Exploring Microclimate Information in Urban Design Praxis: A Case Study in Brisbane, Australia

Exploring Microclimate Information in Urban Design Praxis: A Case Study in Brisbane, Australia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Exploring Microclimate Information in Urban Design Praxis: A Case Study in Brisbane, Australia Yisong Liu, Mirko Guaralda, Tan Yigitcanlar, Veronica Garcia-hansen, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8674972/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This article examines how microclimate information is interpreted and negotiated within early-stage inner-city densification design practice. Drawing on a structured workshop in Brisbane, eight practitioners from planning, urban design, architecture, and landscape architecture developed masterplans under realistic practice conditions. Qualitative, site-specific microclimate information was introduced after initial design decisions and outcomes were analysed using three-dimensional modelling and Urban Weather Generator simulations. Findings show that although practitioners recognised the relevance of microclimate considerations, established design strategies were rarely revised. Disciplinary orientation and feasibility concerns exerted stronger influence than climatic evidence. The study argues that contemporary modes of microclimate information delivery position climate as a retrospective validation tool rather than a formative driver of urban form, with implications for the design of practice-oriented microclimate tools. Urban microclimate Urban design practice Knowledge translation Urban densification Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction Over the past few decades, the socio-economic landscape of cities worldwide has undergone significant transformation. Governments in developed countries have increasingly promoted compact and dense urban development in areas previously characterised by low-density urban sprawls (OECD, 2014 ). Despite the compact development agenda, urban areas remain major contributors to global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for roughly 70% of CO₂ output (Seto et al., 2014 ). This highlights the need to understand cities not only as engines of economic activity but also as significant drivers of climate change. While national mitigation strategies have often concentrated on transport and infrastructure, research has shown clear links between urban form, thermal behaviour, and energy demand (Masson et al., 2020 ). Understanding these relationships is essential for developing sustainable and climate-responsive urban environments (Hidalgo et al., 2019 ). Concurrently, the urgent need to address climate resilience has challenged urban design to adopt evidence-based approaches that prioritise climatic performance. This shift has redefined urban planning and urban design from predominantly creative practices to more scientific, data-driven disciplines (Batty, 2013 ). Contemporary urban planning and design practice now relies on empirical methods and predictive modelling to respond to evolving socio-economic and environmental conditions, with a focus on measurable outcomes such as energy efficiency and social equity (Yigitcanlar et al., 2019 ). Within this context, the combined push for urban densification and technocratic planning has driven growing interest in urban climate research and its relevance to urban design. As compact development increases the intensity of built form and human activity, microclimate has become a key lens for understanding how urban form affects thermal conditions, energy demand, and outdoor comfort. Urban microclimate research therefore aligns with data-driven agendas by offering measurable evidence to assess and compare design options in dense urban environments. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Urban Microclimate Research Urban microclimate research has gained importance as climate change now affects the thermal performance of cities and the quality of urban life. The wider move toward evidence-based planning, together with improved computing techniques, has directed scholarly attention toward smaller spatial scales where climate processes are more closely tied to livelihood of urban dwellers. Early studies concentrated on city-wide and regional temperature patterns, with emphasis on the urban heat island effect and broad thermal gradients (Oke, 2002 ). Researchers later shifted focus to neighbourhood and street scales particularly in higher density areas where evidence showed that local variations in built form, vegetation, surface materials and street geometry influence heat exposure, outdoor comfort and energy demand. This shift became possible as measurement techniques improved and modelling tools became more accessible, which allowed researchers to capture and simulate fine-grain microclimate dynamics with higher accuracy (Mills, 2014 ). Within this evolving field, urban climate morphometric research examines how specific form parameters influence heat and ventilation. Key parameters include sky view factors affecting radiation exchange, building heights and densities shaping wind patterns, and frontal area indexes influencing airflow resistance (Krüger et al., 2011 ; Yang et al., 2021 ; An et al., 2019 ). Methodological advances have shifted focus toward scenario-based computational modelling. Koch et al. (2018) evaluated microclimatic impacts of brownfield redevelopment, demonstrating trade-offs between densification and cooling in compact settings. The study employed ENVI-met, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model, to examine the scenarios. While CFD models offer high spatial resolution, they remain computationally intensive at neighbourhood scale (Liu et al., 2024 ). Simplified tools like the Urban Weather Generator (UWG) apply energy-balance approaches enabling efficient precinct-scale simulations (Bueno et al., 2014 ), with outputs validated against detailed CFD and mesoscale models (Xu et al., 2022 ; He et al., 2025 ). Collectively, morphometric and methodological studies provide quantitative evidence linking neighbourhood-scale urban form with microclimate performance, operating at the scale where design decisions on streets, blocks, and buildings are made (Apreda et al., 2020 ). 2.2 Knowledge Translation Challenge Despite advances in urban climate research, empirical findings have been rarely applied in practice (Hebbert and Mackillop, 2013 ; Hidalgo et al., 2019 ; Parsaee et al., 2019 ). Urban microclimate guidelines exist in leading cities such as Singapore, London, and Hong Kong, but many cities worldwide lack comparable guidance (Zhang and Yuan, 2023 ). These guidelines aim to translate microclimate research into principles for neighbourhood and precinct-scale design, often relying on qualitative design rules, performance indicators, or assessment frameworks rather than prescriptive standards (Mills and Futcher, 2021 ). As a result, microclimate knowledge is only partially embedded in design practice, and most guidelines provide limited direction on how microclimate considerations should be weighed against other design priorities during early-stage decision-making. Literatures has outlined major factors that need to be considered when integrating microclimate knowledge during the design phase: Planning, regulatory and policy: Planning codes and statutory controls. Emeis and Fallmann ( 2022 ) argue that without updates to laws, norms, and standards, urban administrations often cannot integrate new scientific findings into routine planning procedures for more sustainable cities. Knowledge and capacity: Disciplinary norms, prior knowledge, and professional intuition. Grimmond et al. ( 2010 ) and Liu et al. ( 2025 ) argue that practitioners often lack the capacity to run or interpret advanced simulations or do not fully understand or recognise design impacts on microclimate. Market and economics: Budget constraints, willingness to pay, and project yield. Financial incentives can encourage the adoption of climate-responsive design strategies, but concerns remain about balancing these measures against investment returns and housing yield expectations (Brandsma et al., 2024 ). Technicality: Availability and resolution of microclimate information. Mills et al. ( 2010 ) emphasise the lack of authoritative future weather files, while Ng ( 2012 ) highlights the need for more scale-relevant microclimate data. Social Acceptance: Public amenity and community feelings. Public amenity such as thermal comfort issues related to heat and wind can become flashpoints, especially when linked to visible changes in urban form (Wilson, 2008). Design process: Time pressure, incomplete information, and early-stage uncertainty shape how design decisions are made. Liu et al. ( 2025 ) show that tight project timelines and limited experience in communicating microclimate issues among project actors constrain design development. The study also indicates that the timing of microclimate information delivery is critical, since information introduced after key spatial commitments are formed has limited capacity to influence design decisions. The question of microclimate integration can be viewed as a compound issue shaped by the interaction of these factors in design decision-making. The inability to reconcile even one of them may help explain why urban microclimate knowledge is adopted unevenly, despite clear evidence of its benefits. These normative factors are not unique to microclimate-sensitive urban design but are widely criticised as core issues in contemporary urban design practice more broadly (Cuthbert, 2007 ). It is therefore essential to recognise that microclimate-sensitive urban design at the neighbourhood scale is no longer a neutral design exercise but a negotiated process. It reflects contested interests, uneven power relations, and differing interpretations of urban densification. 2.3 Conceptualising the Research Gap Based on the literature review, the difficulty lies not in the absence of technical evidence but in how its influence is contested and constrained within design decision-making. This issue points to an unresolved problem, often described as the “elephant in the room”: if microclimate knowledge can help urban design practice achieve better sustainability and climate performance outcomes, how does its influence compare with other normative factors identified in earlier studies? Do microclimate considerations matter in the design process of urban densification projects? These are critical questions that practitioners face when attempting to integrate microclimate considerations into decision-making, yet empirical studies offer little insight into how practitioners interpret and manage this dilemma when they encounter it in real design settings. In response to this gap, this study examines how these normative factors, as they currently operate in practice, shape the use of microclimate knowledge during early-stage design. The research adopts a workshop-based approach that treats planning, market, professional, and informational constraints as embedded conditions of contemporary design processes and observes how practitioners negotiate microclimate considerations within these conditions. The main research question guiding this paper is: How do practitioners interpret and negotiate microclimate considerations during early-stage urban densification design processes, and how does their influence compare with other normative factors? The aim of this research is to understand how practitioners work with microclimate information during the design of a realistic inner-city densification and redevelopment scenario. By observing their decisions in a structured workshop set in Brisbane, Australia, the study examines how microclimate information is used when designers face competing demands such as density, site constraints, and project feasibility. The research provides empirical insight into how microclimate knowledge enters design praxis and what limits its influence in dense urban settings. 3. Methodology 3.1 Case Study Location Across Australia, inner-city densification and renewal has become a focal point for accommodating population growth while advancing compact city policies. State governments and capital cities have promoted higher densities in inner cities areas, supported by streamlined planning processes and competitive urban development strategies (Gurran and Ruming, 2016 ). On the other hand, these reforms sit alongside growing climate pressures, which intensify heat exposure and place new demands on planning systems that already struggle to integrate adaptation into statutory decision-making (Measham et al., 2011 ; Waters et al., 2023 ). Australian cities therefore confront a dual challenge: the need to deliver substantial inner-city growth and the need to manage escalating climatic risk. Brisbane exemplifies these pressures. The city has pursued an aggressive riverfront renewal agenda since the transformation of South Bank in the early 1990s, relying on masterplanning and technocratic frameworks to guide private investment and shape a metropolitan identity centred on high-amenity, high-density urban living (Ganis et al., 2014 ). This model has informed subsequent strategies for West end, near South Brisbane, where consolidation has been positioned as both economically desirable and spatially efficient. Yet Brisbane is also a subtropical city experiencing rising heat stress, and modelling studies show that infill and smart-growth scenarios can intensify the urban heat island effect in inner neighbourhoods (Deilami and Kamruzzaman, 2017 ). The city therefore provides a relevant metropolitan setting for examining how urban climate knowledge intersects with densification policy. This study uses the Kurilpa precinct as a clear example of these intersecting pressures. The workshop site sits within an eight-hectare urban-renewal area located approximately one kilometre from the Brisbane CBD (Fig. 1). The precinct and its surrounds were historically industrial but have experienced rapid redevelopment and densification because of their riverside position and proximity to the inner city. In 2014, recognising the strategic and economic value of the area, Brisbane City Council released a masterplan that proposed more than 20,000 dwellings and building heights above 40 storeys (Fig. 2). Community groups opposed the proposal, raising concerns about infrastructure capacity, flood exposure, heat and shadowing effects (Kurilpa Future, 2015 ). The plan was ultimately abandoned, and residents advanced an alternative concept with around 1,000 dwellings and height limits of eight storeys. Redevelopment efforts were subsequently mothballed due to a profound divergence between city-shaping ambitions and community expectations. Insert Fig. 1 here Insert Fig. 2 here 3.2 Workshop Design and Data Collection An intensive urban design workshop was conducted in Brisbane in December 2024. Purposive sampling recruited eight practitioners with direct experience in neighbourhood-scale urban design and planning across four disciplines: urban planning (UP), urban design (UD), architecture (AR), and landscape architecture (LA): to capture differences in professional training, decision priorities, and design reasoning (Table 1). This sampling strategy prioritised depth of engagement and diversity of expertise over statistical representation, consistent with RtD and workshop-based urban design research traditions. Insert Table 1 here Participants were tasked with developing a conceptual masterplan for the Kurilpa precinct. The workshop operated within a four-hour time constraint to reflect early-stage design practice conditions where key spatial decisions are often made