In the Heart of Intelligent Buildings

Occupants Practices Facing Automation

Amelie Coulbaut-Lazzarini

and Guillaume Bailly

Université Versailles Saint-Quentin, Bd d’Alembert, Guyancourt, France

Département de géographie, Université du Maine, Le Mans, France

Keywords: Energy, Daily Practices, Behaviour Change, Sociology, Geography.

Abstract: In a changing world, with more and more people living in urban areas and more and more energy needs,

managing energy consumption becomes essential. This papers focuses on energy management in tertiary

buildings, and more precisely on behaviour and daily practices from occupants of these buildings. It will

firstly show what are the required uses, with dedicated areas, and the place of automation. It will then try to

explain what are the real practices, in terms of space use, lighting use strategies and reactions towards

automation. It will further show how involving people, with participatory design of services and systems for

smart buildings, can motivate behaviour change. Lastly, the discussion will question the idea of collective

identity and the balance between automation and human action.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to the world bank (http://www.world

bank.org/, 2014) urban population makes up for 53%

of the total global population. By 2030, almost 60

per cent of the world’s population will live in urban

areas

(http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/cities.asp,

2014). Veron (2008) says that city dwellers will

account for over 70% of the world’s population in

2050. Presently, in France, the estimated ratio from

the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects is

79% (http://www.worldbank.org/, 2013). In a

perspective of durability, as shown by Guermond

(2006), the phenomenon of human concentration

raises the question of the density’s management in

territories. Finding good responses implies to think

about the morphology of cities, their connexion to

hinterland and the way to govern those large areas.

(Di Meo, 2010; Jouve and Lefêvre, 1999). A unique

solution doesn't exist (Féré, 2010; Laigle 2008) and

the debate between the compacity defenders

(Dantzig and Saaty, 1973; Newman and Kenworthy,

1989) and the keepers of peri-urbanity is rich

(Bessy-Pietri, 2000; Castel, 2006; Charpentier,

2014; Chauvier, 2012; Hilal and Sencebe, 2002;

Marry, 2009). The morphology is a mirror of the

urban fabric which can be observed by satellite view

(Demaze, 2010). This reflects human beings habits

and the spatial relation with their environment.

Human activity depends on growth of energetic

resources despite the increase of their diminution

and their cost (Ganguly and Anirban, 2009). The

modification of the human energetic consumption is

an important question. It’s questioning the

pertinence of the territorial response in a multilevel

solution in the French case study as shown by

Poinsot (2012). Pappalardo (2008) shows us that

cities are the main places of energy consumption in

the building sector, housing and tertiary. For the

author, the building is in France the most energy

intensive sector (23% of national emissions).

Reducing the carbon footprint implies the reduction

of C02 emission. The Report of the United Nations

Conference on Sustainable Development

(http://www.uncsd2012.org/ 2012) reaffirms the will

to ensure the promotion of an economically, socially

and environmentally sustainable future for our

planet and for present and future generations.

Reaching those goals implies the pursuit of urban

planning measures imposed by the respect of norms

and law (io : In France, Law No. 2010-788 of 12

July 2010 on the national commitment to the

environment). Therefore the technological

innovation research can contribute to reduce

resource and energy consumption. Many projects

have developed technical approaches to produce and

keep energy in the city (Fenix, Rider, Reflexe), none

of them has allowed a real-time energy monitoring

Coulbaut-Lazzarini A. and Bailly G..

In the Heart of Intelligent Buildings - Occupants Practices Facing Automation.

DOI: 10.5220/0005408300170025

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS-2015), pages 17-25

ISBN: 978-989-758-105-2

 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

of the entire production chain supply facilities at

multiple scales (building and related areas such as

districts). The objective of the program we

participated in was to create a technical solution for

energy management, by building a smart grid

demonstrator. At the end, it should be extensible to

an ecodistrict. This project involved important firms,

leaders in the energy sector, as well as small

enterprises and academic partners.

However, the way to monitor energy chain

supply cannot be reduced to a technical approach. If

Cities are artefacts, they live by the interaction of

human beings (Ballas, 2013; Mahdavinejad et al.,

2012; Raúl et al., 2014; Yanarella and Levine,

2011).

