Dissertation Final

MSc Facilities Management

Eisenhower Agyekum-Yamoah

“Delivering Energy Efficient Homes in

Existing Social Housing Stock in

London”, a Facilities Management

Approach.

By Eisenhower Agyekum-Yamoah

Word Count: 15,138



“Delivering Energy Efficient Homes in Existing Social Housing Stock in London”,

A Facilities Management Approach.

Author – Eisenhower Agyekum-Yamoah

Programme – Master of Science in Facilities Management

Submitted – January 2015.

© Eisenhower Agyekum-Yamoah, 2015


Eisenhower Agyekum-Yamoah ii

PLAGIARISM STATEMENT

I herein declare that, this report is my own work; apart from the duly referenced material thus

this research contains no plagiarism. I certify that this report has not been submitted previously

for any other assessment in any other graduate course.

Signature:



Eisenhower Agyekum-Yamoah iii

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The main aim of this paper is to identify the factors that aid/affect the delivery of

energy efficiency in existing social housing. The focus is on how adequate the energy legislation

and standards affect energy efficiency improvements via recommendations from a facilities

management perspective.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The researcher reviewed existing literature related to academic

papers on energy efficiency, social housing and the FM discipline. Information derived from the

studies was formulated into questions that were issued to industry professionals in social housing

such as FMs and RSLs to validate with a follow up semi-structured interviews.

Findings: The delivery of energy efficiency in social housing is geared towards property

services/asset management however, the FM discipline is the overarching umbrella to gather and

implement the decision of all the other stakeholders.

Research Limitations/Implications: This study acknowledges drawbacks including the level of

technicality and specific nature of the research. Most respondents who failed to undertake the

survey had limited knowledge regarding the above stated reason.

Originality/Value: The dissertation puts forward validated factors that aid/affect the delivery of

energy efficient homes in existing social housing. The factors identified can be employed as

KPI’s to benchmark, measure and evaluate energy efficiency via the FM approach. These factors

will correlate the UK Government’s climate change mitigation and agenda.

Keywords: Energy Efficiency, Existing Social Housing, London, Facilities Management.


Eisenhower Agyekum-Yamoah iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, my thanks goes to God Almighty and also my sincere gratitude goes to the

following people for the help I received in diverse ways to make this research work a success.

They are:

Justine Cooper

Commonwealth Scholarship Secretariat

Abena Poku-Awuah

Francis Kyekye

Maya Sackey-Acquah, Jesse Nuno, the Agyekum-Yamoah & the Nibo families

To my supervisor, thank you for the advice, the patience,

guidance and your time devoted to coaching me to produce

this research. You were very instrumental in every stride of

this academic paper. It has been my utmost pleasure working

under your tutelage.

For the sponsorship to study abroad, believing in my passion

and making my dream a reality.

Sustainability Engineer at Family Mosaic, for your experience

shared, guidance through my questionnaire survey and the

enormous insight you gave to enrich this research. Thank you.

Facilities Manager at Interserve: thank you for the contact to

BIFM, the Facilities management perspective and guidance

throughout the whole dissertation.

You have been a source of inspiration, my proof readers, my

motivators and advisors. Thank you and I really do appreciate

you all.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Rationale of Study (Climate Change Act- Main Argument) ............................................ 1

1.2 Research Title ................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Research Aim ............................................................................................................ 4

1.2.2 Research Objectives .................................................................................................. 4

1.3 The Research Hypothesis ................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Research Methodology ..................................................................................................... 5

1.4.1 Research Road Map ...................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Dissertation Structure ....................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Summary of the chapter ................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 9

2.0 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Sustainable Development ................................................................................................. 9

2.1.1 Definition of Sustainable Development (SD) ........................................................... 9

2.3 Background study of Existing UK Social Housing Stock ............................................. 11

2.2.1 Age of the UK Housing Profile .................................................................................. 13

2.4.1 Definition of Energy Efficient Homes .................................................................... 16

2.4.2 Barriers to Energy Efficiency Uptake in the UK .................................................... 17

2.5 Government policy measures in the implementation of the Energy Efficiency ............ 18

v



2.5.1 Energy efficiency in the Building Sector ................................................................ 18

2.5.2 Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ................................................................... 19

2.5.3 Green Deal (GD) ..................................................................................................... 20

2.6 Facilities Management and Existing Social Housing ..................................................... 23

2.7 Factors that affect FM in achieving the delivery of Energy Efficient Homes of ........... 24

Existing Social Housing ............................................................................................................ 24

2.8 FM approach in the delivery of Energy Efficient Homes of Existing Social ................ 26

Housing ..................................................................................................................................... 26

2.9 Summary of Chapter ...................................................................................................... 26

2.9.1 Similarities of statements by previous writers ........................................................ 26

2.9.2 Common Issues ....................................................................................................... 28

2.9.3 Differences or contradictions of statements by previous writers ............................ 28

2.9.4 Criticisms ................................................................................................................ 28

2.9.5 Implications of literature review on the study ........................................................ 29

Chapter 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 31

3.0 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 31

3.1 Statement of Research Aim ............................................................................................ 31

3.2 Research Methodology ................................................................................................... 31

3.2.1 Quantitative vs. Qualitative Methodology .............................................................. 32

3.2.2 Grounded Theory .................................................................................................... 33

vi



3.2.3 Adopted Research Design ....................................................................................... 33

3.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 34

3.4 Research Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 37

3.4.1 Section 1.0 – Company/Respondents Details ......................................................... 37

3.4.2 Section 2.0 – Stock Profile...................................................................................... 37

3.4.3 Section 3.0 – Energy Standards ............................................................................. 38

3.4.4 Section 4.0 – Energy Efficiency ............................................................................. 38

3.4.5 Section 5.0 – FM measures in the Delivery of Energy Efficiency in Existing Social

Housing. .................................................................................................................................38

3.5 Research Sample ............................................................................................................ 39

3.6 Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................ 39

3.7 Method of Analysis ........................................................................................................ 41

3.8 Ethical Considerations.................................................................................................... 41

Chapter 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 43

4.0 Findings and Analysis .................................................................................................... 43

4.1 SECTION 1: Company/Respondents Details ........................................................... 44

4.1.1 Interpretation 1 ........................................................................................................ 44

4.1.2 Interpretation 2 ........................................................................................................ 45

4.1.3 Interpretation 3 ........................................................................................................ 45

4.1.4 Interpretation 4 ........................................................................................................ 46

vii



4.1.5 Interpretation 5 ........................................................................................................ 47

4.1.6 Discussion Summary .............................................................................................. 47

4.2 SECTION 2: Stock Profile ............................................................................................. 48

4.2.1 Interpretation 6 ........................................................................................................ 48

4.2.2 Interpretation 7 ........................................................................................................ 49

4.2.3 Interpretation 8 ........................................................................................................ 50

4.2.4 Interpretation 9 ........................................................................................................ 51


4.3 SECTION 3: Energy Standards .................................................................................. 52

4.3.1 Interpretation 10 ...................................................................................................... 52

4.3.2 Interpretation 11 ...................................................................................................... 54

4.3.3 Interpretation 12 ...................................................................................................... 54

4.3.4 Interpretation 13 ...................................................................................................... 55


4.4 SECTION 4: Energy Efficiency ................................................................................. 56

4.4.1 Interpretation 14 ...................................................................................................... 57

4.4.2 Interpretation 15 ...................................................................................................... 58

4.4.3 Interpretation 16 ...................................................................................................... 59


viii



4.5 SECTION 5: FM Measures in the Delivery of Energy Efficiency in Existing

Social Housing. ....................................................................................................................... 61

4.5.1 Interpretation 17 ...................................................................................................... 62

4.5.2 Interpretation 18 ...................................................................................................... 63

4.5.3 Interpretation 19 ...................................................................................................... 65

4.5.4 Interpretation 20 ...................................................................................................... 67


4.6 SECTION 6: Interviews - Summary. ............................................................................. 69

Chapter 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 72

5.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 72

5.1 Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................. 75

5.2 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................. 76

5.2.1 Choosing the type of research survey ..................................................................... 76

5.2.2 Contacting Respondents.......................................................................................... 76

5.2.3 Time and duration ................................................................................................... 77

5.2.4 Respondents Schedule ............................................................................................ 77

5.2.5 Contact Details ........................................................................................................ 77

5.3 Further Research ............................................................................................................ 77

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 79 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 83

Appendix 1- Sample Questionnaire Survey .............................................................................. 83

ix



Appendix 2- Summary of Survey Responses – Excel spreadsheet ........................................... 91

x



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Climate Change Act 2008 ............................................................................................. 1

Figure 1.2 Typical road map of the research (Adapted from Naoum, 2013) .................................. 6

Figure 2.1Triple bottom line approach - sustainable development (Adapted from ARCUS, 2014)

....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2.2 Housing stock by tenure, England (Adapted from DCLG, 2014b) ............................. 12

Figure 2.3 Dwelling stock -year built, England, 2012 (Adapted from Rooze, 2014) ................... 12

Figure 2.4 Age profile of UK housing (Adapted from English Housing Surveys, 2012) ............ 14

Figure 2.5 Energy efficiency rating of English housing stock, 2012 (Adapted from English

Housing Surveys, 2012) ................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 2.6 Mean SAP rating, 1996 to 2012 (Adapted from DCLG, 2014b) ................................ 15

Figure 2.7 UK Final energy consumption, 2009 (Adapted from Rooze, 2014) ........................... 16

Figure 2.8 EPC Chart (Adapted from DCLG, 2010) .................................................................... 19

Figure 3.1 Diagram showing research design module .................................................................. 36

Figure 4.1 Graph and distribution showing responsibility in the management of social housing

stock of respondents. ..................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 4.2 Graph and distribution showing type of organisation of respondents. ........................ 44

Figure 4.3 Graph and distribution showing type of role of respondents. ..................................... 45

Figure 4.4 Graph and distribution showing respondents involvement in FM/property services in

existing social housing in London. ............................................................................................... 46

Figure 4.5 Graph and distribution showing the testing of the hypothesis. ................................... 46

Figure 4.6 Graph and distribution showing average of social housing stock managed by

respondents. .................................................................................................................................. 48

xi



Figure 4.7 Graph and distribution showing the effect of age of profile on energy efficiency

measures. ....................................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 4.8 Graph and distribution showing the level age affects energy efficiency measures. .... 49

Figure 4.9 Graph and distribution showing average EPC rating for stock profile managed by

respondents. .................................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 4.10 Graph and distribution showing adequacy of the EPC by respondents. .................... 50

Figure 4.11 Graph and distribution showing ranking of the level of adequacy of the EPC. ........ 51

Figure 4.12 Graph and distribution showing the energy standards used to achieve energy

efficiency in social housing stock. ................................................................................................ 52

Figure 4.13 Graph and distribution showing the ranking with the level of impact. ..................... 53

Figure 4.21 Graph and distribution showing whether above listed standards/legislations directly

define the delivery of energy efficient in social housing stock. ................................................... 54

Figure 4.22 Graph and distribution showing whether above listed standards/legislations directly

make recommendations to the delivery of energy efficient in social housing stock. ................... 55

Figure 4.23 Graph and distribution showing the definition of an energy efficient home. ............ 56

Figure 4.24 Graph and distribution showing the level of importance of low embodied energy to

achieve energy efficient homes. .................................................................................................... 57

Figure 4.25 Graph and distribution showing the level of importance of low energy-in-use to


Figure 4.26 Graph and distribution showing the level of importance of Optimal living conditions

with low energy-in-use to achieve energy efficient homes. ......................................................... 58

Figure 4.27 Graph and distribution showing the level of importance of Low Inherent Energy to


xii



Figure 4.28 Graph and distribution showing FM energy strategy used by respondents to manage

their stock. ..................................................................................................................................... 59

Figure 4.29 Graph and distribution showing factors that aid respondents in achieving energy

efficiency in existing social housing and ranking. ........................................................................ 61

Figure 4.30 Graph and distribution showing categories under which the above listed factors can

be grouped. .................................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 4.31 Graph and distribution showing level of impact of building fabric and age of profile

on the delivery of energy efficiency and ranking. ........................................................................ 64

Figure 4.32 Graph and distribution showing level of impact of technology & renewable energy

sources on the delivery of energy efficiency and ranking. ........................................................... 64

Figure 4.33 Graph and distribution showing level of impact of people & lifestyles on the delivery

of energy efficiency and ranking. ................................................................................................. 64

Figure 4.34 Graph and distribution showing level of impact of people & lifestyles on the delivery

of energy efficiency and ranking. ................................................................................................. 65

Figure 4.35 Graph and distribution showing factors that affect respondents in achieving energy

efficiency in existing social housing and ranking. ........................................................................ 66

xiii



LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Energy Efficiency Legislation of the Building Sector in the UK - A (Own illustration)

....................................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 2.2 Energy Efficiency Legislation of the Building Sector in the UK- B (Own illustration)

....................................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 2.3 Factors affecting Energy Efficiency in Existing Social Housing (Own illustration) ... 25

Table 2.4 A summary of FM approach; measures in the delivery of energy efficient homes in

existing social housing (Own illustration) .................................................................................... 27

Table 3.1 Gaps identified in Literature review in relation to thematic questions linking to

research aims and objectives (Own illustration) ........................................................................... 35

Table 3.2 Distribution showing questionnaires issued out by category (Own illustration) .......... 41

xiv



LIST OF ACRONYMNS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ALMOs – Arms Length Management Organizations

BIFM – British Institute of Facilities Managers

BRE – Building Research Establishment

CSH – Code for Sustainable Homes

CLG – Communities and Local Government

DCLG – Department for Communities and Local Government

DECs – Display Energy Certificates

DECC – Department for Energy and Climate Change

EHS – English Housing Survey

EPC – Energy Performance Certificate

FM – Facilities Management

HCA – Homes and Communities Agency

HHSRS – Housing Health and Safety Rating System

IFMA – International Facilities Management Association

LAs – Local Authorities

LCHO – Low Cost Home Owners

LZC – Low Zero Carbon

NHER – National Home Energy Rating Scheme

RDSAP – Reduced Data Standard Assessment Procedure

RSLs – Registered Social Housing Landlords

SBEM – Simplified Building Energy Model

SAP – Standard Assessment Procedure

SD – Sustainable development

KPIs – Key Performance Indicators

xv


Eisenhower Agyekum-Yamoah 1

Chapter 1

1.0 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to:

• Outline the problem statement; give a background to the topic and the reason for

this research.

• Define the aim, objectives and hypothesis for this study.

• Identify and briefly describe the chosen methodology.

1.1 Rationale of Study (Climate Change Act- Main Argument)

Figure 1.1 Climate Change Act 2008



The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2010) states that

domestic and non-domestic buildings in the UK accounted for 226million tonnes of

carbon dioxide (MtCO2) in 2006. This formed approximately 40% of the total carbon

emissions in the UK (Mackenzie et al, 2010). In reference to the huge contribution of

climate pollution through carbon dioxide emissions, the UK government has stated that

its objective is to reduce these emissions by 80% compared with the 2006 levels by 2050

as shown in Figure 1.1(Climate Change Act, 2008). In order to reach the goal of reducing

carbon emissions, there are several interventions amongst which the energy efficiency

improvement of existing social housing must be achieved.

Due to the fact that domestic and non-domestic buildings accounted for about

40% of the total carbon emissions in the UK as stated previously (Mackenzie et al, 2010),

the Committee on Climate Change (2010) has set out an action plan to achieve the

government goal based on the first three carbon budgets of the Climate Change Act 2008.

To achieve this challenging task, the UK government has also shown commitment

to the essential objective to retrofit existing homes (HCA, 2014). This is aimed at

improving their energy efficiency and resilience to climate change via maintenance and

refurbishment, hence creating the awareness on the issue of energy efficiency and

facilities management (DECC, 2010).

Consequently, dwellings in UK were estimated at about 23.2 million in March

2013, and increased by 125,000 dwellings, forming approximately 0.54% of the building

stock (DCLG, 2014a). In that same year, social and affordable housing were 4 million

which showed an increase of 19,000 dwellings (DCLG, 2014b).



From the statistics, existing social housing forms a copious percentage

approximately 17% of the total housing stock in relation to the overall figure (DCLG,

2014b). Identified statistics demonstrates that the number of existing social housing

showing expansion in the built environment as to infrastructure and building stock takes

place in the UK at a rate of 1-2% per year (DCLG, 2014a). This presupposes that 75% of

the dwellings for 2050 are already extant presently as cited by Ravetz (2008).

Thus to address the challenges posed by existing social housing stock to climate

change in accordance with the government objective, the concept of this research is

initiated. Further to the discussion, retrofits of existing social housing and the delivery of

sustainable-energy efficient homes, facilities management (FM) cannot be excluded from

the topic. In this research study, the main focus will be directed towards energy

efficiency.

FM is one of the disciplines that can effectively manage the changing demands of

sustainability through achieving energy efficient homes in existing buildings. In addition

proactive maintenance and operation management systems, which is the very basic

concept of FM (Pitt and Tucker, 2008) together with accommodating interventions

through planning and responding to dynamic demands is critical to the success of FM

practice. The delivery of energy efficient homes in existing social housing must be a

carrot and stick approach if the overarching demands in energy efficiency targets towards

achieving low-zero carbon(LZC) buildings are to be met (Malina, 2012).



In line to achieving these vital reductions in carbon emissions, energy efficiency

of buildings will have an important role to play for both existing and new builds.

(Mackenzie et al, 2010)

Due to the current trends of global warming and climate change, measures ought

to be instituted to check major contributions of human impacts to this climate change. A

major contribution to these climatic problems are buildings with existing ones being the

most difficult to adapt thus motivating this study and research (Houghton et al 2002:

Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003).

1.2 Research Title

The main topic for the research proposal is an in-depth study into:

“Delivering Energy Efficient Homes in Existing Social Housing Stock in

London”, a Facilities Management Approach.

1.2.1 Research Aim

The main aim of the research is to identify the factors that aid/affect the delivery

of energy efficient homes in the facilities management of existing social housing stock

located in London.

1.2.2 Research Objectives

The research objectives for this study are

• Identify the factors that aid/affect the delivery of energy efficient homes in

existing social housing.

• Evaluate how energy legislation and standards affect the delivery of facilities

management in existing social housing.



• Make recommendations in enhancing the delivery of energy efficient homes via the

facilities management of existing social housing stock in London.

1.3 The Research Hypothesis

The hypothesis would be tested in the questionnaire survey, which is;

The delivery of energy efficient homes through facilities management is

achievable in existing social housing.

In the questionnaire survey, respondents will be asked to answer this question and

further give reasons to their assertion. These reasons will be critically analysed to show

evidence of how feasible this is possible in industry.

1.4 Research Methodology

An extensive literature research has been used to identify the concepts of energy

efficiency: legislation & policy, energy efficient homes, FM factors to deliver energy

efficient homes, existing social housing parameters among others.

Accordingly, literature research has enhanced identification of the factors

aiding/affecting FM delivery of energy efficiency in existing social housing. However,

gaps in what identified will be further researched in the questionnaire survey with

interviews conducted to give clarification. The hypothesis was developed from the

research question posed from the literature reviewed; this hypothesis will therefore be

tested through the survey questionnaires.



Objectively to reduce bias, the tools to be used for this study will be questionnaire

surveys to FMs and RSLs/HA, semi-structured interviews will be conducted to gather

information that the questionnaires may have restricted from being attained.

1.4.1 Research Road Map

Figure 1.2 Typical road map of the research (Adapted from Naoum, 2013)

STAGE 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW

Previous research into SD, Energy efficiency in existing social housing, UK energy efficiency legislation and policies, FM factors aiding/affecting the delivery of energy efficient homes. (CHAPTER 2)

Research Methodology and Design

(CHAPTER 3)

STAGE 2 – DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Independent Variables

• Factors that affect/aid the delivery of Energy Efficient Homes

Intervening Variables

Facilities Management

Approach

Dependent Variables

Energy Efficiency in

Existing Social Housing

Influence

Select

STAGE 3 – CONSTRUCTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEWS (CHAPTER 3 & 4)

STAGE 4 – SAMPLING, PILOT STUDY AND DATA

STAGE 6 – WRITING UP CHAPTERS 1, 2,3,4,5, AND 6.

STAGE 5 – MAIN STUDY Analysis of Questionnaire and Interviews – Excel and SPSS (CHAPTER 5) Conclusions and Recommendations (CHAPTER 6)



1.5 Dissertation Structure

The dissertation has four chapters besides the introduction, references &

bibliography chapters.

Chapter two entails a literature review that gives a background to the study; social

housing. It analyses and critiques literature on energy efficiency; legislation and policy;

energy efficient homes and facilities management factors that aid/affect the delivery of

energy efficient homes in existing social housing.

The research design, captured in chapter three, gives a detailed description of the

methods chosen, how the research will be carried out and the methods utilized to answer

the research question.

In Chapter four, the data collected from the quantitative research of survey

questionnaires are collated and analyzed.

Chapter five discusses and explains the findings gathered from the survey,

relationships are drawn by linking the objectives set out to the literature review.

Consequently, the hypothesis is discussed identifying the effect on the facilities

management practice. Furthermore the methodology and data collected are validated.

Likewise, a summary of the main findings and hypothesis tested in the dissertation is

discussed.

Additionally, suggestions and recommendations from professionals of FM

organizations and RSLs (HAs) are given for future research.



The references can be found in chapter six with appendices containing a sample

of the questionnaire and the results of the survey.

1.6 Summary of the chapter

In summary, this section introduces the research topic and defines the rationale

for the study. It also gives an initial direction to the literature review for the reader to

follow. The next chapter develops a case for the current issues surrounding the energy

efficiency in existing social housing with a critical appraisal to focus the direction of the

research design.



Chapter 2

2.0 Literature Review

The objective of this chapter is to:

• Give a brief history on existing social housing stock; define sustainable development

and energy efficient homes; relate sustainable development to energy efficiency,

outline barriers to energy efficiency uptake and recent practices.

• Review and appraise the previous research undertaken on the delivery of energy

efficient homes in social housing; FM approach to achieving energy efficiency.

• Summarize the similarities of statements, common issues, differences or

contradictions of statements, criticisms by previous writers and a critical appraisal of

the literature reviewed.

2.1 Sustainable Development

2.1.1 Definition of Sustainable Development (SD)

As cited in various papers such as (Redclift 2005; Shah 2007; Kwawu and

Elmualim, 2011) the Brundtland Commission’s report on global environment and

development in 1987 defines sustainable development as development that:

“…meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs…’ (Brundtland Commission, 1987)

This has been the definition used as the backbone to drive the agenda on

sustainability and sustainable development (SD); however this statement shows

ambiguity and is difficult to understand. Herman Daly as cited in Redclift (2005)



reiterates this point by commenting that sustainable development has been a paradox and

it has come of age after 18 years with varied discourses and contradictions.

This is evident in the varied discussions on sustainable development and

construction by Lutzkendoff and Lorenz (2005), Lapinski (2006) and Waddell (2008).

Parkin (2000) shows that there are more than 200 definitions of sustainable development

but the most widely used is the Brundtland report definition as aforementioned.

Newport and others widely agree that demands in all three areas; economic, social

and environmental are to be satisfied in order to achieve sustainable development thus it

is a triple bottom line approach (Newport et al, 2003) as shown in Figure 2.1.

Further discourse, questions either the prioritization of these three aspects or

whether they should be given equal attention as discussed by Parkin (2000), Newport et

al (2003), Lutzkendoff and Lorenz (2005), Fergusson et al (2006), Williams and Dair

(2007).

Figure 2.1Triple bottom line approach - sustainable development (Adapted from ARCUS, 2014)



According to the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment

Methodology - BREEAM (2014), sustainable developments cover a holistic preservation

of 9 areas of environmental issues such as energy & CO2 emissions, water, materials,

surface water run-off, waste, pollution, health & wellbeing, management and ecology.

Out of these energy & CO2 emissions are the leading prominent factors to achieving SD.

Therefore, there is the need to define energy efficiency of dwellings and recommend

ways in improving it to achieve SD.

Relating this in context, professionals in the built environment have been charged

with the duty of examining the impact of buildings on the environment to develop

strategies and policy to eventually reduce this impact (Cooper and Jones, 2008). Since,

this will particularly be crucial to achieving energy reduction for existing buildings as

cited by DCLG (2006). Subsequently, Cooper and Jones (2008) puts forward that for the

UK to reach its reduction on carbon emissions target, it must address the carbon

footprints of its existing housing stock. Further to their study, they introduce the lifestyles

and behaviour of the residents in addition to the technological solutions which is the main

drive to achieve improvements in the sustainability of existing buildings.

2.2 Background study of Existing UK Social Housing Stock

According to the English Housing Survey (EHS) in 2013 (DCLG, 2014b) there

were approximately 22.7 million dwellings in England of which approximately 3.8

million (18%) were owned by social housing landlords; 2.0 million were owned by

Registered Social Housing (RSLs) and 1.8 million owned by Local Authorities (LAs) as

shown in Figure 2.2.



Figure 2.2 Housing stock by tenure, England (Adapted from DCLG, 2014b)

Furthermore, (DCLG, 2014a) 20% of all dwellings were built before 1919 whilst

14% of the stock were built post 1990 – thus existing stock totals approximately 34% of

the dwellings. Approximately a quarter of this 34% making 24% are social housing stock

as shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 Dwelling stock -year built, England, 2012 (Adapted from Rooze, 2014)



Hence to tackle the issues of sustainability, the existing housing stock of present

times will need to be critically looked at and subsequently changed to meet current

standards (Cooper and Jones, 2008). The BRE Trust as cited in Mackenzie et al,

concludes that the relative impact of savings target of constructing new LZC homes as

compared to improving the energy efficiency of existing stock; improving the energy

rating of existing buildings make much larger savings and is more cost effective than

focusing on new buildings alone (Mackenzie et al, 2010).

However, evidence shows that there are low building replacement rates (0.8%

buildings per year) coupled with 70% of buildings by 2050 being in existence now

(DCLG, 2006) thus the need to tackle existing buildings (Jones and Copper, 2009).

2.2.1 Age of the UK Housing Profile

According to the English Housing Survey 2013, existing buildings can be grouped

as pre 1919, 1919-44, 1945-64, 1965-80, post 1990 as shown in Figure 2.4 with one fifth

of the homes being over 100 years old and three quarters built before 1980 (DECC,

2014). This confirms that many of the domestic building stock pre-dates the introduction

of energy efficiency standards within the National Building Regulations. This identifies a

gap in the relationship between age and the energy efficiency delivery in existing social

housing, thus the need for further investigation (DCLG, 2014a).



As cited by the DECC (2014) in the UK, about 50 percent of the homes have an

EPC rating of D, 25 percent in the band E and 6 percent of the homes being F or G rated

shown in Figure 2.5 below. This identifies opportunities for energy efficient renovation

with its relative challenges as well.

Figure 2.4 Age profile of UK housing (Adapted from English Housing Surveys, 2012)

Figure 2.5 Energy efficiency rating of English housing stock, 2012 (Adapted from English Housing Surveys, 2012)



2.3 Existing Social Housing Stock and Energy Efficiency Retrofit

The International Energy Agency as cited in Malina (2013) states that buildings

represent about 40% of the energy consumption in the world; with energy use in

buildings contributing to about 40% of building operation costs (Carbon Trust, 2009).

One important government policy objective is to retrofit existing homes to

improve their energy efficiency to climate change (HCA, 2014). The Homes and

Communities Agency (HCA) is the government department responsible for this policy

drive, in a bid to achieve this, it seeks to encourage social housing providers (RSLs,

ALMOs and LAs) to incorporate retrofit concepts into their activities and objectives

(HCA, 2014). This can be delivered through operation and maintenance activities of

these existing social housing stocks by the facility, asset or property management and

housing landlords.

The UK Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure is used to monitor and

control the energy efficiency of homes. According to the English Housing Survey (EHS),

Figure 2.6 Mean SAP rating, 1996 to 2012 (Adapted from DCLG, 2014b)



the average SAP rating for housing association homes was 64 points, an increase from 48

points in 1996 as shown in Figure 2.6 (DCLG, 2014b).

As discussed below 28% of existing social housing contributes to this; which in

turn directly adds to the 29% of energy use in the UK by the Domestic Sector as shown in

Figure 2.7. All evidence points to the fact that improvement in energy efficiency of

existing social housing in the UK is needed to aid in reducing carbon emissions.

2.4 Energy Efficient Homes

2.4.1 Definition of Energy Efficient Homes

Energy efficiency has varied definitions however (Waterfield, 2011) defines an

energy efficient home as a home which has a low energy consumption with the materials

used in its construction having low embodied energy. This definition is not entirely

specific since the energy consumption limit is not defined as well as how low the

embodied energy should be.

Figure 2.7 UK Final energy consumption, 2009 (Adapted from Rooze, 2014)



In agreement with the SAP definition, Waterfield clarifies that energy efficiency

is attained by simply saving as much energy as possible and meeting one’s performance

requirements with minimum energy usage and cost. He draws out that energy efficiency

(Waterfield, 2007) is not “doing without” but using the minimum energy to achieve

optimal room habitation. He further intimates that, the optimal room habitation can be

subjective and vary from person to person; hence we cannot discuss energy efficiency

without lifestyles of occupants (Waterfield, 2011).

2.4.2 Barriers to Energy Efficiency Uptake in the UK

As stated in the National Energy Efficiency Action plan by DECC (2014), there are

several challenges to energy efficiency uptake in the UK which can be summarised as:

• Undeveloped markets:

•

There are several plausible opportunities with energy

efficiency but present trends shows indication of a small scale market.

Consequently, to harness these opportunities means to significantly grow the

industry to realise its many economic benefits, hence making energy efficiency a

mainstream economic activity (DECC, 2014).

Information:

•

Present data available, lacks access to trusted and adequate energy

efficiency information. Data is generic and not gathered tailored for the specific

purpose thus making decisions and access to energy efficient investments

difficult (DECC, 2014).

Wrong beneficiaries of financial incentives: The direct investors of energy

efficiency measures are mostly not the beneficiaries of the incentive given. An

example is how social housing landlords make investments in energy efficiency



measures for their stock profile but it is the tenants who realise the direct benefits

(DECC, 2014).

• Energy efficiency underrated:

2.5 Government policy measures in the implementation of the Energy Efficiency

With the lack of accessible trusted data, long term

benefits are usually undervalued making it less certain to include in business

cases for investment packages. Consequently, energy efficiency is underrated and

not prioritised to realise the long term benefits (DECC, 2014).

The DECC is the government department responsible for energy reduction and

climate change impacts in the UK, however there are other independent bodies such as

the Carbon Energy Saving Trust and BRE Global (DECC, 2014). In discussing new

standards, there is the need to probe the history of previous energy practices since most

existing buildings were built to those standards and also the new ones were formulated

based on the previous.

The DCLG in December 2008 (DCLG, 2008) issued a consultation document

relating to the definition of low zero-carbon homes (LZC) that will apply to new homes

built from 2016. This document informs the government’s current objective routes to

achieve LZC new-build housing as discussed by Mackenzie et al (2010). However the

consultation excludes one major issue of importance that is; it excludes consideration of

existing buildings.

2.5.1 Energy efficiency in the Building Sector

In the UK, housing presents the opportunity to achieve 20% overall energy

reduction in domestic housing stock thus reducing carbon dioxide emissions, targeted by



the government (DCLG, 2006). Nonetheless, this move has defined challenges and

drawbacks due to the wide range in age and condition of the UK housing stock.

According to the 2006 report commissioned by British Gas variations in energy

consumption was due to a number of factors including the age, size and type of housing

stock, mix of fuels used, efficiency of heating systems, ownership of appliances for

example, white goods, occupancy levels and lifestyles/behaviours of occupants (British

Gas, 2006). The various legislation and policies driving the energy efficiency in the

building sector which also affects existing social housing has been summarised in Table

2.1and Table 2.2 below.

2.5.2 Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)

It was introduced as part of the European Union Energy Performance of Buildings

Directive. It gives the energy efficiency rating of non-domestic and domestic buildings

on a scale from A/A+ to G as shown in Figure 2.8 where the latter depicts less energy

efficiency and vice versa (DECC, 2014). The assessment of buildings is primarily based

Figure 2.8 EPC Chart (Adapted from DCLG, 2010)



on size, fabric and age of the building. The EPC is a requirement for any property that is

to be sold, built or rented out and also it gives recommendations to improve the energy

efficiency of the building (DECC, 2014).

Presently, approximately 4 million EPCs have been produced however evidence

from DCLG shows that the recommendations in the EPCs are not being implemented by

home owners (DCLG, 2010). Since more often the homeowners do not relate to the

recommendations as a result of works recommended being high level, extensive and

costly. Another school of thought discusses how homeowners are not very certain about

how the improvements will translate into lower energy bills.

2.5.3 Green Deal (GD)

The Green Deal is a new government finance mechanism which helps consumers

to fund energy efficiency improvements and pay back through their energy bills (DECC,

2010). When the Green Deal was launched in 2013, it was targeted to be the biggest

home improvement programme ever instituted since the Second World War.

On the contrary, the Green Deal has since been burdened with several drawbacks.

Initially, the first stage of the scheme saw approximately 100,000 people sign up but until

November 2014, only 458 households had finished the process; new boilers and

insulation installed, along with upfront paid loans (Guardian, 2014).

The Green Deal is further being burgeoned with several issues such as funding, IT

problems and lack of public support due to insufficient awareness.



Table 2.1 Energy Efficiency Legislation of the Building Sector in the UK - A (Own illustration)

Energy Efficiency Legislation of the Building Sector in the UK

Definition & Background Similarities

Eco Homes Launched in 2000 to assess and improve environmental performance of housing. Was designed for new builds but however it was used to certify refurbishment projects.

Was the domestic version of BREEAM. Replaced by CSH. Ended in July 2012.

Decent Homes Standards

Was issued in February 2004. It was updated to reflect the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). A building was decent if: Meets current statutory minimum standard for housing, in a reasonable state of repair, reasonably modern facilities and services and provides reasonable degree of thermal comfort.

Related to the Housing Act 2004. Implementation of HHSRS.

Building Regulations-Part L

The New Part L regulations was launched on 6th April 2014 and method of measurement has been changed from elemental u-values to actual carbon emissions. Domestic buildings need to show 25% improvement on carbon emissions over the 2006 standard. The 25% improvement in the dwelling emission rate (DER) is in line with the policy drive to reach zero carbon homes by 2016.

Related to the CSH. However in August 2013, the government consultation merged CSH with Building Regulations- Part L.

Zero Carbon Buildings (LZC)

This comes in advance to the EPBD targets for all buildings to be Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings from 2020. The UK Government instituted a policy in 2007 for all homes to meet Zero Carbon Standards from 2016. (Zero Carbon Hub, 2008) This will be realised through the tightening of the Building Regulations.

Dependent on the EPBD and Building Regulations-Part L.

National Home Energy Rating Scheme (NHER)

Launched in 1991. Accreditation for energy efficiency rating scale and energy assessors for housing. Owned and operated by the National Energy Service (NES). It runs accreditation for RDSAP, SAP, SBEM and DECs. A dwelling with NHER rating of 20 achieves zero carbon emissions along zero net running costs. Dwellings that achieve Building Regulation Part L scores about NHER 10.

Related to the RDSAP, SAP.



Table 2.2 Energy Efficiency Legislation of the Building Sector in the UK- B (Own illustration)

Energy Efficiency Legislation of the Building Sector in the UK

Definition & Background Similarities

Code for Sustainable Homes

An assessment procedure used in evaluating the environmental performance of new homes. Launched the CSH in December 2006 but became operational in April 2007(DCLG, 2014)

Upgrade based on the Eco Homes Standard (Yates et al, 2004) Now a part of Building Regulations-Part L.

Energy Performance Certificate

A certification document showing energy cost and usage of properties with recommendations on energy-in-use reduction and energy cost savings for properties to be built, rented or sold. Valid for 10years.

Related to GD but has its own set of recommendations. It is mandatory but GD is not.

BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment (BDR)

Launched on 11th June 2012 as a replacement to the Eco Homes standard. The BDR scheme provides a standard guide to cost effective improvements of existing dwellings.

Related to Eco homes which was changed to CSH and now merged with the Building Regulations-Part L.

Green Deal Scheme to encourage households to undertake energy assessments. It entails energy efficiency assessments, financing and the installation of energy efficiency measures through Green Deal approved assessors, installers and providers.

Related to the EPC but is not mandatory; however recommendations are made and installed by a certified green deal installer.

SAP Rating Standard Assessment procedure (SAP) to measure and compare energy and environmental performance of dwellings. Reduce data standard assessment procedure (RDSAP) was introduced in 2005 as a cost-effective way of measuring the energy performance of existing dwellings.

Related to the Building Regulations- Part L, SAP is the assessment tool for measuring dwelling performance in Part L. RDSAP is a low cost method of assessing the energy performance of existing buildings.



2.6 Facilities Management and Existing Social Housing

Facilities Management (FM) can be defined in many different ways with myriad

views which highlights the changing needs of organisations. The IFMA as cited in Shah

(2007) defines FM as the management impact of people and place through the integration

of multi-disciplinary activities within the built environment (Barrett and Baldry, 2003).

One of the major functions of the FM industry is by influencing staff and management

hierarchy within an organisation to understand and tap the benefits and impacts of

sustainable development (Shah, 2007).