rapidly with limited information. Whilst the small sample size limits statistical generalisation, the study's aim is not representative findings but observational insight into how microclimate information is interpreted and negotiated within realistic design contexts. The workshop followed a three-phase structure (Fig. 3) designed to observe how practitioners develop and adjust spatial strategies as new information becomes available. The research framework is designed to examine how microclimate knowledge operates within the constraints of contemporary urban design practice rather than under idealised conditions. It treats the previous mentioned normative factors (planning policies, market condition, social acceptance etc.) as embedded and interacting influences that shape early-stage design decisions (Table 2). The framework position microclimate consideration in a form and sequence that mirrors current practice and observes how practitioners negotiate microclimatic considerations alongside competing priorities. This approach allows the study to identify but how its delivery, timing, and representation condition its influence on design praxis. Insert Table 2 here Insert Fig. 3 here In the pre-workshop phase 1, three preparatory activities were undertaken. First, a site analysis established the physical and spatial conditions of the precinct, including urban morphology, block structure, and historical patterns of land subdivision and built form. Second, planning and environmental information was documented, covering typical parameters such as zoning controls, site constraints, meteorological conditions, and relevant socio-economic context. Third, a baseline survey was conducted to capture participants’ prior experience with microclimate issues and their typical approaches to early-stage urban design. These activities established a consistent and realistic design context for all participants. Between the pre-workshop and workshop phases, participants were provided with site-specific microclimate information drawn from urban design guidelines and empirical morphometric research. Participants were given several days to review this material. The information was also presented and explained again in detail during the workshop. Table 3 summarises the microclimate information provided. This material focused on neighbourhood-scale principles, including the influence of building height, spacing and the role of shading and block configuration on microclimate, and the interaction between vegetation and urban form. The information was presented in a concise, non-prescriptive format using diagrams and qualitative explanations rather than numerical targets or optimisation thresholds. This format reflects how microclimate knowledge typically enters design practice. The decision to provide microclimate information retrospectively reflects current practice reality in Australian urban design contexts. Unlike jurisdictions such as Singapore, Hong Kong, or parts of Europe where microclimate performance may be embedded in statutory planning controls or mandated environmental assessment frameworks, Australian cities largely lack comparable regulatory requirements (Zhang and Yuan, 2023 ; Mills and Futcher, 2021 ). Brisbane, like most Australian capital cities, does not mandate microclimate simulation or performance targets for neighbourhood-scale urban design project (Liu et al., 2025 ). Insert Table 3 here In this regulatory vacuum, microclimate knowledge enters practice primarily through voluntary urban design guidelines, academic research papers accessed selectively when projects encounter specific concerns, grey literature from industry organisations, and professional experience developed through practice. Critically, these resources are typically consulted retrospectively, practitioners develop initial spatial concepts based on site analysis, brief requirements, density targets, and feasibility considerations, then reference microclimate guidelines to validate or refine schemes rather than using climatic principles to generate form from the outset (Eliasson, 2000 ; Erell, 2008 ). The workshop phase 2 was structured in two rounds to observe how practitioners develop and adjust spatial strategies as new forms of information become available: In the first design round, participants relied on their professional experience, intuition, and the provided site analysis to develop initial masterplan concepts. This round reflects typical early-stage conditions in planning and urban design, where broad spatial ideas are explored before detailed performance evaluation. In the second round, the microclimate information above were revisited and the participant is allow to change their design base on the new microclimate considerations. Data were collected through design sketches and structured observational notes. The sketches include the scale and height of the buildings and open spaces. Participants worked individually rather than collaboratively to ensure that observed decisions reflected personal professional reasoning rather than group consensus. Facilitators did not intervene in design decisions and provided clarification only on procedural matters. In the post-workshop phase 3, participants completed a follow-up survey reflecting on their experience, the clarity and usability of the microclimate information, and its perceived relevance to their design decisions. All sketches were then converted into three-dimensional models by the researcher using the Rhino CAD platform. A standardised modelling protocol was applied to preserve relative massing, height relationships, and open space distribution across schemes. Where drawings were ambiguous, conservative assumptions were adopted to minimise interpretive bias and maintain comparability. The conversion to 3D model has two aims: firstly, it allows the quantification of urban form attributes such as height, land use, spacing and open space. Secondly it allows the grasshopper-based modelling application to conduct microclimate analysis on the designs. Microclimate modelling was incorporated as part of the analytical process to link observed design decisions with their environmental consequences. Urban heat island intensity was selected as the evaluative indicator because it reflects cumulative effects of built form and allows comparison between alternative design trajectories (Oke, 2002 ; Yang et al., 2021 ). The Urban Weather Generator (UWG) was selected for its computational efficiency and suitability for neighbourhood-scale comparative analysis (Bueno et al., 2014 ). UWG applies an energy-balance approach that parameterises urban morphology and thermal processes, enabling simulations across larger areas with lower computational cost than CFD methods. It treats the city as a single-layer canopy and modifies rural weather data with urban energy flux corrections. This analytical approach treats simulation outputs not as ground truth but as one form of evidence that, when triangulated with morphometric analysis and participant reasoning, reveals patterns in how design priorities shaped environmental outcomes. 3.3 Research Limitation The four-hour workshop compressed design processes that typically unfold over weeks or months, potentially intensifying reliance on established heuristics and reducing willingness to explore alternatives. The workshop also removed institutional constraints (client demands, budget limitations, approval processes) that shape real design decision-making. Results therefore reveal patterns in professional reasoning under constrained conditions rather than fully representing actual practice. However, the compressed timeframe does reflect early-stage design conditions where practitioners make rapid, consequential decisions about density, typology, and spatial organisation based on limited information. It is also important to note that UWG simplifies urban geometry and does not resolve fine-scale airflow or radiation effects captured by CFD approaches Workshop schemes included detailed decisions, building orientations, courtyard configurations, street widths, vegetation placement, that shape microclimate at pedestrian scale but that UWG's single-layer canopy model cannot resolve. This creates a scalar tension: whilst workshop designs operated at block and building scale with specific formal strategies. UWG evaluates aggregate neighbourhood effects through averaged morphometric parameters. The resulting UHI intensity should therefore be interpreted as indicative comparative measures rather than precise predictions of thermal conditions at specific locations within each scheme. 4. Results 4.1 General Observations The most striking observation is that despite the two-stage structure and explicit introduction of expert-provided microclimate information, no participant substantially altered their initial design. Three participants made minor adjustments (adding small vegetated areas, slightly adjusting building setbacks), but none reconsidered fundamental spatial strategies such as density distribution, building typologies, or block configurations. This persistence occurred even when post-workshop surveys indicated participants found the microclimate information clear and relevant. The disconnect between acknowledged importance and maintained design direction points to deeper structural factors shaping practice. In the pre-workshop survey, participants acknowledged microclimate as important but not always prioritised, citing challenges such as balancing competing objectives, regulatory constraints, and the reliability of available microclimate data. Some relied on rule-of-thumb guidelines, prior experience, or simulation tools, but there was little indication that microclimate science actively shaped their core design decisions. Instead, microclimate considerations were seen as something to be incorporated within existing workflows rather than a driver of spatial form. Even when presented with expert insights, their fundamental design logic remained unchanged. The urban form attribute values are provided in Table 4 and the 3D conversion of the designs are illustrated in Fig. 4. The design results show clear differences in how various disciplines engage with microclimate concerns. Architects and landscape architects placed strong emphasis on open spaces and greenery, introducing green roofs, courtyards, or vegetated corridors as primary strategies. This aligns with their survey responses, where their microclimate understanding was largely shaped by environmental observations, such as surface temperature variations and shading patterns, rather than computational performance analysis. Urban designers focused on maintaining spatial consistency and practicality, ensuring a balance between density, movement, and design coherence. Their responses suggest that they viewed microclimate considerations as relevant but subordinate to broader urban morphology principles. Urban planners were most concerned with development feasibility, maximising real estate potential and land-use efficiency, which was reflected in their designs that favoured high-density, compact layouts. Their survey responses frequently mentioned regulatory limitations, financial viability, and balancing economic goals with environmental considerations. Insert Table 4 here Insert Fig. 4 here This disciplinary divergence reveals how professional socialisation shapes environmental reasoning. Architects see climate through formal and experiential lenses (sun, shade, wind as compositional elements). Landscape architects embed ecological principles structurally but may undervalue economic constraints. Urban designers synthesise multiple systems but risk compromise across competing criteria. Planners prioritise feasibility but may treat environmental performance as externality or technical add-on. Importantly, these are not individual preferences but disciplinary habitus, shared professional "ways of seeing" reproduced through education, practice cultures, and institutional reward structures (Cuff, 1991 ). The fact that microclimate information did not disrupt these orientations suggests that knowledge translation requires more than better tools or clearer data; it demands attention to the professional contexts that shape how evidence is interpreted. 4.2 Post-Workshop Survey The post-workshop survey revealed a range of responses to the microclimate data and tools presented during the workshop, while all participants acknowledged the importance of urban microclimate considerations, their engagement with the data and subsequent design actions varied. These participants have described the microclimate information data as a valuable resource for validating or enhancing their initial concepts. For example, some noted that shading patterns helped them identify and address specific weaknesses in their designs, such as areas prone to excessive solar exposure. Conversely, participants chose not to modify their designs after receiving the microclimate data. Their reasons for this included: They felt their original concepts already adequately addressed microclimate considerations, making further refinement unnecessary. Two participants indicated that the provided information did not align closely with their design priorities or the scale of their interventions. Two cited difficulties in interpreting the microclimate information within the time constraints of the workshop, suggesting that the presentation lacked sufficient clarity or accessibility. In addition to these observations, participants provided mixed feedback on the usability of the qualitative data and site modelling results. Positive comments highlighted the potential of the visualisations to inform iterative design processes, while negative feedback emphasised the need for clearer links between the information and actionable design strategies, which generic guideline often fails to deliver due to site differences. In summary, while participants demonstrated general awareness of microclimate principles. The microclimate information proved useful for some participants in refining their designs, but the variation in responses underscored differing levels of comfort and familiarity with quantitative analysis. The primary barriers to effective knowledge translation included the complexity of microclimate information, time constraints, and competing design priorities. Participants valued the potential of detail site modelling data but emphasised the need for greater usability, better contextualisation, and clearer links to design objectives. 4.3 Microclimate Analysis Figure 5 compares resulting UHI intensities. These quantitative results must be interpreted alongside the qualitative patterns identified in the previous section, together they reveal how design priorities shaped environmental outcomes. Insert Fig. 5 here Workshop schemes produced outcomes ranging from 0.45°C (UD2) to 0.99°C (UP2), a 120% variation revealing how different spatial strategies affect neighbourhood thermal conditions. UP2's super-tall, high-yield scheme produced the highest UHI intensity (0.99°C). This demonstrates that vertical densification without compensating vegetation or spatial permeability creates severe thermal penalties. UP1's more moderate approach confirming that yield-maximising strategies prioritising built intensity over thermal performance incur measurable environmental costs. Schemes with substantial vegetation (AR1) achieved lower UHI intensities despite moderate densities. This aligns with morphometric research showing vegetation mitigates heat through evapotranspiration and shading (Yang et al., 2021 ). However, green coverage alone proved insufficient, LA1 and LA2 achieved only moderate thermal performance, despite professional emphasis on vegetation, suggesting that plant distribution, species selection, and integration with built form matter as much as total coverage (Melaas et al., 2016 ). A tentative pattern suggests experience correlates with climate-responsive outcomes. UD2 (30 + years’ experience) produced the best thermal performance, whilst less experienced planners (UP1, UP2) generated the worst. However, this pattern requires cautious interpretation given the small sample. It may reflect that experienced practitioners develop intuitive understanding of form-climate relationships through accumulated project exposure, or alternatively, that those who prioritise environmental performance select into certain career paths or project types. 