14
Many terms exist that have a similar meaning although with their own nuance: retrofitting, refurbishing etc. For this paper, renovation is the chosen term, and because of the context "sustainable renovation" is used.
Note that behaviour refers to autonomous behaviour (e.g. switching off lights), purchasing behaviour (e.g., devices and measures that support conscious resource use) and interaction with such devices. For the latter, see the next paragraph
A full overview of these approaches can be found on the project website www.livinggreen.eu
in this Lab primarily the social part of resilience was addressed, i.e., the role of interconnections between different beneficiaries to develop projects to achieve climate mitigation on community level.
Submission for:
Journal of Cleaner Production – Special Issue: Bridges for a More Sustainable Future: Uniting Continents and Societies
Engaging beneficiaries of sustainable renovation – Exploration of design-led participatory approaches
Kersten, W.C.*, Crul. M.R.M.*, Geelen, D.V.*, Meijer, S.A.*, Franken, V.*
* Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology
Corresponding author: Kersten, W.C. (
[email protected] ) ; tel. +31 15 278 3795
Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
Abstract
A major challenge for sustainable resource use lies in the renovation of existing buildings. Different methods are used to engage residents to increase their knowledge, affirm their intent to act, and eventually to make modifications to their homes. In an exploratory research project, design-led participatory approaches were used to gain insights into how these might help to engage the beneficiaries of sustainable renovation. The research project was undertaken by means of six "Labs". These Labs were workshops with topics drawn from the general area of sustainable renovation and involved direct beneficiaries as participants. To assess the results, organising partners were interviewed and participants were asked to evaluate the activities in a short interview or with a questionnaire. The main conclusion of the research was that design-led, participatory approaches were seen to add value when they result in "emerging knowledge transfer", i.e., knowledge that is created in the process through interactions between peers and experts. This research has therefore contributed insights into how such approaches can complement the transfer of known knowledge. An important point emerging from the discussion is that organisers need to consider whether the value of this type of knowledge transfer outweighs the extra effort that is required to undertake it. In follow-up research the effects of specific techniques on the intended, and actual, behaviour change and implementation phases might be assessed.
Keywords
Beneficiary engagement; sustainable renovation; design-led participatory approaches; emerging knowledge transfer.
Engaging beneficiaries of sustainable renovation – Exploration of design-led participatory approaches
Highlights
The transition to sustainable lifestyles requires engagement of beneficiaries
Different approaches are being used to achieve this
To be effective, approaches need to empower beneficiaries to take action
Design-led participatory approaches can engage beneficiaries in novel ways
Such approaches have creation of "emerging knowledge" as unique added value
1. Introduction
One of the major challenges for sustainable resource use lies in the renovation of existing building stock. Using energy as one example, in Europe in the year 2010, residential energy consumption constituted 27% of total energy use. (European Commission, 2012). By the year 2030, this proportion is expected to have risen significantly (Pérez-Lombard et al, 2008). Most of the energy consumed is generated by fossil fuels, which in turn, are responsible for greenhouse gases. To mitigate the undesirable effects of greenhouse gases, overall energy use must be significantly reduced and more use of renewable energy technology would be required
In reaction to the oil crisis in the 1970's, governments started to introduce legislation to set standards for energy consumption in buildings, see e.g. Biesiot and Noorman (1999) and Carlsmith et al (1990). Because of technological developments, many existing buildings have energy consumption levels that are sub-standard when compared with modern standards. The annual replacement rate of buildings is 0,25 % or lower as seen for example in The Netherlands, France and UK (Thomsen and Van der Flier, 2009). Even though this percentage excludes major retrofit programmes, at this replacement rate it would require many decades to fully replace all buildings. Renovation of existing buildings is therefore critical to energy efficiency in existing housing stock.
When considering the use of renovation to enhance the sustainability of residential buildings, households are the main stakeholders. Hence, approaches are needed that increase the awareness of households to the importance of environmentally conscious and efficient use of resources. Although in this context the emphasis is on energy, the scope can also include matters such as water usage and materials. While households play an important role, they are not the only stakeholders. If we consider "Who benefits from renovation", there are a range of beneficiaries of the smarter use of resources in residential buildings.
For households, the advantages are mainly lower overall costs arising from resource conscious measures. The same would be valid for most housing corporations, if they were to be charged for a part of the costs of energy and water usage. For other beneficiaries, the effects are indirect because they depend on the actions of others. Examples include municipalities (lower overall resource use helps to achieve energy and CO2 policy targets) and centres of expertise. The success of the latter depends on households and companies eventually adopting conservation measures.
It is important to determine how these different types of beneficiaries can contribute to sustainable renovation. This does not only depend upon technical measures. The behaviour of end-users also supports efficient and better use of resources (Haas et al. 1998). End-user behaviour has been found to be a significant determinant of the environmental impact of a building by for example Dietz et al. (2009) and Sanquist et al (2012).
Addressing actual behaviour can prevent so called rebound-effects. These effects occur if people act less resource consciously because they believe that the technical measures they have taken are sufficient for the desired level of resource savings. Oosterhuis et al, (2013), recently performed a meta-study on this effect which confirmed its existence although they could not make general statements about the extent of the effect.
Technologies and best practices are available to renovate residential buildings and to influence behaviour so that resources are conserved. The key question is how households can be persuaded to act in order to achieve this goal. This raises additional questions like whether it Is desirable to complement current approaches that are used, and what roles other stakeholders might adopt.
This paper describes an exploratory research that aims to contribute insights into the added value of different methods that are used to stimulate adoption of sustainable renovation measures. In section 2 relevant literature is discussed on engaging beneficiaries of measures that are related to sustainability. Section 3 presents the context of and set up for the field research and the evaluation framework. The findings are presented in section 4, followed in section 5 by a reflection of these results in light of the literature and research goals and by a reflection on the limitations of the research. Final conclusions are shared leading up to recommendations for follow-up research.
2. Literature overview
Renovation was in the previous section found to be crucial to make residential buildings more sustainable. This section reviews literature showing how households have so far been persuaded to adopt environmentally responsible actions and behaviours.
The first step towards changing behaviour is to persuade people of the need to act. However, it has been found more than once that a stated intent to act does not guarantee a behaviour change. The gap between the two is known to be large, see e.g. Bamberg and Möser (2007) and Barr (2006). People are unlikely to take action, or to change behaviour, if their interest in doing so is not stimulated first. This stimulation is what in this paper is referred to as "engagement".
