Att projektera för förändrade behov : En studie av Level(s) indikator 2.3 i svensk kontext

Sammanfattning

The construction and real estate sector finds itself in a situation where a continued need for new production coincides with increased demand for resource efficiency and reduced climate impact. In this context, buildings’ adaptability has been highlighted as a central strategy. Despite this, there is a lack of established methods for systematically assessing, comparing and communicating adaptability in the design process. The EU framework Level(s), and specifically indicator 2.3, is an attempt to address this gap through a structured assessment system. This study aims to examine how buildings’ adaptability is understood and what implications emerge in the interaction between Level(s) indicator 2.3 and Swedish design practice. The study is based on the following three research questions: RQ1: How is buildings’ adaptability defined, understood and positioned in previous research and international frameworks, with particular focus on the EU framework Level(s)? RQ2: How can Level(s) indicator 2.3 structure the assessment of adaptability when applied to a specific Swedish new production project? RQ3: What implications may emerge in the interaction between the indicator’s assessment logic and Swedish design practice? The study applies a qualitative and exploratory approach with an abductive research strategy. The empirical material draws on three parts: a structured literature review, a case study in which indicator 2.3 is applied to a newly produced office building, and an interview study with four consultants employed at Tyréns. The results show that adaptability is an established but conceptually fragmented phenomenon without a clear definition, and that Level(s) indicator 2.3 structures the assessment through twelve distinct design and system aspects, divided across spatial structure, technical systems and structural systems. The examined office building shows that it is highly adapted for organisational changes, such as tenant changes within office use, but less so for more extensive functional transformations. The cross-analysis identifies five implications in the interaction between the indicator’s assessment logic and design practice. These are that the indicator and practice do not prioritise the design aspects in the same way, that the indicator makes an implicit design goal explicit, that the indicator’s long-term logic meets a practice governed by short-term economic considerations, that the indicator’s structure requires interdisciplinary collaboration that is rarely fully realised, and that the indicator reduces complex system effects to individual measurable aspects. The study contributes two broader dimensions that previous research has only to a limited extent problematised. On one hand, there is a discrepancy in evaluation between the indicator’s assessment logic and practice’s experience-based understanding. On the other hand, the organisational structure of the design process hinders the cross-disciplinary working approach that the indicator presupposes. Taken together, the results suggest that the indicator’s practical impact is not solely dependent on its methodological design, but also on economic incentives, organisational structures and the context in which the tool is used.