Dezembro 2021 vol. 9 num. 5 - 14th International Conference of the European Academy of Design, Safe Harbours for Design Research

Full Paper - Open Access.

Idioma principal | Segundo idioma

"Insight: A co-design approach to understanding energy on a university campus "

"Insight: A co-design approach to understanding energy on a university campus "

Davis, Aaron ; Gwilt, Ian ;

Full Paper:

Cultivating sustainability is a complex concept that shifts beyond the technological focus of eco-efficiency, to engage with social and cultural practices. These social and cultural practices are difficult to define, and are challenging to approach through traditional design processes. A microcosm of this challenge is in reducing the energy consumption of institutional buildings. Here, a tension exists between the building as a technological system, and its performance as a site for human activity. This paper presents a co-design process that brought together a complex group of stakeholders to collaboratively explore understandings, representations, and physicalisations of ‘energy consumption’. The results of this process reveal some of the key strengths of the co-design process and provide insights into the ways in which different ontological and epistemological positions can be surfaced through speculative, publicly accessible data visualisation concepts as a catalyst for creative discovery.

Full Paper:

Cultivating sustainability is a complex concept that shifts beyond the technological focus of eco-efficiency, to engage with social and cultural practices. These social and cultural practices are difficult to define, and are challenging to approach through traditional design processes. A microcosm of this challenge is in reducing the energy consumption of institutional buildings. Here, a tension exists between the building as a technological system, and its performance as a site for human activity. This paper presents a co-design process that brought together a complex group of stakeholders to collaboratively explore understandings, representations, and physicalisations of ‘energy consumption’. The results of this process reveal some of the key strengths of the co-design process and provide insights into the ways in which different ontological and epistemological positions can be surfaced through speculative, publicly accessible data visualisation concepts as a catalyst for creative discovery.

Download (PDF)

Palavras-chave: Co-design, sustainability, energy visualisation, data physicalisation, design process,

Palavras-chave: Co-design, sustainability, energy visualisation, data physicalisation, design process,

DOI: 10.5151/ead2021-186

Referências bibliográficas
  • [1] "Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-21
  • [2] Alcott, B., Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., & Polimeni, J. (2012). The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements. London: Routledge.
  • [3] Alexander, S. (2014). Disruptive social innovation for a low-carbon world. Retrieved from http://lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/resources/crc-publications/research-publications/foreground- paper-disruptive-social-innovation-low
  • [4] Anthopoulos, L. G. (2017). The Rise of the Smart City. In Understanding Smart Cities: A Tool for Smart Government or an Industrial Trick? (pp. 5-45). New York, NY: Springer.
  • [5] Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 35(1), 124-140.
  • [6] Cialdini, R. (1993). The psychology of influence. New York, NY: William Morrow & Co.
  • [7] Darby, S. (2006). The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption. A Review for DEFRA of the Literature on Metering, Billing and direct Displays, 486(2006), 26.
  • [8] Davis, A. (2019). Understanding the Value of Co-Creation Processes in the Built Environment. Charette, 5(2), 8-21.
  • [9] Davis, A., & Andrew, J. (2017). Co-creating urban environments to engage vitizens in a low-carbon future. Procedia engineering, 180, 651-657.
  • [10] Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural probes. interactions, 6(1), 21-29.
  • [11] Gladwell, M. (2006). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
  • [12] Heiskanen, E., Hyysalo, S., Kotro, T., & Repo, P. (2010). Constructing innovative users and user- inclusive innovation communities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(4), 495-511.
  • [13] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
  • [14] Jain, R. K., Taylor, J. E., & Culligan, P. J. (2013). Investigating the impact eco-feedback information representation has on building occupant energy consumption behavior and savings. Energy and Buildings, 64, 408-4
  • [15] Jalas, M., Hyysalo, S., Heiskanen, E., Lovio, R., Nissinen, A., Mattinen, M., . . . Nissilä, H. (2017). Everyday experimentation in energy transition: A practice-theoretical view. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 77-84.
  • [16] Jevons, W. S. (1865). The coal question: An inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal-mines. London: McMillan and Co.
  • [17] Komninos, N. (2002). Intelligent cities: innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces (Vol. 1).
  • [18] Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
  • [19] Krzywoszynska, A., Buckley, A., Birch, H., Watson, M., Chiles, P., Mawyin, J., . . . Gregson, N. (2016). Co-producing energy futures: impacts of participatory modelling. Building Research & Information, 44(7), 804-815.
  • [20] Manzini, E., & Coad, R. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Boston, MA: MIT press.
  • [21] Manzini, E., & Tassinari, V. (2013). Sustainable qualities: Powerful drivers of social change. In R. Crocker & S. Lehmann (Eds.), Motivating Change: Sustainable design and behaviour in the built environment (pp. 217-232). London: Routledge.
  • [22] Mitchell, V., Ross, T., May, A., Sims, R., & Parker, C. (2015). Empirical investigation of the impact of using co-design methods when generating proposals for sustainable travel solutions. CoDesign, 12(4), 1-16.
  • [23] Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Paper presented at the 12th annual international digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times, College Park, MY.
  • [24] Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25-36.
  • [25] Nicolini, D. E. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • [26] Pierce, J., Fan, C., Lomas, D., Marcu, G., & Paulos, E. (2010). Some consideration on the (in) effectiveness of residential energy feedback systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.
  • [27] Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of change. In Treating addictive behaviors (pp. 3-27). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
  • [28] Reed, M., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I. R. A., Glass, J., Laing, A., . . . society. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4), 1-10.
  • [29] Rodela, R. (2011). Social learning and natural resource management: the emergence of three research perspectives. Ecology and Society, 16(4), 1-18.
  • [30] Shaikh, P. H., Nor, N. B. M., Nallagownden, P., Elamvazuthi, I., & Ibrahim, T. (2014). A review on optimized control systems for building energy and comfort management of smart sustainable buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, 409-429.
  • [31] Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
  • [32] Slob, A. F. L., & Verbeek, P. P. (2006). User Behavior and Technology Development: Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technol (Vol. 20). Dordrecht: Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  • [33] Stevenson, F., Baborska-Narozny, M., & Chatterton, P. (2016). Resilience, redundancy and low- carbon living: co-producing individual and community learning. Building Research & Information, 44(7), 789-803.
  • [34] Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Leonard, T. C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
  • [35] Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O. (1995). Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental impact assessment review, 15(5), 443-463.
  • [36] York, R. (2010). The paradox at the heart of modernity: The carbon efficiency of the global economy. International Journal of Sociology, 40(2), 6-22. "
Como citar:

Davis, Aaron; Gwilt, Ian; ""Insight: A co-design approach to understanding energy on a university campus "", p. 338-349 . In: 14th International Conference of the European Academy of Design, Safe Harbours for Design Research. São Paulo: Blucher, 2021.
ISSN 2318-6968, DOI 10.5151/ead2021-186

últimos 30 dias | último ano | desde a publicação


downloads


visualizações


indexações