2.1 The engagement phase
Information campaigns have generally been used to disseminate key messages by "pushing" out information. Typically these will be accompanied by warnings about the consequences of inaction. The approach has been criticised by Vergragt et al (2014) as being "woefully inadequate". Other research had also concluded that a reliance on basic knowledge dissemination alone does not have a substantial effect on engagement (e.g. Barr, 2003; Lorenzoni et al, 2007). Howell (2014) suggests that such campaigns – especially if they focus on big, complex problems - can invoke lethargy, i.e., cause a feeling of disempowerment. Similarly, Kaplan (2000) states that people tend to avoid information campaigns that result in them feeling helpless or apathetical.
To engage people in making systemic changes to address environmental problems requires different communication approaches (Ockwell et al, 2009; Vergragt et al, 2014). Whilst creating an increase in knowledge can help, it should always be combined with other strategies that address the social factors that influence action and behavioural change (Gardner and Stern, 1996, Verplanken and Wood, 2006). These strategies should acknowledge the capacity of people to transform their concerns into the ability to make choices and translate these choices into action (Monno and Khakee, 2012).
A number of factors have been identified that impact the engagement of households, for example, positive framing. This was found to cause more supportive attitudes towards climate change mitigation (Spence and Pidgeon, 2010). Morton et al (2011) found that positive framing resulted in stronger intentions to act. Feelings of optimism, i.e., that the action would be successful, supported these intentions. Similarly, thinking about positive solutions in a future situation tends to empower people to take action (Boulding and Boulding, 1995), as cited by Carlsson, Kanyama et al, 2008.
Another option to increase the prospects for engagement is the communication of information that enables people to take action. Proposing alternatives that are applicable in a personal situation is one example of this. Lewis et al (2010) discuss this in the context of drink driving and suggest that increasing knowledge in itself can be an effective step towards action and behaviour change, provided it is relevant to the personal situation of the recipient (Guy and Shove, 2007). This also implies that interventions are most effective when people are most susceptible to them. In the context of sustainable renovation this would include events like changing homes and replacing old equipment (Stieß and Dunkelberg, 2013) or when other changes in the daily environment disrupt daily habits (Verplanken and Wood, 2006). Purposeful campaigns around such a specific opportunity to make changes have been successful in Germany (Stieß and Birzle-Harder 2010).
Additionally, social norms seem to be effective as a tool to stimulate people to take action. Social norms are defined here as shared beliefs about what one should or should not do. Making these norms explicit can spur behavioural change (e.g. Martin, 2012, Cialdini, 1993, and McKenzie-Mohr, 1999). Interaction with peers about new products or measures has also been shown to influence behaviour, because this can support the decision making processes (Rogers, 2003). By communicating with peers, the individual realises he is not alone in considering or making changes (Heiskanen, 2010). This realisation may overcome feelings of lethargy (Howell, 2014). Interventions that stimulate social interaction can make use of these psychological phenomena, as is proposed by for example by Gardner and Stern (1996) and Heiskanen (2010).
These observations indicate that the participation of end users in a given process is relevant to their eventual engagement with it. Participatory approaches actively involve the end users in the development of interventions and have been identified as important in the stimulation of behavioural change and the empowerment of environmental citizenship (Ockwell et al., 2009; Frey and Stutzer, 2006, Gardner and Stern, 1996, Heiskanen 2010). These approaches are also recommended for those leading transition processes (Nevens et al, 2013). The concept of participatory approaches is therefore explored more in depth in the next section.
2.2 Participatory approaches to engage beneficiaries
Different types of participatory approaches exist. Some of these can be referred to as "tokenist" (Monno and Khakee, 2012). In a tokenist approach, the option to lodge appeals against decisions, e.g., on spatial planning, is thought to increase legitimacy, but allows for few or no actual contributions by non-policy makers. In processes that permit such contributions, two effects are expected to materialise. Firstly, concepts would be based on what might be possible, not by what is permitted (Nevens et al, 2013). Secondly, that contributions made by citizens would provide significant opportunity for learning between stakeholders (Doyle and Davies, 2013).
While participatory approaches were first used to stimulate citizen contributions in government initiated programmes (Baum, 2001), insights from the design field are also relevant. This relevance stems from the fact that in past decades, various forms of human-centred design have gained much popularity.
While "participatory approaches" and "human-centred design" are not the same, they both consider the role of people to be a core aspect. "Participatory" refers to the involvement of actual 'end-users' in the process of designing solutions or policies. "Human-centred" design revolves around human behaviour and demands that design of products accommodate behaviour, instead of vice versa (Norman, 1988). The actual involvement of people in a human-centred design process is not mandatory, but is clearly in line with its core premise. The term human-centred design has gained a foothold in popular (e.g. HCD, 2014) and scientific (e.g., Maguire, 2001) communities.
When human-centred design and participatory approaches are combined, it is referred to as participatory design. Participatory design dates back to the 1970s, and currently is better known as co-design, see e.g. Sanders & Stappers (2008). Their definition of co-design is used here: i.e. the 'collective creativity as applied across the whole span of a design process'. Co-design, where designers involve end-users, has yielded positive results such as a better understanding of the real and observed needs of end-users, as opposed to assumed needs (Westerlund et al, 2003). Its success, in terms of more usable solutions for end-users, was for example demonstrated by Gulari and Börü (2011).
Within the process of co-design creativity techniques facilitate new connections between ideas and people, see e.g. Tassoul (2009). Making new connections is considered to be a crucial aspect of the innovation processes (Johnson, 2010). These techniques are used to allow the new ideas and experiences of users to be amalgamated with design processes at an early enough stage to influence the direction of that process. Ideally, the same applies to suppliers. The main output of involving these stakeholders is that solutions better satisfy the demands of suppliers as well as end-users, see e.g., Kopecka (2013) and Van Boeijen et al (2013) respectively.
Kuijer and De Jong (2011) observed an interesting side-effect of their co-design research project, which focused on developing new bathing practices to reduce water consumption. They reported that the participants altered their views on water use following co-design sessions. They argue that by making use of a design process that focuses on practices and end-user experiences, the end-users as well as designers get a better insight into the nature and meaning of the practices. This suggests that if the end-users and the designers jointly understand the actual practices, a strong foundation exists to achieve behavioural change.
The results of Nair et al (2010) regarding such participative processes led them to conclude that the process may be even more important than the product. Due to interaction between peers and experts, participants in their research had an understanding of the social norms that influence their behaviour. This understanding provided a starting point to challenge these norms and the resulting behaviour. The authors even stated that the actual product results were of secondary importance. Nolan et al (2008) had previously reported that a process in which social norms are unconsciously influenced can have an effect on attitude and later on the behaviour of people. Additionally, Carlsson-Kanyama et al (2008) stated that the diversity of participants could be more relevant than their specific expertise.
