Structures and Architecture – Cruz (ed) © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-03599-7
Circular tectonics, users, and local culture J. Johansson Copenhagen School of Design and Technology, Denmark
ABSTRACT: This paper aims to contribute to the discussion of how architectural practice can benefit from developing new work strategies that take the users and local culture into account when developing social housing architecture in order to encourage ecological circular tectonics and Design for Disassembly. It argues that new strategies can further social sustainability in a local culture, which can be of great importance for whether the intentions behind Design for Disassembly as ecological circular tectonics can create local support and work for the users in the operating phase. 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Users and sustainable construction If our own culture can be changed as a consequence of environmental problems, then sooner or later it will influence architectural design as a reflection of our cultural and social values (Bech-Danielsen 2005). Over the years, Danish architects and the social housing sector have provided different architectural answers to these complex challenges in the form of sustainable social housing in order to meet a sustainable transition. The challenges are however that sustainable social housing is typically different in its design than ordinary construction. Sustainable construction can be different in terms of heating, ventilation, the technologies used, tectonics, etc. It implies that these homes are different with regard to the necessary knowledge and handling of the operating conditions as well as the functionality of the building’s sustainable intentions (Jensen et al. 2012). The Danish social housing sector has in general considerable expertise and better conditions for carrying out sustainability goals in the running of their buildings in relation to other forms of ownership (privately owned and privately rented). There is strong engagement in sustainable issues amongst administrators, who have experience in relation to being entrepreneurs for both many and large units. The weaknesses are that the residents’ ownership of the building is often small and often has a short time frame in relation to long-term investments, which is a requirement for sustainable construction (Nielsen et al. 2012). Sustainable architecture should be simple, since it is so-called “ordinary people” who will live in it (Bordass & Leaman 2013) because they want to live as “ordinary” a life as possible without being particularly interested in the environment or showing particular interest in sustainable ways of living (Jensen et al. 2012). The users’ consumption and behaviour (Shove 2003) – and hence lacking or unintended consequences of this in relation to the intentions – must not be used as an excuse by the architects and other experts when sustainable construction does not work. The users’ behaviour must be understood and influenced in a respectful way. If long-lasting sustainable solutions are to be met, then architectural practice must approach the task with a humble, respectful approach to the users (Bordass & Leaman 2013). Complex requirements are placed on architectural practice, with a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of sustainability. In this regard, architectural practice must be able to professionally engage in a broad range of disciplines and specialities. At the same time, design requirements are also made in relation to the users’ role (Bordass et al. 1994) and that the users’ role gives rise to requirements for the building’s operation (Leaman & Bordass 1997, Leaman & Bordass 1993). Architectural practice should therefore direct its focus towards the users’ role and requirements for the building’s operation in order to be able to achieve intentions for sustainability’s so-called “triple bottom line” (Twinn 2012). 151
1.2 Buildings, users, and qualitative evaluation There is a need for the development of more sophisticated assessment strategies in the interaction between the human factors and buildings’ physical capacity. Quantitative assessments of construction cannot stand alone but should instead be supplemented with qualitative assessments of residents’ expectations, meanings, perceptions, and behaviours (Stevenson & Leaman 2010). This supports a need for new methods and new knowledge with a greater focus on the process as well as making the qualitative (soft) values of existing construction visible (Madsen et al. 2015). More knowledge about the interaction between residents, administrative staff, and operating staff is valuable for those developing new housing as well as its subsequent operation (Leaman et al. 2010). We should focus on the building as it is used so that the experiences can be utilised in the design process of future constructions (Stevenson & Leaman 2010), where residents are often the best judges of buildings and can contribute with valuable feedback (Grierson & Moultrie 2011). 