Back to Case Library

Knight’s Walk (Lambeth's Homes)

Created on 19-06-2024 | Updated on 26-07-2024

The Knight's Walk project, also known as Lambeth's Homes, comprises 84 residential units, all of which are council housing – a form of social housing managed directly by the local council. It is located in the densely populated urban landscape of Renfrew Road in the north London borough of Lambeth, London, England. The development unfolded in two phases. Initially, 16 rental flats were constructed, replacing an existing multi-storey car park. In the second phase, 17 council units and one private dwelling were demolished to make way for 68 additional flats.

At its core, this initiative aimed to regenerate the urban fabric by creating new, healthy environments and fostering strong connections with the surrounding area, enhancing social cohesion through community spaces and activities while aligning with the local authority's overarching vision and long-term sustainability objectives. Knight's Walk is distinguished by its "fabric first approach" and high sustainability standards, addressing challenges such as energy consumption, overheating, tenant relocation, quality of outcomes, and the provision of a warm, comfortable homes.

In 2022, Knight's Walk was awarded the Local Authority Building Control (LABC) Building Excellence London Regional Award, the Construction News Awards and the Housing Design Awards, all of which recognise excellence in sustainable and affordable housing practices.

Architect(s)
Mae Architects

Location
Renfrew Road, London Borough of Lambeth (SE11 4NA), England

Project (year)
2019 (planning permission obtained)

Construction (year)
Phase 1 (completed 2022), phase 2 (ongoing)

Housing type
Multifamily housing (apartments)

Urban context
Housing estate

Construction system
Steel structure (fabric first approach)

Status
Built

Description

The review of this case study is structured to address aspects of architectural design, construction approach, and sustainability integration. The analysis draws on a range of data sources, including project design and access statements, sustainability statements, design drawings, planning applications, associated communications and archival records obtained from the planners, public records and the London Borough of Lambeth planning portal.

 

1. Design statement

The project site stretches to approximately 0.86 hectares, 84 residential units at a density of 215 dwellings per hectare are planned to be housed on the site. The surrounding areas are characterised by the prevalence of historic conservation areas. The site is located on the western side of the Cotton Garden Estate and is known for its public park and distinctive 22-storey Ebenezer, Hurley and Fairford towers. To the north is the Walcot Road Conservation Area with its three-storey terraced houses. To the east is Renfrew Roadside, which contains several listed buildings, including the Magistrates Court, the former Lambeth Fire Station and Workhouse (later converted to Lambeth Hospital) and what is now The Cinema Museum (Mae, 2017). Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project within the urban fabric of London.

In response to the unique characteristics and features of the site, the design team developed a comprehensive strategy to integrate the development. Firstly, the scale and massing have been carefully balanced in order to harmonize with the surrounding area. This is achieved through   the use of graduated massing and a deliberate emphasis on the incorporation of open spaces and parks (Mae, 2017). Secondly, the existing transport and vehicular access has been maintained to avoid creating new routes.  Thirdly, a car-free zone has been established, with the number of parking spaces on the site limited to eight, exclusively for residential units. Additionally, a number of bicycle parking bays have been installed to provide secure and convenient storage for cyclists. Fourthly, the "The Walk" concept has been implemented, offering a pedestrian route designed with human needs in mind, in an aim to promote connectivity between the site, parks, buildings, and existing public areas. This includes creating gateways and landmarks to enhance the sense of procession along the footpaths. Moreover, a balanced integration of soft and hard landscape elements was pursued to foster a sense of cohesive connectivity while preserving the site's architectural heritage (Mae, 2017). Figure 2 provides a comparative visual representation of the former site against the proposed design.   Figure 2 provides a comparative visual representation of the former site against the proposed design for Knight’s Walk.

From a typological perspective, a total of 84 units have been developed, ranging in size from 54 square metres for the smallest units to 90 square metres for the largest. Phase one comprises 16 flats, including 10 one-bedroom flats, three two-bedroom flats and three three-bedroom flats. In contrast, phase two offers a broader choice with 15 one-bedroom flats, 38 two-bedroom flats and 15 three-bedroom flats.

With regard to architectural design, three key design considerations were identified as being of particular importance (HDA, 2022; Mae, 2017). The primary concern was the accessibility of the site for its residents, with particular attention paid to the needs of senior citizens and those with special requirements. This emphasis is particularly pronounced in Phase One, where the majority of units have been designed to meet both the Building Regulations Part M (which provides guidance on access to and use of buildings, including facilities for disabled occupants and easy movement through a building), and the prescribed national standards for accessible spaces (Mae, 2017). Secondly, the efficient use of space was prioritised, with the use of simple and clean architectural lines to optimise the functionality within each unit and the circulation areas. Thirdly, the well-being of residents was a significant consideration, with each unit featuring a terrace overlooking the surrounding green spaces and parks. The overall distribution of flats in both phases is shown in Figure 3.

 

2. Construction

In terms of construction methods, the project adopts a fabric-first approach that focuses on improving the properties of the building fabric, with the objective of optimising thermal performance, airtightness and moisture management. This approach is intended to reduce the necessity for additional mechanical or technical solutions, thereby achieving enhanced energy efficiency and comfort (Eyre et al., 2023). In addition, project planners have incorporated supplementary measures to improve construction processes (Mae, 2017). These include using a reinforced concrete structure in locations prone to thermal bridging, while avoiding cores as the primary structural support system. Furthermore, a strategy to rationalise the building’s "form factor" ensures a coherent visual progression of the building mass whilst mitigating thermal impacts such as overheating on the overall building envelope. Secondly, a balanced glazing ratio has been implemented to reduce direct thermal impacts, with the additional benefit of providing resistance to thermal mass. The use of light-coloured materials also serves to reduce the heat island effect and thermal conductivity between the exterior and interior of the building. Finally, the use of a cantilevered method, particularly in building extensions, reduces thermal bridging while improving the overall aesthetics of the structures.

 

​​​​​​​3. Sustainability and energy

Several methods to promote sustainability have been integrated into the building’s envelope. The project follows the three-point model known as the "energy hierarchy", which is based on the principles of "Be Lean", "Be Clean", and "Be Green". “Be Lean” emphasizes the planning and construction of buildings that consume less energy. "Be Clean" focuses on efficiently providing and consuming energy, while "Be Green" aims to meet energy needs through renewable sources (Muralidharan, 2021).

3.1. Energy and carbon strategy

In line with energy hierarchy models, the project's energy strategy focuses on the building envelope and incorporates high-performance standards recommended by Passivhaus to optimise building mass and thermal boundaries. In addition, provisions have been made to future-proof the buildings by providing provisional spaces for future connection to planned district and central heating systems. Efforts to reduce carbon emissions centre on establishing accurate baseline emissions using the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP), implementing passive measures such as natural ventilation and high-efficiency appliances, and reducing reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation through the use of photovoltaic cells as a secondary energy source. As a result, the buildings have achieved a 35 per cent reduction in carbon emissions compared to local regulations and similar developments (Mae, 2017; TGA, 2017).

