Has social sustainability left the building? The recent conceptualization of “sustainability” in Danish buildings

References

• Boström, M. 2003. Environmental organisations in new forms of political participation: ecological and the making of voluntary rules. Environmental Values 12(2):175–193.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., & Oc, T. 2010. Public Places–Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. 2nd ed. New York: Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, G. & Guy, S. 2005. Hybrid environments: the spaces of sustainable design. In S. Guy & S. Moore (Eds.), Sustainable Architectures: Cultures and Natures in Europe and North America. pp. 15–30. New York: Spon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geels, F. 2002. Technological transition as evolutionary reconfiguration process: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31(8–9):1257–1274.
   Google Scholar
• Guy, S. 2006. Designing urban knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and buildings. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24(5):645–659.
   Google Scholar
• Gram-Hanssen, K. & Jensen, J. 2005. Green buildings in Denmark: from radical ecology to consumer oriented market approaches? In S. Guy & S. Moore (Eds.), Sustainable Architectures: Cultures and Natures in Europe and North America. pp.165–183. New York: Spon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, M. & Hoffmann-Riem, H. 2005. Ecological restoration as a real-world experiment: designing robust implementation strategies in an urban environment. Public Understanding of Science 14(3):269–284.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. New York: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, E. 2007. Consumer integration in sustainable product development. Business Strategy and the Environment 16(5): 322–338.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, J. & Gram-Hanssen, K. 2007. Ecological modernisation of sustainable building: a Danish perspective. Building Research and Information 36(2):146–158.
   Google Scholar
• Kristensen, L. & Jensen, O. 2011. Erfaringsopfølgning På Laven-ergibyggeri Klasse 1 og 2: Med “Fremtidens Parcelhuse” Som Eksempel [Experiences from Low Energy Buildings Class 1 and 2: Using the “Detached House of the Future” as an Example]. Køge: Fremtidens Parcelhuse. http://www.fp.fremtidensparcelhuse.dk/download/Samlet_rapport.pdf (in Danish).
   Google Scholar
• Landsforeningen for Økosamfund (LØS). 2003. Økosamfund i Danmark: Hvordan Drømmer Bliver til Virkelighed [Eco-Communities in Denmark: How Dreams Come True]. Galten: Landsforeningen for Økosamfund. http://losnet.dk/_ny/LOSNETny/LOSNETpdf/2003_OkosamfundiDanmark.pdf(in Danish).
   Google Scholar
• Lie, M. & K. Sørensen (Eds.). 1996. Making Technology Our Own: Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lovell, H., Bulkeley, H., & Owens, S. 2009. Converging agendas? Energy and climate change politics in the UK. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27(1):90–109.
   Google Scholar
• Mapes, J. & Wolch, J. 2011. “Living green:” the promise and pitfall of new sustainable communities. Journal of Urban Design 16(1):105–126.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. & Sonnenfeld, D. 2000. Ecological modernisation around the world: an introduction. Environmental Politics 9(1):3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. & Spaargaren, G. 2000. Ecological modernisation theory in debate: a review. Environmental Politics 9(1):17–49.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, T., S. Marvin, & S. Guy (Eds.). 2001. Urban Infrastructure in Transition: Networks, Buildings, Plans. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Munksøgård Bestyrelse. 2010. Orientering om Munksøgård [Briefing on Munksøgård]. Roskilde: Munksøgård. http://www.munksoegaard.dk/orientering.pdf (in Danish).
   Google Scholar
• Polese, M. & R. Stren (Eds.). 2000. The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Retzlaff, T. 2010. Developing policies for green buildings: what can the United States learn from the Netherlands? Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 6(1):28–38. http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol6iss1/1004-020.retzlaff.html.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A. & Kemp, R. 1998. Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change: Volume 2 (Resources and Technology). pp. 327–399. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rohracher, H. & Ornetzeder, M. 2002. Green buildings in context: improving social learning processes between users and producers. Built Environment 28(1):73–84.
   Google Scholar
• Seyfang, G. & Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16(4):584–603.
   Google Scholar
• Spaargaren, G. 2000. Ecological theory and domestic consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2(4): 323–335.
   Google Scholar
• Spaargaren, G. & Mol, A. 2008. Greening global consumption: redefining politics and authority. Global Environmental Change 18(3):350–359.
   Google Scholar
• Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness, and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality. New York: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• The Green House. 2005. Projektbeskrivelse for Fremtidens Parcelhuse [Project Description for Future Detached Houses]. Køge: Fremtidens Parcelhuse (in Danish).
   Google Scholar
• Vallance, S., Perkins, H., & Dixon, J. 2011. What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum 42(3):342– 348.
   Google Scholar
• van den Burg, S. 2006. Governance Through Information: Environmental Monitoring from a Citizen Consumer Perspective. Doctoral Dissertation. Wageningen Institute for Environment and Climate Research, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• van Tatenhove, J. & Leroy, P. 2003. Environment and participation in a context of political modernisation. Environmental Values 12(2):155–174.
   Google Scholar