5. Discussion 5.1 Microclimate Information as Validation Device This study's central finding, that practitioners maintained initial designs despite receiving microclimate information, initially appears as a failure of knowledge translation. However, deeper analysis reveals it as an empirical demonstration of how microclimate knowledge currently functions in practice: as retrospective validation rather than formative design driver when other normative factors are presented in the design praxis. Historically, urban design responded closely to local climate, with city layouts shaped to optimise daylight, ventilation, and thermal comfort (Hebbert and Mackillop, 2013 ). Technological advances in building services enabled modern structures to achieve comfort independently of climate, weakening the link between urban form and environmental constraints (Lehmann, 2010 ). This shift placed environmental requirements primarily at building scale, reducing attention to neighbourhood-scale microclimatic impacts and leaving these considerations fragmented within design processes (Newton and Thomson, 2016). The workshop results suggest this fragmentation persists despite growing technical capacity to model microclimate. Participants acknowledge microclimatic principles intellectually but do not position them as generative: microclimate becomes something to accommodate within schemes developed for other reasons rather than a force that shapes spatial proposals from the outset. This positioning reflects broader patterns in how environmental knowledge enters contemporary practice, as technical verification rather than design inspiration (Eliasson, 2000 ). This finding also has three implications: Firstly, scientific simulation produces quantitative, probabilistic outputs suited to evaluation and comparison. Design practice operates through visual-spatial reasoning, typological thinking, and qualitative judgment (Cross, 2006 ; Schön, 1983 ). Microclimate data must be translated into formal strategies before informing spatial decisions, the current knowledge deliver mode support this translation ineffectively. Practitioners receive temperature predictions or UHI intensity values but limited guidance on what formal moves would improve performance whilst maintaining other design intentions. Secondly, early-stage design requires rapid exploration of multiple spatial possibilities, yet microclimate simulation typically demands detailed inputs (building dimensions, materials, vegetation species) available only after concepts solidify. This temporal mismatch positions simulation as retrospective assessment rather than formative exploration. The delivery mode used in this study align poorly with the abductive, iterative nature of early concept development (Webb, 2017 ). Thirdly, as discussed earlier, normative factors create structural constraints that microclimate considerations must navigate. In the workshop, planners explicitly articulated tension between environmental performance and development feasibility. This reflects documented patterns where financial viability trumps environmental performance absent regulatory mandate or market incentive (Brandsma et al., 2024 ). Building on these implications, the study suggests that the form in which microclimate information is currently provided in design practice is insufficiently aligned with the nature of urban design work. The current delivery mode is grounded in inductive reasoning, assuming that detailed environmental modelling can and should guide spatial decisions through rational, evidence-based optimisation. Urban design practice, by contrast, follows abductive reasoning characterised by iterative exploration, parallel consideration of multiple criteria, and judgment under uncertainty (Caliskan, 2012 ; Dorst, 2011 ). As a result, microclimate knowledge remains external to design reasoning, requiring designers to retrofit microclimate considerations onto concepts shaped primarily by other drivers. This gap is not due to a lack of scientific evidence, but to a misalignment between the representational formats of microclimate research and the visual, iterative and conjectural nature of design praxis. Without tools or frameworks that embed climatic reasoning directly within spatial exploration, microclimate information is unlikely to function as a formative design input, regardless of its technical sophistication. 5.2 Disciplinary Divergence Among Professional The second major finding is that disciplinary background (factor: knowledge and capacity) shapes environmental outcomes more than microclimate information itself. This pattern reveals that integrating climatic knowledge requires not just better tools but transformation of professional norms, educational frameworks, and practice cultures. Planners, architects, landscape architects, and urban designers approach spatial problems through distinct professional lenses developed through education, socialisation, and institutional positioning (Cuff, 1991 ; Schön, 1983 ). For planners, spatial problems are framed through feasibility: density targets, infrastructure capacity, regulatory compliance, and market logics. Environmental considerations enter as constraints or optimisation criteria but rarely override economic fundamentals. UP2's super-tall scheme embodied this logic, maximising yield trumped thermal performance because professional identity centres delivering economically viable projects that advance strategic planning objectives (Forester, 1989 ). For architects, spatial problems are framed through composition, experience, and formal expression (Till, 2009 ). Microclimate enters as one experiential dimension (sun, shade, wind as sensory elements) but is subordinated to formal and symbolic intentions. For landscape architects, ecological thinking is embedded structurally, vegetation, hydrology, and site systems are not add-ons but foundational. However, landscape architecture's institutional positioning at periphery of development feasibility discussions in Australian contexts means environmental priorities may be sidelined when they conflict with yield expectations (Kullmann, 2014 ) For urban designers, the challenge is synthesis: balancing multiple systems (movement, density, public realm, environment) without privileged disciplinary commitment to any single criterion. This produces coherent but potentially compromised outcomes. UD2's moderate density, integrated vegetation, and lowest UHI intensity suggests that experienced urban designers may develop intuitive climate-responsive spatial reasoning, though this remains under-theorised in urban design scholarship. The discipline and experience difference points to a major implication: integration requires embedding climatic thinking within core curricula for planning, architecture, and urban design not as elective specialisation but as fundamental design logic. Current professional provides limited sustained engagement with urban microclimate, particularly in planning programs focused on regulatory frameworks and policy analysis (Hurlimann et al., 2021 ). Optimal environmental outcomes may require collaboration across disciplines, but power asymmetries shape whose knowledge prevails (Davis and Savage, 2009 ). This sequencing marginalises ecological knowledge that might challenge density or typological decisions. Continuing professional development must address not just technical skills but professional identity—helping practitioners recognise how disciplinary orientations shape environmental reasoning and develop capacity for critical reflexivity. 5.3 Compact City Politics and the Positioning of Environmental Evidence The workshop's Kurilpa setting illuminates broader politics shaping how microclimate knowledge functions within urban densification agendas. Brisbane's contested 2014 masterplan, ultimately abandoned due to community opposition, created a backdrop understanding of what constitutes "feasible" development. Urban densification in Australian and other developed contexts operates within what critical scholars describe as post-political governance, where compact-city policies are framed as technical, inevitable responses to housing and transport demand (Mössner, 2016 ; Uddin et al., 2022 ). This framing narrow debate to procedural questions (how much density, which locations) whilst depoliticising substantive questions about whose interests densification serves and what urban futures it forecloses (Charmes and Keil, 2015 ). Environmental rationales for densification. claims that compact cities reduce emissions, improve sustainability, or enhance climate resilience, participate in this post-political logic (Haarstad et al., 2022 ). Microclimate evidence can be mobilised to legitimate densification agendas ("taller buildings with vegetation corridors mitigate heat") or resist them ("increased density worsens heat island effects"). The technical content remains similar; its political deployment differs. In the workshop, practitioners implicitly navigated these politics. Planners' high-density schemes aligned with strategic planning objectives to maximise housing supply in inner-city locations, positioning environmental optimisation as secondary to delivery targets. Community representatives might deploy microclimate evidence differently, using heat and wind modelling to oppose height increases or demand more open space. The evidence itself does not resolve these tensions but becomes one resource among others in contested urban development processes (Ruming, 2018 ). This illuminates limitations of framing microclimate integration as purely technical problem. Specialised microclimate knowledge that produces more accurate simulations or clearer visualisations will not override structural conditions were economic imperatives and political commitments to densification drive decisions. For microclimate knowledge to substantively influence outcomes requires not just better science but institutional mechanisms, performance-based planning controls, environmental impact thresholds, community access to technical expertise that embed climatic considerations within statutory decision-making rather than relegating them to advisory guidance (Waters et al., 2023 ). 6. Conclusion This study examined how urban design practitioners negotiate microclimate evidence when developing spatial proposals for inner-city densification. Through an intensive design workshop in Brisbane's contested Kurilpa precinct, eight experienced practitioners across four disciplines developed masterplan concepts, first using professional intuition then receiving expert-provided microclimate information. Three key findings emerge. First, microclimate information functions as retrospective validation rather than formative design driver. Despite explicit introduction of climate evidence, no participant substantially revised their initial spatial concepts, revealing how environmental knowledge currently enters practice—as something to accommodate within schemes developed for other reasons rather than as generative force shaping proposals from the outset. Second, disciplinary background shapes environmental outcomes more than microclimate information itself. Planners prioritised yield, architects emphasised formal composition, landscape architects embedded ecological thinking, and urban designers synthesised competing criteria. These divergences reflect professional habitus developed through education and socialisation rather than individual preferences, suggesting that effective microclimate integration requires transformation of professional education and practice cultures, not just better tools. Third, the study illuminate’s politics of compact-city development where environmental rationales can legitimate or resist densification agendas depending on deployment. For climatic considerations to substantively influence outcomes requires institutional mechanisms embedding them within statutory decision-making, not merely advisory guidance. The core implication is that current tools and knowledge frames position microclimate as validation device rather than driver of form. Shifting this positioning requires morphologically oriented tools supporting rapid exploration, professional development building common environmental literacy across disciplines, and regulatory frameworks valuing thermal performance alongside density and feasibility. Without attention to these structural factors, microclimate science will remain technically well-developed but weakly integrated within practice, perpetuating the implementation gap this study sought to illuminate. Declarations The study was reviewed and approved by the Queensland University of Technology's University Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC) or delegated review body as meeting the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2023)’. Author Contribution Y.L. wrote the main manuscript and all author reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the practitioners who participated in the design workshop and generously contributed their time, expertise, and design insights to this research. Their engagement and professional reflections were essential to the study and made this work possible. Data Availability The design materials generated in this study, including sketches and conceptual masterplans, constitute the intellectual property of the participating practitioners and the investigators. These materials are not publicly available. Any request for access must be made to the corresponding author and will be considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to ethical approval and the consent of the relevant rights holders. References An, S.M., Kim, B.S., Lee, H.Y., Kim, C.H. and Yi, C.Y., 2019. Three-dimensional point cloud based sky view factor analysis in complex urban settings. International Journal of Climatology , 39(11), pp.4324–4333. Apreda, C., D'Ambrosio, V. and Di Ludovico, D., 2020. Urban block morphology and microclimate: A systematic review of numerical simulation studies. Energy and Buildings , 223, 110135. Batty, M., 2013. Big data, smart cities and city planning. Dialogues in Human Geography , 3(3), pp.274–279. Brandsma, S., Lenzholzer, S., Carsjens, G.J., Brown, R.D. and Tavares, S., 2024. Implementation of urban climate-responsive design strategies: an international overview. Journal of Urban Design , 29(5), pp.598–623. Brisbane City Council and Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 2014. Kurilpa riverfront renewal: draft master plan . Brisbane: Brisbane City Council. Bueno, B., Norford, L., Hidalgo, J. and Pigeon, G., 2014. The urban weather generator. Journal of Building Performance Simulation , 7(5), pp.305–322. Caliskan, O., 2012. Design thinking in urbanism: Learning from the designers. Urban Design International , 17(4), pp.272–296. Charmes, E. and Keil, R., 2015. The politics of post-suburban densification in Canada and France. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 39(3), pp.581–602. Cross, N., 2006. Designerly ways of knowing . London: Springer. Cuff, D., 1991. Architecture: The story of practice . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cuthbert, A.R., 2007. Urban design: requiem for an era – review and critique of the last 50 years. Urban Design International , 12(4), pp.177–223. Davis, R. and Savage, S., 2009. Built environment and design in Australia: Challenges and opportunities for professional education. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education . Adelaide: The University of Adelaide, pp.795–802. Deilami, K. and Kamruzzaman, M., 2017. Modelling the urban heat island effect of smart growth policy scenarios in Brisbane. Land Use Policy , 64, pp.38–55. Dorst, K., 2011. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies , 32(6), pp.521–532. Eliasson, I., 2000. The use of climate knowledge in urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning , 48(1–2), pp.31–44. Emeis, S. and Fallmann, J., 2022. Unsatisfying transfer of climate research to urban planning: The regulatory trap in the triple helix. Triple Helix , 9(3), pp.275–295. Erell, E., 2008. The application of urban climate research in the design of cities. Advances in Building Energy Research , 2(1), pp.95–121. Forester, J., 1989. Planning in the face of power . Berkeley: University of California Press. Ganis, M., Minnery, J. and Mateo-Babiano, D., 2014. The evolution of a masterplan: Brisbane's South Bank, 1991–2012. Urban Policy and Research , 32(4), pp.499–518. Grimmond, C.S.B. et al., 2010. The international urban energy balance models comparison project: First results from phase 1. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology , 49(6), pp.1268–1292. Gurran, N. and Ruming, K., 2016. Less planning, more development? Housing and urban reform discourses in Australia. Journal of Economic Policy Reform , 19(3), pp.262–280. Haarstad, H. et al., 2022. Diversifying the compact city: A renewed agenda for geographical research. Progress in Human Geography , 46(5), pp.1170–1190. He, L. et al., 2025. Simulation of urban thermal environment based on urban weather generator: Narrative review. Urban Science , 9(7), 275. Hebbert, M. and Mackillop, F., 2013. Urban climatology applied to urban planning: A postwar knowledge circulation failure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 37(5), pp.1542–1558. Hidalgo, J., Lemonsu, A. and Masson, V., 2019. Between progress and obstacles on urban climate: Interdisciplinary studies and knowledge transfer to society. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1436(1), pp.5–18. Hurlimann, A. et al., 2021. Is climate change in the curriculum? An analysis of Australian urban planning degrees. Environmental Education Research , 27(7), pp.970–991. Krüger, E.L., Minella, F.O. and Rasia, F., 2011. Impact of urban geometry on outdoor thermal comfort and air quality from field measurements in Curitiba, Brazil. Building and Environment , 46(3), pp.621–634. Kullmann, K., 2014. Design for decline: Landscape architecture strategies for the Western Australian wheatbelt. Landscape Journal , 32(2), pp.243–260. Kurilpa Future, 2015. Kurilpa Futures Community Plan . Brisbane: Kurilpa Future Group. Lehmann, S., 2010. The principles of green urbanism: Transforming the city for sustainability . London: Earthscan. Liu, Y. et al., 2025. Navigating urban climate design implementation challenges: Insights from Brisbane’s built environment experts. Journal of Urban Design , 30(3), pp.275–294. Liu, Y.S. et al., 2024. Spatial modelling of urban wind characteristics: Review of contributions to sustainable urban development. Buildings , 14(3), 737. Masson, V., Lemonsu, A., Hidalgo, J. and Voogt, J., 2020. Urban climates and climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 45, pp.411–444. Measham, T.G. et al., 2011. Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: Barriers and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change , 16(8), pp.889–909. Melaas, E.K. et al., 2016. Interactions between urban vegetation and surface urban heat islands: A case study in the Boston metropolitan region. Environmental Research Letters , 11(5), 054020. Mills, G., 2014. Urban climatology: History, status and prospects. Urban Climate , 10, pp.479–489. Mills, G. and Futcher, J., 2021. Integrating urban climate knowledge: The need for a new knowledge infrastructure to support climate-responsive urbanism. In: Urban microclimate modelling for comfort and energy studies , pp.183–192. Mills, G. et al., 2010. Climate information for improved planning and management of mega cities. Procedia Environmental Sciences , 1, pp.228–246. Mössner, S., 2016. Sustainable urban development as consensual practice: Post-politics in Freiburg, Germany. Regional Studies , 50(6), pp.971–982. Ng, E., 2012. Towards planning and practical understanding of the need for meteorological and climatic information in the design of high-density cities: A case-based study of Hong Kong. International Journal of Climatology , 32(4), pp.582–598. OECD, 2014. Compact city policies: A comparative assessment . Paris: OECD Publishing. Oke, T.R., 2002. Boundary layer climates . 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Parsaee, M. et al., 2019. Urban heat island, urban climate maps and urban development policies and action plans. Environmental Technology & Innovation , 14, 100341. Ruming, K., 2018. Post-political planning and community opposition. Geographical Research , 56(2), pp.181–195. Schön, D.A., 1983. The reflective practitioner . New York: Basic Books. Seto, K.C. et al., 2014. Human settlements, infrastructure, and spatial planning. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Till, J., 2009. Architecture depends . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Uddin, K.F. et al., 2022. A tale of two cities. Cities , 123, 103583. Waters, E. et al., 2023. Reimagining climate change research and policy from the Australian adaptation impasse. Environmental Science & Policy , 142, pp.144–152. Webb, B., 2017. The use of urban climatology in local climate change strategies. International Planning Studies , 22(2), pp.68–84. Wilson, E. et al., 2008. Public urban open space and human thermal comfort. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning , 10(1), pp.31–45. Xu, G. et al., 2022. Improvements, extensions, and validation of the Urban Weather Generator. Urban Climate , 45, 101247. Yang, J. et al., 2021. Optimizing local climate zones to mitigate urban heat island effect. Journal of Cleaner Production , 275, 123767. Yigitcanlar, T. et al., 2019. Can cities become smart without being sustainable? Sustainable Cities and Society , 45, pp.348–365. Zhang, L. and Yuan, C., 2023. Multi-scale climate-sensitive planning framework to mitigate urban heat island effect. Urban Climate , 49, 101451. Tables Tables are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Table1.jpg Table2.jpg Table3.jpg Table4.jpg Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 30 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 01 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 26 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 22 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 22 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8674972","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":580741994,"identity":"8dea4f65-9cd8-474c-9f10-0616c4ecfa2b","order_by":0,"name":"Yisong Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Queensland University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yisong","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":580741995,"identity":"d45b405b-7f55-44d3-9a7e-26618f695a0f","order_by":1,"name":"Mirko Guaralda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Queensland University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mirko","middleName":"","lastName":"Guaralda","suffix":""},{"id":580741996,"identity":"c99ac15d-51ac-4ec2-90ae-4901bd45fca3","order_by":2,"name":"Tan Yigitcanlar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Queensland University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tan","middleName":"","lastName":"Yigitcanlar","suffix":""},{"id":580741997,"identity":"050a84c5-5df9-4ab8-8a94-f9114a60a86a","order_by":3,"name":"Veronica Garcia-hansen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Queensland University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Veronica","middleName":"","lastName":"Garcia-hansen","suffix":""},{"id":580741998,"identity":"cee62880-83c6-4ff9-874e-4fa0027d0220","order_by":4,"name":"Sevgim Pekdemir","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Queensland University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sevgim","middleName":"","lastName":"Pekdemir","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-23 04:39:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8674972/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8674972/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101436885,"identity":"843ba977-64cf-4f49-8c52-9746733523d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:26:42","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1298972,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/b28188f9f46a72958b199c82.jpg"},{"id":101436871,"identity":"2c109500-f071-4302-a8c9-897ad4f75c97","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:26:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":992038,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/f053e84ca2c673d02c40efb5.jpg"},{"id":101751293,"identity":"ae8b330a-d3e3-4241-9cb0-c7483da06c58","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 10:19:02","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":718541,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/ed986753cf7780198c1c289d.jpg"},{"id":101436903,"identity":"96248729-73a1-40ae-9866-1cad855ead4d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:26:51","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":545809,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/4e07fc74e0cf7f32b31bd671.jpg"},{"id":101436898,"identity":"43b6b839-12b2-4dec-b504-f8eef7d4b76d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:26:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":141000,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/968a736083681c7feb51182f.jpg"},{"id":102294893,"identity":"4fd24a08-49c4-4aca-899d-21aa5bf5ae12","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 10:03:44","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4384500,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/4f255f3c-02d8-457c-b071-8a149f2b296f.pdf"},{"id":101436896,"identity":"e6766331-22c2-46d3-a27d-de297ab78b54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:26:46","extension":"jpg","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":302778,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/f30fbfcd5a5da3ee7bcae6c8.jpg"},{"id":101436865,"identity":"2d57bf72-9189-4032-989d-d1c43bffc8ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:26:36","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":731054,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/a607fe4478648aad298abdb2.jpg"},{"id":101436874,"identity":"53a89cfb-0256-4541-9e62-97dcef9103ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:26:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":814176,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/063c66ea2c6292469634e828.jpg"},{"id":101436862,"identity":"63cc69e8-db1a-489a-962d-d329053c9db7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:26:35","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":437282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8674972/v1/08d7d5a04138504de003baed.jpg"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring Microclimate Information in Urban Design Praxis: A Case Study in Brisbane, Australia","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOver the past few decades, the socio-economic landscape of cities worldwide has undergone significant transformation. Governments in developed countries have increasingly promoted compact and dense urban development in areas previously characterised by low-density urban sprawls (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Despite the compact development agenda, urban areas remain major contributors to global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for roughly 70% of CO₂ output (Seto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This highlights the need to understand cities not only as engines of economic activity but also as significant drivers of climate change. While national mitigation strategies have often concentrated on transport and infrastructure, research has shown clear links between urban form, thermal behaviour, and energy demand (Masson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Understanding these relationships is essential for developing sustainable and climate-responsive urban environments (Hidalgo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcurrently, the urgent need to address climate resilience has challenged urban design to adopt evidence-based approaches that prioritise climatic performance. This shift has redefined urban planning and urban design from predominantly creative practices to more scientific, data-driven disciplines (Batty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Contemporary urban planning and design practice now relies on empirical methods and predictive modelling to respond to evolving socio-economic and environmental conditions, with a focus on measurable outcomes such as energy efficiency and social equity (Yigitcanlar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this context, the combined push for urban densification and technocratic planning has driven growing interest in urban climate research and its relevance to urban design. As compact development increases the intensity of built form and human activity, microclimate has become a key lens for understanding how urban form affects thermal conditions, energy demand, and outdoor comfort. Urban microclimate research therefore aligns with data-driven agendas by offering measurable evidence to assess and compare design options in dense urban environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Urban Microclimate Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban microclimate research has gained importance as climate change now affects the thermal performance of cities and the quality of urban life. The wider move toward evidence-based planning, together with improved computing techniques, has directed scholarly attention toward smaller spatial scales where climate processes are more closely tied to livelihood of urban dwellers. Early studies concentrated on city-wide and regional temperature patterns, with emphasis on the urban heat island effect and broad thermal gradients (Oke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Researchers later shifted focus to neighbourhood and street scales particularly in higher density areas where evidence showed that local variations in built form, vegetation, surface materials and street geometry influence heat exposure, outdoor comfort and energy demand. This shift became possible as measurement techniques improved and modelling tools became more accessible, which allowed researchers to capture and simulate fine-grain microclimate dynamics with higher accuracy (Mills, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this evolving field, urban climate morphometric research examines how specific form parameters influence heat and ventilation. Key parameters include sky view factors affecting radiation exchange, building heights and densities shaping wind patterns, and frontal area indexes influencing airflow resistance (Kr\u0026uuml;ger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; An