Normal View Dyslexic View
Thematic Article
Imagining future homes: a creative community engagement workshop on retrofit to navigate the ‘just transition’ to net zero
,
Joseph Simms‡
,
josephsimms@hotmail.com
Anne Watson§
,
anne.watson@london.gov.uk
Karina Izquierdo¶
, ,
izquierdo@climatecentre.org
Ben Cook♥
,
ben.cook@london.gov.uk
Michelle Reeves♦
,
michellereevesconsulting@gmail.com
Abstract
The ‘just transition’ to net zero emphasises that climate action benefits are shared widely, including amongst those potentially disadvantaged. Sustainable home retrofit requires a collaborative approach that integrates community expertise, prioritises passive design complemented by appropriate technologies, and balances building, energy, and residents’ needs. This requires engaging communities and forming partnerships between professionals and communities. We report findings from a co-designed creative community engagement workshop by the London Research and Policy Partnership (LRaPP) and Retrofit Action for Tomorrow (RAFT) in 2023. LRaPP and RAFT members co-designed and facilitated inclusive creative participatory methods, to engage diverse communities to attend. Forty participants discussed the use of home retrofit to navigate the ‘just transition’ to net zero, addressing ‘real-world’ complexities. This workshop brought together different individuals to cross research–policy–practice boundaries and collectively generate co-produced priorities and solutions to tackle how retrofit could be used to navigate the ‘just transition’ to net zero. This article is published in the Thematic Collection ‘Participatory Engagement and Game Playing for Achieving Sustainable Net-Zero Transition’, edited by Jing Zhao, Eirini Gallou, and Ievgeniia Kopytsia.
Keywords
co-productionretrofitnet zerojust transitioncommunity engagementenergyIntroduction
When communities and professionals work together to design, deliver, and evaluate services or policies through co-production, it offers a framework for fostering more inclusive and effective outcomes (Bovaird & Loeffler 2012; Nabatchi et al. 2017; Banks et al. 2021). This can lead to forming effective research–policy–practice partnerships, crucial for navigating complex societal challenges (Georgalakis & Rose 2019). Research–policy–practice partnerships are collaborative structures that combine academic research evidence and expertise with practical experience from communities and professionals to inform policy and improve outcomes. These partnerships aim to bridge the gap between academic research and real-world applications, ensuring that knowledge can be used effectively to address practical challenges and inform policy decisions (Jasim 2024).
The UK’s target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 (Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019) presents a profound societal challenge, especially for the built environment. Housing stock is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and is responsible for approximately 20 per cent of the UK’s total emissions, mostly through heating (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero 2023). Retrofitting existing homes to improve energy efficiency and decarbonise heating is the cornerstone of many national and local climate strategies. However, given the age and energy inefficiency of much of the UK housing stock, coupled with a reliance on fossil fuels (predominantly natural gas) for heating (Committee on Climate Change 2020; BEIS 2021), this remains a significant challenge (Shrubsole et al. 2014). Home retrofit can include a range of interventions, from basic insulation measures (that is, loft, wall, floor) and draught-proofing to installing energy-efficient windows, upgrading heating systems (for example, heat pumps), and integrating renewable energy technologies (for example, solar PV) (Jenkins & Endersby 2019). Understanding social relations, such as social and cultural norms, how communities share information about energy-saving measures and how trust impacts decision-making, is crucial for successful home retrofit; as it highlights how social dynamics influence energy consumption and the adoption of energy-saving measures (Hargreaves & Middlemiss 2020; Brown et al. 2025).
The transition to net zero can be considered a societal transformation with significant distributional consequences (Bridge et al. 2013). The concept of a ‘just transition’ highlights the need to ensure that the benefits of climate action are shared widely and that those potentially disadvantaged by the transition are supported (UNFCCC 2015; Heffron & McCauley 2017) with appropriate levels of attention to fairness, equity, and inclusion throughout the retrofitting process (Jenkins et al. 2021; Sovacool 2021). The transition to net zero risks worsening existing inequalities if not managed carefully. Concerns about affordability, disruption, tenant rights, fuel poverty, and the uneven distribution of costs and benefits require the ‘just transition’ approach (Sovacool & Dworkin 2015; McCauley & Heffron 2018) to ensure that decarbonisation efforts do not disproportionately burden low-income households or marginalised communities, and that these groups actively participate in, and benefit from, the ‘just transition’ (Bouzarovski & Petrova 2015; Jenkins et al. 2021).
