The economic recession has hit especially hard the residential building sector in the EU region, e.g., the number of the housing completions has decreased -49% and the total residential output has been squeezed down by -24% between 2007 and 2014 (Euroconstruct, 2015). In turn, the aim of our paper is to suggest a set of radical, novel programmes for developing the national residential building sectors within EU member countries up to 2025. We have applied the framework of strategic niche management (SNM) to the diagnoses of the current portfolios of the innovation, R&D programs in our two member country contexts. In the case of the Northern Finland, the prime example is Hiukkavaara, the largest district to be built in the City of Oulu. Homes will be constructed for 20,000 new residents. Hiukkavaara is a model for climate- conscious design in the northern hemisphere. Energy and materials are conserved, nature is valued and human beings adapt to their environment. One sub-programme involves Future Buildings and Renewable Energy Project. In the case of the Netherlands, the prime example is Energiesprong (Energy Leap), i.e., the innovation programme commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior. The aim is to make buildings energy-neutral and boost large-scale initiatives. The sub-programmes are targeting homes owned by housing associations, privately owned homes, office buildings, shops and care institutions. This programme is about ensuring new supply by encouraging companies to package a variety of technical sub-solutions, full services and financing options as well as about asking clients to put out tenders and ask for quotes in novel ways, with the government making changes to the rules and the regulations. Experiences on which the Dutch case in this paper focuses are sub-programmes for residential buildings, which include de Stroomversnelling, LALOG and Ons Huis Verdient Het. Based on the emerging Finnish and Dutch evidence, we are suggesting key elements to be incorporated into future national residential programmes within EU member countries on: (1) radical direction with balanced stakeholder groups, trustworthy advocates, contextual goal-setting and barriers management, (2) radical networking with entrepreneurial roles and causal links, novel expertise, transparent choices and digital platforms and (3) radical learning processes to arrive at better informed markets on user preferences, co-innovating, new rules and regulations, higher performance/price ratios, higher quality, new roles and responsibilities assignments.
Secondary schools are well placed to avert radicalization processes toward extremism because such trajectories often begin in adolescence. Adolescents are in the process of forming their identities, and most adolescents are idealistic, which makes them susceptible to groups that passionately pursue utopian visions. To avert the path toward extremism, Doret de Ruyter and Stijn Sieckelinck propose to balance a prevention approach with a positive educative ethos that is sensitive to the emotions involved in students' quest for meaning in life and identity formation. This involves schools being places where all students experience that they matter and where they can express their passion for their ideals and experiment with their identities without being ridiculed; at the same time, schools must guide students in learning that not everything they value will be accepted and that they must also take into account the interests and rights of others. The schools' role is thus complex and precarious, and teachers are in a position of navigating a politically sensitive minefield daily. Therefore, any theoretical proposition regarding what schools can realistically do to prevent extremism must be informed by everyday educational practice.
Building resilience to radicalization has become a key pillar of many policies for preventing violent extremism. However, sustained debates over the precise nature of the terms radicalisation and resilience impact the ability to implement these policies. A growing body of literature argues that the way in which key ideas are understood matters to what happens in practice. Additionally, the cross-sector collaboration called for in PVE policy can be made more challenging through divergences in understanding of central concepts. As such, the way in which resilience to radicalization is being understood by frontline workers matters. In light of this, a q-methodology study was conducted, which identified four perspectives on resilience to radicalization amongst policy-makers and practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. These perspectives are examined in light of the broader debates around both resilience and radicalization, and the extent to which the divergences matter for collaboration is considered.
