AlarmReporting Systems along with some modern advanced sys-tems such as Fingerprint Identification Systems, AutomaticWater Supply and Drainage Systems, Premise DistributionSystems, and Building Integrated Management Systems(Jiang, Gao, and Wang 2013).

Korea is one of the countries with the bestcommunication infrastructure on the globe. Especiallyfourth generation wireless communication network iscovering entire boundary of the nation providing highbandwidth bidirectional multimedia services. The level ofgeneral awareness on the energy conservation and environ-mental sustainability might not be up to that of Japanesesociety, Koreans are also emphasizing energy sensitiv-ity, ecological sustainability, and management efficiencyin addition to the enhanced productivity and comfort ofthe occupants in an IB. Among traditionally raised fea-tures of an IB, BAS becomes dominant sector of focus inKorea since highly performing OA equipment and facili-ties are spread all over and ITC is mostly covered by wiredand wireless communication networks. In 2006, the Min-istry of Ocean, Construction, and Transportation in Korealaunched the “Intelligent Building Certification Program(IBCP)” for enforcement to promote the installation andoperation of IBs (KMCT 2006).

In Korea, this integrates architecture, electricity andelectronics, information and communication, mechanicalequipment, energy, and environmental systems to provide


a comfortable, safe, and environmentally sustainable builtenvironment. Currently, MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infras-tructure and Transportation in Korea administers IBCP forresidential buildings, cultural and meeting facilities, retailand shops, education and research facilities, commercialbuildings, accommodation, and broadcasting and commu-nication facilities. For residential sector, required items,rating items, and additional items are defined in variousdomains such as architectural and environmental, mechan-ical facility, electrical facility, ICT, system integration, andfacility management. Residential sector certification is per-formed for architectural and mechanical, electrical andICT, system integration, and facility management domains.

The actual rating schemes for certification items are tar-geted to very detailed equipment or facilities using bothperformance-based or prescription-based criteria. Sepa-rate from IBCP, previous housing performance indica-tion system and green building certification criteria haverecently been integrated into G-SEED (Green Standardfor Energy and Environmental Design) system. G-SEEDhas seven domains for evaluation such as land use andtransportation, energy and environmental pollution, mate-rial and resources, water circulation management, eco-logical environment, and indoor environment. One of thedistinct features of IBs in Korea is the fact that thereis government initiated separate standard or certificationsystem for assessing each of smart and/or sustainableaspects of a building even if there are some inevitableoverlaps especially in energy or environment relateddomains.

Japanese land price and the cost of electrical powerare high therefore making and operating highly integratedenergy conservative building became important issue inthe pertinent industry. Furthermore, Japanese citizens havehigh awareness on the environmental and ecological sus-tainability, which drives typical IB to serve for the occu-pants’ comfort and health based on the requirementsextracted from bottom-up fashion. The major aspects ofJapanese IBs are related to provide information commu-nication infrastructure, maximizing workers’ satisfactionand comfort, efficient and effective operation and man-agement of the building and resilience, and flexibility toadapt to the changing environments (So, Wong, and Wong1999). Obviously, the automation of the things and pro-cesses in a building is an essential feature of Japanese IBsconsidering the nation’s technological advances includingrobotics. The primary strategies and apparatus to deliverthis ideation on the IBs in Japan includes high speedLocal Area Network, centralized monitoring and controlsystem, task and activity adaptive conditioning, glare-freelighting system, raised floor system, and the provision ofsemi-public or public spaces. Some literature also pointsout entertainment systems and services are uniquely asso-ciated with Japanese IBs.

Hong Kong has a monsoon-influenced humid subtropi-cal climate and the low temperature in winter hardly drops

below zero. Typically, hot and humid weather in this regionmight has influenced the buildings to cope with especiallycooling and dehumidification loads. Population density inHong Kong is as high as 62,000 persons/km2. A strong cul-tural factor that influences the design of a building in HongKong is Feng Shui, which proposes to “achieve a harmon-isation amongst heaven, earth and human by providing anequilibrium amongst nature, building and people. It inter-prets the environment so that people can live in a moreharmonious space” (Mak and Thomas Ng 2005). Its impacthas been demonstrated in some famous buildings, such asthe Hong Kong Shanghai Bank Headquarters, the Bank ofChina Tower, the Repulse Bay Hotel, and the HopewellCentre.

Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings (AIIB) of HongKong as an independent certification authority for IBsdeveloped an intelligent buildings index (IBI). IBI is com-posed of 378 elements. Main categories of assessmentinclude comfort, health and sanitation, space, high-techimage, safety and structure, working efficiency, green, costefficiency, practice and security, and cultural codes. Differ-ent modules of evaluation criteria are prioritized dependingon the type of a building (AIIB 2005).

By briefly reviewing the primary features and evalu-ation systems of an IB in three far eastern regions suchas Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong, the following obser-vations are reached. Firstly, conventional definition of IBemphasizing BAS and ICT has been extended to includeenergy and carbon emission sensitivity and ecological sus-tainability of a building commonly observable in all threeregions. Japan and Hong Kong have more integrated cri-teria or performance ranking system to include both smartand green building features, whereas Korea has quite dis-tinctively separated certification system for each of smartbuilding and green building sectors. Secondly, even thoughall three regions are interested in developing a building formaximizing human comfort with minimized energy, envi-ronmental load and cost, the detailed assessment criteria orset of performance indicators are not identical due to thedifference of each region’s geographical, economic, social,and cultural background. For instance, Japanese inclusionof entertainment performance indicator and Hong Kong’shigh-tech image as one of the IB Index are the examplesof the cultural propensity of those two regions. Lastly, theIB rating schemes to quantify objectively the score of eachperformance indicator category are different among thesethree regions. Hong Kong seems to be mostly rigorous inpursuing methodologically objective assessment algorithmwhereas Korea has very extensive set of enabling equip-ment and facilities to judge either inclusion or exclusion ofsuch items as the indicator of associated IB performance.Japan especially shows a comprehensive way of evaluatingenergy load by including both internal and external loads toevaluate a building’s energy performance (Kim, Cho, andYee 2011). Overall, the identified key features, componentsand performance indicators of IBs are reported in Table 4.


Table 4. Summary of the key features and performance indicators of IBs from Korean, Japanese, and Hong Kong perspectives.


Building sustainability Energy conservation External/internal energy load, insulation, energy efficiency ofMaterial and resources facilities, energy efficient operation, adoption rate of renewableWater energy sources, embodied energy, material recycling rate, waterperation and management recycling rate, building operation efficiency

Service performance Spatial flexibility Ease of spatial reconfiguration, level of functional support of a space,Durability and responsiveness durability of building components and systems, level of networkIntegration with ICT connection, and effectiveness in sensing and control

Human dimension Occupants comfort PMV, PPD, noise criteria, illuminance, glare index, Air Change perTechnical symbolism Hour, productivity measurement

Safety andsecurity Fire safety Fire protection measuresEarthquake and disaster protection Structure and facility integrityFacility and data security Security protection level

Community Awareness Environmental pollution Soil, water and air pollution indices, on-site conservation scope,Ecological conservation context-aware site and building design, CO2 emission rateRegional characteristicsGlobal warming reduction

4.4. Fundamental features in Australia and NewZealand

Unlike many other countries, Australia and New Zealanddo not seem to have any institution dealing directly withthe IB. The operation of buildings built with green fea-tures as listed in the Green Building checklist could havenot be realized without embedded smartness or intelligence(GBCA 2010). Although not as “complete” and “com-plex” as the IB features in commercial buildings, greenvillages such as Lochiel Park in Adelaide, South Australia,are fitted with “smart” devices that provide the occupantswith the ability to check and control interactively theenergy consumption of various energy appliances, watchthe energy consumed by each appliance and consequentialgreenhouse gas emitted in real time (Saman et al. 2011).

This status is a mixed blessing for Australia and NewZealand. On the one hand, they have much to learn abouthow to deliver and operate these types of buildings suc-cessfully (Healey 2011). On the other hand, this verystatus enables them to experiment “naturally” with theintroduction of buildings with IB features without beingrestricted by associated guidelines, standards and accept-able definition that still needs to be developed rigorouslyas discussed in this paper.

Thus, discussion on key features and performance indi-cators in this section is a preliminary attempt to pave theway for a more comprehensive formulation of require-ments of IBs in the Australian context. How “smart sys-tems” address the objectives of IBs through key intelligentattributes or level of service system integration have beendiscussed elsewhere (Bien et al. 2002; Wong, Li, and Lai2008).

The proliferation of buildings with intelligent featuresin Australia and New Zealand is expected to increase dueto the following factors: (1) their commitment to increase

performances of various aspects such as environmental,economic, operation, and safety of new and existing build-ings, (2) continued improvement of performance and relia-bility of various technologies in communications, control,automation, etc. that have already found their deploymentin buildings. These two factors are interrelated; adher-ence to stringent performance of various features set byvarious guidelines or standards could only be attainedlargely through the introduction of these technologiesin buildings.

Australia and New Zealand are two of the developedcountries with highest greenhouse gas emissions per capitain the world (UNFCC 2013) and this has influenced peo-ple’s attitude towards living sustainable life. In Australia,governments have set a number of initiatives dealing withthese issues. NABERS is an Australia rating system forassessing environmental performance of buildings, whichincludes energy efficiency, water, waste management, andIAQ (NABERS 2013). In the state of New South Wales,BASIX (BASIX 2013) was introduced to assess the energyand water efficiencies of residential buildings. Similarenvironmental or energy performance assessment schemesexist in other states. New Zealand has just introducedNABERS NZ, and has also developed its own environmen-tal rating scheme called “Green Star” (NZGBC 2013).

Building sustainability should be one of key featuresof an IB from Australian and New Zealand perspectives.Based on Green Building checklist (GBCA 2010), the term“green” seems to have covered not only environmentalbut to some extent economic and social dimensions ofsustainability. Compared to sustainability indicators iden-tified/proposed by AlWaer and Clements-Croome (2010),the indicators listed in the Green Building checklist(GBCA 2010) are more comprehensive and measurable.It covers broad range of sustainability elements such as


energy and water efficiency, thermal comfort, IAQ, wastemanagement, and transport.

One of the main and justified concerns with the IBconcept is that, relying too heavily on the smartnessembedded into building may make people more “pas-sive and disconnected from reality” (Soebarto, V. 2013.Personal Communication, September). While IB conceptoverall impacts positively on the building occupants, oneshould carefully consider the unintended consequences ofsuch “emerging intelligence” of buildings on human, anaspect that has not been properly considered yet.

