Hofman, P; Wade, F; Webb, J and Groenleer, M (2021) Retrofitting at scale: Comparing transition experiments in Scotland and the Netherlands. Buildings & Cities, 2(1), pp. 637-654. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
New approaches are needed to achieve the scale and standard of building retrofit required to meet climate targets. Transition experiments are innovation projects that take a societal challenge as their starting point; they can be both top-down (government led) and bottom-up (civil society led). However, such experiments often remain isolated events that have little impact on delivering systemic change. There is limited knowledge on why this is so and what can be done to increase the success of experiments. The paper therefore compares the top-down approach to piloting Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies (LHEES) in Scotland with the bottom-up strategy used for the Social Innovation Labs for a Zero Energy Housing Stock (SMILE) in the Netherlands. The different approaches are compared using three mechanisms to characterise systemic change: deepening, broadening and scaling up. Using data from interviews with local authority and citizen actors, the paper shows that neither top-down nor bottom-up experiments are sufficient in themselves to foster the new norms, information-sharing or legislative mechanisms needed to reach climate targets. The paper specifies elements of top-down and bottom-up experiments which can usefully be incorporated for achieving systemic change in energy retrofitting. POLICY RELEVANCE Delivering building retrofit at scale is crucial to net zero greenhouse gas emissions targets. Policymakers can benefit from adopting long-term strategic approaches to retrofitting, incorporating leadership from local actors. Central government coordination is essential to providing a clear programme and timetable for local actors to coalesce around. In addition, localised projects need to be shared and supported through centrally coordinated repositories and knowledge exchange. Policymakers must develop complementary policies designed to improve support from both governmental and non-governmental actors. This will include planning and citizen engagement, managed at a local level; this is crucial for retrofitting buildings, which affects everyone directly. Neither top-down nor bottom-up approaches are sufficient in themselves to deliver systemic change in retrofitting. Central coordination, together with local planning and public engagement, will provide more opportunities to deliver retrofit at the speed and scale necessary for meeting climate targets.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | capabilities; housing; innovation; local authority; public policy; retrofit; the Netherlands; UK; urban lab |
| Index terms: | net zero, knowledge exchange, greenhouse gas emission, civil society, Scotland, public policy, bottom-up approach, norms, scaling, coordination, housing, retrofitting, energy efficiency, interview, energy retrofitting, local planning, housing stock, Netherlands, strategy, public engagement, local authority, experiment, social innovation, programme |
| Subjects: | organization, construction type, data collection methods, knowledge management, energy systems, participation process, sustainability and energy, public policy, urban planning, urban design, Geography, design practice, management, renovation and retrofit, political science, environmental health, industry analysis, communities and social development, sociology, project controls |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Design Practice, Time Control, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Governance, Construction Technology |
| 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