Buser, M and Carlsson, V (2017) What you see is not what you get: Single-family house renovation and energy retrofit seen through the lens of sociomateriality. Construction Management and Economics, 35(5), pp. 276-287. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Representing 30% of the energy consumption in Sweden, the built environment is a clear contender for climate mitigation initiatives. The substantial stock of single-family houses presents ample opportunities to engage in energy-saving refurbishments. However, despite political pressure, only a minority of these refurbishments includes low-energy retrofit. To explain this slow take-off, studies have mostly focused on the necessity to better link new technical solutions with user needs and behaviours. We propose to extend this analysis to a broader set of actors including the craftsmen contracted to carry out the refurbishments and the houses themselves with their specific features and characteristics. To do so, we build our contribution on the concept of sociomateriality. This perspective argues that technological artefacts are socially constructed, but recognizes that materiality also has a role to play. Drawing on the experiences of 24 small craftsman firms, 8 houses as well as their owners, our method comprises interviews, workshops and participant observation complemented by an in-depth case study. The results show many differentiated representations of the renovation process under scrutiny. All these representations need to be understood and to a certain degree aligned in order to achieve successful retrofits.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy renovation; retrofit; single-family house owners; sociomateriality |
| Index terms: | observation, interview, artefact, minority, workshop, built environment, Sweden, renovation, take-off, sociomateriality, energy-saving, case study, craft worker, owner, energy renovation, single-family house owner, energy consumption, user need, materiality, mitigation, drawing |
| Subjects: | social theory, sociology, construction type, infrastructure and transport systems, Geography, user-centered design, data collection methods, practitioner, quantity surveying, financial risk, economic analysis, technical documentation, renovation and retrofit, energy systems |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Stakeholder Management, Ethics, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Cost Management, Urban Studies, Geographical Context, Business Strategy |
| 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