Designing Urban Knowledge - Essay Example

?Critique: Guy, S. (2006) ‘Designing urban knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and buildings’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 24 pp 645-659 Introduction The author of this paper has attempted an incisive and surgical exploration of the multiple factors affecting energy use in its social context and studied the relationships between various facets of human life affecting energy use in urban areas. He has attempted to explain how technological, economic and social factors have interacted with each other to impact energy use trends in human history. He has tried to predict how humanity can rationally optimize energy use in the future, especially under the present threat of global warming and economic instability. He feels that it is necessary to obtain an intelligent insight into this social problem in the rapidly spreading urban environment, worldwide. The article is well timed due to the fact that the dwindling natural resources like natural gas and coal are likely to get exhausted, human population is burgeoning worldwide and urbanization has become a fact of life in the fast changing world, progressing by leaps and bounds due to technological innovations and increased demand for energy. Optimization of energy resources is a dire necessity in order to develop sustainable urban societies, which the author feels need a radical change in how we look at it, politically, technologically as well socially. Summary The author begins the paper with quotes from eminent sociologists with the aim to make the reader aware of the fallacies which social scientists have based their views upon while deciding on assessing the trends of energy use in modern society. In the opening paragraph, the author has highlighted the issue of incorporating better and more efficient energy use designs in the rapidly urbanized world and has shown how world bodies like the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are concerned about the matter. Dwindling resources, security issues and pollution issues have been highlighted as the immediate threats facing human survival on the planet. The author claims that building experts, governments, social and political organizations are already aware of the problem and have initiated multiple technical innovations to tackle it. The author has highlighted the fact that already the best practices in energy utilization and innovations in the field are being put to practice by those who comprehend the importance of such measures, but claims that, at the same time, architects and occupiers of these buildings still fail to fully implement such technologies while constructing buildings due to the obstacle in the percolation of technological innovations and recommendations from the originators of such measures. Apart from the pure physical nature of building designs and techniques, there are other social, economic, technical and cultural factors which impact the ultimate decisions about better or worse energy utilization decisions while constructing new buildings. The author has tried to find out how these factors interact with each other and has come up with the inference that the socio technical interactions are a vital aspect in better energy utilization measures for future building projects in order to make them sustainable and eco friendly. Conceptual/Empirical Contradictions/Tensions within the Paper At the outset, the author has tried to convey rather vehemently that improving energy efficiency in modern buildings is not merely a facet of building science alone but involves technical, economic and societal perspectives as well. According to him, the generally held notion is that improvement in energy efficiency of buildings is a physical aspect which can be handled by the technicalities of building designers, engineers and architects. Under this notion, the financial and technical inputs have been misdirected towards technical aspects of better energy utilization in buildings. He believes that technological innovations whenever brought forth or identified have failed to get incorporated into building designs due to the lack of knowledge sharing between the diverse parties involved. The best fit, so far identified has been between building science and economic theory as the two are inter related due to material and financial constraints within which they operate. Other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, geography and political science do exert their influences but have been relegated to the background as they are not properly visualized within the narrow horizon of building experts and economists. The two believe that an optimal balance is achieved when the building designs, latest technology and economic constraints interact with each other to yield what is probable and possible within the confines of a particular location and political, social and cultural environment of a country. This theory suggests that it is the end user who decides what is required in a building and the cost of energy consumption can be calculated according to prescribed formulae within a typical society. Energy audits have been considered as akin to financial audits by some experts and can provide substantial information to the concerned quarters when carried out at regular intervals allowing them to work out the economics of proper energy utilization. Due to such operating factors in the society, the author believes that a physical- technical economic model (PETM) has come into existence which presently dominates the field of energy analysis. Under this model, it is the consumer who ultimately decides what is best suitable for achieving energy efficiency at the place of his dwelling or business, as it is the government and the technocrats who have placed the best, proven and up to