From radical ecology to consumer-oriented
market approaches?
Kirsten Gram-Hanssen and Jesper Ole Jensen
Gram-Hanssen and Jensen explore the development of green buildings in Denmark over
the last three decades, identifying differences in design philosophies and techniques.
They look at four approaches to green buildings: as energy-saving devices, as ecological
grassroots alternatives, as subsidised large-scale urban projects, and as consumer
products in a market approach. Using detailed case descriptions, the chapter asks to
what extent it is possible to define some buildings or some approaches as more ‘green’
than others. The authors suggest that in order to more fully understand sustainable
buildings we must account for the social structuring of both the identification of environmental
problems and their resulting embodiment in built form.
Introduction
Green buildings in Denmark vary widely with regard to all aspects of physical and social
solutions as well as ideological rationales. Sometimes this has led to controversies
among different actors in respect of the definitions and content of green buildings. We
present these different rationales and describe how each in its own way has contributed
to a general development of green buildings. We argue that a common definition of
green buildings is not necessarily needed and that many different approaches to such
buildings might be more useful than one.
Wew use the term ‘green buildings’ as a unifying and neutral notion of what different
actors in different contexts have described as ‘sustainable’, ‘resource-saving’, ‘ecological’,
‘self-supplying’, ‘natural’, ‘healthy’, etc. However, in some of our case descriptions,
when describing the rationales of actors we use some of their own words. The chapter
looks at four approaches differentiated by different understandings or concepts of
green buildings and by different actors:
• Green buildings as energy-saving devices: after the oil crisis in 1973, strong efforts
were made to develop building technologies to improve energy performance, as
well as regulations for implementing these technologies.
• Ecological alternatives emerging from the grassroots: as a radical critique of
modern society, a number of alternative and green rural settlements grew up in the
1980s and 1990s, emphasising community, self-sufficiency, alternative technologies,
lifestyle and spirituality.
• Subsidised large-scale urban projects: commitment to the 1987 Brundtland
Report created a public drive towards green buildings, aimed at testing, approving
and institutionalising alternative technologies, with ample public funding, primarily
in impressive building projects under the Urban Renewal Act.
• Green buildings in a market approach: in recent years we have seen a trend
towards considering green buildings as individual market-driven consumer products.
Here green labels and life cycle analysis (LCA) tools aim to give consumers a
central role in the development of such products, based on the market and on
ecological modernisation rather than on public subsidies.
The different approaches partly follow a historical path. However, it is important to
note that these approaches and their actors coexist at the same time. A key question is
how far technological development in green buildings has been a matter of interaction
between the physical and the social contexts. As a background to this way of analysing
and presenting the subject, the chapter starts with an introduction to social theories of
technological development, especially in relation to environmental and urban issues.
Very different aspects of green buildings have been emphasised in different historical
periods and by different actors. An actor-oriented approach may ask whether
different notions of green buildings are just a matter of different social constructions or if
it is possible to define them independently of the actors by measuring their degree of
sustainability. In the conclusions we try to answer this question, maintaining on one
hand that we need to measure ‘greenness’ or sustainability but on the other that every
way of measuring it is problematic and limited.
Theoretical approaches to technological development
Different theories help in understanding how technologies develop in relation to the
social environment: the theoretical field known as the social construction of technological
systems (SCOT theories); the theory of ecological modernisation; and new urban
technological studies.
SCOT theories
The zero-energy house of 1975 garnered major national and international attention.
SCOT is a research area that is based on the view that technology is socially
constructed, in opposition to technological determinism, which sees technology and
science each as autonomous and separate from society. This area can be divided into
three approaches (Bijker et al. 1987).
First is the social constructivist approach, which claims that technological artefacts
are open to sociological analysis, especially with respect to their design and technical
content. This approach looks at the social structures behind the growth and assimilation
of a technology. It introduces the concepts of ‘interpretative flexibility’, ‘closure’ and ‘relevant
social groups’, and Bijker’s study of Bakelite is one of the core examples (Bijker
1987).