et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Methodological advances have shifted focus toward scenario-based computational modelling. Koch et al. (2018) evaluated microclimatic impacts of brownfield redevelopment, demonstrating trade-offs between densification and cooling in compact settings. The study employed ENVI-met, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model, to examine the scenarios. While CFD models offer high spatial resolution, they remain computationally intensive at neighbourhood scale (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Simplified tools like the Urban Weather Generator (UWG) apply energy-balance approaches enabling efficient precinct-scale simulations (Bueno et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), with outputs validated against detailed CFD and mesoscale models (Xu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Collectively, morphometric and methodological studies provide quantitative evidence linking neighbourhood-scale urban form with microclimate performance, operating at the scale where design decisions on streets, blocks, and buildings are made (Apreda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Knowledge Translation Challenge\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite advances in urban climate research, empirical findings have been rarely applied in practice (Hebbert and Mackillop, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Hidalgo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Parsaee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Urban microclimate guidelines exist in leading cities such as Singapore, London, and Hong Kong, but many cities worldwide lack comparable guidance (Zhang and Yuan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These guidelines aim to translate microclimate research into principles for neighbourhood and precinct-scale design, often relying on qualitative design rules, performance indicators, or assessment frameworks rather than prescriptive standards (Mills and Futcher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, microclimate knowledge is only partially embedded in design practice, and most guidelines provide limited direction on how microclimate considerations should be weighed against other design priorities during early-stage decision-making. Literatures has outlined major factors that need to be considered when integrating microclimate knowledge during the design phase:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanning, regulatory and policy: Planning codes and statutory controls. Emeis and Fallmann (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) argue that without updates to laws, norms, and standards, urban administrations often cannot integrate new scientific findings into routine planning procedures for more sustainable cities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge and capacity: Disciplinary norms, prior knowledge, and professional intuition. Grimmond et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and Liu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) argue that practitioners often lack the capacity to run or interpret advanced simulations or do not fully understand or recognise design impacts on microclimate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket and economics: Budget constraints, willingness to pay, and project yield. Financial incentives can encourage the adoption of climate-responsive design strategies, but concerns remain about balancing these measures against investment returns and housing yield expectations (Brandsma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnicality: Availability and resolution of microclimate information. Mills et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise the lack of authoritative future weather files, while Ng (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) highlights the need for more scale-relevant microclimate data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Acceptance: Public amenity and community feelings. Public amenity such as thermal comfort issues related to heat and wind can become flashpoints, especially when linked to visible changes in urban form (Wilson, 2008).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign process: Time pressure, incomplete information, and early-stage uncertainty shape how design decisions are made. Liu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) show that tight project timelines and limited experience in communicating microclimate issues among project actors constrain design development. The study also indicates that the timing of microclimate information delivery is critical, since information introduced after key spatial commitments are formed has limited capacity to influence design decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe question of microclimate integration can be viewed as a compound issue shaped by the interaction of these factors in design decision-making. The inability to reconcile even one of them may help explain why urban microclimate knowledge is adopted unevenly, despite clear evidence of its benefits. These normative factors are not unique to microclimate-sensitive urban design but are widely criticised as core issues in contemporary urban design practice more broadly (Cuthbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). It is therefore essential to recognise that microclimate-sensitive urban design at the neighbourhood scale is no longer a neutral design exercise but a negotiated process. It reflects contested interests, uneven power relations, and differing interpretations of urban densification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Conceptualising the Research Gap\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the literature review, the difficulty lies not in the absence of technical evidence but in how its influence is contested and constrained within design decision-making. This issue points to an unresolved problem, often described as the \u0026ldquo;elephant in the room\u0026rdquo;: if microclimate knowledge can help urban design practice achieve better sustainability and climate performance outcomes, how does its influence compare with other normative factors identified in earlier studies? Do microclimate considerations matter in the design process of urban densification projects? These are critical questions that practitioners face when attempting to integrate microclimate considerations into decision-making, yet empirical studies offer little insight into how practitioners interpret and manage this dilemma when they encounter it in real design settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to this gap, this study examines how these normative factors, as they currently operate in practice, shape the use of microclimate knowledge during early-stage design. The research adopts a workshop-based approach that treats planning, market, professional, and informational constraints as embedded conditions of contemporary design processes and observes how practitioners negotiate microclimate considerations within these conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main research question guiding this paper is:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eHow do practitioners interpret and negotiate microclimate considerations during early-stage urban densification design processes, and how does their influence compare with other normative factors?\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aim of this research is to understand how practitioners work with microclimate information during the design of a realistic inner-city densification and redevelopment scenario. By observing their decisions in a structured workshop set in Brisbane, Australia, the study examines how microclimate information is used when designers face competing demands such as density, site constraints, and project feasibility. The research provides empirical insight into how microclimate knowledge enters design praxis and what limits its influence in dense urban settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Case Study Location\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross Australia, inner-city densification and renewal has become a focal point for accommodating population growth while advancing compact city policies. State governments and capital cities have promoted higher densities in inner cities areas, supported by streamlined planning processes and competitive urban development strategies (Gurran and Ruming, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, these reforms sit alongside growing climate pressures, which intensify heat exposure and place new demands on planning systems that already struggle to integrate adaptation into statutory decision-making (Measham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Waters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Australian cities therefore confront a dual challenge: the need to deliver substantial inner-city growth and the need to manage escalating climatic risk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrisbane exemplifies these pressures. The city has pursued an aggressive riverfront renewal agenda since the transformation of South Bank in the early 1990s, relying on masterplanning and technocratic frameworks to guide private investment and shape a metropolitan identity centred on high-amenity, high-density urban living (Ganis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This model has informed subsequent strategies for West end, near South Brisbane, where consolidation has been positioned as both economically desirable and spatially efficient. Yet Brisbane is also a subtropical city experiencing rising heat stress, and modelling studies show that infill and smart-growth scenarios can intensify the urban heat island effect in inner neighbourhoods (Deilami and Kamruzzaman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The city therefore provides a relevant metropolitan setting for examining how urban climate knowledge intersects with densification policy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study uses the Kurilpa precinct as a clear example of these intersecting pressures. The workshop site sits within an eight-hectare urban-renewal area located approximately one kilometre from the Brisbane CBD (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). The precinct and its surrounds were historically industrial but have experienced rapid redevelopment and densification because of their riverside position and proximity to the inner city. In 2014, recognising the strategic and economic value of the area, Brisbane City Council released a masterplan that proposed more than 20,000 dwellings and building heights above 40 storeys (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). Community groups opposed the proposal, raising concerns about infrastructure capacity, flood exposure, heat and shadowing effects (Kurilpa Future, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The plan was ultimately abandoned, and residents advanced an alternative concept with around 1,000 dwellings and height limits of eight storeys. Redevelopment efforts were subsequently mothballed due to a profound divergence between city-shaping ambitions and community expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Fig.\u0026nbsp;1 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Fig.\u0026nbsp;2 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Workshop Design and Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn intensive urban design workshop was conducted in Brisbane in December 2024. Purposive sampling recruited eight practitioners with direct experience in neighbourhood-scale urban design and planning across four disciplines: urban planning (UP), urban design (UD), architecture (AR), and landscape architecture (LA): to capture differences in professional training, decision priorities, and design reasoning (Table\u0026nbsp;1). This sampling strategy prioritised depth of engagement and diversity of expertise over statistical representation, consistent with RtD and workshop-based urban design research traditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;1 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were tasked with developing a conceptual masterplan for the Kurilpa precinct. The workshop operated within a four-hour time constraint to reflect early-stage design practice conditions where key spatial decisions are often made rapidly with limited information. Whilst the small sample size limits statistical generalisation, the study's aim is not representative findings but observational insight into how microclimate information is interpreted and negotiated within realistic design contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe workshop followed a three-phase structure (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3) designed to observe how practitioners develop and adjust spatial strategies as new information becomes available. The research framework is designed to examine how microclimate knowledge operates within the constraints of contemporary urban design practice rather than under idealised conditions. It treats the previous mentioned normative factors (planning policies, market condition, social acceptance etc.) as embedded and interacting influences that shape early-stage design decisions (Table\u0026nbsp;2). The framework position microclimate consideration in a form and sequence that mirrors current practice and observes how practitioners negotiate microclimatic considerations alongside competing priorities. This approach allows the study to identify but how its delivery, timing, and representation condition its influence on design praxis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;2 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Fig.