The Wikihouse Experiment:
An Analysis of the Challenges and
Opportunities for Future Scaling-Up
Bachelor Thesis Human Geography
University of Amsterdam – 2018
Author: Michael de Jonge
Student number: 10220267
Date: August 10, 2018
Supervisor: Beatriz Pineda Revilla
Thesis project: Experimenting the Smart City
Course Code: 734301500Y
Table of Content
Abstract 4
1. Introduction 5
2. Theoretical Framework 7
2.1. Multi-level perspective theory 7
2.2. Scaling-up 9
2.2.1. Horizontal pathways to scaling-up 10
2.2.2. Vertical pathways to scaling-up 10
2.2.3. Connecting horizontal and vertical pathways to scaling-up11 2.3 Scaling-up factors 11
3. Methodology 15
3.1. Case 15
3.2. Data Collection 18
3.3 Data analysis 19
3.4. Qualitative Research Criteria 20
4. Results 22
4.1 Current state of Wikihouse 22
4.2 Scaling-up the Wikihouse in Almere 25
4.2.1 Operational arrangements 25
4.2.2 Policy context 27
4.2.3 Market context 29
4.2.5 Natural and built context 34 5. Discussion 36 6. Conclusion 37 Acknowledgements 38 Literature 39 Appendices 42
Abstract
This thesis will analyze the challenges and opportunities of scaling-up the Wikihouse project. Wikihouse is a new type of housing that is being brought into the market. The main idea of Wikihouse is to grow a new kind of housing industry, where the citizens, communities and small businesses are able to develop their own homes and neighborhoods. The main idea behind this, is to cut the dependence on top-down, debt-heavy mass housing systems, which the Wikihouse community sees as a necessary goal. Wikihouse is an experiment in which this democratization of the housing market is being stimulated. With the help of the Multi-Level Perspective theory, an analysis will be made of the challenges and opportunities for scaling-up the Wikihouse experiment. After gaining more knowledge on the current state of Wikihouse and the building process in Almere, it was clear that the Wikihouse is in the niche level and that research and development is needed for future scaling-up.
1. Introduction
The need for affordable and sustainable housing is becoming more and more necessary worldwide. The lack of affordable housing has been a big problem within many parts of the largest cities (Milligan, 2003). A new kind of way in which houses are being built and in which people have more to say on how they build, might be needed. Alastair Parvin is an architect and the founder of
Wikihouse. With his TED talk ‘architecture for the people by the people’ in 2013, he introduced Wikihouse to the public. In his talk he stated that there is a need to understand the economy behind the housing industry because “housing
is one of the basic platforms upon which our social and economic prosperity are built, and yet the systems we use to provide it are failing” (Parvin, 2013).
Wikihouse can be described as an open-source construction system. The idea of this open source system is that everyone should be able to access the designs and knowledge of Wikihouse world-wide and customize, print and assemble structures by themselves (Parvin, 2013). It can be seen as Wikipedia but for the construction of houses. In order to make it possible for Wikihouse to be used worldwide, materials like plywood are being used which are widely available. The building-parts can be digitally produced with a Computer Numerical
Control (CNC) machine. This is a machine that uses pre-programmed sequences to print out the desired components and is therefore fully automated without the need of manual labor (Lynch, 1997). Assembling of the components can be done with basic do-it-yourself (DIY) tools, which also makes it easy to build. Together with the growing accessibility of technological tools, and the demand for a user-responsive architecture, this has brought the discourse of the user as a designer architect to the forefront (Vardouli, 2012). For Wikihouse the solution lies in putting the design for low-cost, low-energy, high-performance housing into the hands of the citizens. With the use of digitization, it will be easier for the existing industries to invest in a more sustainable and affordable way of building houses (Worthington, 2014). The aim is attaining a distributed housing industry in which communities and small businesses develop their own houses and neighbourhoods without relying on housing systems as we know them (Wikihouse by Woningbouwatelier, n.d.).
In figure 1 the delivery chain of a Wikihouse can be seen. It starts off with a project owner who decides to build a Wikihouse, this owner will have to acquire a plot of land that is suitable for development. Next, the owner will search a design within the Wikihouse library and get permission to build. After this step, the owner runs this design through with an architect and engineer to get a
structural sign-off. A CNC manufacturer then needs to be found for the plywood to be cut. Finlly, the assembly can start and when the building is completed it will have to be controlled and signed off by a local building
company in order to start living in it. These steps that Wikihouse describes will be considered in the theoretical framework to get an overview of the current state of Wikihouse in Almere and whether scaling-up might be achieved.
Figure 1: Delivery chain of the Wikihouse (Wikihouse Foundation, 2018).
Wikihouse is an experiment in which this democratization of the housing market is being stimulated. Globally, the fastest-growing cities are not big developer masterplans, but cities built by informal, low-skilled professional builders and amateurs (Parvin, 2013). This research will analyze the potential of scaling-up the Wikihouse experiment with Almere as case study, because the Wikihouse in Almere will be the first Wikihouse to be put on the market and will be rented as a social housing unit after the summer of 2018 (I. Diekerhof, personal communication, June 7, 2018). This research is done in an exploratory way, because of the lack of research done on the Wikihouse. The aim of this research is therefore to seek new insights and gain knowledge of the Wikihouse experiment. This is done through the concept of scaling-up, which will be explained in section 2.2.
The research questions for this thesis are the following:
What are the challenges and opportunities of scaling-up the Wikihouse experiment?
The following sub-questions will help to further examine the primary research question.
What is the current state of Wikihouse?
2. Theoretical framework
In order to analyze the research questions, the theoretical framework will first be discussed. Fo this research, the Multi-Level Perspective theory and the concept of scaling-up will serve as theoretical framework.
2.1 Multi-level perspective theory
In this thesis the multilevel perspective (MLP) theory which was developed by Frank Geels will be used to understand how the Wikihouse project is
progressing and whether upscaling might happen in the future.
The MLP theory was developed by Geels as a heuristic in order to better
understand and/or explain the sociotechnical change in society (Hölsgens et al., 2018). Geels has defined transitions as ‘shifts from one sociotechnical system to another’, thus resulting in a system innovation. Within these system
innovations, technological changes take place as well as other changes (Geels, 2005 p. 682).
One of the most import prerequisite for applying the MLP to a transition is the existence of the three analytical levels which Geels describes as “niche”, “regime”, and “landscape” (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Multiple levels as a nested hierarchy. Source: Geels, 2002.