The second approach treats technology as a ‘system’ metaphor and stresses the
importance of focusing on the links and relations between technology’s physical
artefacts and institutions and their environments. In his study of the electrical system
Hughes argues that technological systems are socio-technical, because besides their
technical elements they also comprise organisation, legislation, knowledge and
financing, woven together into a ‘seamless web’ (Hughes 1987). He distinguishes
between radical and conservative innovations in relation to the existing systems. The
success of the new radical technologies depends on, among other variables, how the
innovators tackle the ‘reverse salients’ – the weak parts of new systems – so that the
166 Alternative design new technology can compete with existing systems. The aim of the ‘system builders’ is
to shape a system by excluding other systems and components and, if successful, by
adding momentum to the system, giving increased stability over time.
The third approach takes the system metaphor a step further, developing ‘actornetwork’
theory, which breaks down the distinction between human and non-human
actors (Callon 1987; Latour 1987). According to this perspective, to create new technology
is to persuade, seduce and motivate actors to participate in a network around
the new technology. One of the studies using this approach looked at electric cars,
an area in which the successful engineer has to combine consumers, ministries and
the battery electrons, convincing them all of the roles they have to play (Callon
1987). A key controversial element in this approach is the consideration of nonhuman
actors, such as electrons, as belonging to the same network as consumers and
engineers.
These SCOT approaches focus on technological development in general, with no
specific emphasis on green or urban technology. We supplement the approach with
insights from theories that follow the same lines but with a more specifically green or
urban viewpoint.
Ecological modernisation
The notion of ecological modernisation brings together discussions of society, ecology
and technology, though it is difficult to say if it is actually a social theory, a political
programme or a broader discourse in the public debate. Hajer distinguishes between
different approaches – or ideal-typical interpretations – to ecological modernisation and
to the reactions against it (Hajer 1998). According to Hajer, a central element in ecological
modernisation is the rationalising of ecology so that it can be built into programmes,
politics and institutions. Another element is about ‘technicalisation’ of ecology, whereby
some of the big international firms, helped by non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
are changing moral and ethical concerns into technology and market issues. In opposition
to this trend, one critic of ecological modernisation questioned: ‘Why try to resolve
the ecological crisis by drawing on precisely those institutional principles that brought
about the mess in the first place?’
Ecological modernisation is often associated simply with more effective production
methods and win–win situations where companies can earn money on cleaner technologies.
According to Spaargaren, however, the central point in ecological modernisation
is not that greening of production can bring profit but that a process of monitoring and
guarding of all the major substances and energy flows follows modernisation, through
the introduction of instruments such as LCAs and environmental performance indicators
(Spaargaren 2000). In this approach, the objective of ecological modernisation is
to bridge the gap between the technical and social environmental sciences, by bringing
real material flows into the over-socialised social sciences and to bring social systems
and human behaviour into the under-socialised natural and technical sciences. Furthermore,
the task as outlined by Spaargaren is to introduce a more consumer-led perspective
into the theories to make an effective tool for analysing domestic consumption of,
say, water and energy. The question that Hajer and other more radical social ecologists
ask is whether ecology is primarily a question of material flow management or whether it
is a cultural task of redefining society. As the case studies demonstrate, questions like
this are prominent in the debate and in the technological development of urban ecology.
Urban technological studies
Ecological modernisation discusses ecology in relation to social and technical questions,
but urban and housing issues have not yet become significant in this area.
