Why Are We Not Renovating More An Elaboration of The Wicked Problem of Renovating Apartment Buildings

Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/gcee20
Why are we not renovating more? An elaboration

of the wicked problem of renovating apartment
buildings
Rikard Sundling & Henrik Szentes
To cite this article: Rikard Sundling & Henrik Szentes (2021) Why are we not renovating more?
An elaboration of the wicked problem of renovating apartment buildings, Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems, 38:3, 197-221, DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1969371
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1969371
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 22 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1791
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcee20
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
2021, VOL. 38, NO. 3, 197–221
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1969371
Why are we not renovating more? An elaboration of the

wicked problem of renovating apartment buildings
Rikard Sundling and Henrik Szentes
Construction Management, Lunds universitet, Lund, Sweden
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A large proportion of apartment buildings in Europe were built Received 17 January 2021
between 1950 and 1990 and many of them are today in need of Accepted 13 August 2021
renovation due to inherently poor quality of design, a lack of
KEYWORDS
subsequent maintenance and the present-day imperative of Renovation; wicked
energy-efficiency. The limited extent of renovation compared problems; property
with new-build projects suggests that developers find renovation development
unattractive. The purpose of this paper is to examine this
reluctance by applying the theory of wicked problems. The paper
discusses the wickedness of various aspects when doing
feasibility assessments of renovation projects in a Swedish
context, such as technical viability, financial viability, and
environmental performance. The results show that most of these
aspects are wicked and that attempts to manage the wickedness
of renovation require both skill and knowledge, not to inflict
harmful effects. For instance, it is necessary to do case-by-case
assessments to determine if renovation is feasible. When
planning for the renovation of several apartment buildings the
complexity increases, because more stakeholders are involved.
However, this also enables incremental approaches, continuous
learning, and local adaptations. The insight that renovation is a
wicked problem is important input for future research on
renovation as well as for property owners when considering
renovation.
Introduction
In many European countries, a large proportion of the existing building stock is in need of
renovation (Artola et al. 2016), of which a majority are apartment buildings built between
1950 and 1990, most often with a concrete frame and façade elements in concrete or
bricks (Boverket 2010). Additionally, most of them lack insulation meaning that the
energy performance of these buildings is explicitly poor (Energimyndigheten 2017a). In
many cases, the need for renovation stems from deteriorating building elements and
engineering systems (Martinaitis, Rogoža, and Bikmanien 2004) and poor maintenance
(Venus and Höfler 2017). This has proven to be true in Sweden, especially with respect
to the so-called million homes programme that ran between 1960 and 1970 at a rapid
CONTACT Rikard Sundling rikard.sundling@construction.lth.se

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
198 R. SUNDLING AND H. SZENTES
pace to solve a shortage of residential buildings (Socialdepartementet 1961; Inrikesde-