Traditional top-down policy implementation and community consultation methods can often fail to adequately engage diverse populations, particularly those facing multiple layers of disadvantage or marginalisation (Arnstein 1969; Cornwall 2008). Information deficits, lack of trust, complex technical language, inconvenient timings, and power imbalances can all act as significant barriers to meaningful participation (Walker & Day 2012; Chilvers & Longhurst 2016). This can lead to policies and programmes that are misaligned with residents’ lived experiences, needs, and priorities, which could potentially hinder uptake and effectiveness (Devine-Wright 2009)—which has been seen with retrofit policies and programmes in London (Charles et al. 2025). Traditional community engagement methods like surveys, focus groups, and public meetings can sometimes be exclusive, dominated by certain voices, or fail to capture the nuances of lived experience (Cooke & Kothari 2001). The use of creative and arts-based methods in research, policy, and practice can provide alternative ways of knowing, communicating, and collaborating, potentially overcoming some of the barriers associated with traditional discursive formats (Kara 2015; Leavy 2020). Innovative examples, such as the Building Centre’s Exhibition Retrofit 25: What’s Stopping Us in London (The Building Centre 2025), Retrofit Balsall Heath in Birmingham (Retrofit Balsall Heath 2025), or the Retrofit Reimagined Festival (The Building Centre 2023) have sought to connect professionals and communities in creative and inclusive ways. These methods can facilitate emotional expression, imaginative thinking, and dialogue across the different perspectives of research–policy–practice partnerships and levels of expertise (that is, policy professionals, academic researchers, industry professionals, residents, tenants, community leaders, and community groups) (Kindon et al. 2007; Bagnoli 2009).
Aim
London as a target population is an exemplar, given its vast, diverse, and often old housing stock that faces an acute challenge; against the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) ambitious target to be net-zero carbon by 2030, which demands an acceleration in the pace and scale of domestic retrofit (GLA 2022). Achieving these targets will require retrofitting approximately 3.6 million dwellings in London, which vary greatly in age, construction type, tenure, and occupant demographics (Centre for London 2021; GLA 2022) at an unprecedented scale and pace (Rosenow et al. 2022).
While technical solutions exist, significant barriers remain, including high upfront costs, complex supply chains, skills shortages, lack of standardised information, and significant disruption for occupants (Fawcett & Topouzi 2020; Eyre 2021). Previous research suggests the importance of engaging with professionals and communities who both have and not have previously engaged with retrofit (Putnam & Brown 2021), which could lead to the formation of research–policy–practice partnerships in this area. The London Research and Policy Partnership (LRaPP) aims to build long-term, sustainable relationships between academic researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities in sharing knowledge and skills and other resources to tackle some of London’s biggest challenges (LRaPP 2023) and are currently developing services centred around research–policy–practice partnerships.
We report on the perspectives of home retrofit for navigating the ‘just transition’ to net zero from professionals (policy professionals, academic researchers, industry professionals) and communities (residents, tenants, community leaders) and community groups in London during a creative workshop. Opinions and experiences shared during this workshop will prioritise a research question to develop a targeted and relevant approach to building a research–policy–practice partnership to tackle the ‘just transition’ to net zero.
Methods
Participants
We invited professionals (policy professionals, academic researchers, industry professionals) and community members (residents, tenants, community leaders, and community groups) through LRaPP’s existing networks, RAFT’s community and local authority connections, local authority contacts, and targeted outreach via community groups. Recruitment efforts aimed at ensuring representation across different boroughs, housing tenures, and demographic backgrounds. Through the outreach strategy, the lead researcher contacted over two hundred community groups, tenant and resident associations, housing associations, professional and industry groups and networks, and local authority community groups from across all thirty-two London Boroughs and the City of London, between May and July 2023, to register for the workshop. We contacted the groups directly by telephone or e-mail, sending them the Eventbrite registration link, a recruitment flyer, and in some cases further details about the aims and purpose of the workshop and forming research–policy–practice partnerships. The aim was to create a balanced workshop where different perspectives could interact. A total of forty participants attended.
Setting and co-design
A single workshop was planned for July 2023 as part of a Local Policy Innovation Partnership (LPIP) Round 1 UK Research and Innovation funded project (UKRI 2023), at the University of London main campus. We selected this venue due to its central location to all the London Boroughs and numerous accessible public transport links to professionals and community members. The workshop was held as part of the Greater London Authority Future of Participation week (GLA 2023)—a series of community engagement events across London. Thus the date was selected to fit in with this series. The workshop lasted approximately six hours.
Creative methods were chosen as they can often be an effective way to engage diverse groups, including marginalised communities, and those less comfortable with formal academic or policy discourse (Bagnoli 2009; Guillemin & Drew 2010), which are essential for bringing together professionals and communities to form research–policy–practice partnerships to offer alternative pathways for participation, expression, and knowledge generation (Reason & Bradbury 2008; Kara 2015). For concepts such as housing retrofit and a ‘just transition’ to net zero, creative methods can provide spaces for participants to grapple with uncertainty, imagine alternative futures, and collectively deliberate on pathways forward (Kagan et al. 2020). This is where Retrofit Action for Tomorrow (RAFT) (RAFT 2024), a social enterprise and not-for-profit community interest company specialising in community engagement and practical action around domestic retrofit, is most experienced.
LRaPP and RAFT co-designed the use of visual methods for the workshop, such as drawing, collage, and mapping, to help workshop participants express ideas and emotions that are difficult to articulate verbally and to make abstract concepts (like ‘future homes’ or ‘energy systems’) more tangible (Gauntlett 2007; Pink 2012). These approaches can also help to level power dynamics by valuing different forms of contribution (Fung 2006; Clarke & Hoggett 2009; Pestoff 2014), fostering a more relaxed and collaborative atmosphere, stimulating imagination, and leading to unexpected insights (Mannay 2010). The workshop’s brief aim was initially discussed (SJ, HP) and the various activities were brainstormed and refined during a pre-event meeting with the wider team (SJ, HP, DA, JS). Based on their experience, the RAFT team confirmed the type of community engagement activities that would be suitable and inclusive to those of different ages, backgrounds, and expertise levels, and the lead researcher (SJ) advised on the various community and professional perspectives and previous knowledge of retrofit that might be expected from workshop participants—and how the workshop would be used to progress a research–policy–practice partnership and develop future research questions and collaborations (Castán Broto & Bulkeley 2013; Bulkeley et al. 2014).