\u0026nbsp;3 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the pre-workshop phase 1, three preparatory activities were undertaken. First, a site analysis established the physical and spatial conditions of the precinct, including urban morphology, block structure, and historical patterns of land subdivision and built form. Second, planning and environmental information was documented, covering typical parameters such as zoning controls, site constraints, meteorological conditions, and relevant socio-economic context. Third, a baseline survey was conducted to capture participants\u0026rsquo; prior experience with microclimate issues and their typical approaches to early-stage urban design. These activities established a consistent and realistic design context for all participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween the pre-workshop and workshop phases, participants were provided with site-specific microclimate information drawn from urban design guidelines and empirical morphometric research. Participants were given several days to review this material. The information was also presented and explained again in detail during the workshop. Table\u0026nbsp;3 summarises the microclimate information provided. This material focused on neighbourhood-scale principles, including the influence of building height, spacing and the role of shading and block configuration on microclimate, and the interaction between vegetation and urban form. The information was presented in a concise, non-prescriptive format using diagrams and qualitative explanations rather than numerical targets or optimisation thresholds. This format reflects how microclimate knowledge typically enters design practice. The decision to provide microclimate information retrospectively reflects current practice reality in Australian urban design contexts. Unlike jurisdictions such as Singapore, Hong Kong, or parts of Europe where microclimate performance may be embedded in statutory planning controls or mandated environmental assessment frameworks, Australian cities largely lack comparable regulatory requirements (Zhang and Yuan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mills and Futcher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Brisbane, like most Australian capital cities, does not mandate microclimate simulation or performance targets for neighbourhood-scale urban design project (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;3 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this regulatory vacuum, microclimate knowledge enters practice primarily through voluntary urban design guidelines, academic research papers accessed selectively when projects encounter specific concerns, grey literature from industry organisations, and professional experience developed through practice. Critically, these resources are typically consulted retrospectively, practitioners develop initial spatial concepts based on site analysis, brief requirements, density targets, and feasibility considerations, then reference microclimate guidelines to validate or refine schemes rather than using climatic principles to generate form from the outset (Eliasson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Erell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe workshop phase 2 was structured in two rounds to observe how practitioners develop and adjust spatial strategies as new forms of information become available:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the first design round, participants relied on their professional experience, intuition, and the provided site analysis to develop initial masterplan concepts. This round reflects typical early-stage conditions in planning and urban design, where broad spatial ideas are explored before detailed performance evaluation. In the second round, the microclimate information above were revisited and the participant is allow to change their design base on the new microclimate considerations. Data were collected through design sketches and structured observational notes. The sketches include the scale and height of the buildings and open spaces. Participants worked individually rather than collaboratively to ensure that observed decisions reflected personal professional reasoning rather than group consensus. Facilitators did not intervene in design decisions and provided clarification only on procedural matters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the post-workshop phase 3, participants completed a follow-up survey reflecting on their experience, the clarity and usability of the microclimate information, and its perceived relevance to their design decisions. All sketches were then converted into three-dimensional models by the researcher using the Rhino CAD platform. A standardised modelling protocol was applied to preserve relative massing, height relationships, and open space distribution across schemes. Where drawings were ambiguous, conservative assumptions were adopted to minimise interpretive bias and maintain comparability. The conversion to 3D model has two aims: firstly, it allows the quantification of urban form attributes such as height, land use, spacing and open space. Secondly it allows the grasshopper-based modelling application to conduct microclimate analysis on the designs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicroclimate modelling was incorporated as part of the analytical process to link observed design decisions with their environmental consequences. Urban heat island intensity was selected as the evaluative indicator because it reflects cumulative effects of built form and allows comparison between alternative design trajectories (Oke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Urban Weather Generator (UWG) was selected for its computational efficiency and suitability for neighbourhood-scale comparative analysis (Bueno et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). UWG applies an energy-balance approach that parameterises urban morphology and thermal processes, enabling simulations across larger areas with lower computational cost than CFD methods. It treats the city as a single-layer canopy and modifies rural weather data with urban energy flux corrections. This analytical approach treats simulation outputs not as ground truth but as one form of evidence that, when triangulated with morphometric analysis and participant reasoning, reveals patterns in how design priorities shaped environmental outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Research Limitation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe four-hour workshop compressed design processes that typically unfold over weeks or months, potentially intensifying reliance on established heuristics and reducing willingness to explore alternatives. The workshop also removed institutional constraints (client demands, budget limitations, approval processes) that shape real design decision-making. Results therefore reveal patterns in professional reasoning under constrained conditions rather than fully representing actual practice. However, the compressed timeframe does reflect early-stage design conditions where practitioners make rapid, consequential decisions about density, typology, and spatial organisation based on limited information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is also important to note that UWG simplifies urban geometry and does not resolve fine-scale airflow or radiation effects captured by CFD approaches Workshop schemes included detailed decisions, building orientations, courtyard configurations, street widths, vegetation placement, that shape microclimate at pedestrian scale but that UWG's single-layer canopy model cannot resolve. This creates a scalar tension: whilst workshop designs operated at block and building scale with specific formal strategies. UWG evaluates aggregate neighbourhood effects through averaged morphometric parameters. The resulting UHI intensity should therefore be interpreted as indicative comparative measures rather than precise predictions of thermal conditions at specific locations within each scheme.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 General Observations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most striking observation is that despite the two-stage structure and explicit introduction of expert-provided microclimate information, no participant substantially altered their initial design. Three participants made minor adjustments (adding small vegetated areas, slightly adjusting building setbacks), but none reconsidered fundamental spatial strategies such as density distribution, building typologies, or block configurations. This persistence occurred even when post-workshop surveys indicated participants found the microclimate information clear and relevant. The disconnect between acknowledged importance and maintained design direction points to deeper structural factors shaping practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the pre-workshop survey, participants acknowledged microclimate as important but not always prioritised, citing challenges such as balancing competing objectives, regulatory constraints, and the reliability of available microclimate data. Some relied on rule-of-thumb guidelines, prior experience, or simulation tools, but there was little indication that microclimate science actively shaped their core design decisions. Instead, microclimate considerations were seen as something to be incorporated within existing workflows rather than a driver of spatial form. Even when presented with expert insights, their fundamental design logic remained unchanged.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe urban form attribute values are provided in Table\u0026nbsp;4 and the 3D conversion of the designs are illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4. The design results show clear differences in how various disciplines engage with microclimate concerns. Architects and landscape architects placed strong emphasis on open spaces and greenery, introducing green roofs, courtyards, or vegetated corridors as primary strategies. This aligns with their survey responses, where their microclimate understanding was largely shaped by environmental observations, such as surface temperature variations and shading patterns, rather than computational performance analysis. Urban designers focused on maintaining spatial consistency and practicality, ensuring a balance between density, movement, and design coherence. Their responses suggest that they viewed microclimate considerations as relevant but subordinate to broader urban morphology principles. Urban planners were most concerned with development feasibility, maximising real estate potential and land-use efficiency, which was reflected in their designs that favoured high-density, compact layouts. Their survey responses frequently mentioned regulatory limitations, financial viability, and balancing economic goals with environmental considerations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;4 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis disciplinary divergence reveals how professional socialisation shapes environmental reasoning. Architects see climate through formal and experiential lenses (sun, shade, wind as compositional elements). Landscape architects embed ecological principles structurally but may undervalue economic constraints. Urban designers synthesise multiple systems but risk compromise across competing criteria. Planners prioritise feasibility but may treat environmental performance as externality or technical add-on.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, these are not individual preferences but disciplinary habitus, shared professional \"ways of seeing\" reproduced through education, practice cultures, and institutional reward structures (Cuff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). The fact that microclimate information did not disrupt these orientations suggests that knowledge translation requires more than better tools or clearer data; it demands attention to the professional contexts that shape how evidence is interpreted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Post-Workshop Survey\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe post-workshop survey revealed a range of responses to the microclimate data and tools presented during the workshop, while all participants acknowledged the importance of urban microclimate considerations, their engagement with the data and subsequent design actions varied. These participants have described the microclimate information data as a valuable resource for validating or enhancing their initial concepts. For example, some noted that shading patterns helped them identify and address specific weaknesses in their designs, such as areas prone to excessive solar exposure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, participants chose not to modify their designs after receiving the microclimate data. Their reasons for this included:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThey felt their original concepts already adequately addressed microclimate considerations, making further refinement unnecessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo participants indicated that the provided information did not align closely with their design priorities or the scale of their interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo cited difficulties in interpreting the microclimate information within the time constraints of the workshop, suggesting that the presentation lacked sufficient clarity or accessibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to these observations, participants provided mixed feedback on the usability of the qualitative data and site modelling results. Positive comments highlighted the potential of the visualisations to inform iterative design processes, while negative feedback emphasised the need for clearer links between the information and actionable design strategies, which generic guideline often fails to deliver due to site differences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, while participants demonstrated general awareness of microclimate principles. The microclimate information proved useful for some participants in refining their designs, but the variation in responses underscored differing levels of comfort and familiarity with quantitative analysis. The primary barriers to effective knowledge translation included the complexity of microclimate information, time constraints, and competing design priorities. Participants valued the potential of detail site modelling data but emphasised the need for greater usability, better contextualisation, and clearer links to design objectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Microclimate Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure 5 compares resulting UHI intensities. These quantitative results must be interpreted alongside the qualitative patterns identified in the previous section, together they reveal how design priorities shaped environmental outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Fig.\u0026nbsp;5 here\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkshop schemes produced outcomes ranging from 0.45\u0026deg;C (UD2) to 0.99\u0026deg;C (UP2), a 120% variation revealing how different spatial strategies affect neighbourhood thermal conditions. UP2's super-tall, high-yield scheme produced the highest UHI intensity (0.99\u0026deg;C). This demonstrates that vertical densification without compensating vegetation or spatial permeability creates severe thermal penalties. UP1's more moderate approach confirming that yield-maximising strategies prioritising built intensity over thermal performance incur measurable environmental costs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchemes with substantial vegetation (AR1) achieved lower UHI intensities despite moderate densities. This aligns with morphometric research showing vegetation mitigates heat through evapotranspiration and shading (Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, green coverage alone proved insufficient, LA1 and LA2 achieved only moderate thermal performance, despite professional emphasis on vegetation, suggesting that plant distribution, species selection, and integration with built form matter as much as total coverage (Melaas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA tentative pattern suggests experience correlates with climate-responsive outcomes. UD2 (30\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;years\u0026rsquo; experience) produced the best thermal performance, whilst less experienced planners (UP1, UP2) generated the worst. However, this pattern requires cautious interpretation given the small sample. It may reflect that experienced practitioners develop intuitive understanding of form-climate relationships through accumulated project exposure, or alternatively, that those who prioritise environmental performance select into certain career paths or project types.