30
INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER
How supportive are the following stakeholders of innovation in climate-responsive design? Very Supportive Somewhat Supportive Neutral Unsupportive Not Engaged
Passive cooling, shading & ventilation Passive cooling measures undoubtedly have a key role – they can be cheaper to install, have minimal running cost and maintenance requirements, and have good longevity – making them generally the more energy effi cient and environmentally friendly option. However their effectiveness is limited, generally working well to limit or reduce heat gain, but ultimately not able to fully maintain comfort during extreme heat.
There are many strategies which fall under the passive cooling umbrella, so we asked respondents which of them they’ve used. Cross ventilation came out on top, having been used by 77% of our cohort, followed by night time ventilation (72%). 68% have used fi xed external shading, 67% have used thermal mass, 65% have used dynamic shading and 63% have used stack effect design. Other mentions from respondents included “solar chimneys”, “retractable shading systems,”, “thermal labyrinth systems,” and “ventilated facade cavities.”
Less popular were evaporative cooling which only 7% have used, earth tubes (11%) and courtyard cooling (13%). With evaporative cooling in particular only really suitable in consistently hot and arid climates, it’s no surprise it’s not been highly utilised in UK-based projects, where humidity is notoriously high. Similarly, humidity and general dampness can cause problems with earth tubes developing condensation and consequently mould, making them less suitable for projects within the UK. While it’s encouraging to see so many passive cooling strategies already being utilised, it’s arguably more important to determine how effective these are, and what barriers architects are facing when considering implementing them. When asked about the former, some measures were reassuringly voted by the majority as either ‘very effective’ or ‘somewhat effective’ – external shading received a combined total of 80%, natural ventilation received 79%, and stack
effect design received 67%. Unsurprisingly, receiving the most votes for ‘not very effective’ was internal shading (27%). Other options – courtyard cooling and earth tubes – also received a poor number of votes for either very or somewhat effective, though these did receive a high number of ‘not used’ votes, which correlates with the fi ndings from our previous question. However, while many solutions are being utilised and deemed as effective, that’s not to say there aren’t some signifi cant barriers too. When we offered respondents a choice of potential barriers and asked them to rate each as either ‘most’, ‘very’, ‘moderately’, ‘slightly’ or ‘not signifi cant’, worryingly all of them received a combined majority of most, very or moderately vote. The top ‘most signifi cant’ barrier was cost perception (24%), with a combined total of 88%.
Indicating that getting building occupants to take responsibility for certain passive cooling strategies is a problem, ‘user behaviour’ received an even larger combined vote (92%). This was closely followed by limited performance data (88%) and design complexity (86%), although these both received low votes for ‘most signifi cant’ – 7% and 9% respectively. Nonetheless, it’s clear the range of potential issues is vast, and that while better from an environmental perspective, the use of passive cooling alone is not viewed as a viable option.
Designing in shading is another way to help reduce the impact of extreme heat. The most suitable type of shading solution is project-dependent, so we asked respondents how suitable various solutions are for residential, commercial, education and healthcare projects. Receiving the highest percentage of ‘very suitable’ votes in each category was ‘dynamic external shading’ for residential (26%), ‘smart glazing’ for commercial (21%), and ‘fi xed shading devices’ for healthcare (36%). For education there was a tie as to which solutions are ‘very suitable’, with fi xed shading, smart glazing and
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF JULY/AUGUST 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
