139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
The aim of this book is to deepen the knowledge of dynamic evolution of professional practices (recomposition of knowledge and know-how, inter-relations, strategic positioning) taking place at the time of the injunction to energy efficiency in the design field, construction and management of real estate. From their experience feedback, the challenge of this book is to question the logic of innovation, to enlighten the dynamic learning and renewal of professional skills.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 635
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contributions and Acknowledgements
Introduction
1 A Look at “Performance” Buildings: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Professionals
1.1. Stakeholders for understanding the challenges of energy, the climate and the environment
1.2. The survey of building professionals in France
2 Uneasiness Among Professionals: Multiple Obstacles
2.1. A host of constraints
2.2. Prometheus syndrome: The belief in new techniques as a silver bullet
2.3. The “Exquisite Corpse” syndrome: segmentation and the challenges and actors
2.4. From experimentation to standardization… and its adverse effects
2.5. Multi-criteria testing: The “trajectory” of problems and solutions
2.6. From a crisis of obstacles, to the devices and the resources needed for a transition
3 The Characteristics of the Pioneers: Trajectories, Construction, and the Advancement of Their Skills
3.1. Adherence to ecological values and the broad array of systems for engagement
3.2. Construction, distribution and adaptation of knowledge, expertise and skills
Appendix: Selection of First-Hand Accounts from Building Area Participants
Alain Bornarel
Alexandre da Silva
Frank Dimitropoulos
Michaël Fournier
Jean-Marc Gary
Françoise-Hélène Jourda
Milena Karanesheva and Mischa Witzmann
Yves Lion
Bertrand Montarou
Marine Morain
Vincent Pierré
Laurent Vacher-Bruel
Jean-Luc Vallade
Delphine Saint-Quentin
Marika Frenette
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
1 A Look at “Performance” Buildings: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Professionals
Table 1.1. Summary: The building sector and its participants, an important scale to study the interrelationships of scales surrounding the environmental, climate and energy-related challenges. This representation of the scalar challenges allows the reader to conceptualize the interrelationships through a mapping of these relations from the global to the micro-territorial levels. It allows for a better understanding of the complexity of the climate and energy issues that face building professionals.
Table 1.2. The subjects and research approaches taken by the authors
Table 1.3. Summary diagram
2 Uneasiness Among Professionals: Multiple Obstacles
Table 2.1. The transition from experimentation to standardization
List of Illustrations
1 A Look at “Performance” Buildings: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Professionals
Figure 1.1. The tangled web of the various planning documents that impact energy and climate challenges. The point of the arrow indicates the document to be taken into account or with which the other document must be compatible, in cases where the PLHs and PDUs are not included in the PLUs. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/molina/building.zip
Figure 1.2. The changes in energy requirements of heating regulations and labels over time. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/molina/building.zip
Figure 1.3. Disciplinary tropism. Created by: Geraldine Molina, 2016
3 The Characteristics of the Pioneers: Trajectories, Construction, and the Advancement of Their Skills
Figure 3.1. A selection of the associations cited by the interviewees in the Appendix For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/molina/building.zip
Figure 3.2. The homes of the pioneering architects: learning and showcasing expertise. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/molina/building.zip
Figure 3.3. Examples of inspiring works given by the professionals. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/molina/building.zip
Figure 3.4. Individual solar house ‘Les Perdrigals’ in Treilles (Aude, France) : a pioneer project in France. Project type: self-renovation. Realization: 1977. Conception(design): Michel Gerber.
Figure 3.5. Les Perdrigals individual solar house in Treilles (Aude): pioneering project in France. Type of project: self-restoration. Completion: 1977. Design: Michel Gerber.
Figure 3.6. Description of the elements comprising the project.
Figure 3.7. Residential Project Nine Maisonadundee (Illinois, USA): A cross between the traditional American home and bioclimatic architecture. Completion: 1970. Design: Michel Gerber.
Figure 3.8. Some of the bibliographical references of the pioneers. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/molina/building.zip
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
C1
iii
iv
v
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
327
328
G1
G2
G3
e1
Series Editor
Alain Dollet
Building Professionals Facing the Energy Efficiency Challenge
Géraldine Molina
Marjorie Musy
Margot Lefranc
First published 2018 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2018
The rights of Géraldine Molina, Marjorie Musy and Margot Lefranc to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017952075
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-149-9
Contributions and Acknowledgements
The writing of this work was done as part of a collaboration at the Institut de Recherche en Sciences et Techniques de la Ville, FR CNRS 2488. It comes after an exploratory survey carried out in the Tipee project, financed as part of a call for expression of interest by ADEME1. To instill the work with an element of greater consequence, the authors sought to continue the survey of groundbreaking professionals and the analysis of the results obtained. The interviews were conducted by Geraldine Molina and transcribed by Margot Lefranc, the results of which were cross-examined with those obtained from observations of the participation and the visits made to active operations. In order to provide more interdisciplinary insight on these survey results and to conduct an analysis of the social and physical phenomena observed using a multi criteria approach, the analysis was thus performed by the three authors of this work: Géraldine Molina, Margot Lefranc and Marjorie Musy. This complementary work, spanning a period of 2 years, was possible thanks to the financial support of the Ecole Centrale Nantes, the Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Nantes and l’Institut de Recherche en Sciences et Techniques de la Ville (Fr CNRS 2488).