1.3 Circular tectonics: Design for tisassembly In the future, more ecological and environmentally friendly homes will be based on an understanding of the reusing of resources and building systems that consist of recycled materials from previous constructions. It means that architects must rethink the way that building components are put together, where the details of the joints become an important part of the architectural expression. The tectonic dimension of the architecture becomes a way to communicate the constructions’ logic to the surroundings as well as clarify the potential for reutilisation. Therefore, this calls for new design strategies that clarify both the potentials of the individual material and the individual sub-component, which thus highlights the way in which the building’s parts are put together (Madsen 2016). This paper would like to contribute to the discussion in relation to the challenges architects can face in the encounter with the users when new sustainable housing is developed. The paper suggests challenges that could also have an impact when architects develop buildings for Design for Disassembly. Therefore, the paper recommends new strategies for architectural practice in collaborating with the users. These contributions to the discussion are based on results from a qualitative assessment of sustainable housing from the author’s PhD project entitled “Sustainability in Danish social housing – with a user focus” (Johansson 2017). 2 THEORETICAL ASPECTS In using a phenomenological approach, the PhD project’s study design has taken its starting point in the early Husserl’s epistemological preoccupation of investigating people’s realisation and describing their experiences of the phenomena (Zahavi 2006). The task has been to go “to the issue itself ” without preconceived opinions and theories (Rendtorff 2003). There is no objective, independent research object but in contrast a subjective experience and the attribution of meaning in particular life worlds (Justesen & Mik-Meyer 2010, Mo 2003). In principal, phenomenology was chosen in order to have an open and unbiased opportunity to capture people’s life worlds. At the same time, this approach has an impact on the methodological research method, where the use of the interview as a method (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009) can contribute to the issue with many spontaneous, rich, and specific answers, as well as an ideal of achieving “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973). 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research question The guiding research question for the PhD project is: Does the sustainability in sustainable social housing work for residents, operating staff, and administrative staff? And this also included the
152
sub-questions: What are the users’ experiences of sustainable social housing? How can the users’ experiences be used in the development of future sustainable social housing? 3.2 Criteria for case selection The study is limited to including three family-friendly and sustainable terraced social housing buildings in Denmark. The buildings are experimental constructions that have neither been renovated nor rebuilt after being taken into use. The choice of buildings that have not been renovated and/or rebuilt after being taken into use is because the aim is to capture the users’ experiences with buildings that have been taken into use over a longer period in relation to the original intentions regarding sustainability. The choice of multiple cases is made in order to strengthen the precision, validity, and stability of the results (Neergaard 2010). The three case studies are chosen based on the criteria of maximum variation. By choosing a small number of cases with maximum variation, the data gathering and data analysis will give two kinds of result. Firstly, it provides detailed descriptions that can document unique features in the individual cases. Secondly, it can identify important common patterns across the cases, which has vital importance (significance), because they occur on the basis of heterogeneity (Neergaard 2010). With reference to “identifying important common patterns” in the three cases, the following criteria are chosen: Danish buildings; social housing sector; terraced houses; family-friendly homes; innovative/experimental construction; terraced houses that have not been renovated after being taken into use; the same types of user groups to be interviewed (residents, operating staff, and administrative staff) – semi-structured deep interviews; the same types of user groups to be interviewed (residents, operating staff, and administrative staff) – semi-structured focus group interviews; the same types of architect groups and developers – structured deep interviews. With reference to “documenting unique features” in the three cases, the following criteria are chosen: Case 1 – sustainability: low-energy construction (little) with ecological initiatives (Ikast, West Jutland); Case 2 – sustainability: low-energy construction (a lot) according to the Passive House standard (Lystrup, East Jutland); Case 3 – sustainability: low-energy construction (medium) sustainable building operation with increased self-management (Copenhagen, East Zealand); local culture (Ikast vs. Lystrup vs. Copenhagen). 