These observations provide support for the working assumption that using a participatory approach to influence people to change their actions and behaviour has more added value than information transfer on its own. Furthermore the use of creativity and collaboration-oriented co-design techniques can create an active involvement of citizens. This involvement is greater than would be achieved by a simple approval or rejection (Yes/no) of a plan (Smedby and Neij, 2013) or by using the 'involvement' merely to increase the legitimacy of a plan (Monno and Khakee, 2012).
In terms of required resources, the effort-effect analysis by Osbaldiston and Scott (2012) concluded that the choice of engagement method should be made proportional to the possible size of the effect: actions that are expected to have a high positive environmental impact can justify high-effort engagement and expectations of low impact justify low effort actions.
2.3 Conclusions from literature and resulting Research Goals
From the literature review it can be seen that by engaging beneficiaries, residential building sustainability is within reach. Various authors provide evidence to support the theory that it is justified to use an approach that acknowledges the lessons learned from 'push' methods as well as from participatory and creativity stimulating approaches.
The following points are suggested to take into account to develop an effective approach to engage beneficiaries:
Use positive framing to support proposed actions. Negative framing can result in a feeling of helplessness.
Provide information which is meaningful, i.e., which people can use as basis for action and which is offered at moments in time when people are susceptible to this information.
Make use of social norms to influence decision making.
Make use of interaction between peers to support the process of adopting new measures and/or changing behaviours.
Favour diversity over expertise amongst participants. This increases the likelihood of more creative solutions and stimulates a feeling of empowerment
People become conscious of their own position in a change process through co-design. This awareness is a first step to increasing their willingness to change. The exact contents and results of the process are less relevant.
Creativity and collaboration oriented approaches can stimulate new trains of thought and new connections. These lead to new ideas in terms of contents (e.g., products) and empowerment (active realisation of the individual's power to invoke changes)
Based on these points, the following research goals (RG) were derived for the field research:
RG1: Explore the effect of design-led participatory approaches on the level of engagement of direct beneficiaries
RG2: Explore how design-led participatory approaches can complement the portfolio of indirect beneficiaries, i.e., facilitators of changes by beneficiaries.
For both research goals, "design" does not just focus on product features but on an entire process that uses design tools and techniques. "Design-led" therefore refers to using design techniques, focusing mostly on facilitating creativity. Creating new connections between participants in the process is a core element of such techniques.
3. Research Methods
Based on the presented research goals, this section describes the set-up for the field research. First the research context is introduced (3.1), followed by the description of the data collection methods (3.2) and the evaluation framework for the field research (3.3).
3.1 Research background
In the period 2009 to 2013, the Livinggreen.eu project was undertaken, co-funded by the EU Interreg IVB North-West Europe programme. This project addressed sustainable renovation of cultural heritage buildings and it aimed to engage households and other beneficiaries in ways to renovate heritage buildings. The project provided insights to achieve the goals stated in section 2.3, even though its main focus was the actual physical renovation of existing heritage buildings.
The research was organised in the form of Livinggreen Labs, from here onwards called "Labs". These were workshops with topics drawn from the general area of sustainable renovation and involved direct beneficiaries. Each Lab consisted of one session, without follow-up. This was consistent with the exploratory nature of the research. The main information per Lab (theme, hosting partner and key goals) are shown in Table 1 below. More details are available in Table A1 in the Appendix.
Table 1 Theme, hosting partner and key goal per Lab
Lab #
Main theme
Hosting Partner
Key goal of partner in terms of contents
1
Sustainable Energy in the built environment
Municipality of Ludwigsburg, Germany
Inspiring the future development of a certain area in the city (Weststadt),
2
Innovative water use in households
Ecohouse Antwerp, Belgium
Design of product concepts to support water efficiency in households
3
Material use for sustainable renovation
National Trust, UK
Sensitising the public about material use and re-use
4
Energy renovation
National Trust, UK
Inspiring energy renovation in residential buildings
5
Acknowledging architectonic values during renovation
Municipality of Lille
Design ideas for a particular building
6
Social Resilience
The White Rose, Netherlands
Skill development for building social networks that are able to adapt to changing local circumstances
3.2 Data collection
During the project period, the Labs were used for data collection. Two types of data were gathered. The first type focused on the participants who were asked to evaluate the Labs. The main purpose of these evaluations was to understand the participant's appreciation of the engagement approaches that were used. The second purpose was to get feedback on the perceived effect of the approach on the participant's intent to act in a more resource conscious way. This part of the evaluation mainly supports research goal 1 (RG1). The data was collected by means of short interviews for Lab 1 and 2, and with a questionnaire containing approximately ten open and closed questions from Lab 3 onwards.
From Lab 3 onwards parts of the evaluation results are comparable with evaluations that were performed by Livinggreen project partners for their own approaches. These evaluations by the partners, in the form of questionnaires, were completed by 250 respondents in total. The respondents were people belonging to the regular audience of the project partners, usually households. The people who completed those evaluations can be considered to be a "control group". It is acknowledged that the value of the comparison is limited because there were many variables in the different approaches, amongst others the duration of an activity, the number of participants and the main purpose.
The comparison was nevertheless expected to provide some insights into the relative value of the Labs compared to other approaches. The evaluations were also used to identify situations that had the most influence on the usefulness of different types of approaches as perceived by the participants. Table A2 in the Appendix contains one reference approach per partner. The most interactive approach per partner is included in this table.
The second type of data collection was executed with the hosting partners who were involved in co-organising the Labs. This was done in the form of interviews. The interview outcomes reflect the applicability and usefulness of the engagement approaches in the Labs. This part of the research mainly supports research goal 2 (RG2).
For all questionnaire and interview questions the primary purpose was for the hosting partners to get usable feedback regarding their activities. During the project, insights were used to improve the sequence and to fine tune the questions to generate feedback that was useful for the partners. This resulted in several changes to the questions in different versions of the evaluation formats. Using the same questions on each occasion would have been preferable, but the practical arguments outweighed the scientific preferences.
During the course of the project, several other circumstances further affected the planned research strategy and use of the evaluation framework. This framework is introduced in section 3.3. The circumstances are mentioned in the results section (4) in order to present them together with the context in which they occurred.
3.3 Evaluation framework
It is relevant to note that indirectly, the hosting project partners (i.e., co-organisers of the Labs, being municipalities for Lab 1 and 5 and knowledge centres for the other labs) were also beneficiaries. To distinguish the two types of benefits, these are explained here.