This ensures the incorporation of sustainable development criteria in service

delivery such as energy efficiency, waste minimisation, procurement controls and fair

pay. FM plays a strategic role within business by utilising performance metrics within the

built environment to support decision making process (Atkins and Brooks, 2009). Ravetz

(2008) puts forward that, the major challenge of having 75% of the dwellings for 2050

existing now whiles energy performance of such stock is generally low however with

high economic, social and cultural values.

Subsequently, Wood (2006) and Shah (2007) recognise the potential within the

facilities management profession as a significant contributor to achieving sustainability

goals such as energy efficiency in existing social housing. Wood (2006) further adds that

existing building stock use as much as 45% of energy generated to produce heat and

power with increased utility and maintenance costs, coupled with increasing regulatory

and legislation requirements. As a result, the significant influence of FM on how



buildings and facilities are used puts FMs in a crucial role of implementing the

organisations vision towards the sustainability agenda. (Kwawu and Elmualim, 2011)

In a bid to address the challenges described by Ravetz (2008), the service

delivery, management of people and the integration of activities within the built

environment need to be linked as discussed by Shah (2007). Research that studied 50

existing buildings by Francis et al (2010) showed that a pro-active facilities management

approach will effectively sustain buildings for the benefit of future generations.

2.7 Factors that affect FM in achieving the delivery of Energy Efficient Homes of

Existing Social Housing

Booty (2012) discusses some of the factors that affect energy efficiency in the

facilities management perspective, with a conclusion that lack of uniform approach to

energy monitoring, control and delivery being a main contributing factor. In addition, the

Department of Social Development (DSD) indicates that to improve energy efficiency, it

depends on the fabric and the management of existing housing (DSD, 2012).

Cooper and Jones (2008) as part of the COBRA conference, also puts forward that

technology, people’s lifestyles and behaviour affects the delivery of sustainability (i.e.

energy reduction/efficiency) of existing buildings.

From these schools of thought, it is evident that building fabric/age of profile,

technology/renewable energy sources, people/lifestyles and management can be adopted

as the main factors affecting FM delivery of energy reduction in social housing.

However, it is extremely important to evaluate and certify these factors with industry

experts for instance stakeholders of social housing.



As discussed above, the general factors identified are building fabric/age of

profile, technology/renewable energy sources, people/lifestyles and management. From

Ravetz (2008), DCLG (2014c), British Gas (2006) these general factors can be sub

categorised as shown in the Table 2.3 below:

Table 2.3 Factors affecting Energy Efficiency in Existing Social Housing (Own illustration)

Factors affecting Energy Efficiency in Existing Social Housing

1 Building fabric & age of profile 3 People & lifestyles Age Occupancy profile Condition Tenant’s lifestyle & culture Physical Form Stakeholder unwillingness to commit to energy efficient

practices Heritage & Conservation Restrictions

2 Technology & renewable energy sources

4 Management

Initial cost of energy efficient features & renewable energy sources

Maintenance cycle

Unreliable energy data and energy efficient recommendations

Budget restrictions on maintenance and operation by housing owner

Cost of efficient energy-rated equipment (e.g. white goods, boilers, solar panels)

Uncertainty of stakeholder benefits against investment

Warranty of efficient energy-rated equipment (e.g. white goods, boilers, solar panels)

Lack of uniform approach to energy monitoring, control and delivery

Tenure & value



2.8 FM approach in the delivery of Energy Efficient Homes of Existing Social

Housing

A study conducted by the Committee on Climate Change in 2005 of a semi-

detached building, the most common dwelling type in the existing social housing stock;

energy saving measures were identified which can be related to FM strategy to delivering

energy efficiency in existing social housing. Generally, these measures can be grouped

into 4 namely: building fabric & age of stock profile, technology & renewable energy

sources, people & lifestyles, management and sub-categorised as discussed in Sustainable

Homes (1999), Mackenzie et al (2010), Waterfield (2011), Martin (2012) and Malina

(2013) and shown in Table 2.4 below.

2.9 Summary of Chapter

2.9.1 Similarities of statements by previous writers

Most major sources of academic literature shares similar thought on sustainable

developments with emphasises on the triple bottom line approach. Studies from previous

writers reviewed, shared the view that energy efficiency of existing buildings was the

way forward to achieving reductions in UK carbon emissions. Other writers also

identified the issue of whether energy efficiency could be fully achieved in existing

buildings due to constraints and policies that border on heritage and conservation.



Table 2.4 A summary of FM approach; measures in the delivery of energy efficient homes in existing social housing (Own illustration)

Groups Sub-categories

Building fabric & Age of stock profile

• Compliance with Building Regulations and other energy efficiency legislation. • Reduce energy-in-use through maintaining high standards of insulation. • Use natural, recycled or recyclable materials in maintenance and refurbishment works.

Technology & Renewable • Use more renewable energy technologies. • Undertaking routine energy surveys and audits. • Use integrated energy management systems. • Replacing old appliances with energy efficient types and using low energy lighting. • Install ultra-high-tech equipment that offers optimal energy savings in use. • Use systems with low maintenance requirements and does not need frequent replacement. • Use systems which do not rely heavily on user regulation to achieve energy savings (e.g. use

intelligent, self-regulating passive stack ventilation rather than user controlled systems).

People & Lifestyles • Create awareness for energy efficient lifestyles of end users through training and communication.

• Education of building engineers, facility management and housing association staff. Management • Building and implementing energy saving strategies.

• Negotiating energy contracts. • Monitoring, evaluating and reporting on energy efficiency improvements. • Surveying building services, facilities and processes. • Procure locally produced materials to minimize carbon footprints.



2.9.2 Common Issues

For the most part of literature reviewed, emphasis was placed on improving the

energy efficiency of the existing stock since about 75% of buildings of 2050 (Ravetz,

2008; Mackenzie et al, 2010) are in existence now. Subsequently, it was evident from the

study that most writers believed that there was a correlation between age/condition and

the energy efficiency of existing buildings. From the literature, it was apparent that there

were challenges and difficulties in addressing the issue of energy reduction in social

housing.

2.9.3 Differences or contradictions of statements by previous writers

A review on the reports by DCLG and other writers, showed differences in data

on existing social housing such as population of dwellings in the UK, percentage of

dwellings categorised under social housing. The explanation and parameters to define

energy efficiency were mostly debated. As a result there were varied thoughts of the

factors to achieving energy efficiency in existing social housing; thus it was not clear in

the literature what exactly to include or use to define an energy efficient home.

2.9.4 Criticisms

Government policy reviewed in the literature evidently showed different

guidelines to tackling the issue of energy efficiency however there were no convergence

in the various policies and legislation. In addition, most policies and legislation had

drawbacks in their implementation. According to Akbar et al (2011), an example is the

CSH which provides a foundation for future sustainable developments but is currently

burdened with challenges such as economic, technical, legal & regulatory, social &

cultural including implementation and delivery capacities.



The CSH, at present is only for single and multi-family homes excluding multi-

storey high density developments such as social housing as discussed by Akbar et al

(2011). This draws the need to establish a “code of sustainable developments” to include

areas such as existing multi-storey social housing.

From the study of energy efficient policies, it was also evident that there were

errors in the EPC recommendations made such as wrong assessments, findings not

related to the property being evaluated and also end users were not committed to

undertake such refurbishment works.

Previous writers put forward different and various factors to achieving energy

efficiency of social housing in an FM perspective but showed divergent concepts and

ideas.

2.9.5 Implications of literature review on the study

The documents reviewed in this section established some gaps in the literature

researched. The study revealed the difficulty in the adaptation of existing buildings in

achieving energy efficiency which affects the realisation of the provisions and targets set

by the Climate Change Act 2008.

An extensive study of topical areas as what an energy efficient home provides,

government policy measures in the implementation of energy efficiency, legislation in the

UK building sector, facilities management and existing social housing as well as the

factors that aid/affect FM delivery of energy efficiency; identified key drawbacks.

Various writers discussed several and different factors for delivering energy efficiency

thus the question was; can they be categorised, ranked and validated? Additionally



myriad definitions of what an energy efficient home was discovered. Further, it was

revealed that the energy standards were not adequate to achieve what was set out to do

and beleaguered with recurring errors.

Consequently, all this data informed the researcher’s decision to carry out a

survey and interviews to seek industry perspective and what truly the issues were. These

gaps informed the formulation of the questionnaire and interviews that defined the key

methodology of the research.

A detailed description of the research methodology follows in the next chapter.



Chapter 3

3.0 Research Design

This chapter seeks to:

• Define the research methodology chosen.

• Outlines how the research was investigated and the questionnaire structure.

• Describes the characteristics of the research sample and method of analysis.

3.1 Statement of Research Aim

The research aim reiterates the quest to identify the factors that aid/affect the

delivery of energy efficient homes in the facilities management of existing social housing

stock located in London.

3.2 Research Methodology

Naoum (2013) explains research methodology, as how research objectives can be

questioned whiles Dawson, describes it as defining the general idea that guides a research

project. According to Dawson, two types of methodologies are present, namely

qualitative and quantitative research (Dawson, 2009). The type of research to adopt

depends on the purpose of the study and the availability of the information required

(Naoum, 2013).

Qualitative can be explained as research that studies behavioural patterns,

experiences, attitudes and employs methods such as interviews of focus groups whiles

quantitative generates statistics from the survey of large-scale data using procedures such

as structured interviews and questionnaires (Creswell, 2008: Kerlinger, 1979).



Quantitative methodology can also be termed as the positivist approach to

research that seeks to give a rational explanation to any event through measurement,

evaluation or identification (Neville, 2007). This approach establishes relationships and

links between different elements (which are existing social housing; facilities

management and the factors that aid/affect the delivery of energy efficient homes) of the

topic based on a particular practice or grounded theory (Neville, 2007).

More often than not, research methodology is usually confused with research

methods; which is defined as the procedures, tools and techniques used to collate data for

a research project which distinguishes it from the general idea (Dawson, 2009).

3.2.1 Quantitative vs. Qualitative Methodology

Quantitative research is objective in nature whiles qualitative is subjective as cited

by Naoum (2013). It can be further defined as an investigation into a problem through the

testing of a hypothesis or grounded theory using variables, numbers that are analysed

with statistical systems to determine the validity of the hypothesis or theory (Creswell,

2008).

Qualitative research can also be termed as exploratory or attitudinal research

which is mostly used when the researcher has limited knowledge about the topic or is

evaluating opinion or perception (Naoum, 2013). Naoum further explains that it

emphasises experiences, descriptions and meanings.



3.2.2 Grounded Theory

Kerlinger (1979), cited by Creswell (1994:73) and Naoum (2013) defines theory

as:

“A set of interrelated constructs (variables or questions), that presents a

systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among variables, with

the purpose of explaining natural phenomena...”

As discussed by Naoum (2013) in quantitative study, grounded theoretical

framework better explains the research questions and objectives placing it at the

beginning of the plan of study. This theory can be a series of hypothesis/sub-hypothesis

in the form of logic statements which directs the research route.

The hypothesis of this study is:

The delivery of energy efficient homes through facilities management is

achievable in existing social housing.

3.2.3 Adopted Research Design

Dawson (2009) puts forward that, the choice of methodology is deduced from

analysing the research question identified. The key words used in the research

methodology usually determine the type of methodology to be adopted. In this research

the question identified is:

What are the factors that aid/affect achieving the delivery of energy efficient

homes in the facilities management of existing social housing in London?

In the analysis of this research question, the “what” relating to a quantitative study

as well as “the number of factors aiding/affecting delivering energy efficient homes”

must be identified using variables and numbers; making it also quantitative.



Analysing this question further, the paper argues that “the number of factors

aiding/affecting delivery of energy efficient homes” must be identified. This needs to be

done by receiving information from Facilities Managers (FMs) and Registered Social

Housing Landlords (RSLs) in London. This will be quantitative since statistics needs to

be generated to support the number of people each expressing different types of factors as

discussed in Naoum (2013).

The research question therefore shows a clear route for a quantitative research

methodology to follow. This question also clearly defines the connecting dots of the

research which are existing social housing; facilities management and the factors that

aid/affect the delivery of energy efficient homes; hence an apparent direction of

quantitative forms of inquiry is defined. Conversely a qualitative method of issuing

interviews would be further explored to strengthen the research methodology. In

conclusion, the research would follow the triangulation methodology; a combination of

qualitative and quantitative forms of inquiry to offset the disadvantages of the two types

of approach.

3.3 Data Collection

Naoum (2013) cites that there are two types of collecting data, fieldwork

(primary) and desk study (secondary). In this research, the fieldwork approach would be

adopted in data collection. Primary data collection are categorised into three practical

areas as put forward by Naoum (2013) as: the survey approach, case study approach and

problem-solving approach. This research thus adopts the survey approach as cited by

Naoum (2013).



