Author
Abstract
The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) is the European Union’s main policy instrument for reducing the built environment’s contribution to climate change. Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) are a tool of this policy, providing buildings with a performance rating. In the UK these have become the benchmark by which the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) are judged, rendering residences lower than an E illegal to rent out. This has pushed property owners to undertake energy retrofitting interventions to ensure compliance. In traditional buildings this is potentially problematic. Buildings of this type rely on permeability to control moisture dynamics; the insertion of less permeable barriers can interrupt their internal hygrometry leading to condensation, damp and decay. As a result, subsequent damage to the building fabric can bring energy policy into conflict with heritage conservation. Existing frameworks that attempt to mitigate the tension within these agendas often fall short in explicitly considering the the problem holistically. This research first asks if pressure from policy is leading to incompatible retrofits. Secondly, it aims to develop a holistic framework that unites heritage and energy agendas with current policy. An inductive, pragmatic approach was undertaken. Using a historic estate’s residential portfolio as a case study, condition surveys were carried out to assess whether properties retrofitted with secondary glazing were experiencing problems with condensation. The results of this were significant, supporting the argument that energy policy is driving incompatible retrofitting interventions. Exploratory data analysis was carried out on an existing EPC dataset to highlight inconsistencies with the EPC methodology. Finally, these findings were combined with questionnaire survey results, targeted at both professionals and occupants, to inform a decisionmaking framework that incorporated energy efficiency, heritage values, LCC, building assessment, occupant behaviour, with a feedback loop promoting a bottom-up approach to policy. This issue contains Part 1 which will set the scene, with Part 2, to be published in the next issue, presenting the methodology and results.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- R3 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aza:jbsav0:y:2023:v:12:i:3:p:228-259. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Henry Stewart Talks (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.