The project we worked in chose to take into

account these aspects, and we were in charge of the

work package concerning behaviours and daily

practices of humans working in the buildings.

In this research program what particularly caught

our attention was the role of human beings in the

heart of that system. Our field study focused on two

main sites: two French firms located in the West of

Paris. We wondered how a community of actors

contributes to the implementation of sustainable and

virtuous practices in terms of low-carbon transition.

How are roles distributed ? What rules govern the

lives of these places? Who makes the rules ? What

are the effects on the scale of the building and

beyond (eco-district)? Is the emergence of good

practices effective? Can it be transposed to other

places ?

After a brief presentation of our theoretical

frameworks and methodologies this paper will first

show what are the required uses, with dedicated

areas, and the place of automation. It will then try to

explain what are real practices, in terms of space

use, lighting use strategies and reactions towards

automation. It will further show how involving

people, with participatory design of services and

systems for smart buildings, can motivate behaviour

change. Lastly, this discussion will question the idea

of collective identity and the balance

automation/human action.

2 THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK:

A COMPLEX APPROACH

Ethnology will allow us to create and analyse our

observations of actors and his actions in live. This

discipline is observation-based and has two

dimensions. On the one hand, it is based on facts,

details and specificity collection (Servier, 1993), and

seeks to “rebuild their form and meaning” (Agier,

2004). On the other hand, it tries to “bring closer,

generate dialogue, show what is common in this

world of differences”. Authors as Agier (2004)

enable us to establish our field study. Indeed he

explains that “the ground is not a thing, it’s not a

place, not a social category, an ethnic group or an

institution. It is all of this, maybe, as appropriate, but

it is firstly a set of personal relationships where “you

learn something”. “Make fieldwork”, that means to

establish personal relationships with people whom

we do not know in advance, to whom we somewhat

break-and-enter in their lives. So we must convince

them of the validity of our presence, also that they

have nothing to loose even if they have little to win,

and most of all they have nothing to worry about.

Relationships can be harmonious and friendly with

some people, conflicting with others.” (Agier, 2004,

p.35).

Our approach is also conforming to a "geo-cratic

practice" (Bussi, 2001) which considers actors

behaviours and their interaction as a social

production. Through a political geography (and not

only a geopolitical: Rosière, 2003) conflicts and

cooperation are in the heart of the research. It

considers the importance of the citizen point of view

in a democratic perspective, where the researcher is

engaged in the service of the power of democracy.

Our objective is to question people’s power and

capacity (Nussbaum, 2012) to produce norms and to

reach a new kind of spatial justice. Our approach is

also conform to the heritage of the French social

geography relating and interrogated by Séchet,

Veschambre (2006). This geography is a response

to the social demand, focused on social inequalities,

exclusion, human dramas and looks on the social

relations of domination.

3 METHODOLOGICAL

ASPECTS:

CROSSED SOCIAL SCIENCES

METHODOLOGIES

We studied these elements from a social sciences

perspective, using methodologies of sociology,

ethnography and social geography. We used semi-

structured interviews, questionnaires and

ethnographic observations to collect data.

This complex methodological approach allows

getting data not only from a quantitative survey, but

SMARTGREENS2015-4thInternationalConferenceonSmartCitiesandGreenICTSystems

also from a qualitative analysis of discourses.

Observations give us a direct access to users

practices on site. Thanks to this methodological tool,

we can study how much discourses are far from real

practices or not.

The surveys were conducted principally in two

buildings which are the headquarters of big

enterprises leaders in the energy field.

For the qualitative analysis, our corpus was made of

twenty-three semi-structured interviews of buildings

users. An interview guide was constructed, with

questions about energy use, and behaviour in the

building. Data collection begun with registered

semi-structured interviews. Interviews were

textually transcripted and analysed with a software

for text analysis: Alceste. This methodology was

completed by crossorting and a classic thematic

content analysis.

