Socio-technical Experiments as Agents of Systemic Change Energy-neutral building in Boston Halina Szejnwald Brown Clark University, USA Philip Vergragt.

Socio-technical Experiments as Agents of Systemic

Change

Energy-neutral building in Boston

Halina Szejnwald BrownClark University, USA

Philip VergragtTellus Institute, USA

Context

Built environment: a third of energy consumption

Within reach: 5-fold reduction energy use in buildings

Requires radical departure from current common practices

Great Potential

Well established standards (LEED, Energy Star)

Showpiece examples Technologies ready for adoption Visible topic among professionals Trade shows, publications, publicity, the

media Government subsidies (modest)

Disconnect between knowledge and technology --- actual practice.

Radical efficiency improvements (above 50%) rare

Residential sector hardly touched by the trend

Technologies underutilized

Consumers not the engine of change Real estate agents not interested Private developers not interested

Reasons complex Market failure

Costs, benefits, risks, externalities,etc. Systemic failure

Problem definition, standardization, communication, cooperation, institutional inertia

Policy failure Leadership, priorities, instruments,

contradictory policies Technology failure

Mostly in integration and practice

Three Propositions Architects, engineers, developers

instrumental to close gap

Higher order learning needed: re-frame professional roles, practices, relationships to other key actors

Small scale experiments can contribute to higher order learning

Case study in South Boston

Private developer with a vision 80-unit elegant building next to

renovated “Old Distillery” 20% energy consumption Zero use of fossil fuels Massachusetts climate: a hard test

Developer: capitalist-social activist-scholar Vision: innovation in process, product, end-use

Alliance of business, professions, civil society, local government

Participative egalitarian process ________________________________________

Contribute to sustainability: zero fossil fuels Test maximum number of technologies_________________________________________ Contribute to distributive justice Create a future community of like-minded

individuals: wealth not equivalent with high energy consumption

________________________________________ Do well while doing good

THE DIS

TILLE

RY

PROTOYPE 2 - INTERIOR

Evolution of technologies and design:

Energy source: CHP cogeneration with restaurant waste oil Insulation: building minimizes surface-to-floor area ratio Passive solar: glass porch; solar thermal in roof; shutters;

louvers Bringing in daylight: from light tubes to atriums and

heliostats Design around atriums: introverted or extraverted

community? Lifestyles and community building: greenhouse, winter

tomatoes Interface with street: from art studios to commerce &

innovation center Transportation: car sharing – electricity for cars – other

vehicles – public transport Cooling: diurnal ice -- seasonal ice -- ground water

Evolution of team: Core Team

Developer:Architect 1Architect 2

Architect 3: Chief Architect 4:

Urban Planner:

Energy Consultant 1Energy Consultant 2

Energy Consultant 3:

Biofuel grass roots organizer Resident artists

Heliostat specialist Staff Engineer Solar Specialist Building Manager Project Manager

Framework for studying learning

(drawing on Schön, Fischer, and Grin)

Four levels of discourse:1. Problem solving2. Problem definition3. Interpretive frames4. Worldview

Learning in experiment is enhanced:

Diverse participants bring different worldviews, interpretive frames, problem definitions, technical skills

The above confront each other: discourse occurs

Discourse leads to learning: through reflection and self assessment

Shared vision: facilitates interaction; encourages repeated trial-and-error behavior

Sense of urgency: encourages trial-and-error

Learning in this experiment On team level:

Turnover until similar worldviews and interpretive frames…..

…congruency among problem definitions On individual level:

Changes in problem definitions (mostly) Changes in interpretive frames Re-thinking of core professional practices

Examples of Individual Learning Developer changed problem definition

From egalitarianism to leadership From technologies driving the design

to co-evolution of technology and design Architect 4 changed interpretive frame

From diverse team to interactive process From wanting architects to be better leaders

to seeing architects as integrators and facilitators Urban Planner changed problem definition

From building adapting to neighborhoodto co-designing the building and neighborhood

Energy Consultant changed problem definition From energy balance driving the design

to co-evolution of energy system and design

Diffusion of learning? Participants go to new projects Participants interact with their

communities of practice Model for replication or inspiration Impact on occupants Object for education

Conclusions Radical innovation in buildings:

technologic innovation + synthesis In this type of innovation

higher order learning is crucial process as important as product

Experiments contribute to systemic change at the level of communities of practice and institutions

Policy implications Support BSTEs (bounded socio-

technical experiments), in addition to regulations and incentives

Support making connections between experiments

Cultivate champions and visionaries Lead through inspiring and coherent

vision