3.2. Overheating strategy

Managing the risk of overheating has become an essential consideration in the design and construction of housing in the UK (Sameni et al., 2015). The quality of the indoor environment in any dwelling, particularly in summer, is vulnerable to excessive solar heat gain which is accentuated by the lack of rapid ventilation measures. To mitigate these challenges, the project's overheating strategy minimises internal heat generation through energy-efficient design and reduces heat gain through careful orientation, shading, windows, and insulation. Passive ventilation measures, such as natural cross-ventilation and fixed external shading, are also utilised. In addition, primary heating pipework is carefully planned to minimise losses, particularly when installed within the dwellings (TGA, 2017).

3.3. Policy and standards

The project has been developed in accordance with a complex network of interrelated policies and standards at the national, regional and local levels, in addition to mandatory national sustainability guidelines. Notably, Building Regulations Part L, which sets out specific requirements for insulation, heating systems, ventilation and fuel use, and aim to reduce carbon emissions by 31 per cent compared to those of previous regulations. Knight's Walk introduced a new layer of mandatory requirements, designated as "regional" guidelines. These guidelines are specific to the Greater London area and serve as a reference for all developments. In addition to fulfilling the national and regional regulations, the project had to comply with the requirements set forth by the local councils. Furthermore, the developer's requirements, known as Lambeth's Housing Design Standards function as a clarifying framework, outlining the pertinent policies at the national and regional levels.

As a result, the project has comfortably achieved an energy rating of B (based on the Standards Assessment Procedure calculations), with the potential to progress to an A rating. The project has developed a multi-level sustainability strategy and architectural language that considers climate, environment, and local needs, focusing on energy and carbon reduction. These strategies include encouraging active travel, increasing biodiversity and implementing adaptations to mitigate the effects of climate change through a drainage strategy and incorporating SuDS and tree planting. In addition, each flat has been fitted with mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, providing a constant supply of fresh, filtered air even when the windows are closed. All apartments are also equipped with energy-saving electrification systems to minimise electricity consumption (HDA, 2022).

 

​​​​​​​4. Reflections

The section highlights both the successful aspects and the potential areas for improvement identified in the previous sections by addressing the following questions:

What methodologies were deployed within Knight’s Walk that can be classified as exemplifying ‘good’ practise?

The comprehensive assessments conducted by the designers, covering a wide range of intervention areas, facilitated the formulation of a responsible phasing strategy that mitigated the social, economic, and environmental risks associated with large-scale development projects. The early provision of alternative, well-built housing for tenants who were displaced has fostered robust collaboration between developers, designers, and local communities.

The project was developed in accordance with widely recognised accessibility standards, including compliance with Building Regulations Part M. A comprehensive assessment framework was employed to measure the quality of outcomes in line with national, regional, and local policies. In order to facilitate the adoption of improved energy efficiency strategies, consultation was undertaken with specialists versed in Passivhaus design standards. As a result of this consultation, it was determined that no additional standards were required. These strategies included the implementation of passive measures, such as massing, orientation, and material selection, complemented by high-efficiency mechanical ventilation systems, photovoltaic cells, energy-efficient appliances and well-insulated façade designs. As a result, the project achieved a Class B environmental performance during the operational phase and a diminished average national CO₂ emission for residential buildings by 80 per cent. The project's carbon production averaged 0.7 tonnes of CO₂ per year, with primary energy consumption ranging from 42 to 58 kilowatt hours per square metre (kWh/m2) (DLUHC, 2021).

What are the potential weaknesses inherent to Knight’s Walk?

Notwithstanding the robust practices that were put in place, several risks were identified, particularly in relation to the design approach that was selected. Although the fabric-first approach is regarded as a fundamental tenet of sustainable construction, it has not been without its detractors. A significant concern is the long-term variability in the performance of fabric-first buildings, which is contingent upon factors such as maintenance practices, occupant behaviour and climate fluctuations. Inadequate construction quality or maintenance practices can result in the deterioration of energy efficiency gains over time, underscoring the need for continuous monitoring and maintenance (Eyre et al., 2023). This could consequently result in a considerable increase in operational costs, thereby jeopardising the objective of housing affordability over the long term. Furthermore, buildings with high insulation using the fabric-first approach may be susceptible to overheating during the warmer seasons in certain climates, particularly if passive cooling strategies are inadequately integrated into the design (Eyre et al., 2023). This can lead to additional energy consumption for cooling purposes and counteract efforts to achieve highly efficient energy.

Alignment with project research areas

The objective of this section is to elucidate and emphasise the alignments and connections between the presented case study and the research domains within the RE-DWELL research framework.

Design, planning and construction

  • Sustainable design: The project demonstrates a commitment to sustainable design, integrating the four sustainability pillars (economic, environmental, social, and human) into its design and construction processes. Environmental sustainability is promoted through the incorporation of passive measures, while economic sustainability was pursued through accelerated construction methods and fabric-first approach, which reduced construction time and cost. Social sustainability considerations include community engagement strategies that prioritise local needs and promote a socially inclusive environment.
  • Green building: Architectural design is firmly linked to the green building ethos, which is reflected in the incorporation of a diverse range of strategies, including the use of renewable energy sources, the reduction of carbon emissions, and the enhancement of the project's social and economic benefits.
  • Industrialised construction: The adoption and implementation of a fabric-first approach has been demonstrated to confer several benefits, including a reduction in construction time, acoustic and material waste, and CO₂ emissions.

Community engagement

  • Inclusive design: The creation of publicly accessible areas, such as a public garden and cricket pitch, and the adaptive reuse of existing open spaces, such as the revitalisation of Cotton Garden Park, were key elements of the project. At the same time, the living conditions of all residents, irrespective of age, were enhanced, as evidenced by the design and implementation of "The Walk" concept.

Policy and funding

  • Governance, market, and financing: The project navigates the complex regulatory landscape by aligning disparate policies and standards, including national mandates and voluntary standards. This unified effort yields energy-efficient and sustainable outcomes, offering a valuable opportunity to gain insights that can inform the development of comprehensive design guidelines for similar projects.

Potential synergies with other RE-DWELL areas

Although this case study does not directly address the topics of building retrofit and housing pedagogy, as it is focused on demolition and subsequent new construction, it is nevertheless a valuable and relevant example for further empirical studies, particularly those related to post-occupancy evaluation implementation.

Design, planning and building

Community participation

Policy and financing

* This diagram is for illustrative purposes only based on the author’s interpretation of the above case study

Alignment with SDGs

Despite its model scale, Knight’s Walk exemplifies a noteworthy dedication to the realisation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in the following domains:

  • Good Health and Well-being (Target 3.4): The project incorporates architectural features that promote well-being and emphasise social aspects and community interaction, thereby improving the mental health and overall well-being of residents.
  • Affordable and clean energy (Targets 7.1 and 7.3): A salient aspect of this project is its high energy efficiency, attained through the utilisation of innovative construction techniques, including high-performance insulation, augmented use of natural illumination, and the use of environmentally friendly materials.
  • Sustainable cities and communities (Targets 11.1, 11.6 and 11.7): Knight’s Walk plays an important role in promoting overall sustainability in the surrounding neighbourhoods as an integral part of the larger urban fabric. In addition, the affordable housing programme supported by the council ensures that all housing remains accessible and contributes to the development of sustainable communities.

