Clearly, retrofitting social housing with energy efficiency upgrades makes good environmental and economic sense. But new research points to a disconnect between tenants and housing authorities over which measures are preferred.
The study, “Sustainable social housing retrofit? Circular economy and tenant trade-offs”, carried out for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute by researchers from the University of Adelaide and RMIT University, found that social housing providers aimed to improve energy efficiency and physical and mental health outcomes, while tenants seek improved liveability.
In surveys of more than 1000 low to moderate income households in Australia, tenants indicated they preferred solar panels, new paint and carpet upgrades and ceiling installations. This contrasted with upgrades that tend to have the highest cost-benefit outcomes such as draft sealing and the efficient operation of electrical appliances. The benefits of these upgrades were typically less visible to tenants, the study found.
“Our findings show that the types of upgrades to their housing that householders most want don’t necessarily align with the most efficient retrofit priorities and don’t align with the sort of upgrades that typically receive funding, apart from the installation of solar panels,” says the lead author of the research, Professor Emma Baker from the University of Adelaide.
The installation of reverse cycle airconditioning may have perverse outcomes, in that it can result in higher electricity charges in poorly insulated homes.
The research uncovered divergent motives between different stakeholder groups, with social housing providers keen to avoid their tenants falling into energy poverty, while industry groups were more concerned with sustainability outcomes and tenants preferring measures that increased the thermal comfort and cleanliness of their home.
The study also unveiled a gap in appropriately targeted funding to assist social housing tenants to retrofit their homes, with limited programs available and a high degree of politicisation in tied funding initiatives.
“Our research also finds that international best practice includes having minimum standards for all housing, including social housing buildings,” Professor Baker said. “These minimum standards include a range of different housing elements such as window coverings, heating and cooling systems and other basic functions.”