Van Der Heijden, J (2015) Voluntary programmes for building retrofits: Opportunities, performance and challenges. Building Research & Information, 43(2), pp. 170-184. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Around the globe governments, businesses and citizens are actively involved in voluntary programmes that seek an improved uptake of retrofits of the existing building stock. A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) is used to understand the opportunities, performance and constraints of such programmes. Building on a series of 20 voluntary programmes in Australia, the Netherlands and the United States (including a series of 101 original interviews), the analysis finds that the majority of these have not succeeded in incentivizing their participants to take meaningful action. Insights are presented into why the majority of these programmes have underperformed, and what binds together the small number of programmes that have achieved positive results.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptation; buildings; climate change; governance; grandfathering; resilience; retrofit; urban sustainability; voluntary programmes |
| Index terms: | governance, United States, interview, adaptation, Australia, programme, fuzzy set, building stock, Netherlands, qualitative comparative analysis, climate change |
| Subjects: | asset management, project controls, decision-making and optimization, research methods, Geography, business, user focus, data collection methods, climate science |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Governance, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Time Control, Design Practice |
| 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