Interviews were firstly “groomed”, which means

formatted to be analysable by our software for text

analysis. We then began the analysis through an

automated data processing with Alceste. This

software cuts the text, making elementary context

units (UCE), pieces of text selected and analysed by

the software. These UCE are then spread within

classes by detecting strong oppositions emerging

from the text. Each speech class groups a number of

words belonging to a lexical world distant from

those of the other speech classes.

As Rouré and Reinert (1993) explain, while the

speaker is delivering its speech, he goes through

successive own worlds. These worlds, having their

own objects, impose their own type of vocabulary.

The statistical study of this vocabulary’s distribution

must allow us to track down the “mental

environments” successively invested by the speaker.

Authors precise we can then see in lexical worlds.

Alceste software will help us find these lexical

worlds.

To make the cross-sorting with which we

analyze specific vocabulary of our corpus, we had to

choose one element from this corpus, either one

word or one variable. The software has a drop-down

list of all the words of the corpus in alphabetical

order. As such we can cross each word with the

whole corpus. Alceste then gives us significant

elements, with Khi-2, and with the repeat factor and

the category to which the term belongs.

These category-specific keys are adjectives and

adverbs, verbs (of action and movement in

particular), the demonstrative …

Throughout these keys, we can get information

about interviewed people’s position (according to

Achard, 1993). Three positions are possible (Achard,

1993; Reinert and Moulin, 2011): witness, actor or

patient. These positions define people’s way of

living and acting. Alceste software spread the

indicators of these positions into speech classes.

Witness position is defined by an over-

representation of adjectives, adverbs and nouns (sign

of a descriptive discourse), and also descriptive

elements, spatial elements and no markers of person

like personal pronouns. Actor’s position is defined

on the contrary by an over-representation of verbs,

indicating an action or a move in discourse,

associated with markers of person. Finally, the

patient’s position is defined by discursive relation

markers, which indicate argument and storytelling

and logical and temporal elements.

These elements are our first guide through the

analysis.

For the quantitative analysis, we constructed a

questionnaire to be asked to all users of the two

main buildings of the study. Since managers wanted

to know exactly what we could ask to the building

users, this step needed negotiation. Moreover, in the

first building, the questionnaire was implemented by

the communication service of the company, as they

didn’t want researchers to have access to their

employees’ email lists. We were only told that it had

been sent to 825 persons. The questionnaire was

available for one month on each site and we got 264

answers from users. These answers are the basis of

our quantitative analysis. We used Modalisa

software to help us analyse the data. Modalisa is a

software dedicated to surveys quantitative analysis.

It allows the finding of indicators such as type of

behaviour or elements of freedom appearing from

modalities of energy and space use.

Observations were a more complex process. In

neither buildings did the higher hierarchy accept

researchers to come and observe their employees. In

fact we had to find ways to be there for others

reasons. Interviews on site were one of our best

pretexts. When several interviews were made on the

same day, we had a good reason to move from one

place to another inside the building. Sometimes we

could spend lunchtime on site. This was also a

moment for informal discussion, and sometimes

people showed us one part of the building to

underline what they had said. Another good pretext

were technical visits. Since both buildings wanted to

be a model of energy efficiency, we could visit each

building several times with different guides, at the

pretence of not having understood everything that

had been explained to us, or we wanting to know

more about one or other technical aspect. This was a

very good way to visit and observe all sections of

IntheHeartofIntelligentBuildings-OccupantsPracticesFacingAutomation

the buildings and observe what people were doing at

that time.

4 REQUIRED USES: DEDICATED

AREAS, AUTOMATION

The first element we could clearly observed was

space allocation. It appears that in the designers’

mind, energy efficiency design in tertiary buildings

begins by allocating a place to each occupant.

Following this we first asked people what was their

type of workplace. As shown by the figure below,

most people work in an open plan configuration.

Figure 1: Workplace.

This means that a space where individual choices

are restricted, because of automation and the need to

negotiate light and heat uses with other occupants of

the open plan. People are expected to stay in their

workplace whether their job is adapted or not to that

kind of place. Whenever they need to speak by

phone or with someone else, they can use boxes or

meeting rooms, some of which are not really close

by and where light or heating cannot be regulated by

the occupant.

