Labour and Low Energy Buildings: the energy performance gap as Social Practice

Buildings are responsible for approximately 30% of EU end-use emissions (Bettgenhäuser , et al, 2009) and are at the forefront of efforts to meet emissions targets arising from their design, construction and operation. For the first time in its history, construction industry outputs must meet specific energy targets if planned reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are to be achieved through nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) (EC, 2010) supported by on-site renewable heat and power. Where individual UK dwellings have been tested before occupation to assess whether they meet energy design criteria, the results indicate what is described as an ‘energy performance gap’, that is, energy use is almost always more than that specified. This leads to the conclusion that the performance gap is, inter alia, a function of the labour process and thus a function of social practice. Social practice theory, based on Schatzki’s model (2002), is utilised to explore the performance gap as a result of the changes demanded in the social practice of building initiated by new energy efficiency rules. The paper aims to open a discussion where failure in technical performance is addressed as a social phenomenon.

What kind of expertise is needed for low energy construction

The construction industry is responsible for 40% of European Union (EU) end-use emissions but addressing this is problematic, as evident from the performance gap between design intention and on-site energy performance. There is a lack of the expertise needed for low energy construction (LEC) in the UK as the complex work processes involved require ‘energy literacy’ of all construction occupations, high qualification levels, broad occupational profiles, integrated teamworking, and good communication . This research identifies the obstacles to meeting these requirements, the nature of the expertise needed to break down occupational divisions and bridge those interfaces where the main heat losses occur, and the transition pathway implied. Obstacles include a decline in the level, breadth and quality of construction vocational education and training (VET), the lack of a learning infrastructure on sites, and a fragmented employment structure. To overcome these and develop enhanced understanding of LEC requires a transformation of the existing structure of VET provision and construction employment and a new curriculum based on a broader concept of agency and backed by rigorous enforcement of standards. This can be achieved through a radical transition pathway rather than market-based solutions to a low carbon future for the construction sector.