partmentet 1965). It is estimated that about 60% of the existing buildings in Sweden
need renovation (Mangold 2016) and this includes the need to substantially increase
their energy-efficiency. This is supported by Häkkinen (2007) who highlights that contin-
ued renovation and refurbishment are necessary for sustainable development. In this
paper, the term renovation refers to a package of measures aiming for significant exten-
sion of the lifespan of apartment buildings and their technical systems.
The residential sector accounts for about 25% of the total energy use in the European
Union (Eurostat 2018) and, for instance, 23% of the total energy use in Sweden (Energi-
myndigheten 2017b). Since many existing apartment buildings suffer from poor energy
performance (Venus and Höfler 2017), there is an opportunity to renovate them, thus
making them more energy efficient. There has been extensive research on the topic of
renovation in general, and energy-efficient renovation in particular. The potential
energy-savings from renovation are highlighted by, for example Keoleian, Blanchard,
and Reppe (2000), who show that it is possible to reduce energy use by up to 60%. Simi-
larly, Morelli et al. (2012) show that, in their study of an apartment building, energy-
savings of 68% were possible. Moreover, in a national study of 31 renovated apartment
buildings, Högdal (2013) shows that renovation could reduce energy use by 30% to
82%, depending on the state of the building before renovation and the developer’s will-
ingness to invest in energy-saving measures.
In addition to insights as regard potential energy-savings, the abovementioned studies
present technically viable solutions for renovation. Although the studies raise some con-
cerns regarding financing and how to decide on technical viable renovation concepts, it is
argued that in most cases, it is possible to make the necessary assessments and calcu-
lations to define a viable business case with a corresponding suitable technical
concept. It is therefore strange that many existing apartment buildings in need of renova-
tion still have not been renovated. A reasonable assumption would be that aspects other
than technical and financial concerns influence decision-making and the implementation
of renovation, or that there are more to the technical and financial concerns in need of
further elaboration. Previous research has for instance highlighted societal changes
(Smith and Williams 2013), policy issues (Rosol 2013), tensions between stakeholders
(Martínez Àvila 2018) and the expected long lifespan for apartment buildings (Ott et al.
2014), as reasons for a reluctance to renovate.
When probing these and other aspects further, it becomes clear that deciding on
initiation of a renovation project is, in many respects, a so-called wicked problem
(Rittel and Webber 1973), i.e. a problem that is impossible to solve since it develops
and reshapes when new attempts to solve it are implemented. Similar effects of wicked
problems in an urban context are described by Colding, Barthel, and Sörqvist (2019), con-
cluding that the integration of digital and automated systems in cities does not necess-
arily lead to sustainable development. Similarly, as will be discussed later, this
conclusion also holds true to renovation of apartment buildings.
The aim of this paper is therefore to provide a better understanding of the wickedness
of decisions to initiate renovation of apartment buildings and to elaborate on how this
wickedness could be managed. This is done in a three-step process. First, by assessing
several different problematic aspects of renovation. Second, by addressing previous
attempts to manage these problematic aspects of renovation. Finally, by discussing
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 199
different approaches to manage wicked problems and how well these approaches apply
to the renovation of apartment buildings. With the benefit of insights provided by Alves-
son (2008), the research which underpins each step are assessed from a critical manage-
ment theory perspective, meaning that alternative perspectives (often critical or negative)
are used for the purpose of assessing unintentional effects and developments of manage-
ment. The expectation is that it will provide an improved understanding of the phenom-
enon for researchers as well as for practitioners when determining the viability of
renovation projects.
The paper continues with a methodology section, where the more conceptual nature
and approach of this paper is presented. This is then followed by an explanation of the
theory of wicked problems. Later each of the steps of the previously explained process
are examined. The paper then ends with conclusions and suggestions for further research.
Methodology
This paper is conceptual in the sense that it is derived from reflections over time about
renovation rather than on specific empirical findings. As argued by Gilson and Gold-
berg (2015) a good conceptual paper typically focuses on integration of ideas and pro-
posing new relationships, as will be done later with renovation and wicked problems.
Hence, after conducting empirical research on how to best implement renovation of
apartment buildings from a technical and financial perspective, reflexivity in terms
of subsequent reflective and questioning discussions (Alvesson and Sköldberg
2009), outlined the insight that there are also other aspects influencing the decision
making. Thus, that it would be of interest to investigate why decisions to renovate
are not taken rather than further investigate how to do it in a technically and finan-
cially optimal way.
This way of turning the question around is related to the field of critical management
studies (Alvesson 2008). The goal of critical management studies is to, as the name might
suggest, study the effects of management from a critical (sometime arguable a negative)
perspective, typically also taking the weaker part’s side in the discussion. The role of criti-
cal management studies is partly to de-naturalise management, i.e. to question traditional
managerial norms (Grey and Willmott 2005). By questioning traditional managerial norms
the goal of critical management studies is to reform management systems so that more
effort can be put on increasing effectivity and performance (Spicer, Alvesson, and Kärre-
man 2009). Thus, by studying renovation of apartment buildings from a more critical per-
spective it might be possible to identify flaws and issues that can thereafter be improved
upon.
Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to study renovation of apartment buildings
from a critical management perspective in an attempt to identify areas for further
research and development. Although there is no specified research process for this
type of questioning studies, Alvesson and Kärreman (2011) suggest five methodological
principles that might support the identification and study of new perspectives: (de-)frag-
mentation, defamiliarization, problematization, broad scholarship and reflexive critique.
These principles have served as inspiration to the three-step process used in this study.
(1) Identify and assess problematic aspects of the renovation of apartment buildings,
(2) Identify and address previous attempts to manage these problematic aspects of
renovation,
(3) Discuss how wicked problem management strategies can apply to the renovation of
apartment buildings.
The first step mainly focus on the principles of (de-)fragmentation and defamiliariza-
tion. This is achieved by several aspects of renovation instead of focusing on one or
two aspects and by focusing on the flaws within each aspect. Step two and three
mainly focus on problematization and reflexive critique. Here possible solutions to the
earlier highlighted aspects and wicked problem management strategies were addressed
for the purpose of, in turn, identifying flaws within these.
By viewing renovation from a critical management perspective, it quickly became
apparent that renovation of apartment buildings is coupled to several problems that
seem unsolvable. These problems will be specifically elaborated on in a common
chapter; but a common example is that developers typically finance renovation by
increasing rent, which might cause some tenants to move (e.g. Sundling, Blomsterberg,
and Landin 2019). This problem is not easy to solve, because how are developers otherwise
supposed to finance the renovation?, and without renovation the building will deteriorate,
leave the tenants without proper living space and the developers will lose their invest-
ment. Reading about these types of problems lead to the theory of ‘wicked problems’
(Rittel and Webber 1973), as a possible way to better understand the complexity of sim-
ultaneously dealing with different sometimes-interrelated aspects of renovation.
Lönngren and Van Poeck (2021) have identified three rhetorical functions that the
wicked problem theoretical concept can be used for: either as a descriptive/analytic
tool, a sensitizing/creative tool, or a critical/emancipatory tool. In this paper the wicked
problem concept is first used as a descriptive/analytic tool, as it is assessed whether reno-
vation of apartment buildings can be considered wicked or not. This is mainly done by
examining several aspects of renovation and if these aspects individually can be con-
sidered wicked. As well as, comparing the ten characteristics of wicked problems to reno-
vation of apartment buildings, these ten characteristics are described in the next chapter
on wicked problems. Later, the wicked problem concept is used as a critical/emancipatory
tool when discussing prior attempts to manage the wickedness of renovation. The basis
for this discussion is that these prior attempts does not take in to consideration that reno-
vation is a wicked problem, and even though promising, these prior attempts therefore
fall short. However, the overarching goal of this paper is meant to be a point of reflection
by highlighting some of the challenges that renovation of apartment buildings typically
faces. Thus, it can be argued that the wicked problem concept is mainly used as a sensi-
tizing/creative tool. Wicked problems have an evocative nature, and since the related
theory is not clearly defined it opens up for a more open-ended research approach
(Lönngren and Van Poeck 2021).
Wicked problems
Alford and Head (2017) defines wicked problems as problems that are ‘complex, intract-
able, open-ended, unpredictable’. However, further defining what a wicked problem is
not as simple as one would think, this is because a wicked problem is, in its very
nature, hard to define. In their seminal paper, Rittel and Webber (1973) provide some gui-
dance by presenting ten characteristics of a wicked problem:
(1) There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem

(2) Wicked problems have no stopping rule
(3) Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad
(4) There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem
(5) Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’ because there is no
opportunity to learn by trial and error; every attempt counts significantly
(6) Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of
potential solutions, neither is there a well-described set of permissible operations
that might be incorporated into the plan
(7) Every wicked problem is essentially unique
(8) Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem
(9) The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in
numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s
resolution
(10) The planner has no right to be wrong
Over the years, several scholars have argued over how many of the characteristics that
must be met for a problem to be considered wicked. However, scholars such as Peters
(2017) and Alford and Head (2017) argue that the term wicked problem has been
stretched beyond what was originally intended. As highlighted by Peters (2017), one
can easily be fooled into thinking that just because a problem is difficult it must be
wicked; however, this is not always the case. Alford and Head (2017) argue that a
wicked problem is a problem where neither problem nor solution is clear and the
problem should be concerning multiple parties with conflicting values and interests.
According to Crowley and Head (2017), the purpose of the original paper by Rittel and
Webber was to criticise how science and engineering came to influence the more
social aspects of society, such as urban planning.
In order to further understand what a wicked problem is, it can be useful to define the
opposite; that is, a tame problem. Rittel and Webber (1973) define a tame problem as
having a beginning and an end, with a limited set of rules, and which can be solved by
a single solution. They highlight the game of chess as a typical example of a tame
problem. There are a number of rules regarding how the game can be played and
although chess is a complicated game, these rules limit the number of possible solutions
to the problem. This means that it is possible in theory to master all aspects of the game. A
wicked problem on the other hand, lacks fixed rules and can therefore not be solved in a
linear fashion, this is because solutions to wicked problems takes place in a real world
context (Coyne 2005). As a consequence, the problem evolves as attempted solutions
are implemented, since the rules either do not exist or can be changed (Rittel and
Webber 1973). This means that there is no ultimate test of the validity of a solution to
a wicked problem (Coyne 2005).
Moreover, wicked problems are systemic and cannot be isolated. An attempt to solve a
wicked problem can lead to benefits for one or several stakeholders, but always at the
expense of the others. A typical wicked problem is that of urban planning. For example,
Yildiz, Kivrak, and Arslan (2017) highlight a wide range of aspects that need to be con-
sidered regarding sustainable urban renewal, each aspect is essentially a professional
field on its own. Similarly, sustainable urban renewal is thus a multidimensional
problem that cannot be solved through simple means without upsetting stakeholders.
Moreover, according to Rittel and Webber (1973) the most crucial aspect of a wicked
problem is the human aspect, since wickedness is a reflection of the diversity of the sta-
keholders involved. This is demonstrated in a paper by Heuts and Mol (2013), in which
they report on searching for the answer to the simple question: ‘what is a good
tomato?’ In their efforts to identify what makes a tomato good, they quickly realise
that there are different aspects of valuing a tomato and conclude that the answer
depends on whom they are asking. The same can be said about a solution to any
wicked problem; it is seldom a question of true or false, rather it is a question of
whether or not a solution is assessed as good or bad by different stakeholders.
Blockley (2013) argues that ontology is epistemology, the insights from this discussion
can further our understanding of wicked problems. Blockley (2013) argues that it is merely
human arrogance that we think we can study how phenomena are for real with our scien-
tific methods, rather we can only study phenomena that we know, perceive and can
manage; in other words, there are many more unknown unknowns which we have yet
to find out. Thus, rather than seeing engineering as a mean for trying to solve wicked pro-
blems, engineering is perhaps best viewed as an explorative field where research and
practice blend.
More specifically in the context of construction management, Olsson (2007) concluded
that traditional risk management is flawed, since it focuses more on tame problems and
leaves wicked problems aside. Thus, highlighting the need to address wicked problems in
construction in a more meaningful way.
According to Crowley and Head (2017), the continued research on wicked problems
does have a promising future and that significant contributions still lay ahead. For
example, they highlight that there is a need to study solutions-oriented empirical
research, elaborate on the efficacy of professional expertise and the role of politics in
society. All topics that have been elaborated on in this paper, within the context of
renovation.
Addressing wicked problems

There have been prior attempts to address wicked problems in different settings. For
instance, Buchanan (1992) argues that design thinking and decision-making is not a
simple, linear process. Instead, the actual sequence of design is indeterminate. Addition-
ally, there is no preferred design process, because each design must be adapted to a
specific context. Design problems are therefore wicked, since it is up to the designer to
discover those factors to consider and invent solutions to the problem in its context
(Buchanan 1992). The main challenge for the designer is to create a solution without
knowing the final result. Coyne (2005) offers an interesting critique here, arguing that
wicked problems are not new to designers; instead, wicked problems are the norm and
have always been the norm as far as design is concerned. Coyne (2005) argues that
designers are already addressing this wicked problem by adapting to the situation
using rules, goals and calculations. Blockley (2013) provides further insights here, high-
lighting that systems thinking has emerged as an approach to deal with wicked problems.
The open-ended tactic that is at the heart of systems thinking allows people with many
different backgrounds and expertise to come together and identify more holistic
solutions.
Horn and Weber (2007) argue that one way to address a wicked problem is to accept to
its cyclic nature, which is also key for designers. Adapting and changing the initial design
over several cycles, where critique and feedback can be fed to the designer, will likely
yield a better result.
Roberts (2000) proposes using a network approach that would lead to three possible
types of measures for solving wicked problems. First, if power is not dispersed then
authoritative measures could be used. The purpose of authoritative measures is to
tame the problem; however, this introduces negative consequences, although the
benefits are that the authorities can tame the problem to best suit the long-term interests
of most stakeholders. Second, if power is both dispersed and contested then competitive
measures would be suitable. Competitive measures are meant to increase the liberty of
organisations, so that they can attempt to outcompete their competitors. Third, if the
power is dispersed, but not contested, collaborative measures could be beneficial. The
purpose of collaborative approaches is, unlike competitive measures, to increase partici-
pation amongst the stakeholders and to share the profits. Even so, it is not obvious what
the collaborative measures entail or who is meant to be involved in such collaboration.
In order to explain the lack of research specifically aimed at solving wicked problems,
Batie (2008) points out that research that addresses problem complexity tends to avoid
advocating specific solutions to problems. This is because of the value conflicts and the
high uncertainty this sort of research would involve. Batie (2008) argues, therefore, that
it is necessary to find new ways to approach research into wicked problems. Unfortu-
nately, not many researchers or funders are willing to invest time and money in solutions
to wicked problems.
Aspects of renovation
In this chapter, six key aspects of renovation of apartment buildings will be examined in
order to identify if they fulfil any the different wicked problem characteristics. As men-
tioned in the methodology, the wicked problems concept is used here as a descriptive/
analytic tool, as suggested by Lönngren and Van Poeck (2021), in order to establish if
renovation of apartment buildings as a whole is a wicked problem or not. The different
aspects to consider when renovating apartment buildings elaborated on in this paper
are technical viability, financial viability, environmental performance, urban environment,
tenant behaviour and current policies – see Figure 1. This section comprises short descrip-
tions of each of them.
Technical viability
Renovations are technically challenging endeavours that involve diverse topics, and one
of the most common issues to deal with in a renovation is the handling of moisture due to
changed physical conditions and properties when mixing old and new design solutions
Figure 1. Aspects influencing apartment building renovation.
and materials. For example, Sandberg, Orskaug, and Andersson (2016) highlight that one
of the most cost-effective methods for façade renovation – plaster on insulation – is prone
to moisture problems. In this section, problems related to moisture will be elaborated on as
a demonstration and example of technical viability in renovation in general.
Moisture can have a negative impact on indoor air quality. For example, Taskinen et al.
(1999) found evidence to support the claim that respiratory infections can be caused by
the mould that grows in humid conditions, such as kitchens. Moreover, Hameed, Yasser,
and Khoder (2004) found that renovations release high concentrations of particles into
the air, which include fungal spores distributed as a consequence of construction work.
If moisture is then introduced, the spores can lead to mould which, in turn, can give
rise to health problems for tenants and other users. Accordingly, it is essential that moist-
ure-related risks are addressed when deciding on renovation projects as well as during
execution.
In a study of the renovation of an old heritage building, Harrestrup and Svendsen
(2015) show that it is possible both to reduce energy use and avoid moisture-related pro-
blems. One of the success criteria was to prioritise moisture avoidance above energy-
savings. Although an energy-reduction of about 50% was still achieved, this prioritisation
did mean lower energy-savings than what was technically possible. On a similar note,
Sandberg, Orskaug, and Andersson (2016) show that it was possible to use prefabricated
timber façades without introducing moisture-related problems, such as condensation,
and identified several success criteria for this purpose. For example, prefabrication is ben-
eficial since it eliminates the likelihood of onsite weather problems during the production
of the elements and fast onsite installation of the elements reduces the risk of moisture-
related problems. Additionally, these systems have few thermal bridges that further
reduce the risk of moisture. Simulations by Sandberg, Orskaug, and Andersson (2016)
showed that if the work were executed correctly, there would be no such problems.
Is technical viability wicked?