References

DLUHC. (2021). Energy performance certificate (EPC): Breakdown of property’s energy performance. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Retrieved March from https://find-energy-certificate.service.gov.uk/energy-certificate/0524-4051-6331-8849-1214

Eyre, N., Fawcett, T., Topouzi, M., Killip, G., Oreszczyn, T., Jenkinson, K., & Rosenow, J. (2023). Fabric first: is it still the right approach? Buildings and Cities, 4(1).

HDA. (2022). Knight’s Walk Phase 1. Housing Design Awards. Retrieved March from https://hdawards.org/scheme/16356_scheme-2/

Mae, T., Campbell Reith, Dally Henderson, TGA Engineers, CPC. (2017). Knight's Walk Estate Design and Access Statement, restricted access obtained from Lambeth planning portal. Retrieved March from https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0T4K3BOIWY00

Muralidharan, K. (2021). Lean, Green, and Clean: Some Case Studies. Sustainable Development and Quality of Life: Through Lean, Green and Clean Concepts, 291-303.

Sameni, S. M. T., Gaterell, M., Montazami, A., & Ahmed, A. (2015). Overheating investigation in UK social housing flats built to the Passivhaus standard. Building and Environment, 92, 222-235.

TGA. (2017). Knight's Walk Estate Energy and Sustainability Statement, restricted access obtained from Lambeth planning portal. TGA Engineers. Retrieved March from https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0T4K3BOIWY00

 

 

Related vocabulary

Affordability

Building Decarbonisation

Environmentally Sustainable Social Housing

Indoor Thermal Comfort

Sustainability Built Environment

Area: Design, planning and building

Affordability is defined as the state of being cheap enough for people to be able to buy (Combley, 2011). Applied to housing, affordability, housing unaffordability and the mounting housing affordability crisis, are concepts that have come to the fore, especially in the contexts of free-market economies and housing systems led by private initiatives, due to the spiralling house prices that residents of major urban agglomerations across the world have experienced in recent years (Galster & Ok Lee, 2021). Notwithstanding, the seeming simplicity of the concept, the definition of housing affordability can vary depending on the context and approach to the issue, rendering its applicability in practice difficult. Likewise, its measurement implies a multidimensional and multi-disciplinary lens (Haffner & Hulse, 2021). One definition widely referred to of housing affordability is the one provided by Maclennan and Williams (1990, p.9): “‘Affordability’ is concerned with securing some given standard of housing (or different standards) at a price or a rent which does not impose, in the eyes of some third party (usually government) an unreasonable burden on household incomes”. Hence, the maximum expenditure a household should pay for housing is no more than 30% of its income (Paris, 2006). Otherwise, housing is deemed unaffordable. This measure of affordability reduces a complex issue to a simple calculation of the rent-to-income ratio or house-price-to-income ratio. In reality, a plethora of variables can affect affordability and should be considered when assessing it holistically, especially when judging what is acceptable or not in the context of specific individual and societal norms (see Haffner & Hulse, 2021; Hancock, 1993). Other approaches to measure housing affordability consider how much ‘non-housing’ expenditures are unattended after paying for housing. Whether this residual income is not sufficient to adequately cover other household’s needs, then there is an affordability problem (Stone, 2006). These approaches also distinguish between “purchase affordability” (the ability to borrow funds to purchase a house) and “repayment affordability” (the ability to afford housing finance repayments) (Bieri, 2014). Furthermore, housing production and, ultimately affordability, rely upon demand and supply factors that affect both the developers and home buyers. On the supply side, aspects such as the cost of land, high construction costs, stiff land-use regulations, and zoning codes have a crucial role in determining the ultimate price of housing (Paris, 2006). Likewise, on the policy side, insufficient government subsidies and lengthy approval processes may deter smaller developers from embarking on new projects. On the other hand, the demand for affordable housing keeps increasing alongside the prices, which remain high, as a consequence of the, sometimes deliberate incapacity of the construction sector to meet the consumers' needs (Halligan, 2021). Similarly, the difficulty of decreasing household expenditures while increasing incomes exacerbates the unaffordability of housing (Anacker, 2019). In the end, as more recent scholarship has pointed out (see Haffner & Hulse, 2021; Mulliner & Maliene, 2014), the issue of housing affordability has complex implications that go beyond the purely economic or financial ones. The authors argue that it has a direct impact on the quality of life and well-being of the affected and their relationship with the city, and thus, it requires a multidimensional assessment. Urban and spatial inequalities in the access to city services and resources, gentrification, segregation, fuel and commuting poverty, and suburbanisation are amongst its most notorious consequences. Brysch and Czischke, for example, found through a comparative analysis of 16 collaborative housing projects in Europe that affordability was increased by “strategic design decisions and self-organised activities aiming to reduce building costs” (2021, p.18). This demonstrates that there is a great potential for design and urban planning tools and mechanisms to contribute to the generation of innovative solutions to enable housing affordability considering all the dimensions involved, i.e., spatial, urban, social and economic. Examples range from public-private partnerships, new materials and building techniques, alternative housing schemes and tenure models (e.g., cohousing, housing cooperatives, Community Land Trusts, ‘Baugruppen’), to efficient interior design, (e.g., flexible design, design by layers[1]). Considering affordability from a design point of view can activate different levers to catalyse and bring forward housing solutions for cities; and stakeholders such as socially engaged real estate developers, policymakers, and municipal authorities have a decisive stake in creating an adequate environment for fostering, producing and delivering sustainable and affordable housing.   [1] (see Brand, 1995; Schneider & Till, 2007)

Created on 03-06-2022

Author: L.Ricaurte (ESR15)

Read more ->

Area: Policy and financing

Housing is usually deemed unaffordable when it consumes more than a set percentage of a household's monthly income. The Eurostat (2022) and the OECD (Chung et al., 2018) follow this threshold approach and define households overburdened with housing costs as those that spend more than 40% of their disposable income on housing. However, this indicator fails to capture financial hardship, particularly among lower-income households. In fact, lower-income households may be spending less than 40% of their income on housing and yet failing to meet adequate consumption levels for other goods. As a response, the residual income approach ascertains housing (un)affordability by defining a minimum level of consumption for a set of goods according to particular household types. The residual income approach builds on consumption data to define the minimum level of income necessary for a household to survive after housing costs. The main shortcoming of this approach is that relies on subjective measures of what constitutes the necessary minimal expenses for a household. These two definitions of affordability navigate two tensions 1) between housing and other types of consumption and 2) between the individual conceptions of what is affordable and what the government considers to be affordable (Haffner & Hulse, 2021). More recently, scholars have emphasized the multi-faceted nature of affordability to include commuting and transport costs together with energy costs (Haffner & Boumeester, 2010). Other approaches focus on supply-side measures, for instance on the share of the housing stock that a household can afford (Chung et al., 2018). Evolutions in the measurement of affordability bear witness to the complexity of housing systems. Affordability is not only dependent on housing consumption but also on housing supply, particularly in inelastic markets where providers have considerable power, see for example Kunovac & Zilic (2021). At the same time, displacement pressures and rising energy costs in an older and inefficient stock add pressure on households to access affordable housing.

