SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Siirt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

Retrofit Policies in Existing Building Stocks: The UK Experience and Policy Implications for Türkiye

Mevcut Yapı Stokunda Retrofit Politikaları: İngiltere Deneyimi ve Türkiye İçin Çıkarımlar

Esra Keskin(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2778-9024
Emine Baydan(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, GAYRİMENKUL GELİŞTİRME VE YÖNETİMİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-5564-8507
Pages
233–257
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

For Turkiye, a phased, context-sensitive model based on the transfer of principles and mechanisms is proposed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The climate crisis, energy supply security, and carbon neutrality targets have made reducing energy consumption in the built environment a central component of sustainability policies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Given the significant share of buildings in global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, the transformation of existing building stocks has emerged as a critical policy domain for achieving climate targets.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For Turkiye, a phased, context-sensitive model based on the transfer of principles and mechanisms is proposed.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Enerji minimizasyonu · retrofit · mevcut yapı stoku

Abstract

The climate crisis, energy supply security, and carbon neutrality targets have made reducing energy consumption in the built environment a central component of sustainability policies. Given the significant share of buildings in global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, the transformation of existing building stocks has emerged as a critical policy domain for achieving climate targets. In light of the limited impact of approaches focused solely on new construction, improving the energy performance of existing buildings is increasingly regarded as a more effective strategy. In this context, energy minimisation represents not only a technical efficiency objective but also a multi-layered transformation encompassing social, economic, and governance dimensions. This study examines approaches to energy minimisation in existing building stocks through a comparative analysis of the United Kingdom experience. Retrofit policies, EnerPHit/Passive House standards, and off-grid housing models are evaluated for scalability, policy integration, and governance capacity. Through qualitative analysis of policy documents, literature, and statistical data, the study compares the energy-saving potential and feasibility of different approaches. The findings suggest that there is no single “best solution” for energy minimisation; retrofit and deep renovation approaches should be considered as core policy tools, while off-grid approaches should be viewed as complementary solutions limited to rural settlements and post-disaster contexts. For Turkiye, a phased, context-sensitive model based on the transfer of principles and mechanisms is proposed.

Özet

İklim krizi, enerji arz güvenliği ve karbon nötrlüğü hedefleri, yapılı çevrede enerji tüketiminin azaltılmasını sürdürülebilirlik politikalarının temel unsurlarından biri hâline getirmiştir. Binaların küresel enerji tüketimi ve sera gazı emisyonlarındaki yüksek payı, özellikle mevcut yapı stoklarının dönüştürülmesini iklim hedeflerine ulaşmada kritik bir politika alanı olarak öne çıkarmaktadır. Yeni yapı üretimine odaklanan yaklaşımların sınırlı etkisi karşısında, mevcut yapıların enerji performansının iyileştirilmesi daha etkili bir strateji olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu kapsamda enerji minimizasyonu yalnızca teknik bir verimlilik hedefi değil, aynı zamanda sosyal, ekonomik ve yönetsel boyutları içeren çok katmanlı bir dönüşüm alanıdır. Bu çalışma, mevcut yapı stokunda enerji minimizasyonuna yönelik yaklaşımları İngiltere deneyimi üzerinden karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. Retrofit politikaları, EnerPHit/Passive House standartları ve off-grid konut modelleri; ölçeklenebilirlik, politika entegrasyonu ve yönetişim kapasitesi açısından değerlendirilmektedir. Politika belgeleri, literatür ve istatistiksel verilerin nitel analiziyle farklı yaklaşımların tasarruf potansiyeli ve uygulanabilirliği karşılaştırılmaktadır. Bulgular, enerji minimizasyonunda tek bir “en iyi çözüm” bulunmadığını; retrofit ve derin yenileme yaklaşımlarının temel politika araçları olarak, off-grid yaklaşımların ise kırsal yerleşimler ve afet sonrası bağlamlarla sınırlı tamamlayıcı çözümler olarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini önermektedir. Türkiye için ilke ve mekanizma transferine dayalı, kademeli ve bağlama duyarlı bir model önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Keskin, E., Baydan, E. (2026). Retrofit Policies in Existing Building Stocks: The UK Experience and Policy Implications for Türkiye. Siirt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 233–257. https://doi.org/10.53586/susbid.1898876