To better understand the MLP, the terms ‘niche’, ‘regime’ and ‘landscape’ will now be explained. Niches are often portrayed as a kind of bottom-up movement where innovative studies take place. Within these innovations radical
experiments can exist, which are eventually tested for further scaling-up into the ‘regime’ level (Geels and Schot, 2010 p. 22). Niches can have as aim to replace the existing regime and can therefore be said to have a competitive relationship to the regime. The relationship can however also be a symbiotic type of
relationship in which the niche can be seen as enhancing and adding on to the existing regime (Geels and Schot, 2007).
In order to speak of the MLP, a stable regime has to exists (Hölsgens et al., 2018). Rip and Kemp (1998) write that “a technological regime is the rule-set
embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production process
technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of handling relevant artefacts and persons, way of defining problems, all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures (Rip and Kemp, 1998 p. 340)”
To understand the kind of artefacts and persons which are relevant and are part of the regime, depends on the regime and/or transition that is under
investigation. This can be understood by what Geels and Schot (2010) describe as the ‘socio-technical regimes’. This regime involves more social groups such as scientists, users and policy makers. Within the regime, the focus often
remains on technological change, but as we have seen, many relevant social groups are also involved in the process. This means that one could also imagine a regime in which not necessarily technologies and engineering practices are the main focus, but other constructs as well. The last part of the MLP is the
‘landscape’. The landscape can be seen to ‘hoover’ as a more or less
unreachable level above the regime. The landscape is, as the name suggests, the biggest entity of the MLP. It encompasses all kind of exogenous processes that may also be relevant to the regime and the possible transition process. An example could be the climate, oil prices, urbanization etc. Changes within the landscape will generally not be as quick as changes at the other levels (Hölsgens et al., 2018). As this thesis aims to integrate the MLP in the analysis of the Wikihouse progression, it will be interesting to conclude whether the Wikihouse experiment will have the potential to move up from the niche level into the regime. It is however also important to consider and integrate the other two levels in the analysis in order to have a good overview of the analysis. As we have seen, niches can have successful results and may therefore grow out to become mainstream and may eventually become able to challenge the existing regime. However, we have to keep in mind that the logic of the MLP dictates that this will be much harder, and will take longer, compared to when windows of opportunities emerge in the regime to move along into the landscape. With the help of this theory, an analysis can be made of whether the Wikihouse has the potential of upscaling and moving from the niche level into the regime level. It will give us a clearer view of the stage in which the Wikihouse is and
In order to examine whether the Wikihouse experiment will have a potential of moving up in to the regime, the concept of ‘scaling-up’ will be used. This concept will help to analyze what the current situation of Wikihouse is and whether the Wikihouse has the potential of growing. The concept will be
explained in the next section and will serve as main guide for the analysis of the Wikihouse experiment.
2.2 Scaling-up
The term ‘scaling-up’ refers to a progression in levels that are located at
different positions on a scale. In this progression, information from one scale is transferred to another and will eventually result in the reaching of a higher level on the scale and an overall greater impact (Gibson et al., 2000; Schneider, 2001). To understand this process, the term ‘scale’ must be understood. This term can be described as the spatial, temporal, quantitative or analytical
dimension that is used to study the processes and is often understood in terms of hierarchy (Gibson et al., 2000; Gillespie, 2004). A level is a unit of analysis located on a position on a scale (Gibson et al., 2000).
For this research, the ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ pathways to scaling-up as described by van Doren et al., (2016) will be used to analyze the ways in which the Wikihouse is scaling-up or could scale-up in the future. In figure 2 the two forms of scaling-up are showed. The ways in which vertical and horizontal scaling-up work and how they relate to eachother will now be discussed.
Figure 2. Horizontal and vertical pathways to scaling-up the Wikihouse (Van Doren et al., 2016).
2.2.1 Horizontal pathways to scaling-up
The horizontal ways of scaling-up refer to the spatial growth of an experiment or initiative (van Doren et al., 2016). The words ‘diffusion’, ‘quantitative
scaling-up’ and ‘spatial scaling’ can be used to better understand the meaning of horizontal ways of scaling-up. The term diffusion can be described as the
process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. It is a special type of
communication, in that the messages are concerned with new ideas (Rogers, 1995). The term quantitative scaling-up can be defined as a program or an organization that expands its size, by increasing its membership base or its constituency and, linked to that, its geographic working area or its budgets (Uvin, 1995). This is the most evident kind of scaling up, equaling “growth” or “expansion” in their basic meanings. Spatial scaling is a term that is defined as the widening of scale of operation from, for example, experimental plot, to field, to farm, to watershed, etc. (Douthwaite et al., 2003).
The horizontal ways of scaling-up thus implies a process in which the main objective is to literally increase coverage. This means reaching more people and having a greater impact in society. Horizontal scaling-up can for instance be achieved when an initiative expands form the street level to the neighborhood level and then from neighborhood to city the city level. This means that
horizontal scaling-up can result from spatial growth and expansion. Achieving horizontal scaling-up can also be achieved through transfer of initiatives to other cities, within a country or even abroad (van Doren et al., 2016).
2.2.2 Vertical pathways to scaling-up
The second pathway to scaling-up is referred to as ‘vertical scaling-up’. Vertical scaling-up refers to the process where the information concerning ideas, values, knowledge inform institutions at higher administrative and organizational levels with wider-reaching impact. It thus implies a process where the initiative (in this case the Wikihouse) serves as the basis for wider policy and/or institutional change. Vertical scaling-up can be better understood with the terms ‘political scaling’ and ‘mainstreaming’. Political scaling can be described as the increase in political power and engagement with wider political processes. This type of scaling up refers to the extent to which the organization moves beyond service delivery toward empowerment and change. This will usually involve active political involvement and the development of relations with the state. The term mainstreaming is defined as the eventual trajectory and outcome of the
experiment. The main outcome here is that the experiment will be developed and scaled-up to change the regional or national regimes (Bai et al., 2010).
Van Doren et al., (2016) propose that vertical scaling-up occurs when “an
initiative has influenced formal institutions (policy goals or instruments) and/or informal institutions (values, ideas) of policy networks, thereby creating an enabling environment for change and changing the structural causes of the urban development” (van Doren et al., 2016 pp 179). A policy network is
defined as a combination of the interdependent governmental, private and civil society actors that participate in the policy area (see Kickert et al., 1997).
2.2.3 Connecting the horizontal and vertical pathways to scaling-up
As we can see in figure 2, scaling-up is achieved when horizontal and vertical scaling-up are combined. Figure 2 also shows the criteria that have to be met for this combination to occur. In simple terms, it can be said that the more
horizontal scaling-up occurs, the greater are the chances that the initiative will inform institutions and thus result in a higher level of vertical scaling-up (van Doren et al., 2016). Scaling-up should be seen as a combination of both vertical and horizontal scaling-up because without for instance vertical scaling-up, initiatives remain little more than ‘islands of excellence’. A facilitative institutional context, which can be the result of vertical scaling-up, is not
sufficient by itself. The political rhetoric at the macro level needs to be put into practice.
