Downey, M (2014) Selection and adoption of low and zero carbon technologies in social housing: a socio-technical network approach. PhD thesis, University of Reading, UK.
Abstract
Under the current Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, EU countries are charged with providing new build housing to comply with increasingly lower CO, emission targets. In Spain this translates to mandatory adoption of renewable technologies in all dwellings since 2006, and in the UK new homes are required to be zero carbon from 2016. To secure government funding, social housing providers are placing stringent demands on developers to comply with a range of performance requirements. Housing developers are currently employing fabric first, and/or low and zero carbon (LZC) technology options where necessary to achieve energy compliance solutions. The prevailing literature privileges technical rationality as the dominant selection logic for these solutions. However, commenters are beginning to contest this proposition by revealing the selection of solutions to be an emergent outcome of myriad interests and influences within the housing development process. A multi-level perspective was operationalised as a structuring framework providing context to the complexity involved in the selection of low carbon solutions by house builders. The socio-technical network approach was adopted as the theoretical lens for the case study design and to interrogate the empirical data collected from semi-structured interviews. The unit of analysis for the case studies in Spain and the UK is the housing development. Findings are given on the selection and adoption of LZC technologies which show wide variation in the actors' emergent understanding of the legislative, planning and technological requirements in achieving low CO, emissions in social housing. Such variation is currently translating to a fabric first approach with minimal design implications as the preferred compliance option in the UK, and to the maintenance of design templates with consequent quality and efficiency issues in Spain. The potential implication for the broader social housing sector is that certain LZC technologies are privileged where they can be accommodated into existing practices and designs, with little regard for forthcoming CO, targets or requirements.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; complexity; developer; housing development; interview; maintenance; rationality; socio-technical network; Spain; UK |
| Index terms: | interview, compliance, rationality, builder, energy performance of buildings directive, housing development, renewable technology, variation, housing developer, complexity, efficiency, socio-technical, case study, Spain, new-build housing, low carbon, placing, privilege, funding, social housing, option |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, contractual condition, performance management, concrete and cementitious materials, systems engineering, decision analysis, sociology, practitioner, construction type, economic analysis, health safety and environment, Geography, sustainable design, research methods, decision-making and reasoning, sustainability assessment, economic development, environmental law, housing and residential development |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Quality Management, Ethics, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here