Technology, Users, and Sustainable Social Housing

Open access

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute with results in relation to the challenges that users encounter with regard to technologies in sustainable social housing. The results are significant and show that in modern Danish sustainable social housing consideration is not taken for the users in relation to the technologies implemented in the buildings. The consequences are that the intentions of the technologies supporting economic, environmental, and social sustainability do not work for the users when the buildings are taken into use. The paper argues that developers and architectural practice should in future use simpler technologies that give residents the opportunity to individually regulate their homes’ indoor climate. At the same time, architecture and technology should reflect the consideration towards the climate in the local context and the users’ funda-mental living conditions. The paper argues for the development of a more user-oriented architecture, where the interaction between architecture and technology can work for the users and to a greater extent support the intentions with regard to sustainability.

[1] [1]Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

[2] [2]Bech-Danielsen, C. (2005). Ecological reflections in architecture: architectural design of the place, the space and the interface. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press.

[3] [3]Beim, A., Larsen, L. & Mossin, N. (2002). Økologi og arkitektonisk kvalitet [Ecology and architectural quality]. Copenhagen: Arkitektskolens Forlag.

[4] [4]Beim, A. & Vibæk, K.S. (2013). “The Construction of Affordable Low-Energy Prefabricated Housing”. In: Trubiano, F. (ed.), The Design and Construction of High Performance Homes: Building Envelopes, Renewable Energies and Integrated Practice (p. 203-216). Abingdon: Routledge.

[5] [5]Bordass, B. & Leaman, A. (2013). Part 2: Building Performance: The Bigger Picture. Building professionals and the challenge of sustainability. Located 17. September 2018 on

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92L0IDGWi3U

[7] [6]Bordass, B. Leaman, A. & Willis, S. (1994). “Control Strategies for Building Services: the role of the user”. Conference. Buildings and Environment Conference, BRE.

[8] [7]Dahl, T. (ed.) (2010). Climate and Architecture. London: Routledge.

[9] [8]Dahlberg, K., Dahlberg, H. & Nyström, M. (2008). Reflective Lifeworld Research. Lund: Studenterlitteratur.

[10] [9]Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

[11] [10]Giorgi, A. & Giorgi, B. (2003). “The Descriptive Phenomenological Psychological Method”. In: Qualitative Research in Psychology - Expanding perspectives in methodology and design, (ed.) Paul M. Camic. Washington (p. 243-273). DC: American Psychological Association.

[12] [11]Grierson, D. & Moultrie, C. (2011). “Architectural Design Principles and Processes for Sustainability: Towards a Typology of Sustainable Building Design”. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal 5(4), p. 623-634.

[13] [12]Guy, S. & Farmer, G. (2001). “Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology”. Journal of Architectural Education 54(3), p. 140-148.

[14] [13]Halkier, B. (2008). Fokusgrupper [Focus groups]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

[15] [14]Jensen, J.O., Jensen, O.M. & Gram-Hanssen, G. (2014). “Omstilling til bæredygtigt byggeri” [Transition to sustainable construction]. In: Holm, J., Søndergård, B., Stauning, I. & Jensen, J.O. (ed.), Bæredygtigt omstilling af bolig og byggeri [Sustainable transition of housing and construction] (p. 73-106). Frederiksberg: Frydenlund Academic.

[16] [15]Jensen, J.O., Jørgensen, M.S. Elle, M. & Lauridsen, E.H. (2012). “Has social sustainability left the building? The recent conceptualisation of ‘sustainability’ in Danish buildings.” Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 8(1), p. 94-105.

[17] [16]Johansson, J. (2017). Bæredygtighed i danske almene boliger - med et brugerfokus [Sustainability in Danish social housing - with a user focus]. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation.

[18] [17]Justesen, L. & Mik-Meyer, N. (2010). Kvalitative metoder [Qualitative methods]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

[19] [18]Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Interview: Det kvalitative forskningsinterview som håndværk. [Interview: The qualitative research interview as craft] (3. ed.). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel Forlag.

[20] [19]Leaman, A. & Bordass, B. (1993). “Building Design, Complexity and Manageability”. Facilities 11(9), p. 16-27.

[21] [20]Leaman, A. & Bordass. B. (1997). “Strategies for Better Occupant Satisfaction”. Fifth Indoor Air Quality Conference. London.

[22] [21]Leaman, A., Stevenson, F. & Bordass, B. (2010). “Building evaluation: practice and principles”. Building Research & Information 38(5), p. 564-77.

[23] [22]Madsen, U.S., Beim, A., Reitz, A. & Bang, H.L. (ed.) (2015). Værdiskabelse i bygningsrenovering - En minianalyse af udvalgte koncepter for vurdering af egenskaber og kvaliteter i byggeri [Value creation in building renovation - A mini-analysis of selected concepts for the evaluation of properties and qualities in construction]. Copenhagen: Bygherreforeningen and Akademisk Arkitektforening.

[24] [23]Mo, L. (2003). Vitenskapsfilosofi for arkitekter [Theory of science for architects]. Oslo: Kolofon.

[25] [24]Neergaard, H. (2010). Udvælgelse af cases i kvalitative undersøgelser [Selection of cases in qualitative studies]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

[26] [25]Nielsen, S.B., Jensen, P.A. & Jensen J.O. (2012). “The strategic facilities management organisation in housing: Implication for sustainable facilities management.” International Journal of Facility Management 3(1), p. 1-15.

[27] [26]Rendtorff, J.D. (2003). “Fænomenologien og dens betydning” [Phenomenology and its importance]. In: Fu-glsang, L. & Olsen, P.B. (ed.), Videnskabsteori i samfundsvidenskaberne: på tværs af fagkulturer og paradigmer [Theory of science in the social sciences: Across subject cultures and paradigms] (p. 133-167). Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.

[28] [27]Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience the Social Organization of Normality. Oxford, England; New York: Berg. Located 30. May 2013 on http://site.ebrary.com/id/10060563

[29] [28]Stevenson, F. & Leaman, A. (2010). “Evaluation housing performance in relation to human behavior: new challenges.” Building Research & Information 38(5), p. 437-441.

[30] [29]Tanggaard, L. & Brinkmann, S. (2010). ”Interviewet: Samtalen som forskningsmetode” [Interview: The interview as a research method]. In: Kvalitative metoder - en grundbog, [Qualitative methods - a basic book] (ed.) Brinkmann, S. & Tanggaard, L. (2. ed., p. 29-53). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzles Forlag.

[31] [30]Twinn, C. (2012). “Professionalism, sustainability and the public interest: what next?”. Building Research & Information 41(1), p. 123-28.

[32] [31]Zahavi, D. (2006). “Edmund Husserl - Hvordan verden træder frem” [Edmund Husserl - How the world emerges]. In: Thau. C. (ed.), Filosofi & arkitektur i det 20. Århundrede [Philosophy and architecture in the 20th century] (p. 7-18). Copenhagen: Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole.

Journal Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 134 134 11
PDF Downloads 40 40 11