Successfully reported this slideshow.

Helen Gansmo IEA DSM Task 24 workshop on everyday users


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Helen Gansmo IEA DSM Task 24 workshop on everyday users

  1. 1. Everyday users in practice: operators of large buildings as means Towards zero emission buildings? Helen Jøsok Gansmo STS, Department of interdisciplinary studies of Culture, & The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  2. 2. Research back ground & objectives (Gansmo, ZEB) ZEB center: eliminate GHG emissions caused by buildings by – developing competitive products and solutions for – existing and new residential and commercial/public buildings – related to their production, operation and demolition. # 1 Reduce energy demand Most energy consumed by existing buildings. Very low replacement rate of existing buildings – Retrofitting and adaptation – challenging – Technologies – low adoption level – Changing users – challenging -> Sustainability will not be reached by technology alone – Building operators - intersection between buildings, technologies and users How to transgress towards zero emission buildings through learning from energy efficiency operation of existing large buildings? – investigating what and who promotes energy saving behaviour in large buildings, and how. •What kind of “in between” actors exist? •What energy management processes are developed? •How do the “in betweens” learn and share knowledge in order to provide for environmental efficiency of FM?
  3. 3. Energy efficiency • Building industry: “the 40 % sector” in an environmental context. – 40 % of all use of materials and products are related to buildings – Buildings account for about 40 % of all primary energy use (contribute to significant GHG emissions) • Reducing the demand for energy may be more cost-efficient than extending the capacity in the energy supply system. – A combination of making buildings more energy-efficient and using a larger fraction of renewable energy is therefore a key issue to meet the global challenges related to climate change and resource shortages. – Reducing the energy consumption related to both existing and future building stock complements the broad international research on new renewable energy sources. • Energy efficiency is the simplest and cheapest climate initiative • Few property owners actually make their buildings more energy efficient
  4. 4. Existing buildings towards ZEBs • In developed economies, at least half of the buildings that will be in use in 2050 have already been built. – Replacement rate of existing buildings: 1-3% per annum (Ma et al. 2012). – France: 90% of 2020 building stock, 60% of 2050 building stock has already been built (Cantin et al. 2012) • Energy efficiency measures in existing buildings are essential for achieving the goal.
  5. 5. Research method (Gansmo, ZEB) Case Description Users Energy management Student housing 4600 bedsits, 15 locations 20% of student population. Aim: cheap rent & sustainable housing Students: 0.5 – 5 years (average 1.5 years) Techno fixes. Excludes “in between actors”, relies on end-users University 22 000 students 5 000 employees 7 campuses, 100 laboratory facilities 550 000 sq. m heated area 2-100 years old buildings El & district heating: 100 GW Faculty, students, researchers: Daytime Involves “in between actors” internally and externally. Visual control, local knowledge + central operation system Health resort short term rehab stays (heart, cancer, lung, obesity) 8 300 sq m. Narrow, long, low Built 2002 Temp range -40 to +30 °C District heating: 1.1 GW Electricity: 1 GW Guests: 3 days to 5 weeks Same as above Examples of in-house energy operation of large existing buildings with different challenges: Qualitative methods/ethnography beneficial for - investigating how the world may function - exploring new actors not usually associated with energy efficient FM Energy use => most significant environmental impact of buildings PEOPLE operating the building’s energy use
  6. 6. Findings (Gansmo, ZEB) Devoted & dedicated operators Project design & identification of possibilities •University Potential: Include more local actors more ntly new nts In between actors EXCLUDED from priv. premises •Student • housing Potential: Prepare students for energy efficient lives Short occupa ncy Rely on techno fixes Techn ology not fool proof Continuously new occupants In between actors EXPECTED in private premises •Health •rehab Potential from larg professio ShortER occupan cy Rely on inbetw een actors Need fresh knowled ge Central op. systems + observat ion & local knowled ge Building knowledge & responsibili ty to keep FM out Integrated solutions & low- cost tinkering
  7. 7. Sum of case initiatives as measurements towards ZEB? • Case study buildings operated internally without professional FM • Low degree of end-user involvement, but profit returned to end-users • Energy efficiency management characterized by – internal resources – “personal” drive from (single) beacons – local knowledge – centralized operation systems combined with observations • Driven by CSR and environmental goals rather than economy • Argue that project design/development and operation must be regarded together involving “in between” actors all the way • Different socio-technical systems “in between” to enhance energy efficiency
  8. 8. Possibilities for new and innovative practices? (Gansmo, ZEB) In/formal meeting spaces? •Feeling of ownership/ responsibility & •local knowledge •IN-HOUSE FM •Janitors •Housekeepin g •Receptionists In-house energy operators End-users Stimulating knowledge sharing & innovations? •Knowledge of EXTERNAL FM •Facility B •Facility C •Facility D Facility A Facility E Moving towards zero emission buildings through - a mix of technological and human measures? - new meetings between FM organisations? Knowledge transfer between in-house and out-sourced FM?
  9. 9. Practice theory and further research • Different theoretical approaches to what a practice is – Difficult to follow empirically – STS and ANT work as better tools? • PT shifts focus from consumption/acquisition to practices integrating the consumer good with other elements – Rich descriptions of how artifacts are integrated in a lot of everyday life practices – ≈ STS and ANT – “Practice turn” at the same time as “climate turn” • Challenges existing modes for studying behavioral change • PT good for studying social change, transformation of practices – Proactive/prescriptive PT?
  10. 10. Practice theory and further research II • My curiosity – (How) can the notion of practice be combined with STS’s desire to understand technology and policy development? – How can practice theory inform studies of transitions in socio-technical systems? – Can lessons from engaging with practices of everyday practices be brought outside and beyond the households? – Is it possible to study practices in industrial or managerial settings, and if we do are we still doing practice theory (or is practice theory reserved for the private sphere)? • Litterature? • My main questions for discussion, as I struggle to find good answers – What are the added values of practice theory to STS? • Rich descriptions of private actions rather than lab and policy? • Just another case of ethnography? – Who’s practices can I study with practice theory? • The consumers/ end users of the buildings? • The operators managing and reducing energy consumption? – (How) can I apply practice theory to contribute to change practices of energy operation of large buildings? • Which approaches are better suited for this? • Apply practice theory to study – Elites – Elements – Events (Birtchnell 2012)?