Search

Both mould growth and underheating in housing are widely recognised as health concerns, but the problematisation and handling of these issues varies greatly in different nations. In this paper we compare Danish and English understandings of mould and cold in homes. Drawing on Bacchi's ‘What is the problem represented to be?’ framework, we ask how mould is understood in the two national contexts by analysing how it is problematised in key national policy documents, uncovering the effects of these contrasting problematisations on the way in which mould is managed in rental housing. Following Bacchi's approach, we find that contrasting problematisations of mould lead to highly divergent management approaches, in turn shaping public health consequences for those living with mould and cold. While in Denmark mould is central to rental housing management, and considered an important issue in its own right, in England mould is seen as a by-product of under-heating as a result of fuel poverty. In Denmark, a discourse of poverty is suppressed, since mould is framed as a building issue rather than related to income inequality, while in England mould in buildings is not adequately addressed due to a strong focus on access to warmth. By showing how policy problematisations shape housing management, our work suggests the value of a critical approach to housing and energy policy, which has salience to contexts beyond the UK and Denmark. We finish by identifying the risks of these narrow problematisations, suggesting the productive possibility of tackling both mould and cold together.

Domestic properties make a significant contribution to carbon emissions and we must retrofit the majority of existing homes to reach net-zero. Nowhere is this task more challenging than in Multi-Owned Properties (MoPs), chiefly due to the difficulties of reaching an agreement between co-owners. Prevailing conceptualisations that treat individuals as discrete, isolated decision-makers are problematic in addressing the collective decision-making processes of MoPs. Drawing upon ideas from relational sociology, especially Zelizer’s concept of ‘relational work’, we argue that current retrofit policymaking unduly neglects those efforts to build relations of trust between parties and which underpin all economic transactions. We deploy two of Hargreaves and Middlemiss’ three types of social relations (intimacy and institutions) as an analytical framework to understand attitudes towards and experiences of renovation work in historic MoPs in south Glasgow, UK. We find that the increased relational work required to smooth relations between neighbours in an MoP is a barrier, but that more intimate relations between neighbours in MoPs can be supportive of renovation works. Furthermore, inadequately designed legislation inhibits renovations in MoPs, as it subjects householders to excessive relational work. To improve retrofit policymaking, we propose: 1) a model of MoP governance which balances owner engagement and professional administration; and, 2) transparent and accountable property managers, who are adequately supported to provide leadership in delivering MoP retrofit.