In open plan workplaces, people are expected not

to modify heating regulation, even if they can. And

there is not too much communication about heating

regulations, so that people don’t touch it. Indeed,

many people explained to us they didn’t even know

where thermostat for their workplace was.

Interviewee N°6 explained to us “Some people are

not used to touch. You know you have a thermostat

for a whole open-plan. He doesn’t speak to

colleagues, he doesn’t even know there is a

thermostat.” During our observations, someone

showed us where the thermostat was for open plan

places: in a corner where you clearly don’t see it

unless you know it is there. There are also

established uses towards heating regulation, asking

to let automation play and for human not to touch.

During the interviews, one person explained that

“we mustn’t touch it because it will modify

building’s regulations, it is better not to touch”

(N°2).

Intelligent planning of energy efficiency are

generally thought as technological processes, with a

high degree of automation. For example, a light cut

is implemented every day at lunchtime, and another

in the evening. There are also presence sensors in

the cafeterias, in the toilets and in the corridors. But

as observed, light in the corridors is always on due

to the sensor’s timer, and the fact that it takes one

person alone cross a corridor for lights to turn on all

the way long. Nevertheless, technical analysis shows

that energy management systems allow for energy

consumption reduction. Cutting off lights in the

evening, which also turns off most of the screens

like those in the hall and cafeterias seems to be

particularly efficient. This automatic system replaces

human action, because designers estimated it to be

more efficient to ask an automatic system to do the

job.

However, people are still asked to turn off the

lights when they use meeting rooms, where they also

have to turn off video projector.

5 REAL PRACTICES:

SPACE USE, LIGHTING USE

STRATEGIES AND

REACTIONS TOWARDS

AUTOMATION

Real practices are not necessary in adequacy with

previsions of energy uses.

We can imagine that a configuration with many

open plan areas can minimize energy use, which was

probably what designers intended. However, as we

can see on the next figure, this is not convincing.

Figure 2: Light use frequency.

We notice that light is mostly on. In fact

interviews show that as soon as one person needs

light, it seems normal for everyone to turn the light

on for the whole open plan. The only exception is

64%

21%

14%

open plan

shared office

individual office

SMARTGREENS2015-4thInternationalConferenceonSmartCitiesandGreenICTSystems

the open plan where the responsible for the energy

saving program behavioural program sits.

We will now question this: Informing only does

not suffice, but people need to be involved to

maximize efficiency.

6 INVOLVING PEOPLE:

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF

SERVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR

SMART BUILDINGS,

MOTIVATING BEHAVIOUR

CHANGE

Seeing the differences between required uses and

real practices, we tried to understand users attitude

towards energy efficiency. Were they interested?

The first question we asked was whether they would

accept to get information about energy in their

professional environment. We can see the results in

the next figure.

Figure 3: Willing of information about energy at work.

Once that was established, we needed to go

further, and see what type of message people would

get.

Figure 4: Type of message users would get.

We clearly see that not only people are interested

in energy efficiency and want to be actors in the

process (item how to save energy), but they also

want to know what their firm does: 80% want to

know more about energy saving actions

implemented, and around 60% want to know

projects the company is involved in. We can see

here collective identity elements.

We also asked people what compensation would

they require for their effort in contributing to energy

savings. Once again we noticed that most employees

are ready to make an effort without a need for

compensation, as shown in the next figure.

Figure 5: Compensations for energy savings.

The first compensation asked is funding for

environmental projects. People are not

individualistic, they want a better environment for

everyone.

As it can be seen, for an efficient intelligent

energy management system to be implemented,

there is a real need to inform, co-construct and make

users actors of energy efficiency programs and

systems. It seems we must not forget that “Actor

doesn’t exist out of system defining his freedom and

the rationality he can use in his action. But the

system only exists by actor who is the only one to

build it, make it alive and possibly change it”

(Crozier and Friedberg, 1992, p.9).

7 DISCUSSION

Each practice has got a structural framework, as

mentioned by Maresca and Dujin (2014). We must

thus remind that this study couldn’t be transposed to

another context, although we can learn many lessons

from it.