Created on 21-04-2023

Author: A.Fernandez (ESR12), M.Haffner (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Decarbonisation, a term which echoes through the corridors of academia, politics, practical applications, and stands at the forefront of contemporary discussions on sustainability. Intricately intertwined with concepts such as net-zero and climate neutrality, it represents a pivotal shift in our approach to environmental sustainability. In its essence, decarbonisation signifies the systematic reduction of carbon dioxide intensity, a crucial endeavour in the battle against climate change (Zachmann et al., 2021). This overview delves into the multifaceted concept of decarbonisation within the context of the European Union. Beginning with a broad perspective, we examine its implications at the macro level before homing in on the complexities of decarbonisation within the realm of building structures. Finally, we explore the literature insights, presenting key strategies that pave the way toward achieving a decarbonised building sector. From a broad perspective, decarbonisation is an overarching concept that aims to achieve climate neutrality (Zachmann et al., 2021, p.13). Climate neutrality means achieving a state of equilibrium between greenhouse gas emissions and their removal from the atmosphere, preventing any net increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (IEA, 2022). From an energy decarbonisation perspective, however, in a document provided by the Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policy Department at the request of the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee, Zachmann et al. (2021) explain that energy systems require a fundamental shift in the way societies provide, transport and consume energy (Zachmann et al., 2021). In the construct of decarbonisation, as outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the focus lies on strategic directives aimed at reducing the carbon content of energy sources, fuels, products and services (Arvizu et al., 2011; Edenhofer et al., 2011). This complex process involves the transition from carbon-intensive behaviours, such as fossil fuel use, to low-carbon or carbon-neutral alternatives. The main goal of decarbonisation, therefore, is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane, which are closely linked to the growing threats of climate change (Edenhofer et al., 2011). Hoeller et al. (2023) explain that decarbonisation efforts within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) focus on harmonising economic growth, energy production and consumption with climate objectives to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change while promoting sustainable development (Hoeller et al., 2023). From a pragmatic perspective, however, according to the OECD Policy Paper 31: A framework to decarbonise the economy, published in 2022,  progress on economic decarbonisation remains suboptimal. This raises the urgent need for a multi-dimensional framework that is not only cost-effective but also inclusive and comprehensive in its strategy for decarbonisation (D’Arcangelo et al., 2022). D’Arcangelo et al. (2023) add that such framework should include several steps such as setting clear climate targets, measuring progress and identifying areas for action, delineating policy frameworks, mapping existing policies, creating enabling conditions, facilitating a smooth transition for individuals, and actively engaging the public. From an academic perspective, Weller and Tierney (2018) provide an explanation of decarbonisation, defining it as a twofold concept. Firstly, it involves reducing the intensity of fossil fuel use for energy production. Secondly, it emphasises the role of policy in mitigating the negative externalities associated with such use. They argue that decarbonisation is a politically charged policy area that needs to be 'just', while also serving a means to revitalise local economies (Weller & Tierney, 2018). Kyriacou and Burke (2020) expand on this definition, highlighting decarbonisation as the transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy system. This transition is driven by the need to mitigate climate change without compromising energy security. Boute (2021), on the other hand, emphasises the long-term structural reduction of CO2 emissions as the core strategy of decarbonisation. Boute adds that the effectiveness of decarbonisation must be measured in terms of a unit of energy consumed across all activities. In the economic context, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies concludes that decarbonisation aims to reduce the carbon intensity of an economy. This reduction is quantified as the ratio of CO2 emissions to gross domestic product (Henderson & Sen, 2021). Addressing methodological concerns, Buettner (2022) added that decarbonisation is often misused as a generic term. Moreover, Buettner highlights the diverse levels at which decarbonisation occurs, ranging from carbon neutrality (focused on reducing CO2 emissions), to climate neutrality (aiming to reduce CO2, non-fluorinated greenhouse gases, and fluorinated greenhouse gases) and, finally, to environmental neutrality (which reduces all substances negatively impacting the environment and health) (Buettner, 2022). The debate on the decarbonisation of the construction sector revolves around similar issues. The report on Decarbonising Buildings in Cities and Regions, published by the OECD in 2022, defines the concept as reducing energy consumption by improving envelope insulation, installing high performance equipment, and scaling up the use of renewable sources to meet the energy demands (OECD, P24). Another definition comes from a working paper by the OECD Economics Department, Hoeller et al. (2023) contend, it is necessary to consider direct emissions from household fossil fuel combustion and indirect emissions from the generation of electricity and district heating used by households (Hoeller et al., 2023). The comprehensive study “Decarbonising Buildings” published by the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) in 2022, defines the term as transforming the building sector to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Achieving this goal requires various technological solutions and behavioural changes to decarbonise heating and cooling, such as energy-efficient building envelopes, heat pumps and on-site renewables (CAT, 2022). Gratiot et al. (2023) consider decarbonisation as the process of reducing or eliminating CO2 emissions that contribute to climate change from a building’s energy sources. This involves systematically shifting buildings from carbon-intensive energy sources (e.g., gas, oil and coal) to low-carbon or carbon-neutral alternatives (e.g., solar, wind and geothermal). This process includes improving the energy efficiency of buildings through better insulation, lighting and appliances (Gratiot et al., 2023). Blanco et al. (2021) consider the decarbonisation of buildings and operation of buildings. This includes enhancing the energy efficiency of buildings and minimizing embodied carbon from building materials and construction activities of greenhouse gas emissions from the construction and operation of buildings. Achieving a decarbonised building sector is a multifaceted endeavour that demands extensive efforts in several key areas, such as energy sources, building envelope, building policy and transformation funds. The objective of the energy transition is to shift from reliance on fossil fuels to clean or renewable energy sources, primarily used for heating and cooling, such as heat pumps, district heating, hydrogen (Jones, 2021). Decarbonising the building envelope, on the other hand, involves improving the energy efficiency of buildings through better insulation, lighting and appliances. It also necessitates minimising embodied carbon from building materials and construction activities (CAT, 2022; D’Arcangelo et al., 2022). Incorporating effective policies into building construction is crucial. This includes adopting of performance standards and building codes that regulate the energy use and emissions of both new and existing buildings. These regulations directly impact the extent and pace of decarbonisation (CAT, 2022; Jones, 2021). Additionally, it is essential to establish a clear vision and climate targets for the buildings sector and operationalise them with a comprehensive policy mix that encompass emissions pricing, standards, regulations and complementary measures (Jones, 2021). The most significant challenge lies in financing the transition to a decarbonised sector. Therefore, it is imperative to mobilise finance on a large scale and collaborate with industry stakeholders. This collaboration is vital to facilitate the transition, overcome barriers, and manage the costs associated with deploying low- or zero-carbon technologies (D’Arcangelo et al., 2022). In summary, the overarching concept of decarbonisation primarily targets the reduction of carbon dioxide in economic and industrial activities, with a focus on energy production and distribution systems. At the building level, the emphasis lies in integrating low-carbon or carbon-neutral systems to minimise both direct and indirect emissions. Nevertheless, the literature examined indicates that other societal aspects, including social and behavioural factors, have not been thoroughly researched. This gap in knowledge could challenge the realisation of the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and underscores the need for further studies in these areas.