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Akın, C. T. ve Kaplan, S. (2019). Enerji kimlik belgelerinin enerji etkin mimari tasarım kriterleri açısından değerlendirilmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 10 (1), 373-384. https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.523911
  2. Alabid, J., Bennadji, A. ve Seddiki, M. (2022). A review on the energy retrofit policies and improvements of the UK existing buildings, challenges and benefits. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 159, 112161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112161
  3. Balamir, M. (2002). Painful steps of progress from crisis planning to contingency planning: Changes for disaster preparedness in Türkiye. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 10(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.00179
  4. Bastian, Z., Schnieders, J., Conner, W., Kaufmann, B., Lepp, L., Norwood, Z., Simmonds, A. ve Theoboldt, I. (2022). Retrofit with passive house components. Energy Efficiency, 15(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-021-10008- 7
  5. Bennadji, A., Seddiki, M., Alabid, J., Laing, R., ve Gray, D. (2022). Predicting energy savings of the UK housing stock under a step-by-step energy retrofit scenario towards net-zero. Energies, 15(9), 3082. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093082
  6. Boardman, B. (2007). Home truths: Low-carbon strategy to reduce UK housing emissions by 80% by 2050. University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute. https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023- 07/boardman07-hometruths.pdf
  7. Boardman, B. (2013). Fixing fuel poverty: challenges and solutions. Routledge.
  8. Bournas, D. A. (2018). Concurrent seismic and energy retrofitting of RC and masonry building envelopes using inorganic textile-based composites combined with insulation materials: A new concept. Composites Part B: Engineering, 148, 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.002
  9. Brown, D., Middlemiss, L., Davis, M., Bookbinder, R., Cairns, I., Hannon, M., Mininni, G., Brisbois, M.C., Owen, A., ve Hall, S. (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
  10. Cole, R. J. (2012). Regenerative design and development: current theory and practice. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.617516
  11. Committee on Climate Change (2019). UK Housing: Fit for the Future? London. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/UK-housing-Fit-for-the-future-CCC-2019.pdf
  12. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). (2022). Annual fuel poverty statistics in England. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-fuel-poverty-statistics-report-2022
  13. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). (2023). English housing survey 2022 to 2023: Headline report. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-housing-survey-2022-to-2023- headline-report
  14. Desvallées, L. (2022). Low-carbon retrofits in social housing: Energy efficiency, multidimensional energy poverty, and domestic comfort strategies in southern Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 85, 102413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102413
  15. Dowson, M., Poole, A., Harrison, D. ve Susman, G. (2012). Domestic UK retrofit challenge: Barriers, incentives and current performance leading into the Green Deal. Energy Policy, 50, 294-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.019
  16. Dünya Bankası (2025). Enerji Verimliliği: Uygun Maliyetli Enerjinin ve İşlerin Hızlandırılması. https://www.worldbank.org/tr/news/feature/2025/07/11/energy-efficiency-fast-tracking-affordable-energy- and-jobs
  17. Eren, F. (2014). The Urban Regeneration Experience of the United Kingdom: Lessons for Türkiye. Center for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN) Research Paper, 7.
  18. European Commission. (2024). Who’s energy poor in the EU? It’s more complex than it seems. https://joint- research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/whos-energy-poor-eu-its-more-complex-it-seems- 2024-09-25_en
  19. Feist, W., Schnieders, J., Dorer, V. ve Haas, A. (2005). Re-inventing air heating: Convenient and comfortable within the frame of the Passive House concept. Energy and Buildings, 37(11), 1186-1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.06.020
  20. Günşen, İ. ve Uçar, Ö. (2025). Nisan 2025 Elektrik Zammı Acil Bilgi Notu. Derin Yoksulluk Ağı. https://derinyoksullukagi.org/storage/posts/April2025/Eyk0XrkxpZh2BImGpW6w.pdf
  21. Hills, J. (2012). Getting the measure of fuel poverty. https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/casereport72.pdf.
  22. Home Builders Federation. (2023). Housing horizons: Examining UK housing stock in an international context. https://www.hbf.co.uk/documents/12890/International_Audit_Digital_v1.pdf
  23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate change 2023. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
  24. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2025). Energy Efficiency Policy Toolkit 2025. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-efficiency-policy-toolkit-2025/buildings
  25. KABEV (2026). Kamu Binalarında Enerji Verimliliği Projesi. https://www.kabev.org/
  26. Killip, G. (2013). Products, practices and processes: Exploring the innovation potential for low-carbon housing refurbishment among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK construction industry. Energy Policy, 62, 522-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.024
  27. Manfredi, V. ve Masi, A. (2018). Seismic strengthening and energy efficiency: Towards an integrated approach for the rehabilitation of existing RC buildings. Buildings, 8(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8030036