The human dimensions that need to be properly con-sidered in the Australian context perhaps could be bestsummarized by the following statement:

buildings that help the occupants realize and be thank-ful that they are humans who can move around, use theirhands, feet, and brain . . . buildings that help the occu-pants realize what being alive actually entails – and thatincludes to feel happy and sad, to feel warm, cool, cold,hot, sweaty, freezing, to feel tired and relaxed. (Soebarto,V. 2013. Personal Communication, September)

Thus, whilst automation has been “de facto” standard formodern IBs should always allow for flexibility in relationto the way occupants want “to live their life” in thebuilding. Table 5 outlines key features and performanceindicators of IB in the Australian and New Zealand context.Those features are often common to buildings normallycalled or known as “green” or “sustainable”. However, theintelligence of IB should make easier the task of realizingthe key features.

5. DiscussionSeveral key characteristics and potential benefits of IBsare presented above and the accelerated growth rate ofIB development in today’s urban areas observed. Thestudy has portrayed several promising technological ini-tiatives and innovative strategies for application in thedesign, construction, management, and operation phases offuture buildings including the so-called IBs. Despite theincreasing interest in development of IBs, findings drawsattention to certain barriers including insufficient economicresources for promotion of IBs and the potential risks of

the integration of untested intelligent technologies, ineffec-tive, and inadequate incentivized programmes and supportfor utilization of IB systems, lack of public awarenessabout the positive impacts of IBs and their long-term ben-efits, and insufficient technical potentials and capacity toapply and implement the intelligent technologies. More-over, the study demonstrates a lack of empirical evidencethat IBs actually deliver the benefits claimed for them. IBsof today, being significantly affected by the “tech pushand market pull” scenario, are highly unaffordable dueto the high cost of available intelligent systems and thelack of widespread expertise for monitoring their opera-tions, specifically in the context of small-scale commercial,educational and residential buildings. The economic feasi-bility for developing IBs can be partially resolved by thepossible long-term payback of the initial investment, asdiscussed in previous sections, which has not been thor-oughly studied in recent years. Furthermore, the economicfeasibility of IBs should not be beyond a simple pay-back calculation (such as energy-saving benefits) and inthis regard, more studies should look into the lifecyclecosting of IBs as an essential approach for understandingtheir promising benefits. Nonetheless, the massive prolifer-ation of IBs, once fully embedded in future governmentalplans, can result in promoting the “tech push and mar-ket push” scenario where considerably less costs wouldbe needed for embedding intelligence in buildings. Like-wise, professional bodies, stakeholders, and researchersrequire a universally acknowledged framework for designand development of future IBs. This framework has toextend to include the monitoring and evaluation of IBsperformance over time.

In practice, researchers and institutions are still grap-pling with multiple definitions and interpretations of theessence of IBs and associated implications. This studyhas evaluated most of the existing definitions of an IBbased on its evolutionary progress with viewpoints to thesocial, environmental, economic, technological, and orga-nizational dimensions and according to the status of IBs indifferent contexts. Having shown the status of IBs in differ-ent contexts, findings provide new insights for defining theintelligence embodied in built environments and clarify thefuture direction of intelligent environments as part of future

Table 5. Summary of the key features and performance indicators of IBs from Australian and New Zealand perspectives.


Building sustainability Energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste management,thermal comfort, visual comfort, IAQ, sustainablebuilding materials, lighting, planting, transportation, landuse, and ecology

Adherence to existing “sustainability” ratingschemes such as NABERSand NABERSNZ.

Security Personal safety and security, data, information, andcommunication

Greater level of security compared to“standard” buildings.

Quantitative indicators need to be developed.Human dimensions Dynamism, casualness, privacy, flexibility, creativity, etc. IBs degree of flexibility to accommodate

“human dimensions”.


Figure 4. Updated IB pyramid (after Harrison, 1999 in Clements-Croome, 2004, p. 26).

intelligent cities. In this line, the study proposes in Figure 4an updated version of the IB Pyramid originally definedand developed by Harrison (1999) and Clements-Croome(2004).

Findings point out that there is not yet a standarddefinition for IBs, demonstrating a research gap, and there-fore, diversified interpretations and inferences regardingthis field are observed. Analysing the essence of IBs and

current agendas of governmental and private sectors in dif-ferent regional contexts with viewpoint to the applicationof ICT and emerging advanced technologies in buildings,findings represent the identified KPIs of IBs according tothe respective regions. In our opinion, IB is an evolutionaryentity that seeks to harness available cutting edge tech-nologies at the time and location to fulfil chosen set ofmulti-dimensional performance criteria, cost effectively.


Finally, an IB should respond to all three key compo-nents of systems, performances, and services and has tohave following components:

KPI-1) Smartness and Technology Awareness

• Utilization of advanced embedded systems for build-ing components.

• Incorporation of intelligent technologies and eco-nomic principles.

• Intertwined with advanced sensors and artificialintelligence.

• Application of building systems and technologicalintegrations.

• Application of up-to-date adaptable and interopera-ble building control systems.

• In line with innovative future technologies andupgrades.

KPI-2) Economic and Cost Efficiency

• Consideration of economic repercussions, lifecycleanalysis, and cost effectiveness.

