Advertisement

All Doors Lead to the Kitchen – Sustainability and Wellbeing Challenges in a Shared Centrepiece of Living

  • Sofie AnderssonEmail author
  • Ulrike Rahe
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 876)

Abstract

The kitchen figures a central place in the home where a significant share of a household’s resource consumption takes place. Sharing the kitchen between multiple households has potential to bring positive sustainability effects due to more efficient use of both material resources and energy. The concept of shared kitchens has, however, thus far had a limited diffusion. This paper explores the potential of shared kitchens as a future sustainable living environment by studying user experiences from a Living Lab setting. It builds the base for an overarching larger European collaboration on how future shared kitchens should be designed in order to support everyday practices while optimising the conditions for achieving positive impact on both sustainability and wellbeing. Findings are presented from five focus areas concerning different use contexts: (1) accessing, (2) cooking, (3) living and socialising, (4) storing, and (5) cleaning.

Keywords

Kitchen Sharing Sustainability Wellbeing Living lab 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the European collaboration project The Circular Kitchen, supported by the Climate-KIC initiative of the EIT, Area of Focus Urban Transition.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Keilman, N.: Biodiversity: the threat of small households. Nature 421(6922), 489–490 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klocker, N., Gibson, C., Borger, E.: Living together but apart: material geographies of everyday sustainability in extended family households. Environ. Plann. A. 44(9), 2240–2259 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gram-Hanssen, K.: Efficient technologies or user behaviour, which is the more important when reducing households’ energy consumption? Energ. Effi. 6(3), 447–457 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackson, T.: Where is the “wellbeing dividend”? nature, structure and consumption inequalities. Local Environ. 13(8), 703–723 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belk, R.: Sharing. J. Consum. Res. 36(5), 715–734 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., Baedeker, C.: Collaborative consumption: towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources 2(3), 184–203 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jarvis, H.: Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environ. Plan. A. 43(3), 560–577 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mont, O.: Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecol. Econ. 50(1–2), 135–153 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hagbert, P.: “It’s just a matter of adjustment”: residents’ perceptions and the potential for low-impact home practices. Hous. Theory Soc. 33(3), 288–304 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hand, M., Shove, E., Southerton, D.: Home extensions in the United Kingdom: space, time, and practice. Environ. Plan. D: Soc. Space 25(4), 668–681 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Materials Science, Division of Design & Human FactorsChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations