IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v36y2008i12p4487-4501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase our environmental, social and economic viability?

Author

Listed:
  • Power, Anne

Abstract

The issue of whether to demolish or refurbish older housing has been debated for over a century. It has been an active policy area since the late 1880s, when the Government first authorised the statutory demolition of insanitary slums. In the 1960s, revulsion at the scale of 'demolition blight' and new building caused a rethink, leading to a major reinvestment in inner city neighbourhoods of older housing. In the past 5 years, debate on demolition and new building has been intensified by the Government's Sustainable Communities Plan of 2003, with its proposals for large-scale clearance and building. Environmental arguments about renovating the existing stock have gained increasing prominence as people have sought to defend their communities from demolition. The evidence on whether demolition would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere is unclear and disputed. This paper summarises the evidence and arguments, and attempts to clarify the most realistic, achievable route to major reductions in energy use in homes. The arguments that apply to housing also apply to most other buildings and therefore to the overall built environment, which accounts for half of all carbon emissions. Three main sources of evidence have helped in the development of this paper, but there are many other studies we draw on in the discussion. Firstly, the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University has argued that around three million demolitions are necessary by 2050 if we are to reach the stringent energy reduction targets that will be required in our housing stock [Boardman et al., 2005. 40% House. Environmental Change Institute, Oxford]. Its demolition figure is based on complex modelling that with small modifications can produce very different numbers. Its assessment does not take account of the embodied carbon costs such as volume of new materials, energy use in producing concrete, steel and other structural and infrastructural elements, and other factors affecting the environment such as land use, infrastructure and area blighting. We discuss these issues in order to clarify the scale of the challenge and the relative value of demolition or renovation. Secondly, the Sustainable Development Commission [SDC, 2006. 'Stock Take': Delivering improvements in existing housing. Sustainable Development Commission, London] argues the urgent need to upgrade the existing stock on the grounds that 70% of all homes that will exist in 2050, even with the ambitious new building programme now announced, are already built. The maximum feasible demolition of two million existing homes by 2050, based on experience to date, suggests that under 10% of the current stock will have been demolished by then. We argue that upgrading this stock to high environmental standards can actually be achieved more cheaply than demolishing it, and with as significant a carbon reduction. Thirdly, the German Federal Housing, Urban and Transport Ministry has announced an ambitious energy reduction programme that will upgrade all pre-1984 homes in Germany by 2020, an estimated 30 million units.1 This is based on evidence from several CO2 reduction programmes since 1996, showing the feasibility of upgrading. An 80% cut in energy use has been achieved, making the performance of the renovated homes at least as good as Germany's current exacting new build standards. The evidence from Germany is more grounded than any that has so far been produced in the UK, as it is based on several thousand examples. The paper also discusses the social and political problems of demolition. There is widespread opposition to large-scale demolition of older stock, mainly pre-1919 terraced homes, which is currently the most 'leaky'. This older property is a prime target for demolition in the Environmental Change Institute's proposals and the Government's plans. The environmental benefits of refurbishment are shown, based on work by the Empty Homes Agency, evidence from English Heritage, the Building Research Establishment and the Prince's Foundation. Work on refurbishment shows that existing homes, often in brick-built terraces, are relatively easy to upgrade and, with careful reinvestment in the existing buildings, can achieve as high environmental efficiency standards as current new build. We consider major social, economic and environmental benefits of refurbishment compared with demolition, including: a reduction in the transport costs, reduced landfill disposal, greater reuse of materials, reuse of infill sites and existing infrastructure, reduced new building on flood plains, local economic development, retention of community infrastructure, neighbourhood renewal and management. We weigh these benefits against the full costs of demolition and rebuilding, involving much higher capital costs, higher material wastage, greater embodied carbon inputs, the polluting impact of particulates, greater use of lorry transport for materials and waste, greater use of aggregates, more noise and disruption. On the social issues of housing need and fuel poverty, we argue that refurbishment and infill building are socially more acceptable, cheaper and create far lower environmental impact, while reducing fuel poverty. The incentive problems associated with renovation and the barriers to delivering it are also discussed. The evidence we have uncovered counters the suggestion that large-scale and accelerated demolition would either help us meet our energy and climate change targets or respond to our social needs. Many arguments remain unclear, but the overall balance of evidence suggests that refurbishment most often makes sense on the basis of time, cost, community impact, prevention of sprawl, reuse of existing infrastructure and protection of existing communities. It can also lead to reduced energy use in buildings in both the short and long term. Many factors will influence what happens in practice, but it seems unlikely under any scenario that the rate of demolition will accelerate far above current levels. Upgrading the existing stock is likely to gain in significance for environmental, social and economic reasons. Adopting policies that aid the retention and upgrading of the existing stock will help develop the necessary skills and technologies, save materials and land, and enhance the integration of existing communities in need of regeneration.

