A case study to evaluate the occupants' satisfaction in relation to two different control strategies (fully automatic and manual) for blind and ceiling lights use in cell offices was carried on in Trondheim, Norway. A group of 11 participants with varying age, gender, and ethnicity, used two test cells of a laboratory as a workspace primarily carrying out office tasks at a personal computer for a total of 19 calendar days. The participants were asked to answer a computer-based questionnaire for reporting their perceived thermal and visual comfort. Concurrently, measurements of the indoor operative temperature, illuminance level, and operation of windows, blinds, and ceiling lights were registered. Results shows that the use of the automatic control strategy led to a higher visual discomfort, which in addition led to a higher thermal discomfort, despite this last not caused by a higher average operative temperature. Header of solarlits.com

The Research Centre for Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart cities has established a concept for living labs. Central to the concept is an experimental format that offers some control over the social and physical environment, as well as opportunities to observe and engage during a limited period. According to Bulkeley et al. 2018, an experiment offers a means to make sense of the present whilst also providing a vision of the future [1]. The paper asks, what are the implications for users when engaging with experiments and presents results from a ZEN living lab experiment that took place at Campus Evenstad in Hedmark, Norway. Technical management at Evenstad proposed the experiment, they wanted to test if it was possible to reduce campus energy consumption and the starting point was the old administration building, which has the highest energy consumption on campus. The energy use reduction was to be achieved by turning off the building’s heating and ventilation systems during a limited four-week period. This took place in July 2018, when the building users were expected to be on holiday or doing fieldwork. A workshop to anchor the experiment among building users took place a month before the experiment started. During the workshop challenges associated with the experiment and with the building, for users, became apparent. However, building users agreed to participation in the experiment because they saw it as an opportunity to highlight what they understood as necessary changes to the building. The experiment achieved the energy saving potential that the building managers envisioned, but the results for the building users are less tangible. From a pragmatist approach, living labs and their experiments are about providing solutions, but the Evenstad example highlights the challenge of providing tangible solutions and how we engage users with more intangible future solutions. We discuss therefore the limitations and potentials associated with the experimental format. Moving beyond demonstrating what a sustainable future should look like and include [1p.1], and instead noting opportunities for the translation of societal learning into concrete actions that serve the user groups engaged as well as demonstrating, the potential to influence wider sustainable transitions.

A zero emission building (ZEB), as defined by the Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB Centre) in Norway, is one solution towards achieving the aims set by the Paris Climate Agreement on dramatically reducing carbon emissions. The structure for a zero emission building includes a variety of technical strategies such as passive and active energy design and renewable energy sources, and is currently under development and testing. Many of the future ZEBs will become homes, implying a change in the use and understanding by those living there. Based on the response from six residential groups who lived in ZEB Living Lab, this paper studies how zero-emission housing technology impacts the use and understanding of it as a home. The paper presents two different interpretations, one that felt at home, and one that did not, and discusses the reasons and implications on the wider use and introduction of this kind of housing technology in Norway.

This paper follows the process of developing a pilot project at Lø in Steinkjer, where a zero emission neighbourhood was planned and which included the upgrading of the old offices of the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK) to a zero emission kindergarten. The decision-making process up to March 2018 is described. When the decision to demolish the NRK building and build a new kindergarten at Lø was made, stopping plans for a ZEN pilot project. The decision was based on the wishes of representatives from two kindergartens who were to be co-located in the planned zero emission kindergarten. The paper asks why two different understandings of the needs of the project were established and proposes solutions for avoiding disaffection with projects with high energy and environmental ambitions during the early stages of the development process. Method. An ethnographic process was carried out by the Research Centre for Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities (ZEN Centre) in collaboration with Steinkjer Municipality in Norway in 2017 and 2018. The process included participant observation, individual semi-structured interviews and group interviews. Results. During the planning process, the representatives from the kindergartens experienced that they were not heard, and that the needs of the building users were peripheral to the discussions taking place. When the chairmanship of Steinkjer Municipality took the decision to demolish the old NRK building and build a new kindergarten at Lø, the kindergarten representatives finally felt that user needs were in focus. The process is presented and discussed in the form of two main stories. (1) The citizen’s story about the kindergarten at Lø, where the kindergarten representatives’ reasons for their request for a new, rather than upgraded kindergarten building, are told. (2) The story about the ZEN pilot project in Steinkjer, that is external, and concept based. In this story, the reasons for the enthusiasm for the pilot project by Steinkjer municipality and ZEN researchers are explained.

Aesthetic Preference as Starting Point for Citizen Dialogues on Urban Design: Stories from Hammarkullen, Gothenburg

The introduction of technical solutions and the phasing out of unsustainable technologies in Elverum, a small town in the middle of the Norwegian forest, is the starting point for this discussion about homelife and why it can be resistant to change. Sustainable ambitions, goals, and solutions are inspired by the challenges faced by urban neighborhoods, but rural communities are also dealing with the sustainable transition and require opportunities for change that are relevant within their particular context. This article takes an emic insider view of how innovative, and potentially more sustainable technology, affects homelife by considering four main themes: choosing where to live; relationships with cars; leisure activities; and how Ydalir—a zero-emission neighborhood being planned in Elverum—is understood within this context. Rather than smoothing over variations in needs and preferences inside and outside urban and rural contexts, engaging with differences helps to avoid misunderstandings and disappointments. The goal is to encourage a co-production of meaning when approaching the challenge of achieving goals for sustainable futures. Furthermore, associations between homelife and social sustainability offer a site where the sustainable practice is strong. Many rural communities already possess qualities, such as equity, social engagement, inclusion, social interaction, safety, and security. We propose that starting with social sustainability, rather than technical innovation, has the potential to encourage sustainable practices in rural communities, thereby increasing the appropriation and domestication of sustainable ambitions outside of urban contexts.