3.3 Methods For each of the three case studies, the following three combinations of methods are used: semi-structured deep interviews (method 1), semi-structured focus group interviews (method 2), and structured deep interviews (method 3). In this way, the strength of validity was sought with the help of three subsequent follow-up methods as the basis for a triangulation of methods (Halkier 2008, Barbour 2007). Seventeen semi-structured deep interviews, three semi-structured focus group interviews, and six structured deep interviews were carried out. Residents, operating staff, and administrative staff are chosen as interview subjects because the subject matter of the research question is the operational issues relating to the use of the sustainable construction. Initiators/developers and architects are chosen as the interview subjects, since the aim is to create new knowledge that can partly frame the users’ experiences but also put the results into perspective with a view to real development potential. In method 1, the residents (snowball sampling), operating staff (key people), and staff from the operating administration (key people) were interviewed individually using semi-structured deep interviews. Here, it has been relevant partly to ask about the project’s main question and sub-question: “Does the sustainability in sustainable social housing work for residents, operating staff, and administrative staff?”, as well as ask about the sub-question: “What are the users’ experiences of sustainable social housing?” The essences of phenomenological analysis have been used to formulate the questionnaire for method 2. In method 2, the same users were invited to participate in semi-structured focus group interviews (Barbour 2007). Where residents have cancelled, these participants have been replaced by other residents (snowball sampling). The essences from the phenomenological analyses from 153
method 1 and method 2 were used as the questionnaire when carrying out method 3. The coupling of identical results from method 1 and 2 contributed to a further strengthening of validity and potential generalisability in relation to typical features (Dahlberg et al. 2008, Giorgi & Giorgi 2003). The qualitative focus group interview is chosen in order to be able to see patterns and general processes, categories, and dynamics in the user groups. It is based on these elements that generalisations can be made (Halkier 2008). The criterion about communicative validation (Kvale & Brinckmann 2009) was furthermore brought into play in method 2, since parts of results from the analysis are presented to the interviewees, who have contributed to the empirical material and in that way are a part of validating the analysis’ results. In method 3, both the developers (key people) and the architects (key people) were interviewed individually using structured deep interviews (Justesen & Mik-Meyer 2010) with a view to whether the users’ experiences could be used in the development of future sustainable social housing. The essences from the phenomenological analyses (methods 1 and 2) gives rise to new questions to be used in preparing the interview guide and carrying out method 3. In method 3, questions are primarily chosen that can point forward with reference to the research’s sub-question: How can the users’ experiences be used in the development of future sustainable social housing? 3.4 Case 1: “Økohus 99” The “Økohus 99” settlement was finished in 1998 and is located in the town of Ikast, 67 km west of Aarhus, Denmark. The buildings is the result of an architecture competition for the construction of what could be called first-generation, low-energy terraced houses with ecological initiatives. The terraced houses are designed by Tegnestuen Vandkunsten and are run by the housing organisation Bomidtvest. Typical sustainable characteristics are the zoned house, exploiting the passive heat from the sun in the “Sunhouse”. In addition, the buildings has ecological initiatives in the outside areas in the form of a lake collecting rainwater with a root zone system and water channels. The water channels are an integrated part of the homes’ cooling system. In order for the intentions behind the architecture to work, a high degree of user involvement is required. Ecology as a principal goes back to the beginning of the 1970s, where the grassroots environmental groups tried to transform a sustainable way of thinking into an architectural mode of expression. The grassroots groups’ structural answer has been based on environmental sustainability with an ecological basis. The ecological construction attached importance to the incorporation of “natural” building materials, reusable materials, and alternative building forms. The architects chose to build according to traditional building methods, with the use of so-called “clean” building materials based on simple production (Beim et al. 2002). This approach to sustainable architecture is defined as the “ecocentric logic”, which originates from the belief that the solution to the environment question is founded in a radical rethinking of values. It is a metaphysical, holistic discourse with a view of “getting back to nature” generated through the natural science paradigm (Guy & Farmer 2001). The “ecocentric logic” also represents an architecture that, with a holistic way of thinking, has the goal of having an educative effect and contributing to a particular culture of living for the users. The physical form forces the users to relate to, for example, consumption habits, heating opportunities, recycling, and reusability (Beim et al. 2002). 3.5 Case 2: “Lærkehaven III” The “Lærkehaven III” settlement was finished in 2010 and is located in the town of Lystrup, 14 km north of Aarhus, and is run by the housing organisation Ringgården. The buildings is designed by Schmidt Hammer Lassen Architects and is the result of an international project competition, with the goal of being able to display sustainable residential architecture according to the Passive House standard. The buildings has green common areas and a lake that collects rainwater, with adjoining water channels as additional environmental, sustainable initiatives. Its function is to counteract flooding and unnecessary loads on the sewer system. The buildings was built by a German contractor. 154