Next, the lead researcher (SJ) designed a recruitment flyer to invite potential participants from a wide range of avenues. The only inclusion criteria were that participants currently live in London and be willing to participate for the whole day. There were no specific exclusion criteria, as we aimed for the event to be accessible and open to anyone willing to express their opinions about retrofit and the ‘just transition’ to zero. Participants were asked to either bring printed pictures or photographs of the inside or outside of their home, or to e-mail these to the team to have them printed on their behalf.
Procedure and information capture
The workshop was structured around the central theme of ‘imagining your future home’—including discussion points about housing retrofit and the ‘just transition’ to net zero. This framing was carefully chosen to be more accessible and resonate personally to participants, irrespective of their understanding of retrofit, or their homeownership status, and also moving beyond purely technical or policy-focused discussions. The workshop incorporated a variety of creative and participatory methods facilitated by the RAFT team and LRaPP members. The workshop began with icebreakers allowing for personal reflection—as participants were asked ‘what does retrofit mean?’ and ‘what brings you here today?’, followed by scene setting. These activities aimed to initially capture attention, establish ground rules for respectful dialogue, and introduce the complexities of the retrofit challenge in London, including policy targets and the concept of a ‘just transition’. The two organisations: LRaPP and RAFT were introduced, and it was established that neither organisation was personally or professionally involved in retrofit decisions or previous retrofit work. Then, there was a very brief explanation of what home retrofit measures were using Microsoft PowerPoint slides, containing technical retrofit information. Participants were prompted to connect the information they had learned and reflect on their own homes—what they valued, what challenges they faced (related to comfort, cost, maintenance, health) using simple drawing or writing prompts. Sharing these personal experiences helped ground the discussion in lived reality. Discussion points around ‘how does the word retrofit make you feel?’, ‘how could retrofit be rolled out at a much larger scale in your area?’, and ‘how might the benefits and challenges relate to your living situation?’ were facilitated in small groups. Five members of the LRaPP executive team facilitated small group discussions in English, and the researcher provided translation to Bengali where needed. Wider discussions allowed smaller groups to share their insights and engage in broader discussion, comparing and contrasting perspectives from the community members and professionals. Facilitators ensured that different voices were captured and encouraged participants to identify areas of consensus and disagreement. The emphasis throughout was on co-learning and mutual respect between participants, valuing experiential knowledge alongside technical and policy expertise. The creative methods were not merely decorative but integral to the process of knowledge exchange and collaborative problem-solving (Needham & Carr 2009; Durose et al. 2017).
The core activity of ‘imagining your future home’ was a creative exercise that involved participants working in mixed groups (community members and professionals) using creative materials (for example, tracing paper, coloured pens, images for collage, magic tape) to visualise and describe their ideal future home in a net-zero London. This visual and tactile approach aimed to stimulate creative thinking and facilitate communication across different backgrounds and expertise levels.
Finally, the workshop concluded with a brainstorm from all participants around: ‘What three words would you use to replace the word “retrofit”?’ At the end of the workshop, participants were given a take-home card, with practical ideas for short-term energy saving solutions to ensure they had some immediate valuable information as a result of their attendance. In line with good practice guidelines (NIHR 2024), all attendees were provided with lunch, refreshments throughout the workshop, and financial reimbursement to cover their attendance time and contribution.
Reporting
The discussion was recorded using sticky notes and flip chart paper. All attendees were reminded that their personal identifiable information would remain confidential and that they could leave at any time without having to give a reason. Multiple forms of qualitative data were collected during and immediately after the workshop. Brief notes were taken by LRaPP members capturing the dynamics of group interactions, key points raised in discussions, participant engagement with creative activities, and the overall atmosphere. The drawings, and accompanying annotations produced during the creative exercise were collected (with permission) as data representing participants’ ideas and priorities. Evaluation data was collected at the end of the workshop from participants, which included Likert-scale questions and open-ended questions asking participants about their experience of the workshop format, the usefulness of the creative methods, the quality of cross-sectoral interaction, what they learned, and suggestions for future engagement. A thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke 2006) was applied to the data. The analysis focused not only on the content of the discussions but also on the process—how the creative and co-productive methods shaped the interaction and outcomes. Analysis meetings were held, one immediately with the workshop facilitators and a small group of professionals after the event; one with only the LRaPP team, and a debrief meeting with some of the RAFT team.
Results
Attendees
Approximately forty participants attended the full-day workshop. The composition allowed for rich cross-sectoral dialogue. All attendees identified themselves as living in London and self-reported a basic level of English proficiency.
