Viktor BukovszkiTechnische Universität München | TUM
Viktor Bukovszki
cand. techn.
About
10
Publications
2,128
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
54
Citations
Citations since 2017
Introduction
Skills and Expertise
Publications
Publications (10)
Energy transition in the built environment requires collaborative action of interdependent actors coordinated on multiple levels of governance. Many of these actors operate in domains closely linked to a specific geographical or institutional scale, making it difficult to facilitate their collaboration. This is especially the case for positive ener...
Energy Transition (ET) needs actors to perform independent actions on multiple levels of governance. These actors may need to write and read their data, and at the same time they want to protect their data from unauthorized access. This is particularly the case for positive energy districts (PED), a growing trend in the EU that requires actors to p...
There are international activities and ongoing initiatives, particularly at the European level, to define what Positive Energy Districts should be, as the driving concept for the urban transition to a sustainable future. The first objective of the paper is to contribute to the ongoing and lively debate about the definition of the notion of Sustaina...
Citation: Salom, J.; Tamm, M.; Andresen, I.; Cali, D.; Magyari, Á.; Bukovszki, V.; Balázs, R.; Dorizas, P.V.; Toth, Z.; Zuhaib, S.; et al. An Evaluation Framework for Sustainable Plus Energy Neighbourhoods: Moving beyond the Traditional Building Energy Assessment. Energies 2021, 14, 4314.
Having a holistic, multidimensional monitoring framework is a necessity for plus-energy neighbourhood (PEN) development. Measuring neighbourhood energy, environmental and even economic performance is-though complex-rather straightforward. Social performance on the other hand, is a difficult target to operationalize, most case-specific, and is rarel...
The smart city (SC) discourse is a dynamic academic field pushed by a drive for urban digitalization and the convergence of urban planning and management with advances in information-communication technologies (ICT). A standardization of the professional profile “smart city expert” would benefit both the academic discourse, by positioning the field...
Participation has been touted as a critical instrument for both citizen empowerment and responsibility-sharing in sustainability. In architecture, participation allows for the progression of green building to sustainable habitation that integrates environmental, economic, and social dimensions. However, participation in practice rarely delegates me...
Mainstreaming energy communities has been one of the main challenges in the low-carbon transition of cities. In this sense, urban building energy modelling (UBEM) has an untapped role in enabling energy communities, as simulations on urban models provide evidence-based decision support to reduce risks, engage, motivate and guide actors, assert wide...
Digitalization in cities-often branded as smart city (SC) transition-carry the potential for highly inclusive, evidence-based decision making in urban planning, responding to the increasing pressures cities face. However, investments have thus far been slower to deliver the expected impacts. Thus, the attention of the discourse is turning towards o...
Cities have to face the challenges of steady population growth, the related increase in energy and resource demands, intensifying climate change impacts and rapid technological development. To handle these complex challenges and promote sustainable development, the smart city approach – data-driven planning based on emergent ICT technologies – has...
Questions
Question (1)
Imagine a research problem like: "Do purely online advocacy groups offer more in-depth engagement compared to purely offline ones?" To answer it, you decode what "engagement" and "in-depth" means by doing a series of interviews with reps from both types of advocacy groups. For "engagement", you itemize engagement occurences, matching online with offline counterparts (e.g., online/offline registrations). For "in-depth", you define a bunch of KPIs based on literature. In both cases, you create results. Itemized engagement occurences, coming from interviews, are primary data, while the KPIs are secondary, since they come from literature. But both are new results. Yet they are not answering your research questions, they are just steps in your methodology. Where do you write them in a paper? Methodology section, or results section? Disclaimer: yes, the example is flawed, but it is merely an illustration, where would you put new knowledge created, if it is merely procedural?
Projects
Project (1)
