Discussion about problems, enablers, and needs encountered for addressing circularity in the renovation of buildings

Perceived circular behavioural control (PCBC) - In the context of housing, one of the factors that influence the sense of control to perform a circular behaviour is how solutions are installed, maintained, and used. The proposed circular solutions do not always require the same level of interaction; indeed, some of these solutions will not practically need interaction from users at all while other solutions could imply a daily involvement from the users. The degree to which we can measure behaviour varies.

A certain amount of controversy arises with regard to the preferable type of solutions to be installed in the demo-sites. Some interviewees (especially those who tend to deal with tenants in social housing on a practical level) believe that solutions should be as passive as possible. On the contrary, in the cooperative demo-site, it was suggested that solutions involving a greater degree of participation would generate more commitment to the processes of CE. The participants generally perceived that they were taking individual or organisational actions towards a CE, but sometimes this can lead to a false sense of control as they confuse issues of CE with sustainability actions.

7.5 Discussion about problems, enablers, and needs encountered

over whether it is feasible for the public sector to be innovative enough to include these circular solutions. Undeniably, there is the perception of certain complexity in the decision-making process related to the social housing sector. This complexity is considered the main factor slowing down the agility of the sector and it is discouraging a quicker process for policy implementation in CE schemes.

This is not the case of the cooperative demo-site, which has a community very committed to the environmental cause, as catalysers to adopt the circular solutions. The factor of complexity in the decision-making is raised for the housing sector and the involvement of different areas of expertise and the typologies of institutions. Municipalities involved are addressing this complexity by creating transversal modes of interaction between different departments that include sustainability and housing aspects. Despite the efforts to address this complexity, there is still a long-term perspective in policy planning towards circular housing.

The trust generated by the institutions, including in the process of managing permits for the installation of circular solutions, is also an important aspect that configures the perception and attitudes of involved stakeholders.

Broader evidence has been gathered in terms of stakeholders’ knowledge levels as a key factor in mobilising behaviour towards CE in the housing sector. The typologies of knowledge that we could investigate deeper detail at are the following:

• The knowledge acquired and needed for the solutions applied at each demo-site and the levels of understanding among the different actors.

• The subjective awareness: what society (others) seems to know has been very relevant in the evidence gathered, showing patterns of behaviour influence.

• Mobilisation of the institutional knowledge, especially from the social housing demo-sites, is required to move forward towards effective policy plans and regulatory schemes addressing circular approaches.

A significant aspect that already emerged in the reviewed literature is how priming environmental attitudes emerge as conditioning factors for more sustainable (or circular) planned behaviour. Stakeholder groups that, because of their profession or greater affinity to sustainable behaviour, are more likely to react to aspects that generate uncertainty, such as maintenance or the costs derived from the use of these solutions. In future research, this would be an important aspect to study in more depth through participatory interventions.

Among the other motivators that result in behavioural intentions and identity issues that are seen as important are aesthetics. Circular solutions should be perceived as something nice and pleasing, as a building represents a symbol of identity for society. The singular case of the housing cooperatives is one of the case studies where it comes to the fore.

One last key motivator towards implementing circular solutions is the pre-existing level of social cohesion. Higher levels of the community seem to lead to higher levels of acceptance, especially for those solutions that are to be used within the neighbourhood community. A factor that is clearly more prominent in the housing cooperative case study, and which is very poorly perceived in the social housing cases.

With this study, we conducted an exploratory consultation phase with stakeholders from existing demo-site buildings where renovation works were being implemented in line with circular solutions. This has allowed us to gather initial ideas on attitudes and beliefs in shifting to the circular economy in the housing sector. Given the idiosyncrasies of the 4 demo-sites of the project, naturally, our analysis assumes that results are contextualized around these demo-sites. It is for this reason that our analysis provides evidence around social housing and cooperatives in the housing sector. The discussion generated has remained within the broad context surrounding CE in the housing sector and how the paradigm shift can take place instead of specific information regarding the solutions at each demo-site.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to mention and thank the Horizon 2020 HOUSEFUL project (grant agreement no 776708) for supporting this publication. Special thanks to the participants of the interviews conducted for this study and the support from ICONS (project partner in charge of communication and dissemination) in the preparation and submission of this chapter.

References

Barnicoat G. and Danson M. (2015), “The ageing population and smart metering: A field study of householders’ attitudes and behaviours towards energy use in Scotland”, Energy Research & Social Science, volume 9, pp. 107-115.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2015.08.020

Caeiro S. and Ramos T. B. (2016), “Household Sustainability: Challenges and Dilemmas in Everyday Life”, Journal of Cleaner Production, volume 112, pp.

3434-3435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.089

Ceschin F. and Gaziulusoy I. (2016), “Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions”, Design Studies, volume 47, pp. 118-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002

Domènech L. and Saurí D. (2010), “Socio-technical transitions in water scarcity contexts: Public acceptance of greywater reuse technologies in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, volume 55, issue 1, pp. 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.07.001

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), Achieving «growth within», Available at:

https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/achieving-growth-within

Espluga Trenc J., Medina B., Presas A., Rubio-Varas M. and De la Torre J. (2017),

“Las dimensiones sociales de la percepción de la energía nuclear. Un análisis del caso español (1960-2015)”, Revista Internacional de Sociología, volume 75, issue 4, pp. 075. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2017.75.4.17.02

European Commission (2016), Construction Sector—A Global Player. Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Directorate General Energy Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC): Brussels, Belgium.