The Passive House standard goes back to the 1990s, where architects from, amongst other countries, Germany and Austria experimented with refining the low-energy house by optimising the technologies’ and the constructions’ energy efficiency in order to achieve environmental sustainability. Typical sustainable characteristics are the highly insulated, low-energy house and represent the first larger terraced social housing in Denmark in accordance with the principals of the Passive House standard. The requirements are that the houses, without help from renewable energy sources, are allowed to use a maximum of 15 kWh/m 2 per year on heating and cooling. In addition, there is a requirement regarding the building’s airtightness, which is not allowed to be greater than 0.6 m3/h/m3 (Jensen et al. 2014, Beim & Vibæk 2013). This approach to sustainable architecture is defined as the “eco-technical logic” (Guy & Farmer 2001), which is characterised by having a top-down view of environmental changes that occur with the help of integrated energy-efficient high-tech solutions in the construction. The project also represents the “eco-aesthetic logic”, where sustainable development has a focus on the architectonic aesthetic values. Here, the architecture plays a metaphorical role as an iconic expression of social values (Guy & Farmer 2001). Thus, the project positions itself by choosing in particular two sustainability pathways for the sustainable construction. 3.6 Case 3: “Grøndalsvænge” The “Grøndalsvænge” settlement was finished in 2012 and is located in Copenhagen. It is run by the housing organisation KAB. The buildings is designed by ONV architects and is the result of one of many experimental constructions built according to a concept that mainly combines reducing the cost of production with the residents’ increased self-management in running the building. Typical sustainable characteristics are the highly insulated, low-energy house built according to energy class 2020. The buildings are built with mechanical ventilation with heat recovery. In addition, the residents’ “do-it-yourself” involvement in the home’s flexible layout, operation, and maintenance, as well as the building’s operation is a representation of social sustainability. “Grøndalsvænge” seems to represent two trends at the same time. On the one hand, the “eco-technical logic” with a focus on the construction and energy efficiency. On the other hand, the “eco-social logic” with a focus on the users’ social dimension in the form of “do-it-yourself” and involvement in the operational aspects (Guy & Farmer 2001). 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The aim of this paper is to contribute to the discussion in relation to the challenges that architectural practice can face in meeting local users when new sustainable housing is developed. It is argued that this is relevant when developing social housing for Design for Disassembly. The tectonic dimension of Design for Disassembly entails that the architecture becomes a way of communicating the constructions’ logic (Madsen 2016) to the users, and so the details become a very important part of the aesthetic expression. Social housing that is developed as Design for Disassembly can thus be articulated in its tectonics, the building materials’ reusability, the visible details of the joints, visible bolts, screws, fittings, etc. It will also challenge the operating of the building. Here, a traditional local culture can challenge the intentions for Design for Disassembly if the users do not value the aesthetic or do not have motivation or ownership regarding the intentions in general. Results from the present study show that the users had a desire to be involved in the design process in the development of sustainable social housing. The lack of user involvement shows important common patterns across the cases and can be vitally important (significant), since they occur on the basis of heterogeneity. Users wanted to be able to contribute with their operational experiences as well as ideas, dreams, and desires for a good home life. Therefore, the lack of involvement is experienced as inadequate and appears as a dimension of social sustainability that has not worked for the users. In the long term, greater involvement can contribute to the project ownership and motivation amongst the users. Project ownership and motivation are fundamental conditions for getting the sustainability in the finished sustainable social housing to work. 155
There are typical features for all the cases, where the necessary knowledge and information about the buildings’ sustainable initiatives has not been passed on to the residents, the administrative staff, or the operating staff in a way that has supported the sustainable intentions. The reasons have been, amongst others, a lack of passing on information and knowledge, lack of motivation, lack of time, as well as information material only being available in German, that the information material did not exist or was too complicated, or that the residents did not read the information material even when it was available. During commissioning of “Økohus 99” specifically, there was no great interest in the local society about the new experimental sustainable housing and its aesthetic. The local culture in Ikast were much more oriented towards traditional housing, which