2.3 Scaling-up factors
In order to understand whether we can speak of horizontal or vertical scaling-up, the different factors contributing to potential scaling-up will now be mapped out in a table. The table presents a summary of factors which are expected to play a role in scaling-up and is based upon the work of van Doren et al. (2016) and adapted to the Wikihouse context. This table was formed while the
interviews were being conducted, the factors and the expected influence were adjusted on basis of the questions that were being asked and the results that were obtained from the interviews. The table consists of five sets of components that are considered to have the highest impact on scaling-up. These components will be analyzed in the Wikihouse project with the help of qualitative case study methodology. A conclusion will then be taken on which factors have
contributed toor limited the success and impact of the Wikihouse experiment. These insights can then be used in the future to inform strategies for scaling-up within the Wikihouse context.
Factor Operational definition Expected influence on horizontal pathways to scaling-up Expected influence on vertical pathways to scaling-up Operational arrangements Stakeholder involvement The participation of representatives of different organizations that have a direct interest in the initiative (van Doren et al., 2016).
Can contribute to the support and mobilization of resources that are required for the replication and growth of Wikihouses.
The engagement of Stakeholders can enable different parties to exchange their experiences. This can in turn lead to institutional adjustments that are required for large-scale growth and replication of Wikihouses. Policy context
Political leadership
The amount of governmental leadership in promoting Wikihouse at the national and/or local level (van Doren et al., 2016).
Can encourage private and civil society participants to grow and replicate
Wikihouses, this will also lead to a higher level of trust in the policy framework.
Can increase the possibility that political leaders are inclined to learn from Wikihouse and eventually change the formal and informal institutions of the policy network in favor of building more Wikihouses.
Financial policy instruments
Policy instruments that have an effect on the efficiency of actions in the form of financial incentives (van Doren et al., 2016).
Can positively influence the perceived financial
advantage of measures for building Wikihouses and the growth and replication of Wikihouses.
With positive results, financial policy instruments such as subsidies might increase for the building of more Wikihouses.
Market context Instalment and building costs
The purchase and instalment costs of Wikihouse materials and the total financial price paid for the building of a Wikihouse (van Doren et al., 2016).
Can affect the financial advantage for building Wikihouses and can increase the demand for Wikihouses.
Can result in more subsidies from governments or
institutions.
Information availability
The amount of objective and reliable information that is available for the building of Wikihouses (van Doren et al., 2016).
Can enlarge the confidence that consumers have in measures for building a Wikihouse. This may lead to a higher demand for Wikihouses on the market.
Can result in the increase of knowledge about the
Wikihouse for politicians and policy makers.
Social-cultural context
Environmental impact of the Wikihouse
The level of environmental impact (van Doren et al., 2016).
Can help to strengthen the acceptance and demand for Wikihouses for consumers. This may enable the growth and replication of more Wikihouses.
Low environmental impact can result in the Wikihouse being more interesting and higher on the agenda of politicians.
Sense of community
A feeling that members have of belonging and of being
important and matter to each other and to the group. It also involves the confidence of members’ engagement
together. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986).
Can stimulate citizens to speak positively about the Wikihouse and its impact, enabling growth and replication of Wikihouses.
-
Natural and built context
Technical compatibility
Compatibility of the measures for building a Wikihouse with geographical conditions and technological infrastructure (van Doren et al., 2016).
Can have an effect on the potential and
cost-effectiveness of measures for building Wikihouses. This can lead to a more feasible way of building Wikihouses.
-
Table 1. Factors that contribute to horizontal and vertical pathways to scaling-up Wikihouses (adapted table based on the work of van Doren et al., 2016).
3. Methodology
In this section the methodology will first be discussed that is used in this research. To understand the different concepts which are being used in this research, they will first be explained with an overview of the existing literature. Next, the case study which is used will be introduced. Before the data collection took place, respondents were contacted and during the data collection,
interviews were being conducted, whilst still contacting new respondents. The third phase consists of an explanation of the ways in which the data is gathered and analyzed. The last phase will focus on the qualitative research criteria for this thesis.
3.1 Case
Since the crisis in 2008, the housing market in The Netherlands has been
recovering with house prices spiraling upwards. The continuing migration to the major dutch cities has stimulated the demand for urban housing, but the supply has been failing to keep pace (Hekwolter et al., 2017). This combination of high demand and low supply has resulted in a shortage of affordable housing. This has also lead to a difficult position on the housing market for the middle-income earners.
Figure 3 shows the price movements in percentages from 2008 to 2013 in major cities in the Netherlands. A large difference can be seen between price
movements in major cities and the rest of the Netherlands. The figure shows that the major cities in the Netherlands have experienced a stronger price rise than other cities in the rest of the country. House prices have been rising so much in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht that they have even come above their pre-crisis levels (Hekwolter et al., 2017).
Figure 4 shows the average annual house price increase in perentages over the past three years in major world cities. We can see that the same thing has happened abroad. House prices have actually risen faster in some major cities than in the Netherlands. China has been the country with the most extreme annual increase in house prices, but as we can see in the figure, Amsterdam is also high on the list.
Figure 3: Price movements in percentages from 2008 to 2013 in major cities in the Netherlands (Hekwolter et al., 2017).
Figure 4: Average annual house price increase in perentages over the past three years in major world cities (Hekwolter et al., 2017).
In order to get a clear understanding of what Wikihouse is and how this can be analyzed, a case study is needed. As a case study the Wikihouse that has been built in Almere has been chosen to analyze. WikihouseNL started with the build of the first Wikihouse in Almere in October 2017 and the main structure was built within two weeks (WikihouseNL, 2017). Together with the different
participants, the project was elaborated, and the house was designed. The goal is to build 15-20 more Wikihouses within the next years in Almere. The future residents finance the houses with a mortgage, after which they themselves or with the help of friends, family, self-employed or a builder realize the property. The ambition of this experiment is to realize homes with a monthly living burden of about € 500 per month, this amount is based on mortgage and energy costs for a Wikihouse (Woningbouwatelier, 2018).
Focusing on the Wikihouse in Almere can help us to explore how the building process has been, the challenges it has brought, the future challenges it could bring and the future possibilities of building more Wikihouses in the
Netherlands.
Figure 3. A map of Almere with the location of the tiny house complex and the Wikihouse (in red) (Google Maps, 2018).
Figure 4. A map that shows the relative distance from Amsterdam to the Wikihouse location in Almere (in red) (Google Maps, 2018).