Community members comprised residents, tenants (social and private renters), homeowners, and leaders from community organisations, particularly those working with diverse or potentially marginalised groups (for example, low-income households, ethnic minority community members, older residents, residents with disabilities). Professionals included policy professionals from the GLA, those from local authorities working on housing, environment, energy, and net-zero policies, professionals working in retrofit and housing policy, as well as researchers and policy officers with expertise in relevant fields such as energy, housing, climate change, social policy, urban studies, and community engagement.
The data revealed key findings related to the complexities of retrofit, the lived experiences of Londoners, the dynamics of cross-sectoral engagement, and the specific contribution of the creative, co-produced methodology.
Theme 1: divergent priorities
The language of retrofit was discussed—what it meant to the participants, and alternative phrases that resonated with them more. Participants mainly spoke about efficiencies, improvements, and upgrading; however, they also highlighted their fears, such as ‘can end up more expensive if done badly’. Alternative words and phrases, such as ‘upbuild’, ‘conversion’, and ‘renew’, amongst many others, were raised. We gathered individual experiences of retrofit, and how the word/concept made the participants feel. We also discussed the problems and opportunities in existing buildings, and what the benefits and challenges might be, and how these applied to participants’ own homes. We were able to seek feedback from most participants—and overall, the workshop received overwhelmingly positive feedback—with participants appreciating the opportunity to discuss and contribute their ideas around such an important and meaningful topic, as well as finding value in meeting so many different people from different personal and professional backgrounds to be able to share, swap, and exchange ideas.
A central finding was the clear articulation of diverse, and sometimes conflicting, priorities between different stakeholder groups, powerfully surfaced through the creative exercises and subsequent discussions.
Community priorities
For residents and tenants, particularly those experiencing or vulnerable to fuel poverty, immediate concerns often centred on affordability (both upfront costs and ongoing energy bills amidst the cost-of-living crisis), comfort (escaping cold and damp), health impacts (respiratory issues, mental stress), and practicalities of home maintenance. The ‘imagining your future home’ exercise frequently produced visions emphasising warmth, dryness, reduced bills, and ease of upkeep, often before considerations of carbon emissions. Stories shared highlighted the daily struggles of living in inefficient homes and the anxiety associated with rising energy costs. Concerns about the disruption caused by retrofit works, loss of space (that is, for insulation or heat pumps), and the aesthetics of interventions were also prominent. For tenants, security of tenure and the relationship with landlords were overriding concerns influencing their willingness and ability to engage with or benefit from retrofit.
Professional priorities
While acknowledging community concerns, policy professionals often framed the challenge in terms of meeting net-zero targets, achieving scale and pace of delivery, navigating funding constraints, developing viable business models, and ensuring compliance with regulations. Researchers brought perspectives on technical optimisation, systemic barriers, behavioural factors, and the need for robust monitoring and evaluation.
The workshop structure facilitated a degree of mutual understanding between community members and professionals. Professionals gained the lived experience perspective of concepts such as ‘fuel poverty’. Community participants gained insights into the scale of the challenge and the policy constraints faced by professionals, especially from those who worked for or with local authorities in London. However, the fundamental tension between immediate, personal needs (such as warmth, health, affordability) and longer-term, systemic goals (that is, net-zero targets) remained evident. The creative methods provided a non-confrontational way to express these different starting points.
Theme 2: underestimated barriers
While financial costs and technical challenges were acknowledged by all, the workshop highlighted the significance of often-underestimated social, informational, and relational barriers.
Trust deficit
A significant lack of trust was expressed by community participants towards government bodies, energy companies, landlords, and sometimes even installers—which could be exacerbated by the lack of grip over setting out contracts for home insulation installation, lack of adequate monitoring of the job not done well, and the frustration of homeowners, and especially renters, over the lack of alignment. Past negative experiences with poorly delivered schemes in London, confusing information, aggressive sales tactics, or unresponsive landlords fuelled scepticism about new retrofit initiatives. Building trust was seen as a prerequisite for effective engagement and uptake.
Information complexity and accessibility
Participants found the landscape of retrofit options, funding schemes, and technical standards bewildering. Information was often perceived as fragmented, overly technical, generic (not tailored to specific home types or circumstances), and difficult to access, particularly for those with language barriers or limited digital literacy. There was a strong desire for trusted, impartial, and locally accessible advice.
Landlord–tenant dynamics
The private rented sector emerged as a major stumbling block. Tenants felt powerless to demand improvements, fearing rent increases or eviction. Landlords (although underrepresented in the workshop) were perceived as often unmotivated due to split incentives or lack of capital. Policy levers, such as the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES), were seen as necessary but potentially difficult to enforce without adequate support and tenant empowerment mechanisms. Social housing tenants also raised issues around communication, quality of work, and lack of choice in retrofit programmes delivered by housing associations.
Administrative burden
Even when willing, navigating application processes for grants, finding reputable installers, and managing the works were seen as significant deterrents, particularly for older residents or those who did not speak English as their first language, those with disabilities, or when juggling multiple life pressures.
Theme 3: working together, better
The evaluation data strongly corroborated observations regarding the positive impact of the workshop’s methodology on engagement and dialogue.