Altogether, it seems as if the technical challenges of renovation are tame in their nature.
The problem is definable, the effects of moisture in buildings are well known and there is
research to support these assertions. All moisture-related problems have a beginning,
which in many cases are identifiable, and the problems end when the source is addressed.
Since mould can produce toxins, which can have harmful effects, moisture-related pro-
blems are undoubtedly important and solving them requires both knowledge and skill.
Thus, it takes expert knowledge to determine the right balance between minimising
energy use and moisture (Harrestrup and Svendsen 2015). Since there are solutions to
avoid moisture and address existing moisture problems, technical viability in this sense
is solvable. In their paper about energy-efficiency, Thollander, Palm, and Hedbrant
(2019) argue that it is not the technology or the processes that is wicked. Rather it is
the actors who are using, designing and maintaining the technology that bring about
wickedness.
Financial viability
Studies have shown that identifying financially viable concepts is not easy and requires
both planning and optimisation. For example, in the six cases studied by Venus and
Höfler (2017), many of the known technical means for reaching a low-energy use building
were very costly and, thus not financially viable. Olsson, Malmqvist, and Glaumann (2015)
found that financial and not technical aspects were the main barriers concerning the
implementation of renovation. Additionally, Sundling, Blomsterberg, and Landin
(2019a) show that renovations might necessitate further measures to achieve financial
viability. In fact, the only financially viable option was to combine renovation with a ver-
tical extension of the existing building in order to increase the rentable area. On a similar
note, but regarding new development, Vyas, Jha, and Rajhans (2019) conclude that costs
are the main barrier for sustainable development.
According to Feenberg (2017), there is a problem regarding how much trust can be
placed on empirical evidence, since empirical studies can be used to serve the interests
of dominant stakeholders. Feenberg (2017) notes that empirical data is today more
valued than the experience of experts, even when those experts base their critique on rel-
evant experience and knowledge. An example of the sensitivity of empirical data can be
found in Sundling et al. (2019), where it was shown that just a tiny change in the annual
cost of energy could turn a financially viable renovation into a loss. This means that a posi-
tive assessment of the energy-savings and energy price changes will show that more
renovations concepts are viable, while a negative assessment will show fewer. Even so,
it is unlikely that such analysis will be correct, given the estimated lifespan of 60 years,
but should be at least indicative and useful for the purpose of comparison.
According to Ott et al. (2014), buildings typically have long service lives and affect the
urban environment for many decades, which is why financial analyses should reflect these
long lifespans. Unfortunately, the lifespans used by developers in their assessments are
mostly much shorter. Indeed, Farsäter et al. (2015) note that developers usually have
30-year plans at best. This further narrows the amount of viable renovation options,
since a longer service life would increase the long-term benefits.
Is financial viability wicked?

In light of the above, the characteristics of a wicked problem do at least partly apply to
financial viability. There is no consensus on what makes a renovation concept financially
viable or not. While one could argue that this is just an effect of the free markets, this lack
of consensus can entail that some buildings are renovated and maintained while others
are operated until they are beyond repair. On a similar topic, whether or not a technical
solution is financial viability will largely determine if it is implemented or not. Thus, if a
developer does not consider the whole lifecycle of the building, short-term solutions
might be prioritised despite other more costly solutions being more beneficial in the
long-term. Another partly wicked aspect is that there is no limit to the number of analyses
that can be undertaken in the search for a financially viable concept. Each renovation
concept, even with minor differences between them, has a unique impact on the
financial analyses, which will make it impossible to find the optimal solution from a
financial perspective. However, it should be noted that one can identify financially
viable concepts, but never the optimal one. Nonetheless, the effects of non-viable reno-
vations, or attempts to force financial viability, can have serious consequences, often
linked to many other aspects of renovation elaborated on in this paper.
Environmental performance
Although renovations can significantly reduce energy use, they do not necessarily reduce
all negative factors relating to environmental performance. Nevertheless, non-renewable
energy, greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy will be the focus here to demon-
strate the wickedness of environmental performance. Sundling, Blomsterberg, and Landin
(2019a) show, that depending on what environmental metric is measured, more compre-
hensive renovation concepts can be assessed to perform just as well as a moderate reno-
vation concept. In this study, the most comprehensive renovation concept would have a
similar net impact on non-renewable energy use as the code-compliant renovation
concept. In addition, Gustafsson et al. (2016) show that the concepts involving higher
levels of renovation decreased total non-renewable energy over a 30-year lifespan;
however, they also show that the share of non-renewable energy increased in the
higher renovation levels. This increased share of non-renewable energy might possibly
result in higher total non-renewable energy in the concepts involving higher levels of
renovation if longer lifespans were considered. When focusing on greenhouse gas emis-
sions, the concepts covering higher levels of energy-efficiency were preferred. This high-
lights a problem regarding which environmental performance factor is considered the
most important and who makes that decision.
Moreover, Nilsson (now Sundling) (2017) found that the choice of energy source made
a huge difference to environmental performance. Four energy sources were studied: oil,
gas, electricity and district heating. The results show how different energy sources for
heating can significantly alter environmental performance, even though the same reno-
vation concept applies. For example, the heating systems using electricity and district
heating performed far better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than those using
gas or oil, regardless of the renovation concept with which it was paired. On the other
hand, from a primary energy perspective, electricity was by far the worst performer,
using about five times more primary energy compared to the district heating alternative.
This shows that the simplest measure to reduce impact is changing the energy source to
district heating and that changing to other sources even in combination with energy-
saving renovation measures can result in a poor outcome. An alternative investment strat-
egy to renovations could therefore be to invest in renewable-energy sources; however,
the production of solar panels is, for instance, not impact free since materials still have
to be mined, manufactured, transported and installed (Turney and Fthenakis 2011; Her-
nandez et al. 2014).
Is environmental performance wicked?

Thus, from the perspective of a wicked problem, assessments of environmental perform-
ance suffer from the same characteristics as financial viability, with the addition of mul-
tiple-factor selection. Essentially, this is what solidifies environmental performance as a
wicked problem because there are many performance factors that ought to be minimised;
however, a lack of consensus regarding which factors to prioritise means that it is up to
the stakeholders assessing the renovation concepts to determine what they believe is
important.
Urban environment
People generally prefer to live within areas with specific conditions similar to those
where they live now. Schmidt-Thomé et al. (2013) use a map-based internet question-
naire survey to show that people generally prefer population and building density
levels similar to those they currently experience. On a similar note, Kyttä et al.
(2013) show that, in denser urban areas, people are generally more open to densifica-
tion compared to people living in less dense areas. In other words, by renovating and
changing the building and perhaps the surrounding buildings the living conditions are
changed, which might be better for society in general but often not for the existing
residents.
Gentrification is the rehabilitation of low-income neighbourhoods and their transform-
ation by the middle and upper classes (Smith and Williams 2013). Engels (1873, from
reprint 1970) argues that no matter what the reason is for changing the urban environ-
ment through capitalist incentives, be it building new roads or railways to increase mobi-
lity or renovating old houses to increase living standards, such initiatives do not solve the
underlying problems. Instead, the problems of inequality and poverty are merely shifted
elsewhere. Engels (1873) claims that the bourgeoisie only have one way of solving
housing questions and that is by doing it in such a fashion that the solution renews
the question. Harvey (2008) agrees with this argument, noting that this ‘creative destruc-
tion’ has a class-based dimension since it is those who are poor and underprivileged who
are marginalised to make room for the new elite. Atkinson (2004) argues that there is
enough research evidence to suggest that gentrification is, to a significant extent, a