3.2 Data collection
This research is mainly based upon primary data, but secondary data has also been used for a part. Primary data can be described as data that is collected by the researcher(s) and secondary data can be described as data which has been collected by other researchers such as reports, policy documents and articles from other authors (Bryman, 2012). This thesis is based upon both primary and secondary data, interviews have been taken in order to understand more about the processes of the Wikihouse in Almere. Different stakeholders that
contributed to the building of Wikihouse Almere have been interviewed to get a broad view of the project.
The primary data in this research comes from semi-structured interviews that have been taken in an exploratory way, as there has not yet been any research on the Wikihouse in Almere. According to Robson (2002), an exploratory study can be defined as a valuable means of finding out what is happening, where the aim is to “seek new insights and to ask questions and assess phenomena in a
new light” (Cited in Saunders et al. 2009, pp 139).
The semi-structured interviews conducted during this research therefore tended to be very flexible and there was no particular order of questions. There was a list of questions in order to steer the interviews in the right direction, but the focus of the interviews was mainly to get as much information from the respondents as possible and therefore leaving room for the interviewees to answer in the broadest way. The list of questions can be found in the appendix. The result of these interviews was that it was possible to uncover different aspects that were not taken into consideration in the first place but helped to get
a bigger and clearer perspective. As Bryman (2012) explains, undiscovered aspects of the research can even lead to a shift in the emphasis of the research. As this research is of nature an exploratory research, semi-structured interviews were the main way of getting as much information as possible. During these interviews the table of Wikihouse factors was also taking shape and was being adapted whilst obtaining different results. The main goal of semi-structured interviews is to get rich and detailed answers which can provide a context and an explanation. This is not the case with structured interviews in which answers can be processed and compared with for example the use of questionnaires (Bryman, 2012).
As this research is of exploratory nature, respondents were contacted at the start of the research. A date, time and location were set after the respondents that were willing to take time for an interview were contacted. A total of six interviews have been taken, of which five with the different stakeholders involved with the construction of the Wikihouse in Almere and one interview with the founder of Wikihouse Alastair Parvin. Of these interviews, two took place at the WIkihouse in Almere, one at the housing corporation ‘Goede Stede’, two at a café in Amsterdam and one via skype. Before the interview would start, permission to record the interview was asked in order to use the recorded audio for purpose of the study. In order to get as much information as possible from the interviews, the questions asked were mainly semi-structured to ensure the different respondents were able to elaborate. Certain topics were discussed more, depending on the role the respondent played during the
building of the Wikihouse. If a respondent deviated too far from the question asked, they were steered back in the direction relevant for the research. To supplement the primary data, secondary data was used in the form of desk research. This is data that was already available and is found in primary and secondary resources that already exist. This can be in the form of information that has already been collected by for example individuals or agencies and institutions other than the researcher him or herself (Babbie & Mouton, 2007).
3.3 Data analysis
The analysis of this research was conducted through the use of transcribed interviews from different audio recordings. Transcribing interviews has benefits compared to only using the notes that have been taken during an interview (Bryman, 2012). Benefits of transcribing interviews are that the use of a recording helps to not rely on the limited memory from an interview. The recordings also make the data available for verification and the transcribed
recordings also makes sure to be as detailed as possible when writing down the results. Recordings may however also have an effect on the setting, as it might influence the respondent and the answers he gives. The respondents were always informed and asked if the interview may be recorded.
After transcribing the interviews, a set of codes were created in order to make the analysis easier and more focused, these codes were created based on the factors in table 1. The different codes were then highlighted in the transcribed interviews and processed in the results, this can also be seen in the appendix. Five interviews have been taken, with a total of about six hours of recordings. It took about five hours to transcribe one interview, which therefore amounts to about 30 to 35 hours of time spent transcribing the interviews. The free software “oTranscribe” has been used to transcribe the different interviews, this software was helpful as it had different functions such as slowing down the tempo of the audio and pausing it with a button on the keyboard.
3.4 Qualitative research criteria
This section will cover the ways in which the methodology of this research affects the research criteria of qualitative research and is based upon the criteria set by Bryman (2012).
The reliability of obtaining the same results in the future is relatively low. Policies that are of interest at this moment may change over time due to the election process that takes place every four years. The interviews which have been conducted with the specific respondents are semi-structured, this means that the questions asked are not the same for each respondent and thus provides different information. Re-doing this research, may therefore also provide
different information with different respondents. Information and opinions may also change over time due to innovation and research and development
however, the results of this research will still be useful over the long term. The measurement validity comprises the way in which the measurements reflect the given concepts. For this research, interviews have been taken with key
figures of the Wikihouse experiment in Almere and will thus make sure that the different concepts are understood correctly. As the case study of Almere is one of the most important aspects of this research, contextual and in-depth
The external validity comprises the generalization of the research. In this case the external validity is relatively moderate. The way Wikihouse is perceived and realized may vary from country to country due to for example different policies and different climates. The goal of this research is not to generalize the results that are obtained, but rather to create an overview of the current situation and future possibilities for Wikihouse.
4. Results
In this section the results based on the analysis of the data will be presented. These results will be presented according to the structure of the sub-questions which are mentioned in the introduction. The first part will therefore give an overview of the current state of Wikihouse (4.1) and the second part will discuss whether upscaling has been achieved or can be achieved in the future (4.2). The results will be analyzed with the help of table 1. The different factors will therefore be considered for the Wikihouse and will be explained on the basis of the collected data.
4.1 Current state of Wikihouse
The Wikihouse Foundation is a non-profit open technology foundation, based in the UK. Their purpose is to allow companies, organizations and governments to work together in order to develop new open technologies, standards and
common infrastructures for housing and sustainable development (Wikihouse, 2018). Wikihouse is an open-source construction system with the idea that everyone should be able to access the Wikihouse designs and knowledge of Wikihouse (Mens, J. and Vreeswijk, K. 2016). At the moment three Wikihouses have been realized, one in England, one in Rio and one in Almere. Wikihouse was brought to Rio in 2014 and was done in collaboration with the Dharma agency and Estúdio Guanabara. This project was started in order to empower youth from suburbs and favelas of the city of Rio de Janeiro and to enable creativity and active citizenship (Burón, J. and YM. Sánchez, 2015). The main goal of the project in Rio was to enhance community youth development and their quality of life and would be done through the use of digital fabrication techniques and an open source construction system. During the interview with Alastair, the question was asked what the current state of Wikihouse is. He answered that “we don't know the exact state because lots of things are
happening without us knowing, the whole idea is open-source so it’s hard to keep track of what’s happening around us”. This shows how open-source can have it’s positive and less positive sides, it may be open to the world, but it makes it less measurable at the same time what the exact state of Wikihouse is. There may be small Wikihouses being built without people even knowing about it. Alastair continued by saying that the Wikihouse “is still really at the
prototype level. With every step we are going a little bit further”. This was interesting to hear, because of the honesty about the current state of Wikihouse and the progress being made. Wikihouse is still really at prototype level and research and development is of high priority for the Wikihouse foundation. In figure 5 a map is shown of the current Wikihouses that have been built across the world. Most of these Wikihouses are prototyes and not ready to be used as homes. A total of 17 Wikihouses can be seen on the map. Of these 17
Wikihouses, 9 are in Europe, 3 in Asia, 2 in North America, 2 in South America and 1 in Africa. This shows that Wikihouse is becoming worldwide and that the power of open-source has had an effect in different places. As said before, there are currently 3 Wikihouses that have been completed and are livable, the rest of the Wikihouses that can be seen in figure 5 are either prototypes or models.