Table 3.1 Gaps identified in Literature review in relation to thematic questions linking to research aims and objectives (Own illustration)

Gaps Identified

Draft Thematic Questions

Relationship To Research Aims & Objectives (OB) Aim OB-1 OB-2 OB-3

Myriad definitions for an energy efficient home.

What do you classify as an energy efficient home? x

Various writers discussed several and different factors for delivering energy efficiency thus the question is; can they be categorised, ranked and validated?

What factors aid/affect the delivery of energy efficiency in homes through maintenance and operation (Facilities Management)?

x x

Are the Green Deal, ECO and EPC adequate?

What energy standards guide energy efficiency and the average Energy Performance Certificate rating and its impact?

x

Whether the energy standards are able to achieve what is set out to do and what recurring errors can be identified and solved.

Appraise the energy efficiency policy/legislation in the achievement of FM delivery of energy efficient homes in existing social housing?

x

Recommendations from industry professionals to help solve the issues.

What recommendations can be made to further improve the energy efficiency of the existing social housing building stock?

x

Challenges and difficulties in addressing energy reduction in social housing

Is the delivery of energy efficiency through the facilities management of social housing achievable?

x



• Identify the factors that aid/affect the delivery of energy efficient homes in existing social housing. • Evaluate how energy legislation and standards affect the delivery of facilities management in existing social

housing. • Make recommendations in enhancing the delivery of energy efficient homes in the facilities management of

existing social housing stock in London.

• Energy efficient homes • Barriers to energy efficiency uptake in the UK. • Government policy measures in the implementation of energy efficiency. • Energy efficiency legislation of the building sector in UK. • Facilities management and existing social housing. • Factors that affect FM in achieving the delivery of energy efficient homes of existing social housing. • FM approach in the delivery of energy efficient homes of existing social housing.

• Stock profile • Energy standards • Energy efficiency • FM measures in the delivery of energy efficiency in existing social housing. • Recommendations

Figure 3.1 Diagram showing research design module



3.4 Research Questionnaire

The key objective of the questionnaire survey was to answer questions and make

clarifications on the gaps identified in the literature review as shown in Table 3.1 linking

them to the aims and objectives of the research design. Figure 3.1 summarises the

research module connecting the 4 key areas of the research (research topic, objectives,

literature review and questionnaire survey). The questionnaire survey was structured into

5 thematic sections based on the some of the topical areas reviewed in the literature. The

various sections in the survey were:

3.4.1 Section 1.0 – Company/Respondents Details

This section introduced the survey and directed the quest of the study. It identified

respondents through their category as the study defines and drew out their knowledge on

energy efficiency practices in existing social housing in London. The caveat, to this

section, was to avoid respondents without experience in the study area to provide data

from survey questionnaires. This section evidently protects the quality of data collected.

The section was finally concluded by testing the truth of the research hypothesis from

industry through the experience of respondents (i.e. FMs and RSLs).

3.4.2 Section 2.0 – Stock Profile

It gathered information on the age of the social housing stock profile based on the

classification discussed in the English Housing Survey. This described the relationship

between the age of the stock and energy efficiency parameters since every stock and its

age had a bearing on maintenance and operation. It further pointed out the EPC rating,



recommendations and energy strategy of the profile being studied. This projected the

social housing in perspective to be analysed.

3.4.3 Section 3.0 – Energy Standards

From the previous literature studied, energy legislation and standards served as

the driving force on the agenda of energy efficiency. Consequently, the research study

identified some questions based on its effectiveness and agility to achieve the set

objectives. This section sort to tap into the industry experience in the field to understand

what truly happens; whether the energy legislation and standards were adequate in

achieving energy efficiency in existing social housing. It also defined the second

objective of the study as stated in chapter one.

3.4.4 Section 4.0 – Energy Efficiency

The previous chapter touched on the definition of energy efficiency however there

were several definitions and schools of thought. The objective of this section was to

investigate what needed to be incorporated into energy efficient homes and also draw out

the FM-energy strategy used in industry by asking respondents.

3.4.5 Section 5.0 – FM measures in the Delivery of Energy Efficiency in Existing Social

Housing.

This section formed the most important part of the research, which answered the

first objective of the study by validating the measures of FM delivery of energy

efficiency in existing social as identified in the literature review. It also did put in

perspective the main categorisation of the measures and defined their level of importance.



Additionally, the next question confirmed and certified the factors that

aided/affected the delivery of energy efficiency in social housing as well as define the

level of impact.

In relation to the third objective of the study, recommendations were sort to be made in

solving the issue of achieving energy efficiency in the FM delivery of existing social

housing which projected the guiding principles of industry practice. Also with the

question on comments, it gave the respondent the unconstrained direction to reflect and

share some ideas to enrich and inform the research study.

3.5 Research Sample

As proposed by Dawson (2009), sampling can be categorised into 2 main types

namely probability and purposive sampling. The probability sampling method was

adopted for this research since results were to be generalized as a facilities management

approach to achieving energy efficiency in existing social housing. The simple purposive

sampling method of probability sampling was chosen since the database for all Facility

Managers/Organisations and RSLs in London were obtained through the BIFM directory

and the Housing directory respectively.

3.6 Selection Criteria

The research study identified the respondents to be the stakeholders of the social

housing industry. Prospective respondents included tenants, housing associations and

facility managers. However tenants were not included in this survey because the study of

tenants would have changed the scope of the research since the consideration of their

ethical issues n would have slowed the process. Hence the research respondents were



Facility Management Companies, Facility Managers and RSLs/HA in the geographical

study location (i.e. London) whilst landlords already sort to engage tenants in the

development and delivery of maintenance programmes.

With the information gathered from the directories reviewed, the population of the

respondents were FM Companies – 15; Facility Managers – 859 and Registered Social

Housing Landlords 286. The representative survey was chosen with housing management

as a top priority, out of the 859 FMs, 87 were involved in the housing sector; with 286

RSLs, 84 were found to be low cost home owners (LCHO) and some having

development programme in LCHO. The 15 FMs Companies were selected based on the

criteria of working in housing and energy efficiency. Table 3.2 shows a breakdown of the

statistics for the respondents and questionnaires issued.

The survey was issued by emails through the Google forms platform; the

questionnaires were distributed at the end of September and responses were closed and

gathered in January 2015. Respondents answered the survey in their various work

environments. Interviews were conducted concurrently as questionnaires were issued; the

interviews were conducted over the telephone. After, responses were recorded in a

research diary, manually transcribed and analysed descriptively since they were not a lot.

Similar themes and contradiction put forward by interviewees were analysed and

discussed to inform the research and give in-depth clarification of data sets acquired from

the survey.

Respondents were randomly selected from each category; FM Company, FMs,

HAs and RSLs.



Table 3.2 Distribution showing questionnaires issued out by category (Own illustration)

Category Population

(%)

Questionnaires

issued (%)

Responses

(%)

% out of

Questionnaires

issued

FM

Companies

15 (1.29) 15 ( 8.06 ) 4 (30.75) 2.15

FMs 859 (74.05) 87( 46.77) 7 (53.85) 3.76

RSLs 286 (24.66) 84( 45.16) 2 (15.38) 1.08

Total 1160 (100) 186 (100) 13 (100) 6.99

3.7 Method of Analysis

The data collected were in two categories, questionnaires and semi-structured

interviews. The questionnaires were analysed with the Google Forms Analytics software

to determine similar themes to explain the findings in the relation to the three dots

connecting the research topic. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed and

analysed manually.

3.8 Ethical Considerations

There are ethical issues in relation to every research study but the ability to

consider and manage the issues adds to the success of the project. This study adopted the

Chatham House Rules to manage the professional input from industry experts such as



facilities managers and registered social housing landlords. The Chatham House rules

states that:

“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule,

participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor

the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be

revealed.” (Chatham House, 2014)

Respondents were told that their data would be used anonymously and that they

could leave the study at any time without providing a reason.

In initiating any project such as this research study, a dynamic risk assessment was

undertaken for the fieldworks to be done. On the other hand, since these fieldworks were

undertaken in an office environment with professionals there was no physical threat or

psychological stress to the interviewer or the interviewees as well as respondents.



Chapter 4

4.0 Findings and Analysis

Out of the 186 questionnaires issued, 13 (7%) responses were received which

showed a very low turnover than expected. The questionnaires were issued to FM

organizations and RSLs however other energy professionals were also given the

opportunity to answer questionnaires with prior experience or knowledge within the

social housing sector in London.

Generally, responses were low due to a number of limitations to the study which

would be elaborated in the concluding chapter but the main limitations were wrong or

disused email addresses acquired from the housing directory and BIFM contact list. Also,

many respondents replied by responding that they were not in that area of work whilst

others thought the research was too technical and specific to the housing sector.

A sample of the questionnaire survey issued and a summary of the feedback can

be found in the appendices. Surveys were distributed via email through the Google Forms

platform. Consequently a follow up of semi-structured interviews were completed

through the telephone with responses from each category of respondents i.e. FM

Companies, FMs, HA and RSLs. Thus 4 interviews were conducted.

Below are the results of each question in the survey with interpretation of the data

sets followed by a discussion summary of each section in relation to the research.

Consequently a summary of interviews conducted concludes the chapter.4.1



4.1 SECTION 1: Company/Respondents Details

1. Are you responsible for the management or part of the decision making in the achievement of energy efficiency of any existing social housing stock in London?

Yes

No

12 92%

1 8%

Figure 4.1 Graph and distribution showing responsibility in the management of social housing stock of respondents.

4.1.1 Interpretation 1

Out of the 13 respondents, only one was not involved in the management or part

of the decision making process in achieving energy efficiency in existing social housing.

This accounts for the validity and reliability of the feedback since all 92% of respondents

were experienced and had some knowledge of the study.

2. Which of the following best describes your organisation? (Please tick one)

Facilities Management Organisation

4 31%

Registered Social Housing Landlords/Housing Association

2 15%

Local Authority 0 0%

Provides Energy Efficiency Retrofit Services

0 0%

Other 7 54%

Figure 4.2 Graph and distribution showing type of organisation of respondents.




Even though, the research targeted FM organisations and RSLs, there were other

outfits that were very involved in the delivery of energy efficiency strategies in social housing.

More so, 54% of the respondents were under different organisations but had worked in areas of

the research study.

3. What best describes your role? (Please select one)

Facilities Manager

Buildings/ Property Services Manager

Climate change/ Energy Efficiency Strategist Research and Development Technical Manager/Director - Existing Housing Stock Other

6 46%

1 8%

0 0%

1 8%

1 8%

3 23%

Figure 4.3 Graph and distribution showing type of role of respondents.


The research is a FM discipline, though the data showed the involvement of other

professionals who work under the FM umbrella to achieve energy efficiency in social

housing. Such professionals identified were sustainability consultants, technical

managers, research and development, climate change strategist, buildings and property

managers.



4. Have you undertaken FM/ property services works or part of the decision making in any existing social housing profile in London?

Yes 12 92%

No 1 8%

Figure 4.4 Graph and distribution showing respondents involvement in FM/property services in existing social housing in London.


92% of respondents confirmed undertaking works in existing social housing in

London making the research cohesive and within the scope of the study.

5. Is the delivery of energy efficient homes through facilities management achievable in existing social housing?

Yes 11 85%

No 2 15%

Figure 4.5 Graph and distribution showing the testing of the hypothesis.

5a. If Yes/No, Please state reason.

• It will rather be property services rather facilities management • It is achievable because Social Housing Associations as landlords can set policies

and implement it. Social housing associations have the financial resources or can attract investment that would enable the delivery of new build energy efficient homes or convert the existing ones to energy efficient ones.

• Through sustainable, energy efficient maintenance and operation practices. • Implementing passive systems within buildings as well continuous education of



tenants on the benefits of energy saving practices on household expenditure. • Not pragmatic. • Needs asset management rather than facilities management. • Energy efficiency works can be integrated within the asset management strategy. • Facilities management is a diverse and dynamic profession/build environment

discipline that integrates the people, space and organization to achieve objectives. Facilities Management is a discipline with the tools and technical management to enable it deliver energy efficient homes.

• Facilities management ensures the delivery of sustainable energy cost and efficiency energy by managing and implementing of energy strategies through practical improvement in social housing.


The hypothesis of the research was tested as a question in the survey, 85% of the

respondents agreed to the assumption made at the beginning of the research; the delivery

of energy efficient homes through facilities management was achievable in existing

social housing. On the contrary 15% disagreed with this assumption due to the fact that

some respondents were rather of the view that property services and asset management

were better suited than FM.

