Rodger, D; Callaghan, N and Thomson, C (2018) Are retrofitted social houses sufficiently reflecting the holistic health and wellbeing requirements of older people? In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
With 27% of the UK’s CO2 emissions attributed to domestic energy use during operation, there is a major role for housing to meet UK climate change targets with a large proportion being met through the retrofit of existing buildings. With prolonged longevity, there is a particular challenge facing social housing providers to protect and empower the health and wellbeing of the elderly. To date, there has been a predominant focus in contemporary research on health impacts arising from domestic energy efficiency improvements such as respiratory problems, thermal discomfort and mental stress but it is becoming apparent that little is known about those associated with the wider retrofit agenda. Energy efficiency improvements require robust decision-making processes due to their complex and demanding interconnections, and the associated impacts to health and wellbeing. This is particularly imperative to the elderly population with regards to the requirement for integration within the social care agenda and the known vulnerabilities to their immediate and surrounding environment. The complexity of delivering this agenda through a social housing focused strategy requires holistic integration across a range of service providers on a multitude of complex factors. A need is emerging to examine the relationships between design and implementation within real-world practice to determine and understand the appraisal procedures in social housing and the unintended consequences that can arise. This research presents the findings of a preliminary study through a series of in-depth interviews conducted with key stakeholders, exploring the extent to which the requirements of an older person’s health and wellbeing are holistically being addressed during the retrofit of social housing. The study concludes by posing a series of research questions which provides an agenda for future research and presents a synthesis of insights on practical and policy implications originated from the analysis on decision-making and management.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ageing population; decision-making; energy efficiency; social housing; strategic collaboration |
| Index terms: | policy implication, climate change, domestic energy efficiency, discomfort, strategy, decision-making, social housing, integration, CO2 emissions, energy efficiency, energy use, population, implementation, health and wellbeing, housing, appraisal, older people, becoming, ageing population, unintended consequence, interview, decision-making process, collaboration, social care, complexity, vulnerability, elderly |
| Subjects: | health risk and incident analysis, data collection methods, demography, risk assessment, sociology, construction type, sustainability and energy, policy studies, decision analysis, philosophical process, energy systems, organizational analysis, air quality, factor and component analysis, mental health and wellbeing, systems engineering, management, housing and residential development, environmental hazards, contractual arrangements, climate science |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Organizational Design, Health and Safety, Construction Technology, Urban Studies, Business Strategy, Procurement, Governance |
| 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