Living green: Conference proceedings of the living green scientific conference

(1)

LIVING GREEN

Scientific Conference

Delft, The Netherlands, 19 april 2013

Conference Proceedings

of the Living Green Scientific Conference

W. C. Kersten (ed.)

(2)

(3)

Livinggreen Scientific Conference

Delft, The Netherlands, 19 April 2013

Conference Proceedings

W. C. Kersten (ed)

Programme of the conference ... 2

List of attendants ... 3

Conclusions of the Scientific Conference ... 4

Paper sessions: slides, and discussion ... 5

Presentation Daphne Geelen ... 5

Discussion presentation Daphne Geelen ... 18

Presentation Marcel Crul ... 20

Discussion presentation Marcel Crul ... 30

Presentation Sietze Meijer ... 31

Discussion presentation Sietze Meijer ... 48

Presentation Vera Franken ... 50

Discussion presentation Vera Franken ... 65

Panel discussion ... 67

Introduction of the theme ... 67

Report of the discussion ... 67

Full versions of the papers ... 71

Stimulating energy efficiency in households ‐ Comparison of the Livinggreen.eu methods to theory – Daphne Geelen... 71

Engaging households in sustainable renovation – Exploration of a complementary approach ‐ Meijer, S.A., Geelen, D.V., Franken, V., Kersten, W.C., Crul. M.R.M ... 71

From community resilience towards urban resilience: exploring the grassroot initiatives’ role in cities ‐ Meijer, S.A., van Timmeren, A., Crul, M.R.M., Brezet, H.C. ... 71

Sense of history: capturing and utilizing immaterial values for sustainable heritage protection ‐ Franken, V., Meijer, S.A. ... 71

Biographies of Conference chairman, reviewers, panel members and authors ... 72

ISBN/EAN: 978-94-6186-168-9

(4)

Programme of the conference

Location: Delft University of Technology, IDE faculty, Wim Crouwel hall

12:30 – 13:30 Registration and lunch, main Hall

13:30 – 13.35 Opening by Ena Voûte, dean of the IDE Faculty

13.35 – 13:40 Short introduction by Huib Haccoû, project director Livinggreen 13:40 – 14:15 Presentation, review and brief Q&A for paper 1

Stimulating energy efficiency in households - Comparison of the Livinggreen.eu methods to theory – Daphne Geelen

14:15 – 14:50 Presentation, review and brief Q&A for paper 2

Engaging households in sustainable renovation – Exploration of a complementary approach – Marcel Crul, discussion opened by Zoë Colbeck (National Trust)

14:50 – 15:10 Tea/ coffee break

From community resilience towards urban resilience: exploring the grassroot initiatives’ role in cities – Sietze Meijer, discussion opened by Arjan van Timmeren (TU Delft)

Sense of history: capturing and utilizing immaterial values for sustainable heritage protection – Vera Franken, discusion opened by Job Roos (TU Delft)

16:20 – 17:00 Panel discussion moderated by Jo Coenen

Central theme: User-centred design, the key to the future of sustainable heritage transformation?

Panel members: Arjan van Timmeren, Job Roos, Andy van den Dobbelsteen (Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft)

17:00 – 18:00 Drinks

To view the entire conference on-line, click here:

http://collegerama.tudelft.nl/Mediasite/Play/15026140ba3341a197764dd37bce31bf1d

(5)

List of attendants

Antrei Tzeortzina TU Delft ‐ Architecture

Boot Elisabeth RIB Architecture

Bouwman Beate Instituut voor Bouwbiologie+Ecologie Benelux IBB

Coenen Jo Coenen en Co

Colbeck Zoe National Trust

Crul Marcel TU Delft

De Groot Sanne TU Delft

De Kraker Matthijs TU Delft

Den Broeder Tanja Proeftuin van A'dam

Dol Michiel Studio 42

Fikken Willie Adviesbureau Willie Fikken

Franken Vera TU Delft

Geelen Daphne TU Delft

Grün Emma TU Delft

Haccou Huibert CURNET

Hilgersom Arthur Stichting De Witte Roos

Hilson Kevin Independent environmental manager, lecturer, town planner

Holkema Gerben Student RUG

Keers Astrid zzp

Kersten Wouter Delft University of Technology

Marques Julia TU Delft/ FAU USP

Meijer Sietze Delft University of Technology

Ozinga Frans

Reitsema Roeland TUDelft

Rijneveld Ilse City of Delft

Roos Job Faculty of Architecture, DUT

Saad Haroon local urban development European network

Santos Ana TU Delft

Seji Mesdita MSH research & redesign

Sijtsma Janna Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Taillard Philippe cluster ECOBUILD

Tsene Christina

van Bers Mieke Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed

van den Dobbelsteen Andy Faculty of Architecture, DUT

van der Burgh Fred Stichting Agrodome

Van der Linden Marjolein Architect BNA

van Neijenhof Lieke Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Van Timmeren Arjan TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture

van Unen Wim Gemeente Delft

Van Drunen Han Stichting Agrodome

Velinova Tsveta The Hague Region

Vieveen Maarten TU Delft, PhD student Architecture

(6)

Conclusions of the Scientific Conference

Based on the paper presentations and lively discussions, the organisers draw the following conclusions:

The four presentations during the workshop brought forward valuable insights on the

development and results of the Livinggreen Lab method, and the importance of involving end users and other stakeholders in a participatory design approach to build on those results. Around the central theme of the value and the role of user centred design within the process of sustainable transformation, a range of topics was discussed.

Firstly, the Livinggreen Lab method, as developed by the Delft University of Technology within this project was based on this user-centred design approach. It was compared with other methods used in the project, regarding effectiveness and focus. Secondly the evaluation of the Livinggreen Lab method by participants and project partners was discussed.