Figure 5: Map of the current Wikihouses that have been built and reported to the Wikihouse foundation (Wikihouse, 2018).
Alastair also talked about the different aspects that the Wikihouse foundation in England is working on. He for example stated that “there are still a few things
we are working on to take it a step further. We are working on the hardware to make it easier for the engineer and also having good documentation. In terms of building regulations, we are yet to have a real problem with. Because the
Wikihouse by definition outperforms other houses in terms of energy etc. So as long as there is a structural engineer to sign it off, the rest is eligible for that”.
The biggest issues that Wikihouse is working on are the engineering parts and the documentation part which is necessary to build the house. Alastair talked about how much of a difference it will make when the documentation of how to build a Wikihouse is upgraded. A better documentation of how to build a
Wikihouse will susposedly make the engineering part much less complicated for the people building a Wikihouse. With this being said, the current state in
Almere can help to give insight into the progress being made for Wikihouse in the Netherlands. This will be done in the next section with the help of the concept of scaling-up.
Figure 6: Exterior of the Wikihouse in Almere, Almere. June 7, 2018.
4.2 Scaling-up the Wikihouse in Almere
The results that have been attained after the build of the Wikihouse will mainly be based on the data that has been collected from the interviews with the
different stakeholders involved. These results will be categorized with the help of table 1.
4.2.1 Operational arrangements
Stakeholders involvement
In order to make an analysis of whether there is potential for scaling-up the Wikihouse experiment in the future, the operational arrangements will first be examined. This will be done by looking at the stakeholder involvement during the Wikihouse experiment in Almere. As seen in table 1, stakeholder
involvement is described as “the participation of representatives of
organizations, communities, or interest groups that have a direct interest in the initiative (van Doren et al., 2016)”.
The Wikihouse in Almere was realized with the help of different stakeholders, these were the ‘Woningbouwatelier’, ‘Almere2.0’, ‘Woonstichting
Goedestede’, ‘Trebbe’, ‘WikiHouseNL’, ‘Muller Ontwerpburo’ and ‘Rick Smeenk’. Besides these different stakeholders there have also been people who voluntarily helped with the build of the Wikihouse. These people were from the Netherlands, but also from abroad. All of the stakeholders have been contacted and only Trebbe and Rick Smeenk have not responded. Ikea has also helped with the interior of the Wikihouse. Ikea recognizes the core concepts of small, affordable, sustainable and in particular the do-it-yourself building concept that is at the center of the Wikihouse.
The house was realized in february of 2018 and took about four months to build. Ivar Diekerhof is one of the members of the ‘woningbouwatelier’ and was highly involved in the process of realizing the Wikihouse in Almere. The woningbouwatelier is an initiative of the municipality of Almere, the Ministry of the Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations and the Central Government Real Estate Agency. The woningbouwatelier is part of the Almere 2.0 Program. The Almere 2.0 program is a program from the municipality of Almere that has been formed to invest in the quality of the city (Almere 2.0, 2018). Almere is a
diverse city and is continuing to grow in the variety of housing. New
construction mainly takes place in the existing city (Poort, Nobelhorst, Centrum Weerwater) and in the new districts of Almere Oosterwold and Almere Pampus. In these new areas, other types of homes and neighborhoods are added than those already present in Almere. But the municipality of Almere says that growth alone is not enough. New facilities are needed for a green, sustainable
and lively city (Almere 2.0, 2018). Besides the woningbouwatelier and Almere 2.0, the Wikihouse in Almere was made possible with the help of
Woonstichting Goede Stede, Trebbe, WikiHouseNL, Muller Ontwerpburo and Rick Smeenk. Woonstichting Goede Stede is a housing corporation in Almere that is focussed on public housing, they were asked by the municipality of Almere to join he building process of the Wikihouse and bring their knowledge and expertise. Trebbe is a construction company and is specialised in
maintenance work and minor renovations, they were the company that was responsible for construction work such as laying the foundation for the
Wikihouse. WikihouseNL is the platform for Wikihouse in the Netherlands, this was created by architect Vincent Muller and his company Ontwerpburo Muller. They played a vital role in the process of realising the Wikihouse in Almere, most of the planning and architecture was done by WikihouseNL and
Ontwerburo Muller. Rick Smeenk is the company that was responsible for the interior construction, they made the Wikihouse framework with the help of a CNC machine.
In figure 6 and 7 the interior and exterior of the completed Wikihouse can be seen. These photos were taken after the interviews with Ivar Diekerhof of the Woningbouwatelier and Floris van Slijpe of Almere 2.0. Permission was asked for using the photos for the purpose of this research.
One of the statements that were found interesting during the interviews was with the architect and founder of the WikihouseNL platform Vincent Muller. He said: “I do not think Wikihouse will take over the whole housing market, that is
not possible. But the niche we are in right now can be much less niche”.
What has been remarkable during the data collection was that there was a clear division of stakeholders that were either positive or negative about the
experiment. Henk Klinkenberg was the person responsible for the contribution of Woningstichting Goede Stede and said, “I’m sitting at the table as a
counterpart to Ivar, he can have a very nice story and he certainly did, but you must also hear the reality as we see it, that is that we have totally no priority of making such houses as the Wikihouse”. Ivar Diekerhof on the other hand said: “I think that there is potential, yes. I think we can move towards a different way of realizing your home where you have much more influence”.
This shows what the different perspectives have been during the realization of the Wikihouse in Almere. Two completely different perspectives can be seen and their visions of the future for Wikihouses are opposite to each other. The involvement of these different stakeholders can thus be divided into two groups that either have a positive look into the experiment or a negative look.