Therefore, the authors wish to thank in particular:
– the professionals who have instilled their confidence in us by providing us their testimonies and experiences during the interviews and visits. They have also taken part in the proofreading and the work of bringing this project up to date for publication. Additionally we wish to thank the professionals with whom we had exchanges during conferences or training in various contexts on research results, and who thus helped to enrich our analyses and to further confirm our results;
– the funders and partners of the Tipee project during which seeds of the project were sown, including Florian Battezzati, Adrien Dhalluin, Maxime Doya and Isabelle Calmet: they made an interdisciplinary introduction to the social sciences possible, and have given them a kind welcome;
– Ecole Centrale Nantes, the Research laboratory Audencia-Centrale Nantes Rn'B Lab, the École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Nantes and the Institut de Recherche en Sciences et Techniques de la Ville (Fr CNRS 2488) which, after the Tipee project, supported the research. Naturally, our thoughts go out to Arnaud Poitou, Director of the École Centrale de Nantes, Jean-Yves Hascoët, Director of Research of the ECN, André Sobczak, Academic Director of Audencia and Miruna Radu Lefebvre, Director of the laboratoire R'nB Lab, for their warm welcome, their interest, and the support they have given us in this research;
– Christine Lamberts (ESO Nantes, CNRS 6590) for her precious help in the production of maps;
– the social science researchers to whom we presented our results, and with whom we carried out exchanges during seminars, international conferences and symposia, notably as part of the network
Sociologie de l’Energie
, or the more informal discussions we have had, including with Marie-Christine Zelem, Christophe Bernardo, Christèle Assegond, and Jean-Philippe Fouquet;
– the publishing house ISTE and the many people who collaborate with us, who have actively follow-up in the follow-up, the proofreading and formatting of this manuscript, in order to make its publication possible.
1
Tipee is a technology platform dedicated to building restoration and has been awarded the
Appel à Manifestations d’Intérêt
(AMI) (call for expressions of interest) from the ADEME, “Energy Positive Neighborhoods and Buildings and islands with a minimum carbon balance” as part of the “Investments for the Future” initiative launched by the French government at the end of 2009. Tipee is also funded by the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) and is part of the national Grenelle Building-Energy Platforms, from the Sustainable Building Plan.
http://www.plateforme-tipee.com/plateforme-batiment-durable-tipee/Université
de La Rochelle, LaSIE Laboratory, Agglomeration Community of La Rochelle, Cluster Eco Habitat, Novabuild, Alliance 2i, IRSTV, group Ridoret, CTICM, Eiffage Construction, Soprema, Ateliers Megumi & Associates, Saint Gobain, Cel, RCP, AIA Studio Environnement, Case Home.
IntroductionBuilding Professionals Confronting Energy and Environmental Quality Challenges: Outlooks on a Changing Field of Skills and Practices in France
The reduction of energy consumption and the improvement of energy performance are now critical goals for builders actively involved in the production and management of buildings, whether in the renovation of existing building stock or the construction of new buildings. A significant arsenal of standards, labels and certifications (the HQE, Haute Qualité Environnementale, and the RT 20121, Réglementation Thermique 2012, generalizing the BBC, the Passiv'Haus, Minergie, Bepos…) has been put in place to try to ensure greater energy efficiency in buildings, creating new constraints and fields of possibility for the building industry stakeholders.
Since the beginning of the 2010s, the evaluation of a number of pioneering operations and the widespread usage of so-called “high performance” solutions has been launched. As a result of this, many discrepancies have now been found between the theoretical, calculated, and expected energy performance for an operation and the actual nature of the results that can be observed in the field. The work presented here comes in addition to approaches taken via the evaluation of technical devices and systems, or works on the divergences between the expected and actual forms of building occupancy. It addresses this assessment by allowing the professionals who manufacture and manage these buildings to share their points of view.
This book presents the results of a survey conducted on French professionals engaged in specific implementations of high performance energy techniques in the building industry over a period of several years. We present the results of the survey of professionals, and a selection of testimonials from professionals (in the appendix). With roots in different and complementary disciplinary backgrounds (i.e. the social sciences, civil engineering and architecture), the three authors have thus compiled a crosswise reading of the processes through which the issue of energy challenges is brought up to date using specific cases in the production and management of buildings. The testimonials allow us to trace the biographical trajectory and create a profile of the interviewees, and then to review some of their main achievements.
Therefore, the first objective of this work is to provide the reader with deeper knowledge of the professional expertise, skills and practices’ evolution dynamics that are taking place at a time when a response is ordered to contemporary energy challenges (energy efficiency, reduction of energy consumption and energy transition), in the design, construction and management of the existing building stock. How should the knowledge, expertise and relationships among professionals and between professionals and others be reconstituted, and what strategic positions are observed among building professionals? Its second goal is to allow practitioners, teachers, researchers, students at architectural schools, engineering schools and universities of different disciplinary backgrounds to benefit from feedback and the reflexive efforts of actors, some of which arise as precursors and with the benefit of hindsight with regard to their practice. To this end, the approach taken involves bringing to light the practical problems encountered in the field by participants in the building industry, as well as the mechanisms and resources for the effective improvement of the manufacturing and management of buildings which they have mobilized in response to energy-related issues. These professionals question the processes of design, construction and management as well as constructive mechanisms, technical systems and the relationship with users and their ways of living in these buildings.
Chapters 1 to 3 offer the reader the chance to take a look at energy-efficient buildings: this part of the book presents the context of the survey conducted and its main results. The chapters focus on the stumbling blocks, barriers and the factors leading to failure, but also on the mechanisms and resources that enable builders in practical work situations to build energy-efficient buildings. A cross-cutting analysis of the feedback on the work situation and the professional’s careers allows for features that define the pioneers and the successes of the operations to be identified. To this end, this part of the book analyzes the competencies (knowledge, expertise and tools, relational and inter-professional dynamics) and the way in which they are updated in the practices of active members of the building industry.
