Performance Gap in ‘Deep’ Retrofit of Housing

Swan, William; Bayat, N; Sherriff, Graeme

doi:10.1002/9781119007241.ch4

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, different processes of retrofit were a partial reason for the wide range but other researchers have attributed the differences to challenges in modelling, occupant behaviour and issues in delivery (Taylor et al, 2018); regulation and policy failures and different priorities amongst large stakeholders (Stevenson, 2019); and processual issues such as unclear responsibility and management issues such as inadequate communication (Zero Carbon Hub, 2014b). Focusing specifically on retrofit, performance gaps have been attributed to not only technical issues but also management failures and industry culture (Swan, Bayat, & Sheriff, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging UK repair–maintain–improve practitioners in improved building performance

Murtagh¹,

Owen

Simpson

2021

IJBPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo improve building performance and meet statutory carbon reduction targets, a radical transformation of existing UK building stock is needed. Much previous research on building performance has focussed on large-scale construction. However, retrofit of existing housing stock – which will contribute the majority of the requisite efficiency improvement – is carried out by practitioners in the repair–maintain–improve (RMI) subsector. These practitioners are the sole traders and micro-firms who constitute two-fifths of employment in the construction sector. The study aims to examine the factors influencing these practitioners in RMI work to understand how better to engage them with improved building performance.Design/methodology/approachA total of 31 semi-structured interviews were conducted with RMI professionals from around the UK and analysed using template analysis.FindingsThe analysis identified capabilities of the practitioners who influence building performance, including knowledge and co-ordination of people and resources; opportunities including state action and customer demand; and motivations including pride in work, customer care and satisfaction, maintaining a viable business and working relationships.Research limitations/implicationsThe participants were a small, mixed group in terms of firm size and specialisation. The qualitative approach adopted provided detailed insights but does not make claims for statistical generalisability or representativeness of the findings. Future work could look to extend the findings with a statistically representative survey.Practical implicationsFor a successful transition to high standards of building performance, modelling is not enough. Initiatives are needed to address the multiple factors which determine engagement in energy-efficient retrofit: capacities, opportunities and motivations. The desire of RMI practitioners to meet customer expectations could be used to develop pragmatic building performance evaluation, guided by householder satisfaction criteria.Originality/valueThe study examined the attitudes and experiences of an under-researched sector who are essential to the delivery of improved building performance. This study makes a novel contribution by applying an established psychological model of behaviour change, the capability, opportunity, motivation – behaviour model, for the first time in this domain.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%