4..2.2 Policy context
Political leadership
The municipality of Almere have stated that in 2018 the focus will be on upscaling and broad sharing of insights (Jaarverslag Almere 2.0, 2017). This concerns the instigation of private self-building of 6-24 Wikihouses. In the region and wider in the Netherlands, this concerns the broad sharing of insights in the trade media (reaching municipalities), linking to City Deal agreements and the national ‘Expertteam Eigenbouw’, general media (self-builders interest). For this purpose, a Wikihouse manual will be prepared and published for other municipalities and self-builders. Floris stated that “we, as municipality have a
partnership between the Ministry of Interior Affairs and the Government Real Estate Company. We are working on boosting concrete experiments in
residential construction like this house in Almere but have relevance for the rest of the Netherlands. For example, we have a statement for affordable and
digitization in the construction industry, the next step is that we throw that into a concrete experiment that will be realized”. It was clear during the interview
with Floris that the municipality of Almere is strongly involved with the
experiment and is boosting the Wikihouse experiment in order to achieve more affordable houses and to stimulate digitization in the construction industry. Floris stated that the municipality wants to be involved with these experiments because they believe that “these kinds of things are in the market and in the air;
digitization, open-source and self-construction. It is cool to step in as
government and the pursuit that it is realized. And that is happening now and there is much interest to realize a Wikihouse yourself”. It was very interesting
to see how positive and involved the municipality has been during the building process of the Wikihouse and how much they believe and want to invest in more Wikihouses in Almere. This pattern of thinking was very different compared to Henk Klinkenberg, he said that the whole process was “a puzzle
that had to comply with the law”. He continued by saying that “If you have the illusion that the resident can do it all by himself, that’s impossible. And the law is not regulated like that here in the Netherlands. You will never receive
approval from the utilities companies”. It is clear how different the opinions of
the various stakeholders were. This shows that there have been struggles during the build of the Wikihouse and that the participation of representatives of
different organizations that have had a direct interest in the initiative are not yet on the same page. It is however, interesting to see how vertical scaling-up is being stimulated by the municipality of Almere. If the building of the future Wikihouses in Almere will have a positive outcome, vertical scaling-up might occur through financial policy instruments such as subsidies for the building of more Wikihouses.
Financial policy instruments
During the interviews with Ivar and Vincent it was mentioned that the EU will contribute to the Wikihouse experiment in the future through the Interreg Europe programme. Vincent stated that “the fact that this subsidy is awarded
with a considerable amount, would mean that a future is seen for Wikihouse”.
The exact amount of this subsidy was not told, but as Vincent said, a considerable amount is being awarded to the Wikihouse foundation. The Interreg Europe programme is a programme with the objective to reduce
disparities in the levels of development, growth and quality of life in European regions (Interreg Europe, 2018). The programme promotes actions that are designed to make the European territory more innovative, sustainable and inclusive. It has been created in order to support policy-learning among the relevant policy organizations with the goal of improving the performance of regional development policies and programmes.
The programme has a budget of EUR 359 million for the period from 2014 to 2020 and has a thematic focus on the topics of research, technological
development and innovation, competitiveness of SME’s, the low-carbon economy and environment and resource efficiency (Interreg Europe, 2018). With the involvement of the EU in this experiment, the potential of scaling-up might grow. As we have seen in table 2, a positive outcome of the Wikihouse experiment might in the future lead to more subsidies from the EU. The EU has apparently already seen the potential of scaling-up the Wikihouse experiment. With this subsidy, further research and development can be done. This can also help to look at different ways of building a Wikihouse. As Vincent said, “in the future, a Wikihouse might also be built on a roof of a parking garage, perhaps for students. This would mean you don’t have to deal with the problem of land prices. The construction is very light, so you do not need a heavy foundation and it can all be disassembled. In this way, one can also build temporarily”.
With the contribution of this subsidy, these examples that Vincent has mentioned might be taken into consideration and result in new ways and
methods of building a Wikihouse. This could eventually also lead to horizontal scaling-up because it can positively influence the perceived financial advantage of measures for building Wikihouses and lead to the growth and replication of Wikihouses.
4.2.3 Market context
Instalment and building costs
In table 2 an estimate has been made of the construction costs for building a two story Wikihouse, according to Bouwscoop. This is the company that was asked to make a financial estimate of the costs of building the Wikihouse in Almere. The current idea for the Wikihouse community in Almere is to build 15-20 Wikihouses that are two-stories. Table 2 will therefore give an insight to the relative costs of these Wikihouses that will be built. In addition to the
construction costs that are listed in table 2, land also needs to be bought. Additional costs such as drawing and calculation work, project
management/supervision, permits, connection costs must also be considered (M. Hartsema, personal communication, July 12, 2018). In this specific project, some costs for solar panels, plumbing and the outer ring are not included in the construction costs, but in the total project costs.
The cost of land is relatively speaking +/- 15-20% of the construction costs for the additional costs (M. Hartsema, personal communication, July 12, 2018). Land prices are very depending on the location (and size); Almere is for example more expensive than a place like Groningen.
In table 2 we see that the total constructions costs including VAT is €142,835. This total cost is if the house is built by a professional. Of these total costs, €44,000 are labor costs, of which is estimated that €38,000 can be done by yourself, this will result in a self-constructed house of around €106,000.
In addition, though are +/- €20,000 of additional costs and land of +/- €50,000. This will eventually result in a self-constructed house of +/- €175,000 or a constructed house of +/- €215,000 (M. Hartsema, personal communication, July 12, 2018).
During the interview with Menno, the question was asked why the Wikihouse is being promoted as a cheap house that can be built for €100,000 and he said that
“the hope is that you can have a house for €100,000 euros, but that will not work because of all the additional costs”. It seems tough to build a Wikihouse
that is really cheaper than building a normal house, because of all the additional costs that are not shown in the first place. Menno expressed that if you are wanting to build a Wikihouse because you are trying to save money, than you should not start with the process.
Nr. Description Cost in € A Construction costs A1 Architectural works 91.345 A Foundation 7.851 B Casco 36.148 C Roof finishing 4.511 D Façade finishing 28.684
E Inner wall finishing 6.158
F Floor finishing 5.579
G Stairs and ramps 850
H Ceilings 1.565
A2 Installations 15.816
A Mechanical engineering - liquid and gas
installations
4.830
B Mechanical engineering - climate installations 6.571
C Electro technical - energy supply, lighting 4.025
D Electro technical - communication, security 390
E Transport installations -
A3 Permanent establishments and facilities 350
A Permanent sanitation 350
A4 Terrain -
Total construction costs 118.045
Total construction costs incl. VAT 142.835
Table 2: Estimated construction costs for a two story Wikihouse (Bouwscoop, 2018).