Created on 06-11-2023

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5), K.Hadjri (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

A precise and definitive definition of environmentally sustainable social housing remains elusive. Instead, it encompasses a bundle of interrelated terms such as low-impact buildings, sustainable buildings and environmentally responsible buildings, all of which are interwoven with the characteristics of social housing and its policy and development. This review examines the theoretical underpinnings of social housing and environmental sustainability at the EU level, outlines the challenges of integrating sustainability into housing and proposes an overarching definition of environmentally sustainable social housing. Social housing narratives Elsinga (2012) explains that social housing in the European Union is broadly described as a set of initiatives to provide high-quality and affordable housing for disadvantaged and middle-income groups, usually managed by public authorities (Elsinga, 2012). In the UK and the Netherlands, however, the management of social housing has largely been entrusted to non-profit organisations. This approach contrasts with that of Germany and Spain, where public subsidies are provided to commercial landlords in exchange for a fixed social rent and thus constitute a form of social housing. Granath Hansson and Lundgren (2019) further note that the historical development of social housing in the EU has involved a significant transfer of responsibility from local authorities to non-municipal providers, albeit under highly regulated practices such as the UK's managerialist approach (Granath Hansson & Lundgren, 2019). Priemus (2013) offers a definition that emphasises the regulatory framework and the role of the public sector in regulating social housing (Priemus, 2013). This definition identifies the target group as households unable to compete in the private housing market due to financial, physical or mental health problems or belonging to an ethnic minority or immigrant group. Bengtsson (2017), adopting a target group perspective, characterises social housing as a "system" designed to provide housing to resource-constrained households, with the requirement for their needs to be confirmed (Bengtsson, 2017). Although there is no universally accepted definition of social housing, it can be assumed that social housing functions as a system that supports households with limited financial resources by providing long-term accommodation. This system requires a mechanism to assess the needs of the target groups, ensuring that the housing is provided as a subsidy and not as a self-sustaining unit. Consequently, rents or prices within this system must be affordable and below market prices. Environmental sustainability narratives While there is no definitive definition of environmental sustainability specific to the EU in the literature, several scholars have contributed to understanding this concept from a global perspective and thus influenced its interpretation at the EU level. Notable contributions include those by Hey (2005), Portney (2015), Purvis et al. (2019) and Morelli (2011). Purvis et al. (2019) emphasise that environmental sustainability results from describing environmental protection goals and their interrelationships with broader concepts of the built environment. Environmental sustainability has evolved into a dynamic and multidisciplinary concept that is closely linked to concepts such as resilience, durability and renewability. Morelli (2011) states that environmental sustainability can be applied at different levels and encompasses tangible and intangible aspects (Morelli, 2011). Portney (2015) argues that environmental sustainability goals include conserving natural resources, improving people’s well-being, and promoting industrial efficiency without compromising societal development. The contemporary approach to implementing sustainability focuses on reducing the resource consumption of buildings (such as water and energy) and minimising waste production while improving the quality of the built environment. This approach goes beyond individual buildings and extends to the urban fabric of cities (Berardi, 2012; McLennan, 2004). The EU's approach to environmental sustainability is reflected in its directives, policies, initiatives and guidelines. An example of these initiatives is the European Green Deal (EC, 2019), which aims for a carbon-neutrality across Europe by 2050 while promoting sustainable economic growth (Fetting, 2020; Siddi, 2020). In addition, the EU emphasises the importance of integrating environmental concerns into various policy areas, including energy, transport, agriculture and industry. The EU Circular Economy Action Plan, for example, promotes an economy that minimises waste and supports sustainable consumption and production patterns (EC, 2020). Overall, the EU's approach to environmental sustainability emphasises the need for a comprehensive, integrated, and long-term perspective (Hermoso et al., 2022; Johansson, 2021). This approach considers the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability and emphasises the importance of international cooperation in addressing global environmental challenges (Fetting, 2020; Hermoso et al., 2022; Siddi, 2020). Integration imperatives and its challenges The realisation of environmentally sustainable social housing presents numerous challenges. The initial investment in sustainable building technologies and materials is often considerable, especially given the limited funds available for social housing projects. Compliance with ever-evolving environmental regulations further complicates the delivery of sustainable social housing. Consequently, there is an urgent need to adapt sustainable practices to different scales of social housing projects, which requires careful planning and adaptation to the specific needs and context of different developments (Oyebanji, 2014). Despite these challenges, the field of sustainable social housing offers significant opportunities for innovation and improvement. Technological progress continuously offers more efficient, cost-effective and sustainable solutions (IEA, 2022). In addition, robust policy frameworks and incentives are crucial for the adoption of sustainable practices (Fetting, 2020). Another crucial element is the active participation of different stakeholders in the design and maintenance of housing, which can significantly improve both sustainability and social cohesion (Shirazi & Keivani, 2019). The way forward Environmentally Sustainable social housing is becoming increasingly important as it represents both a possible future and an ambitious goal. It envisions an environmentally responsible housing sector without compromising its development capacity (Morgan & Talbot, 2001; Oyebanji, 2014; Winston, 2021). It aims to create housing that minimises its environmental footprint, promotes the well-being of its residents and provides affordable housing opportunities. It also aims to meet the housing needs of vulnerable and low-income groups while promoting sustainable development and addressing climate and environmental issues (Udomiaye et al., 2018).

Created on 19-06-2024

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5), K.Hadjri (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Improving indoor thermal comfort is a widely agreed motivate for housing retrofit (Femenías et al., 2018; Outcault et al., 2022; Sojkova et al., 2019; Zahiri & Elsharkawy, 2018). Low carbon retrofit of existing social housing tends to be driven by cost, the use of eco-friendly products, and energy savings (Sojkova et al., 2019). Energy savings are particularly important in colder climates where households require larger energy loads for space heating and thermal comfort and are therefore at greater risk of fuel (energy) poverty (Sojkova et al., 2019; Zahiri & Elsharkawy, 2018). Femenías et al.’s (2018) extensive literature review on property owners’ attitudes to energy efficiency argues that renovations are typically motivated by other needs, referred to by Outcault et al (2022) as ‘non-energy impacts’ (NEIs). While lists of NEIs are inconsistent in the literature, categories related to “weatherization retrofit” (Outcault et al., 2022, p.3) refer to comfort, modernity, health, safety, education, and better indoor air quality (Amann, 2006; Bergman & Foxon, 2020; Broers et al., 2022; Outcault et al., 2022). In poorly maintained social housing, however, the desire to improve indoor air quality and thermal comfort will have an impact on energy consumption. Occupants will, for example, use extra heating to feel comfortable in a damp, mouldy, or cold home. (Zahiri & Elsharkawy, 2018).   There are three main technical improvements to low carbon retrofit: (1) enhancing the building fabrics thermal properties; (2) improving systems efficiency; and (3) renewable energy integration (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). In order for the Passivehaus Institut’s EnerPHit Retrofit Plan to meet Passivhaus standards for indoor air quality, homes must achieve high levels of air tightness complemented by a mechanical ventilation system including heat recovery (MVHR). Specifically, “airtightness of a building must achieve an air change per hour rate of less than 0.6 at 50 Pa of pressure (n50), and have ventilation provided by either a balanced mechanical heat recovery ventilation or demand-controlled ventilation systems” (McCarron et al., 2019, p.297). This airtightness concept is revered for saving energy, avoiding structural damage, and contributing to thermal comfort (Bastian et al., 2022) while requiring no natural ventilation such as open windows. Mechanical HVAC units alter indoor air temperature, air movement, ventilation, noise levels, and humidity (Outcault et al., 2022). But despite known benefits to physical health and clean air, this may not lead to optimum user-comfort. This is because social housing residents have unique housing needs that differ from homeowners (Sunikka-Blank et al., 2018) and cannot be predicted without resident engagement, as residents are experts in the way they live and use their homes (Boess, 2022; Gianfrate et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2014).   Post Occupancy Evaluation after retrofit has found that social housing residents are often unfamiliar with mechanical systems and their sustainable benefits, especially when retrofit occurs without resident input (Garnier et al., 2020). This can lead to misuse, overheating, the prebound effect, and the rebound effect where affordable energy bills lead to excessive heating—at times 25-26°C (Zoonnekindt, 2019)—contributing to performance gaps as high as five times the predicted energy consumption (Traynor, 2019). Other households considered mechanical systems to be bulky, ugly, and noisy, prompting removal, lack of use, and at times emotional distress (Lowe et al., 2018). DREEAM’s Berlin pilot site found one household blocking mechanical ventilation with tissue paper because they considered the air too cold and residents “haven’t been informed about the positive impact of a well working ventilation on their health and on the energy efficiency of the heating in their apartment” (Zoonnekindt, 2019). DREEAM continued the project with Green Neighbours (Zoonnekindt, 2019), an innovative engagement program co-designed with and for residents to better inform mechanical systems usage. However, literature shows (Boess, 2022; Gianfrate et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2014) that informing residents on how to use mechanical systems is unlikely to change use-habits or adequately combat performance gaps. In order to change residents’ energy behaviours, resident stakeholders should be integrated in retrofit decision-making.