4.1.6 Discussion Summary

This section describes the categories of respondents and further tests the

hypothesis. Although the research identified FM organisations and RSLs as the main

focus for the study, other professionals were discovered to have contributed to achieving

energy efficiency in social housing. In consequence it pointed out that the achievement of

energy efficiency in social housing was not limited to the FM discipline but other

professionals as stated in section 4.1.3.



Conversely, it was evident from the open ended questions conducted that

sustainability and property services were more involved in energy efficiency delivery

rather than FMs.

To conclude the section, the testing of the hypothesis within the sample size

yielded positive outcomes. On the contrary 15% of the respondents had a contradicting

view of rather being asset/property management which needs to be further researched.

4.2 SECTION 2: Stock Profile

6. What is the average age of the social housing stock profile you managed?

Pre 1919 5 38%

1919-44 4 31%

1945-64 2 15%

1965-80 5 38%

post 1990 8 62%

Other 2 15%

Figure 4.6 Graph and distribution showing average of social housing stock managed by respondents.


The stock category from the English Housing Survey used to describe existing social

housing stock profile was adapted for the study. Respondents answered the survey based

on experience in the various stock ranges as shown above. Data sets showed that most

social housing fell within the existing category with majority of the stock dated post 1990

era. This presupposes information gathered relates more to stocks dated post 1990.



7. Does the age of the profile have an effect on energy efficiency measures?

Yes 12 92%

No 0 0%

Figure 4.7 Graph and distribution showing the effect of age of profile on energy efficiency measures.

7a. If Yes, rank at which level age affects energy efficiency measures. (Please tick one as appropriate)

Very Low impact 0 0%

Low impact 0 0%

Average impact 0 0%

High impact 5 38%

Very high impact 5 38%

Figure 4.8 Graph and distribution showing the level age affects energy efficiency measures.


As discussed in the literature review, age is one of the prominent factors that

affect the delivery of energy efficiency in existing social housing. This was evident from

the 92% of survey responses completely agreeing to the factors studied in the literature.

One respondent did not answer since the respondent exited the questionnaire.



8. What is the average Energy Performance Certification (EPC) rating for the stock profile managed? (Please tick one)]

A 0 0%

B 1 8%

C 3 23%

D 4 31%

E 1 8%

F 0 0%

G 0 0%

Figure 4.9 Graph and distribution showing average EPC rating for stock profile managed by respondents.


Results here shows that, more than 50% of the social housing stock are not very

energy efficient since all the stock reviewed had EPC rating slightly about average or

below with about 54% falling within the C and D rating as reviewed in the literature. This

suggests that most of the stocks are not energy efficient and more needs to be done to

facilitate the process.

9. Are the recommendations made by the EPC adequate to achieve energy efficiency measures of the stock profile?

Yes 3 23%

No 9 69%

Figure 4.10 Graph and distribution showing adequacy of the EPC by respondents.



9a. If Yes, rank the level of adequacy? (Please tick one as appropriate)

Highly not adequate 0 0%

Not adequate 2 15%

Adequate 1 8%

Very adequate 1 8%

Highly adequate 0 0%

Figure 4.11 Graph and distribution showing ranking of the level of adequacy of the EPC.


Respondents, evaluated the EPC by answering the questions whether it was

adequate; 69% answered it was inadequate whilst 23% were of the view it was adequate.

Respondents who answered in the affirmative, ranked the EPC as inadequate.


As discussed in chapter 3 section 3.4.2, this section collected information

regarding age of the stock profile of respondents linking it to the EPC rating. It further

evaluated the EPC which was a main energy standard for the delivery of energy

efficiency amongst other standards identified in the literature review.

First of all, data collected hints that most of the stock profile respondents handled

had achieved average or below average energy efficiency rating. Further test of the EPC

projected that it was one of the most important standards that would help achieve energy

efficiency in social housing. On the contrary, literature studied implied that the EPC was

inadequate and beleaguered with issues of unreliable data and incorrect



recommendations. Hence a review and revamping of the EPC could facilitate the

achievement of energy efficiency.

4.3 SECTION 3: Energy Standards

10. Please indicate which of the standards you have used that gives a step by step approach to guide the achievement of energy efficiency improvements in existing social housing.

Eco Homes 3 23%

Decent Homes Standards (DHS) 6 46%

Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) 9 69%

Green Deal (GD) 5 38%

Low Zero Carbon Homes (LZC) 1 8%

Building Regulations-Part L 9 69%

Code of Sustainable Homes (CSH) 2 15%

BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment 1 8%

(BDR)

Figure 4.12 Graph and distribution showing the energy standards used to achieve energy efficiency in social housing stock.


Data from this question implied that, standards that projected a step by step

approach in guiding the achievement of energy efficiency improvements were the EPC,

Building Regulations-Part L, DHS and the GD; ranked in order of priority based on the

distribution in Figure 4.12. Inferring from the literature previously studied, the EPC and

GD were the suggested schemes that could drive energy efficiency refurbishment works.



11. From the list chosen above, please rank them in level of impact.

Ranking (EH) (DHS) (EPC) (GD) (LZC) Building Regulations-Part L (CSH) (BDR) Very low impact 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Low impact 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 Average impact 2 3 2 4 0 3 3 1 High impact 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 1

Very High impact 1 1 3 1 0 3 0 0

Figure 4.13 Graph and distribution showing the ranking with the level of impact.

0 1 2 3 4 5

Eco homes (EH)

Decent Homes Standard(DHS)

Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)

Green Deal (GD)

Low Zero Carbon Homes (LZC)

Building Regulations-Part L

Code of Sustainable Homes (CSH)

BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment (BDR)

Very High impact

High impact

Average impact

Low impact

Very low impact




Respondents were allowed to rank the standards identified from the literature

reviewed based on their level of impact in relation to delivery of energy efficiency. The

EPC and the Building Regulations-Part L were among the highly scored ones with the

LZC and the BDR listed as high impact followed by the EH, GD, DHS and CSH scoring

average impact on the delivery of energy efficiency in existing social housing in London.

12. Do any of the standards/ legislations listed above directly define the way energy efficiency can be achieved in existing social housing stock?

Yes 6 46%

No 5 38%

Other 1 8%

Figure 4.14 Graph and distribution showing whether above listed standards/legislations directly define the delivery of energy efficient in social housing stock.

12a. If yes, please specify

• Building Regulations.

• Eco Homes.


Responses showed that the Building Regulations and the Eco Homes standards

directly defined the way energy efficiency could be achieved in social housing. Inference

from the literature hints that the Eco homes standards was changed to CSH which has



recently being merged with the Building Regulations. Thus from this evidence a

conclusion can be drawn that it was the Building regulations that answered the question

asked above.

13. Do any of the standards/ legislations listed above directly make recommendations in the way energy efficiency can be achieved in existing social housing stock?

Yes 11 85%

No 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Figure 4.15 Graph and distribution showing whether above listed standards/legislations directly make recommendations to the delivery of energy efficient in social housing stock.

13a. If yes, please specify

• Energy Performance Certification and Green Deal

• EPC & GD

• Energy Performance Certification

• Insulating homes, using energy efficient bulbs.

• Green Deal survey help define this.

• Green deal attempts to.


Responses obtained from the survey showed evidence that the EPC and the GD

were the standards which made direct recommendations to how to deliver energy

efficient homes in existing social housing. First respondents were asked to answer



questions on whether the extant energy standards directly made recommendations to

achieving energy efficiency targets; 85% said yes whilst none said no with some

respondents not answering the question.


As a continuation of the previous section, other energy standards defining energy

efficiency were put to test. The Green Deal evolved as one of the programs that had

potential but was inadequate with issues such as high level works proposed by installers,

works were too major for homeowners to undertake and the cost of works were relatively

high as well. The Building Regulation was also mentioned, which was used when

refurbishment, remodelling or regeneration works were to be undertaken. CSH was tested

as well; however the new government consultation in August 2013 places it in the same

category as the Building Regulation since the two have been merged. This gives social

housing landlords a clearer view of what to achieve during the planning process that

helps to minimise permitting budgets that can be channelled to improve the energy

efficiency features of the buildings.

4.4 SECTION 4: Energy Efficiency

14. Which of the following options should be incorporated in energy efficient homes (please tick as many as appropriate)

Low Embodied Energy 10 77%

Low Energy-in-Use 9 69%

Optimal living conditions 10 77% with Low Energy-in-Use

Other- Low Inherent Energy 3 23%

Figure 4.16 Graph and distribution showing the definition of an energy efficient home.




Inferring from the data collected from the table, respondents agreed that an energy

efficient home can be defined as a home with optimal living conditions with low energy-

in-use whilst having a low embodied energy. Consequently, respondents added low

inherent energy as the other alternative answer. From literature, low inherent energy can

be defined as the chemical carbon content of the materials used, however this is very

minute but further research can be done to investigate the effect on the delivery of energy

efficiency.

15. From the list below, please rank in level of importance to achieve energy efficient homes.

Low Embodied Energy

Very Low importance 0 0%

Low importance 1 8%

Average importance 2 15%

High importance 6 46%

Very high importance 2 15%

Figure 4.17 Graph and distribution showing the level of importance of low embodied energy to achieve energy efficient homes.

Low Energy – in – Use


Low importance 0 0%




Figure 4.18 Graph and distribution showing the level of importance of low energy-in-use to achieve energy efficient homes.



Optimal living conditions with Low Energy – in – Use


Low importance 0 0%




Figure 4.19 Graph and distribution showing the level of importance of Optimal living conditions with low energy-in-use to achieve energy efficient homes.

Other specified- Low Inherent Energy


Low importance 0 0%




Figure 4.20 Graph and distribution showing the level of importance of Low Inherent Energy to achieve energy efficient homes.


“Low energy-in-use” and “optimal living conditions with low energy-in-use”

were very highly important to respondents with 46% and 38%. In addition, low embodied

energy was scored by respondents as “high importance” showing 46%. Conversely, low

energy-in-use could be merged with optimal low energy-in-use but in the literature it was

stated from different sources. Hence a combination of “optimal living conditions with

low energy-in-use and low embodied energy” suggests the definition put forward by



respondents. Consequently, approximately 38% in total of respondents added low

inherent energy as the other factor to be considered in defining an energy efficient home.

16. Do you have an FM Energy Strategy or any other strategy to achieve energy efficiency in existing social housing?

Yes 6 46%

No 6 46%

Other 0 0%

Figure 4.21 Graph and distribution showing FM energy strategy used by respondents to manage their stock.

16a. If yes, please specify strategy

• Sustainable Building Asset Management.

• The use of solar panels and sensor lights.

• Insulating buildings, incorporating renewable energy in buildings, using technology to

manage energy use, education through regular communication to tenants.

• We have a sustainability policy and this has energy and carbon emission reduction as a core

facet of the policy

• Sustainability Strategy, energy efficiency standard.


Respondents were asked the question, if they had an FM energy strategy, 46% of

the total respondents suggested that they had one and 46% also answered in the negative.

This hinted that approximately half of the respondents had FM energy strategy whilst the

other half did not have; meaning half of the social housing stock profile did not have FM



energy strategy as viewed from the responses. On the contrary, not all the half of the

respondents who affirmed to having an FM energy strategy stated it. The strategies hinted

by respondents included sustainable building asset management, use of solar panels and

sensor lights, insulation of buildings, incorporating renewable energy in buildings, using

technology to manage energy in use and education through regular communication to

tenants.


Respondents were asked to confirm and validate the probable definition for

energy efficient homes since the literature reviewed had various definitions. Respondents

defined energy efficient homes as “optimal living conditions with low energy-in-use with

low embodied energy”. The literature reviewed, however suggests this but other schools

of thought may disagree with this assertion. The FM strategy was also put to an

investigation within this section, a few respondents gave their strategies based on the

organizations core business but this cannot be generalized as the FM strategy to use to

tackle all energy efficiency agenda in social housing however is case specific.

Among the strategies stated were, insulation of walls, use of solar panels and led

lights and sustainable asset management.



4.5 SECTION 5: FM Measures in the Delivery of Energy Efficiency in Existing Social Housing.

17. Please choose which factors you have used in delivering energy efficiency in existing social housing.

Figure 4.22 Graph and distribution showing factors that aid respondents in achieving energy efficiency in existing social housing and ranking.

Compliance with Building Regulations and other energy efficiency legislation. Reduce energy-in-use through maintaining high standards of insulation. Use natural, recycled or recyclable materials in maintenance and refurbishment works. Use more renewable energy technologies. Undertaking routine energy surveys and audits. Use integrated energy management systems. Replacing old appliances with energy efficient types and using low energy lighting. Install ultra-high-tech equipment that offers optimal energy savings in use. Use systems with low maintenance requirements and does not need frequent replacement. Use systems which do not rely heavily on user regulation to achieve energy savings (e.g. use intelligent, self-regulating passive stack ventilation rather than user controlled systems). Create awareness for energy efficient lifestyles of end users through training and communication. Education of building engineers, facility management and housing association staff. Building and implementing energy saving strategies. Negotiating energy contracts. Monitoring, evaluating and reporting on energy efficiency improvements. Surveying building services, facilities and processes. Procure locally produced materials to minimize carbon footprints.