In the appendix, we give the stakeholders involved in the implementation of energy performance solutions a chance to share their views and ideas. Their work is a testament to their critically important capabilities given their experience and the ways building and production are being reinvented, and in many cases, a keen awareness of the knowledge possessed and uses made by the building’s occupants. These actors carry out various activities in the construction chain (project owners, project managers, project administrators, designers, technicians, workers, maintenance providers, etc.). They work within structures that are representative of the diversity of the current manufacturing methods of buildings2.
On the basis of their feedback, the challenge in creating this work is to question the logic of innovation, to shed light on the dynamics of learning and the renewal of professional skills. What are we able to learn from these stakeholders in order to think more effectively about the design and implementation of energy performance, in taking into account the constraints, practices, representations and perceptions of the participants in the construction chain, whether they are professionals or inhabitants? What are the mechanisms and stumbling blocks for more effectively bringing together the issues of lifestyles in the design, implementation and maintenance of buildings to ensure better energy performance?
1
Haute Performance Energétique
(HPE), which can be translated as High Energetic Performance and
Réglementation Thermique
(RT) which means the thermal regulation.
2
For example, independently or within large industrial groups.
1A Look at “Performance” Buildings: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Professionals
1.1. Stakeholders for understanding the challenges of energy, the climate and the environment
1.1.1.The virtues of active building professionals entering into participation
1.1.1.1. From buildings…
In France, the “building” field currently finds itself at the center of public policies, in particular the TEPCV Law1, which positions the building sector as one of the main drivers for achieving energy efficiency objectives. In fact, this sector, a sector responsible for 44% of France’s final energy consumption2, is also a significant contributor to the economy (7% of GDP). As a result, the challenges involved in the construction and restoration of buildings are the focus of many actions in different domains: in politics, regulation, research, but also in terms of practices regarding programming, design, manufacturing and the management of real estate assets.
In this sense, building corresponds to a spatial scale that is particularly pertinent for thinking about the response strategies that companies can put in place to combat climate change and reduce their use of non-renewable resources. The solutions that builders implement in this sector to reduce energy consumption therefore involve major social, political and scientific issues in order to observe, understand and improve the adaptation of societies and territories to the environmental challenges of the 21st Century.
In light of these issues, over the past 30 years, many studies and investigations in France have generated knowledge on particular points identified as impediments to improving the energy performance of buildings: wall insulation materials, ventilation, heating and cooling systems, etc. In parallel and often in collaboration with researchers, stakeholders from throughout the construction industry have sought to respond to these issues regarding economic and energy efficiency, and in a broader sense, to the environment, producing buildings that are “efficient”, “economical”, “green”, “sustainable”, “frugal”, “low consumption”, “passive” and “positive energy”, often by making an entry using implementations that are pioneering or considered “exemplary”. Studies have also focused on characterizing these implementations. An action campaign was carried out in 2011 on a set of roughly 10 buildings built within the framework of Europe’s Concerto program to compare the projected energy performance for these buildings and the energy performance measured after their construction [ENE 11]. The Agence Qualité Construction (Construction Quality Agency)3 has also conducted a major nationwide survey on a large number of buildings since 2010 to analyze the sustainable construction experiences, and has regularly published updated reports and information sheets on the points to take precautions against and the good practices to be implemented [AGE 14]. In 2016, the Agency also published a report specifically focusing on the prevention and remediation of the risks of radon and another report specifically on bio-sourced materials, to take stock of the experiences from Alsace in 20154 [AGE 16a, AGE 16b]. In this way, “green” office buildings have been analyzed, calling into question their real performance with regard to their estate value and certification [CAR 11]. Summarizing the conclusions of the measures carried out by Enertech, Gaetan Brisepierre, a sociologist specializing in energy, continued the investigation to question the social and organizational processes that explain the discrepancies between the purported performance and the actual performance in three pioneering low-consumption buildings [BRI 13]. Within the framework of the ADEME-Employment Service project initiated in 2008 and expanded to more than 30 employment centers in France, the Project Building Branch Group (composed of ADEME, Employment Service, Metropolitan Council of Nantes and the local government agencies for Enterprise, Competition, Labor and Employment (Direccte)). These agencies also conducted a study in 2013 to observe the real practices of construction sites on six social housings with positive energy in individual houses and the re-qualification operation of a building containing 106 social housing units “Moulin Lambert” as well as a renovation project for 176 dwellings in the Malakoff district, of which the leasing agency is Nantes Habitat [GRO 13].
These studies led to two main conclusions. They found significant shifts and the observation of excess consumption by comparing the theoretical energy performance, given by the project owners and designers, and the actual energy performance, measured in the buildings after their completion and their occupation. They stressed the broadness of the range of the factors causing the discrepancies and excess consumption, which involve the entire chain of participants in the building’s construction: perfectibility of forecast models problems, misconceptions, faulty work on the construction site, maintenance adjustment problems or technical systems which are not suitable for the uses and lifestyles of the inhabitants [BES 14; BRI 13]. The reasons for this may be simplified to include in most cases either the design of the building, its construction, or its users (and their behaviors); a closer analysis shows that the connections within this chain are very closely linked and that only a vision that is able to encompass all these links will allow for progress to be made.
Box 1.1.Example of the REX performance buildings unit (2010-…)
Example of the REX performance buildings unit (2010-…)
The REX system of review, the Construction Quality Association is characterized by the magnitude and diversity of the sample studied. Initiated in 2010 and still in progress at this time, the investigation covers 750 pioneering operations within mainland France and the DROMs (French overseas departments and regions). The sample it targets includes both new buildings (55%) and renovated buildings (45%), including different types of buildings with low consumption levels and/or high environmental quality (commercial buildings, communal buildings and individual houses), whether labeled or otherwise and also takes into account a significantly diverse array of geographical locations, with constructions studied in rural and urban areas. The objective of this survey of these groundbreaking buildings is to identify both (1) the “defects” - that is, the “negative qualities that impact the expected performance and prevent the achievement of the objectives initially modeled (consumption, comfort, sanitary quality, etc.)”5, as well as (2) the “good practices” observed in these constructions.
The REX performance buildings unit operates on the basis of a form of cooperation with the member resource centers of the BEEP network (French acronym for: Built Environment Space Pro). The results obtained locally from the field are capitalized and updated regularly in different versions of reports and thematic data on various topics available on the AQC site.
1.1.1.2 …. to manufacturers
The research that we have conducted is part of the efforts to continue these works in greater depth, regarding the construction of buildings in response to contemporary energy challenges. For a more in-depth understanding of actual practices in the field carried out in previous works, we chose to shift the focus away from the buildings to instead take a look at their manufacturers, by conducting a survey of the professionals who produce, manage, maintain and renovate these buildings. The entry into this field by other participants allows for a building-scale update to be made to an approach that investigations and studies began to experiment with at the scale of cities or urban projects, such as the exploratory research conducted by Cyria Emelianoff and Ruth Stegazzy on the pioneers of the sustainable city in Europe [EME 10], the exploration of the impact of sustainable urban development on professional practices [SYM 08], the exploratory survey conducted by Pascale D’Erm on the actors of the ecological transition (elected officials, companies, related actors and citizens) in different cities in France [DER 14] and forms part of a continuation of initial exploratory studies begun at a building-sized scale on certain professional groups [BES 11, COL 07, GRU 12 MOL 14a, ZEL 10].
From our perspective, the appearance of these new actors offers several advantages. First of all, it allows us to complement and surpass the approach used to carry out previous work, or of participants interviewed regarding particular operations. Indeed, over the course of their careers, some of the pioneering industry members we interviewed have worked on over 300 operations. The choice to work in this way, on the basis of the observations from these professionals and not solely on the results from experiences obtained in specific operations, ultimately allows us to examine a much larger array of creations. Interviewing the professionals with regard to their professional trajectories, the full range of their experiences and their productions, on their concept of performance and energy-use reduction, and on their analysis of the sustainable manufacture of buildings, allows us to bring together their point of view on all of the productions they have carried out. Furthermore, their points of view on their colleagues and other actors’ practices are also compiled, opening up new insights into the exploration field in terms of the manufacture of sustainable, high performance and energy saving buildings. The appearance of new actors who carry out concrete implementations of building constructions thus makes it possible to conduct a qualitative survey to present clearer representation and to deliver a broad-ranging analysis of the specific practices that are put into place stemming from the sustainable construction field, the players’ positioning, the difficulties they encounter and the resources they mobilize in order to build, manage and renovate buildings.
This pragmatic entry by the actors and their points of view also allows us to go beyond the technical considerations of a project and to examine certain social dynamics in greater detail, which still have not been widely explored, in order to analyze how to build for performance and energy savings: the professionals experience and skills construction and evolution within projects requiring experience and the skills of the professionals through the course of projects, the progression of their practices, the challenges of projects and the learning processes, as well as the spread of knowledge and models over the course of their careers. This involves critically examining how the formation of careers, professional paths, the knowledge and experience solidification process and the successive reformulation and readjustment on which they are built over time occurs. Thus, in addition to technical, architectural and urban planning concerns, the analysis of building construction and sustainable cities in response to contemporary energy challenges is ultimately enriched by questioning the fundamental challenges relating to the sociology of the work and the professions involved. By analyzing the professionals’ testimonials, it allows us to collect feedback on the true nature of work in the construction field within specific work situations and to identify the barriers, specific challenges, resources and strategies that the key players in the transition of energy usage and the fight against climate change are trying to use on a functional basis within a micro-territorial scale, the scale of the spaces that we live in and make use of on a daily basis.
1.1.2.Context and interrelationships around energy-related challenges: the positioning of building professionals
1.1.2.1. The territorial reorientation of challenges related to the environment, climate and energy
Examining the issue of the energy challenges faced by building professionals leads to a broader discussion of the farther-reaching social and political contexts in which these professionals interact, and which they seek to address. The energy challenges are addressed as and in relation to elements that respond to broader environmental issues, which are strongly correlated with climate challenges. The appearance of construction professionals as part of this issue allows us to question the territorial reorientation of challenges involving energy, climate and environment challenges that play out on a crucially important scale: the scale of the spaces where we live out our lives, carry out our daily business, in the buildings we inhabit, where we live. It therefore calls on us to question the very tangible translation of the many energy, climate, environmental and sustainable development policies onto a micro-territorial scale. At this building-sized scale, the actions implied by commitments made at higher territorial scales, whether metropolitan, local, regional, national, European or international must be scaled down. Diagnostics, commitments and legislative arrangements made internationally (COP, IPCC, etc.), domestically in France (National Climate Plan, Grenelle Law, the Energy Transition Act and Thermal Regulation), regionally and locally (Regional Climate Air Energy Schemes6, Climate-Air-Territorial Energy Plans7, Territorial Coherence Schemes8, Local Urban Plans9, Local Housing Programs10, etc.) directly or indirectly affect the operations of construction professionals. Some observers have pointed out that this local transposition is very often carried out through “intensive recycling” and responses to climate change that are often focused on the energy issue, and that “performance”, “economical”, or “green” buildings play a major role in these local strategies to respond to more global climate challenges [CHA 10; TAV 16]. Thus, this building-size scale represents one of the last scales of territorial reorientation and transposition of these commitments made in environmental, climate and energy issues and perhaps one of the most tangible scales of implementation, the ability to make solutions operational.
Figure 1.1.The tangled web of the various planning documents that impact energy and climate challenges. The point of the arrow indicates the document to be taken into account or with which the other document must be compatible, in cases where the PLHs and PDUs are not included in the PLUs. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/molina/building.zip
Figure adapted from “Décryptage de la loi de transition énergétique - Gouvernance énergie-climat : que dit la loi de transition énergétique” (“Decoding the energy-climate governance law: What does the energy transition law say?”) CEREMA, Collection Références, File no. 06-December 2016.
Thus, the solutions conceived for the upper territorial subdivisions enter into operation, take shape, materialize, acquire substance and sometimes also fail, are aborted or are questioned by the players within the territories. Therefore, the construction sector and the professionals who work in it form a scale and groups of participants in a privileged position to analyze this context. Their input makes it possible to observe and understand the transposition of climate, energy and environmental challenges to the micro-territorial level, the processes of appropriation, the adaptation to environmental, climatic and energy-related ordinances, as well as the resistance to changes by other important figures in society. Also, our research is carried out within the context of the extension and continuation of the work undertaken on the territorial reorientation of issues of sustainability, the environment, the climate and energy issues by social science researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds, whether political scientists, geographers or sociologists, observed at different territorial scales [MOL 12a; RUD 16, SCA 10; TER 15; VIL 09, ZUI 10]. Beyond the issue of shedding light on the production of buildings within a contemporary context, our research also intends to provide a contribution to the analysis of the political commitments trajectory and their local micro-transposition, their dissemination at the building-size scale and the social processes of appropriation, adaptation and resistance or impediments put in place by the professionals who produce, manage and transform these buildings.
1.1.2.2. Building industry participants subjected to draconian orders
Understanding these territorial reorientation issues and these scale interconnections is not only necessary but fundamental to obtain a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play within the building-size scale in the reduction of energy consumption in buildings. The work of multi-scalar contextualization that we carried out was inspired by what some researchers have previously advocated for in terms of sustainable development policies [HAM 10, PEC 10]. Our investigation allows us to better understand how much the manufacturing and management of construction within a contemporary context makes reference to and updates challenges of an environmental, political, social and economic nature that are also at play on larger territorial scales. Thus, building professionals emerge as the main linchpins at work in the territorial reorientation of climate and energy challenges. They seem to be seen as some of the best-equipped fighters (with shovels, pickaxes, hammers and screws) in the struggle against climate change and the energy transition. They are important actors who are responsible for carrying out the translation of climate and energy commitments into practice. International, national, regional and local public policies in environmental, climate and energy-related issues, which in practical terms translate into the strengthening of thermal regulations, the increasing number of standards, labels and certifications and the complexity of urban planning documents, place significant, real-world constraints on construction professionals and set limits on the range of actions they may choose to carry out.
Figure 1.2.The changes in energy requirements of heating regulations and labels over time. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/molina/building.zip
1.1.2.3. The ascending dynamics of building industry participants
The context analysis of the building professionals’ actions regarding energy issues underscores the importance of the logic of descending scales and the enforcement at the micro-territorial level of international, European, regional and local-level decisions and commitments. However, the analysis of the interrelationships in which the participants in the building industry take part would be incomplete if it were merely to observe the significance of the territorial reorientation of environmental, climatic and energy policies and limit itself to examining only the submission of these actors to ordinances emanating from higher territorial levels. On the basis of the revelations of our inquiries, some strategies for ascending the territorial scales of building industry participants may also be observed.
The survey of building professionals confronting energy-use issues has revealed, in effect, that some participants also make commitments at higher territorial scales. In fact, the professionals seek to play a role in the planning of decisions and actions in environmental, climate and energy-related matters. Their purpose is thus to influence the future framework of their own professional activity. Building industry participants (industry leaders, architects and engineers) partake in the formulation of territorial energy climate plans at the local level, as an earlier survey had revealed in Toulouse11. Building project managers also took actions, such as participating in the creation of Regional Climate Air Energy Schemes. Others have been called upon to participate in the development of national public policies, as the architect Yves Lion recalls in his testimony, which recounts the story of his adventure during the Grenelle Environment Forum. Finally, the interviews between 2014 and 2016 highlight the role played by pioneering professionals in the sector, trend setters who have also spearheaded significant actions to impact the construction and advancement of heating regulation, seeking in this way to influence the decisions taken at national level, as told in the testimonies of Alain Bornarel and Franck Dimitropoulos in the appendix of this book.
Ultimately, the analysis of the stakeholders and interrelationships involved in the energy challenges reveals the extent to which a two-way dynamic is at work, and all the more so in sustainability planning [BER 14]:
– the importance of
top-down
processes, which reflect how the territorial reorientation of environmental, climate and energy-related issues are forcefully imposed on building professionals by means of ordinances requiring energy-related challenges to be addressed, performance to be improved and energy consumption to be reduced;
– and at the same time, the development of
bottom-up
strategies, which make use of the mobilization and organizational capacity of these building industry members, in which they actively engage in the development of urban, regional, or national strategies in terms of energy and environmental matters, the outcomes of which will influence the framework of their own practices.
Table 1.1.Summary: The building sector and its participants, an important scale to study the interrelationships of scales surrounding the environmental, climate and energy-related challenges. This representation of the scalar challenges allows the reader to conceptualize the interrelationships through a mapping of these relations from the global to the micro-territorial levels. It allows for a better understanding of the complexity of the climate and energy issues that face building professionals.
12 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988), which provides scientific reports to advise governments on climate-related problems.
13 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (May 1992), which introduced the principle of annual COPs.
14 In 2008: “Climate-energy Package” adopted by the European Commission.
15 Established by the Grenelle II law, promulgated on July 12, 2010. SRCAE: Balance: Energy + GHG + air quality from projected scenarios up to 2020.
16 Le Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale (SCOT), which can be translated as “the territorial coherence plan” determines, at the scale of several local authorities, a territorial project to ensure coherence in all the sectorial policies (habitat, mobility, commercial developpement, environnement, landscape…). At the communal level, the French planning organisation is based on the Plan Local d’Urbanisme (Local Plan of Urban planning), le Plan de Déplacement Urbain (Urban mobility plan), and the le Plan Local de l’Habitat (Local Habitat Plan).
1.1.3.Common themes and the questions of the survey
Our research problem was therefore aimed at responding to the following questions: how are the professionals in the building industry practical facing energy and environmental challenges in their professional practices? How are they adapting to the rising power of these issues in the construction field? What specific difficulties and stumbling blocks do they run into while in the field, and what resources or tools do they implement to build their skills (knowledge, expertise and know-how) and develop them and what strategies do they deploy to integrate these issues into their professional practices?
To answer this question, the survey of professionals has been arranged around a red line: the retelling of a professional career path, of a singular history with collective dimensions by identifying the most important stages, the noteworthy projects and achievements of each phase, the possible continuities, decision points or reorientations and the decisive meetings and professional networks that have structured it. The survey was intended to explore the connections made with this red line, divided into six broad categories of processes, questions and assumptions:
1.1.3.1. The construction of professional skills: methods, resources and issues
This area effectively deals with understanding how building professionals build their abilities, in other words, the knowledge, expertise and know-how needed to build efficient and energy-saving buildings. What are the mechanisms, the tools and the resources on which they are based and what are the specific difficulties, the issues and the stumbling blocks that they run into?
Previous exploratory investigations and informal discussions with professionals within the context of our professional activities provided us with clues to the different catalysts, resources and tools put into use by these participants, which we wanted to ask about in greater depth. We were effectively inquiring as to the respective contributions of the roles played by: initial training, continuous training, experimentation and learning in the field, visits, work sites, the role of key meetings, peer observation, the inspiration of foreign models, “good practices”, readings and travels. We also wanted to specifically ask the question about the models used in the fabrication of high performance or economic buildings. What are the different models implemented by professionals? Are they individuals, devices, projects, achievements, approaches or tools, certifications, labels, standards that serve as models for building and managing these less energy-hungry buildings? What are the methods for the construction, circulation and transmission of these models? The objective was to get a sense of the influence that standardization, certification and labeling have had on the development of the abilities of building professionals who are currently subject to heightened restrictions, particularly as a result of heating regulations. We wanted to question the processes of standardization, singularization and distinction at work in the construction of the building and the positioning strategies used by the professionals. Beyond the orders to which these participants are subjected via heating regulations and the various forms of standardization, we also wanted to ask about the methods and records of the commitment of professionals, the values underlying them, and to observe the possibility for them to be translated into specific practices.
1.1.3.2. The trajectory of problems and solutions faced by “performance” or “energy saving” buildings: a multi-criteria analysis
Another challenge faced by the survey of the professionals was to provide key reading points to plan out a path toward the solutions: from the identification of a problem to the implementation and the appropriation of solutions to reduce energy consumption in the building. This sought to engage in a ballistic exercise, to trace the path of high performance energy solutions, from the diagnosis and identification of a problem to the evaluation of the solution through the design and implementation phase. The challenge of this adiachronic and multi-criteria perspective is to identify the effects the design is expected to have, and also leads to analysis of drift phenomena further down the line to develop the typologies of the secondary effects and observable adverse effects in the field, which the professionals reported in their testimonies.
1.1.3.3. Energy performance approach
The energy performance approach that they implement for the buildings they construct, manage, or renovate have also been explored. In particular, we have sought to identify and analyze the setbacks, obstacles, mechanisms, knowledge, resources, tools and professional networks they have put into use for this work, the possible models on which they rely, the tools and techniques, and the means for evaluating and assessing the operations in which they participated.
1.1.3.4. The system of stakeholders: general outlook, organization, relationships and positioning
Additionally, the exploration of the social dynamics of the manufacture of “performing” and “energy saving” buildings could not be done without a reflection on the system of actors, the professional groups who take part. Thus, another challenge the survey faced was to develop a general outlook of the system of stakeholders of “performance” or “energy-saving” buildings, the professions represented, as well as intra-professional and inter-professional dynamics (dynamics within professions or between professions) given the diverse nature of the relationships that unite or separate them: competition, complementarity, solidarity, co-presence, indifference, divergence, conflict, tension, rejection, antagonism, hierarchies, etc. One of the challenges once the panorama was made was also to observe the positioning of each participant on the playing field; pinpointing both its horizontal and vertical positioning in the participant system by identifying its possible backers, competitors, opponents, partners, etc. It also involved identifying the characteristics of the professional activities for each participant.
1.1.3.5. A focus on the relationship of professionals with “users”/”inhabitants”
Various investigations carried out on the sociology of energy have highlighted the insufficient consideration given to future inhabitants as part of the production of performance buildings and the technical systems that make them up [BES 14, BES 15, ZEL 10]. Since the consideration of inhabitants and the ways they live is a key point and a major issue to be put into practice by construction professionals [MOL 14], our intent was to collect the testimonies of the professionals regarding this essential factor. The objective was to be able to simultaneously study:
1) the
terminology (vocabulary)
used to designate inhabitants and the definition that was given to them in order to analyze the
depictions and perceptions of occupants given by the professionals
and the way in which they conceived their
relationships
with these participants and their
role
in the manufacturing, management and appropriation processes of the building;
2) the knowledge of the inhabitants, the uses of energy and the modes of living that the professionals have built, as well as the possible gray areas and blind spots within this professional knowledge of the inhabitants;
3) the practical mechanisms through which they either integrated or did not integrate the occupants and users in their projects, the time periods and stages of the project with which this integration occurred, the types of relationships, transfers and the modes of communication they employed with the occupants;
4) the assessment of the experiences they created from their relations with the users: the contributions, difficulties and problems encountered and the possible devices for resolution that they had implemented on this issue of relationships with occupants.