In the second part of the conference the topics moved to a more generic scale. First with the discussion on the role of grass roots initiatives in the transformation to a climate resilient society and built environment. As a final angle the role of immaterial values of existing buildings as integral part of the transformation task was explained.

These very different angles and topics show the diversity of the applicability of user centred thinking. Perhaps this is the most important general take-away of the conference.

Some interesting statements in the individual discussions were:

1. The investigation of the effect of different knowledge transfer methods on people’s knowledge and attitude could in next projects be extended to assess whether the short term effects are translated into real action.

2. A next step in organising co-design sessions could be to involve more companies that have a role in implementing ideas that are the result of a Livinggreen Lab

3. The interplay between top-down and bottom-up forces in initiating and embracing change (resilience) is important. You need both.

4. The role of immaterial values in the process of value assessment should not be dismissed just because it is too difficult.

The panel members, in discussion with the audience, focused on a number of relevant issues emerging from the presentations.

 A central issue was the key question: the value of user involvement in architectural projects, such as sustainable transformation projects. The experiences of the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, where end user involvement in product innovation is key, was seen as a good example and a good reason to intensify cooperation between the Faculties of Idustrial Design Engineering and Architecture.

 The role and relevance of grass roots initiatives was discussed in connection to the concept of end-user involvement in the change process. New initiatives, especially in the area of decentralised renewable energy systems, were in that sense seen as key

transitions towards a more sustainable society.

 The role of government in such transitions, where grass roots initiatives play a role, should be an enabling, not directive one. This while acknowledging that global and European macro-economic and demographic developments of course have a strong influence on all local initiatives.

(7)

Paper sessions: slides, and discussion

Presentation Daphne Geelen

ClosingEvent,Del ,TheNetherlands

S mula ng

energy

efficiency

in

households

Comparison

of

the

Livinggreen.eu

methods

to

theory

Closing Event, Del , The Netherlands

About

me

Daphne

Geelen

MSc.

• MSc

in

Industrial

Design

Engineering,

TU

Del

• PV

solar

energy

applica on

in

consumer

products

• Livinggreen.eu

–

Method

development

LG

Labs

• PhD

research

–

engaging

households

in

energy

transi on

(8)

Energy

efficiency goals

Energy

use

increasing

Scarcity

of

fossil

fuels

Climate

change





Requirements

for

energy

reduc on

and

use

of

renewable

energy

(e.g.

EU

20‐20‐20

policy

goals)

Buildings energy consump on outlook ( IEA 2004 in Perez‐Lombard et al. 2008)

Renova on

goals

Energy

consump on

in

households

is

±

25%

of

the

primary

energy

consump on

in

the

EU



Improve

performance

of

exis ng

housing

stock

Low energy consump on

Local energy produc on

(9)

The

‘Livinggreen

methods’

• Sustainability

Centres

use

several

methods

to

s mulate

residents

to

change

their

behaviour

–

Invest in energy‐efficiency measures

–

Energy‐related behaviour

Households

&

energy

use

(10)

Examples

Livinggreen

methods

EcoHuis Dokter

EnergyandEnvironmentFair Exhibi ons

Renoteams

LivinggreenLabs

Ecohuis Doctor OPAH team

Research

ques ons

1. How

do

the

methods

of

Livinggreen

compare

to

theory

of

behavioural

change?

Based

on

this

comparison,

2. What

recommenda ons

can

be

given

for

further

improvement

of

the

range

of

(11)

Theore cal

perspec ves

• Innova on‐Decision

Model

• Mo va on,

ability,

opportunity

(MOA)

Innova on‐Decision

Model

Behavioural

change

as

a

process

with

stages

Source:

(12)

Mo va on,

Opportunity,

Ability

(MOA)

(13)

Research

approach

• Selec on

of

methods

on

www.Livinggreen.eu

–

Households

as

target

group

–

Energy

method

–

Used

on

their

own

as

a

method

–

Sufficiently

specified

• Coding

of

methods

–

Characteris cs

–

Aspects

of

theore cal

perspec ves

• Analysis

Results

–

general

characteris cs

Goals

Freq.

Topics

Freq.

Inform

28 Renova on

in

general

22 Create

interest

24 Energy

specifically

16 Give

advice

23 Main

ac vity

Coopera on

5 Receive

informa on

26 Network

2 Dialogue

8 Financial

support

4 Develop

a

skill

3

(14)

Results

‐

Formats

Public

event

3 Exhibi on

4 Financial

support

2 Guided

visit

3 Mass

media

informa on

11 Informa on

campaign

1 Personal

advice

8 Talk

1 Training

3 Workshop

2

38

Categoriesrelatedto:

Interpersonal communica on (y/n)

Group vs individual ac vity (group / indiv) Group interac on (none/ dialogue/ coopera on) Applica on to personal situa on

(y / ± /n)

Results

–

Innova on‐Decision

Process

Knowledge Persuasion Decision Implementa on Confirm a on

Publicevent 3 3 0 0 0

Exhibi on 4 4 0 0 0

Financialsupport 0 0 2 0 0

Guidedvisit 3 3 0 0 0

Massmediainf. 11 10 6 0 0

Informa oncamp. 1 1 0 0 0 Personaladvice 2 2 8 0 0 Talk 1 1 0 0 0 Training 0 0 3 0 0 Workshop 1 1 0 0 0 Total 26 25 19 0 0

(15)

Results

–

Innova on‐Decision

Process

Communica on

with

change

agents

and

peers:

–

Interpersonal

(21)

and

mass

media

communica on

(15)

–

Individual

ac vi es

(29)

and

group

ac vi es

(9)

–

Peer‐to‐peer

communica on

(5)

Results

–

MOA

Mo va on Ability Opportunity Publicevent 3 3 0 Exhibi on 4 4 0 Financialsupport 0 0 2 Guidedvisit 3 3 0

Massmediainf. 3 10 0 Informa oncamp. 1 1 0 Personaladvice 8 8 0 Talk 0 1 0 Training 3 3 0 Workshop 1 2 0 Total 26 35 2

(16)

Results

–

summary

(1)

Innova on‐Decision

process

–

Methods

address

stage

1 to

3 –

Communica on

impersonal,

interpersonal

(expert‐

client),

li le

peer‐to‐peer

Results

–

summary

(2)

Mo va on,

Ability,

Opportunity

–

Ability

and

mo va on

most

addressed

through

increasing

knowledge

–

Opportuni es

in

form

financial

support

–

Social

norms,

modelling,

community‐

(17)

Discussion

Limited use of theore cal possibili es

Why?