Recent studies have rectified this lack. Guy and Shove have used the SCOT
approach, among others, to understand the development of different paradigms for
energy efficiency in buildings (Guy and Shove 2000). Graham and Marvin combine
SCOT theories with spatial political economy to describe recent developments in
urban technologies and state that cities are the greatest ‘socio-technical hybrids’ of
them all (Graham and Marvin 2001). One of the inputs for a spatial or geographical
political economy is Castells’ theory of how urban structures (as well as everything
else) are changed in the new, integrated, globalised society of networks (Castells
1996, 1997, 1998). Castells describes how new information technologies are some
of the prime supporters of global networks of everything from criminals to NGOs and
big international companies. As some of the old structure of the capitalist society fades
away, for example the nation state, new structures built on the power of identity emerge.
Before 11 September 2001, Castells had already described the strength of global
networks of religious fundamentalists and had also described the influence of the global
green movement.
Four paradigms of green building in the Danish context
Using these theories of technological development in an urban and ecological context,
we describe four different paradigms that can be found in the Danish development of
green buildings.
Green buildings as energy-saving devices
The first period of sustainable building in Denmark began in 1956, when the Suez crisis
threatened the country’s oil supply. Denmark was heavily dependent on imported oil for
heating in buildings as well as for all its other energy-consuming activities, so the crisis
gave strong support to researchers’ ideas for increasing the energy efficiency of buildings.
However, the first attempts to gain the attention and support of authorities in regulating
energy efficiency in buildings and to begin research studies in energy efficiency
failed, as the Suez crisis faded and oil prices fell to their lowest point ever. Thus the
development of the first low-energy houses was largely the result of a few visionary and
ambitious people. One such was Professor Korsgaard at the Danish Technical University.
The professor and his colleagues at the Thermal Insulation Laboratory were ready
and able by 1975 to build the zero-energy house, the first solar heated house in
Northern Europe (Fig. 10.1). This gained major national and international attention,
making the zero-energy house one of the most renowned examples of low-energy
houses of its time.
The zero-energy house’s aim was to show that it was possible to build a house at a
reasonable cost with already existing technology and that it could be heated and
provided with hot water simply through the use of solar heat, efficient insulation and
recycling of heat from ventilated air. Theoretically the only external energy supply would
be electricity for normal domestic consumption and for pumps and ventilation. The 120-
square-metre house was supplied with a 42-square-metre solar collector, and hot water for seasonal heat was stored in a 30-cubic-metre insulated water tank, the first of its
kind in Denmark. The house was built with insulation (mineral wool) as the prototype
constructive element, reducing the cold bridges. Other elements included switches to
turn off the convector fan when the windows were opened and a ventilation system with
heat exchangers, a feature widely used today in low-energy buildings. A two-year monitoring
period showed that the house had very low heat consumption, although not quite
zero – one main reason for this was that the heat loss from an underground storage tank
was much higher than expected.
An important factor in the attention given to the zero-energy house was that in the
1960s and 1970s Denmark experienced strong economic growth and the construction
of more than a million new detached houses – an extremely high number, given the
population then of approximately five million. These houses were all built with ample
space, and little consideration was given to energy consumption, and therefore half of
all imported oil was used to heat buildings, making oil a heavy burden on the national
budget. Given this, it is no wonder that the first low-energy buildings were also
designed as detached houses.
The zero-energy house was the first of a series of several other types of low-energy
building in the following years, the most remarkable of which were the Hjortekjærhusene
(six low-energy buildings built in 1978–9) and Skivehusene projects (1977, 1979 and
1984) (see Box 1). These buildings demonstrated potential for energy savings of up to
70 per cent, but with large variations among them. The amount of energy consumed for
heat, although considerably lower than in traditional houses, was often higher than
calculated. Surveys showed that the main source of this was the heat distribution
system and furthermore that the question of heat storage was crucial (Byberg 1984).
This indicated a lack of development of other technical components and the necessity
for a parallel development of the local infrastructure. Moreover, at the end of the 1970s
it was clear that diffusion into the market of the concept of low-energy building was
slow. The whole building market had declined, and low-energy buildings cost more than
traditional buildings, largely due to the fact that anything developed from a prototype will
be relatively expensive (Byberg 1984). On the other hand, findings from these pioneer
low-energy buildings have to a large extent been incorporated into Danish building
regulations and consequently have had a major impact on the construction of new buildings
(Saxhof et al. 1988).