• Consideration of enhanced productivity and effec-tiveness of environments.

• Application of efficient management of resources.• Application of integrated facility management.• Consideration of cost/time saving strategies.

KPI-3) Personal and Social Sensitivity

• Consideration of the requirements and expectationsof occupants and/or users.

• Consideration of comfort, convenience, safety andsecurity.

• Adaptable to ever-expanding and changing humanneeds.

• Responsive to social and technological changes.• Responsive to the needs for communication and

globalization.• Consideration of well-being, emotional satisfaction,

and enhanced creativity of users.• Use of self-support of user activity.

KPI-4) Environmental Responsiveness

• Application of ecologically sustainable design.• Utilization of renewable energy sources, energy effi-

cient strategies, and conservation techniques.• Application of energy management systems.

6. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates, with clear research and empiricalevidence, references, quotations, and exploration of prac-tical implementations, why we should consider IBs as asignificant component of future built environments. These

findings show that IBs are expected to play a fundamen-tal role in shaping future cities. The prominent potential ofIBs is expressed in a host of values like the automationand digitalization of living environments and the inte-grated technological facilities; enhanced security ; healthand well-being; optimized resource performance; reducedenvironmental impacts; investment returns and reducedlevel of operational costs; improved networking potentials;higher productivity; better well-being for the users. Clari-fying the currently available definitions of IBs allows usto develop new platforms for developments of globallyacknowledged IB indices.

We would like to stress the point that IBs are evolvingand will change. This paper sets out the main factors whichwill combine in various ways dictated by societal and tech-nological change. For instance, OA once considered to beone of the essential components of IBs is no longer gettingso much attention whilst energy saving with green build-ing features together with the human values are becomingmore critical for both current and future IB design andoperation practices. IBs should be treated as a dynamicand evolutionary entity rather than a static and fixed one.Nevertheless, the commonalities of IBs across all differentregions and times clearly exist and that has been describedin this paper.

The IB offers a new building design paradigm throughembedded intelligence leading towards attainment of opti-mized functions of a building in real time. As a result, therate of adoption of building automation, embedded intel-ligence, and advanced sophisticated systems is increasingin some parts of the world, resulting in increasing numbersof buildings labelled intelligent, smart, and green althoughas has been indicated these terms are sometimes mixed upand their distinctions blurred.

Concerning the discussed aspirations, built environ-ment professionals confront challenges on how to becomemore responsible for intelligent buildings and the value oftheir outcomes. Any search for such ‘new professionalism’must therefore span all the built environment and designprofessions, as they have interconnected and collectiveresponsibilities (Cooper and Symes 2008; Hill and Lorenz2011; Hill et al. 2013; Bordass and Leaman 2013). Pro-fessionals, it would seem, are being asked to confront theconsequences of their actions, learn from them and shareresults. They are being asked to construct new roles inproactive market shaping, assessing future needs, demandsand risks, at all appropriate levels of scale, taking longer-term responsibilities for learning through the realization ofIBs’ objectives in use (Cooper and Symes 2008; Hill andLorenz 2011; Hill et al. 2013; Bordass and Leaman 2013).

Overall, the findings in this paper indicate that a fun-damental agenda for the twenty-first century is to develophighly responsive buildings with substantive potentialsof automatic control and monitoring towards optimiz-ing ambient intelligent environments while balancing thisapproach with the human values, well-being, health, and


quality of life. In this line, IBs should successfully respondto the ever-increasing demands of society while reduc-ing the environmental impacts and this requires effectivedesign initiatives to be put in place.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the editor of Architectural Science Review andthree anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments andconstructive contributions to this article.

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by theauthors.

FundingThis research was partially supported by a grant [14RERP-B090024-01] from Residential Environment Research Programfunded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport ofKorean government.

ORCIDUmberto Berardi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0508-6195

References

AIIB. 2005. IB Index. 3rd ed. Hong Kong: Asian Institute ofIntelligent Buildings.

Albino, V., U. Berardi, and R. Dangelico. 2015. “Smart Cities:Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives.”Journal of Urban Technology 22 (1): 3–21.

AlWaer, H., F. Beltran, D. J. Clements-Croome, and D. Melo.2013. “Innovative Futures.” In Intelligent Buildings: Design,Management and Operation. 2nd ed., edited by D. J.Clements-Croome, 313–332. London: ICE Publishing

AlWaer, H., R. Bickerton, and R. D. Kirk. 2014. “Examiningthe Components Required for Assessing the Sustainabilityof Communities in the UK.” Journal of Architecture andPlanning Research 31 (1): 1–26.

AlWaer, H., and D. J. Clements-Croome. 2010. “Key Perfor-mance Indicators (KPIs) and Priority Settings in Using theMutli-Attribute Approach for Assessing Sustainable Intelli-gent Buildings.” Building and Environment 45 (4): 799–807.

AlWaer, H., and D. J. Clements-Croome. 2013. “Intelligent, Sus-tainable, Livable Cities.” In Intelligent Buildings: Design,Management and Operation. 2nd ed., edited by D. J.Clements-Croome, 283–303. London: ICE Publishing.

AlWaer, H., and D. Kirk. 2012. “Building Sustainability Assess-ment Methods.” Proceedings of the ICE-Engineering Sus-tainability 165 (4): 241–253.

AlWaer, H., M. Sibley, and J. Lewis. 2008a. “Factors and Pri-orities for Assessing Sustainability of Regional ShoppingCentres in the UK.” Architectural Science Review 51 (4):391–402.

AlWaer, H., M. Sibley, and J. Lewis. 2008b. “Different Stake-holder Perceptions of Sustainability Assessment.” Architec-tural Science Review 51 (1): 48–59.

Arup. 2003. www.arup.com/communications/knowledge/intelligent.htm.

Arup. 2013. http://www.arup.com/News/2013_04_April/25_April_World_first_microalgae_facade_goes_live.aspx.

BASIX. 2013. “BASIX–Building Sustainability Index.” https://www.basix.nsw.gov.au/basixcms/.

BCA (Building and Construction Authority). 2013. http://www.bca.gov.sg.

Bedos, Joan, Puig Miro, Albert Girbal, Rovira Fontanals,and Josep Lluis. 1990. Intelligent Buildings and Areas.Definition of an Emerging Concept. Barcelona: Institut Cerd.Project INFRA.

Berardi, U. 2013a. “Clarifying the New Interpretations of theConcept of Sustainable Building.” Sustainable Cities andSociety 8: 72–78.

Berardi, U. 2013b. “Stakeholders’ Influence on the Adoptionof Energy-saving Technologies in Italian Homes.” EnergyPolicy 60: 520–530.

Bien, Z., W. C. Bang, D. Y. Kim, J. S. Han. 2002. “MachineIntelligence Quotient: Its Measurements and Applications.”Fuzzy Sets and Systems 127 (1): 3–16.

Bond, A., and A. Morrison-Saunders. 2013. “Challenges inDetermining the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assess-ment.” In Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practiceand Progress, edited by A. Bond, A. Morrison-Saunders,and R. Howitt, 37–51. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bordass, B., and Leaman, A. 2013. “A new professionalism: rem-edy or fantasy?” Building Research & Information, 41 (1):1–7.

Brad, B. S., and M. M. Murar. 2014. “Smart BuildingsUsing IoT Technologies.” Stroitel’stvo Unikal’nyh Zdaniji Sooruzenij 5 (20): 15–27. http://www.unistroy.spb.ru/index_2014_20/2_brad_20.pdf

Brandon, P., and P. Lombardi. 2011. Evaluating SustainableDevelopment in the Built Environment. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Buckman, A. H., M. Mayfield, S. B. M. Beck. 2014. “What is aSmart Building?.” Smart and Sustainable Built Environment3 (2): 92–109.

Bystrom, J. 1990. Intelligent byggande i Japan. Vol. 62. Stock-holm: Sveriges Tekniska AttachÈer. (Utlandsrapporter,Utlansrapport Japan 9004) ISRN STATT-UR–90/04-J–SE.

CABA. 2006. “A New Definition of Intelligent buildings forAsia, The Magazine of the Continental Automated BuildingsAssociation.”http://www.caba.org/resources/Documents/ABAQ_0106_L.pdf.

Caragliu, A., C. Del Bo, and P. Nijkamp. 2011. “Smart Cities inEUROPE.” Journal of Urban Technology 18 (2): 65–82.

Cempel, W., and J. Mikulik. 2013. “Intelligent Building Reengi-neering: Adjusting Life and Work Environment to Occu-pant’s Optimal Routine Processes.” Intelligent BuildingsInternational 5 (1): 51–64.

Choon, S. W., C. Siwar, J. Pereira, A. A. Jemain, H. S.Hashim, A. S. Hadi. 2011. “A Sustainable City Index forMalaysia.” International Journal of Sustainable Develop-ment and World Ecology 18 (1): 28–35.

Clements-Croome, D. J. 1997. “What do We Mean by IntelligentBuildings?.” Automation in Construction 6: 395–400.

Clements-Croome, D. J. 2004. Intelligent Buildings: Design,Management and Operation. London: Thomas Telford.

Clements-Croome, D. J. 2006. Creating the Productive Work-place. Oxon: Taylor and Francis.

Clements-Croome, D. J. 2013. Intelligent Buildings: Design,Management and Operation. 2nd ed. London: ICEPublishing.

Clements-Croome, D. J. 2013a. “Sustainable Healthy intellI-gent Buildings for People.” In Intelligent Buildings: Design,Management and Operation. 2nd ed., edited by D. J.Clements-Croome, 1–24. London: ICE Publishing.

Clements-Croome, D. J. 2013b. “Can Intelligent BuildingsProvide Alternative Approaches to Heating, Ventilating


and Air Conditioning of Buildings?” Dreosti memoriallecture.

Clements-Croome, D. J. 2014. “Sustainable Intelligent Build-ings for Better Health, Comfort and Well-Being.” Report forDenzero Project.

Clements-Croome, D. 2015. “Creative and Productive Work-places: A Review.” Intelligent Buildings International:1–20.

Cook, D. J., and S. K. Das. 2007. “How Smart are Our Environ-ments? An Updated Look at the State of the Art.” Pervasiveand Mobile Computing 3 (2): 53–73.

Cooper, I., and M. Symes. 2008. Sustainable Urban Devel-opment. Changing Professional Practice. New York, NY:Routledge.