8 62% 10 77% 4 31% 8 62% 8 62% 9 69% 6 46% 3 23% 2 15% 3 23% 8 62% 6 46% 6 46% 6 46% 7 54% 6 46% 4 31%




Respondents were asked to choose from a list of factors identified from the

literature studied to validate the factors. Received responses were ultimately from the

experience and knowledge of respondents in managing social housing stock. These

responses indicated all factors but ranked “reduce energy-in-use through maintaining

high standards of insulation” as the top priority by 77% of respondents with the others as

follows:

2. Use integrated energy management systems.

3. Compliance with Building Regulations and other energy efficiency

legislation.

4. Use more renewable energy technologies.

5. Undertaking routine energy surveys and audits.

6. Create awareness for energy efficient lifestyles of end users through training

and communication.

7. Monitoring, evaluating and reporting on energy efficiency improvements.

8. Replacing old appliances with energy efficient types and using low energy

lighting.

9. Education of building engineers, facility management and housing association

staff.

10. Building and implementing energy saving strategies.

11. Negotiating energy contracts.

12. Surveying building services, facilities and processes.

13. Use natural, recycled or recyclable materials in maintenance and

refurbishment works.

14. Procure locally produced materials to minimize carbon footprints.

15. Install ultra-high-tech equipment that offers optimal energy savings in-use.



16. Use systems which do not rely heavily on user regulation to achieve energy

savings (e.g. use intelligent, self-regulating passive stack ventilation rather

than user controlled systems).

17. Use systems with low maintenance requirements and does not need frequent

replacement.

18. Please indicate which categories; the factors above can be grouped under by ticking as many as appropriate.

A-Building fabric & age of profile 11 85%

B-Technology & 11 85% renewable energy sources

C-People & lifestyles 8 62%

D-Management 9 69%

Other 0 0%

Figure 4.23 Graph and distribution showing categories under which the above listed factors can be grouped.


From the literature studies it was projected that factors affecting energy efficiency

delivery could be grouped under 4 main categories. These categories were listed for

respondents to choose from. They recommended that the building fabric & age of profile

and technology & renewable energy sources were the top priority with 85% of

respondents affirming that, management followed with 69% whilst people & lifestyles

were last on the list with 62%. Thus it demonstrated all factors put forward were agreed

upon by respondents without any other group being listed.



19. From the list below, please rank them in level of impact in the delivery of energy efficiency in existing social housing.

Building fabric & age of profile

Very low impact 0 0%

Low impact 1 8%

Average impact 0 0%

High impact 3 23%


Figure 4.24 Graph and distribution showing level of impact of building fabric and age of profile on the delivery of energy efficiency and ranking.

Technology & renewable energy sources


Low impact 1 8%

Average impact 1 8%

High impact 2 15%


Figure 4.25 Graph and distribution showing level of impact of technology & renewable energy sources on the delivery of energy efficiency and ranking.

People & lifestyles


Low impact 2 15%

Average impact 2 15%

High impact 0 0%


Figure 4.26 Graph and distribution showing level of impact of people & lifestyles on the delivery of energy efficiency and ranking.



Management


Low impact 0 0%

Average impact 1 8%

High impact 5 38%


Figure 4.27 Graph and distribution showing level of impact of people & lifestyles on the delivery of energy efficiency and ranking.


As discussed in interpretation 19, these categories were further put to testing by

ranking them in the level of impact on the delivery of energy efficient homes in existing

social housing in London. Most respondents agreed that building fabric & age of profile,

technology & renewable energy sources as well as people & lifestyles were among the

“very high impact” factors to deliver energy efficiency. Additionally, management was

ranked “high impact” with 38% of respondents’ sample.



20. Which factors affect the delivery of energy efficiency improvements in existing social housing, please tick as many as appropriate.

1 Building fabric & age of profile a. Age b. Condition c. Physical Form d. Heritage & Conservation Restrictions 2 Technology & renewable energy sources a. Initial cost of energy efficient features & renewable energy sources b. Reliability of energy data and energy efficient recommendations c. Cost of efficient energy rated equipment (e.g. white goods, boilers, solar panels) d. Warranty of efficient energy rated equipment(e.g. white goods, boilers, solar panels) 3 People & lifestyles a. Occupancy profile b. Tenant’s lifestyle & culture c. Stakeholder unwillingness to commit to energy efficient practices 4 Management a. Maintenance cycle b. Budget restrictions on maintenance and operation by housing owner c. Uncertainty of stakeholder benefits against investment d. Lack of uniform approach to energy monitoring, control and delivery e. Tenure & value Other

9 69% 11 85% 7 54% 4 31% 9 69% 11 85% 8 62% 7 54% 8 62% 4 31% 9 69% 6 46% 10 77% 4 31% 9 69% 9 69% 5 38% 2 15% 8 62% 5 38% 1 8%

Figure 4.28 Graph and distribution showing factors that affect respondents in achieving energy efficiency in existing social housing and ranking.




From the categories as discussed in the previous interpretation 19, the expanded

details of the factors as identified from the literature review, were given to respondents to

make a choice and rank them accordingly. Responses received demonstrated that, all

factors put forward were agreed by respondents but on the contrary they suggested

different ranking for the factors. The ranking of the factors put forward by respondents

were as follows:

1 Building fabric & age of profile

a. Age

b. Heritage & Conservation Restrictions

c. Condition

c. Physical Form

2 Technology & renewable energy sources

a. Initial cost of energy efficient features & renewable energy sources.

b. Cost of efficient energy rated equipment (e.g. white goods, boilers, solar panels).

c. Reliability of energy data and energy efficient recommendations.

d. Warranty of efficient energy rated equipment (e.g. white goods, boilers, solar panels).

3 People & lifestyles

a. Tenant’s lifestyle & culture

b. Occupancy profile

c. Stakeholder unwillingness to commit to energy efficient practices



4 Management

a. Maintenance cycle

b. Lack of uniform approach to energy monitoring, control and delivery

c. Budget restrictions on maintenance and operation by housing owner

d. Tenure & value

e. Uncertainty of stakeholder benefits against investment

21. What do you think can be done, that you currently cannot do to reduce energy consumption in the homes of existing social housing?

• Section 3 above not fully incorporated in the design / planning / application of energy efficiency works

• Better understanding of stock and buildings in use. • Education, incentivizing energy efficient technology and materials, accurate market

information and data on renewable technology and materials. • Education, education, education. • Strengthen the EPC and review the green deal. • Increase in long-term maintenance (LTM) budget in order to carry out necessary upgrades of

building fabric & systems. e.g. Boilers, light fittings etc. • Existing social housing are not designed to improve susceptibility outcome. Therefore an

innovative approach must be adopted to reduce energy consumption in social housing. • Regeneration of existing social housing through the replacement of materials and fixtures

with energy efficient ones. • More education of social housing tenants on how they can effectively manage and monitor

the consumption of energy/utilities, the savings that can be made by managing energy/utilities and the impact of energy consumption on carbon footprint.

• Insulate internal walls • Education to create the awareness among all stakeholders.

22. Please make any other comments in your view that will be relevant to the study.

• Regeneration would be a good strategy of improving energy efficiency in existing social housing.

• Even though facilities management can be used to achieve energy efficiency other professionals such as technical managers, sustainability professionals needs to be roped- in, since they have an in-depth experience in this subject area.

• Facility managers need to be educated since they are the main decision makers in budget spending of properties in operation.




Deducing from the literature review, this section forms the most important part of

the survey where factors identified in the literature review are validated by the

respondents. Even though respondents ranked and identified factors used as in the section

5 above, it cannot be generalized for the whole facilities management discipline since

they are subject to professional’s opinions which differs from person to person. In

conclusion respondents were given the opportunity to give recommendations and

contribute to the study. The caveat here is that most respondents gave recommendations

based on different stock profiles and different work environment which cannot be

generalized.

Some recommendations given were regeneration, education of tenants, FMs,

RSLs & HA and lastly reviewing and strengthening the EPC.

4.6 SECTION 6: Interviews - Summary.

To further probe the subject, 4 interviews were randomly conducted with

respondents selected from the 4 categories; FM companies, FMs, RSLs/HA. The

interviews were based on the questionnaire survey but further expanded to draw more

information and discuss issues. The summary of the responses were as follows:

Interviewee 1(Housing Association):

One of the directors at Chisel suggested that asset management would be better

suited rather than facilities management which made the respondent disprove the

hypothesis. On the contrary, asset management falls under the category of FM services,



so then, why this assertion? In the past, asset/property management were stand-alone

areas of management but currently these have all been merged to fall under the FM

discipline.

Secondly, the respondent put the view that a “better understanding of stock and building

in-use” would facilitate the delivery of energy efficiency. Further, it can be explained as

grouping the various stocks with the identification of specific factors that are tailored to

these stock categories since each stock category may require peculiar FM factors to

facilitate energy efficiency.

Interviewee 2 (RSLs):

A sustainability engineer at Family Mosaic commented that even though there

was a facilities management outfit in the establishment, property services were

responsible for the technical management (i.e. energy efficiency) of stock in social

housing. However, the overall decision on maintenance and operation budget spends

were made by the FM department.

Regarding the hypothesis, the respondent agreed with the assumption that the

delivery of energy efficient homes in existing social housing in London was possible;

since FMs were the main decision stakeholders of budgets on maintenance, operation and

refurbishment works. The respondent further recommended that “all existing social

housing stock must be insulated” to help achieve energy reduction in homes.



Interviewee 3 (Facilities Manager):

The other respondent was a facilities manager at Hackney Borough Local

Authority. The respondent was the first to put forward an FM energy strategy that they

used for their stock. The strategy was “the use of solar panels and sensor lights” which

fell in the category of technology and renewable energy sources as discussed in the

literature review. This raised the question of how sustainable they were and the cost

implications. The respondent answered that this was enshrined in the annual budget

policy and allocation which made it sustainable. In addition, the issue of the life span and

maintenance cost of the solar panels were debated and concluded as not sustainable.

Interviewee 4 (FM company):

The last respondent was a Facilities Manager at Interserve. The respondent

commented that FMs are not the forefront of the technical decisions of social housing

scenery but on the whole they are responsible for the final decision of the asset which

encompasses the finite technical details. Thus FMs are directly affected by these

technical details and it was about time to take up that challenge. The respondent

reiterated that the hypothesis was achievable because RSLs were in the capacity to set

energy efficiency policies and implement them. Furthermore, the respondent stated that

RSLs have the financial resources to attract investment that will enable the delivery of

new build energy efficient homes or convert the existing buildings to energy efficient

ones.



Chapter 5

5.0 Conclusion

In a bid to achieve energy efficiency, carbon emissions needs to be reduced to

enable the UK government reach the carbon budgeted targets thus causing a decrease in

climate change impacts.

Inferring from the introduction chapter, buildings contribute approximately 40%

of the total carbon emissions of which most of these buildings are in existence presently

as discussed by Ravetz. Hence to facilitate the reduction in the energy consumption of

existing buildings, attention ought to be placed on how to deliver energy efficiency;

which can be achieved through maintenance, operation, refurbishment and regeneration

of existing stock, a discipline of facilities management.

Linking this back to study realises the research aim which was to “identify the

factors that aid/affect the delivery of energy efficient homes in the facilities management

of existing social housing in London”. This aim was achieved through critical analysis of

existing literature to identify the factors which were validated and ranked by respondents

in a survey conducted by the researcher.

Also, in reaching this aim, objectives were set and conclusions were reached after

conducting the research which can be summarized as follows:

Objective 1 – Identify the factors that aid/affect the delivery of energy efficient homes in

existing social housing in London.



- Factors that aid the delivery of energy efficiency were identified and ranked in the

level of priority in interpretation 17 of the results and outlined as follows:

18. Reduce energy-in-use through maintaining high standards of insulation.

19. Use integrated energy management systems.

20. Compliance with Building Regulations and other energy efficiency

legislation.

21. Use more renewable energy technologies.

22. Undertaking routine energy surveys and audits.

23. Create awareness for energy efficient lifestyles of end users through training

and communication.

24. Monitoring, evaluating and reporting on energy efficiency improvements.

25. Replacing old appliances with energy efficient types and using low energy

lighting.

26. Education of building engineers, facility management and housing association

staff.