The oil crisis of the 1970s also led to a fundamental restructuring of Danish
energy policy. The Ministry for Energy was formed in 1975, and in 1976 the
Programme for Energy Research was launched, leading over the next 25 years to
massive research and development projects concerning energy efficiency in buildings
and renewable energy (Energistyrelsen 2000). These projects were strongly
influenced by the people who were behind the first low-energy buildings. The development
of low-energy buildings in Denmark can therefore be described not just in
terms of technical development, but also in terms of its basis in an ‘infrastructure’
consisting of political and financial support, institutional security (the Thermal Insulation
Laboratory was established in 1959) and access to influential legislators.
Energy research in Denmark can be characterised as a ‘closed community’ (Guy and
Shove 2000), with close relationships between researchers, ministries and industry
enabling, such influence.
The researchers’ efforts are to some degree parallel to Thomas Hughes’s notion of
‘system builders’ (Hughes 1987). A moot point is whether their low-energy buildings
are to be seen, in Hughes’s terminology, as radical or conservative technology. On
one hand, the ideal was to establish a system that is based on low-energy buildings
and a renewable energy supply, which would mean a radical break with the existing
energy infrastructure. Furthermore, potential ‘reverse salients’ (such as problems with
heat storage) reduced the economic competitiveness of the low-energy buildings. For
those making low-energy buildings it was also a problem to get integrated effort from
the rest of the actors in the building industry. On the other hand, low-energy building
has, in Hughes’s terms, to a large extent been institutionalised, as basic concepts
have now been incorporated in building regulations, and must accordingly be considered
a conservative technology. This viewpoint also reflects a certain flexibility in the existing system (in spite of the momentum, according to Hughes), allowing change
and adaptation to new demands, rather than requiring the substitution of a whole new
system.
Although the low-energy building approach peaked, in terms of public attention, in
the 1970s, the funding, research and influence on building regulations have remained
until today, and there has also been a major diffusion of technologies to other types of
sustainable buildings. Recently, however, funding for energy research has, for the first
time since the energy crises in 1973, been drastically reduced, which implies a radical
change for low-energy building and research. But from 1985 ‘sustainability’ widely
replaced ‘energy saving’ as the key term in green buildings. This was due to the
Brundtland Report, which made possible a much broader interpretation of the themes
and technologies relating to green buildings.
Grassroots alternatives
A very different approach to green buildings is found in grassroots and citizen-initiated
projects (Box 2). The catchwords for the technology of this approach are closed cycles
and self-sufficiency, with inspiration coming from similar actors all over the world. Water
and waste should be recycled, energy locally produced from renewable resources and,
very importantly, the technologies should be organised in neighbourhoods to
strengthen and revitalise local social life. The ecological vision is followed by a social
vision of a more holistic everyday life – a life that is not split between work, family and
home. In this sense the urban ecological movement follows in the footsteps of the
collectivist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and is a reaction against the lifestyle of
detached suburban houses. Furthermore, for some at the grassroots there is a spiritual
dimension to the relationship between humans and nature; for others there is an ethical
concern for future generations. Common to both groups is that human–nature relationships
need to be reconsidered.
Green buildings in Denmark 171
Box 2: Examples of grassroots or citizen-initiated projects
Projects in existing neighbourhoods
Baggesensgade 5 (Copenhagen) 1983
Hyldespjældet (Albertslund) c.1988
Vestergror (Copenhagen) 1988
BO-90 (Copenhagen) 1992
Øko-byen (Copenhagen) 1984
New-build eco-villages
Bofællesskabet Sol og vind (Beder)1980
Dyssekilde (Torup) 1990
Andelssamfundet (Hjortshøj) 1992
Munksøgård (Roskilde) 2000
Friland (Djursland) 2002
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment