Identifying and addressing reverse salients in infrastructural change. The case of a small zero emission campus in Southern Norway
Keywords:
Infrastructure, Climate change, Built environment, Renewable energy, Living labAbstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the relevance and use of the concept “reverse salient” in ambitious infrastructural change. Thomas Hughes, in his seminal study of socio-technical system building, observed that the elimination of “reverse salients”, i.e. subsystems that because of their limited performance hold back further development, was a central driver for creativity and innovation. It is argued that in sustainable infrastructural transformations, however, reverse salients that resist change are more often neglected than addressed.
Design/methodology/approach – Higher education institution campuses combine laboratory-like conditions and sufficient internal complexity to be used as test-beds for ambitious sustainable change in the built environment. In this article, a neglected barrier to the transformation of a small campus into a zero emission campus is revealed, described and addressed.
Findings – In terms of substantive findings, first, it is demonstrated how parts of infrastructures that – often for good reasons – have been neglected in efforts to reduce climate impacts can be identified with the help of a historical exploration of the site and through close collaboration with local facilities managers. Second, a temporary low-tech intervention is presented that addressed the critical problems related to these “reverse salients”.
Research limitations/implications – The limitations of a case study approach apply to this study. Particular caution has to be exercised in terms of generalisation. Moreover, the intervention would benefit greatly from stricter control and additional iterations of the intervention which have not yet been performed.
Practical implications – In addition to technology-focussed, top-down initiatives, which often struggle with actually reaching their ambitious goals in routine operation, neglected parts of campuses can contribute greatly to energy and emissions reductions. Moreover, it is demonstrated that and how local technical personnel has an important part to play in infrastructural transformations.
Originality/value – Concepts developed in the study of socio-technical system building have not yet been applied in the study and practice of sustainable infrastructural transformation. Their contribution is demonstrated. Moreover, living labs are notoriously difficult to evaluate. In this case study, processes and effects of an innovative living lab intervention are described and analysed. This enables a better understanding of restrictions and possibilities of experimenting in real-life settings.
Originally published as Berker, T. and Woods, R. (2020), “Identifying and addressing reverse salients in infrastructural change. The case of a small zero emission campus in Southern Norway”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1625–1640. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2019-0354. Republished here as the author accepted manuscript.
References
Adomßent, M., Grahl, A. and Spira, F. (2019), “Putting sustainable campuses into force”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 470-481, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0072.
Amaral, L.P., Martins, N. and Gouveia, J.B. (2015), “Quest for a sustainable university: a review”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 155-172, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2013-0017.
Aune, M., Berker, T. and Bye, R. (2009), “The missing link which was already there: building operators and energy management in non-residential buildings”, Facilities, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 44-55, doi: 10.1108/02632770910923081.
Backe, S., Sørensen, Å.L., Pinel, D., Clauß, J., Lausselet, C. and Woods, R. (2019), “Consequences of local energy supply in Norway. A case study on the ZEN pilot project campus Evenstad”, ZEN report 17. Sintef, available at: https://sintef.brage.unit.no/sintef-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2611937/ZEN%2bReport%2bno%2b17.pdf (accessed 14 May 2020).
Berker, T. (2010), “Dealing with uncertainty in sustainable innovation: mainstreaming and substitution”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 65-79.
Bull, R. and Janda, K.B. (2018), “Beyond feedback: introducing the ‘engagement gap’”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 300-315, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2017.1366748.
Chesbrough, H. (2006), Open Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
EnoLL (2016), “Introducing ENoLL and its living lab community”, available at: https://forumvirium.fi/introducing-enoll-living-lab-community-2016/
Finlay, J. and Massey, J. (2012), “Eco-campus: applying the ecocity model to develop green university and college campuses”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 150-165, doi: 10.1108/14676371211211836.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219-245.
Fonseca, P., Moura, P., Jorge, H. and de Almeida, A. (2018), “Sustainability in university campus: options for achieving nearly zero energy goals”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 790-816, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2017-0145.
Geels, F.W. (2014), “Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective”, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 21-40, doi: 10.1177/0263276414531627.
Herring, H. (2006), “Energy efficiency – a critical view”, Energy, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 10-20, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.04.055.
Hestnes, A.G. and Eik-Nes, N.L. (2017), Zero Emission Buildings, Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.
Hughes, T.P. (1988), Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Janda, K.B. (2014), “Building communities and social potential: between and beyond organizations and individuals in commercial properties”, Energy Policy, Vol. 67, pp. 48-55, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.058.
Janda, K.B. and Topouzi, M. (2015), “Telling tales: using stories to remake energy policy”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 516-533, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2015.1020217.
Kvellheim, A.K. (2017), “The power of buildings in climate change mitigation: the case of Norway”, Energy Policy, Vol. 110, pp. 653-661, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.037.
Larkin, B. (2013), “The politics and poetics of infrastructure”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 327-343, doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966), The Savage Mind, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Liang, J., Qiu, Y. and Hu, M. (2019), “Mind the energy performance gap: evidence from green commercial buildings”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 141, pp. 364-377, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.021.
McKay, A. (1984), The Making of the Atomic Age, Oxford University Press.
Mallory-Hill, S. and Gorgolewski, M. (2018), “Mind the gap: studying actual versus predicted performance of green buildings in Canada”, Building Performance Evaluation, Springer, Cham, pp. 261-274, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56862-1_20.
Nicol, J.F. (2011), “Adaptive comfort”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 39 No. 2, p. 105, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2011.558690.
Nye, D.E. (1999), Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies, MIT Press.
Parag, Y. and Janda, K.B. (2014), “More than filler: middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the ‘middle-out’”, Energy Research and Social Science, Vol. 3, pp. 102-112, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.011.
Sharp, L. (2002), “Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 128-145, doi: 10.1108/14676370210422357.
Shove, E. (2009), “Everyday practice and the consumption and production of time”, in Shove, E., Trentmann, F. and Wilk, R. (Eds), Time, Consumption and Everyday Life, Berg, Oxford, pp. 17-34.
Sørensen, K.H. (2015), “From ‘alternative’ to ‘advanced’: mainstreaming of sustainable technologies”, Science and Technology Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 10-27.
Star, S.L. (1999), “The ethnography of infrastructure”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 377-391.
Star, S.L. and Ruhleder, K. (1996), “Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 25.
Swearingen White, S. (2003), “Sustainable campuses and campus planning: experiences from a classroom case study at the University of Kansas”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 344-356, doi: 10.1108/14676370310497561.
Talloires Declaration (1990), available at: http://ulsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/TD.pdf (accessed 14 May 2020).
Vezzoli, C. and Penin, L. (2006), “Campus: ‘lab’ and ‘window’ for sustainable design research and education: the DECOS educational network experience”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 69-80, doi: 10.1108/14676370610639254.
Zen, I.S. (2017), “Exploring the living learning laboratory: an approach to strengthen campus sustainability initiatives by using sustainability science approach”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 939-955, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2015-0154.
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Emerald Publishing Limited
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