Created on 20-09-2022

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Sustainability of the built environment The emergence of the contemporary environmental movement between the 1960s and 1970s and its proposals to remedy the consequences of pollution can be seen as one of the first steps in addressing environmental problems (Scoones, 2007). However, the term “sustainable” only gained wider currency when it was introduced into political discourse by the Club of Rome with its 1972 report “The Limits to Growth”, in which the proposal to change growth trends to be sustainable in the far future was put forward (Grober, 2007; Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015a; Meadows et al., 1972). Since then, the use of the term has grown rapidly, especially after the publication of the 1978 report “Our Common Future”, which became a cornerstone of debates on sustainability and sustainable development (Brundtland et al., 1987; Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015a). Although the two terms are often used indistinctively, the former refers to managing resources without depleting them for future generations, while the latter aims to improve long-term economic well-being and quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015b; UNESCO, 2015). The Brundtland Report paved the way for the 1992 Earth Summit, which concluded that an effective balance must be found between consumption and conservation of natural resources (Scoones, 2007). In 2000, the United Nations General Assembly published the 8 Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2000), which led to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) published in 2016 (UN, 2016). The 17 SDGs call on all countries to mobilise their efforts to end all forms of poverty, tackle inequalities and combat climate change (UN, 2020; UNDP, 2018). Despite the rapidly growing literature on sustainability, the term remains ambiguous and lacks a clear conceptual foundation (Grober, 2007; Purvis et al., 2019). Murphy (2012) suggests that when defining sustainability, the question should be: Sustainability, of what? However, one of the most prominent interpretations of sustainability is the three pillars concept, which describes the interaction between the social, economic and environmental components of society (Purvis et al., 2019). The environmental pillar aims to improve human well-being by protecting natural capital -e.g. land, air and water- (Morelli, 2011). The economic sustainability pillar focuses on maintaining stable economic growth without damaging natural resources (Dunphy et al., 2000). Social sustainability, on the other hand, aims to preserve social capital and create a practical social framework that provides a comprehensive view of people's needs, communities and culture (Diesendorf, 2000). This latter pillar paved the way for the creation of a fourth pillar that includes human and culture as a focal point in sustainability objectives (RMIT, 2017). Jabareen (2006) describes environmental sustainability as a dynamic, inclusive and multidisciplinary concept that overlaps with other concepts such as resilience, durability and renewability. Morelli (2011) adds that it can be applied at different levels and includes tangible and intangible issues. Portney (2015) takes Morelli's explanation further and advocates that environmental sustainability should also promote industrial efficiency without compromising society's ability to develop (Morelli, 2011; Portney, 2015). Measuring the built environment sustainability level is a complex process that deploys quantitative methods, including (1) indexes (e.g. energy efficiency rate), (2) indicators (e.g. carbon emissions and carbon footprint), (3) benchmarks (e.g. water consumption per capita) and (4) audits (e.g. building management system efficiency) (Arjen, 2015; Berardi, 2012; James, 2014; Kubba, 2012). In recent years, several rating or certification systems and practical guides have been created and developed to measure sustainability, most notably the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) introduced in the UK in 1990 (BRE, 2016) and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) established in the US in 2000 (USGBC, 2018). In addition, other overlapping methodologies and certification frameworks have emerged, such as the European Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) in 2002 (EPB, 2003) and the European Framework for Sustainable Buildings, also known as Level(s) in 2020 (EU, 2020), amongst others. The sustainability of the built environment aims to reduce human consumption of natural resources and the production of waste while improving the health and comfort of inhabitants and thus the performance of the built environment elements such as buildings and spaces, and the infrastructure that supports human activities (Berardi, 2012; McLennan, 2004). This aim requires an effective theoretical and practical framework that encompasses at least six domains, including land, water, energy, indoor and outdoor environments, and economic and cultural preservation (Ferwati et al., 2019). More recently, other domains have been added, such as health and comfort, resource use, environmental performance, and cost-benefit and risk (EU, 2020). Sustainability of the built environment also requires comprehensive coordination between the architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and environmental systems of buildings in the design, construction and operation phases to improve performance and avoid unnecessary resource consumption (Yates & Castro-Lacouture, 2018).

Created on 24-06-2022

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5), K.Hadjri (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Related publications

Blogposts

Icon the-fallacy-of-sustainability

The fallacy of “sustainability”