When asking about whether the housing corporation Goede Stede would invest in the build of more Wikihouses in the future, Henk answered “when we talk
about the actual building costs of Wikihouse, the actual foundation costs of this house are three times as expensive as normal. It is many times more expensive, therefore we will never do this again, because this is beyond our standard. So why should we invest money in the Wikhouse if we can build two normal houses for the same price?”
It seems that the reason for building a Wikihouse should not be based around saving money or building it because it might seem cheaper. The motivation should lay in different aspects of the Wikihouse. This was confirmed by Ivar, who said that “democratization is what it is all about, ensuring that the end user has much more power and control, with which he really gains influence on how his home is realized. Wikihouse makes that possible”. The motivation
behind building a Wikihouse has more to do with the democratization than of building a cheap house.
Information availability
The idea behind the Wikihouse experiment is to create an open-source construction system. This means that everyone should be able to access the designs and knowledge of Wikihouse world-wide and customize, print and assemble structures by themselves (Parvin, 2013). Information is therefore available to anyone who has access to a computer. During the interview with the Wikihouse founder Alastair Parvin, he mentioned that the Wikihouse principle is very simple, “it's an open-source principle, which means, don't go and solve
somebody else's problem in the context you don't understand, solve the problem where you are. The whole idea is about empowering, solve your problem and open-source it so other people can see what's different about where they are but use what is useful. In open-source it's called forking, so they fork what's their version of it and that's always been our kind of theory on how we engage in the world”. Having this kind of forking principle means that people will take the information that is already out there and adapt it to their needs, and eventually bringing it back online. This results in a chain in which people continuously
take the available information and basically re-structuring it to their needs and the ways in which the information can be used in their specific environment. The current Wikihouse technologies are primarily led out for temperate
developed economies, but with the sharing of information it can be adapted for other climates and economies. As Alastair said, the way it will spread is through forking. Through this process he says “different pieces of principles or
platforms behind it will then find their applications in the economies. So actually, digitizing the planning system and running on platforms is just a necessity. We should not go into Africa and India and just build there, because what is happening now is that they are taking our failing model here and are replicating it over there with more zeros on the end, which is a really stupid idea. So, it's about us solving our problems and they can take lessons from us and not repeat the mistakes we made”. Spreading the Wikihouse concept
through open-source and letting citizens create and shape the Wikihouse is what it’s all about for Alastair. It’s a new way of shaping the economy he says and doing this through a digital platform is ‘just necessary’. This reflects the
statement of democratization, Alastair says that “Generally speaking it should be about creating ecosystems of small companies what are called SMEs”. This is reflected through the concept of the local economy, which Alastair says is about “building capacity and that's also about building local economic capacity, creating local companies that can create low energy homes”. The availability of information is one of the stonger factors within the Wikihouse experiment, horizontal scaling-up could be achieved in the sense that it could
enlarge the confidence that consumers have in measures for building a
Wikihouse. This may lead to a higher demand for Wikihouses on the market. It can also lead to vertical scaling-up because it may lead to an increase of
knowledge about the Wikihouse for politicians and policy makers.
4.2.4 Socio-cultural context
Environmental impact of the Wikihouse
One of the Wikihouse statements is to put the design solutions for building low-cost, low-energy, high-performance homes into the hands of every citizen and business on earth. Low-energy and high-performance housing are one of the priorities of Wikihouse. As shown in figure 6, there are different aspects that have been taken into consideration with the build of the Wikihouse. One of these is that it’s energy consumption is ‘ultra-low’ and that it is ‘low-carbon’, with the use of circular materials. Alastair Parvin believes that Wikihouse can contribute to the solutions of sustainable development. In order to address big challenges such as urbanization and climate change, a new type of micro,
low-cost, high- performance sustainable design solutions that can be copied, locally adapted and manufactured anywhere and by anyone must be developed (Parvin, 2013). As we had seen in table 1, the environmental impact of the Wikihouse can help to strengthen the acceptance and demand for Wikihouses for
consumers. This may eventually enable the growth and replication of Wikihouses. Having a low environmental impact is therefore of high
importance for future horizontal scaling-up. “The person who is most interested in energy efficiency is the homeowner and that’s what Wikihouse is doing, putting sustainable technologies into the hands of the end user”.
Figure 8: Aspects of the Wikihouse (Wikihouse, 2018).
Sense of community
The sense of community factor has been defined in table 1 as a feeling that members have of belonging and that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be met through commitment to be together. A positive sense of community can eventually stimulate citizens to speak positively about the Wikihouse and its impact, therefore enabling growth and replication of Wikihouses.
In several interviews this sense of community had been mentioned. Ivar for example mentioned that “you know your neighbor before you live there. Sharing your designs and your ideas, working together, etc. leads to a
community feel before the house is even there”. Because of the need to build the
This sense of community can obviously be positive or negative. Menno
mentioned that “there is a lot of emotion when you do it with different people,
you expect that you help each other, but that can also just go wrong”. Whether
this sense of community is experienced in a positive or negative way of course varies per project. Ivar mentioned that “the Wikihouse project in Almere was a
lot of fun, we had people from all over Europe who came to Almere to help build the Wikihouse because together with the English Wikihouse it is the first Wikihouse that has been set up in the world”. It’s a good sign that the build of
the first Wikihouse project in the Netherlands has been experienced in a positive way. The questions whether this will be the case with future Wikihouse projects and communities is of course unanswered.
Menno made the comment that “it is always the big question whether the
people who step into the project to help actually stay in it. They may also stop halfway during the project. So, in terms of community it is difficult to predict whether it will actually be that way or whether people will stay a bit more on their own.
4.2.5 Natural and built context
Technical compatibility
The technical compatibility has been defined in table 1 as the compatibility of the measures for building a Wikihouse with geographical conditions and technological infrastructure (van Doren et al., 2016).
When asking Ivar about whether it’s really as easy to contrsuct a Wikihouse the way it’s been promoted he answered: “Absolutely not. This is still an
experiment, and of course you come across all sorts of things that you have to adjust, but that's why we also do such an experiment. You do an experiment to create a new market and introduce new products, but you have to work around that, it’s not going to happen by itself”. It’s evident that the Wikihouse is still
an experiment and that it needs adjustment, it may be promoted in a way that it seems easy to construct, but it’s definitely not there yet.