For direct beneficiaries, the success of using the design-led participatory approaches is measured by answering the question: "To what extent have the approaches helped me adopt a more conscious use of resources in residential buildings"? In this context, "helped me adopt" results in questions on awareness (why, motivation), knowledge (what, solutions), skills (how, what can I do?) and intention to act (am I sensitised to take action?).
For indirect beneficiaries, i.e., organisers of the activities, the success is measured by answering the question: "Have the approaches contributed to reaching the beneficiaries, i.e., my target groups?" In this context, "reaching the beneficiaries" results in questions on the result achieved, the required effort and the ratio between the two.
In both cases the general assessment of respondents (absolute value), as well as assessment compared with other approaches (relative value) was evaluated. For the latter we include the comparison with other approaches used in the project as described in section 3.2. These comparisons are only possible from Lab 3 onwards because the evaluation questions for Lab 1 and 2 differed too much from the questions asked to the control group.
4. Results of the exploratory field research
This section starts with a description of the setup of the Labs focusing on their main differences and the consequences thereof for the evaluation (4.1). The results of the two types of evaluation (participants and hosting partners) are shown (4.2) and summarised (4.3)
4.1 Organisational process for the Labs
The set-up of the Labs was based on the conclusions of the literature review. The core goals for the researchers were the same for each Lab, namely to explore the value of design-led participatory approaches for engaging direct beneficiaries of sustainable renovation measures (RG1) and for the portfolio of indirect beneficiaries (RG2). Mainly due to considerations regarding the interests of the hosting partners, the six Labs contained different variables like the themes (see Table 1), types of participants, exact techniques etc.
The researchers were the main facilitators in each Lab. The 'toolbox' of design-led participatory techniques was broad because many techniques are available, see e.g. Tassoul (2009) and Van Boeijen et al (2013). The chosen techniques per Lab represented a combination of the following elements: (1) sensitising exercises and ice breakers to allow people to break out of their usual train of thought; (2) exercises to generate novel associations; (3) using best practices as basis to think beyond these and (4) back casting, i.e., relating future visions to the present to determine the first steps needed to achieve them.
The nature of the hosting partner was not considered to have a fundamental effect on the result because the main facilitators in all cases were industrial designers and the hosting partners mainly played a facilitative role in terms of the location and communication. In section 4.2.3 this point is addressed in more detail.
In the first two Labs the focus was more oriented to solution design and peer-learning. Moreover, most participants were actually stakeholders of the hosting partners. In both Labs the hosting partners were in fact the "end-users" of the results so the roles of direct and indirect beneficiary were to a large extent combined. After the first two Labs the focus was transferred towards development of knowledge and skills, in part because for these other Labs innovative solutions were not a main goal for the hosting organisation.
The consequences of these variations in circumstances are discussed in section 5.
4.2 Evaluation of the Labs
This section contains the basic information about the evaluations (4.2.1), the main results from the evaluations with direct beneficiaries (4.2.2) and indirect beneficiaries (4.2.3).
4.2.1 Basic information on the evaluation
The number of participants and respondents per Lab are shown in Table 2. As explained in section 3.2, the evaluations were conducted by means of short interviews for Lab 1 and 2, and with questionnaires for Labs 3-6.
Table 2: Response data of the evaluations
Lab 1
Lab 2
Lab 3
Lab 4
Lab 5
Lab 6
Total
# participants
14
8
10
11
16
17
78
# respondents
7
8
-
11
14
9
50
The third Lab did not provide a valid basis for evaluation due to low attendance because of bad weather. The evaluation with direct beneficiaries was therefore cancelled. The hosting partner was interviewed as planned.
4.2.2 Evaluation with direct beneficiaries
Analysing and comparing the results of Labs 1/2, 3/4/5 and 6 is difficult. This difficulty relates to two main facts: (1) for Lab 3-5 the direct beneficiary was the individual household, whereas for Lab 6 it was the community; (2) as explained in section 4.1, for Labs 1 and 2 the roles of direct and indirect beneficiaries were combined.
Despite these differences, the results of the evaluations are presented together. The results are discussed below structured according to the sub-division that was introduced in section 3.3: awareness, knowledge and skills, and the intention to act.
Regarding Awareness, increased awareness on water use (Lab 2) was claimed. An increased awareness was also recorded for the carbon footprint of different measures and the many ways to influence this (Lab 4).
Regarding Knowledge, all participants of Lab 1 answered that the Lab had resulted in generating new ideas for the development of the city area that was the chosen context of this Lab by the hosting partner. Some participants claimed to have gained knowledge about architecture, the use of old buildings or city planning (all in Lab 1), specific factual knowledge about water systems and water use in households (Lab 2), or sustainable renovation materials, like insulation, solar panels, toilets and sinks (Lab 4).
Table 3 shows how the participants of Labs 4 and 5 assess their own increase in knowledge on sustainable renovation by participating in the Lab. These are compared with the average of all available results of the self-assessment by respondents in the control group which are shown in the last column. It can be concluded that knowledge increase as assessed by participants in the Lab approach vis-à-vis participants of other approaches is comparable, although the "control group" scores slightly higher on average.
Table 3: Increase of knowledge on sustainable renovation – Participant self-assessment
Answer option
As assessed by Respondents of Lab 4
As assessed by Respondents of Lab 5
As assessed by Respondents in control group
A lot
27%
29%
30%
Some
46%
0%
45%
A little
18%
50%
23%
None
9%
21%
2%
The self-reported level of knowledge prior to the activity by the Lab-participants was however already slightly higher on average. A question to that effect was included in the evaluations.
For Lab 6, all respondents indicated an increase in knowledge on resilience and their local network, the latter being a core component of social resilience.
Regarding Skills/ Ability to act, all participants of Lab 1 indicated that the open-minded atmosphere with groups of varied composition and the use of several creativity techniques resulted in a very interesting and useful experience. They claimed to have learned from each other, including from people with other professions. Several participants claimed to have acquired skills like having learned how to brainstorm, work together in groups, or learn from each other. Regarding the relevance for sustainable renovation the opinions of the respondents from Lab 2 were divided about the applicability, i.e., sense of realism, of the technologies that were discussed.
Almost half of the respondents of Lab 5 claimed to have learned the skill of dividing a large problem into smaller, bite size components. They stated that this helped them to realise the "importance of identifying discrete manageable steps". A specific outcome was judged to be that the technique was useful in structuring the approach to renovation, so enabling the optimisation between preservation of the architectural values and budget.
