Eit levande laboratorie-eksperiment Korleis bebuarar samhandlar med eit avansert nullutsleppsbygg Marius Korsnes Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture Thomas Berker Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture Ruth Woods SINTEF Building Research
Labeksperiment kva er det?
Agenda What do we want to achieve? Research rationale How did we proceed? Method and theory What are our results? Preliminary findings
HOW DO THEY INFLUENCE EACH OTHER??
Who is the user? End-users are people and people are unpredictable The problem with humans: Behavioural plasticity Example: Folk theories and folk labels Most energy efficiency policies assume perfectly rational actors Information, cost efficiency, available technology This is not necessarily the case The rebound effect Ending up with higher or equal energy use with energy saving/efficient technologies: connected with use! Users: important for the potential success and the potential energy savings of a ZEB!
Cross-cut of the Trondheim Living Lab Source: Luca Finocchiaro, NTNU
ZEB Living Lab, Trondheim 100 m² living area ZEB-OM (Operation and Materials) Building integrated photovoltaics: 80 m 2 Solar panel in the facade Ground to water heat pump Heat recovery system (Flexit) PCM in the roof (DuPont) VIP in sliding doors (NorDan) Reflective vapor barrier (Isola) Mixed mode ventilation (Sapa, VELUX, and Caverion) LED Lights (NorDesign)
Display for heat control NB: Most functions for automation were not enabled during the residency time
Theory Practice theory (Shove et al. 2012) 1. materials 2. meanings 3. competencies Domestication theory (Sørensen 2006) Allows a focus on three main features: 1. the practices that are constructed around the use of a technology, 2. the meanings that are constructed in connection to the technology, and 3. the cognitive processes connected with learning a practice Scripts and anti-programmes (Akrich 1992; Latour 1992)
Domestication and a process of normalisation
Practices and their continuation
Living Lab - definition Definition by Voytenko, McCormick, Evans, & Schliwa (2015): Geographical embeddedness Experimentation and learning User engagement and co-creation Leadership and ownership Evaluation and refinement Living Lab: a user-centered method for prototyping and validating complex solutions in what was intended to be as natural a user environment as possible, "a real-life context" (Cruz-Cunha, et al. 2009).
Research Design Qualitative experiments (Robinson and Mendelson 2012) elements of experimental design fused with qualitative strategies 6 groups, 25 days per residential group Group # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Category Student Student Family with children Elderly Family with children Elderly Details Male and female couple, 22 years old. Live in a 52 m2 student apartment. Two female friends, 20 and 21 years old. Live in a shared apartment, built 1905, with three other girls. Mother 31 years old and father 36. Son 6 years old and daughter 2. Live in an attached house of 185m2, built 2007 Husband 81 and wife 68. Live in a detached house of 170 m2. Mother 31 years old and father 37. Two daughters of 3 and 2 years old. Live in a detached house of 135 m2. Husband 61 and wife 56. Live in a detached house of about 120 m2, built 1959
Data Interviews before, during and after stay Anthropologist visiting at odd times Self-photography Diaries Energy and indoor climate data, logged every 30 second
Diaries
Self-filming
Guestbook
Unexpected discoveries The importance of relaxing at home The way in which the practice of relaxing could be performed was crucial to how people accepted the house This impacted overall acceptance One negative quickly multiplies to more One family experienced a faulty heating system when temperatures were low (-20 deg C) this impacted the their experience with many other technologies in the house People reduced their amount of things After coming home, all groups said they felt they had too many things!
Preliminary findings Occupants adapted to the building Sleeping with closed windows Stable temperature Wood firing Invisible comfort Occupants adapted the building to their everyday life High-energy use with certain activities (e.g shower, parties etc) One group brought their own heating device
Sockets selected weeks Energibruk time for time [Wh/uke] 4 500 4 000 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 4 500 4 000 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 4 500 4 000 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 4 500 4 500 4 500 4 000 4 000 4 000 3 500 3 500 3 500 3 000 3 000 3 000 2 500 2 500 2 500 2 000 2 000 2 000 1 500 1 500 1 500 1 000 1 000 1 000 500 500 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 Socket livingroom south and entrance Livingroom north Kitchen Bedrooms Bathroom 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
Conclusions for ZEB New ways of temperature control can be unfamiliar to occupants E.g. speed of temp increase/responsive system Should be kept flexible to reach broad spectre of people Interior design choices may impact overall experience of building and ZEB technologies All groups loved LED lights and wood panels and all groups were dissatisfied with kitchen layout Allowing more space for change in indoor design will give greater space for individual choice Few of the occupants' experiences can be connected directly to the fact that the building is a zero emission building