date technological innovations at their disposal. The author believes that this technical-rational model has prevailed due to its sheer tenacity and the autonomy it imparts to individuals to act independently in their own capacities in a collective energy conservation effort. The author has pointed out and explained the barriers existing in appropriate implementation of energy efficiency following elaboration of the technical-rational model which he believes is too constrained and brutally eliminates factors emanating from society. He believes that a government becomes a mere facilitator who passes on the technical recommendations for individuals and thus shifts the onus of energy conservation on them. It thus facilitates the imposition of barriers labelled as ‘acknowledgement, knowledge, technology, economic, social, political (AKTSEP) to the resolution of the actual environmental problems as identified by Trudgill, in his treatise ‘Barriers to a Better Environment’ published in 1990, according to the author. Technical innovation and individual contribution have been explained as the means to overcome these barriers in an effort to promote sustainability in a collective manner, free from the imposed and enforced ideals which are the products of the physical- techno-economical model. The author has explained the philosophical viewpoints of several eminent thinkers about the hidden nuances of accepting the physical-technical-economical model and explained the inherent weaknesses and constraints it places on individuals. To overcome such barriers, the author has proposed the employment of a novel approach which he terms as the ‘sociotechnical’ viewpoint and which he believes can be the ideal solution for achieving energy efficiency. Within the perspective of this new viewpoint, science is considered as more of a ‘socio-cultural’ rather than an empirical phenomenon. This approach questions the emergence and acceptance of accepted technologies, the timing of their appearance in society, the forces responsible for generating them and the manner in which the technology is actually put into operation (PPPP). This attitude encourages one to question the validity of and extent of how a particular technology is developed in a particular societal setup. Thus it allows identifying wider social contexts under which a person is able to inquire about the social contexts under which a technological development takes place. The author believes that the sociotechnical analysis of energy use is more practical as it overcomes the barriers of the techno-economic perception of the issue and brings forth more opportunities for identification of pertinent issues in the broader social context for proper energy utilization. The author then goes on to explain the social contexts of energy consumption. Energy problems and their solutions are visualized in terms of adaptive social systems. Energy consumption is not homogenous and its efficiency is not price driven, as the economists believe, but there exist variations, non economic motives and other social contexts which can be identified and determined only by the sociotechnical analysis, the author suggests. He illustrates his ideas by giving examples from anthropological research which suggest that individual preferences actually determine energy usage and utilization. A prominent example which clearly illustrates the author’s contention is that of preference of Norwegian people to illuminate their homes in a manner which provides a feeling of warmth within their homes rather than meeting the bare essentiality of banishing darkness at night using the technically recommended intensity of light fixtures. Such nuances can be comprehended only under the wider social context and not under the traditional techno-economic perspective. The need for development of a broader and robust theory for consumption incorporating social and cultural nuances is therefore rational according to the author’s assumptions. This is very true as energy requirements in diverse geographical regions of the world will vary according to cultural contexts, social organization and the type of climate prevalent in the region, though the economic situation cannot be relegated to a secondary position. Requirements for cooling, bathing and washing will be higher in tropical, equatorial and other hot climes while the situation will be exactly opposite in colder countries with year round snow, where heating will be of prime importance. Such social, geographical and regional contexts will be peculiar in different situations and hence are well incorporated in the suggested sociotechnical theory. Further, the author has attempted to present the contrasting scenarios in a tabular depiction of viewing and analyzing energy efficiency in buildings under the traditional techno- economic context and the sociotechnical context. He has explained how buildings are visualized within the realms of these diagrammatically opposing viewpoints and how energy efficient design, energy saving action and technological innovation are perceived differently between the two. Other factors like market failure, energy policy, the image perceived by energy consumers and the role of social science research exert different impacts when visualized through the precinct of the two competing theories yielding entirely different perspectives. These perspectives are responsible for initiating changes in the processes of energy saving later by changing the key players in the process of decision making, different practices and processes altogether and choice dilemmas while framing policies for energy saving. In the sociotechnical perspective advocated by the author, buildings and other inanimate objects cease to be mere material things and acquire a whole new meaning as outcomes of a social requirement. Design rational of two