Francart, N; Höjer, M; Mjörnell, K; Orahim, A S; von Platten, J and Malmqvist, T (2020) Sharing indoor space: Stakeholders' perspectives and energy metrics. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), pp. 70-85. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The sharing of indoor space can improve space and energy efficiency. The drivers and barriers to space-sharing initiatives are investigated from the perspectives of building users and building sector practitioners, based on interviews and a workshop. The role of energy performance metrics in promoting space efficiency is further analysed through a literature review. From the users' perspective, space sharing can be understood through the interplay between tangible aspects (e.g. concrete benefits derived from sharing), organisational aspects (e.g. common decision processes and conflict resolution) and social aspects (e.g. group identity and consensus on appropriate behaviours). From the perspective of architects and property owners, shareable spaces require features such as flexibility and multifunctionality. The design of such spaces is limited by regulatory issues (e.g. building regulations poorly accommodate shared facilities) and business-related issues. One such issue is that building performance metrics normalised based on floor area do not incentivise the efficient use of space. A review of complementary metrics is provided, covering parameters such as number of users, layout, time of use, etc. Each metric serves a particular purpose; therefore, a set of complementary metrics can be used to support decisions at different phases of the building’s life cycle. Practice relevance Improving space efficiency (e.g. by sharing indoor space) is a key strategy to meet simultaneously the future demand for facilities in cities and fulfil environmental objectives such as a reduction of climate change impact in the building sector. A clearer understanding of the specificities of space sharing is provided from the perspectives of building users and practitioners. This will assist practitioners to understand the needs of other stakeholders. Regulatory and business-related barriers to space-sharing initiatives are highlighted as a first step towards overcoming these barriers. Guidance is provided on complementary energy performance metrics appropriate for space efficiency. These metrics can be used to support various decisions during the different stages of a building's life cycle.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-housing; coworking; energy; indicator; metric; sharing; space efficienc |
| Index terms: | organizational aspect, climate change, housing, social aspect, energy performance, identity, architect, practitioner, property owner, decision process, building performance, life cycle, literature review, conflict resolution, strategy, workshop, efficiency, energy efficiency, interview, building regulation |
| Subjects: | management, performance management, regulatory law, quality assurance, conflict resolution, sociology, decision analysis, value management, practitioner, climate science, construction type, profession, data collection methods, business, energy systems, data analysis and analytics, sustainability and energy |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Construction Technology, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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