Results about attitudes, planned behaviour, and perceptions towards circularity in the renovation of buildings

The evidence gathered on the attitudes, planned behaviour, and perceptions towards circularity in the housing sector are presented and classified according to the three analytical dimensions: risk-benefit perception, governance, and planned behaviour.

These results outline the aspects and factors dealt with in each of the respective sections.

7.4.1 Perceived risks and benefits with regard to circular solutions in the housing sector

We attempt to provide an initial answer to the question: how is the imple-mentation of circular solutions in the housing sector perceived as either a risk and/or a benefit? We addressed this question through 5 domains: (i) market and business, (ii) environmental and health, (iii) technological, (iv) policy, and (v) socio-cultural in accordance with the perception dimensions. With regard to the business and market domain, risks were perceived in relation to potential new businesses within the development of new circular services;

the cost increases; the need for new public or private investments; and the household costs due to daily consumption (water, waste, energy). In terms of the perceived benefits in the economic and market category, it was seen as a growing and necessary sector that opened new horizons and new mar-kets. This is mainly observed by those stakeholders considered as experts in the circular housing value chain.

The generation of new market opportunities required by the housing sec-tor is valued as something positive. Those stakeholders already addressing the CE perspective perceived that there will be a reduction in costs in the daily use and maintenance of materials and resources. The unique concerns expressed about environmental issues were related to the safety of the mate-rials used and user’s comfort level with the use of certain resources, such as reused water. More specifically, there was some concern over the safety of the recycled products and their toxicity. As for the benefits identified, they include the use of construction materials and solutions that solve health prob-lems derived from excessive humidity in buildings. With regard to the tech-nological domain and its circular solutions, most mentions about risks refer to the need for maintenance of the new services, both for the level of training that may be required by the users and the maintenance staff. Inhabitants per-ceived the risk that they won’t be able to maintain complex technologies and that it could imply future maintenance costs. Policymakers stated that trust in the operation and hence in the maintenance of the solutions could be a potential problem. Policymakers (at the social housing demo-sites) were con-cerned about the quality and functionality of circular products. Questions were raised about how adaptable and flexible the installed solutions are with regards to their location and their aspect. This could be a factor for the im-plementation of circular solutions. The reuse of grey water is mentioned as a factor which generates certain reproach because of its potential odour and the space that this technology may require in the buildings. As the benefits perceived in the technological domain, it is perceived that circular solutions

in the housing sector will provide greater efficiency in the use of resources.

It was also stressed that society in general is becoming more visually accus-tomed to having sustainable solutions in the field of housing. Aesthetically, they are increasingly approved. Within the policy domain, distrust is per-ceived between society in general and the housing sector, potentially hinder-ing the deployment of new circular solutions in this sector. In general, all stakeholders perceived that there are certain barriers to implementing novel processes because it is perceived this lack of trust from general the general public in the housing sector. It is believed that the interests behind actions, such as those pursued by pro-sustainability approaches, are financially mo-tivated. Moreover, trust in the implementation of technology is slow to de-velop due to legislative barriers and the need to adapt regulatory structures.

Gaining trust in housing managers is seen as a critical point for long-term applicability. At the governance level, more multi-disciplinary and holistic approaches are also required, and interviewees are reluctant to see this hap-pen in the short term, especially in public policies.

In relation to the socio-cultural domain, there were mentions regarding the knowledge required to create the paradigm shift to a CE. It is precisely on this issue that it is perceived by interviewees that the public is not aware of the need for a change and therefore cannot demonstrate an interest and will not feel ready to adopt these solutions.

7.4.2 Key governance factors for implementing circular solutions in the housing sector

The future of the housing sector at the governance level can be broken down into time scales such as the participants in the consultation process have mentioned, i.e., short- and long-term feasibility issues. A similar approach over the four demo-sites is found in the long-term perspective, as many more rehabilitation actions are planned, and they need to follow more circular schemes, and be aligned to Sustainable Development Goals.

