Turcu, C (2017) Unequal spatial distribution of retrofits in bucharest's apartment buildings. Building Research & Information, 45(8), pp. 892-909. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper argues that the current spatial patterns of energy retrofits in post-socialist apartment buildings are unequally distributed across municipalities in Bucharest, Romania. In addition to the dominant techno-economic and social framing of this type of retrofit action, an institutional and political perspective can provide useful insights into why this occurs. By drawing on secondary analysis of statistical data, grey literature and 20 semi-structured interviews in Bucharest, three important findings emerge. First, the institutional complexity of energy retrofit of apartment buildings in Romania is underestimated and the interaction between various institutions is poor, explained by lack of trust and collective action. Second, the spatial distribution of the retrofit of apartment buildings is unequally distributed across Bucharest's six municipalities. Third, current action for retrofit does not reach municipalities with the greatest need and potential. A more bottom-up and decentralized institutional landscape exists than is currently acknowledged in public policy and the research literature. Findings show an unequal and unfair spread of retrofit action within and between cities - raising wider implications for the potential shortcomings of European Union retrofit programmes in Central and Eastern Europe.;This paper argues that the current spatial patterns of energy retrofits in post-socialist apartment buildings are unequally distributed across municipalities in Bucharest, Romania. In addition to the dominant techno-economic and social framing of this type of retrofit action, an institutional and political perspective can provide useful insights into why this occurs. By drawing on secondary analysis of statistical data, grey literature and 20 semi-structured interviews in Bucharest, three important findings emerge. First, the institutional complexity of energy retrofit of apartment buildings in Romania is underestimated and the interaction between various institutions is poor, explained by lack of trust and collective action. Second, the spatial distribution of the retrofit of apartment buildings is unequally distributed across Bucharest's six municipalities. Third, current action for retrofit does not reach municipalities with the greatest need and potential. A more bottom-up and decentralized institutional landscape exists than is currently acknowledged in public policy and the research literature. Findings show an unequal and unfair spread of retrofit action within and between cities - raising wider implications for the potential shortcomings of European Union retrofit programmes in Central and Eastern Europe.;This paper argues that the current spatial patterns of energy retrofits in post-socialist apartment buildings are unequally distributed across municipalities in Bucharest, Romania. In addition to the dominant techno-economic and social framing of this type of retrofit action, an institutional and political perspective can provide useful insights into why this occurs. By drawing on secondary analysis of statistical data, grey literature and 20 semi-structured interviews in Bucharest, three important findings emerge. First, the institutional complexity of energy retrofit of apartment buildings in Romania is underestimated and the interaction between various institutions is poor, explained by lack of trust and collective action. Second, the spatial distribution of the retrofit of apartment buildings is unequally distributed across Bucharest's six municipalities. Third, current action for retrofit does not reach municipalities with the greatest need and potential. A more bottom-up and decentralized institutional landscape exists than is currently acknowledged in public policy and the research literature. Findings show an unequal and unfair spread of retrofit action within and between cities - raising wider implications for the potential shortcomings of European Union retrofit programmes in Central and Eastern Europe.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | institutions; inequality; multi-family housing; Romania; retrofit; energy efficiency; apartment buildings; public policy; governance; energy; construction & building technology; landscapes; municipalities; landscape; buildings; retrofitting; spatial discrimination; data processing; housing; residential areas; spatial distribution; politics; secondary analysis |
| Index terms: | housing, collective action, spatial discrimination, residential area, spatial distribution, Europe, data processing, inequality, municipality, apartment building, Romania, public policy, retrofitting, energy efficiency, governance, European Union, building technology, complexity, drawing, multi-family housing, programme, interaction, secondary analysis, interview, framing, politics |
| Subjects: | conceptual models, business, communities and social development, political science, housing and residential development, spatial and geospatial analysis, data collection methods, sustainability and energy, behavioral psychology, project controls, renovation and retrofit, systems engineering, physical geography and landforms, geographical analysis, engineering systems, administrative law, data science, technical documentation, zoning, sociology, Geography, construction type, public policy |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Ethics, Construction Technology, Geographical Context, Governance, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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