process driven by capital accumulation interests, the results of which does lead to the
breaking-up and displacement of poorer communities.
Although local residents might be negative towards changes in their urban environ-
ment, policy makers have increasingly been pushing for these kinds of policy changes.
According to Atkinson (2004), gentrification as a strategy for urban change has been
employed by urban, housing and preservationist policy makers in the United Kingdom.
This strategy relies heavily on the opinion that middle-class recolonisation is an important
ingredient for future economic and urban success (Atkinson 2004). Rosol (2013) argues
that initiatives aimed at changing the perception of people’s views regarding a certain
political topic might not have a desirable effect; indeed, Rosol also highlights the case
of densification, although the same argument could be made for renovation. By linking
densification to sustainability, affordability and liveability, policy makers hope that it
will appeal to the public (Rosol 2013). Despite this, the links between these concepts
were questioned and opposition towards densification increased.
Is the urban environment wicked?

All in all, dealing with aspects related to the urban environment when deciding on reno-
vation projects is clearly a wicked problem. In fact, in the seminal work of Rittel and
Webber (1973), they argue that urban planning specifically is a wicked problem.
Tenant behaviour
According to Feenberg (2012), technologies form our way of life and our environment
arguing that technologies are, indeed, forms of power. In the housing sector, there is
mainly one actor, the owner, who has the power over the building and its technical
systems. In a discussion between Foucault and Deleuze (1977), it is argued that if a stake-
holder does have technological power, regardless of its current interest, eventually the sta-
keholder will find ways of using the said power for its own benefit. In the housing sector, it
is the owner, the controller of the technology, who decides the living standards in the
apartment, the amount of ventilation and how hot or cold the apartment ought to be.
A potential solution could be to move the responsibility from the owner of the building
to the tenants. According to Flint (2004), a more liberal housing policy could be beneficial,
as the tenants have to take on responsibility for their actions. Moreover, Flint (2004)
argues that there has already been a shift among owners to the extent that their policies
have changed from policing people to managing the premises through which responsi-
bility is shared. For example, by moving the responsibility for energy use from the owner
to the tenants, the latter would have incentives to reduce their own energy use. On a
similar note, Stevenson and Leaman (2010) argue that it was the tenants and not the
buildings themselves that use energy, therefore educating and guiding the tenants so
that they can control and monitor their own energy use and carbon footprint was essen-
tial. Furthermore, Santangelo and Tondelli (2017) conclude that energy-conscious tenants
save more energy, especially if the systems are matched to the tenants’ characteristics.
They also need to be aware of what they consume.
In contrast, Masoso and Grobler (2010) claim that the occupants usually forget to turn
off air-conditioning during non-working hours, which if turned off could significantly
lower energy use. They further argue that awareness campaigns were worthwhile and
could mean significant energy-savings. In a study by Harrestrup and Svendsen (2015),
the importance of tenant behaviour was highlighted, arguing that lowering the indoor
temperature by just a few degrees could have just a much impact on energy use as
costly renovation measures. While guidance and responsibility certainly could help
tenants to reduce their own energy use, Masoso and Grobler (2010) have found
support for the argument that as long as the tenants can afford to prioritise their own
comfort, wasteful behaviour is likely to continue. However, Colding, Barthel, and Sörqvist
(2019) suggest cautious use of non-choice default technologies and instead argue for
increased redundancy into the options affecting people’s daily affairs. Limiting available
options for tenants, in favour of reduced energy use, might not be what most consider as
sustainable development.
Is tenant behaviour wicked?

Tenant behaviour is linked to the stakeholder characteristic of wicked problems. Imple-
menting renovation measures that promote energy-saving behaviour can significantly
reduce energy use; however, this will limit the tenants’ control of appliances and the
indoor environment in their own home. Moreover, it is a question of what is currently gen-
erally accepted as good or bad behaviour; since it is not possible define certain beha-
viours in terms of true or false. What good behaviour is has much to do with the
current zeitgeist. In addition, with the current zeitgeist of lowering environmental
impact, one can quite simply find arguments to exert power over tenants in the name
of sustainability.
Current relevant policies

According to a general advice of Boverket (2014), the limited reconstruction of a building
does not usually concern the function of the building. So long as the function remains the
same, a renovation of a part of the building would be considered limited reconstruction
and not an extensive renovation (Bernardo et al. 2018). However, renovation in general is
often not limited to one part of the building; instead, it is meant to improve the building
as a whole. If the renovation is considered extensive then the building must meet the
requirements of the building codes (Boverket 2018). This means that modern require-
ments must be met for the entire building, which in some cases can mean substantial
additional measures, which can be challenging to implement. What is clear is that
there is a lack of clarity over what counts as an extensive renovation. The effect is to
create a barrier for developers since there appears to be no consistency regarding
what is and is not required.
The best course of action might be to discuss the planned renovation with the muni-
cipality, according to the general advice given by Boverket (2014). Against this back-
ground, the Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900) chapter 8 §4a states that a
municipality is not allowed to demand more or alternative technical properties to a build-
ing other than those presented [in chapter 8 §4], unless the municipality is the client for
the renovation. This law was written in order make it easier for developers to work in
different municipalities; otherwise, if the municipalities were allowed to have their own
requirements, every developer would be continually changing its work practices unless
they were active in one municipality only. On the other hand, this law has made it harder
for municipalities for push the construction sector in their own municipality further than
the national requirements. Therefore, even if some of the requirements could be altered
either to push for further energy-saving measures or to simplify the renovation process,
the municipalities are not allowed to make those changes.
Heuts and Mol (2013) presented nostalgia as an important aspect. Nostalgia can be
found where a there is a proposition to renovate an old, aesthetically appealing building.
Currently, there are two laws that protect nostalgic buildings in Sweden: the Cultural Heri-
tage Act (SFS 1988:950) and the Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900). The Cultural
Heritage Act (SFS 1988:950) is used mostly to protect specific buildings with significant
importance such as castles and parks. The Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900), on
the other hand, is used more to preserve districts and neighbourhoods as a whole and
is considered not as stringent as the Cultural Heritage Act. Instead, the Planning and
Building Act states the following: ‘[if] a construction is particularly valuable from historical,
cultural, environmental or artistic aspects, it must be maintained in such a way that these
special values are preserved’; but it also states that this should be done with both safety
and accessibility in mind.
Is the aspect of current relevant policies wicked?