Posted on 20-06-2023

Since the day I received my first certificate in sustainability from LEED as a Green Associate in 2012, I defined myself as an advocate for the environment. And I mouthed the word "sustainability" every chance I got, and I even have a tiny line under my email signature that says, "Do not print. Think sustainability." Since then, I have continued to accumulate certificates and attend training courses on all aspects of "sustainability". And if someone dares to ask me what sustainability is? I will confidently scratch my beard and flood them with a stream of quotes from the Brundtland Report, research and academic debates, saying, "sustainability is the only key to a better future, the threshold to preserving our planet, the process of balancing our needs, the act of reducing our consumption" and keep adding "fashionable" terminologies. And for all this, I am a fraud, and I have lied. And let me tell you why sustainability is misleading.   What is sustainability? Let us take a step back and look at the question and the concept. Linguistically, sustainability means the ability to maintain something (e.g. a state, an object or a process). "Sustainability" began as an abstract philosophical ideology that admired the surrounding nature and described the "stability" of shelter, food and fuel and the balance between humans and nature, most clearly in the works of Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics), Plato and Socrates. However, it quickly evolved into a crucial element in the history of human development. It transformed into a method of recognising and addressing the severe impact of humans on natural resources. This change has not stood still but has significantly influenced today's understanding of sustainability as a contemporary method for effectively balancing the social, economic and environmental aspects of societies with the needs of human development. But what exactly is sustainability?   Like any self-defined researcher with access to numerous online libraries, I fired up my laptop and googled the "big" names in the philosophy of sustainability (John Evelyn's Sylva, Baruch Spinoza, Carl Linnaeus, Georges-Louis Leclerc and John Muir). Then I added a dozen journal articles on sustainability science. After a few hours, I was frustrated and even more confused. However, to save you the trouble, I can confirm that sustainability is not a new science, paradigm or set of qualitative indicators. Rather, it is a set of wicked problems that holistically challenge the planet and its systems and impact human existence and well-being in the present and future. I also suggest that three dominant ideologies have shaped the current perception of sustainability. The first is "sustainability through conservation capacity", which promotes a "balanced" state that aims to "sustain" the existence of entities through the ability to endure challenges over time. The second is "sustainability through quantifiability", which defines sustainability as an abstract concept that only comes into play on a quantifiable and global scale. And the third is "sustainability through integration(-ability)", which defines sustainability by describing a state of mutual interest, integration and balance between the three aspects of economic development, environmental capacity and societal needs.   In the end, I also tell you that sustainability is not defined and can not be defined. The difficulty in defining the term is due to the fact that there is no definitive formulation, no stopping rules and no precise boundaries for the timeframe or the problem. So the question is not "what is", but "why" and "how".   Why is it misleading? I am not arguing "scientifically" in the literal sense here. Still, first, I quote Charles L. Choguill (2007), who says: "The term sustainability has become one of the most overused and all too often misused terms in the development literature". The concept of sustainability is often seen as a positive goal. However, I suggest that sustainability can be misleading and insufficient when addressing the complex challenges we face today. An example is the global goal of reducing the temperature by 1.5 degrees, for which there is still no feasible and precise plan. Sustainability often focuses on maintaining current systems and practices without questioning the underlying assumptions. As a result, the root causes of environmental degradation, social inequality and economic instability may not be adequately addressed. The term "sustainability" implies maintaining the status quo indefinitely, which can give a false sense of security. In reality, our planet faces urgent and interconnected crises such as climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion. These problems require more immediate and ambitious action than simply maintaining existing conditions. We have been talking about a "climate emergency" for the last few decades, but how long can an "emergency" last?   Moreover, striving for sustainability may mean making trade-offs between environmental, social and economic goals. For example, focusing only on ecological sustainability may neglect social justice or economic growth. Moreover, well-intentioned sustainability efforts can sometimes lead to unintended negative consequences in other areas, such as land-use conflicts or community displacement. Methodologically, however, sustainability is often considered in isolation, without taking into account the interconnectedness and complexity of ecological, social and economic systems. This fragmented approach can hinder holistic solutions and fail to address the underlying systemic problems that perpetuate unsustainability.   What should we do? I do not have a definitive answer to this question, but I am not saying we should abandon our ideology of preserving the planet and reversing the damage done. Instead, I am suggesting a shift towards more transformative and regenerative approaches and ideologies. We should also go beyond the boundaries of sustainability and even consider changing the terminology we use.

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5)

Reflections

Read more ->
Icon sustainable-developments-in-social-housing-a-secondment-at-south-yorkshire-housing-association

Sustainable developments in social housing, a secondment at South Yorkshire Housing Association.

Posted on 18-08-2022

It's been a few months now since I completed my secondment with South Yorkshire Housing Association (SYHA) and writing this post is more difficult than I expected. However, before I continue, I need to clarify some of the key terms mentioned so far. Firstly, a secondment is a defined period of time during which an employee is sent to another organisation to gain experience, increase the workforce or share knowledge (Cambridge, n.d.). A housing association is broadly defined as a society, trust or company that provides, builds, improves or manages housing, or facilitates or promotes the construction of housing, and operates on a not-for-profit basis (HMSO, 1985). Its role has recently expanded to include other social services that focus on vulnerable at-risk groups. Against this background, my work at SYHA has been to research and identify the process of developing sustainable social housing and to participate in real projects to measure housing sustainability and to work with housing associations. Background. The story of South Yorkshire Housing Association begins when founder John Belcher set up Sheffield Family Housing Association to help young homeless families after watching the BBC drama 'Cathy Come Home' in 1972. Almost 50 years later, South Yorkshire Housing Association still builds and manages a range of services, including social housing, affordable rented housing, shared ownership housing and other social support services (SYHA, 2021a). In recent years, SYHA has changed its business model to the concept of "The business is more than housing", focusing on and prioritising other important challenges such as the wellbeing and social needs of its tenants and environmental challenges, in particular climate change, energy efficiency and carbon emissions (SYHA, 2021b). Unlike the conventional 'departmental organisational structure' that follows a strict service typology or structures tailored to role descriptions. SYHA has a unique and dynamic organisational structure guided by the principles of goal setting and services defined as continuous strengthening of resources and improvement of staff performance (SYHA, 2021b, Jacobides, 2007). According to SYHA's latest annual report, total assets owned, managed or under construction amount to more than 6,000 housing units. These include flats, terraced houses, detached houses, semi-detached houses and residential communities (SYHA, 2021c). From strategic plan to theory. Housing is a big part of the climate change problem, accounting for 27 per cent of UK carbon emissions and consuming up to 30 per cent of inland generated energy (DBEIS, 2020). In response, SYHA has developed a strategic plan to achieve the UK's 2050 zero carbon target and help mitigate the impact of climate change on people's health, wellbeing and access to housing (SYHA, 2020). The strategic plan is to (1) identify and calculate the current carbon footprint (2) improve the management of asset data, (3) identify the necessary behavioural changes and engage with end users to reduce their impact on the natural and built environment (read Andreas Panagidis post on participation in planning), (4) improve the energy efficiency of existing homes and tackle fuel poverty (read Tijn Croon post on energy poverty), (5) build new homes to high environmental standards and develop future-proof changes to our current design standard, as well as test new approaches, (6) reduce fossil fuel use across all business areas, (7) update the business plan to respond to various challenges. From theory to practice. In analysing several projects, I have found that SYHA has successfully translated strategic plans into practical guidelines for 'best practice', creating several award-winning projects such as the North Wingfield social housing complex. The guidelines include: (1) Spatial requirements by creating a meeting point between building regulations and actual needs and recognising the different lifestyle preferences of end users, (2) The design of residential neighbourhoods taking into account cultural and natural elements, (3) The connectivity and accessibility of projects and maximising the use of existing infrastructure without depleting resources, (4) Sustainable landscaping and drainage to reduce the impact of artificial landscapes and integrate native components into projects, (5) Modern construction methods that enable safe and fast construction with minimal waste generation.. From practice to research. The main aim of the secondment is to engage the researcher in real projects to measure environmental sustainability and develop a framework for affordable, low-carbon homes. To achieve this goal, I was expected to (1) conduct quantitative and qualitative research and engage with local and international partners and stakeholders, and (2) accurately record and analyse data to provide useful insights for other academics, funders, policy makers and practitioners. I used a variety of research methods such as systematic content analysis, informal interviews and observation. The data collected was analysed from an intervention research perspective. From research to practice. The outcome of the secondment was the development of an online platform that overcomes the challenges and risks identified in the analysis; the platform includes, among other functions, the following. (1) Sustainability practices, by clarifying the principles, tools and structure of environmental sustainability that enhance the existing SYHA project flow chart and overall development processes. (2) Reduce misunderstandings about sustainability and social housing by creating a top-down glossary of terminologies that unifies the language within housing association practices. From SYHA to RE-DWELL. At the end of the secondment, I was able to list and explain the processes used by SYHA and other housing associations in the UK to develop sustainable social housing. The process is complicated and requires extensive analysis of building regulations, policy development and project flow charts. More importantly, I have tested and validated my research gaps to ultimately create valid research questions that respond to real-life challenges. The analysis of SYAH practices provided valuable input for my PhD thesis and helped in the selection of exploratory case studies. All in all, the secondment was an important tool that RE-DWELL used to guide and support my research project. Acknowledgement. The three months I spent at SYHA provided me with great theoretical data, but what was really interesting was meeting the people of SYHA. I received tremendous support from all the team members, and so I have to thank everyone at SYHA and especially Jon Walker, Natalie Newman, Eira Capelan and Robert Milne.     References CAMBRIDGE n.d. Secondment definition In: UNIVERSITY, C. (ed.) Cambridge dictionary. United Kingdom.   DBEIS 2020. Energy Consumption in the UK (ECUK) 1970 to 2019 In: (ONS), O. O. N. S. (ed.) National Statistics. London: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.   HMSO 1985. The Housing Associations Act 1985: Chapter 69. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.   JACOBIDES, M. G. 2007. The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, 18, 455-477.   SYHA. 2020. Our Strategic Plan 2020-2023 [Online]. UK: South Yorkshire Housing Association. Available: https://www.syha.co.uk/who-we-are/what-we-do/our-strategic-plan/ [Accessed 2021].   SYHA. 2021a. Our history [Online]. UK. Available: https://www.syha.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/ [Accessed].   SYHA. 2021b. Our purpose [Online]. UK: South Yorkshire Housing Association. Available: https://www.syha.co.uk/who-we-are/what-we-do/our-purpose/ [Accessed].   SYHA. 2021c. Who we are [Online]. UK: South Yorkshire Housing Association. Available: https://www.syha.co.uk/who-we-are/ [Accessed].

