THERE is a disconnect between the priorities of recipients of social housing retrofitting programs and the intentions of the social housing providers that undertake them, according to a new study by AHURI.
The study, Sustainable social housing retrofit? Circular economy and tenant trade-offs, found retrofit interventions have focussed on circular economy goals such as energy efficiency, alternative energy technologies, construction waste, and extending the life of dwellings, while overlooking “the fact that many people in our community lack access to even a basic quality of housing; for example, a home that is safe and warm, that doesn’t leak when it rains, and that supports the daily functions of cooking or cleaning”.
“Considering the policy implications, it is noteworthy that, for the majority of panel participants (representing policy makers, social housing providers and industry), tenant preferences were both surprising, and largely unknown,” it said.
“This indicates that a systematic tenant voice (and tenant preferences) has, to date, rarely been included in existing retrofit activities. The inclusion of at least some acknowledgement of tenant preferences in the development of any social housing retrofit interventions would shift the focus of assistance (and the desired outcomes) towards basic liveability.”
Interventions often found to have the highest cost-benefit outcomes, such as draft sealing and ensuring appliances are operating efficiently, were not preferred.
“Often these options are less ‘visible’ and the benefits may not be immediately evident or well communicated to householders.”
The report found social housing providers face challenges to balance their business obligations with their social obligation to help their residents.
“They must maintain what is often poor-quality dwelling stock, improve it, build more—and remain within their budgets. These competing obligations are fundamental, and although there is ambition to embrace environmental sustainability and CE, these are secondary considerations.”
One panel participant said that is a recent new build development, they had “hoped we would have enough surplus to build 6 star, but with a smaller surplus we just do the best we can”. The smaller surplus is due to the recent rises in construction costs.
Panel participants also raised the structure and timing of government funding to social housing providers. It was noted the funding was often “themed”, rather than driven by things such as tenant requirements, the specific needs of a housing provider’s dwelling stock or circular economy considerations.
Another issue found was that retrofit program objectives are rarely explicit, and vary greatly between stakeholders.
“Social housing providers may be largely motivated to help their tenants avoid energy poverty, industry groups seem principally focussed on sustainability outcomes, and many tenants’ main motivation is improving the liveability of their home. These different, and often competing, objectives obviously limit successful outcomes.”
It suggested that industry advice designed around sustainability could form the basis of a government-funded program where cost-effectiveness is prioritised.
“Social housing providers could use this funding to reduce the energy costs of their tenants, and the tenants would value the program because of their improved living environment.”