Several elements strongly modify occupants

practices and behaviour towards energy use: type of

workplace, situation from natural light and heating

sources and degree of automation of technical

devices and systems are the main ones.

84%

16%

yes

51%

35%

11%

25%

14%

no compensation,

participating is normal

funding for

environmental projects

personal

recognition/valorisation

financial (incentive

payments)

benefit in kind/gifts

I will not accept to make

any effort

Energy saving

actions

implemented

Information

to remind

you how to

save energy

Technical incident that may

affect you

Maintening operations

done

Projects your firm is involved in

Others

IntheHeartofIntelligentBuildings-OccupantsPracticesFacingAutomation

Energy sources are still a geopolitical stake even

on a building’s scale. Among possible actions,

lighting is especially important in occupant’s

discourses. Our quantitative data shows a strong use

of lighting, so we can wonder if its use and will of

saving really exists. But we must get in mind that

63,6% of respondent’ s workplace is an open plan

area, where lighting must be negotiated. And we saw

that it maximized light use.

Who makes the rules? Collective pressure?

Groups generally adjust their practices to

expressed needs. Therefore, as soon as an individual

needs lighting, light is turned on in the whole open

plan.

Nevertheless there are specific places exceptions,

being collectively invested as exemplarity zones, as

show by our interviews analysis. The following

extract clearly states it:

“in fact I think we... we have felt over in… we

try to much to reduce consumption and we never

light up our open plan. Sometimes this is really

annoying for me. Because I don’t see anything, I

can’t see my screen. It is really tiring for me. Since

we are in the [awareness program] cradle, we can’t

fight it, we must let the light off.”

As recently shown by Vanolo (2014), this extract

reveals how a person can accept practices which go

against their comfort, but are conform to the mission

they accepted to fulfil and the role they accepted or

chose to play.

Consequently, valuating actions towards energy

efficiency is a key factor for the success of energy

management programs.

Is the emergence of good practices effective?

People’s involvement toward energy efficiency

seem to contribute to a more or less long-lasting

perspective, as we saw that more than 50%

respondents are interested in an history of

consumption, for example. In order to get people

involved, they need to appropriate this subject by

anchoring it in their daily lives. To achieve this,,

maybe they will need to bypass or hijack some

elements planned for them, without them (de

Certeau, 1990).

Who should regulate the system ? automation or

reason ?

Strong differences appear when balancing

awareness/automation. Most people believe in

behavioural change efficiency for long term effect,

but many also think that automation is better for

short term outcomes. Others underline the

weakening their responsibility brought about by

automation, which “does all for me” (interview

extract).

This question about the mode of action efficiency,

either human or automation, is a key point for

buildings energy efficiency understanding (de Brito,

2008).

What are the effects on the scale of the building

and beyond (eco-district)?

This paper underlines how much human/machine

interaction is a big stake to go through urban project

in a multiscalar perspective. It is no longer only the

point to know how organizing governance with

stakeholders able to agree about a common

objective. Neither it is to solve the equation of

interpersonal contradictions to give meaning to the

project.

From a philosophic point of view, it is deeply

question of the acceptance and the use of the Reason

notion. Can we entrust to independent technology

(power of algorithm) the capacity to shape human

being's behaviour inside the buildings and beyond

(the ecodistricts, the cities)?

Should we preserve our control to trace our destiny

based on controversy and imperfect choices?

Two essential questions catch our attention. Firstly,

the increase in databases numbers and their

exploitation, and the centralizing of individual data,

create a colossal ecosystem to exploit. It's

progressively invested due to spectacular

augmentation of computer’s power algorithmic

capacities. NBIC convergence is unavoidable.

(Broca, 2012; Larrieu 2014). Secondly, should we

let the algorithm establish a standard for energetic

buildings production? Should we let computers

choose the best energetic needs of buildings, based

on the exploitation of interconnected databases and

composed by many local levels of data collection?

In which case, the occupant would not be an

adjustable agent that could devote itself to the task

for which it was employed by the company. This is

no longer science fiction (Bostrom, 2014).

