socio-technical experiments as agents of systemic change energy-neutral building in boston halina...
TRANSCRIPT
Socio-technical Experiments as Agents of Systemic
Change
Energy-neutral building in Boston
Halina Szejnwald BrownClark University, USA
Philip VergragtTellus Institute, USA
Context
Built environment: a third of energy consumption
Within reach: 5-fold reduction energy use in buildings
Requires radical departure from current common practices
Great Potential
Well established standards (LEED, Energy Star)
Showpiece examples Technologies ready for adoption Visible topic among professionals Trade shows, publications, publicity, the
media Government subsidies (modest)
Disconnect between knowledge and technology --- actual practice.
Radical efficiency improvements (above 50%) rare
Residential sector hardly touched by the trend
Technologies underutilized
Consumers not the engine of change Real estate agents not interested Private developers not interested
Reasons complex Market failure
Costs, benefits, risks, externalities,etc. Systemic failure
Problem definition, standardization, communication, cooperation, institutional inertia
Policy failure Leadership, priorities, instruments,
contradictory policies Technology failure
Mostly in integration and practice
Three Propositions Architects, engineers, developers
instrumental to close gap
Higher order learning needed: re-frame professional roles, practices, relationships to other key actors
Small scale experiments can contribute to higher order learning
Case study in South Boston
Private developer with a vision 80-unit elegant building next to
renovated “Old Distillery” 20% energy consumption Zero use of fossil fuels Massachusetts climate: a hard test
Developer: capitalist-social activist-scholar Vision: innovation in process, product, end-use
Alliance of business, professions, civil society, local government
Participative egalitarian process ________________________________________
Contribute to sustainability: zero fossil fuels Test maximum number of technologies_________________________________________ Contribute to distributive justice Create a future community of like-minded
individuals: wealth not equivalent with high energy consumption
________________________________________ Do well while doing good
Evolution of technologies and design:
Energy source: CHP cogeneration with restaurant waste oil Insulation: building minimizes surface-to-floor area ratio Passive solar: glass porch; solar thermal in roof; shutters;
louvers Bringing in daylight: from light tubes to atriums and
heliostats Design around atriums: introverted or extraverted
community? Lifestyles and community building: greenhouse, winter
tomatoes Interface with street: from art studios to commerce &
innovation center Transportation: car sharing – electricity for cars – other
vehicles – public transport Cooling: diurnal ice -- seasonal ice -- ground water
Evolution of team: Core Team
Developer:Architect 1Architect 2
Architect 3: Chief Architect 4:
Urban Planner:
Energy Consultant 1Energy Consultant 2
Energy Consultant 3:
Biofuel grass roots organizer Resident artists
Heliostat specialist Staff Engineer Solar Specialist Building Manager Project Manager
Framework for studying learning
(drawing on Schön, Fischer, and Grin)
Four levels of discourse:1. Problem solving2. Problem definition3. Interpretive frames4. Worldview
Learning in experiment is enhanced:
Diverse participants bring different worldviews, interpretive frames, problem definitions, technical skills
The above confront each other: discourse occurs
Discourse leads to learning: through reflection and self assessment
Shared vision: facilitates interaction; encourages repeated trial-and-error behavior
Sense of urgency: encourages trial-and-error
Learning in this experiment On team level:
Turnover until similar worldviews and interpretive frames…..
…congruency among problem definitions On individual level:
Changes in problem definitions (mostly) Changes in interpretive frames Re-thinking of core professional practices
Examples of Individual Learning Developer changed problem definition
From egalitarianism to leadership From technologies driving the design
to co-evolution of technology and design Architect 4 changed interpretive frame
From diverse team to interactive process From wanting architects to be better leaders
to seeing architects as integrators and facilitators Urban Planner changed problem definition
From building adapting to neighborhoodto co-designing the building and neighborhood
Energy Consultant changed problem definition From energy balance driving the design
to co-evolution of energy system and design
Diffusion of learning? Participants go to new projects Participants interact with their
communities of practice Model for replication or inspiration Impact on occupants Object for education
Conclusions Radical innovation in buildings:
technologic innovation + synthesis In this type of innovation
higher order learning is crucial process as important as product
Experiments contribute to systemic change at the level of communities of practice and institutions