Enhanced communication and understanding
Participants across all sectors reported that the creative exercises provided a novel and engaging way to articulate and share perspectives. Visual methods helped to bypass technical language (jargon) and communicate complex feelings and ideas more directly, fostering empathy amongst the wider audience. One professional participant noted, ‘seeing someone draw their cold, damp living room was more impactful than reading a statistic about fuel poverty’.
Levelling participation
The creative format was perceived as less intimidating than traditional meeting formats. Community members reported feeling more comfortable contributing alongside professionals when using drawing or storytelling. It shifted the focus from formal knowledge to shared human experience and imagination, partially mitigating hierarchical dynamics. For many, it was their first time interacting directly with individuals from other sectors, in such a collaborative setting.
Fostering collaboration
Working together on a shared task in mixed groups encouraged collaboration rather than debate. It provided a common ground for identifying shared values (that is, the desire for healthy, comfortable homes) and sparked new ideas for solutions that integrated different perspectives (such as combining technical retrofit with community support networks).
Positive experience
The evaluation feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Participants described the workshop as ‘engaging’, ‘thought provoking’, ‘inspiring’, and ‘a refreshing change’. Participants valued the opportunity for open dialogue and cross-sectoral learning. The positive experience itself was seen as crucial for building momentum and willingness for future collaboration through potentially forming research–policy–practice partnerships.
Discussion
Findings from this workshop can offer valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of engaging communities in London’s net-zero home retrofit targets, particularly regarding the pursuit of a ‘just transition’. They underscore the limitations of purely technical or academic approaches and highlight the potential of creative, co-produced methods to foster more inclusive and effective pathways forward, towards the creation of research–policy–practice partnerships.
The workshop built upon previous literature highlighting the interconnection between retrofit and social justice concerns (Bouzarovski & Petrova 2015; Jenkins et al. 2021). The importance of immediate needs such as warmth, health and social care, and affordability, in community participants’ narratives highlighted that for many Londoners home retrofit is not primarily an environmental issue but a matter of basic well-being and financial survival, especially during a cost-of-living crisis (Middlemiss 2022). This reinforces the argument that framing retrofit solely around net zero and carbon reduction is unlikely to resonate widely with all communities in London and may obscure the potential co-benefits to some who are struggling to meet the most of basic of their needs (that is, health, comfort, reduced bills), which are often more pressing for these residents (Bone et al. 2010; Liddell & Guiney 2015; Sovacool & Dworkin 2015; Demski et al. 2017). Policy and communication strategies must address these tangible benefits while simultaneously progressing net-zero targets.
The findings also brought up the multifaceted barriers that go beyond simple cost savings. The pervasive lack of trust, complexity of navigating information and bureaucracy, and deeply entrenched power imbalances within the housing system (particularly the landlord–tenant relationship) align with existing research on barriers to energy efficiency uptake (Walker & Day 2012; Bolton et al. 2023). These social barriers require relational solutions, such as building trust, simplifying processes, providing tailored support, and empowering residents, which can often be overlooked in technologically focused retrofit programmes, policies, and research (Wise et al. 2025).
The findings provide evidence for the use of creative, co-produced engagement methods in navigating these complex social issues, as the workshop successfully brought together diverse stakeholders who rarely interact directly in such a collaborative format. This aligns with the principles of co-production and forming research–policy–practice partnerships, aiming to bridge divides between experiential, professional, and technical knowledge (Bovaird & Loeffler 2012; Nabatchi et al. 2017). The creative methods provided alternative modes of expression beyond verbal debate, potentially empowering those less confident in formal settings and allowing for emotional and imaginative dimensions of the issue to surface (Bagnoli 2009; Mannay 2010). This contributed to levelling the playing field between participants with different backgrounds and expertise, which are useful for forming research–policy–practice partnerships. Engaging with personal stories and collaboratively creating visual representations fostered empathy across sectoral divides, moving participants beyond policy goals or technical specifications to connect with the human implications of retrofit (Reason & Bradbury 2008; Pink 2012). The creative activity fostered a collaborative rather than adversarial dynamic, enabling groups to collectively identify problems and generate solutions that integrated diverse perspectives (Kagan et al. 2018). Evaluation findings highlighted the importance of the engagement experience itself. Enjoyable and meaningful participation can build social capital, foster goodwill, and increase willingness to engage in future initiatives (Chilvers & Longhurst 2016), which is crucial for building long-term regional research–policy–practice partnerships in this area, as well as the longer-term, sustained effort required for the ‘just transition’ to net zero in London.
Implications for research, policy, practice, and community engagement in London and beyond
The findings hold significant implications for research, policy, practice, and community engagement in London and beyond. Policy professionals may want to consider embedding co-production principles and building long-term research–policy–practice partnerships in the design and delivery of retrofit strategies and programmes. This requires genuine power-sharing, valuing lived experience alongside technical expertise, and involving diverse community representatives from the outset, perhaps recognising the value of, and allocating resources for, creative and relational engagement methods such as this. This includes allocating funding partnerships with community organisations and social enterprises skilled in facilitation and trust-building. One-off workshops, while holding value, are preferred by the community as part of a series of sustained engagement strategies. Research, policy, and practice must tackle the identified systemic barriers, particularly the landlord–tenant divide (through strengthened regulation, enforcement, and support mechanisms for both parties) and the complexity of information and processes (through simplification and targeted communication). Home retrofit policies need stronger integration with health, social care, and anti-poverty agendas to maximise co-benefits and reach vulnerable households effectively. Investment is needed in building capacity for co-production, creative engagement, and research–policy–practice partnerships among policy professionals, academic researchers, and community groups.