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Microclimate Information as Validation Device\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study's central finding, that practitioners maintained initial designs despite receiving microclimate information, initially appears as a failure of knowledge translation. However, deeper analysis reveals it as an empirical demonstration of how microclimate knowledge currently functions in practice: as retrospective validation rather than formative design driver when other normative factors are presented in the design praxis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistorically, urban design responded closely to local climate, with city layouts shaped to optimise daylight, ventilation, and thermal comfort (Hebbert and Mackillop, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Technological advances in building services enabled modern structures to achieve comfort independently of climate, weakening the link between urban form and environmental constraints (Lehmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This shift placed environmental requirements primarily at building scale, reducing attention to neighbourhood-scale microclimatic impacts and leaving these considerations fragmented within design processes (Newton and Thomson, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe workshop results suggest this fragmentation persists despite growing technical capacity to model microclimate. Participants acknowledge microclimatic principles intellectually but do not position them as generative: microclimate becomes something to accommodate within schemes developed for other reasons rather than a force that shapes spatial proposals from the outset. This positioning reflects broader patterns in how environmental knowledge enters contemporary practice, as technical verification rather than design inspiration (Eliasson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This finding also has three implications:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, scientific simulation produces quantitative, probabilistic outputs suited to evaluation and comparison. Design practice operates through visual-spatial reasoning, typological thinking, and qualitative judgment (Cross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Sch\u0026ouml;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e). Microclimate data must be translated into formal strategies before informing spatial decisions, the current knowledge deliver mode support this translation ineffectively. Practitioners receive temperature predictions or UHI intensity values but limited guidance on what formal moves would improve performance whilst maintaining other design intentions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, early-stage design requires rapid exploration of multiple spatial possibilities, yet microclimate simulation typically demands detailed inputs (building dimensions, materials, vegetation species) available only after concepts solidify. This temporal mismatch positions simulation as retrospective assessment rather than formative exploration. The delivery mode used in this study align poorly with the abductive, iterative nature of early concept development (Webb, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThirdly, as discussed earlier, normative factors create structural constraints that microclimate considerations must navigate. In the workshop, planners explicitly articulated tension between environmental performance and development feasibility. This reflects documented patterns where financial viability trumps environmental performance absent regulatory mandate or market incentive (Brandsma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on these implications, the study suggests that the form in which microclimate information is currently provided in design practice is insufficiently aligned with the nature of urban design work. The current delivery mode is grounded in inductive reasoning, assuming that detailed environmental modelling can and should guide spatial decisions through rational, evidence-based optimisation. Urban design practice, by contrast, follows abductive reasoning characterised by iterative exploration, parallel consideration of multiple criteria, and judgment under uncertainty (Caliskan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Dorst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, microclimate knowledge remains external to design reasoning, requiring designers to retrofit microclimate considerations onto concepts shaped primarily by other drivers. This gap is not due to a lack of scientific evidence, but to a misalignment between the representational formats of microclimate research and the visual, iterative and conjectural nature of design praxis. Without tools or frameworks that embed climatic reasoning directly within spatial exploration, microclimate information is unlikely to function as a formative design input, regardless of its technical sophistication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Disciplinary Divergence Among Professional\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second major finding is that disciplinary background (factor: knowledge and capacity) shapes environmental outcomes more than microclimate information itself. This pattern reveals that integrating climatic knowledge requires not just better tools but transformation of professional norms, educational frameworks, and practice cultures. Planners, architects, landscape architects, and urban designers approach spatial problems through distinct professional lenses developed through education, socialisation, and institutional positioning (Cuff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Sch\u0026ouml;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor planners, spatial problems are framed through feasibility: density targets, infrastructure capacity, regulatory compliance, and market logics. Environmental considerations enter as constraints or optimisation criteria but rarely override economic fundamentals. UP2's super-tall scheme embodied this logic, maximising yield trumped thermal performance because professional identity centres delivering economically viable projects that advance strategic planning objectives (Forester, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor architects, spatial problems are framed through composition, experience, and formal expression (Till, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Microclimate enters as one experiential dimension (sun, shade, wind as sensory elements) but is subordinated to formal and symbolic intentions. For landscape architects, ecological thinking is embedded structurally, vegetation, hydrology, and site systems are not add-ons but foundational. However, landscape architecture's institutional positioning at periphery of development feasibility discussions in Australian contexts means environmental priorities may be sidelined when they conflict with yield expectations (Kullmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor urban designers, the challenge is synthesis: balancing multiple systems (movement, density, public realm, environment) without privileged disciplinary commitment to any single criterion. This produces coherent but potentially compromised outcomes. UD2's moderate density, integrated vegetation, and lowest UHI intensity suggests that experienced urban designers may develop intuitive climate-responsive spatial reasoning, though this remains under-theorised in urban design scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe discipline and experience difference points to a major implication: integration requires embedding climatic thinking within core curricula for planning, architecture, and urban design not as elective specialisation but as fundamental design logic. Current professional provides limited sustained engagement with urban microclimate, particularly in planning programs focused on regulatory frameworks and policy analysis (Hurlimann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Optimal environmental outcomes may require collaboration across disciplines, but power asymmetries shape whose knowledge prevails (Davis and Savage, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). This sequencing marginalises ecological knowledge that might challenge density or typological decisions. Continuing professional development must address not just technical skills but professional identity\u0026mdash;helping practitioners recognise how disciplinary orientations shape environmental reasoning and develop capacity for critical reflexivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Compact City Politics and the Positioning of Environmental Evidence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe workshop's Kurilpa setting illuminates broader politics shaping how microclimate knowledge functions within urban densification agendas. Brisbane's contested 2014 masterplan, ultimately abandoned due to community opposition, created a backdrop understanding of what constitutes \"feasible\" development. Urban densification in Australian and other developed contexts operates within what critical scholars describe as post-political governance, where compact-city policies are framed as technical, inevitable responses to housing and transport demand (M\u0026ouml;ssner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Uddin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This framing narrow debate to procedural questions (how much density, which locations) whilst depoliticising substantive questions about whose interests densification serves and what urban futures it forecloses (Charmes and Keil, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental rationales for densification. claims that compact cities reduce emissions, improve sustainability, or enhance climate resilience, participate in this post-political logic (Haarstad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Microclimate evidence can be mobilised to legitimate densification agendas (\"taller buildings with vegetation corridors mitigate heat\") or resist them (\"increased density worsens heat island effects\"). The technical content remains similar; its political deployment differs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the workshop, practitioners implicitly navigated these politics. Planners' high-density schemes aligned with strategic planning objectives to maximise housing supply in inner-city locations, positioning environmental optimisation as secondary to delivery targets. Community representatives might deploy microclimate evidence differently, using heat and wind modelling to oppose height increases or demand more open space. The evidence itself does not resolve these tensions but becomes one resource among others in contested urban development processes (Ruming, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis illuminates limitations of framing microclimate integration as purely technical problem. Specialised microclimate knowledge that produces more accurate simulations or clearer visualisations will not override structural conditions were economic imperatives and political commitments to densification drive decisions. For microclimate knowledge to substantively influence outcomes requires not just better science but institutional mechanisms, performance-based planning controls, environmental impact thresholds, community access to technical expertise that embed climatic considerations within statutory decision-making rather than relegating them to advisory guidance (Waters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined how urban design practitioners negotiate microclimate evidence when developing spatial proposals for inner-city densification. Through an intensive design workshop in Brisbane's contested Kurilpa precinct, eight experienced practitioners across four disciplines developed masterplan concepts, first using professional intuition then receiving expert-provided microclimate information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree key findings emerge. First, microclimate information functions as retrospective validation rather than formative design driver. Despite explicit introduction of climate evidence, no participant substantially revised their initial spatial concepts, revealing how environmental knowledge currently enters practice\u0026mdash;as something to accommodate within schemes developed for other reasons rather than as generative force shaping proposals from the outset.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, disciplinary background shapes environmental outcomes more than microclimate information itself. Planners prioritised yield, architects emphasised formal composition, landscape architects embedded ecological thinking, and urban designers synthesised competing criteria. These divergences reflect professional habitus developed through education and socialisation rather than individual preferences, suggesting that effective microclimate integration requires transformation of professional education and practice cultures, not just better tools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the study illuminate\u0026rsquo;s politics of compact-city development where environmental rationales can legitimate or resist densification agendas depending on deployment. For climatic considerations to substantively influence outcomes requires institutional mechanisms embedding them within statutory decision-making, not merely advisory guidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe core implication is that current tools and knowledge frames position microclimate as validation device rather than driver of form. Shifting this positioning requires morphologically oriented tools supporting rapid exploration, professional development building common environmental literacy across disciplines, and regulatory frameworks valuing thermal performance alongside density and feasibility. Without attention to these structural factors, microclimate science will remain technically well-developed but weakly integrated within practice, perpetuating the implementation gap this study sought to illuminate.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was reviewed and approved by the Queensland University of Technology\u0026apos;s University Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC) or delegated review body as meeting the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2023)\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eY.L. wrote the main manuscript and all author reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge the practitioners who participated in the design workshop and generously contributed their time, expertise, and design insights to this research. Their engagement and professional reflections were essential to the study and made this work possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe design materials generated in this study, including sketches and conceptual masterplans, constitute the intellectual property of the participating practitioners and the investigators. These materials are not publicly available. Any request for access must be made to the corresponding author and will be considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to ethical approval and the consent of the relevant rights holders.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAn, S.M., Kim, B.S., Lee, H.Y., Kim, C.H. and Yi, C.Y., 2019. Three-dimensional point cloud based sky view factor analysis in complex urban settings. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Climatology\u003c/em\u003e, 39(11), pp.4324\u0026ndash;4333.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApreda, C., D'Ambrosio, V. and Di Ludovico, D., 2020. Urban block morphology and microclimate: A systematic review of numerical simulation studies. \u003cem\u003eEnergy and Buildings\u003c/em\u003e, 223, 110135.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBatty, M., 2013. Big data, smart cities and city planning. \u003cem\u003eDialogues in Human Geography\u003c/em\u003e, 3(3), pp.274\u0026ndash;279.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrandsma, S., Lenzholzer, S., Carsjens, G.J., Brown, R.D. and Tavares, S., 2024. Implementation of urban climate-responsive design strategies: an international overview. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Urban Design\u003c/em\u003e, 29(5), pp.598\u0026ndash;623.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrisbane City Council and Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 2014. \u003cem\u003eKurilpa riverfront renewal: draft master plan\u003c/em\u003e. Brisbane: Brisbane City Council.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBueno, B., Norford, L., Hidalgo, J. and Pigeon, G., 2014. The urban weather generator. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Building Performance Simulation\u003c/em\u003e, 7(5), pp.305\u0026ndash;322.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaliskan, O., 2012. Design thinking in urbanism: Learning from the designers. \u003cem\u003eUrban Design International\u003c/em\u003e, 17(4), pp.272\u0026ndash;296.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCharmes, E. and Keil, R., 2015. The politics of post-suburban densification in Canada and France. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research\u003c/em\u003e, 39(3), pp.581\u0026ndash;602.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCross, N., 2006. \u003cem\u003eDesignerly ways of knowing\u003c/em\u003e. London: Springer.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCuff, D., 1991. \u003cem\u003eArchitecture: The story of practice\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCuthbert, A.R., 2007. Urban design: requiem for an era \u0026ndash; review and critique of the last 50 years. \u003cem\u003eUrban Design International\u003c/em\u003e, 12(4), pp.177\u0026ndash;223.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis, R. and Savage, S., 2009. Built environment and design in Australia: Challenges and opportunities for professional education. In: \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 20th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education\u003c/em\u003e. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide, pp.795\u0026ndash;802.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeilami, K. and Kamruzzaman, M., 2017. Modelling the urban heat island effect of smart growth policy scenarios in Brisbane. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 64, pp.38\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDorst, K., 2011. The core of \u0026lsquo;design thinking\u0026rsquo; and its application. \u003cem\u003eDesign Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 32(6), pp.521\u0026ndash;532.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEliasson, I., 2000. The use of climate knowledge in urban planning. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, 48(1\u0026ndash;2), pp.31\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmeis, S. and Fallmann, J., 2022. Unsatisfying transfer of climate research to urban planning: The regulatory trap in the triple helix. \u003cem\u003eTriple Helix\u003c/em\u003e, 9(3), pp.275\u0026ndash;295.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErell, E., 2008. The application of urban climate research in the design of cities. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Building Energy Research\u003c/em\u003e, 2(1), pp.95\u0026ndash;121.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForester, J., 1989. \u003cem\u003ePlanning in the face of power\u003c/em\u003e. Berkeley: University of California Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGanis, M., Minnery, J. and Mateo-Babiano, D., 2014. The evolution of a masterplan: Brisbane's South Bank, 1991\u0026ndash;2012. \u003cem\u003eUrban Policy and Research\u003c/em\u003e, 32(4), pp.499\u0026ndash;518.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrimmond, C.S.B. et al., 2010. The international urban energy balance models comparison project: First results from phase 1. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology\u003c/em\u003e, 49(6), pp.1268\u0026ndash;1292.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGurran, N. and Ruming, K., 2016. Less planning, more development? Housing and urban reform discourses in Australia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economic Policy Reform\u003c/em\u003e, 19(3), pp.262\u0026ndash;280.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaarstad, H. et al., 2022. Diversifying the compact city: A renewed agenda for geographical research. \u003cem\u003eProgress in Human Geography\u003c/em\u003e, 46(5), pp.1170\u0026ndash;1190.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe, L. et al., 2025. Simulation of urban thermal environment based on urban weather generator: Narrative review. \u003cem\u003eUrban Science\u003c/em\u003e, 9(7), 275.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHebbert, M. and Mackillop, F., 2013. Urban climatology applied to urban planning: A postwar knowledge circulation failure. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research\u003c/em\u003e, 37(5), pp.1542\u0026ndash;1558.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHidalgo, J., Lemonsu, A. and Masson, V., 2019. Between progress and obstacles on urban climate: Interdisciplinary studies and knowledge transfer to society. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 1436(1), pp.5\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHurlimann, A. et al., 2021. Is climate change in the curriculum? An analysis of Australian urban planning degrees. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Education Research\u003c/em\u003e, 27(7), pp.970\u0026ndash;991.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKr\u0026uuml;ger, E.L., Minella, F.O. and Rasia, F., 2011. Impact of urban geometry on outdoor thermal comfort and air quality from field measurements in Curitiba, Brazil. \u003cem\u003eBuilding and Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 46(3), pp.621\u0026ndash;634.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKullmann, K., 2014. Design for decline: Landscape architecture strategies for the Western Australian wheatbelt. \u003cem\u003eLandscape Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 32(2), pp.243\u0026ndash;260.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKurilpa Future, 2015. \u003cem\u003eKurilpa Futures Community Plan\u003c/em\u003e. Brisbane: Kurilpa Future Group.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLehmann, S., 2010. \u003cem\u003eThe principles of green urbanism: Transforming the city for sustainability\u003c/em\u003e. London: Earthscan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, Y. et al., 2025. Navigating urban climate design implementation challenges: Insights from Brisbane\u0026rsquo;s built environment experts. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Urban Design\u003c/em\u003e, 30(3), pp.275\u0026ndash;294.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, Y.S. et al., 2024. Spatial modelling of urban wind characteristics: Review of contributions to sustainable urban development. \u003cem\u003eBuildings\u003c/em\u003e, 14(3), 737.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMasson, V., Lemonsu, A., Hidalgo, J. and Voogt, J., 2020. Urban climates and climate change. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources\u003c/em\u003e, 45, pp.411\u0026ndash;444.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeasham, T.G. et al., 2011. Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: Barriers and challenges. \u003cem\u003eMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change\u003c/em\u003e, 16(8), pp.889\u0026ndash;909.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMelaas, E.K. et al., 2016. Interactions between urban vegetation and surface urban heat islands: A case study in the Boston metropolitan region. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 11(5), 054020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMills, G., 2014. Urban climatology: History, status and prospects. \u003cem\u003eUrban Climate\u003c/em\u003e, 10, pp.479\u0026ndash;489.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMills, G. and Futcher, J., 2021. Integrating urban climate knowledge: The need for a new knowledge infrastructure to support climate-responsive urbanism. In: \u003cem\u003eUrban microclimate modelling for comfort and energy studies\u003c/em\u003e, pp.183\u0026ndash;192.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMills, G. et al., 2010. Climate information for improved planning and management of mega cities. \u003cem\u003eProcedia Environmental Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 1, pp.228\u0026ndash;246.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026ouml;ssner, S., 2016. Sustainable urban development as consensual practice: Post-politics in Freiburg, Germany. \u003cem\u003eRegional Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 50(6), pp.971\u0026ndash;982.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNg, E., 2012. Towards planning and practical understanding of the need for meteorological and climatic information in the design of high-density cities: A case-based study of Hong Kong. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Climatology\u003c/em\u003e, 32(4), pp.582\u0026ndash;598.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD, 2014. \u003cem\u003eCompact city policies: A comparative assessment\u003c/em\u003e. Paris: OECD Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOke, T.R., 2002. \u003cem\u003eBoundary layer climates\u003c/em\u003e. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParsaee, M. et al., 2019. Urban heat island, urban climate maps and urban development policies and action plans. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Technology \u0026amp; Innovation\u003c/em\u003e, 14, 100341.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuming, K., 2018. Post-political planning and community opposition. \u003cem\u003eGeographical Research\u003c/em\u003e, 56(2), pp.181\u0026ndash;195.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n, D.A., 1983. \u003cem\u003eThe reflective practitioner\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Basic Books.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeto, K.C. et al., 2014. Human settlements, infrastructure, and spatial planning. In: \u003cem\u003eClimate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTill, J., 2009. \u003cem\u003eArchitecture depends\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUddin, K.F. et al., 2022. A tale of two cities. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e, 123, 103583.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaters, E. et al., 2023. Reimagining climate change research and policy from the Australian adaptation impasse. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 142, pp.144\u0026ndash;152.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWebb, B., 2017. The use of urban climatology in local climate change strategies. \u003cem\u003eInternational Planning Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 22(2), pp.68\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilson, E. et al., 2008. Public urban open space and human thermal comfort. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Policy and Planning\u003c/em\u003e, 10(1), pp.31\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu, G. et al., 2022. Improvements, extensions, and validation of the Urban Weather Generator. \u003cem\u003eUrban Climate\u003c/em\u003e, 45, 101247.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, J. et al., 2021. Optimizing local climate zones to mitigate urban heat island effect. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 275, 123767.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYigitcanlar, T. et al., 2019. Can cities become smart without being sustainable? \u003cem\u003eSustainable Cities and Society\u003c/em\u003e, 45, pp.348\u0026ndash;365.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, L. and Yuan, C., 2023. Multi-scale climate-sensitive planning framework to mitigate urban heat island effect. \u003cem\u003eUrban Climate\u003c/em\u003e, 49, 101451.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"urban-design-international","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [URBAN DESIGN International](https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41289)","snPcode":"41289","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41289/3","title":"URBAN DESIGN International","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer SNAPPs","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Urban microclimate, Urban design practice, Knowledge translation, Urban densification","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8674972/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8674972/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis article examines how microclimate information is interpreted and negotiated within early-stage inner-city densification design practice. Drawing on a structured workshop in Brisbane, eight practitioners from planning, urban design, architecture, and landscape architecture developed masterplans under realistic practice conditions. Qualitative, site-specific microclimate information was introduced after initial design decisions and outcomes were analysed using three-dimensional modelling and Urban Weather Generator simulations. Findings show that although practitioners recognised the relevance of microclimate considerations, established design strategies were rarely revised. Disciplinary orientation and feasibility concerns exerted stronger influence than climatic evidence. The study argues that contemporary modes of microclimate information delivery position climate as a retrospective validation tool rather than a formative driver of urban form, with implications for the design of practice-oriented microclimate tools.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring Microclimate Information in Urban Design Praxis: A Case Study in Brisbane, Australia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-29 16:25:57","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8674972/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-30T13:09:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-27T14:14:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"77586857618498968147641030446006275374","date":"2026-03-20T12:17:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-09T06:12:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"39105530779147512577101908115918378286","date":"2026-02-11T04:19:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-01T17:06:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-26T20:56:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-23T04:47:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"URBAN DESIGN International","date":"2026-01-23T04:25:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"urban-design-international","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [URBAN DESIGN International](https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41289)","snPcode":"41289","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41289/3","title":"URBAN DESIGN International","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer SNAPPs","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"336eab29-581f-4ff9-98e6-0e3e5195c830","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 29th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-30T13:25:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-29 16:25:57","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8674972","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8674972","identity":"rs-8674972","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}