–

Mandate

&

resources

of

the

Sustainability

Centres?

–

Lack

of

knowledge

&

experience

with

other

approaches?

Recommenda ons

for

Sust.Centres

(1)

In

order

to:

• Address

all

stages

of

Innova on‐Decision

Process

• Complement

current

methods

with

opportuni es,

social

influences,

community‐based

approaches



• Review

range

of

methods

for

possible

enrichment

of

methods

(per

Centre)

• Review

role

of

Sustainability

Centre

and

other

(partner)organsia ons

in

region

(18)

Recommenda ons

for

Sust.Centres

(2)

• Evaluate effec veness of methods

–

Return

on

investment

(or

effort)

• Make use of exisi ng guidelines, toolkits

–

e.g.

MECHanisms

toolkit

–

e.g.

Community‐based

social

marke ng

Recommenda ons

for

research

• Evalua on of effec veness of methods

• Comparison to theory of Livinggreen methods more

in depth

–

Include

addi onal

data

• Review adequateness of theories used

(19)

Conclusion

• Limited

coverage

of

theory

suggests

review

of

range

of

methods

of

Sustainability

Centres,

while

taking

into

account

the

mandate

and

resources

of

a

Sustainability

Centre

• Further

research

for

more

detailed

insight

and

support

of

(future)

sustainability

centres

in

method

development

Further

reading

• MECHanisms

toolkit

–

WWW: mechanisms.energychange.info

• Community

based

social

marke ng

(CBSM)

–

WWW: cbsm.com

–

Book: Fostering

Sustainable

Behavior:

An

Introduc on

to

Community

Based

Social

Marke ng. McKenzie‐Mohr, D. 2011. New Society

(20)

Discussion presentation Daphne Geelen

Q: Social interaction between peers is very interesting, which methods in Livinggreen made use of it?

A: One good example is the Reno-teams: a group of people together work on a plan for their own home. They actively learn from each other and discuss renovation issues, such as what they like and don’t like about examples of renovation projects. They also discuss the plans of each other’s buildings and how to go about the process of renovation. They for example share experiences with contractors and give each other tips. The exchange of information and experiences among the peers facilitated and enriched by experts, is central to this approach. In the Livinggreen Labs people are explicitly taking part in a group activity to foster discussion. It turned out that this was well appreciated by them, for example in the Lab about water, where end-users, volunteers of EcoHouse Antwerp and designers worked together on products and services related to household water consumption. Participants indicated that they were inspired by each other’s stories and ideas. Whether such interaction has a long term effect remains to be seen, for now the main added value was inspiration.

Q: you mentioned two aspects of these methods: changing behaviour and making the buildings more energy efficient. Even with these socially oriented methods where people discuss these topics, this does not guarantee that they actually take action. This is an important matter to keep thinking about in the process of really making buildings more sustainable.

A: Indeed, the methods used in Livinggreen appear to be addressing this first steps concerning becoming aware and willing to take action. We need to use additional methods or complement the current methods to facilitate the actual taking of action, be it behavioural or related to implementation of energy efficient technologies.

Q: In the analysis you see that the first stages of the decision making process are well covered, but not the last stages. How could you do that as a Sustainability Centre?

A: For the implementation stage it may be difficult for a Sustainability Centre to support people because the implementation generally relates to the work done by contractors. Sustainability Centres need to remain independent and therefore it would not be easy for a Sustainability Centre to apply methods here, except for general objective information. For the Confirmation stage, it does seem more possible, e.g. with tools for monitoring or assessing the results of the renovation; or facilitating that people who have already renovated can share their experiences for example via an Internet forum.

Q: It seems that the passive methods, i.e. methods where people receive information, are most often used, but there are other methods like workshops and personal advice that are more interactive. Why aren’t these being used more?

In the field of Architecture, these interactive methods are used on a daily basis.

Audience remark: We should bear in mind that this study is a reflection on what happened in the Sustainability Centres to stimulate sustainable renovation, which is a different area than

architectural design.

Audience remark: It indeed is striking that the majority of methods does seem to be passive rather than active. Especially since such methods have – by and large, in several projects – proven to be not effective.

Audience remark: Most of the Sustainability Centres are more working towards the Decision Stage, i.e. when someone decides to implement a new behaviour or technology, and from the feedback that was collected from the participants/visitors, it is not clear whether people have actually taken action and moved towards implementation.

A: To avoid misunderstanding: mind you that the overview with methods divided over the process stages is not a measure of success. It shows what stages are addressed by the methods.

(21)

have a look at the Livinggreen.eu web site and look at the methods to complement the overview given in this presentation. It will give you more detailed insight into the methods that the

Sustainability Centres used.

(22)

Presentation Marcel Crul

Challenge the future

Delft University of Technology

LivingGreen Closing Event, 18-19 April 2013, Delft

Final Closing Event, Delft, The Netherlands

Marcel Crul, PhD, MSc. Industrial Design Engineering Delft University of Technology

Engaging Households in Sustainable Renovation:

Exploration of a Complementary Approach

2

Engaging Households in Sustainable Renovation:

Exploration of a Complementary Approach

Authors

Sietze Meijer, Daphne Geelen, Vera Franken,

Wouter Kersten, Marcel Crul

(23)

3

Content

• Introduction

• Design Approaches for behavioral change

• Development of sensitizing methodology

• Livinggreen Lab evaluation

• Conclusions and recommendations

In between: pictures and story of all labs

4

Introduction

(24)

5

Introduction

• The challenge for Sustainable resource use: renovation

of the existing building stock

• Stimulate adoption of sustainable technologies as well

as behavioral change towards sustainability

• One of the methods to do so – Livinggreen Labs –

explores the use of design approaches for this

• Can the LG Lab approach complement other traditional

methods?

6

Design approaches

for behavioral change

(25)

7

Social Science approaches

for behavioral change

• Information campaigns intended but in practice not

resulting in behavioral change

• Improvements from the social sciences:

• Positive framing/solutions thinking

• Meaningful information

• The power of social norms

• Communication/peer interaction

• Participatory approaches

8

Design Engineering approaches

for behavioral change

• Co-design approach (many connected concepts,

co-creation, participatory design convivial design)

• Better understanding of the

practice

of behavior

• More

diverse

participants can lead to more creative

solutions

• End users (house owners)

complement

experts and are

the ones that need to adapt behavior

• Through the

process

awareness increases, and

willingness to change increases

(26)

9

10

The Testing Grounds

(27)

11

The Testing Grounds

• 5 LG Labs with 5 LG partners in 5 countries:

Transnational learning and exchange

• 5 themes: energy, water, materials (2 Labs, one

included), arch. values and climate resilience

• Adaptable format for the Labs, based on learning,

setting and theme:

• From creating product and service concepts (energy,

water)

• To awareness and skill/knowledge development, still

using design exercises !

12

LG Lab Evaluation

(28)

13

LG Lab Evaluation

• Objective: Evaluate whether the Lab has contributed to

increase of knowledge and intention to act of

participants?

• Questionnaires with participants and interviews with

LG partners

• Compared with questionnaires on all LG activities/

events

• Total 50 Lab respondents, 250 All LG respondents

14

Evaluation participants Labs 1-2

Focus on product and service development

• Mixed opinions on relevance for renovation

• Positive results for value of Lab:

• ‘free thinking’ and ‘vision forming’

• Skills learning mostly on design methods

• Knowledge learning on various topics

(29)

15

Evaluation participants Labs 3-5

Focus on knowledge, skills

• Participants Labs estimated their knowledge on

eco-renovation higher than average

• Learning on knowledge skills and awareness, no

difference with other LG methods besides Labs

• Intention to act:

• Positive inclination - within specific field of Lab

• For Lab 5 focus on network building on (climate)

resilience

16

Evaluation with LG Lab Hosting

partners

2 municipalities, 3 sustainability centers

• Municipalities see benefits of being connected to

different stakeholders groups

• Centers cannot directly apply the results of the Labs

• Lab is seen as suitable for vision forming, not for

(30)

17

Conclusions and recommendations

Lab 5

18

Conclusions

• Is the Lab approach a valuable addition?

• Participants see it as valuable tool for knowledge transfer

• Hosting partners value it to involve people in strategic

and vision-forming activities, not for knowledge transfer

• Differentiate between ‘emerging knowledge’ or ‘best

practice knowledge’:

• For Emerging Knowledge Labs have a natural advantage

over traditional methods

• For Best Practice Knowledge, the extra effort is not

(31)

19

Conclusions

• Expectation management is key; direct personal

benefit versus societal level benefit should be made

clear to the participants.

• Using the design angle leads to:

• New experience for participants

• Dynamic approach leads to new insights relevant for

various actors

20

Next steps

• Partners can repeat the Labs while ‘fixing’ some of the

variables.

• Partners can repeat the Labs with more participants to

have stronger insight in the effectiveness of the Lab

approach

• The type of knowledge transferred and valued

(

Emerging vs Best Practice

) can be evaluated explicitly

in next trials

(32)

Discussion presentation Marcel Crul

As partner in the project (National Trust, Morden Hall Park) I have some questions after listening to this presentation.

Q: We did not see all the figures in detail, but I know that not too many did take part in (some) Labs. How can we involve more people in the Labs?

A: - expectation management: inform participants that they won’t be getting specific knowledge but that they will learn a skill.

- practical issues, like a suitable event, good communication

- more research before the workshop into the target group of the sustainability centre on how you target them best.

Q: Tell us a bit more about the products that were developed/ designed during the Labs

A: The last presentation will go into this somewhat. Apart from that, apart from useful feedback some of the new product concepts that were developed during the Water lab have been further developed by graduation students. They have not reached the commercial phase (yet).

Q: Who/what kind of people can participate in these labs? We are all academics, but could you also participate if you are lower educated?

A: Yes, everybody can participate in principle, because it should be the end user/ consumer / citizen that participates, whoever that is and whatever education (s)he has. Often, through what you could call natural selection, the people that participate are interested and active in

sustainability already. They are more than averagely educated. There is however no restriction on who is allowed to participate. It is certainly not meant just for professionals, with the possible exception of the Resilience Lab.

Q: You use co-design, how big can the groups be for this method to still work?

A: About the size that the groups were in the labs (14) we have held. Much more would introduce extra complexity. Maybe it could have been a different mix of people.

Q: For which is a lab better? Knowledge exchange and skill building or co-design?

A: For the current partners: knowledge exchange; this is also why we gravitated towards that type of set-up. But: it is emerging knowledge exchange, so knowledge and insights that are developed during the lab itself. It is now important is that we start to involve companies, what could lead to actual implementation of the product ideas.

Q: Would external parties like companies be willing to accept these extra costs and efforts? A: A rule of thumb is that only 1 in 20 ideas gets to the market, so they should be used to some ‘failure’ in the process, i.e., ideas not being implemented in the end.