Suggested Citation

  • Power, Anne, 2008. "Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase our environmental, social and economic viability?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4487-4501, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:12:p:4487-4501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(08)00470-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Hills, 2007. "Ends and Means: The future roles of social housing in England," CASE Reports casereport34, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    2. Power, Anne, 2004. "Neighbourhood management and the future of urban areas," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6319, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Johnston, D. & Lowe, R. & Bell, M., 2005. "An exploration of the technical feasibility of achieving CO2 emission reductions in excess of 60% within the UK housing stock by the year 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(13), pages 1643-1659, September.
    4. Anne Power, 2004. "Sustainable communities and sustainable development: A review of the Sustainable Communities Plan," CASE Reports casereport23, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    5. Anne Power, 2004. "Neighbourhood Management and the Future of Urban Areas," CASE Papers 077, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam Crawford, 2006. "'Fixing Broken Promises?': Neighbourhood Wardens and Social Capital," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(5-6), pages 957-976, May.
    2. Anne Power & Nicola Serle & Helen Willmot, 2011. "Obstacles and Opportunities: Today’s children, tomorrow’s families," CASE Reports casereport66, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    3. Power, Anne & Serle, Nicola & Willmot, Helen, 2011. "Obstacles and opportunities: today’s children, tomorrow’s families," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 43806, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Stuart Hodkinson, 2012. "The new urban enclosures," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 500-518, October.
    5. Mander, Sarah. L. & Bows, Alice & Anderson, Kevin. L. & Shackley, Simon & Agnolucci, Paolo & Ekins, Paul, 2008. "The Tyndall decarbonisation scenarios--Part I: Development of a backcasting methodology with stakeholder participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3754-3763, October.
    6. Michael-Allan Millar & Bruce Elrick & Greg Jones & Zhibin Yu & Neil M. Burnside, 2020. "Roadblocks to Low Temperature District Heating," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-21, November.
    7. Weinhardt, Felix, 2014. "Social housing, neighborhood quality and student performance," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 12-31.
    8. Gibbons, Stephen & Sanchez-Vidal, Maria & Silva, Olmo, 2020. "The bedroom tax," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Duncan Maclennan & Anthony O'Sullivan, 2013. "Localism, Devolution and Housing Policies," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 599-615, June.
    10. Natarajan, Sukumar & Levermore, Geoffrey J., 2007. "Predicting future UK housing stock and carbon emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5719-5727, November.
    11. repec:pri:crcwel:wp09-24-ff is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Li, Francis G.N. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Strachan, Neil, 2015. "A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 290-305.
    13. Patteeuw, Dieter & Reynders, Glenn & Bruninx, Kenneth & Protopapadaki, Christina & Delarue, Erik & D’haeseleer, William & Saelens, Dirk & Helsen, Lieve, 2015. "CO2-abatement cost of residential heat pumps with active demand response: demand- and supply-side effects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 490-501.
    14. Z. Goosen & E. J. Cilliers, 2020. "Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third Places: A Theory-Based Framework," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 835-866, August.
    15. Suzanne Fitzpatrick & Hal Pawson, 2014. "Ending Security of Tenure for Social Renters: Transitioning to 'Ambulance Service' Social Housing?," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 597-615, July.
    16. Justin van de Ven & Nicolas Hérault, 2019. "The evolution of tax implicit value judgements, redistribution and income inequality in the UK: 1968 to 2015," Working Papers 498, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    17. Allan Little, 2009. "Spatial Pattern of Economic Activity and Inactivity in Britain: People or Place Effects?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(7), pages 877-897.
    18. repec:cep:sticas:/131 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Xing Zhao & Xin Zhang, 2022. "Research on the Evaluation and Regional Differences in Carbon Emissions Efficiency of Cultural and Related Manufacturing Industries in China’s Yangtze River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    20. Alan Murie & Peter Williams, 2015. "A Presumption in Favour of Home Ownership? Reconsidering Housing Tenure Strategies," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 656-676, July.
    21. Chris Foye & David Clapham & Tommaso Gabrieli, 2018. "Home-ownership as a social norm and positional good: Subjective wellbeing evidence from panel data," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(6), pages 1290-1312, May.
    22. Glen Bramley & David Watkins & Noah Kofi Karley, 2011. "An Outcome-Based Resource Allocation Model for Local Education Services in Wales," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(5), pages 848-871, October.

    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:eee:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:12:p:4487-4501. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.