meant that the homes stood empty in the beginning. The housing organisation initiated “image meetings” in order to encourage the local society’ interest. In addition to the local cultural challenges, three negative narratives about the building emerged. The first narrative stems from an architectural review (Hansen 1997) that made fun of the ambitions not being high enough from the competition organiser’s side and described the development as a large-scale project that was not able to live up to expectations. The large number of empty homes was focused on by the local press, who wrote about the project’s lack of functionality, such as there not being enough space for a baking tray in the sink. The local newspaper ended their article by paraphrasing the narrative in Hansen’s (Hansen 1997) architectural review, describing the development as a large-scale prestige project that was unable to deliver what was promised. Thus, the local press added fuel to the fire with a metaphor and a new narrative about a sustainable prestige project that had difficulty in living up to expectations. The third narrative is “eco-light”, which is prevalent amongst the staff in the administration. They had the perception that it was not the sustainable social housing project that was promised. The reasons were that the financial framework could not meet the ministry’s and the architects’ high sustainability ambitions. The administrative staff had not been involved and neither the entrepreneurs nor the architects had “passed on” the necessary knowledge and information about the sustainable initiatives. The administrative staff believed that they had “had the project stuffed down their necks” and were subsequently “left at the station” with all the problems. The negative local narratives have thus been an obstacle for the environmental and social sustainability. The three user groups’ experiences with the aesthetic in “Lærkehaven” was varied. A few residents and parts of the administration experienced the architecture as aesthetically beautiful. Some of the users explain that the architecture has an exemplary aesthetic. Other users think that the architecture is ugly and that the architectonic form does not measure up to the functionality. The results show different experiences with the aesthetic, which does not clearly suggest that the aesthetics in themselves can stand alone as social sustainability that has worked for the users. It is explained by the users that sustainable architecture should also be about the concepts of usability and durability, thereby promoting the users’ valuation of social sustainability (Beim et al. 2002). In “Grøndalsvænge”, the developer’s basic intention behind the concept gives the residents an increased self-management of the operational and maintenance tasks in the operating phase. There is an overall intention that the residents’ increased self-management can lead to operational savings of up to 30%. With regard to the residents’ operating economy, time required for operational tasks, knowledge and information, as well as motivation, user experiences show that it is difficult to get the intention of increased self-management to work. The promised savings failed to occur, because instead of doing the tasks themselves the residents paid external suppliers to carry out the operational services. Thus, it has been difficult to support the economic and environmental sustainability. Across the three cases, a pattern appears that the users employ their democratic right to co-management to change their homes. In “Økohus 99”, the users are in general not enthusiastic about the aesthetic expression of the raw building materials and structures, as well as the untreated surfaces. They are experienced by the users as being cheap and spartan. The users are not enthusiastic about the raw tectonics, e.g. with rustic concrete floors, rustic plywood ceilings, untreated wooden floors, and rustic kitchens.
156
The residents express that if “Økohus 99” is to be attractive, then there have to be changes, with a move away from the rustic materials, as well as a transformation of the homes in general. At the same time, the residents want to change the “Sunhouse” with triple glazing, floor heating, and painting over the blue concrete wall that accumulates the sun’s rays, extending the floor structure in the double-height room so that the zoned home has greater usability all year round. However, this will fundamentally dismantle the intention of the zoned home in relation to the home’s indoor climate, heating, and ventilation, as well as the ecological approach to raw and untreated tectonics and raw and untreated building materials. In “Grøndalsvænge”, the residents have flexible opportunities to install kitchens, change the bathroom, establish an extra bathroom, or install internal walls from, for example, recycled materials. The results show however that the flexibility is relatively small, since the changes – for economic reasons – remain fixed and are thus not economically and environmentally circular in relation to new tenants. On the one hand, it is argued for maintaining the residents’ right to co-management in relation to changes in their local area and inside their own homes as a discourse that increases the social sustainability. On the other hand, the residents’ right to co-management appears to be a dilemma, since it can undermine the architects’ ideas and go against the buildings’ intentions on environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Even