1.2. The survey of building professionals in France
To investigate these different aspects of career paths, skills and professional practices, a survey of building professionals was conducted for 3 years (2013–2016) by the three authors: Geraldine Molina, Marjorie Musy and Margot Lefranc. A brief summary of its origins, its contexts and the progress it has made is in order. From June 2013 to June 2014, an exploratory work was carried out as part of the collective program of the TIPEE platform12 supported by funding for a 1 year post-doctoral study on the stakeholders in buildings (professionals and occupants) and energy-related challenges. This exploratory survey formed part of an extension of a broader investigation on urban stakeholders in the face of the energy and climate-related challenges by Geraldine Molina13, beginning in 2010.
The survey specifically focusing on building professionals was then continued from 2014 to 2016 after the end of the TIPEE program by the three authors in order to elaborate on specific points and to broaden the set of professionals interviewed.
In the following section, we present the outline of this survey as a whole: the methods of investigation used, the mechanisms for the construction of our sample and the survey and analysis strategy that we have adopted to illuminate the processes of tracing the career paths of construction professionals, their skills and the ways in which they stay up to date in their practices of manufacturing, management and transformation of buildings in response to energy challenges within a contemporary context.
1.2.1.A nation-wide exploratory survey
The exploratory survey of building professionals was conducted within a broad territorial scope. Our work was carried out across the entire territory of France without restricting ourselves to specific regions. There were various reasons for making the choice to take a national rather than local or regional focus:
– the application of heating regulation and injunctions decided at national level gives a nationwide survey greater coherence, since it defines the constraints and possibilities that have a strong impact on the practices of professionals;
– due to the circulation of models, knowledge and experiences beyond regional and national borders, a nationwide scope thus also allows us to question the abilities and practices which are observed at other territorial scales;
– the geographical mobility of professionals considered as referential figures. These professionals are effectively led to practice in various local contexts in France and sometimes also internationally, so their point of view also allows them ultimately to analyze practices that play out at the local, regional, national and international scales.
1.2.2.Complementary investigation methods
This survey of building professionals facing energy challenges that we conducted in France was based on a combination of three different techniques on different panels. (1) At the center of the survey, in-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of professionals. (2) Visits and research to “emblematic” and “exemplary” operations were also conducted on a larger panel. (3) The use of “observant participation” allowed for participants in the building industry to be observed in work situations, and for their remarks on professional experiences and their points of view during various activities to be collected, during which time we carried out work with them.
1.2.2.1. At the center of the survey: semi-directive interviews
Stage 1: Identification of “exemplary” professionals
One stage of the investigative work was to build a sample of building professionals who we would then speak with during the interviews. Two main criteria were taken into account for the construction of this sample: (1) The degree to which the professionals who were deemed to be energy saving “innovators”, “pioneers”, “exemplars” were exemplary (in terms of recognition, social and professional distinction); and (2) the diversity of the professions and trades represented and the stages of construction and management in which they were involved.
With regard to the first criterion, the objective was thus to question the notion of being exemplary as a social and professional construction by working on individuals considered to be “leading figures” by their colleagues and other protagonists with whom they worked. We therefore relied on intra-professional and inter-professional recognition criteria (i.e. recognition by peers and by partner professions) to identify the individuals with whom we worked more closely during interviews. With regard to the second criterion, the challenge was to be able to take into account a series of different categories of participants to observe the diversity of the sector and the problems that arise during different stages (definition of the specifications, design, implementation, construction, ownership and lifestyles of the occupants, etc.). The participants who have been surveyed belong to different professions, occupations and social groups (architects, engineers, insurers, artisans, related participants, etc.). They occupy diverse roles in the construction chain (project managers, project administrators, designers, artisans, maintenance providers, experts, etc.). The sample is characterized by the diversity of the participants in the construction chain who are represented, from the point of view of the trades, the types of activities carried out (project management, project ownership, management, maintenance, etc.) and the structures to which they belong (major construction industrial groups, designer agencies, associations, etc.).
From a methodological point of view, in order to determine this sample set and identify the participants considered to be “exemplary”, we created a questionnaire that we sent to project managers, project authorities, or researchers working on the issue of energy performance in construction who had a broad knowledge of the system of stakeholders working on the issue of energy. The questionnaire invited individuals to identify benchmarks for energy performance in buildings and to explain the reasons for their choice (achievements, projects or emblematic approaches, criteria of recognition such as media coverage, etc.). This work planning the survey made it possible to establish an initial list, which then served as the basis for the first interviews. At the end of each interview, in order to complete this first draft of the list, the professionals were also asked to specify the other participants who they considered to be indispensable (competitors, partners, models, etc.) on this issue of energy performance. In this way, the sample set was completed as the field work progressed.
Ultimately, more than 40 professionals were interviewed in semi-structured interviews conducted between the winter of 2014 and the winter of 2016 by Geraldine Molina and Margot Lefranc. The size of the sample of this exploratory survey was determined by the criteria of saturation and redundancy of the information collected.
The confidentiality of the comments collected in interviews
In order to allow the free expression of the professionals interviewed, a protocol was defined with them at the beginning of the interview to guarantee them that any data that they might deem sensitive or problematic would remain confidential and/or anonymous. We also offered to make a recording, in conjunction with a request for authorization by the respondents. Before the start of the interview, we also clarified that the recording could be paused at any time at the request of the respondent. A period of time left without being recorded was also set aside at the end of the interview so that the respondent would feel more open to address any questions of a possibly more sensitive nature. This was done to remove any potential inhibiting factors (e.g. those related to conflicts of interest, the questioning of professional legitimacy in case their projects were cast as a failure or called into question during or after their work, or the confidentiality of the information addressed, etc.) and so as not to put the respondents in a delicate situation or contradictory position with respect to their professional environments.
1.2.2.2. Additional material (1): visits and analyses of completed projects
In addition to the interviews, we also conducted field visits and research on high profile operations (groundbreaking buildings or achievements considered innovative). They have allowed for the survey led by interviews to be completed by analyzing the construction process of the buildings, from their design to their completion and appropriation by the lot, and to analyze the phenomena deriving from them that can be observed between the different stages of the building cycle.
1.2.2.3. Additional material (2): “observant participation”
In addition, the exercise of expert professions, research, teaching and the supervision of student works on sustainable city issues, has led us as researchers to work in different settings by maintaining close relationships with different participants in the building manufacturing and city management profession. Alongside the researchers working on sustainable cities, this relationship is motivated by several issues, the significance of which tends to become stronger in the context of a socioeconomic and environmental crisis that we are all too familiar with: in particular, the search for funding, access to data from the territories, institutions and agencies, as well as social responsibility and the desire for social utility. In parallel with urban professionals and institutions, the relationships of the researchers is also motivated by various challenges, including: the application of new knowledge of physical and social phenomena related to the environment, the use of scientific legitimacy, the evaluation of achievements and implemented policies, etc. The exchanges between researchers and professionals took place on different occasions: during the extension and transfer of basic research works (symposiums, seminars, lectures to the general public, etc.)14, works to support decisions, action research, requests for the researchers to serve as a scientific “advisor” in the development or evaluation of project editing or public policies, mobilization of researchers in the construction of urban projects, architectural projects15, etc.
These exchanges with different professionals allowed the researchers to enter into a relationship of dialog and open exchanges with these participants. This position gave them the opportunity to observe the professionals of the construction chain in working situations and in real-world interactions. These “close relations”, this “intimacy with the participants in the field”, this interconnection between researchers and their field place us in a situation of “observant participation” [SOU 07]. These situations allow the researcher to observe professionals in their “natural” social context [SAR 01].
Through certain one-time activities or occasional partnerships with institutional participants in the urban environment, researchers can thus gain inside access to social groups and organizations that are not necessarily characterized by openness [ABE 00]. “Observant participation” can thus be defined as a situation of intensified “participant observation” involving a rapport with the field and a relationship with the particular participants: researchers occupy an “insider” position with respect to the phenomena they observe and analyze. In this way, it places participation first. It is often based on an “experiential conversion”: the researcher can become an observer after being a participant16. These cross-cutting exchanges have resulted in us building relationships in which we gain the trust of these professionals and access to information that is considered sensitive and strategically difficult, impossible to obtain from an external analysis [DIA 05] and from an outsider’s point of view [SOU 07]. This main section of our book sets out to present a report on the observation of these phenomena by respecting its sources and the principles of confidentiality and anonymity explained above.
1.2.3.The analysis: “a radical interdisciplinarity” to question professional dynamics in construction and energy
1.2.3.1. Hybrid objectives interfacing with fields of fundamental and applied knowledge
The challenge faced by building professionals in terms of energy issues, and the skills and practices they build, are renewed and called into question to meet these challenges and are the subject of complex and multifaceted investigations. The analysis of the progressions, dynamics and works of these professionals eludes the usual disciplinary and sector examinations, and requires a multi-criteria analysis, making use of different fields of knowledge. “Hybrid objects” [LAT 91], at the intersection of science and different social worlds (that of building professionals and that of the inhabitants who own them and live there, etc.), involve new forms of cooperation between researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds, but also professionals who manufacture and manage these buildings in order to better understand the production of sustainable buildings and to allow them to progress by taking into account the results of the research in a reflexive and concerted manner. Questioning the ways in which construction professionals approach energy issues, questioning these “hybrid objects”, thus implies the implementation of “radical interdisciplinarity and inter-professionality” [MOL 12b; MOL 15].
1.2.3.2. A “radical interdisciplinarity” between human and social sciences and engineering sciences: toward a multi-criteria analysis
The issues addressed in this investigation of building professionals are at an interdisciplinary crossroads. This research brings the social dynamics linked to the technical and construction-related questions relating to building into play, and thus implies a dialog between disciplines with very different disciplinary outlooks. The complex and hybrid nature of our subjects leads us to place ourselves within a perspective of “radical interdisciplinarity”37 which consists of dialoging with very distinct disciplines. This radical interdisciplinarity differs from the interdisciplinarity of “proximity” [JOL 05], that is to say, the cooperation between disciplines whose training, traditions and preferred subject matter overlap or neighbor one another (e.g., between atmospheric physicists and mathematicians, or, in a completely different field, between anthropologists and sociologists). Taking part in the adventure that is radical interdisciplinarity, these disciplines have learned to become familiar with each other. They have begun to structure new forms of interdisciplinarity in an experimental way, as have other previous works on various environmental issues [JOL 92] and on subjects closely related to energy, such as the urban climate [COL 12; VAN 12; MUS 12], converging in this way on mixed approaches. The understanding of the dynamics of building professionals related to energy, which we have sought to analyze, requires the knowledge fields of the physics and thermodynamics of buildings and the social sciences to be brought together, in a practice of radical interdisciplinarity. It forms part of a continuation of the recent group works emphasizing the importance of a strong influence of the Human and Social Sciences and their potential to commit the energy issue at a much broader scale, alongside other disciplines [MOL 13; VEL 13].
Indeed, analyzing the relationships between these participants and energy issues implies thinking about the conjunction between a plurality of phenomena that are social, but also physical and technical:
