Table 1
The shared spaces explored and interviewees.
| Case | Location | Interviewees | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|
| StoCol | Stockholm, city centre | StoCol-Tenant (tenant, female, 30s) StoCol-Manager (project leader at a co-living company, female, 30s) | Co-living community with about 40 tenants. Very extensive sharing (nearly all rooms are shared, including most bedrooms). Convenient location, high-quality premises and high rent. Created by a small co-living company emphasising personal growth, community and social change |
| BerCol | Berlin, city centre | BerCol-Designer (architect, co-designed BerCol, male, 40s) BerCol-ArchTenant (lives at BerCol, works as an architect specialising in co-housing, male, 40s) | Community comprising three multifamily buildings managed by a cooperative owned by the residents. Includes conventional and shared apartments, common facilities and rooms that can be used by the tenants or rented out. Designed with a focus on sustainability, social diversity and openness to the neighbourhood |
| Lab | Gothenburg | Lab-Manager (project leader at facility manager, female, 40s) | Cluster of adaptable apartments designed with space efficiency and research in mind. Most tenants are students. Used for several ongoing research projects. A few apartments are independent, but most have a shared kitchen, living room and showers. Operated by a large housing company |
| Cowork | Gothenburg | Cowork-Founder (co-founded Cowork, now operates it full time, male, 30s) | Coworking space in a repurposed factory primarily used by artists, designers and entrepreneurs |
| Inno1 | Unspecified | Inno1-Arch (architect, female, 40s) | Innovative Swedish architecture project dealing with sharing, integrating space sharing and mobility services in a future prototype building |
| Inno2 | Unspecified | Inno2-Arch (architect, female, 50s) | Innovative Swedish architecture project focusing on new solutions for housing and circular economy at the neighbourhood scale |
[i] Note: Codenames are used for reasons of anonymity.
Table 2
Main characteristics relevant to building users in the cases studied.
| Key information about the case | Key tangible aspects | Key organisational aspects | Key social aspects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| StoCol | Co-living community; extensive sharing; about 40 tenants; upper-class neighbourhood; high rent; core values of personal growth, community and social change | High-quality facilities; convenient location; collaboration | Regular meetings; specific working groups; emphasis on consensus; appointed mediator; group chat; harder to involve introverted or less fluent members | Early user involvement; workshops to define common principles; sharing and consensus as core principles; self-selection of new members based on core principles; importance of collaboration and social interactions, ‘family feeling‘; majority of upper-middle-class men without children, diversity of age and opinion |
| BerCol | Housing cooperative with three buildings; conventional and shared apartments; common facilities for rent; affordable rents; ground floor open to the outside; focus on sustainability, social diversity and openness | Affordable rent; common facilities for rent; discount for non-profit organisations | Monthly meetings for the whole cooperative; specific working groups; informal organisation in shared apartments; users co-designed apartments | Early user involvement; emphasis on learning and building trust early on; broad diversity achieved by affordable rents and a layout open to the outside |
| Lab | Primarily shared student apartments; clusters of six apartments sharing a kitchen, living room and showers; focus on space efficiency and research; operated by a major housing company | Affordable student housing | Top-down management by a housing company; unsuccessful attempts at involving tenants; each cluster of apartments self-regulates | Attempts at organising common meals; informal organisation and decision-making in each cluster; vast majority of tenants are students |
| Cowork | Coworking space; artists, designers and entrepreneurs; well-connected area near other workshops; operated by a single manager | Professional collaboration; shared studio equipment; convenient location | Administration by the manager as a full-time occupation; users are consulted informally | Importance of daily social interactions, in particular common meals; ‘family feeling‘; collaboration among users |
[i] Note: Inno1 and Inno2 were excluded because they refer to buildings that have yet to be built.
Table 3
Examples of energy metrics found in the literature and their stated purpose.
| Purpose | Examples of metrics | References |
|---|---|---|
| Assessing the technical properties of the building | Goldstein & Eley (2014) | |
| Specific energy use (kWh/m2) | Most common metric, e.g. Abu Bakar et al. (2015) | |
| Assessing energy performance in a context of changing occupancy | Energy use per person-hour | Fokaides et al. (2017) |
| Goldstein & Eley (2014) | ||
| Energy use per person | O’Brien et al. (2017) | |
| Assessing how well a building is operated | Energy use per guest night or per guest room night in hotels | Priyadarsini et al. (2009), Wang (2012) |
| Goldstein & Eley (2014) | ||
Metrics to optimise the use of schools in a municipality:
| Huovila et al. (2017), Sekki et al. (2015, 2017) | |
| Assessing a subsystem that depends on occupancy | Number of occupants at the 99th percentile of occupancy (to assess ventilation rates) | O’Brien et al. (2017) |
| Energy use for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning divided by volume and operation time | Escrivá-Escrivá et al. (2011) | |
| Identifying concrete opportunities to optimise operation | Ratio of workstations per employee so that employees can find a place to sit 99% of the time | O’Brien et al. (2017) |
| Energy use per person-hour for different zoning solutions | Lindberg et al. (2018) | |
| Identifying issues causing abnormal energy use | Ratio of time with the lights on to the total use time Ratio of office equipment energy use during use time to the total office equipment energy use | O’Brien et al. (2017) |
| Ratio of energy use during vacant time to vacancy-hours | Escrivá-Escrivá et al. (2011) | |
| Comparing buildings using a single score | Benchmark considering, for example, building age, size, location, number of users and operating time | Chung (2011), Goldstein & Eley (2014), González et al. (2011), Kontokosta (2015) |
| Weighted average of several other metrics, with weights aiming at penalising high energy use during low occupation and poor heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) performance | Escrivá-Escrivá et al. (2011) | |
| Energy use per visitor in swimming pools | Kampel et al. (2016) | |
| Life cycle energy use per person Life cycle energy use per guest night in hotels | Bastos et al. (2014), Filimonau et al. (2011), Stephan et al. (2013) | |
| Emphasising fairness in access to space | Per capita building energy consumption occupied space (PCEOS) = | Yuan & Long (2009) |
| Informing users about their energy use | Energy use per person | Dooley (2011) |
[i] Note: E is the building’s total energy use in kWh, n is the number of users, and A is the heated floor area in m2.