Regarding the Cumulative effect on intention to act, the first two Labs were in part used to test the concept of designers as facilitators working together with hosting partners to use design techniques in participatory approaches. The Labs were primarily aimed at achieving meaningful results for the hosting partners themselves, and the "intention to act" of the participants was not assessed. For these two Labs it should therefore be interpreted as: intention to use the results of the sessions in future work. The responses above do indicate a positive attitude towards this interpretation of the intention: the results were considered useful by the hosting partners, with room for improvement.
Questions on the effects of the approaches on the direct beneficiaries' intention to act were explicitly included in the evaluations of Lab 4, 5 and 6. The findings are therefore more explicit in this respect and are shown below.
When asked whether the Lab had inspired them to take further steps for the renovation of their home, all participants of Lab 4 indicated reported that they would be: (1) taking practical measures, (2) changing lifestyle (e.g. producing own food), or (3) acting on old intentions. One third of the participants of Lab 5 claimed to have been very inspired to start or continue with their sustainable renovation. One in five (20%) had received some inspiration to that effect, yet the same percentage indicated that they had not been specifically inspired. On the question which part of the Lab inspired participants the most to take a next step in the sustainable renovation of their home, answers indicate most appreciation for activities with an interactive nature (visual tour, design session and interaction with professionals).
To determine whether the engagement approaches did have any effect on the intention to act by the participants, they were asked whether they would measure their energy consumption more frequently. For Lab 4 and 5 the percentage of positive respondents was 55% and 46% respectively compared with 34% for the other approaches in the project. A negative response was given by 27% and 36% of the participants of Labs 4 and 5 respectively, compared with 23% for participants of the other approaches. The implication of this result is discussed in section 5.
For Lab 6 almost all participants indicated a desire to reconvene to continue the process that had been started in the Lab. Some participants also expressed a specific intention to be more community aware in their activities.
4.2.3 Evaluation with indirect beneficiaries (hosting partners)
As a reminder from the description of the evaluation framework in section 3.3, the main elements of the evaluation with the indirect beneficiaries of all Labs are the achieved result, the required effort and the ration between the two. The questions related to the value of design-led participatory approaches in absolute terms and relative to the approaches that the hosting partners use themselves.
Regarding Achieved results, a majority of partners reported that the Lab that they co-organised had enabled them to communicate with and/or receive input from additional target groups. The two municipality partners appreciated the creative input from the participants, which they considered useful for future policy development. Two of the knowledge centre partners reported that the method had merit, but that it had no immediate use for their centre. Another knowledge centre reported that the Lab was a new way to communicate with their target group and to create a community.
All partners reported that diversity within a group leads to more creativity. The aspect of the Labs that was considered most useful varied considerably. This is partly due to the difference between specific tools and techniques that were used in each Lab, although all fall within the domain of "design-led participatory approaches". The most creative and interactive parts were marked as being the most useful. For Lab 3 specifically, the idea of using "playfulness" was highlighted by the hosting partner. The last part of Lab 6 was also considered to be very useful by the hosting partner. In this plenary part the participants were asked to comment on their intention to act, indicating the effect of social norms.
The civil servants who were involved in Lab 1 highlighted the added value of looking at a problem with 'outsiders', noting that they can think more freely and feel less constrained by rules. The civil servants reported that this lead to more innovative thinking amongst the group. One participant commented on the need to prepare an action plan as well.
The host of Lab 2 reported that the Lab structure was in itself innovative and that it promoted skills development, including design, thinking in a bigger context, brainstorming, forming ideas and expanding individual viewpoints.
Regarding the required effort (including specific skills), when asked which methods were used regularly (and are thus familiar) to engage the beneficiaries, the hosting partners most often mentioned the transfer of best practice knowledge. Personalised advice was reported to be the most effective, provided that sufficient time was made available by the experts to communicate the advice. Exhibitions and guided tours were rated second on the list of existing effective approaches, followed by the less personalised knowledge transfer methods like lectures and information sheets.
When asked how the techniques and approaches used in the Labs differed from the approaches that they already used, most partners indicated that the Labs did not seem to be focussed on personalised advice, but instead are aimed at the formulation of ideas and visions. One partner reported the use of creative techniques, but in a way that better suited their goals. Another partner reported the use of creativity techniques, but considered the techniques used in the Lab as potential additions to their portfolio.
For Lab 1 the hosting partner reported that some extra effort would be required. The hosting partner for Lab 3 reported similarly, acknowledging some specific aspects that would require attention. The partner reported that in-house skills already existed for this task. The partner of Lab 2 acknowledged the value of the results but expressed doubts about the approach because it would not be able to adopt the approach. This indicates doubts about the effort that would be required if the employees lack the main skills to facilitate a Lab unaided.
Regarding the ratio between result and effort, all hosting organisations mentioned that the Lab approach would be most effective in situations that require some form of idea and vision forming. Almost all hosting organisations considered the approach to be of value because of its participatory nature and the potential for generating novel ideas. Four out of five partners reported that there was value in organising a Lab because the outcome could be interesting and unexpected. One of the municipalities reported a desire to use the method for other topics. One partner also reported that the learning experience for the participants represented added value in its own right.
4.3 Key evaluation results
The two main conclusions from the evaluation are:
Engagement of direct beneficiaries (RG1): the Lab approach resulted in positive reactions from the participants. Some gain in knowledge was reported, including new approaches to problem solving. Acquired skills were more related to group-work than actual renovation skills. The effect of the approach is positive in terms of increased, self-assessed, intention to act on behalf of the individual. Techniques that stimulated creativity, an open atmosphere, interpersonal (peer) learning and interaction were favoured the most.
Added value for indirect beneficiaries/ hosting partners (RG2): most likely to be reported when a host is interested in using participatory techniques and in stimulating a collaborative atmosphere to create new knowledge. The Lab approach requires too many resources when transferring existing knowledge compared with approaches that are more familiar.
5. Discussion
In this discussion section we reflect on two aspects: the results from the field research as compared with existing literature and the limitations of the field research.
5.1 Comparison of the project results with literature
When assessed against RG1, the results show that several of the features of the engagement of beneficiaries reported in the literature have been validated in this research. In particular: diversity within groups, interpersonal learning, the relevance of the process as much as the contents and the usefulness of creativity techniques. The value of these was acknowledged by participants and observed by the facilitators. These findings confirm research by Doyle and Davies (2013) on the value of participatory processes that encourage new ideas. Given that there is no conflict between generating new ideas and seeking consensus (Smedby and Neij, 2013), the result of the process can be experienced as positive by its participants. Finally, some of the answers provided by the beneficiaries related to skill building and support the finding by Monno and Khakee (2012) that "empowerment" of non-experts can be considered to be valuable if it increases the ability to make choices and take actions.
