Socio-Technical Dimensions for a Sustainable Housing Transition
6.7 Markets, Users, and Power
construction approach. For example, Sweden is considered a leader in the prefab construction of housing, having been constructing housing in factory-like settings since the 1940s with prefab now representing over 80% of the housing market [61].
withdraw the proposed policy changes after he claimed the construction industry withdrew its support for the plan despite it having significant benefit for them [63].
The housing construction industry also has significant power and agency over housing consumers and is notorious for saying it strongly engages with the housing market and users and aims to deliver what users demand. Time and time again, studies find this is not the case and that housing consumers have limited agency. The notion of the “free market”
is often put forward with the housing sector arguing that, if consumers wanted higher quality or more sustainable housing, they would ask for it and be happy to pay for it. However, research has found that consumers do not have a clear understanding of what sustainable housing is, what benefits it can provide, what opportunities are available to them, and how to go about asking for something that is portrayed as “different”.
Because misinformation proliferates sustainable housing discourse (e.g., added cost), consumers do not have clear and unbiased information about sustainable housing. Social norms around housing are also rein- forced by key actors beyond the housing sector, such as building or reno- vation shows where the focus is on the flashy, nice to have elements, with little consideration for quality and performance. This helps reinforce ideas around what housing should or could be. Therefore, the idea of the
“free market” is not really working in this context. In regions where vol- ume builders dominate, the housing consumer often has limited oppor- tunity to be engaged in the process beyond selecting a template design from a limited range and some “custom” additions that are available.
Sustainable housing differs from the current regime as it has a long- standing practice of collaborating with housing consumers and key stake- holders of the design and housing construction industry. A collaborative approach like this means consumers are aware of all key decisions and their implications. This practice ensures that the needs of the household are met and environmental impacts are reduced. In the earlier days of sustainable housing, there was a high level of user involvement as many sustainable houses were self-built or custom projects. This has evolved to some degree (from one-off projects to larger scale, industry-built devel- opments), but there is still a strong tradition in self-built sustainable housing in the growing community of tiny houses and off-grid projects.
For industry-built sustainable housing developments, there often remains some user involvement throughout the design and construction process, as well as in the management and maintenance phase, to maximize per- formance outcomes. In some cases, collaborative engagement also helps to educate future residents about differences between sustainable housing and traditional industry-built dwellings.
The sustainable housing construction industry has had limited power over policy makers. At the moment, sustainable housing is still fighting to have their voice heard. This is despite providing an increasing number of successful examples of developments that provide a range of benefits.
While sustainable housing may not have political power, we have recently seen a upscaling of sustainable housing development within the existing constraints of regulation, financing, and the wider housing regime (see Chap. 7). The sustainable housing industry’s ability to influence and deliver change will grow alongside the sustainable housing movement grows. As more housing consumers start to understand the impacts of housing decisions on longer term liveability and affordability, users are helping to shift power dynamics for sustainable housing. This shift is also starting to occur with other housing provision stakeholders, such as financial institutions working with niche developers or funding sustain- ability retrofits.
Sustainable housing actors and the current housing regime have often been likened to David and Goliath, with the current regime holding the power. This dynamic plays out within sustainability transitions theory, where the regime is the dominant social order and niches are small-scale interventions, radical innovations, or experiments that push for bottom- up change. Regime actors often use their power to actively resist transi- tions in various ways [64], whereas niche actors try to change the regime [65–67]. As part of housing transitions research, scholars have examined different elements relating to specific sustainable housing niches [68], as well as the relationship between sustainable housing as a niche and the existing regime. However, as sustainable housing continues to evolve and become more embedded within housing practices, the power dynamics between sustainable housing and the current regime will have to be refined and possibly redefined.
6.7.1 Rating Tools
In many locations, minimum performance requirements (including rat- ing tools) have been used to lift the bottom of the market. However, typi- cal rating tools often focus on reducing energy or carbon metrics through purely “technical” elements, rather than design, material, and social con- siderations. In response to these limitations, an increasing number of vol- untary rating tools have emerged in recent years, working to reframe ratings and measurements to be about improving outcomes for occu- pants and the wider environment as a whole [69]. For example, the WELL Building Standard,7 which was launched in 2014 and has now been applied to more than 21,000 buildings in over 120 countries, has developed a rating tool which uses medical research as a starting point to improve occupant health and well-being outcomes. Certified spaces are designed to address Seven Concepts of the WELL Building Standards:
Air, water, nourishment, light, fitness, comfort, and mind. In doing so, outcomes improve the nutrition, fitness, mood, sleep patterns, produc- tivity, and performance of the people working, living, shopping, or play- ing inside these spaces. Building the tool from medical evidence has resulted in a more user focused outcome and, to some degree, takes away the input from the “free market” as it is based upon the best available evidence rather than influenced by consumer trends.
Another more innovative rating system challenging markets is the Living Building Challenge,8 launched in 2006. This tool attempts to radically change the way we consider, design, build, and use buildings and has been described as the world’s most rigorous building performance standard.
Where other tools try to reduce environmental harm, this tool aims to make a positive contribution to the environment by being regenerative (i.e., fixing the damage). For example, it sets targets beyond what is needed to support just the building, such as 105% renewable energy gen- eration. Like the WELL tool, the areas of focus are different to those of
7 https://bit.ly/3FgcTAL
8 https://bit.ly/3Fj6qW4
traditional tools and include place, water, energy, health and happiness, materials, equity, and beauty.