Q: Housing corporations can also be involved?

A: Yes, like for instance is happening in the Suslab project from Arjan van Timmeren (panel member). The housing corporation then would need to have a mindset that allows a

participatory design process. If that is the case they could indeed be an additional stakeholder for a Livinggreen Lab.

(33)

Presentation Sietze Meijer

22-05-13

A social approach for urban resilience

Exploring grassroots initiatives role in cities

Sietze Meijer, Faculty of Design Engineering, section Design for Sustainability

2

About me

• Delft University of Technology

• MSc Architecture, specialisation in renovation & climate adaptive design • PhD researcher on social resilience in urban built environment

• Livinggreen.eu

• Co-organised Livinggreen Labs

• Worked on subject of cultural heritage buildings

Sietze Meijer

(34)

3

Context of research

• Climate robustness

• 1 of 5 themes of project

• Abstract theme

• Requires different approach than Energy, Water, etc.

• Shift in approach of themes towards social practices

• Work in project inspired PhD research topic

Livinggreen.eu

4

Background

• Climate change induced effects

• Changing weather patterns • More extreme weather events

• Diminishing resources • Drinking water • Energy • Security • Food • Terrorism

(35)

5

Background

• Climate change induced effects

• Urban heat island effect • Excess water run-off

• High demand on resources

• Drinking water • Energy

• Complexity

• Many intertwined systems

Cities face specific issues

6

Solving the problem

• Policy-based strategies & action

• Management • Planning

• Top down approaches

• Examples

• Agenda 21 • C40

• VEIL, Melbourne, Australia

(36)

7

Is there another way?

• Many grassroots initiatives emerge

• Examples

• Transition Town Movement (e.g. in UK, NL) • Guerilla Gardening (e.g. US, UK, NL)

• Sustainable Enterprise Strategies (UK)

• Possible solution = bottom up approach

Observations

8

(37)

9

Can GRIs play a role in cities resilience?

• Theoretical framework:

• Resilience (part of socio-ecology)

• Built environment

• Social components = people

• Physical components = buildings, streets, etc.

=> Social network theory as lens • Action research

• Design

Research approach

10

Resilience

• How much shock can a system absorb before it transforms into something fundamentally different?

• The ability to absorb and adapt to disruptions, by using

• Adaptive capacity • Self organising capacity • Diversity

• Constructive feedback loops

• Resilience (embracing change) ≠ Robustness (withstanding change)

(38)

11

Panarchy

• A system is as resilient as it s subsystems

Multi-layered resilience

12

Resilience of what?

• Cities as physical expression of social structures

• Physical

• Buildings • Roads • NUTS utilities • etc.

• Social (networks of)

• Government • Businesses

• Citizens (organisations)

• NGOs

• etc.

(39)

13

Grassroots initiatives

• Adaptive capacity lies with agents, e.g. GRIs

• Diversity of agents in the city

• GRIs are by nature self organizing

• GRIs can act as feelers for changes

How are they part of resilience?

14

Grassroots initiatives

• Panarchy principle shows them as critical part of city

• Social networks are part of resilience

• Scale of operation • Size of organisation • Embedding

• Social resilience

(40)

15

Social resilience

• Use social networks as indicator

Lin (1982), Flap (1995), Portes (1998)

How to measure it?

I ndicators Operationalisation

Network size Number of actors Type of actors

Relationship strength Ideological relationship Activity relationship Embedded resources Capacities

Activities Resources

16

Resilience in practice

• 2 goals

• Test the approach in the field (research)

• Social network strengthening to increase resilience potential (LG) • Make use of LG-context: Livinggreen Labs

(41)

17

Context

• Hosted by White Rose Foundation (WRF)

Livinggreen Lab Resilience

18

Context

• Hosted by White Rose Foundation (WRF)

• 20 participants • Government • SMEs • Civil society • Citizens organisations • Individual citizens • 4 hours workshop

(42)

19

Livinggreen Lab Resilience

• Pt 1. Research social network indicators

• Sensitizing • Vision forming • Diverging / analyzing

• Pt 2. Connect various networks and actors to increase social resilience • Converging • Commitment

Setup

20

Set-up

Before the Lab takes place

• Sensitizing

Livinggreen Lab Resilience

During the Lab

• Vision-forming

• Diverging stage

• Converging stage

• Implementation/reflection/ adaptation stage

(43)

21

Sensitizing

Livinggreen Lab Resilience

• Took place before the Lab

• To prompt participants

• To inform organizers about knowledge and network of participants

• Questions on:

• Knowledge of resilience

• Type of activities

• Network & Actors

• Resources

• Results are processed and used during the Lab

22

Vision-forming

Livinggreen Lab Resilience

• Get participants aligned with each other

• To inform organizers about knowledge and network of participants

(44)

23

Diverging stage

Livinggreen Lab Resilience

• Exploring networks & activities

• Relating those to resilient Delft definition

• Identifying gaps, needs, etc.

• Goal 1: to set common definition on resilient Delft

• Goal 2: identify what is necessary for Delft to become resilient

24 BestendigDelft Sociaal (7) Ecologisch(7) Economisch(14) Capaciteiten Zelf-organiserendvermogen(2) Inititiëren Kernbegrippen Leefbaarheid(7) Bronnen(17) Energie(10) Actoren(12) Burgers(3) Lokaal (12) Bedrijven Veiligheid(1) Water(3) Evenwicht(1) Kwaliteit (6) Generaties Integratie Aanpassingsvermogen (4) Klimaatveranderingen Potentie(6) Gebouwdeomgeving(21) Openbareruimte(6) Gezondheid(1) Creativiteit (3) Veranderingen(2) Zelfvoorziening(5) Werkgelegenheid Netwerk Ouderen Kinderen(1) Volgendegeneraties(2) Wonen(1) Werken(2) Recreëren(3) Ontmoetingen(1) Materialen Nieuweactoren(1) Welvaart Vooruitzien(2) Voedsel Compensatie Mobiliteit (3) Duurzaamheid(11) Metropool (2)

(45)

25 Wezijnopzoeknaar... Medestanders Bedrijven nieuw/jong gevestigd Middelen Dromen Wensen Vragen Innatura Financiën Wil(skracht) Technici Producenten Innovatienetwerk Energiesprongprogramma Huisvesters DUWO Vestia Burgerinitatieven TransitionTown (semi)Overheid HoogheemraadschapDelft Gemeente Kennis/onderzoeksinstituten DRIFT TUDelft Delftoverschrijdende lokalepartijen 26

Converging stage

Livinggreen Lab Resilience

• Work on Resilience Growth Plan

(46)

27

Commitment

Livinggreen Lab Resilience

• Identify first step on road map

28

Results

• Common definition on resilient Delft:

• sustainable in a social, economic and ecological way, • attractive to work, live, and recreate,

• realises its potential using local resources where appropriate, • foresees and adapts to changes in climate,

• manages its resources well and finds new resources for the future, • autarkic in fulfilling its needs at appropriate levels of scale,

• nurtures networks of residents, businesses, organisations and

governing bodies,

• closes loops,

(47)

29

Group 1

• Focused on how citizens could be activated to contribute to Delft s resilience

• Discussed actor-quartet between citizens,

government, businesses and civil society as key concept

Group 2

• Identified citizens as crucial actors in resilient Delft

• Discussed participatory budgetting as key concept

• New role for government

• In both groups people were committed to work on realizing the actor-quartet, or take up new connections out of the Lab

30

Discussion

• An overview was made on who is doing what with whom & where

• Increase in knowledge on network, actors, activities and resources

• Presence of adaptive & self-organizing capacity became apparent

• Many local initiatives active

• Diversity is high

• Types of organisations • Types of activities • Network quality

• Participants’ focus on social aspects of city and activities

(48)

31

Discussion

• Networks and actors were connected, leading to

• new cooperation

• Knowledge on other activities and future plans

• The concept of resilience strongly coupled to sustainability

• Willingness for further cooperation

On increasing resilience potential

32

Discussion

• Concept of resilience was hard to relate to without a case

• Easier to relate to subject

• More practical approach results in more concrete action

(49)

33

Reflections

• Resilience is a useful concept to approach urban problematic

• Social network theory can be used as indication for social resilience

• To increase social resilience using interventions, concrete cases are necessary

• Grassroots initiatives can play an important role, but interplay between top-down and bottom-up remains vital

34

• Thank you

Sietze Meijer

(50)

Discussion presentation Sietze Meijer

Q: How do you know that the resilience of Delft is good? Based on this group in the Livinggreen Lab? Are they a good representation of Delft?

A: This is a relevant question indeed. The network of the hosting partner White Rose

Foundation revolves around Tjeerd Deelstra. These are all people with a lot of initiative to try out new things; they are highly educated. There were no people from the outskirts, except for one person who lives there. There are however initiatives in Poptahof (a neighbourhood in Delft) which are successful. So it’s necessary to invite those people as well, to get a better mix. The current participants can be seen as frontrunners, at some point you need other persons as well to contribute to this resilience. Now it is not possible to say whether they would.

Q: Bottom-up vs top-down approaches. What would be the most effective? Would a case need to be brought in from the ‘top’ or vice versa?

A: This is largely a chicken-egg situation. Would there be any way where from top-down a case can be proposed? There’s a high level of emergence, filling in empty spots, starting bottom-up. Example: a man starting to cultivate an unused field, meets an alderman by coincidence and they discuss he needs compost. A few weeks later the alderman gives him a phone call, that he has a truck full of compost for him.

This shows you need both. Small initiatives may start ‘on the gound’ but you need

commitment/champions on higher levels, e.g. time, network. Rotterdams Stadsinitiatief is an interesting case where the municipality invites people to come forward with ideas and that works well also.

Reviewer remark: We also know of a good example in the IJssel-Vecht area (Delta of the Future programme). The co-creation process was initiated by the municipalities and provinces, but also GRIs, farmers etc. So all stakeholders were properly involved. This worked very well.

Q: How do you make the step from intentions to take action?

A: It helps if there’s something that is already concrete. E.g., a person growing food on a 1m2 patch can trigger other people to join. So it’s always easy to start from something that’s already there. On the other hand you may need government to facilitate commitment.

Q: restating the question: How do you scale up grass roots initiatives (GRIs) ?

A: There’s a danger in scaling up. It depends on the type of upscaling you do. E.g. the Transition town movement is spreading around the globe, but it always revolves around local initiatives, this ensures local ownership. Ownership of the initiative is very important, both for government initiatied and GRI initiated acton. This can also be seen in other cases.

Q: You need some sort of a director for initiatives to develop. How do you organise this? In the case of Livinggreen Labs it is the White Rose where it may start, in other cases it is a

municipality or some other actor. How can you help it to continue moving forward?

A: On the one hand: It will be taken forward as long as there is ownership. On the other hand we talk about constant change. This can mean that when an initiative has run its natural course and reached its goals or demand is decreasing it may die out.

Q: It’s also about having a resilient process A: Yes

Audience remark: Upscaling is possible. I see it in The Hague.

A: It is of course possible. But it starts because there is local enthusiasm with some people. Amersfoort has a good example where the municipality started taking over an initiative. There the GRI pulled out because they felt they had lost control; boundaries were breached and the fine balance had to be ‘renegotiated’ between the municipality and the GRI. Both sides need to have sensitivity for this issue, then upscaling becomes easier.

(51)

Audience remark: Resilience is presented here as embracing change. But how to deal with the reality on the ground? 1/3 of the cities are growing, 1/3 is static and 1/3 is in decline. This

means that in 1/3 embracing change would be possible. But the issue is how to deal with the 2/3 of the cities where it’s more about robustness and the ‘boing factor’? It’s difficult to see the possibilities to embrace change in a declining city.

(52)

Presentation Vera Franken

22-05-13

Sense of History

Capturing and Utilizing Immaterial Values for

Sustainable Heritage Protection

Vera Franken, Faculty of Design Engineering, section Design for Sustainability

2

About me

• Delft University of Technology

• Gratuated from the Delft University of Technology, Faculty of

Architecture in 2011

• Livinggreen.eu, focus on heritage assets

• TAK architecten

• Restoration architecture firm in Delft

• Self-employed architect

• Sustainable restoration of a listed building in Velp, the Netherlands,

currently in execution phase

Vera Franken

(53)

3

Content

• Heritage protection practice under review

• Background and problem definition

• From Sense of Place to Sense of History

• Elaboration of the model

• Usefulness of the model

• Discussion and conclusion

4

Introduction

• Financial crisis has sped up the shift in financing from government to market parties

• Less subsidies

• Recently: the afstootlijst

• In addition to protecting the monumental values it s getting more and more important to integrate in the monument / intervention design:

• Usability demands • Sustainability demands

• The value of heritage buildings is also under review

• The existence of immaterial values is recognized and is valued more

highly

(54)

5

Introduction

• MoMo • Usability demands • DuMo • Sustainability demands

• Working conferences on the technique and practice of the value assessment

• Identification of immaterial values (‘belevingswaarden’)

Heritage protection practice under review

6

• …. but the value assessment isn’t

Introduction

(55)

7

Value assessment

• Determining

why

and

what exactly

needs to be preserved

• And therefore serves as the

normative framework for the

intervention

8

Value assessment according to the

‘Richtlijnen bouwhistorisch

onderzoek’

• Describes the impossibilities instead of the possibilities to integrate the intervention design the

• usability demands

• and sustainability demands

• Hardly takes into account immaterial values

(56)

9

• Since the 19th century the dominant philosophy of history in Western Europe is historicism

• the belief that no society can completely detach itself from its history,

which makes it necessary to have knowledge of this past

• Knowledge of history helps us understand the world around us

• “we can only understand this world, if we look at it as something that

has become . Than we can see that there s logic in the apparent chaotic and heterogeneous reality. The world possesses a continuity and can be understood from that.

Background

The emergence of government regulated

heritage protection

10

• The problem with history is, however, that it is no

longer.

• We can only construct our own image of the past, using the pieces of evidence at hand

Background

The emergence of government regulated

heritage protection

(57)

11

• Directly or indirectly from the pieces of historical evidence that are present in our daily life

• We construct an image of history, consisiting of:

• Conscious knowledge

• An overall feeling of foundation, or sense of history

Background

The emergence of government regulated

heritage protection

12

• Pieces of historic evidence

• Books

• Pictures • Rituals

• The historic built environment

• Monuments are especially important for that sense of history

because they are included in our daily life

Background

The emergence of government regulated

heritage protection

(58)

13

As a matter of principle science

abst ract s

from the given to arrive at

neutral, object ive knowledge.

What is lost, however, is the

everyday life‐world

which ought to

be the real concern of man in

general and planners and architects

in particular.

_{- Norberg-Schulz (1980)}

14

Problem definition

The role of the value assessment within the

intervention design process

(59)

15

• New requirements:

• provide a non‐exclusive

documentation of all aspects of its value, in order to enlarge the range of possibilities

• provide insight in the sense of

history that is evoked by the material

• provide handholds for the design of

an intervention, for architect, user and sustainability adviser

Problem definition

The role of the value assessment within the

intervention design process

16

•

"[p]lace is a center of meaning constructed by experience

• Tuan (1975)

•

Genius loci is the sum of all physical as well as symbolic values in

the environment

• Norberg-Schulz (1980)

• The structure of place, according to Norberg-Schulz, should be analyzed by means of the categories:

• Space • Character • Meaning

From Sense of Place to

Sense of History

(60)

17

• Combining Norberg-Schulz and Tuan

• Five elements of space that can possess physical properties that determine the experienced historical character of the place

From Sense of Place to

Sense of History

Norman- Schulz Franken & Meijer

Way of enclosure Spatial properties Surface relief Material finishes Cosmic dimension Indoor climate

Self-realisation Traces of use

The making Craftwork

18

Value assessment of the immaterial

values

• flawlessness or rarity

(61)

19

Elaboration of the model

• Case study: Café Laros, dwelling annex village café

(62)

21

22

(63)

23

Material finishes

24

(64)

25

Traces of use

26

(65)

27

Concluding drawing

valuation of the contribution of the separate rooms to the sense of history of the whole building

28

Usefulness of the ‘Sense of History’

model

• Enlarging the range of possibilities

• Providing insight in the sense of history that is evoked by the material

(66)

29

Discussion

• Sense of history in relation to DuMo

• Policy versus design

• By who?

30

Only w hen understanding our pl a ce ,

w e may be able to pa r t i ci pa t e

cr ea t i vel y and cont r i but e t o i t s

hi st or y.”

(67)

Discussion presentation Vera Franken

Opening statement of reviewer: In fact I have dozens of questions but because of the time I will provide a brief impression and analysis of what you have said, with one question at the end:

Norberg-Schulz is indeed someone with very valuable insights. Your title is very poetic, and that wakens you up (as listener, and reader). We try indeed to use methods, strategies etc, so it is a good impulse to try to escape from methods. You are trying to enrich the method of

assessment, and bring the architectural vocabulary in there. This is very important because it is in the heart of the matter at RMIT [department of Faculty of Architecture]. You state that the Guidelines are not meant to be a design tool and I agree. I think they shouldn't be nor were ever designed to be so. But that's just a small part. That's the base where you start from. It is a nice thing is that you try to escape the narrow mindedness when in practice you actually go to a committee and say "This is too valuable, don't touch it".