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5)

Secondments

Read more ->
Icon the-case-study-decoder

The case study decoder

Posted on 28-10-2021

Case study analysis. These are the three most confusing words – at least for me. Although being an architect has taught me the meaning and principles of case study selection and analysis, I still face difficulties with grasping the true benefits of the case study, specifically from the social sciences point of view. Therefore, in this blog post, I aim to clarify what the case study is, the history of the case study, and the different methodologies for investigating the case study.   The ‘case study’ as a case study ‘There are two ways to learn about a subject: One may study many examples at once, focussing on a few dimensions, or one may study particular examples in greater depth.’ Gerring, 2016   Let’s start with the basics and ask, ‘How does one define case study?’ Let’s break this concept up into its relevant pieces. Firstly, case means, ‘A particular situation or example of something.’ This situation may be comprised of states or state-like entities (regions or municipalities), organisations (firms or schools), social groups (race or age), events (revolutions or crises), or individuals (a biography or profile). Secondly, study, means, ‘The activity of examining a subject in detail to discover new information.’ By merging both of these meanings, a broad definition of case study is reached: A comprehensive investigation of a particular case (or cases) within a specific context, both of which are determined by the investigation interests (Gerring, 2016). When investigating the meaning of a case study, several associated terminologies arise, such as argument, observation and sample. An argument denotes the focal point of study and is defined as the theory, proposition or hypothesis driving the analysis. As observations govern the behaviour and use of variables in a case study, an observation can be said to define the strict boundaries of the units of analysis. Lastly, a sample is the data that are subject to analysis, which can either be singular or a collection of data (Gerring, 2016).   The origin of the case study The debate around the origin of the case study continues. One school of thought suggests that the case study as a form of research is an ancient concept and has been used throughout recorded history. Another theory states that the case study as a method of education was invented in the 1880s by Christopher Columbus Langdell, who was the Dean of Harvard Law School between 1870 and 1895. Yet another group suggests that the case study as a methodology originated from French economist, engineer and sociologist Pierre Guillaume Frédéric Le Play around 1829, when he used this methodology to test his theories before publication. I am sure you have noticed the differences within these groups: the case study as a form of research; the case study as a method of education; and the case study as a methodology (Harrison et al., 2017). Even though there are different uses for case studies in these designations, all of these groups agree that, by the mid-to-late nineteenth century, case studies had become the norm as teaching tools for developing new theories and hypotheses. By the start of the twentieth century, industrialists began looking at using the case study to develop their own theories on efficiency, manufacturing, supply lines and so forth (Carter, 2018, Gerring, 2016, Harvard, 2016). Despite the different opinions on its origin, the use of the case study spiked in the 1970s and has only continued to grow since (figure 1). This is mainly because of the increase in attention to its approaches, including the development of several new approaches. This is in conjunction with a noticeable increase in the use of case studies in publications, both in the social and applied sciences, as case study research is considered a primary methodology in testing and proving new theories and hypotheses (Gerring, 2016).   The types Case study as a form of research has many different forms, with each dictating different approaches and deploying different instruments. Discussing all of the types would result in a very dense list, so the main four types are discussed below (Harrison et al., 2017): -  Descriptive (illustrative) case study: used to examine a familiar case in order to help others understand it. Its primary method is the description of the variables. -  Exploratory case study: used to identify research questions within real-life contexts and situations. It is often deployed before large-scale investigations, making it is very popular in the social sciences, particularly political science. -  Cumulative case study: used to gather information on the topic at hand at different times. This type is widely used for qualitative research. -  Critical instance case study: used to determine the causes and consequences of an event, and investigates one or more phenomena. A critical instance case study can also be used to test a universal assertion.   So far! In summary, it is safe to say that the case study is a method of analysis that is no longer confined to just developing theories and hypotheses. It is a technique of research that also makes a case for coming up with solutions for given problems. It is worth noting that, unlike most of the statistically-based studies, the main goal of creating a case study is to look for some new variables while you are conducting research. Simply put, the case study looks to the characteristics of the past and present to make sense of the future. Choosing which case study to analyse is usually the most important and difficult task in this research process. Therefore, a systematic framework that defines the research problems, questions and objectives needs to be created so as to make it easier to find the relevant case study that can address the research needs of the project.   References CARTER, A. 2018. The History of the Case Study – Why It’s Important [Online]. Available: https://www.improveyourwebcontent.com/the-history-of-the-case-study-why-its-important/ [Accessed]. GERRING, J. 2016. Case study research: Principles and practices, Cambridge University Press. HARRISON, H., BIRKS, M., FRANKLIN, R. & MILLS, J. Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations.  Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2017. HARVARD. 2016. The Case Study Teaching Method [Online]. Harvard Law school Available: https://casestudies.law.harvard.edu/the-case-study-teaching-method/ [Accessed].

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5)

Reflections

Read more ->

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts