Foulds, C; Royston, S; Aggeli, A; Crowther, A and Robison, R (2026) Sharing energy renovations know-how through citizen–professional knowledge networks. Buildings & Cities, 7(1), pp. 341-359. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Accelerating energy-efficient renovations requires deeper understandings of how know-how (i.e. knowledge about how practically to get renovations done) is developed and shared. This paper, therefore, investigated the role of experimental, locality-specific knowledge networks in sharing renovation know-how. Knowledge networks have been suggested as a tool for collective, experiential, context-based learning, but have rarely been empirically investigated. Four knowledge networks (in Lithuania, Hungary, Spain and Ireland) were studied in partnership with municipalities and not-for-profit organisations. These networks brought together 140 citizens and professionals across 50 events, including meetings, workshops and hands-on site visits. Interviews (n = 40) with network members identified that four important types of know-how were shared: technical know-how; administrative/financial know-how; know-how for managing social relationships; and know-how about renovation actors. These findings challenge the narrow, technical framings of renovation knowledge that dominate research and policy by highlighting social dimensions of renovation know-how. Three lessons for effective sharing and development of know-how are the need to: bring together citizens and professionals; ensure learning is hands-on and situated; and create inclusive spaces. Knowledge networks offer a promising approach to accelerating efficient renovations. PRACTICE RELEVANCE Practical insights are offered on how to design and implement knowledge networks; an effective approach to sharing renovation know-how; and accelerating energy-efficient renovations. These insights are grounded in activities that integrated both tacit and explicit know-how, in that they combined explicit discussions with more implicit, interactive experiences, so that network members could develop in-depth, rounded understandings of renovation. Three lessons are provided for municipalities or community organisations that wish to implement similar interventions: (1) Bring together citizens and professionals: this includes citizens at various stages of renovation, and professionals across sectors, such construction contractors, advisors and community workers. (2) Ensure learning is hands-on and situated: a key insight is the value of eco-tours and home visits, which enable network members to experience renovations 'first hand'. (3) Create inclusive spaces: design network activities to welcome and value diverse perspectives and foster trust. By building these inclusive, participatory local knowledge networks, practitioners can effectively enable citizens and professionals to learn from each other.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | citizen participation; Europe; homes; know-how; knowledge exchange; knowledge network; owner-occupiers; policy experiments; retrofit; shared learning |
| Index terms: | interview, profit, framing, experiment, citizen participation, Hungary, practitioner, local knowledge, construction contractor, municipality, workshop, Europe, Spain, partnership, energy renovation, owner, professional knowledge, knowledge exchange, renovation, Lithuania, dimension, Ireland |
| Subjects: | administrative law, partnership management, sociology, professional development, renovation and retrofit, participation process, health monitoring assessment and metrics, data collection methods, communities and social development, Geography, physical geography and landforms, knowledge management, conceptual models, economic analysis, practitioner, construction type |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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