In an optimistic perspective, this action research

raises the issue of the emergence of a sustainable

and stable collective intelligence through space and

time (Boisvert and Milette, 2009; Marek et al., 2013;

Masselot and Galibert, 2014; Viera, 2014). In other

words, to be an efficient pathway for change,

information must be connected to people’s

involvement towards elements influencing their

daily life at work.

Most people believe in ecodistrict concept’s

impact on the inhabitants’ social relationships. This

element is extremely interesting because it shows

that a place can be, in people’s mind, a source of

social relationships change (Coutard and Levy,

2010; Emelianoff, 2010). A collective will of

SMARTGREENS2015-4thInternationalConferenceonSmartCitiesandGreenICTSystems

expression appears, reminding that intelligent energy

management must favour this belonging feeling

(Dureau and Lévy, 2010).

This feeling of belonging to a collective identity

(Castells, 1999) not yet constructed or reinforced is

essential. Indeed it fixes the common base to involve

buildings occupants in co-construction actions with

site managers and other stakeholders. As such these

actions will not only be accepted by occupants but

also done with enthusiasm.

This element needs to be looked alongside the

need of appropriation (Jouet, 2000) of programs and

actions linked to energy efficiency. Occupants need

to feel they are actors in their workplace, regardless

of whether technical system acceptance and/or

practices and behavioural changes are pertinent.

Aside from this researchers have shown that the

appropriation of an idea, a program or a technical

device permits deeper changes in behaviour and

practices. Malhotra and Galetta (1999) explained:

“when social influences generate a feeling of

internalization and identification on the part of the

user, they have a positive influence on the attitude

toward the acceptance and use of the new system.

The findings also suggest that internalization of the

induced behavior by the adopters of new information

system plays a stronger role in shaping acceptance

and usage behavior than perceived

usefulness”(Malhotra and Galletta, 1999). In a

general way, many recent papers in human and

social sciences show the need for people’s support

(Morel-Brochet and Ortar, 2014) in changing their

environment. These papers are mainly addressing

private housing or public space, but we see that our

data about tertiary buildings and professional

environment come aligns with these.

These questions feed an interesting debate. How

to hybrid natural ecosystems and computing

ecosystem to invent or reinvent the cities of the 21

century?

8 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have shown what were required

uses towards space and energy use, particularly

lighting and heating, and the place of automation in

the daily lives of users. We then saw that real

practices were not necessary alongside required

uses. Next, we showed how involving people, with

participatory design of services and systems for

smart buildings, can motivate behaviour change.

Lastly, the discussion brought into the open the

different elements at stake for occupants of

intelligent buildings, such as the questions of

appropriation of a program and the power of

collective identity.

On future work, we will try to implement

programs that enhance collective intelligence and

collective identity in intelligent buildings.

We are convinced that individual capacities are

ignored. We will explore that phenomenon at

different scales to broaden our field of research. This

energy potential based on the emergence of social

links run could be in the long a real engine of a true

ecological and sociological transition. We will both

use social geography and computing. Our goal is to

build interfaces. We want to understand the different

forms of empowerment mechanisms created by

citizen groups, before their political capture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The field study was done as part of a project (EPIT

2.0) funded by BPI France, Région Ile-de-France,

Conseil Général de l’Essonne, Conseil Général des

Yvelines. We thank all the partners of this project

for granting us access to the sites. We also thank

Chaire Campus durable, Bouygues Bâtiment IdF -

UVSQ for its support.

REFERENCES

Achard, P., 1993. La sociologie du langage, Que Sais-Je.

PUF, Paris.

Agier, M., 2004. La sagesse de l’ethnologue, Sagesse d’un

Métier. l’Oeil Neuf, Paris.

Ballas, D., 2013. What makes a “happy city”? Cities 32,

Supplement 1, S39–S50.

doi:10.1016/j.cities. 2013.04.009.

Bessy-Pietry, P., 2000. Les formes récentes de la

croissance urbaine. Economie et statistiques 35–52.

Boisvert, R., Milette, C., 2009. Le développement des

communautés au Québec : la part de l’intelligence

collective. Santé Publique 21, 183–190.

doi:10.3917/spub.092.0183.