Strengths and limitations
This study provides an account of a co-designed innovative engagement practice. One key strength was the detailed exploration of a real-world approach that combined co-production principles with creative methods to offer practical insights. The focus on diverse participant perspectives, particularly community voices, addresses a common gap in retrofit literature. The targeted and final number of attendees (N = 40) was deemed by the authors as acceptable to reach a balance between information quantity and quality of diverse perspectives.
However, as the format was a single workshop, it was possible to gain cooperation from participants on the subject matter, but not possible to deal in-depth with lack of trust, social and economic differential strata, and the perennial problem of failure in governmental delivery compounded by agency incompetence. Therefore, the generalisability of the findings may be limited, and unfortunately, due to funding restrictions, this meant that further workshops to build on these findings were not possible within the scope of this project The specific dynamics were shaped by those participants who were in attendance, the facilitators’ skills, and the London context. Although efforts were made to recruit diversely, ensuring truly representative inclusion of all marginalised groups in London remains an ongoing challenge.
Conclusion
Achieving a ‘just transition’ to net zero through retrofitting London’s homes is a complex challenge that cannot solely be met through top-down imposition or purely technical solutions. This reflects the widespread failure in many aspects of achieving net-zero targets in the UK, and improvements across the entire process are needed. Meaningful engagement with diverse communities who live in these homes is key. This workshop demonstrates the significant potential of innovative community engagement approaches to foster much-needed co-operation, dialogue, trust, and collaboration. By bringing together communities and professionals in a carefully designed, creatively facilitated space, the workshop successfully surfaced the diverse priorities, lived experiences, and deep-seated barriers associated with home retrofit in London to start developing develop a targeted and relevant approach to building a research–policy–practice partnership to tackle the ‘just transition’ to net zero to collaborate around prioritising urgent research questions with policy and practice impact to include in a funding proposal. It highlighted the critical importance of addressing issues of affordability, health, trust, information accessibility, and tenure dynamics alongside technical objectives and policy targets. The use of creative methods proved highly effective in enhancing communication, levelling participation, fostering empathy, and enabling the collective generation of solutions grounded in real-world experience.
The positive evaluation findings from the workshop demonstrated that creative approaches can offer a pathway for moving beyond tokenistic consultation, towards building genuine research–policy–practice partnerships, enabling the development of retrofit policies, programmes, and academic research that are not only more effective in achieving net-zero targets, but are also fairer, more equitable, and better aligned with the needs and aspirations of London’s diverse communities and a ‘just transition’.
References
ArnsteinS.R. (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4): 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
BagnoliA. (2009), ‘Beyond the standard interview: the use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods’, Qualitative Research, 9(5): 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343625
BanksS., HartA., PahlK. & WardP. (eds) (2021), Co-producing Research: A Community Development Approach (Bristol, Policy Press).
BEIS (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) (2021), Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6194dfa4d3bf7f0555071b1b/net-zero-strategy-beis.pdf
BoltonE., BookbinderR., HallS., DavisM., OwenA. & MiddlemissL. (2023), ‘The relational dimensions of renovation: Implications for retrofit policy’, Energy Research and Social Science, 96: 102916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102916
BoneA., MurrayV., MyersI., DengelA. & CrumpD. (2010), ‘Will drivers for home energy efficiency harm occupant health? Perspectives in Public Health, 130(5): 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913910369092
BouzarovskiS. & PetrovaS. (2015), ‘A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary’, Energy Research & Social Science, 10: 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007
BovairdT. & LoefflerE. (2012), ‘From engagement to co-production: the contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value’, Voluntas, 23(4): 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6
BraunV. & ClarkeV. (2006), ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
BridgeG., BouzarovskiS., BradshawM. & EyreN. (2013), ‘Geographies of energy transition: space, place and the low-carbon economy’, Energy Policy, 53: 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066
BrownD. (2025), ‘Rethinking retrofit: relational insights for the design of residential energy efficiency policy’, Energy Research & Social Science, 120: 103863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103863
BulkeleyH., EdwardsG.A.S. & FullerS. (2014), ‘Contesting climate justice in the city: examining politics and practice in urban climate change experiments’, Global Environmental Change, 25: 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.009
Castán BrotoV. & BulkeleyH. (2013), ‘A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities’, Global Environmental Change, 23(1): 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005
Centre for London (2021), Countdown to Net Zero London. (Conference).
CharlesH., BouzarovskiS., BellamyR. & Gormally-SuttonA. (2025), ‘‘Although it’s my home, it’s not my house’ – exploring impacts of retrofits with social housing residents’, Energy Research & Social Science, 119: 103869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103869
ChilversJ. & LonghurstN. (2016), ‘Participation in transition(s): reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5): 585–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1110483
ClarkeS. & HoggettP. (eds) (2009), Researching Beneath the Surface: Psycho-social Research Methods in Practice (London, Karnac).
Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 (2019). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111187654
Committee on Climate Change (2020), Government response to the Committee on Climate Change: 2020 Progress Report to Parliament. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f8effd68fa8f56ad55124cd/government-response-to-ccc-progress-report-2020.pdf
CookeB. & KothariU. (eds) (2001), Participation: the New Tyranny? (London, Zed Books).
CornwallA. (2008), ‘Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices’, Community Development Journal, 43(3): 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010
DemskiC., CapstickS., PidgeonN., Gennaro SposatoR. & SpenceA. (2017), ‘Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses’, Climatic Change, 140(2): 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1837-4
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (2023), UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604460f91a320001a82b0fd/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-provisional-figures-statistical-release-2023.pdf
Devine-WrightP. (2009), ‘Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action’, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(6): 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004
DuroseC., NeedhamC., ManganC. & ReesJ. (2017), ‘Generating ‘good enough’ evidence for co-production’, Evidence & Policy, 13(1): 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14440619792955
EyreN. (2021), ‘From using heat to using work: reconceptualising the zero carbon energy transition’, Energy Efficiency, 14(7): 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-021-09982-9
FawcettT. & TopouziM. (2020), ‘Residential retrofit in the climate emergency: the role of metrics’, Buildings & Cities, 1(1): 475–490. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.37
FungA. (2006), ‘Varieties of participation in complex governance’, Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
GauntlettD. (2007), Creative Explorations: New Approaches to Identities and Audiences (London, Routledge). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961407
GeorgalakisJ. & RoseP. (eds) (2019), ‘Exploring research–policy partnerships in international development’, in IDS Bulletin, Volume 50(1). https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2019.103
GLA (Greater London Authority) (2022), London net zero 2030: an updated pathway. https://www.london.gov.uk/media/45902/download
GLA (Greater London Authority) (2023), Future of Participation event. https://www.london.gov.uk/events/future-participation
GuilleminM. & DrewS. (2010), ‘Questions of process in participant-generated visual methodologies’, Visual Studies, 25(2): 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2010.502676
HargreavesT. & MiddlemissL. (2020), ‘The importance of social relations in shaping energy demand’, Nature Energy, 5(3): 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0553-5
HeffronR.J. & McCauleyD. (2017), ‘The concept of energy justice across the disciplines’, Energy Policy, 105: 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.018
JasimS. (2024), #OvertonGrant: how can we build effective long-term regional research-policy-practice partnerships? [Blog] Overton. https://www.overton.io/blog/overtongrant-how-can-we-build-effective-long-term-regional-research-policy-practice-partnerships (Accessed 14 April 2025).
JenkinsD.M. & EndersbyL. (2019), ‘Leadership education: illuminating a community of practice’, New Directions for Student Leadership, 2019(164): 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20362
JenkinsK.E.H. (2021), ‘The methodologies, geographies, and technologies of energy justice: a systematic and comprehensive review’, Environmental Research Letters, 16(4): 43009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd78c
KaganS., HauerwaasA., HolzV. & WedlerP. (2018), ‘Culture in sustainable urban development: practices and policies for spaces of possibility and institutional innovations’, City, Culture and Society, 13: 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.09.005
KaganS., HauerwaasA., HelldorffS. & WeisenfeldU. (2020), ‘Jamming sustainable futures: assessing the potential of design thinking with the case study of a sustainability jam’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 251: 119595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119595
KaraH. (2015), Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide (Bristol, Policy Press). https://doi.org/10.56687/9781447320258
KindonS., PainR. & KesbyM. (2007), Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place, Volume 2, 1st edition (Oxford, Routledge). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671
LeavyP. (ed.) (2020), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition (New York, Oxford University Press). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.001.0001
LiddellC. & GuineyC. (2015), ‘Living in a cold and damp home: frameworks for understanding impacts on mental well-being’, Public Health, 129(3): 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2014.11.007
LRaPP (London Research & Policy Partnership) (2023), Researchers and Policymakers working together for a better London for everyone. University of London. https://www.london.ac.uk/london-research-and-policy-partnership (Accessed 25 March 2025).
MannayD. (2010), ‘Making the familiar strange: can visual research methods render the familiar setting more perceptible? Qualitative Research, 10(1): 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109348684
McCauleyD. & HeffronR. (2018), ‘Just transition: integrating climate, energy and environmental justice’, Energy Policy, 119: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.014
MiddlemissL. (2022), ‘Who is vulnerable to energy poverty in the Global North, and what is their experience? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 11(6): e455. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.455
NabatchiT., SancinoA. & SiciliaM. (2017), ‘Varieties of participation in public services: the who, when, and what of coproduction’, Public Administration Review, 77(5): 766–776.
