Exploring the time dimension of low carbon retrofit: owner-occupied housing

The need for comprehensive and well targeted instrument mixes to stimulate energy transitions: The case of energy efficiency policy

“…For example, building owners may not be supportive of additional and deeper energy efficiency improvements once the low-cost options have been installed [34]. Also, if several technical measures with different payback periods are 'packaged' it is likely to be easier to persuade asset owners to invest in more costly technologies compared to when considering them individually [22]. Given that most buildings can be expected to be retrofitted only once within a 40-year cycle [35], it seems pertinent to exploit the time window during which this takes place and encourage deeper, more complex retrofits.…”

“…Given that most buildings can be expected to be retrofitted only once within a 40-year cycle [35], it seems pertinent to exploit the time window during which this takes place and encourage deeper, more complex retrofits. However, it is also important to appreciate that in some instances, for example when capital availability is a constraint and disruption due to building works needs to be spread over time, a staged approach to energy efficiency improvements may be more appropriate [22] and can lead to the same result if the staging is considered carefully. Finally, promoting more costly and complex niche technology also implies incentives for innovation and this results in cost-reductions in the future through learning-by-doing that can ultimately lead to 'industrialisation' of more complex energy efficiency technologies [36].…”

“…In order to achieve the low-carbon pathways set out by the Paris Agreement and also at European and national level, the current uptake and ambition of energy efficiency improvements needs to improve significantly and much deeper and rapid decrease in energy use than is currently the case is required. A good example are buildings where current levels of low-carbon retrofits are far behind of what they need to be [22]. This means that policy needs to avoid just focusing on the easiest energy efficiency improvements (typically those with the lowest cost and easy to implement, e.g.…”

Building information modelling to cut disruption in housing retrofit

“…Vainio (2011) suggested that disruptions may be better accepted if users are clearly informed of the issues to be faced in advance. Fawcett and Mayne (2012) and Fawcett (2014) further pointed out that end users tend to accept more readily retrofits that are developed in one go, as the level of disruption tends to be lower (e.g. the user will need to vacate the premises once).…”

“…Table 1 presents a set of categories of disruption, which was identified in a literature review of retrofit projects. In summary, there is a need to develop detailed plans for the execution of retrofit works, as well as clear communication of the costs and technical solutions adopted, to enable users to perceive explicitly the benefits of the retrofit and make appropriate decisions (Miller and Buys, 2011;Sunikka-Blank et al, 2012;Wallace, 1986 Lee (2012), Haines and Mitchell (2014), Fawcett (2014) Tenants need to move out to avoid sharing the same space with workers Disruption of internal environment: happens when retrofit works affect the internal environment by generating different levels of pollution Noise provided by use of work tools such as hammers and mallets Whiteman and Irwig (1988), Ciria (2004), Miller and Buys (2011), Lee (2012), Jones (2013) Dust or debris resulting from demolition, building, plaster and so on Engineering Sustainability Building information modelling to cut disruption in housing retrofit Chaves, Tzortzopoulos, Formoso and Biotto enable users and workers to share effectively the same spaces during retrofit.…”