European Commission (2020), Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions A Renovation Wave for Europe—Greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0662

Frantzeskaki N. and Tilie N. (2014), “The Dynamics of Urban Ecosystem Governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands”, AMBIO, volume 43, issue 4, pp.

542-555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0

Ghisellini P., Cialani C. and Ulgiati S. (2016), “A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, volume 114, pp. 11-32.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Giljum S., Wieland H., Lutter S., Bruckner M., Wood R., Tukker A. and Stadler K.

(2016), “Identifying priority areas for European resource policies: A MRIO-based material footprint assessment”, Journal of Economic Structures, volume 5, issue 1, p. 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-016-0048-5

Graham M. and Ernstson H. (2012), “Co-management at the fringes: Examining stakeholder perspectives at Macassar Dunes, Cape Town, to understand contestations at the intersection of remnant biodiversity, informality, and urban poverty”, Ecology and Society, volume 17, issue 3, p. 34.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04887-170334

Hamann R. and April K. (2013), “On the role and capabilities of collaborative intermediary organisations in urban sustainability transitions”, Journal of Cleaner Production 50, pp. 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.017

Hartley T. W. (2006), “Public perception and participation in water reuse”, Desalination, volume 187, issue 1-3, pp. 115-126.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.072

Hernández-Sancho F., Lamizana-Diallo B., Mateo-Sagasta J. and Qadir M. (2015), Economic valuation of wastewater - The cost of action and the cost of no action, United Nations Environment Programme. Available at:

https://www.unep.org/resources/report/economic-valuation-wastewater-cost-action-and-cost-no-action

Horne C. and Kennedy E. H. (2017), “The power of social norms for reducing and shifting electricity use”, Energy Policy, volume 107, pp. 43-52.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.029

Jiang P., Chen Y., Xu B., Dong W. and Kennedy E. (2013), “Building low carbon communities in China: The role of individual’s behaviour change and engagement”, Energy Policy, volume 60, pp. 611-620.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.017

Jiménez-Pulido C., Jiménez-Rivero A. and García-Navarro J. (2022). Improved sustainability certification systems to respond to building renovation challenges based on a literature review. Journal of Building Engineering, 45, 103575.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103575

Maslesa E., Jensen P. A. and Birkved M. (2018), “Indicators for quantifying environmental building performance: A systematic literature review”, Journal of Building Engineering, volume 19, pp. 552-560.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.06.006

Medina B., Smith D. and Brummer M. (2020), D3.2. Social perceptions and beliefs in circular economy at building scale, version I, p. 78. WE&B.

Muranko Z., Andrews D., Newton E. J. Chaer I. and Proudman, P. (2018), “The Pro-Circular Change Model (P-CCM): Proposing a framework facilitating behavioural change towards a Circular Economy”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135, pp. 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.017 Norouzi M., Chàfer M., Cabeza L. F., Jiménez L. and Boer D. (2021), “Circular

economy in the building and construction sector: A scientific evolution analysis”, Journal of Building Engineering, volume 44, issue 102704.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102704

Olanipekun A. O., Xia B., Hon C. and Hu Y. (2017), “Project Owners’ Motivation for Delivering Green Building Projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, volume 143, issue 9, pp. 04017068-04017068.

https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001363

Pomponi F. and Moncaster A. (2017), “Circular economy for the built environment:

A research framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production 143, pp. 710-718.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.055

Poortvliet P. M., Sanders L., Weijma J. and De Vries J. R. (2018), “Acceptance of new sanitation: The role of end-users’ pro-environmental personal norms and risk and benefit perceptions” Water Research, volume 131, pp. 90-99.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.032

Prouty C., Mohebbi S. and Zhang Q. (2018), “Socio-technical strategies and behavior change to increase the adoption and sustainability of wastewater resource recovery systems”, Water Research, volume 137, pp. 107-119.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.009

Renn O., Klinke A., Schweizer P.-J. and Hoti F. (2016), “Risk Perception and Its Impacts on Risk Governance”, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.2

Sharma A. and Foropon C. (2019), “Green product attributes and green purchase behavior: A theory of planned behavior perspective with implications for circular economy”, Management Decision, volume 57, issue 4, pp. 1018-1042.

https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2018-1092

Tsoka S., Tsikaloudaki K., Theodosiou T. and Dugue A. (2018), “Rethinking user based innovation: Assessing public and professional perceptions of energy efficient building facades in Greece, Italy and Spain”, Energy Research and Social Science, volume 38, pp. 165-177.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.02.009

Vanhuyse F., Fejzić E., Ddiba D. and Henrysson M. (2021), “The lack of social impact considerations in transitioning towards urban circular economies: A scoping review”, Sustainable Cities and Society, volume 75, p. 103394.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103394

Vassileva I. and Campillo J. (2014), “Increasing energy efficiency in low-income households through targeting awareness and behavioral change”, Renewable Energy, volume 67, pp. 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.046 Zhang L., Chen L., Wu Z., Zhang S. and Song H. (2018), “Investigating young

consumers’ purchasing intention of green housing in China”, Sustainability, volume 10, issue 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041044