There is certain ambivalence with regard to the short-term governance adaptations to CE, in which a need to do much more is identified by participants of this study at a national and regional level. But it is also recognised that fairly good progress towards CE adoption at the local level (municipality or neighbourhood in question) is being addressed. The CE and the housing sector are two areas where the governance is complex, broad, and transversal, requiring mechanisms that operate within this context. In the short term, the participants expressed the need to uncover mechanisms of

support, to unite the efforts of similar initiatives, and to genuinely collaborate between institutions.

Participants in this study have emphasised the importance of the role of the municipalities which host the demo-sites. One aspect common to the four demo-sites, is that city councils are active in the local measures. They are keen to showcase the ways by which they are strengthening innovation and promoting local sustainability in their current policies. Establishing collaborative models in the city councils has been mentioned as a successful factor. Priority in the city councils is to promote social housing by mobilising also the private sector. Furthermore, the inclusion of environmental issues in this process is vital. Relevance of circular pilot actions is also crucial, as it raises awareness and creates trust (as mentioned in the previous section), therefore municipalities already acknowledge the need for increasing awareness of those pilots within their municipalities.

7.4.3 Behavioural intention towards the implementation of circular solutions for building renovation

This section is organised according to the TPB configurating behaviour towards the use of circular solutions in the 4 demo-sites.

Attitude towards circular behaviour (ACB)- The CE is a familiar concept among the participants in this study, and generally, people recognised that they do “something” for it. We distinguish three profiles: 1) actors whose business is framed by the CE; 2) actors who, although not aligned in their mandate with the CE, already do something for it; and 3) actors whose professional activities are unrelated to the CE but do “something” related to the circular economy in their personal lives. This “something” is usually connected with actions that were already being carried out in the not-too-distant past. CE is not addressed as a new practice, but rather a reconnection with the resource cycle from traditional actions. However, the “need to change behaviour” is a constant demand expressed by the participants in this study. In the three demo-sites with a social housing model, the interviewees mentioned as essential that public institutions are the main drivers of CE practices that will motivate users (dwellers) and generate trust. In the case of demo-site 3 (the cooperative model), the community required a greater visibility of the pilot actions in order to create impetus for change. Once some circular solutions are implemented, this can encourage users to more readily adopt further solutions where they live. And visual materials can be

reused at the demo-sites to reassure and gain the trust of those who live in nearby areas.

Subjective norms related to cultural aspects (SNC) - Subjective norms can shape behaviour towards circular housing because there is a perceived link between people’s houses and their social status. The two Spanish demo-sites are associated with socially vulnerable areas, involving different social profiles. Our consultations found that it is generally assumed by the participants that vulnerable communities “know little” and therefore, it is assumed that they are little prepared to face changes.

The controversy around decentralised solutions proposed by circular approaches versus centralised ones was mentioned. Participants referred to the idea: if it ain’t broken, then don’t mend it, referring to the reason a change is required if the system currently in use is already known and it is widely implemented and works. At the level of the building itself, circular solutions involve sharing spaces and having a degree of community cohesion around the demo-site. The “sharing” concept can be complex and require effort in obtaining residents’ agreement and a greater commitment by associated institutions. At demo 3, as a cooperative, this is already intrinsic to the organisational nature, and this effort is already integrated. But a greater effort to achieve social cohesion around shared use is envisaged when dealing with rental systems and social housing.

Subjective norms related to market aspects (SNE) - At the market and economic level, some aspects have been identified. With regard to the price of resources (household water and energy consumption), the consulted experts in the sector believed that the public does not perceive what the fair price for water and solid waste should be. If the general awareness or tendency is that the price of water and waste in daily bills is perceived as expensive, the true value is not being attributed to it. Questions such as “Do we have to pay for something extra that is not necessary?”, requires greater effort to clarify the need to switch to circular systems. The perceived meaning of “low cost” and “beautiful” in the housing and building sector does influence the aesthetic appeal of circular solutions in terms of user profiles. The housing sector has been greatly affected by the economic crisis;

the level of configuration of subjective norms also represents an obvious uncertainty. We must speak in pre- or post- pandemic Covid-19 terms (interviews were carried out before and during the pandemic), where the housing sector was perceived to be in recovery and being able to afford innovation changes towards circular economy models. Already in the interviews held later during the Covid-19 pandemic, this observation has changed completely into a new uncertainty.

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