  28. Mohammadpourkarbasi, H., Riddle, B., Liu, C. ve Sharples, S. (2023). Life cycle carbon assessment of decarbonising UK’s hard-to-treat homes: A comparative study of conventional retrofit vs EnerPHit, heat pump first vs fabric first and ecological vs petrochemical retrofit approaches. Energy and Buildings, 296, 113353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113353
  29. Moreno-Rangel, A. ve Sharpe, T. (2024, June). Balancing energy-efficiency and health in retrofitted dwellings to the EnerPHit standard: achieving optimal indoor environmental quality. In PLEA 2024:(Re) Thinking Resilience, 1002-1007.
  30. Pitts, A. (2017). Passive house and low energy buildings: Barriers and opportunities for future development within UK practice. Sustainability, 9(2), 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020272
  31. Pohoryles, D. A., Maduta, C., Bournas, D. A. ve Kouris, L. A. (2020). Energy performance of existing residential buildings in Europe: A novel approach combining energy with seismic retrofitting. Energy and buildings, 223, 110024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110024
  32. Rosenow, J. ve Eyre, N. (2016). A post mortem of the Green Deal: Austerity, energy efficiency, and failure in British energy policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 21, 141-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.07.005
  33. Rossi, V. A., Howard, B. ve Wright, J. (2025). Fuel-poverty-constrained retrofit optimization: A socio-technical approach to decarbonising the UK building stock. Energy and Buildings, 116628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.116628
  34. Selçuk, İ. Ş., Gölçek, A. G. ve Köktaş, A. M. (2019). Energy Poverty in Türkiye. Sosyoekonomi, 27(42), 283-299. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2019.04.15
  35. Shin, D. H., Kim, S. H., Kim, J. H. ve Kim, S. (2022). Experimental analysis of low-cost energy retrofit strategies for residential buildings to overcome energy poverty. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 32, 101874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.101874
  36. Sovacool, B. K. (2014). What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.003
  37. Sut, G., Demirel, B. B. C. ve Takva, F. G. (2024). Renovation Strategies for Energy Conservation in Multi-Story Residential Buildings in Türkiye. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 14(5), 16135-16141. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.7962
  38. Senturk, A. ve Ozcan, M. (2024). Nearly zero energy building design and optimization: A residential building transformation in Türkiye. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 42(3), 997-1026. https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987231219765
  39. T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2020). Neredeyse sıfır enerjili binalar (nSEB) için rehber kitap. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/meslekihizmetler/icerikler/nseb_rehber--20201117075919.pdf
  40. T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı (2024). KABEV Projesi. https://kamuenerji.csb.gov.tr/kabev- projesi-110688
  41. T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. (2026). BEP-TR Yazılımı. https://cbs.csb.gov.tr/bep-tr- yazilimi-i-113516
  42. T.C. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı (2023). Türkiye enerji verimliliği strateji belgeleri. https://enerji.gov.tr/bilgi-merkezi-yayinlar-belgeler
  43. T.C. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye’nin Enerji Verimliliği 2030 Stratejisi ve II. Ulusal Enerji Verimliliği Eylem Planı. https://enerji.gov.tr/bilgi-merkezi-enerji-verimliligi-ulusal-enerji-verimliligi-eylem- plani
  44. Tozlu, S. (2025). Calibration of building energy simulation models for energy-efficient retrofitting: A residential case study in Samsun-Havza. International Journal of Energy Studies, 10(2), 595-617. https://doi.org/10.58559/ijes.1623553
  45. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK]. (2026). Yapı Ruhsatı İstatistikleri. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/? kn=135&locale=tr
  46. Twaha, S. ve Ramli, M. A. (2018). A review of optimization approaches for hybrid distributed energy generation systems: Off-grid and grid-connected systems. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41, 320-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.027
  47. UK Climate Change Committee. (2023). Progress in reducing emissions: 2023 report to Parliament. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2023-progress-report-to-parliament/
  48. Urge-Vorsatz, D., Petrichenko, K., Staniec, M. ve Eom, J. (2013). Energy use in buildings in a long-term perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(2), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.004
  49. Ürge-Vorsatz, D. ve Novikova, A. (2008). Potentials and costs of carbon dioxide mitigation in the world’s buildings. Energy Policy, 36(2), 642-661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.009
  50. Walker, G. ve Cass, N. (2007). Carbon reduction,’the public’and renewable energy: engaging with socio‐ technical configurations. Area, 39(4), 458-469. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40346067
  51. Welch, S., Obonyo, E. ve Memari, A. M. (2023). A review of the previous and current challenges of passive house retrofits. Building and Environment, 245, 110938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110938
  52. Zahiri, S. ve Elsharkawy, H. (2018). Towards energy-efficient retrofit of council housing in London: Assessing the impact of occupancy and energy-use patterns on building performance. Energy and Buildings, 174, 672-681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.07.010