Deakin, M., and H. Al Waer. 2011. “From Intelligent to SmartCities.” Intelligent Buildings International 3 (3): 140–152.

Du Plessis, C. 1999. “Sustainable Development Demands Dia-logue Between Developed and Developing Worlds.” Build-ing Research & Information 27 (6): 378–389.

Ehrlich, P. 2007. “What is an Intelligent Building?.” In WebBased Enterprise Energy and Building Automation Systems,edited by B. Capehart, L. Capehart, P. Allen and D. Green,17–22. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press.

Eliades, D. G., M. P. Michaelides, C. G. Panayiotou, & M.M. Polycarpou. 2013. “Security-Oriented Sensor Placementin Intelligent Buildings.” Building and Environment 63:114–121.

El Sheikh, M. M. 2011. “Intelligent Building Skins: Parametric-based Algorithm for Kinetic Facades Design and Daylight-ing Performance Integration.” Master thesis. University ofSouthern California.

Federal Dept. of Town & Country Planning (FDTCP). 2006.National Urbanization Plan. Kuala Lumpur: JPBD.

Federal Department of Town & Country Planning (FDTCP).2010. National Physical Plan 2. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry ofHousing & Local Government.

Finco, A., and P. Nijkamp. 2001. “Pathways to Urban Sustain-ability.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3:289–302.

GBI (Green Building Index). 2013. http://www.greenbuildingindex.org.

GhaffarianHoseini, A. 2012. “Ecologically Sustainable Design(ESD): Theories, Implementations and Challenges TowardsIntelligent Building Design Development.” IntelligentBuildings International 4 (1): 34–48.

GhaffarianHoseini, A., N. D. Dahlan, U. Berardi, A. Ghaffarian-Hoseini, and N. Makaremi. 2013a. “The Essence of FutureSmart Houses: From Embedding ICT to Adapting to Sus-tainability Principles.” Renewable and Sustainable EnergyReviews 24: 593–607.

GhaffarianHoseini, A., N. D. Dahlan, U. Berardi, A. Ghaffari-anHoseini, N. Makaremi, and M. GhaffarianHoseini. 2013.“Sustainable Energy Performances of Green Buildings: AReview of Current Theories, Implementations and Chal-lenges.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 25:1–17.

GhaffarianHoseini, A., R. Ibrahim, M. N. Baharuddin, andA. GhaffarianHoseini. 2011. “Creating Green CulturallyResponsive Intelligent Buildings: Socio-Cultural and Envi-ronmental Influences.” Intelligent Buildings International 3(1): 5–23.

Gnerre, B., G. Cmar, and K. Fuller. 2007. “How can a Build-ing be Intelligent if it has Nothing to Say?.” In Web BasedEnterprise Energy and Building Automation Systems, editedby B. Capehart, L. Capehart, P. Allen and D. Green, 23–28.Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press.

Gökçe, H. U., and K. U. Gökçe. 2013. “Holistic System Architec-ture for Energy Efficient Building Operation.” SustainableCities and Society 6: 77–84.

Goleman, D. 2009. Ecological Intelligence. London: Allen Lane.Gray, A. 2006. “How Smart are Intelligent Buildings?.” Build-

ing Operating Management 53 (9): 61–62. 64, 66. http://search.proquest.com/docview/203467047?accountid = 28930.

Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). 2010. “GreenBuilding Checklist.” http://www.gbca.org.au/resources/green-buildings-for-tenants/green-building-checklist/2990.htm.

Hagras, H., V. Callaghan, M. Colley, and G. Clarke. 2003.“A Hierarchical Fuzzy–genetic Multi-agent Architecture forIntelligent Buildings Online Learning, Adaptation and Con-trol.” Information Sciences 150 (1): 33–57.

Harrison, A. 1999. “Towards the Intelligent City.” In Intelli-gent and Responsive Buildings, CIB Working CommissionWO98, 1st International Congress, Bruges, Belgium, editedby Ir. G. Klepfisch, 175–183. Antwerp: TechnologischInstituut.

Hartkopf, V. 2004. “Building as Power Plant—BAPP.” Cogen-eration and Distributed Generation Journal 19 (2):60–73.

Healey, G. 2011. Intelligent Buildings: Integrated Systems andControls. Melbourne: International Specialised Skills Insti-tute.

Hill, S., and D. Lorenz. 2011. “Rethinking Professionalism:Guardianship of land and Resources.” Building Research &Information 39 (3): 314–319.

Hill, S., D. Lorenz, P. Dent, and T. Lützkendorf. 2013. “Pro-fessionalism and Ethics in a Changing Economy.” BuildingResearch & Information 41 (1): 8–27.

Hollands, R. G. 2008. “Will the Real Smart City Please StandUp? Intelligent, Progressive or Entrepreneurial?.” City 12(3): 303–320.

Huang, Z. Y. 2014. “Evaluating Intelligent Residential Commu-nities Using Multi-strategic Weighting Method in China.”Energy and Buildings 69: 144–153.

Jamaludin, O. 2011. “Perceptions of Intelligent Building inMalaysia: Case Study of Kuala Lumpur.” PhD thesis,Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Janda, K. B. 2011. “Buildings don’t use Energy: People do.”Architectural Science Review 54 (1): 15–22.