An example of such adjustments is what Henk said about the floor within the Wikihouse, he said: “a problem we quickly ran into was that the ground floor
was like a wooden floor, and according to the building decisions you can no longer build on a wooden floor”. Besides this problem, he also talked about
problems such as vapor transport within the house. Inside the house there is aways a heat source, then you get a vapor transport through the structure, which will condense somewhere where cold and warm meet and that changes during the seasons. But the moment you have a vapor barrier on the inside, you prevent vapor transport from the inside out. This is very technical and is almost
to take into consideration. The question that Henk kept on asking was how somebody who doesn’t have a clue about such things can ever build his own house, the quality of the house will be less than a standard type of house. It was also very interesting to hear Vincent’s perspective on the technical aspects of the house. He also said that it’s not that easy yet to build a
Wikihouse, because it’s not like putting together a kitchen or closet. There are many different disciplines that come together when building a Wikihouse, such as the installation of wires to the building physics. He said that because of the way it is right now people are often dissapointed when they are interested in building a Wikihouse. To make things easier there must first be a kind of
pathway to building a Wikihouse. Vincent was very positive about the future of Wikihouse and that the technological parts will get easier. An exampe of this is that“if you look in Belgium, you see that self-built packages are offered via the
internet and that is, for example, a self-assembly package for a heat pump or ventilation system. And you get all the parts at home with a manual and videos and a number that you can call if you do not know how it works. Of course, you have to know what you need and so on, but you can build it yourself. When you're done, someone comes along from the company and if all goes well you get a certificate that is necessary to show that everything is right”.
This shows that technical aspects of building a house are getting easier but are still very limited. It may become easier in the future to get different kind of self-assembly packages, but for the Wikihouse that is not yet the case. In this case horizontal and vertical scaling-up is difficult to achieve, as more research and development is needed to make the technological aspects easier.
5. Discussion
In this thesis an overview has been given of the current state of Wikihouse and the different factors that have played a role in building the Wikihouse in Almere and their possible effects on future scaling-up. The most important findings will be discussed and relevant data for future research will also be considered. This thesis is of exploratory nature. This means that the aim of this thesis was to find out what is happening, seeking new insights, asking questions and
assessing phenomena in a new light. One of the main findings was that building a Wikihouse is not that affordable yet. Almost all the different stakeholders mentioned that the financial aspect of the Wikihouse is something that needs work. Another finding was that it is still very hard to completely build a
Wikihouse without the help of different contractors. It may be easy to build the Wikihouse casco but building a complete house that is livable is still a difficult process. Another interesting finding was that there has been a real sense of community during the building process. Ivar said that sharing your designs and your ideas and working together leads to a community feel before the house is complete.
Due to the short amount of time, it was not possible to get more interviews with for example the different volunteers that have helped to build the Wikihouse in Almere and get an in-depth view of the community feel. It also was not possible to get insight into what a Wikihouse community looks like and how the
residents experience living in a Wikihouse community, simply because the first Wikihouse was just built in Almere and is not on the housing market yet. The advice for future research is therefore to look into the sense of community and what the Wikihouse communities will look like. Because of the way a Wikihouse is built and the need for a group of people to realize a Wikihouse, it may be interesting to further analyze the social aspects of the building of
Wikihouses. Besides this, the Wikihouse is a very different type of house than what we usually see in our societies, this could lead to a very different kind of community. The main motivation behind the building of a Wikihouse is
ensuring that the end user has much more power and control, with which he really gains influence on how his home is realized. This reasoning and
motivation could bring forth interesting communities. This thesis also has not covered the sustainability aspects of the Wikihouse. As we have seen, one of the Wikihouse statements is that they want to put the design for cost,
low-energy, high-performance housing into the hands of the citizens. This shows that sustainability is also on their agenda. It could be interesting to do further research on the sustainability aspects of the Wikihouse and how it performs compared to regular houses on the market.
6. Conclusion
There are several factors that influence the way in which Wikihouse is currently positioned on the market. These factors have an effect on the potential of
scaling-up the Wikihouse experiment in the future. In the theoretical framework we have seen how an experiment could scale up from the niche level to the regime level. This thesis has analyzed the Wikihouse experiment and the potential of scaling-up from the niche to the regime level. This has been done through the operationalization of the scaling-up concept.
While conducting the different interviews, it became evident that there was a strong distinction of how the stakeholders experienced the experiment. There was a lot of skepticism towards the way a Wikihouse is build and why it should be put on the market. Disagreement was mainly found in the financial aspects of the Wikihouse and the technological aspects. In this sense horizontal scaling-up may be hard to achieve. The financial aspect is not yet at a level in which it could have a positive effect and lead to an increase in the demand for
Wikihouses. Vertical scaling-up may however be at a different stage, we have seen that the municipality of Almere has been involved with the process and will be involved in the building of the next Wikihouses in Almere. As we have seen in table 1, financial policy instruments such as subsidies might increase for the building of more Wikihouses when positive results have been attained. Besides the municipality of Almere, the EU has also granted the Interreg subsidy. This may help with the build of the new Wikihouses and may also contribute to research and development for the Wikihouse, resulting in a possible improvement of the different factors of the Wikihouse.
These different findings make it tough to conclude whether scaling-up can be obtained in the future. It might be possible that vertical scaling-up can be obtained without horizontal scaling-up taking place, but full scaling-up is challenging with the current factors.
Vincent said that the Wikihouse is in a niche right now but could be much more than just niche. This is however a conclusion that cannot be made on the basis of the collected data. Further research will be needed in order to establish whether the Wikihouse can move up from the niche level into the regime.
Acknowledgements
First of all, I want to give thanks to my supervisor Beatriz Pineda Revilla. This thesis would not have been possible without her support. She has been positive and critical, which has helped me to keep on going and stay critical whilst writing my thesis. Her correction and guiding have been of great help to me and she has been very inspiring. This will also be of great help to me in future
research. Secondly, I also want to thank all of the respondents who have given their time and knowledge. Their information has been essential for the writing of this thesis. Lastly, I want to thank my friends, family and members of the thesis project. They have supported me, and they can’t wait to read the final version of this thesis.
Literature
Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. 2007. The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Bai X, Roberts B and Chen J (2010) Urban sustainability experiments in Asia: Patterns and pathways. Environmental Science & Policy 13: 312–325
Bouwscoop (2018). SO raming WikiHouse Almere - pionierswoning 2 laags. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Burón, J., Y M. Sánchez. (2015). An open-source, low-cost & digitally fabricated geodesic dome system.
Douthwaite B, Kuby T, van de Fliert E, et al. (2003) Impact pathway evaluation: An approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems 78(2): 243–265.
European Union (2018). Interreg Europe Programme Manual. European Regional Development Fund.
https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Call_related_ documents/Interreg_Europe_Programme_manual.pdf (Retrieved on July 26, 2018).
Geels FW (2005) Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technol Forecast Soc 72(6):681–696
Geels FW (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Transit 1(1):24–40
Geels FW, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36(3):399–417
Geels FW, Schot J (2010) The dynamics of transitions: a socio-technical perspective. In: Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J, Geels FW, Loorbach D (eds)
Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge, New York, pp 9–101