NeedhamC. & CarrS. (2009), Co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation. https://lx.iriss.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/briefing31.pdf
NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) (2024), Payment guidance for researchers and professionals. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/payment-guidance-researchers-and-professionals
PestoffV. (2014), ‘Collective action and the sustainability of co-production’, Public Management Review, 16(3): 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841460
PinkS. (ed.) (2012), Advances in Visual Methodology (Los Angeles, SAGE). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250921
PutnamT. & BrownD. (2021), ‘Grassroots retrofit: community governance and residential energy transitions in the United Kingdom’, Energy Research & Social Science, 78: 102102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102102
RAFT (Retrofit Action For Tomorrow) (2024), Retrofit Engagement London Project. https://www.retrofitaction.org.uk/projects/retrofit-engagement-london
ReasonP. & BradburyH. (eds) (2008), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd edition (Los Angeles, SAGE). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934
Retrofit Balsall Heath (2025), Retrofit Balsall Heath. https://www.retrofitbalsallheath.org/ (Accessed 21 June 2025).
RosenowJ., GibbD., NowakT. & LowesR. (2022), ‘Heating up the global heat pump market’, Nature Energy, 7(10): 901–904. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01104-8
ShrubsoleC., MacmillanA. & MayN. (2014), ‘100 Unintended consequences of policies to improve the energy efficiency of the UK housing stock’, Indoor + Built Environment, 23(3): 340–352.
SovacoolB.K. (2021), ‘Reckless or righteous? Reviewing the sociotechnical benefits and risks of climate change geoengineering’, Energy Strategy Reviews, 35: 100656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100656
SovacoolB.K. & DworkinM.H. (2015), ‘Energy justice: conceptual insights and practical applications’, Applied Energy [Online], 142: 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.002
The Building Centre (2023), Retrofit Reimagined Festival 2023. https://www.buildingcentre.co.uk/whats_on/events/retrofit-reimagined-2023 (Accessed 21 July 2025).
The Building Centre (2025), Retrofit 25: what’s stopping us exhibition and events, Available at: https://www.buildingcentre.co.uk/whats_on/exhibitions/retrofit-25-whats-stopping-us (Accessed 21 July 2025).
UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) (2023), UKRI invests in policy innovation partnerships for local growth. https://www.ukri.org/news/ukri-invests-in-policy-innovation-partnerships-for-local-growth/
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2015), The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
WalkerG. & DayR. (2012), ‘Fuel poverty as injustice: integrating distribution, recognition and procedure in the struggle for affordable warmth’, Energy Policy, 49: 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.044
WiseF., GillichA. & PalmerP. (2025), ‘Retrofit information challenges and potential solutions: perspectives of households, retrofit professionals and local policy makers in the United Kingdom.’, Energy Research & Social Science, 119: 103866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103866
Cite
DOI: 10.5871/jba/014.a13
Published on: 9 June 2026
Volume: 14
Issue: Issue 2
Article view count: 185
Article download count: 9
Copyright statement
© The author(s) 2026. This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International LicenseCite this article
Jasim, S., Simms, J., Watson, A., Izquierdo, K., Qureshi, A., Cook, B., Reeves, M. & Rogers, B. (2026), ‘Imagining future homes: a creative community engagement workshop on retrofit to navigate the “just transition” to net zero’, Journal of the British Academy, 14(2): a13 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/014.a13Crossref
Dimensions
Altmetric
Article metrics
View count: 185
Download count: 9
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
Received
October 2022
Accepted
May 2023
Published
July 2023
Decolonising gender knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa: empirical insights and theoretical innovations from early career researchers—Introduction Alicia Bowman, Evelyn Garwe, Juliet Thondhlana
This article introduces the Thematic Collection ‘Decolonising Gender Knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa: Empirical Insights and Theoretical Innovations from Early Career Researchers’, edited by Alicia Bowman, Evelyn Garwe and Juliet Thondhlana. It highlights the under-representation of Global South scholars, particularly early career researchers (ECRs), in gender knowledge production in the region and advocates for grounding the study of gender in Africa in local realities and knowledge systems, in line with African feminist perspectives. Moreover, the article positions the collection as a powerful step towards decoloniality not simply by amplifying African perspectives, but by actively creating space for African scholars to shape the future of gender studies. The article discusses how the Thematic Collection fostered the co-production of knowledge by empowering African scholars to develop their own research questions and methodologies, free from Eurocentric constraints, thus promoting complete epistemic freedom. It also showcases the interdisciplinary nature of the Thematic Collection, spanning gender studies, higher education, and legal, labour, and urban studies. Overall, the introduction argues that, by centring the research of African ECRs, established power dynamics can be disrupted, and the dominance of Western-centric paradigms can be challenged.
18 September 2025
Young Palestinians’ struggles for accountability and participation: beyond formal systems and public resistance Laura Beckwith, Reem Talhouk, Owen Boyle, Maxine Mpofu, Inga Freimane, Fuad Trayek, Matt Baillie Smith
Young people worldwide are engaged in diverse forms of participation which offer a pathway for demanding accountability from governance actors. In contexts with fragile governance structures, young people face a unique set of challenges in their efforts to demand accountability or participate in decision-making. The expected relationship between participation and accountability as understood in liberal, democratic settings is often absent and instead demands for accountability are often made through strategies ‘at the margins’. Using Palestine as a case study, we show how young people look for accountability beyond state institutions and the national scale, using diverse strategies depending on their embedded position in society. This analysis sheds light on the complex reality of youth participation and accountability mechanisms in socially, politically and physically contested spaces and, by extension, points towards challenges and opportunities in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.
2 November 2023
No Data Found