27. Building and implementing energy saving strategies.

28. Negotiating energy contracts.

29. Surveying building services, facilities and processes.

30. Use natural, recycled or recyclable materials in maintenance and

refurbishment works.

31. Procure locally produced materials to minimize carbon footprints.

32. Install ultra-high-tech equipment that offers optimal energy savings in-use.

33. Use systems which do not rely heavily on user regulation to achieve energy

savings (e.g. use intelligent, self regulating passive stack ventilation rather

than user controlled systems).

34. Use systems with low maintenance requirements and does not need frequent

replacement.



- Factors that affect the delivery of energy efficiency were identified and ranked in the

level of priority in interpretation 18 of the results and outlined as follows:

1. Age of profile and Building Fabric.

2. Technology and renewable energy sources.

3. Management.

4. People and lifestyles.

Objective 2 – Evaluate how energy legislation and standards affect the delivery of

facilities management in existing social housing.

The literature reviewed, identified the legislation/policy defining energy

efficiency in social housing. On the contrary, the findings from the survey in section 4.3

showed that not all legislation/policies were being applied. The most relevant were the

EPC, Building Regulations-Part L and the Green Deal as discussed in interpretation 11,

12 & 13. Also the UK government in its new consultation had merged the CSH with the

Building Regulations-Part L which was not the case during the inception of the research

study. The Building Regulations was mostly used for new builds and some refurbishment

works but the EPC and the Green Deal which were directly related to achieving energy

efficient buildings in social housing were found to be inadequate by respondents and in

the literature reviewed.

Objective 3 – Make recommendations in enhancing the delivery of energy efficient

homes in the facilities management of existing social housing stock in London.

To conclude, the recommendations made from the literature reviewed and survey

responses were:



First of all, regeneration of existing social housing with the incorporation of

energy efficient features and building to the current energy standards .i.e. New Building

Regulations (Part L+CSH) and EPC.

Secondly, education of facility managers to understand the details of energy

efficiency to enable them make informed decisions on budget spending of energy

efficient buildings. Thirdly, strengthening, reviewing and increasing the financial

resources available for EPC and Green Deal programs. In addition, tax exemptions or

rebates should be given to RSLs that have improved their stocks to the current energy

efficiency standards. One example is how the budgetary allocation for the Green Deal

was increased by the UK government in 2014. This meant more homeowners can have

access to the scheme thereby directly improving the energy efficiency of the existing

stock profile.

Lastly, research has to be undertaken to study the behavioural patterns and

lifestyles of social housing tenants. Also, they need education on how they can

effectively manage and monitor the consumption of energy/utilities; how to gain savings

on energy/utilities and the impact of energy consumption on carbon footprints.

5.1 Validity and Reliability

In this research, we have issues with external or population validity and construct

or measurement validity. External or population validity because the sample category

randomly selected could have different views, perceptions and opinions if a different

group or environment was selected. Also, the number of respondents does not allow us to



generalize the findings for the entire population since it was about 7% of the total sample

size is a misrepresentation of the entire population.

Construct or measurement validity, may be due to the environment or the state of

mind of the respondents. The respondents, viewing from their busy schedules may have

quickly gone through the questionnaires or not fully understood the survey before

answering. Most respondents will also have a professional bias as to how the

questionnaire needs to be answered. To conclude, the results are perceptions or opinions

of the respondents, thus the reader needs to form his or her own opinion about issues and

critically appraise it.

5.2 Limitations of the Study

5.2.1 Choosing the type of research survey

It was a difficult choice deciding on the type of field survey; initially the

researcher was looking forward to do a case study on an existing social housing profile

but a questionnaire survey was selected since it was better suited for the research

methodology. This was due to availability of respondents and the unavailability of a

suitable case study.

5.2.2 Contacting Respondents

Access to the BIFM website was an initial challenge since a registration fee was

requested to be paid in order to retrieve the data on emails of members. Also, with the

individual membership category there were no filter thus the researcher had to define the

sample in relation to work specialization and company association.



5.2.3 Time and duration

Some interesting literature were identified, relating to how the lifestyles of

occupants in social housing had a bearing on energy efficiency practices but due to scope

and time constraints, that aspect could not be incorporated.

5.2.4 Respondents Schedule

In order to gain maximum response rate of the questionnaire, it was kept very

short and straight to the point with some questions omitted. Respondents were busy and

some were not ready to undertake the survey. Some of the respondents showed lack of

commitment and willingness whiles some respondents did not have the technical capacity

to undertake the survey.

5.2.5 Contact Details

Some email and web addresses were incorrect and outdated, thus the

questionnaires could not reach all the intended respondents.

5.3 Further Research

The research study is unique and will further inform the FM profession and also

help mitigate impacts of detrimental climate change. However, the research could not

probe areas such as people and lifestyles, one of the factors that affect the delivery of

energy efficiency.

Secondly, research should be conducted into the energy efficiency team that work

in the social housing sector in relation to FM services. This will give a clear definition of

where the FM profession fits into the energy efficiency agenda.



In conclusion, the factors identified needs to be tested and grouped according how

appropriate it applies to specific stock since this research was to discover the general

factors.



REFERENCES

Akbar, M.R., Hewitt, N., Heaney, G. and Lim, L.C. (2011). Application of the UK code for sustainable homes on multi-Storey high density developments, Real Estate Initiatives. ARCUS (2014). How business leaders use innovative approaches to shape their strategies. ARCUS Innovation Leaders Series. Available at: http://www.arcusgroup.ca/centrica_csr.html [Accessed on: 11 September 2014]. Atkins, B. and Brooks, A. (2009). Total Facilities Management, 3rd edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Barrett, P. and Baldry, D. (2003). Facilities management: towards best practice. 2nd edition. Blackwell Science. Booty, F. (2009). Facilities Management Handbook, 4th edition. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. BREEAM (2014). BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment. Watford: BREEAM. Available at: www.breeam.org/domrefurb [Accessed on: 08 August 2014]. British Gas (2006). Domestic Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Selected Cities. UK: British Gas. Published on 20th February 2006, retrieved on 9th August 2007. Brundtland Commission (1987). Our common future. Vol. 383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bulkeley, H. and Betsill, M.M. (2003). Cities and Climate Change: urban sustainability and global environmental governance, Routledge.

Carbon Trust (2009) Building the future today.

Chatham House (2014). The Chatham House Rules. Available at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule#sthash.PzX9QtFp.dpuf [Accessed on: 26 August 2014].

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd edition. CA: Sage.

Communities and Local Government (2014). Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical guide, April 2008. United Kingdom: CLG. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk [Accessed on: 08 August 2014]

Cooper, J. and Jones, K. (2008). Routine maintenance and sustainability of existing social housing. The construction and building research conference, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, COBRA, September 2008.

http://www.arcusgroup.ca/centrica_csr.html�

http://www.breeam.org/domrefurb�

http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule#sthash.PzX9QtFp.dpuf�

http://www.communities.gov.uk/�



Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project. Oxford: How to Books Ltd.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2006). The English Housing Survey. United Kingdom: DCLG Publications. Department for Communities and Local Government (2010). Making better use of Energy Performance Certificates and Data. United Kingdom: DCLG Publications. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk [Accessed on: 06 October 2014]. Department for Communities and Local Government (2014a). English Housing Survey: Profile of English Housing, Annual report on England’s housing stock, 2012.United Kingdom: DCLG Publications. Department for Communities and Local Government (2014b). English Housing Survey: Headline Report, February 2014.United Kingdom: DCLG Publications. Department of Communities and Local Government (2014c). Review of Sustainability of Existing Buildings: The Energy Efficiency of Dwellings – Initial Analysis, November 2006. United Kingdom: DCLG Publications. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk [Accessed on: 06 October 2014]. Department of Energy & Climate Change (2014). UK National Energy Efficiency Action Plan, April 2014. United Kingdom: DECC Publications. Available at: www.decc.gov.uk [Accessed on: 06 October 2014]. Department of Energy & Climate Change (2010). The Green Deal: A summary of the Government’s proposal. United Kingdom: DECC Publications. Available at: www.decc.gov.uk [Accessed on: 23 November 2014]. Department of Social Development (2012). Facing the Future, Housing strategy for Northern Ireland: Consultation on Northern Ireland Housing Strategy 2012-2017, 15th October – 7 December 2012. Available at: www.dsdni.gov.uk/consultations [Accessed on: 06 October 2014]. Fergusson, H. and Langford, D. A. (2006). Strategies for managing environmental issues in construction organisations, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(2), p171-185. Francis, T. J., Geens, A. J. and Littlewood, J. (2010). Is facilities management fundamental to the conservation of heritage buildings and their contents? In: Egbu, C. (Ed) Procs 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management,1507-1516.

Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) (2014). Existing Stock. Available at: http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/existing-stock [Accessed on: 17 April 2014].



http://www.decc.gov.uk/�

http://www.decc.gov.uk/�

http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/consultations�

http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/existing-stock�



Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., Van Der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, C.A. (Eds) (2002). Climate Change 2001: the scientific basis, contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the IPCC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1979). Behavioural research: A conceptual approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kwawu, W. and Elmualim, A. (2011). Sustainability in facilities management: A review of drivers and policy issues In: Egbu, C. and Lou, E.C.W. (Eds.) Procs 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 1185-1194. Lapinski, A. (2006). Lean processes for sustainable project delivery, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, October 2006. Lutzkendof, T. and Lorenz, D. (2005) Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment, Building Research & Information, 33(3), p212-234. Mackenzie, F., Pout, C., Shorrock, L., Matthews, A. and Henderson, J. (2010). Energy efficiency in new and existing buildings: comparative costs and CO2 savings. Watford: BRE publications. Malina, M. (2013). Delivering Sustainable Buildings: an industry insider’s view. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. Martin, D. (2012). The A-Z of facilities and property management. 3rd edition. London: Thorogood Publishing Ltd.

Naoum, S. G. (2013). Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students. 3rd edition. Oxon: Routledge.

Neville, C. (2007). Introduction to Research and Research Methods. London: Bradford University, School of Management.

Newport, D., Chesnes, T. and Lindner, A. (2003). The “environment sustainability” problem: ensuring that sustainability stands on three legs, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(4), p357-363.

NHBC Foundation (2009). Zero Carbon Compendium: who’s doing what in housing worldwide? Amersham: PRP Architects.

Parkin, P. (2000). Sustainable development: the concept and practical challenge, in Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineer, 138, p3-8.

Pitt, M. and Tucker, M. (2008). Performance measurement in facilities management: driving innovation? Property Management, 26(4), 241-254.



Ravetz, J. (2008). “State of the stock: What do we know about existing buildings and their future prospects?” Energy Policy, 36, 4462–4470.

Rooze, J. (2014). The UK Housing Context: why retrofit technology is important to the UK. Carbon Descent. Available at: http://www.carbondescent.org.uk/blog/?p=121[Accessed on: 11 September 2014].

Shah, S. (2007). Sustainable Practices for the Facilities Manager. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Sustainable Homes (1999). Embodied Energy in Residential Property Development: A Guide for Registered Social Housing Landlords. Middlesex: The Housing Corporation. Available at: http://www.sustainablehomes.co.uk [Accessed on: 23 November 2014]. The Guardian (2014). “How the Green Deal turned into the green disaster” Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/18/green-deal-green-disaster[Accessed on: 23 November 2014]

Waddell, H. (2008). Sustainable construction and UK legislation and policy, in Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 162, p 53-62. Waterfield, P. (2007). The Energy Efficient Home; A complete guide. Wiltshire: Cordwood Press Ltd. Waterfield, P. (2011). The Energy Efficient Home; A complete guide. Wiltshire: Cordwood Press Ltd. Williams, K. and Dair, C. (2007). What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments, Sustainable development, 15, p135-147.

Wood, B (2006). “The role of existing buildings in the sustainability agenda”, Facilities, 24(1/2), 61–7. Yates A., Brownhill D., Crowhurst D. (2004). BRE’s Environmental Assessment Methods for Buildings – BREEAM, including EcoHomes. Prepared for the Sustainable Buildings Task Group. BRE, Garston. January 2004. Zero Carbon Hub (2008). “Zero Carbon Homes and Nearly Zero Energy Buildings: UK Building Regulations and EU Directives. Available at: http://www.zerocarbonhub.org [Accessed on: 06 October 2014]

http://www.carbondescent.org.uk/blog/?p=121�

http://www.sustainablehomes.co.uk/�

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/18/green-deal-green-disaster�

http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/�



APPENDICES

Appendix 1- Sample Questionnaire Survey



Appendix 2- Summary of Survey Responses – Excel spreadsheet

Dissertation Final

Documents

Transcript of Dissertation Final