Tummers-Mueller, L C (2017) Learning from co-housing initiatives: Between Passivhaus engineers and active inhabitants. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.
Abstract
Following the UN world summits on Climate Change (Paris 2015) and Habitat (Quito 2016), most European cities assume an active role to implement internationally agreed goals related to climate change, translated in the so-called New Urban Agenda. At the same time, the urban housing market is increasingly inaccessible for low- and middle-income households. To overcome problems such as failing housing supply and high energy-bills, groups of residents take initiatives to create and manage housing projects collectively; these initiatives are further indicated as 'co-housing'. The aim of this study is to create deeper understanding of the current rise of co-housing in Europe, and what it could mean in urban policies addressing energy transition and climate change. There are two domains where co-housing can become an important asset for urban development: design and maintenance of (semi-)public space for climate change mitigation, and the transition to a circular metabolism in housing. Based on empirical data, this thesis concludes that co-housing projects present relevant models and approaches for reducing the energy consumption and for integrating renewable energies in the general housing stock. Engineers can learn from co-housing pioneers to advance the targets for energy-transition and further develop sustainable cities. The thesis contributes to the emerging body of knowledge with a new understanding of co-housing, analysing its 'key-features' with an interdisciplinary framework, in a European context. It adds a new perspective to existing co-housing research, which is dominated by social sciences, by drawing attention to the physical characteristics of co-housing, produced in architectural, planning and engineering processes (the technosphere). The choices made during design and building are not only shaped by the residents' aims and perception of sustainability, but also influenced by technosphere-related institutions, such as the building-components industry, energy or waste networks and providers, and planning regulations. The professional partners for the projects, such as housing associations and engineers, are equally affected by the institutional context, but their position is different from that of residents. They may for example be more anchored in governmental or professional regulations.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | van den Dobbelsteen, A A J F and van Bueren, Ellen |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-housing; sustainable housing; energy transition; community-led housing; circular economy; urban development |
| Index terms: | housing association, household, engineer, housing stock, Paris, renewable energy, Europe, body of knowledge, housing, design and building, energy consumption, circular economy, social science, public space, sustainable housing, mitigation, income, Passivhaus, urban development, regulation, urban policy, housing research, drawing, physical characteristic, sustainable city, climate change, housing project |
| Subjects: | climate science, sustainable design, profession, financial risk, physical geography and landforms, energy efficiency, demography, material properties and characteristics, design process, knowledge management, institutional client, Geography, urban planning, technical documentation, urban design, political science, urban design and public space, housing and residential development, theoretical framing, energy systems, economic analysis, industry analysis, construction type |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Information Management, Cost Management, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here