At RMIT we are in the middle of this and still re-inventing, so I understand your incentives and the still enduring historical gap that you stress between the analysis and the design. But I have some doubts.

How far will you go? If I listen to the story, it seems it could do with more aspects of another topic here, resilience [see presentation Sietze Meijer]. For example awareness of urban scale, innovative technology, real estate aspects, or deeper intangible values. You are stressing the soft side. The truth is different. In the reality we are in today we have a shifting paradigm. What is Heritage? In your example it is a romantic house in the East of Holland. But the biggest challenge today is the transformation task. We are (governmentally) forced to do inspired re-use of a lot of buildings; it's almost a hype. Many architects nowadays focus on this, and they should have a clever approach. This makes your topic so interesting. My urge is the wish to find a framework, not a strict method. If you do this in a proper way it would require a – or more – PhDs. So you are very brave to make a first attempt.

So your own feeling about what you did, with the sensitivity, and the balancing aspect, do you think this is resilient in terms of the new task and paradigm we find ourselves in now? Because tomorrow today is history. You have presented only one case, have you thought about including more cases?

A: Yes, I have thought about including more cases many times. This [research] is mainly a starting point for further development. It's about the discussion about the role of value assessment [within the transformation process], and I would like to see that this factor is not dismissed just because it is ‘too difficult’ or ‘too intangible’. I don't like to hear government say that they cannot "go there" because they have to turn it into legislation. Because history is much more than knowing what was there, it's about the overall feeling [of grounding]. This Sense of History is especially important for our well-being and resilience because it helps us for the future. With this research I have tried to indicate or even proven that it IS possible to catch these intangible factors, in a more tangible [visible] way to work with them. Now we need to develop a framework for design and maybe for legislation. These two sides need to be further researched. Audience remark: All this is rather a discussion about priorities. You are in fact raising a political discussion.

Note by the author (VF): the need for this connection with our history is not only of importance

for our well-being today, it is also of importance for our future. It provides us with precedents and a context to analyse developments.. We can try to use the successes as an example, but also to try to learn from our mistakes. The definition of historicism in social sciences implies that the future is locked in and predetermined by history. Karl Popper published ‘The poverty of

(68)

be a danger for a healthy development of society, because it would impede the range of possibilities that lie open for the future. This presumes history as a static concept, that can’t be altered.

In my opinion, history is not as fixed and indisputable as it may seem. History is an

interpretation of the world around us, and therefore changes along with the interpreters. And if that is the case, then the interpretation of history will not limit the possibilities, but will only enrich them. And with that make the preservation of the material pieces that remain from history, as unbiased witnesses of history, and the inclusion of them in daily life of vital importance for human development.

I also see another opportunity for heritage to take up a key part in the transformation of society to a sustainable society. Not only can it inspire towards innovative solutions, but it can also, provided that it is applied well, be the link between the innovation and the adopting society. The energy system will need to change drastically in the coming fifty years. These vast changes need a historical carrier to embed them into existing society. A very suitable saying is: most people are in favour of progress; it’s the changes they don’t like. If our surroundings change too much we don’t feel safe anymore, because we lose that overall feeling of foundation, our Sense of History.

(69)

Panel discussion

Introduction of the theme

Heritage buildings used to be excluded from the quest for sustainability, but reality has

surpassed this notion. Heritage buildings need to be transformed in a sustainable way as well. What can we learn from the user-centred approaches that have been presented during this day?

Design for sustainability in the built environment is subject to two main influencing considerations. On the one hand designers need to create conditions by taking the right measures, on the other hand the effectiveness of the measures is strongly dependent on the user behaviour. The focus on the user is even more relevant for heritage buildings because the possibilities to create the right conditions are restricted.

The discussion will therefore revolve around looking at the following questions, to which the panel members will start the discussion by providing their vision on these matters:

 Can user centred design therefore be the future of sustainable heritage transformation?  What does this imply for the design process?

 What does it mean for the education of the next generation of architects?

Note: the section below is not a word-by-word transcript of the discussion; it attempts to capture the essence of it.

Report of the discussion

Chairman: in my role as Government Architect (Rijksbouwmeester) I have seen projects like Livinggreen. Our discussions were not only about the object (buildings), but also other aspects like, the influence of infrastructure, normal people, habit, art, climate. From dealing with those items, it became clear that knowledge about these aspects needed to be included in decision making. It is clear that a mono-disciplinary model is not possible anymore. For this reason I started at the Faculty of Architecture the MIT-initiative: Metamorphosis, Interventions & Transformations. Complmented with Restoration (resulting in, RMIT), or rather, changes. We have some relevant people gathered here from this Faculty to discuss the questions of the organisers: could the methods for knowledge generation, as used in the Livinggreen project, be useful for this domain (Architecture), both in and outside education?

Panel members, what is your primary answer to this core question for the panel?

Arjan van Timmeren: Yes, it is important that the domain of Architecture takes into account users and their requirements, also in education. Here (in the Industrial Design Faculy) this is much more common already. Architecture is catching up in that respect. The built environment is a double complex system: people and interaction and physical aspects and its interaction. So including users in the design process is useful. Knowledge dissemination as a method can be elaborated upon beyond the Livinggreen context.

Job Roos: most of the aspects presented were quite abstract. Still, I find it useful to take aspects of what different people say and bring them together to decide what needs to be our atttitude. Because the design/ analysis task should be evolving. The transformation task is huge. The Netherlands is very much fixed in existing system and methods. That’s an attitude problem, not only in existing building, but also new buildings. For buildings goes: when you build something