It seems as if current policies could be interpreted as a tame problem, because there is a
set of laws that, if followed, would lead to the granting of a building permit. However, it
can also be argued that it is a wicked problem, since contradictions between different pol-
icies and regulatory requirements often arise. While the current policies do not translate
well into the characteristics of a wicked problem, it is not clear which measures need to be
included or how much the municipality can affect the planned renovation. Therefore, this
factor is considered partly wicked.
Is a decision to initiate a renovation project a wicked problem?

As stated in the introduction, there is a need to renovate much of the existing building
stock for reasons of poor maintenance and the need to modernise. Additionally, there
is a strong political driver for reducing energy use, partly due to the fact that the
housing sector uses about one fourth of all energy use. Renovations focused on
energy-savings might contribute significantly to these political targets. Yet, most existing
buildings with high-energy use remain in their original state. In previous section, the
different aspects of renovation were discussed from the perspective of the theory of a
wicked problem.
The ten characteristics of wicked problems formulated by Rittel and Webber (1973) can
now be compared to the case for deciding on renovation of apartment buildings.
(1) There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem – similarly, there is no definition

of what a proper renovation is and what ought to be included in the renovation as it
varies from building to building.
(2) Wicked problems have no stopping rule – but there is a definitive stop with respect to
renovation and that is when construction work has been completed. However, trying
to find the best possible renovation seems to be a never-ending journey, as is the
continual assessment of future needs of renovation of each building. Moreover,

since tenants move in and move out over the decades, the stakeholders and their
needs will change over time.
(3) Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad – different stake-
holders will be differently affected by the renovation and there is no realistic pro-
spect of pleasing all of them since they have competing interests.
(4) There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem – as simu-
lation, virtual reality and 3D tools are further developed more and more factors con-
cerning a renovation can be elaborated on before work starts. However, the full
effect of a renovation can only be experienced after construction.
(5) Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’ because there is no
opportunity to learn by trial and error; every attempt counts significantly – since
renovations are very costly, not only from a strictly financial perspective, the flaws
of any renovation are likely to remain for decades to come.
(6) Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of
potential solutions, neither is there a well-described set of permissible operations
that might be incorporated into the plan – it is impossible to identify every possible
renovation concept since there are innumerable aesthetic design opportunities,
several ways of reducing energy use and various ways to fulfil stakeholder needs.
(7) Every wicked problem is essentially unique – this is mostly due to the project-based
nature of the construction sector as a whole; moreover, each building has a
different set of stakeholders who are affected by the renovation.
(8) Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem – the reno-
vation of buildings can be linked to other larger wicked problems, for example,
climate change. Moreover, in this paper we show that the renovation of apartment
buildings consists of several aspects that we have argued to be wicked on their own.
(9) The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in
numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s
resolution – there is no method which can accurately assess and value the needs of
the stakeholder in such a way that it can be used for any renovation project. Instead,
it seems as though the appropriate method has to be chosen on a case-by-case basis
combined with dialogue with the specific actual stakeholders.
(10) The planner has no right to be wrong – the planners of the renovation are responsible
for the concepts they develop and the renovation; however, since it is impossible to
identify the best concept, the planners are at least always partially wrong.
Accordingly, it is shown that the renovation of buildings does fit the definition of wicked
problems provided by Rittel and Webber (1973). Additionally, it has also been argued that
there are several aspects of the renovation of buildings that are on their own also wicked
problems. In other words, renovation is a systemic challenge and cannot be isolated, and
therefore also the decision on whether to initiate a renovation project or not.
Prior attempts to manage the wickedness of renovation