Jiang, F., M. Gao, and Z. Wang. 2013. “Reviews on Intelli-gent Building Systems in China, Recent Progress in DataEngineering and Internet Technology.” Lecture Notes inElectrical Engineering 156: 441–447.

Jin, W. 2012. “Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing.”Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing 158: 423–430.

Johnstone, A. 2013. “Intelligent Building Management.” In Intel-ligent Buildings, edited by D. J. Clements-Croome, 187–197. New York: Routledge.

Katz, D., and J. Skopek. 2009. “The CABA Building IntelligenceQuotient Programme.” Intelligent Buildings International 1(4): 277–295.

Kaya, I., and C. Kahraman. 2014. “A Comparison of Fuzzy Mul-ticriteria Decision Making Methods for Intelligent BuildingAssessment.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Manage-ment 20 (1): 59–69.

Keeling, T., D. J. Clements-Croome, R. Luck, and P. Pointer.2013. “Wireless Sensors for Monitoring People and theirClose Environment.” In Intelligent Buildings: Design, Man-agement and Operation. 2nd ed., edited by D. J. Clements-Croome, 107–118. London: ICE Publishing.

Kensek, K. M. 2014. Building Information Modeling. New York,NY: Routledge.


Kerr, C. S. 2013. “A Review of the Evidence on the Importanceof Sensory Design for Intelligent Buildings.” IntelligentBuildings International 5 (4): 204–212.

Kim, S. H., Y. J. Cho, and J. J. Yee. 2011. “A Study on theDomestic System Improvement Through Comparative Anal-ysis on the South Korea Green Building Certification Sys-tem and Japan CASBEE of Energy Sector of ApartmentHouse in Busan.” Proceedings of the 2011 conference of theKorean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environmentand Building Systems, 63–66.

KMCT. 2006. Guidelines for Intelligent Building CertificationSystem. Seoul: Korea Ministry of Construction & Trans-portation.

Kroner, W. M. 1997. “An Intelligent and Responsive Architec-ture.” Automation in Construction 6: 381–393.

Kua, H. W., and S. E. Lee. 2002. “Demonstration IntelligentBuilding—A Methodology for the Promotion of Total Sus-tainability in the Built Environment.” Building and Environ-ment 37: 231–240.

Kwon, O., E. Lee, and H. Bahn. 2014. “Sensor-aware ElevatorScheduling for Smart Building Environments.” Building andEnvironment 72: 332–342.

Lee, J. H., R. Phaal, and S. H. Lee. 2013. “An Integrated Service-device-technology Roadmap for Smart City Development.”Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (2): 286–306.

Leifer, D. 1988. “Intelligent Buildings: A Definition.” Architec-ture Australia 77: 200–202.

Lonergan R., Salzberg S, Hall H., Larson K. 2015. “Context-Aware Dynamic Lighting, MIT Media Lab.” https://www.media.mit.edu/research/groups/changing-places.

Lu, Y., S. Wang, Y. Sun, and C. Yan. 2015. “Optimal Schedulingof Buildings with Energy Generation and Thermal EnergyStorage Under Dynamic Electricity Pricing Using Mixed-integer Nonlinear Programming.” Applied Energy 147:49–58.

Mahdavi, A. 2006. “The Technology of Sentient Buildings.” ITUJournal of the Faculty of Architecture 3 (1/2): 24–36.

Mahizhnan, A. 1999. “Smart Cities: The Singapore Case.” Cities16 (1): 13–18.

Mak, M. Y., and S. Thomas Ng. 2005. “The Art and Science ofFeng Shui—A Study on Architects’ Perception.” Buildingand Environment 40 (3): 427–434.

Millán Anglés, S., A. Ganah, A. García Santos, F. J. JiménezLeube, and O. Higuera Rincón. 2014. “Determination of theInfluence of Specific Building Regulations in Smart Build-ings.” Intelligent Buildings International 6 (4): 239–254.

NABERS website. National Australian Built Environment Rat-ing System. 2013. http://www.nabers.gov.au/public/WebPages/Home.aspx.

Naticchia, B., and A. Giretti. 2014. “On the Design of Intelli-gent Buildings for Ambient Assisted Living.” In AmbientAssisted Living, edited by S. Longhi, P. Siciliano, M. Ger-mani, A. Monteriù, 381–388. New York: Springer Interna-tional Publishing.

Neirotti, P., A. D. Marco, A. C. Cagliano, G. Mangano, andF. Scorrano. 2014. “Current Trends in Smart City Initiatives:Some Stylised Facts.” Cities 38: 25–36.

Newton, P. W., and S. N. Tucker. 2010. “Hybrid Buildings:A Pathway to Carbon Neutral Housing.” ArchitecturalScience Review 53 (1): 95–106.

Nguyen, T. A., and M. Aiello. 2013. “Energy Intelligent Build-ings Based on User Activity: A Survey.” Energy and Build-ings 56: 244–257.

NZGBC. 2013. “About Green Star - Rating Tools for CommercialBuildings.”http://www.nzgbc.org.nz/index.phpboption =com_content&view = article&id = 17&Itemid = 117.

Ochoa, C. E., and I. G. Capeluto. 2008. “Strategic Decision-making for Intelligent Buildings: Comparative Impactof Passive Design Strategies and Active Features ina Hot Climate.” Building and Environment 43 (11):1829–1839.