Bostrom, N., 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers,

Strategies, 1 edition. ed. Oxford University Press.

Bussi, M., 2001. L’espace négocié. Démocratie électorale

et développement local (Mémoire d’HDR. Volume 2).

Université de Rouen, Rouen.

Bussi, M., 2007. Pour une géographie de la démocratie.

L’Espace Politique. Revue en ligne de géographie

politique et de géopolitique. doi:10.4000/espace

politique.243.

Castel, J.-C., 2006. Les liens entre l’organisation urbaine

et les déplacements. CERTU.

Castells, M., 1999. L’Ere de l’information, tome 2 : Le

IntheHeartofIntelligentBuildings-OccupantsPracticesFacingAutomation

Pouvoir de l’identité. Fayard, Paris.

Charpentier, S., 2014. Du périurbain au périurbanisme :

analyse des (bonnes et mauvaises) pratiques de lutte

contre l’étalement urbain dans l’aire urbaine du Mans.

Université du Maine.

Chauvier, E., 2012. Itinéraires dans la périurbanité

« molle » : entre tout-fonctionnel et résistance.

Articulo - Journal of Urban Research.

doi:10.4000/articulo.1996.

Coutard, O., Levy, J.-P., 2010. Écologies urbaines, Villes.

Économica-Anthropos, Paris.

Crozier, M., Friedberg, E., 1992. L’acteur et le système:

Les contraintes de l’action collective. Seuil, Paris.

Dantzig, G.B., Saaty, T.L., 1973. Compact City: Plan for a

Liveable Urban Environment. W. H. Freeman and

company, San Francisco.

De Brito, C., 2008. Le développement durable : nécessité

de changer les comportements ou opportunités pour

les technologies propres ? Annales des Mines -

Responsabilité et environnement 2, 19–25.

De Broca, A., 2012. Du vieil Homme au nouveau : trans-

humanisme ? Défis pour penser l’Homme de demain.

Éthique and Santé 9, 121–126.

doi:10.1016/j.etiqe.2012.06.004.

De Certeau, M., 1990. L’invention du quotidien, tome 1 :

Arts de faire, Folio Essais. Gallimard.

Delvoye, J.-M., Girardot, J.-J., 2005. Les outils

d’intelligence territoriale pour les acteurs de terrain à

Seraing: entre appropriation des méthodes et

acquisition de compétences (Post-Print). HAL.

Demaze, M.T., 2010. Un panorama de la télédétection de

l’étalement urbain. Travaux et Documents ESO 99–

124.

Di Méo, G., 2010. La métropolisation. Une clé de lecture

de l’organisation contemporaine des espaces

géographiques. L’Information géographique 74, 23–

38. doi:10.3917/lig.743.0023.

Dubois-Taine, G., Chalas, Y., n.d. La ville émergente, éd.

de l’Aube. ed. Paris.

Dureau, F., Lévy, J.-P., 2010. Morphologie urbaine et

consommations énergétiques : un éclairage à partir de

la recherche française., in: Ecologies Urbaines.

Economica-Anthropos, pp. 84–101.

Emelianoff, C., 2010. Durabilité urbaine, modes de vie et

solidarités à long rayon d’action, in: Écologies

Urbaines. Coutard O., Lévy J.-P., Paris, pp. 302–327.

Féré, C., 2010. Villes rêvées, villes durables ?

Géocarrefour 85, 182–184.

Ganguly, A., 2009. Donner une valeur à la biodiversité.

Annuels [NUMERO_VOLUME_CHIFFRE], 123–

125.

Guermond, Y., 2006. Repenser l’urbanisme par le

développement durable ? Natures Sciences Sociétés

14, 80–83.

Hilal, M., Sencébé, Y., 2002. Mobilités quotidiennes et

urbanité suburbaine. Espaces et sociétés 108, 133–154.

Jouet, J., 2000. Retour critique sur la sociologie des

usages. Réseaux. CENT/Hermès Science Publications.

volume 18, 487–521.

Jouve, B., Lefevre, C., 1999. De la gouvernance urbaine

au gouvernement des villes ? Revue française de

science politique 49, 835–854.

Laigle, L., 2008. Les villes durables en Europe :

conceptions, enjeux et mise en œuvre. Responsabilité

et environnement 52, 7–14. doi:10.3917/re.052.0007.

Larrieu, P., 2014. Les enjeux éthiques de la

neuroamélioration. Médecine and Droit 2014, 61–65.

doi:10.1016/j.meddro.2014.03.003.

López-Ruiz, V.-R., Alfaro-Navarro, J.-L., Nevado-Peña,

D., 2014. Knowledge-city index construction: An

intellectual capital perspective. Expert Systems with

Applications 41, 5560–5572.

doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.007.

Mahdavinejad, M., Shamshirband, M., Pilbala, N., Yari,

F., 2012. Socio-cultural Approach to Create an

Educative City Case: Tehran-Iran. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences 51, 943–947.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.267.

Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D.F., 1999. Extending the

technology acceptance model to account for social

influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation,

in: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii

International Conference on Systems Sciences, 1999.

HICSS-32. Presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd

Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems

Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32, p. 14 pp.–.

doi:10.1109/HICSS.1999.772658.

Marek, A., Breuer, C., Devillet, G., 2013. Une démarche

participative sur l’intelligence territoriale en vue du

redéploiement d’une province. Presented at the 1ère

Conférence Intercontinentale d’Intelligence

Territoriale “Interdisciplinarité dans l’aménagement et

développement des territoires,” p. 9.

Maresca, B., Dujin, A., 2014. La transition énergétique à

l’épreuve du mode de vie. Flux 96, 10–23.

Marry, S., 2009. Densité urbaine et qualité de vie. En quoi

la compréhension des représentations de la densité

urbaine est-elle prépondérante dans l’analyse et la

conception de formes urbaines propices à une certaine

qualité de vie?, Prix Etudiant EpE - Metro 2009. EPE.

Masselot, C., Galibert, O., n.d. Digital socialization in a

Territorial Intelligence case: The Fontaine d’Ouche

area in Dijon (Burgundy, France). Presented at the

12th Annual International Conference of Territorial

Intelligence “Innovación Social y nuevos modos de

gobernanza para la transición socio-ecológica.”

Morel-Brochet, A., Ortar, N., 2014. Les modes d’habiter à

l’épreuve de la durabilité. Norois 2, 7–12.

Newman, P.W.G., Kenworthy, Jeffrey. R., 1989. Cities

and automobile dependence: An international

sourcebook. Gower, Aldershot.

Nussbaum, M., 2012. Capabilités: Comment créer les

conditions d’un monde plus juste ? Editions

Flammarion.

Pappalardo, M., 2008. Villes et enjeux énergétiques.

Responsabilité et environnement 49, 16–23.

doi:10.3917/re.049.0016.

Rosière, S., 2003. Géographie politique et géopolitique.

Une grammaire de l’espace politique. Ellipse, Paris.

Séchet, R., Veschambre, V., 2006. Penser et faire la

SMARTGREENS2015-4thInternationalConferenceonSmartCitiesandGreenICTSystems

géographie sociale. Contribution à une épistémologie

de la géographie sociale, Presses Universitaires de

Rennes. ed. Rennes.

Servier, J., 1993. Méthode de l’ethnologie, Que Sais-Je.

PUF.

Vanolo, A., 2014. Smartmentality: The Smart City as

Disciplinary Strategy. Urban Studies 51, 883–898.

doi: 10.1177/0042098013494427.

Véron, J., 2008. Enjeux économiques, sociaux et

environnementaux de l’urbanisation du monde.

Mondes en développement 142, 39–52.

doi:10.3917/med.142.0039.

Vieira, J., 2014. Droit de l’Union européenne et

démocratie numérique : clés pour l’éco-citoyenneté.

Les Cahiers du numérique 10, 41–62.

doi:10.3166/LCN.10.2.4162.

Yanarella, E., Levine, R., 2011. Charter of European

Cities and Towns Towards Sustainability, in: The City

as Fulcrum of Global Sustainability. Anthem Press.

IntheHeartofIntelligentBuildings-OccupantsPracticesFacingAutomation