though the present study has not directly investigated whether Design for Disassembly works for the users, the results suggest typical features that support a certain generalisability that can be transferred in relation to that architectural practice can benefit from strategically including the local residents, operating staff, and administrative staff in developing Design for Disassembly as an approach for ecological circular tectonics in architecture with local support. The users’ values should be identified with regard to their wishes and interests in terms of aesthetics, functionality, and usability regarding Design for Disassembly and flexibility, change, and sustainable operating of the building. Therefore, the users should be invited to project meetings, workshops, excursions, etc. so that the three user groups gain knowledge and information about, as well as real influence on, Design for Disassembly in the programming phase, idea phase, commissioning phase, and operational phase. It is thus argued that these new strategies for architectural practice can increase social sustainability in a local culture, which can be important for whether a housing project’s intentions of ecological circular tectonics and Design for Disassembly can work for users in the operational phase. Because nothing undermines even the best intentions of circular tectonics like the users’ negative narratives in a local culture. REFERENCES Barbour, R. 2007. Doing focus groups. The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bech-Danielsen, C. 2005. Ecological reflections in architecture: architectural design of the place, the space and the interface. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press. Beim, A., Larsen, L. & Mossin, N. 2002. Økologi og arkitektonisk kvalitet [Ecology and architectural quality]. Copenhagen: Arkitektskolens Forlag. 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. Abingdon: Routledge. Bordass, B. & Leaman, A. 2013. Part 2: Building Performance: The Bigger Picture. Building professionals and the challenge of sustainability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92L0IDGWi3U (located 17/09/2018). Bordass, B. Leaman, A. & Willis, S. 1994. “Control Strategies for Building Services: the role of the user”. Conference. Buildings and Environment Conference, BRE. Dahlberg, K., Dahlberg, H. & Nyström, M. 2008. Reflective Lifeworld Research. Lund: Studenterlitteratur. Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. 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. DC: American Psychological Association.
157
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):623–634. Guy, S. & Farmer, G. 2001. “Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology”. Journal of Architectural Education 54(3):140–148. Halkier, B. 2008. Fokusgrupper [Focus groups]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Hansen, K. 1997. “Ørneflugt med benene på jorden” [An eagle flying with its legs on the ground]. Teknologidebat (3):6–8. 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]. Frederiksberg: Frydenlund Academic. 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):94–105. 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. Justesen, L. & Mik-Meyer, N. 2010. Kvalitative metoder [Qualitative methods]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. 2009. Interview: introduktion til et håndværk [Interview: Introduction to a craft]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel Forlag. Leaman, A. & Bordass, B. 1993. “Building Design, Complexity and Manageability”. Facilities 11(9):16–27. Leaman, A. & Bordass. B. 1997. “Strategies for Better Occupant Satisfaction”. Fifth Indoor Air Quality Conference. London. Leaman, A., Stevenson, F. & Bordass, B. 2010. “Building evaluation: practice and principles”. Building Research & Information 38(5): 564–77. Madsen, U.S. 2016. “Udfordringer & Potientialer” [Challenges & Potentials]. In Frederiksen L.K., Madsen, U.S., Beim, A., Oberender, A. & Butera. S. (ed.), Idékatalog over designstrategier for genavendelse: Et InnoBYG-projekt [Idea catalogue of design strategies for reuse: An InnoBYG project]. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation. 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. Mo, L. 2003. Vitenskapsfilosofi for arkitekter [Theory of science for architects]. Oslo: Kolofon. Neergaard, H. 2010. Udvælgelse af cases i kvalitative undersøgelser [Selection of cases in qualitative studies]. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. 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):1–15. Rendtorff, J.D. 2003. “Fænomenologien og dens betydning” [Phenomenology and its importance]. In Fuglsang, 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]. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag. Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience the Social Organization of Normality. Oxford, England; New York: Berg. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10060563 (located 30.05.2013). Stevenson, F. & Leaman, A. 2010. “Evaluation housing performance in relation to human behavior: new challenges.” Building Research & Information 38(5):437–441. Twinn, C. 2012. “Professionalism, sustainability and the public interest: what next?”. Building Research & Information 41(1):123–28. Zahavi, D. 2006. “Edmund Husserl”. In Thau. C. (ed.), Filosofi & arkitektur i det 20. Århundrede [Philosophy and architecture in the 20th century]. Copenhagen: Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole.
158