Perceptions of a just transition in the built environment: Research Report

Overview of the Research Report

The Laudes Foundation, together with Demos Helsinki and communications agency 89up, produced a comprehensive research report on perceptions of a just transition in the built environment across Europe. The study was commissioned by the Laudes Foundation, an independent philanthropy focused on climate‑positive and inclusive economies. Authors Theo Cox, Jack Beckett, Julie Perrault and Ben Walker combined think‑tank analysis, stakeholder workshops, and large‑scale polling to map public and expert views on climate‑friendly housing and urban development.

Scope and Methodology

The research covered ten European countries—Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom—surveying a representative sample of 20,229 individuals (≈20 000 respondents). Participants were divided into a control group and three test groups, each exposed to one of three narrative frames: Pragmatic, Futurist or Insecurity. The survey measured both perception (agreement with narrative statements) and influence (changes in world‑view compared with the control group). Statistical analysis used ANOVA, chi‑square and effect‑size calculations, reporting only findings with p ≤ 0.05 and moderate or larger effect sizes.

Key Quantitative Findings

• Buildings account for roughly 40 % of Europe’s greenhouse‑gas emissions.
• 73 % of respondents across Europe agreed with the Pragmatic narrative, the highest overall agreement level.
• The Insecurity narrative proved most influential, shifting respondents’ answers in 31 %–53 % of cases depending on country, surpassing the Pragmatic influence (26 %–71 %).
• Country‑specific influence peaks: Czechia showed 71 % influence for Pragmatic, Spain 38 % for Futurist, and Italy 37 % for Insecurity.
• Demographic patterns: the Pragmatic narrative resonated most with respondents aged 40+ and homeowners; the Insecurity narrative strongly affected younger (18‑40) tenants; the Futurist narrative had limited impact but appealed to some elite, tech‑oriented groups.
• Political orientation mattered: left‑leaning participants were generally more receptive to all narratives, while right‑leaning respondents showed lower overall influence.

Narrative Themes and Their Impact

• Pragmatic – Emphasises incremental, common‑sense actions such as retrofitting, using existing assets and improving health, community and equity. It increased support for policies on equal housing space, government‑led insulation for low‑income households, and modest urban densification.
• Futurist – Projects a high‑tech, “smart‑city” future with AI‑driven transport, solar panels and heat pumps. While it attracted enthusiasm for ambitious climate goals, respondents questioned its practicality and cost, and it was least persuasive among older and less affluent groups.
• Insecurity – Highlights personal and societal risks (energy price spikes, war in Ukraine, housing shortages) and calls for urgent, decisive action. It drove the strongest shifts in attitudes toward energy security, climate urgency and the need for a “new deal” on housing, especially among younger tenants and centrist voters.

Issue Areas Influenced by Narratives

• Social Equity – Pragmatic messaging boosted agreement on redistributive measures (richer owners contributing more to retrofits).
• Climate Action – Insecurity narrative raised concern about energy use and climate‑related security, while Futurist spurred interest in renewable technologies.
• Economic Concerns – Insecurity and Pragmatic frames linked housing policy to broader economic stability, influencing views on taxation, debt and inflation.
• Health & Urban Planning – Pragmatic and Futurist narratives increased support for greener, walkable neighborhoods and improved air quality.
• Housing Supply – All narratives reinforced the need for more affordable, energy‑efficient homes, with Insecurity stressing immediate action to prevent displacement.

Audience Personas Identified

Three main persona groups emerged:

1. Civic Homeowners – Older, cross‑political homeowners focused on equitable housing, social justice and burden‑sharing.
2. Something Must Be Done‑ers – Younger (18‑40) tenants, politically centrist, driven by climate, economic and health concerns, seeking rapid policy response.
3. Older Progressives – Age 40+ left‑leaning individuals, especially in Spain, prioritizing systemic change, education, employment and security issues.

Implications for Sustainable Housing Policy

The report underscores that a one‑size‑fits‑all communication strategy will miss key segments. Pragmatic framing works best with established homeowners and older voters, while Insecurity resonates with younger renters and those feeling immediate economic pressure. Futurist narratives can mobilise tech‑savvy stakeholders but require concrete feasibility evidence to overcome cost skepticism. Policymakers and NGOs should tailor messages to these audiences, combine incremental retrofitting programs with clear, rapid‑action plans, and leverage the identified public‑opinion levers—energy security, housing affordability and health benefits—to accelerate a just transition in Europe’s built environment.