When assessed against RG2, the results can be compared with the findings of
Osbaldiston and Scott (2012) on the relation between effort and expected effect. The question for an indirect beneficiary is whether the expected results of design-led participatory methods are worth the investment in-house to develop the required skills. There was only one experiment per hosting partner to answer this, which provides insufficient data to resolve the issue.
To be able to answer the question "is the Lab approach worth the effort?", other approaches need to be examined as well. For example, exhibitions take time to develop but can be replicated relatively easily. The same is true for a Lab that is organised by the same partner: the initial version takes time, but the development time for replication is much lower. Conversely, personalised advice seems to be effective, but has limited impact and requires the same effort at each replication.
The results are therefore not able to provide an answer to the question "are design-led participatory approaches cost effective?" The basis of an answer depends on an indirect beneficiary believing in three things: (1) the value of the process in its own right (Nair et al, 2010), (2) actively and creatively involving end-users and other stakeholders yields results that cannot be matched by other approaches (Nevens et al, 2013) and (3) design-led participatory approaches can create a feeling of empowerment by end-users (Carlsson-Kanyama et al, 2008). If an indirect beneficiary has a positive enough feeling about these aspects, further trials of a design-led participatory approach may be worthwhile.
5.2 Limitations of the research
Because the Labs had to meet the needs of the hosting partners, the researchers had to allow different themes, different types of goals, different types of participants and as a result different sets of techniques. In this way, the Labs lacked a common form. A solid scientific analysis with unambiguous conclusions that are generally applicable is therefore difficult to achieve. Because this was anticipated from the outset, and the nature of the field research was conceived as "exploratory", this limitation is considered acceptable. The validity of the conclusions needs to be interpreted in light of these circumstances.
Because of the limited number of experiments, it was not possible to change only one or two variables in each Lab. Given more experiments, it might have been possible to use a more rigorous structure. This refers for example to the comparison of techniques that are primarily focused on interaction versus methods that focus on contents. This might have created more rigour, and thus more useable information related to the research goals.
Furthermore, it is possible that participants in the Labs had a higher level of awareness of environmental issues, when compared to the control group. This might have been a reason why they participated in the Labs in the first place. A detailed examination of the results indicates a slightly higher level of starting knowledge on average compared with the control group, a slightly lower increase in knowledge thanks to the approach, and a variable outcome for the proxy of the intention to act, i.e., intention to measure energy more frequently. This spread of results does not evidently indicate that the participants had a level of environmental awareness that created positive bias in their assessment.
Finally, the impact of the Labs on behavioural change was limited to the self-assessments by the participants. With hindsight the project duration would have allowed enough time for a follow up evaluation with the participants of some of the Labs, in particular Lab 4 and 5. This could have provided information on the actual actions and behaviour of the beneficiaries, resulting from participation in the Labs. From anecdotal feedback it is clear that some participants took concrete measures for the sustainable renovation of their homes and that they acknowledged that the Labs contributed to this.
6. Conclusions
The main results of the research are shown below. In light of the exploratory nature and limitations of the research the conclusions have an indicative status for now.
With regards to RG1, explore the effect of design-led participatory approaches on the level of engagement of direct beneficiaries, the main result is that open discussions with a diverse group of people and the creation of new knowledge – whether that knowledge is directly applicable or not – have a positive influence on the self-reported intention to act.
With regards to RG2, explore the added value of design-led participatory approaches for the portfolio of approaches of indirect beneficiaries, the main result is that the Lab approach does generate results that other approaches cannot easily match. However, whether organisers (indirect beneficiaries) should consider it worthwhile implementing the Lab approach depends on the level of satisfaction with their own methods, the desire to complement these methods and a belief in the benefits that the Lab approach can achieve.
Overall, design-led participatory approaches tend to have the highest added value when there is a need for tools and techniques that can remove attitudinal barriers to the creation of new insights. This finding refers to insights that emerge during the process, as opposed to simple knowledge transfer between individuals. The authors propose naming the former phenomenon "emerging knowledge". Central to this type of outcome is the fact that without an end-user centred process this type of knowledge, related to engaging beneficiaries, cannot materialise.
To engage beneficiaries in the (sustainable) renovation domain, much best practice knowledge is already available. Indirect beneficiaries, e.g. knowledge centres and municipalities, are aware of this fact and this may influence their attitude towards engagement approaches. The extensive knowledge base available for most subject matter seems a valid explanation for the high use of methods that are primarily aimed at transferring that type of knowledge. These methods sometimes include providing assistance to help people decide how that knowledge applies to them. The high level of experience of indirect beneficiaries with these methods may cause hesitation in using complementary methods.
The main scientific contribution of this research is the focus on the added value of design-led participatory approaches: allowing new and unpredictable connections to occur, stimulating peer and bottom-up learning. The main question was whether these approaches can engage beneficiaries to take steps towards sustainable renovation in a way that other approaches in this domain would not achieve. The focus on the design-led participatory approaches was a novel aspect for this domain and the first results are promising. The nature of the experiments and the complications to compare different approaches in detail, mean that the conclusions are at the moment just tentative. They could however encourage practitioners to consider the use of design-led participatory approaches, if these appear to be in line with their purposes.
For researchers that want to expand on the results of this exploration, the following recommendations are made: (1) use a range of techniques and a varied composition of the group of participants, to achieve the goal; (2) design a process which compares types of techniques and so determine their relative added values; (3) use a follow-up evaluation to check whether participants actually took action and changed their behaviour; take care to make sure that results can be attributed to a specific technique or part of the approach.
Acknowledgements
The Livinggreen Labs have been executed as part of the Livinggreen.eu project, which was co-funded by the EU Interreg IVB North-West Europe programme.
References
Bamberg, S. and Möser, G. 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 27. Pp. 14-25.
Barr, S. 2003. Strategies for sustainability: citizens and responsible environmental behaviour. Area. Vol. 35, issue 3. Pp. 227-240.
Barr, S. 2006. Environmental action in the home: Investigating the "value-action" gap. Geography, Vol. 91. Pp. 43-54.
Baum, H.S. 2001. Citizen Participation. In: International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Pp. 1840-1846
Biesiot, W. and Noorman, K.J.. 1999. Energy requirements of household consumption: a case study of The Netherlands. Ecological Economics, Vol. 28, issue 3. Pp. 367–383.
Boulding, E. and Boulding, K.E. 1995 The Future–Images and Processes. SAGE, London
Carlsmith, R.S., Chandler, W.U., McMahon, J.E, Santini, D.J.. 1990. Energy efficiency: how far can we go? Oakridge National Lab. Presented at Conference: 25. intersociety energy conversion engineering conference, Reno, NV (USA), 12-17 Aug 1990
Carlsson-Kanyama, A, Dreborg, K.H., Moll, H.C., Padovan, D. 2008. Participative backcasting: A tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning. Futures: Vol. 40, pp. 34-46.
Cialdini, R. B. 1993. Influence: science and practice - 3rd edition. HarperCollins College Publishers.
Dietz, T., Gardner, G.T., J. Gilligan., Stern, P.C., Vandenbergh, M.P. 2009. Household
actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol 106, issue 44. Pp. 18452-18456
Doyle, R. and Davies, A.R. 2013. Towards sustainable household consumption: exploring a practice oriented, participatory backcasting approach for sustainable home heating practices in Ireland. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48. Pp. 260-271.
European Commission. 2012. Energy, Transport and Environment Indicators. Publications Office of the European Union.
Frey, B. S. and Stutzer, A. 2006. Environmental Morale and Motivation. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=900370 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.900370
Gardner, G. T. and Stern, P.C. 1996. Environmental problems and Human Behavior. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Gulari, M. N. and Börü, A. 2011. Towards an evolutionary understanding on the success of participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education E&PDE11. Kovacevic et al, eds. Pp 721-726.
Guy, S. and Shove, E. 2007. The sociology of energy, buildings and the environment: constructing knowledge, designing practice. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Haas, R., Auer, H., Biermayr, P. 1998 The impact of consumer behavior on residential energy demand for space heating. Energy and Buildings, Vol 27, issue 2. Pp. 195–205
HCD. 2014. Human-Centred design. Available via: http://humancentreddesign.wordpress.com/category/human-centred-design/ Accessed on: 3 May 2014.
Heiskanen, E., Johnson, M. Robinson, S., Vadovics, E., Saastamoinen, M. 2010. Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioural change. Energy Policy, Vol. 38, issue 12. Pp. 7586–7595.
Howell, R.A., 2014. Investigating the Long-Term Impacts of Climate Change Communications on Individuals' Attitudes and Behaviour. Environment and Behavior. Vol. 46, issue 1, Pp. 70-101.
Johnson, S. 2010. Where good ideas come from. Penguin Putnam Inc.
Kaplan S., 2000 Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, (3), Pp. 491–508.
Kopecka, J.A. 2013. Why didn't they ask the supplier? The utilization of supplier information and knowledge in the Fuzzy Front End of New product development. PhD thesis. Delft.
Kuijer, S.C. and De Jong, A.M. 2011. Practice theory and human-centred design: a sustainable bathing example. Proceedings Nordic Design Research Conference 2011, Helsinki
Lewis, I. M., Watson, B., White, K. M. 2010. Response efficacy: The key to minimizing rejection and maximising acceptance of emotion-based anti-speeding messages. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 42, pp. 459-467.
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L. 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, Vol.17, issue 3–4. Pp. 445–459.
Maguire, M. 2001. Methods to support human-centred design. In: International Journal Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 55. Pp. 587-634
Martin. S. 2012. 98% of HBR readers love this article. Harvard Business Review. October 2012, pp. 23-25.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior – An introduction to community Based Social Marketing. (1st edition). New Society Publishers.
Monno, V. and Khakee, A. 2012. Tokenism or Political activism? Some reflections on participatory planning. In: International Planning Studies, Vol. 17, issue 1. Pp. 85-101
Morton T.A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., Bretschneider P. 2011.
The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, Vol 21, issue 1. Pp 103–109.
Nair, G., Gustavsson, L., Mahapatra, K. 2010. Owners perception on the adoption of building envelope energy efficiency measures in Swedish detached houses. Applied Energy, Vol. 97, pp. 2411-2419.
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., Loorbach, D. 2013. Urban Transition Labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.50. Pp. 111-122.
Nolan, J.M., Schultz, P.W., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein N.J., Griscevicius, V. 2008. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and social psychology bulletin, Vol. 34, issue. 7. Pp. 913-923.
Norman, D. A. 1988. The design of every day things. Basic Books. New York.
Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, S. 2009. Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: Forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Science Communication, Vol. 30. Pp. 305-327.
Oosterhuis, F., Bouma, J, Hanemaaijer, A. 2013. Het rebound effect bij resource efficiency. Published by IVM, Amsterdam, and PBL, Bilthoven.
Osbaldiston, R and Scott, J.P. 2012. Environmental Sustainability and Behavioural Science: Meta-Analysis of Pro-environmental Behaviour Experiments. Environment and Behaviour, Vol 44, issue 2. Pp. 257-299.
Pérez-Lombard L., Ortiz, J., Pout, C., 2008. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Buildings, Vol 40, issue 3. Pp. 394–398.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (Fifth edition). Free Press New York
Sanders E.B.-N. and Stappers P.J., 2008 Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of Co-Creation in Design and the Arts, Vol 4, issue 1. Pp. 5-18.
Sanquist, T. F., Orr, H., Shui, B., & Bittner, A. C., 2012. Lifestyle factors in U.S. residential electricity consumption. Energy Policy, Vol. 42. Pp. 354–364.
Smedby, N. and Neij, L.. 2013. Experiences in urban governance for sustainability: the Constructive Dialogue in Swedisch municipalities. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 50. Pp. 148-158.
Spence, A. and Pidgeon, N.F. 2010. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20. Pp. 656-667.
Stieß, I. and Birzle-Harder, B. 2010. Evaluation der Kampagne Gut beraten starten. Im Auftrag der Klimaschutzagentur Hannover und proKlima – Der enercity – Fonds. Frankfurt am Main
Stieß I and Dunkelberg, E. 2013. Objectives, barriers and occasions for energy efficient refurbishment by private homeowners. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, June. pp. 250-259.
Tassoul, M. 2009. Creative facilitation. VSSD.
Thomsen, A., and Van der Flier, K. 2009. Replacement or renovation of dwellings: the relevance of a more sustainable approach. Building Research & Information, Vol. 37, issue 5-6. Pp 649-659.
Van Boeijen, A., Daalhuizen, J., Zijlstra, J. Van der Schoor, R (eds). 2013. Delft design guide.BIS publishers. Amsterdam.
Vergragt, P., Akenji, l, Dewick, P. 2014. Sustainable production, consumption, and livelihoods: global and regional research perspectives. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 63. Pp. 1-12.
Verplanken, B and Wood, W.. 2006. Interventions to make and break consumer habits. Journal of public Policy and Marketing, Vol 25, issue 1. Pp. 90-103
Westerlund, B., Lindqvist, S., Mackay, W., Sundblad, Y. 2003. Co-design methods for designing with and for families. Proceedings for 5th European Academy of Design Conference in Barcelona, April 2003.
Appendix
This Appendix contains two overview tables.
The key characteristics, general set-up and main results of each Lab are shown in Table A1. The Labs lasted between one and two days, except the last one which lasted half a day.
The overview key information on the control group, as introduced in section 3.2, is shown in Table A2.
Table: A1 Overview of the Labs
Key characteristics
Approach (Process and activities)
Main results
1
Theme/ Link with sustainable renovation: Energy in the built environment
Hosting partner: City of Ludwigsburg (municipality)
Date: October 2009
Participants: Industrial designers, urban planners, municipality civil servants, expert
Goals: (1) inspiring future development of the Weststadt, for the municipality and project developer, (2) let participants learn from each other
Pre-workshop Sensitising assignment
Introduction to design assignment
Tour through area
Personas development
Formulation of vision for the Weststadt area
Elaboration in urban planning and products and services
Presentation on posters to audience of opening of the Sustainability Centre.
Elaboration and documentation of concepts by designers attending the Lab.
Selection of visions for the area, elaborated into products, services and public space designs.
Ideas focused on how to make energy efficiency and sustainable energy production an intrinsic and visual part of the Weststad.
2
Theme/ Link with sustainable renovation: Innovative water use in households
Hosting partner: Ecohouse Antwerp (sustainability centre)
Date: 7 October 2010
Participants: Industrial designers, volunteers of the Sustainability Centre
Goals: (1) Design of product concepts to support water efficiency in households, (2) Participants learn from each other's knowledge, skills and viewpoints
Introduction to design assignment through a movie
Reflection on existing products and design concepts.
Formulation of design challenge in parallel groups
Idea generation through creativity techniques
Definition of requirements for idea selection
Selection of ideas and elaboration in concepts
Presentation to jury
Elaboration and documentation of concepts by the participating industrial designers
Design proposals:
Concept designs for products in the bathroom and toilet using water differently by introducing new practices
Proposal for shift in the water treatment system reducing the volumes of water, includes concept designs of products and services for households
3
Theme/ Link with sustainable renovation: Material use for sustainable renovation
Hosting partner: National Trust Morden Hall Park (Sustainability centre)
Date: 17 July 2011
Participants: Households
Goal: Sensitisation of audience about material use and re-use
Festival stand set-up as a pathway with four steps:
Welcome, inviting people to explore the lifecycle of building materials with a game.
Inspirational examples of materials re-use
'Actions': a) gather information about sustainable building, b) make something out of used materials giving them new value, c) gather information about sustainable lifestyles
Make a commitment to an aspect of sustainable renovation and/or behaviour.
Design of a festival stand
Commitments by visitors for a step towards sustainable living.
4
Theme/ Link with sustainable renovation: Energy renovation, materials and techniques to use
Hosting partner: National Trust Morden Hall Park (Sustainability centre)
Date: November 2011
Participants: Residents, experts (as advisors)
Goals: (1) inspiring (energy) renovation of the resident's home, (2) participants learn from each other (knowledge, experience, skills, viewpoints)
Mapping of values for the home in the future by each participant individually
Discussion of value maps
Drawing vision of ideal future home (e.g. net energy producer)
Roadmap drawing from present to future situation
Tour: exhibition on sustainable living and renovation
Refinement of roadmap
Group discussion about the roadmaps and other topics that came up about sustainable living.
Visions on the future home per participant and a roadmap to achieve that situation.
Booklets with value map, future vision and roadmap, reminding the participants that renovation can be implemented step-by-step.
5
Theme/ Link with sustainable renovation: Dealing with heritage in sustainable renovation
Hosting partner: City of Lille (municipality)
Date: October 2012
Participants: Residents, architects, users of the building under consideration
Goals: (1) knowledge exchange & skill development, (2) participants learn from each other's' knowledge, skills and viewpoints, (3) Design ideas for a particular building
Introduction of goal of workshop
Tour through building that is to be renovated.
During the tour participants place notes on parts of the building they liked and disliked.
Discussion of the notes
Lecture on architectonic values and assessing them
Lecture with examples of sustainable renovations preserving architectonic values
Detailed group assessments of parts of the building
Groups: Renovation design of their part of the building
Presentation of designs to the whole group and discussion of the designs
Elaboration of designs for documentation
Four design proposals for renovation of the building, taking architectonic values into account and at the same time making the building more resource efficient.
6
Theme/ Link with sustainable renovation: Social Resilience, Laying foundation for a climate resilient built environment by strengthening local social networks.
Hosting partner: The White Rose Foundation (sustainability centre)
Date: 19 March 2013
Participants: Members of a diversity of local organisations
Goals: (1) skill development for building social networks that are able to (2) adapt to changing circumstances in local context, (3) develop network strength
Sensitising assignment and inventory questions before workshop about views on resilience, activities and network contacts
Presentation and discussion of combined of responses
Formulation of joint vision of a resilient Delft
Discussion in two groups challenging participants to embed their network, activities, and capacities in the vision on resilient Delft
Filling in Resilience Development Plan
Defining opportunities and actions for the near future concerning contacts and activities
Overview of actors and activities
Ideas for further improvement and synergy among actors and activities.
Network of organisations that know each other better
Some commitments of participants for particular activities and contacts.
Strong willingness to continue with concrete projects
Table A2: information on approaches used for the "control group"
Hosting partner
Reference approach
Description of the approach
Main results of evaluation per reference approach
Municipality of Ludwigsburg
Energy advisory service directed at home owners
Applied expert advice focused on energy measures
High end-user satisfaction, popular sessions
Ecohuis Antwerp
Ecohuis Doctor XXL directed at home owners
Applied experts advice for designing their eco-renovations
Top-down, home owners had to prepare well, expert level varied
Espace Envrionnement -Charleroi
Renoteams directed at Home owners
Forming learning group of end-users who are in the same stage of renovation
Effective peer-learning method; focused on existing technical knowledge and emerging "experience" insights
National Trust - London
Taster days, anyone can join
2 hour session and guided tour by professionals on specific topic
Relatively passive for participants; aimed at increasing base knowledge.
Municipality of Lille
Personal renovation advice directed at Home owners
Expert knowledge applied in detail to personal cases
Personal approach valuable, no peer-learning
The White Rose - Delft
Ecohuis check, directed at anyone who is interested
Web-site containing specific information on techniques and knowledge
Passive, risk of out of date information, people have to assess information and use it