ON World. 2013. “ON World Forecasts 100 Million SmartBuilding Wireless Sensor Network Devices by 2019.”http://knxtoday.com/2013/11/2654/on-world-forecasts-100-million-smart-building-wireless-sensor-network-devices-by-2019.html.

Pennell, N. 2013. “Opportunities and Challenges for IntelligentBuildings.” In Intelligent Buildings: Design, Managementand Operation. 2nd ed., edited by D. J. Clements-Croome,305–312. London: ICE Publishing.

Perumal, T., M. N. Sulaiman, and C. Y. Leong. 2013. “ECA-based Interoperability Framework for Intelligent Building.”Automation in Construction 31: 274–280.

Preiser, W. F. E., and U. Schramm. 2002. “Intelligent OfficeBuilding Performance Evaluation.” Facilities 20 (7/8):279–287.

RPBW. Renzo Piano Building Workshop. 2015. http://www.rpbw.com/project/41/jean-marie-tjibaou-cultural-center/.

Saman, W. Y., D. Whaley, L. Mudge, E. Halawa, and J. Edwards.2011. The Intelligent Grid in a New Housing Development.Final Report, Project P6, CSIRO Intelligent Grid ResearchCluster, University of South Australia.

Shih, H. C. 2014. “A Robust Occupancy Detection and Track-ing Algorithm for the Automatic Monitoring and Com-missioning of a Building.” Energy and Buildings 77:270–280.

Silva, R. M., J. Arakaki, F. Junqueira, D. J. Santos Filho, P. E.Miyagi. 2012. “Modeling of Active Holonic Control Sys-tems for Intelligent Buildings.” Automation in Construction25: 20–33.

Siong Ho, C., Y. Matsuoka, J. Simson, and K. Gomi. 2013. “LowCarbon Urban Development Strategy in Malaysia - TheCase of Iskandar Malaysia Development Corridor.” HabitatInternational 37: 43–51.

So, A. T. P., and W. L. Chan. 1999. Intelligent Building Systems,New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

So, A. T., A. C. Wong, and K. C. Wong. 1999. “A New Definitionof Intelligent Buildings for Asia.” Facilities 17 (12/13):485–491.

So, A. T. P., A. C. W. Wong, and K. C. Wong. 2011. “A NewDefinition of Intelligent Buildings for Asia.” In The Intel-ligent Building Index Manual. 2nd ed. Hong Kong: AsianInstitute of Intelligent Buildings.

Strumiłło, K., and Łódz, P. 2014. “Ergonomic Aspects of an Intel-ligent Building.” Advances in Social and OrganizationalFactors 12: 51–58.

Thompson, M., I. Cooper, and B. Gething. 2014. The Busi-ness Case for Adapting Buildings to Climate Change:Niche or Mainstream? Executive Summary. Swindon: Inno-vate UK technology StrategyBoard. Design for FutureClimate.

UNFCCC. 2013. “Annex 1 Countries’ Emissions for 2010.”http://unfccc.int/di/Indicators.do.

Vincent, J. F. 2014. “Biomimetics in Architectural Design.”Intelligent Buildings International 6: 1–12.

Wang, S. 2009. Intelligent Building and Building Automation.New York: Routledge.

Wang, S. 2010. Intelligent Buildings and Building Automation.New York: Spon Press. ISBN: 0-203-89081-7.

Wang, S., Z. Xu, H. Li, J. Hong, and W. Z. Shi. 2004. “Inves-tigation on Intelligent Building Standard CommunicationProtocols and Application of IT Technologies.” Automationin Construction 13 (5): 607–619.


Wigginton, M., and J. Harris. 2002. Intelligent Skins. Oxford:Architectural Press.

Wong, J., H. Li, and J. Lai. 2008. “Evaluating the SystemIntelligence of the Intelligent Building Systems: Part 1:Development of key Intelligent Indicators and ConceptualAnalytical Framework.” Automation in Construction 17 (3):284–302.

Wong, J. K. W., H. Li, and S. W. Wang. 2005. “Intelligent Build-ing Research: A Review.” Automation in Construction 14:143–159.

Worall, M. 2013. “Passive and Active Environmental QualityControl.” In Intelligent Buildings, edited by D. J. Clements-Croome, 49–58. New York: Routledge.

Yamagata, Y., and H. Seya. 2013. “Simulating a Future SmartCity: An Integrated Land Use-energy Model.” AppliedEnergy 112: 1466–1474.

Yang, R. 2013b. “Development of Integrated Building ControlSystems for Energy and Comfort Management in IntelligentBuildings.” Doctoral diss., Ohio: University of Toledo.

Yang, J., and H. Peng. 2001. “Decision Support to the Applicationof Intelligent Building Technologies.” Renewable Energy22: 67–77.

Yang, R., and L. Wang. 2013. “Multi-zone Building EnergyManagement Using Intelligent Control and Optimization.”Sustainable Cities and Society 6: 16–21.

Yasuyoshi, M. 1993. “Advanced Intelligent Building in Japan.”Proceedings of Future/build 1993; Building for Competi-tive Advantage. Chicago, Illinois, Washington, IntelligentBuilding Institute (IBI).

Zari, M. P. 2010. “Biomimetic Design for Climate Change Adap-tation and Mitigation.” Architectural Science Review 53 (2):172–183.