identical buildings may differ depending upon their modes of production and consumption providing diverse rationales for energy consumption. The author illustrates the resounding success of the sociotechnical theory by the social decisions which influenced the development of street lighting and air conditioning in America, which took a turn in tune with the social acceptance of a particular technological innovation rather than the energy efficient alternative as suggested by the original analysis under the aegis of the technical experts following the traditional economic feasibility of their identified products and the manners in which they intended to operationalize them. Street lighting developed and spread when in the social context it was visualized as a necessary requirement to promote business in areas which wished to compete with other areas which already had the facility. The energy efficient systems of air conditioning as developed and recommended by the technical experts were rejected in favour of portable units which suited the individual requirements of the consumers according to their personal requirements and the element of portability. In his concluding paragraph, the author reinforces the emphasis on cultural and social influences within a society which affect energy consumption and there necessary incorporation into the final decisions taken for recommending plans and processes for optimum and efficient energy consumption. He contends that social scientists need to be an essential part of the research team while framing policy decisions on better energy utilization affecting environmental change. The interplay between social practices and cultural influences has to be totally incorporated into the energy utilization and conservation technological programs to make it stay in tune with the continuously evolving demand, which develops beyond the confines of what can be comprehended through the basic tenets of scientific and economic norms. The author feels that social science researchers are better equipped to make use of a broader set of tools and perspectives towards better energy utilization. In addition to the economics and the scientific perspectives, they incorporate other influences as well which determine the trends prevalent in society. The way energy is utilized and intersects with the broad spectrum of life activities are better understood by them. He feels that a thorough comprehension of the changing strategies and trends in society is essential to reshape the contexts under which energy consumption is visualized. The strength of the paper lies in the methodological build up of the contention of the author about the essentiality of incorporating social scientists in the think tank, which he feels will make better future plans for efficient energy utilization by incorporating the hitherto hidden agendas which are missed by traditional scientific, technical and building experts who have so far dictated the terms of better energy utilization in buildings constructed in urban areas. The author has split his explanations into well designed compartments in which he addresses hierarchical issues substantiated with quotes and experiences of eminent social scientists and other experts he feels necessary to substantiate his school of thought. By the same coin, the weakness of the paper lies in over emphasis on his contention which he has tried to prove with ruthless precision. His contention may be true, as he has proven with numerous examples, but it can be challenged in the same language by economics and technical building experts who have a better experience of building energy efficient buildings and have better access to the technicalities of the art, prevalent legislations in specific regions and the material available for construction. Moreover, energy conservation policies and legislation in particular countries might affect the ability to take decisions in such matters (Adeyeye et al, 2007). The building industry is sometimes constrained by prevalent legislations which fail to offer incentives for incorporating energy efficient products. Discussion (Implications) The author has methodologically proven his contention of the importance of incorporating social and cultural contexts into building designs for better and judicious energy utilization. The demand for conservation of energy has assumed great importance in the fast changing urban environment where paucity of space and technological innovations of the last few decades have spurred the demand for a radical shift from traditional practices of building design. The social structure has been revolutionized by information technology and lifestyle changes demand a total reinvention of housing and work environments in the urban space. Changing lifestyle and consumer expectations influence building designs which have to be comprehended properly in consultation with social scientists, as traditional practices seldom work when transferred directly from the production facility to performance based urban environs of the present world (Virtanen, 2008). Social context is an integral part of any building which initially determines the building design according to the required purpose during its conceptualization and later affects the social life of its inhabitants. References Adeyeye, K., Osmani, M. & Brown, C. (2009) 'Energy conservation and building design : the environmental push and pull factors'. Structural Survey, 25 (5), pp. 375-390 Guy, S. (2006) ‘Designing urban knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and buildings’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 24 pp 645-659 Virtanen, M.J. (2008). 'Towards Near-Zero Primary Energy Use & Carbon Emissions in Buildings & Communities', Retrieved May 3, 2011 from: http://www.ecbcs.org/docs/ECBCS_Strategic_Plan_2007-2012.pdf Read More