Outcault, S; Alston-Stepnitz, E; Sanguinetti, A; DePew, A N and Magaña, C (2022) Building lower-carbon affordable housing: Case studies from California. Building Research & Information, 50(6), pp. 646-661. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This research explores developers' experiences with lower-carbon multi-family affordable housing in California using three case studies that illustrate different pathways to decarbonization–improving efficiency, eliminating fossil fuel combustion for end-uses, and adopting a zero-net energy design. Qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with stakeholders (e.g. developers, architects, consultants) involved in the development and management of three selected communities reveals several themes that influenced the design, construction and operation phases. One such theme includes uncertainty–about the future availability and cost of gas service and about operating costs and equipment performance–which was mitigated in part by adopting conservative energy modelling forecasts and elevating the role of energy consultants. Also discussed is how higher initial costs for lower-carbon designs were partially offset by higher rental income and favourable scoring for competitive financing mechanisms. Findings highlight the importance of alignment between project objectives and stakeholders' missions and having strong advocates on the development team. Electrifying water heating, the biggest technical challenge encountered, is discussed. Overall, the case studies illustrate various technical, economic and organizational challenges associated with decarbonizing affordable housing, examples of how they were overcome, and how these experiences inform development teams' plans to pursue lower-carbon designs in the future.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | affordable housing; all-electric; barriers; decarbonization; developer experience; zne |
| Index terms: | qualitative analysis, operation phase, financing, energy modelling, interview, income, affordable housing, fossil fuel, architect, operating cost, efficiency, developer experience, case study |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, data collection methods, profession, construction type, project delivery, economic analysis, energy systems, sustainability and energy, performance management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Quality Management |
| 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