A common criticism of renovation projects is that they do not consider more than the
technical and financial aspects. It might be hypothetically possible to minimise the
negative consequences and maximise the benefits to find the optimal renovation concept
by assessing the interests of each stakeholder. Such more holistic approach could poten-
tially solve some of the challenges discussed earlier by combining different aspects and
comparing then prioritising them. Below we will briefly review some prior attempts.
Multi-criteria decision-making
Multi-criteria decision-making is a methodology typically highlighted for its holistic
approach. Chantrelle et al. (2011) argue that multi-criteria decision-making can be
used to compare different combinations of options and constraints and, as such, pro-
vides a basis for decision-making. A multi-criteria decision-making tool, which aims to
balance the three aspects of sustainability (i.e. environmental, social and economic –
financial in this context) was developed by RISE (2019). This tool uses a lifecycle cost
analysis for financial evaluation and a lifecycle impact assessment for environmental
evaluation of two factors: greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy. The social
impact evaluation is based on answering a number of questions linked to social sustain-
ability. However, as noted earlier, the results of a lifecycle financial analysis are unlikely
to be realised, since just small errors can have a significant impact on financial viability.
Moreover, whether a renovation concept is environmentally beneficial or not depends
largely on the impact factor that is chosen. In addition, there are more factors that
could be assessed, such as non-renewable energy and biodiversity. As highlighted by
Boss et al. (2017), the first version of this tool was too complicated for some of its
users; therefore, simplifications were implemented so that the tool could be more
easily used. On the downside, this meant that some factors were intentionally left
out. Another multi-criteria decision-making tool is that presented by Bonamente et al.
(2018), this tool is focused on energy-use and the technical, financial and lifecycle
aspects associated with it. It is claimed that it can be used to identify energy-use
optimal solutions. However, as highlighted by Gram-Hanssen (2013) user behaviour is
an aspect that is just as important to take into consideration as technological renovation
measures.
The fundamental flaw of multi-criteria decision-making tools is that they try to decon-
struct multidimensional problems to individual and measurable factors. Thuvander et al.
(2012) argued that in order to increase the rate of renovation there is a need for more
tools to simplify the evaluation of the effects of renovation. However, the authors also
note that none of the methods they assessed address all relevant factors and their
values. Due to the wickedness of renovations, it is questionable if there can be a tool
which is fit for all renovation purposes. Heuts and Mol (2013) support this argument,
because those factors that are deemed worth the most will largely depend on whom
you ask. All aspects affecting renovation, except for technical, are on their own wicked
problems. This means that for the tools to be usable and provide holistic results, compro-
mises have to be made regarding the aspects on which the tool is built. This in turn means
that no matter how holistic the tool is, any renovation concept that it recommends will
always be viewed as sub-optimal for some stakeholders. Thus, our methods for evaluating
renovations need to be both simple and multidimensional, which seems illogical. Pre-
sently, on the one hand, renovations are currently not holistic enough; on the other
hand, tools for assessing holistic renovations are flawed.
One could argue, therefore, that due to the wickedness of the problem of renovation it
is better to work on a case-by-case basis by focusing on specific stakeholder needs. In
practice, it is nearly impossible to find the optimal renovation concept, partly because
the needs of the stakeholders and those who are considered stakeholders change
during the project (Freeman 2010).
Trying to solve a wicked problem by transforming it into a tame problem means sim-
plifying a multidimensional problem, which in the long run is a dead end (Rittel and
Webber 1973). Invariably, simplifications of such problems typically lead to short-term sol-
utions, which will probably need to be reassessed later. Despite this drawback, it is impor-
tant to note that multi-criteria approaches are useful for supplementing and improving
the decision-making process, especially when used in a complementary way.
Stakeholder participation
The proponents of stakeholder participation sometimes posit it as a mean by which
conflicts between stakeholders can be prevented. It is vital for sustainable urban develop-
ment, which means that it could potentially be used to limit the drawbacks of urban
development. According to Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz (2012), social sustainability is essen-
tial to achieve environmental and economic goals as well. Since social sustainability is
centred on people, the needs of the stakeholders who will utilise the project’s outcomes
during its lifecycle are key. By introducing categories of stakeholder involvement – user
considerations, team formation, management considerations, impact assessment and
place context – to a project it is more likely that the project will be successful from a
social sustainability perspective.
Other proponents such as Martínez Àvila (2018) found that early stakeholder involve-
ment can prevent conflicts and resistance to change, and that participation can create
trust among the stakeholders. In contrast, Freeman (2010) pointed out that organisations
have limited resources and cannot therefore involve everyone in their projects. Moreover,
Brody (2003) argued that having all stakeholders present during decision-making pro-
cesses does not guarantee better results. Instead, Brody suggests that one should be
selective regarding which stakeholders are invited to participate. Mitchell, Agle, and
Wood (1997) proposed a narrowing down of stakeholders by assessing them against
three importance attributes: power, legitimacy and urgency. Furthermore, Olander
(2007) argued that, from his empirical data, the attribute of power was slightly more
important than the other attributes.
Proponents claim that by inviting a wider range of stakeholders and allowing them to
be involved in the decision-making process, trust and a better building can be assured. It
could also be argued that stakeholder participation can be a type of emotional and aes-
thetic labour in which participation processes are not meant to create projects which
meet the needs of the many; instead, they are meant to legitimise otherwise controversial
proposals which meet the needs of the few (Fiorino 1990). This argument is supported by
the findings from a study by Martínez Àvila et al. (2016), where it was acknowledged that
the developer had made efforts to involve residents and other affected stakeholders with
the purpose of seeking project acceptance. In other words, a stakeholder participation
process can be used to engage participants in the belief that they have what they
wanted or at least not enough to appeal against the construction. In order to convince
participants, the advocates of the project need to make sure that the participants feel as
though they and their needs are important. The purpose of emotional labour is therefore
to change feelings. According to Wharton (2009), emotional labour means that employees
are expected to manage their own feelings so that others perceive them in a way, which
pleases others.
An alternative way to affect participants is through aesthetic labour, which is a corpor-
ate attempt to manage everything in such a way as to maximise commercial benefit (War-
hurst and Nickson 2009). Well-dressed employees, a focus on product design rather than
product functionality, and beautiful/interesting layouts of the commercial facilities are
some of the key aspects of aesthetic labour (Warhurst and Nickson 2009).
Another perspective is that stakeholder participation can be a sort of caring. Just as
with the earlier example of the tomato (Heuts and Mol 2013), knowing that the
product has been cared for and that participants have been involved in its development
does make the product better, even though the nutrients or, in the case of renovation, the
design might end up the same.
Stakeholder participation is a wicked problem, because it embraces stakeholder diver-
sity. In a study of stakeholder participation in the design phase, Kpamma et al. (2017) con-
cluded that using the concept choosing by advantages, a process where decisions are
based on the importance of advantages (Suhr 1999), can help to mitigate the wickedness
in participatory design. Nevertheless, although stakeholder participation can be a way to
deal with the wickedness of renovation, it too is flawed and can be regarded as a means of
legitimising goals or derailing opposition. Additionally, stakeholder participation will typi-
cally lead to a compromised solution. While compromises are in general favourable sol-
utions, it cannot be the only type of solution in a sustainable urban development due
to the variety of stakeholder demands. A more appropriate approach would be to reno-
vate different buildings to different standards to better match varying demands. In other
words, there is a need to work on different renovation concepts at the same time, while
still adhering to the needs and wants of the stakeholders.
Discussion
As described in the previous section, tools such as multi-criteria decision-making and sta-
keholder involvement can make important contributions to the decision-making process,
but they cannot on their own identify nor justify the preferred renovation concept for
renovation projects when considering all aspects. Thus, the situation seems insolvable.
Horn and Weber (2007) argued that the best approach to wicked problems is to accept
their insolvability by adapting to their cyclical nature. Instead of solving wicked problems,
they instead argued for re-solving them. The ever-changing nature of wicked problems
means there is a need to re-learn, re-evaluate and re-solve as time goes on. However,
this does not apply fully to renovation, since there is no iterative process regarding the
renovation of a building. Renovated apartment buildings are expected to last for
several decades. This is especially true for those that aim to reduce energy use signifi-
cantly (Ott et al. 2014), because of the high investment cost. While an iterative approach
could be adopted in facilities management, it is simply too costly and impractical to re-do
the renovation every now and again. Nevertheless, this approach is well suited for the
planning phase of the renovation. Moreover, when viewing the building from a lifecycle
perspective, further renovations are expected later, even though they might take place
decades into the future.
On a similar note, Carroll et al. (2007) in their paper about managing forest fires, argued
that the appropriate approach to wicked problems is incremental improvements. They
also contended that it is in our best interest to strive for gradual change, knowledge
and experience that such efforts might entail. From the perspective of a single apartment
building, an incremental approach can lead to higher construction costs and repeated
although shorter periods of disturbances for the tenants. However, when viewing the
incremental approach from the perspective of a set of apartment buildings or even an
entire building stock, the incremental approach seems logical and a way to learn from
practice and thus continuously improving the concepts for each implementation, and
perhaps also as regards disturbances although this is aspect is probably more dependent
on the specific tenants.
The network approach proposed by Roberts (2000) could potentially be used to
address parts of the wickedness of renovation; indeed, one can even find several of the
measures proposed by Roberts (2000) already in use. Authoritative measures can for
example be found in current policies and an example of collaborative measure is stake-
holder involvement. The housing market in general is rather competitive; however,
there are simply not enough benefits to create a competitive climate specifically for reno-
vation projects as it stands now. While these measures are certainly a step in the right
direction, it is difficult to implement them successfully.
If more actors in the construction industry can accept that renovation is a wicked
problem, it will be easier to adapt to the challenges and impressions of insolvability.
This is essential because the wickedness of the problem is a reflection of the different
needs of stakeholders, entailing that the best solution will differ depending on which sta-
keholders are asked (Heuts and Mol 2013). A renovation project will never yield a perfect
building, rather a building that is better than the alternative – leaving it as a further dete-
riorating building with poor energy performance.
Additionally, while one building can never satisfy all stakeholders, several buildings
with slight adjustments can altogether address the needs of more stakeholders. Accord-
ingly, the arguments for acceptance advanced by Horn and Weber (2007) and for incre-
mental development by Carroll et al. (2007) might not fully apply to the renovation of one
building, but are applicable to the building stock in general. Therefore, managing several
renovation projects as a programme allows for assessing each building and designing
each concept on a case-by-case basis, while creating a learning curve and reflecting on
specific stakeholder needs. In this way, a combination of renovations can be identified
which could potentially better address the wickedness of renovation over time. In
short, such an approach can address the wickedness of renovation over time by applying
a holistic and systemic view on apartment buildings in an area rather than on one building
at a time. The question is then, who should take this responsibility for areas that comprise
several developers and building owners?
Head (2019) argues that the word solution does not really apply to wicked problems.
However, the idea that the search for optimal solutions for multidimensional problems
can be misleading is not new. According to Simon (1956), organisations simply lack the
senses and the wits to find optimal solutions, instead they should focus on finding satisfi-
cing alternatives. That is, instead of waiting for and trying to identify the optimal solution,
it is better, in line with Horn and Weber (2007), to accept that there is no such thing when
faced with a wicked problem. One could say that in practice, decision makers cope with
the situation or negotiate common ground for the stakeholders, for instance through
choosing by advantages (Kpamma et al. 2017).
Conclusions
In this paper it is argued that a decision to initiate renovation of apartment buildings is a
wicked problem, and that it is therefore recommended that all actors recognise and
agree, at the very start of any renovation endeavour, that they are dealing with a
wicked problem and accordingly address decision making from that perspective.
Together they need to identify and highlight different aspects of wickedness in renova-
tion as well as discussing alternative approaches to deal with the complex web of inter-
related problems.
For instance, multi-criteria decision making can provide support, as can different ways
to arrange stakeholder participation. The starting point, however, is an acceptance of the
wickedness and to accordingly strive for renovation concepts that after negotiations are
acceptable for the specific situation, rather than aiming for an everlasting optimal and
generic solution which often becomes an overwhelming objective that hinders progress.
When acceptance is in place, an incremental approach can support implementation in
which continuous learning and further adaptations to local aspects are embraced. In
order to achieve this, an open discussion amongst practitioners about the wickedness
is required, as well as training in the tools and processes required.
The decision making regarding the renovation of a building is challenging, requiring
the decision maker to evaluate the renovation concept from several aspects, most of
them having wicked characteristics. Because of the wickedness of these aspects no reno-
vation concept will emerge as the perfect solution, rather the stakeholders will have to
identify a satisficing alternative. An even greater challenge arises when renovation of
entire areas or districts is at stake, or is it? The complexity in terms of stakeholders is
higher, including developers, investors and affected residents, but at the same time
such a holistic view opens up for incremental approaches and fruitful local adaptations
after negotiations. However, it would require substantial coordination, why improved
understanding of who and how, thus represents an important subject for further
research.
Other areas for further research are development and refinement of methods for eval-
uating renovation concepts, and for practitioners to prepare better for the implemen-
tation of renovation projects. Indeed, further studies of renovation should aim for
interdisciplinary approaches with the aim to widen the perceptive of renovation so
that the different aspects elaborated on in this paper are represented.
One theoretical approach that might prove valuable in addressing the wickedness of
renovation is to apply a paradox perspective (e.g. Lewis 2000; Smith and Lewis 2011;
Lewis and Smith 2014), since it emphasises acceptance of paradoxes rather than striving
for imaginary solutions. Moreover, the paradox literature highlights the importance of sys-
temic approaches and recognises that in many situations, it is better to go for several sol-
utions in parallel rather than focusing on one, in this case several locally adapted
renovations concepts rather than one imaginary perfect solution.
Finally, it should be noted that but most of the cited research is focused on apart-
ment buildings with heavy structural frameworks of concrete or brick which are situ-
ated in dense urban settings. Even so, some of the findings might apply to other types
of buildings or renovation in general. We would also contend that it is possible to
apply the thinking and approach used in this paper to assess other phenomena in
the field of construction, since many aspects of construction projects seem at least
partly wicked.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Alford, J., and B. W. Head. 2017. “Wicked and Less Wicked Problems: A Typology and a Contingency
Framework.” Policy and Society 36 (3): 397–413.
Alvesson, M. 2008. “The Future of Critical Management Studies.” In The SAGE Handbook of new
Approaches in Management and Organization, edited by D. Barry and H. Hansen, 13–30.
London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., and K. Sköldberg. 2009. Reflexive Methodology. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Alvesson, M., and D. Kärreman. 2011. Qualitative Research and Theory Development: Mystery as
Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Artola, I., K. Rademaekers, R. Williams, and J. Yearwood. 2016. Boosting Building Renovation: What
Potential and Value for Europe? Brussels: European Parliament. [online]. Accessed May 10, 2019.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/587326/IPOL_STU(2016)587326_
EN.pdf.
Atkinson, R. 2004. “The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban
Renaissance?” European Journal of Housing Policy 4 (1): 107–131.
Batie, S. S. 2008. “Wicked Problems and Applied Economics.” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 90 (5): 1176–1191.
Bernardo, R., Å Blomsterberg, S. Burke, S. Gosztonyi, R. Sundling, and P. Wallentén. 2018. Förstudie av
Prefabricerade Multifunktionella Fasadelement för Energirenovering av Flerbostadshus. SBUF, ID
13105.
Blockley, D. 2013. “Do Civil Engineering Systems Need Systematising? Tackling Complexity–Top 10
Issues for Civil Engineering Systems.” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 30 (3–4): 199–
210.
Bonamente, E., C. Brunelli, F. Castellani, A. Garinei, L. Biondi, M. Marconi, and E. Piccioni. 2018. “A Life-
Cycle Approach for Multi-Objective Optimisation in Building Design: Methodology and
Application to a Case Study.” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 35 (1–4): 158–179.
Boss, A., F. Sacco, S. Molnar, A. Folland, and A. Hedén. 2017. Renobuild 2.0 – verktyg för systematisk
hållbarhetsutvärdering vid renovering. RISE, Rapport 2017:49. [Online]. [Accessed May 22, 2019].
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1170704/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Boverket. 2010. Teknisk status i den svenska bebyggelsen: resultat från projektet BETSI. Karlskrona:
Boverket.
Boverket. 2018. Boverkets byggregler – föreskrifter och allmänna råd, BBR (BFS 2011:6 med ändring till
och med BFS 2018:4). Accessed May 22, 2019. https://www.boverket.se/contentassets/
a9a584aa0e564c8998d079d752f6b76d/konsoliderad_bbr_2011-6.pdf.
Boverket [the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning]. 2014. Förstudie – ombygg-
nad och andra ändringar på PBL Kunskapsbanken (Boverkets diarienummer 1209-1101/2014).
Accessed May 22, 2019. https://www.boverket.se/contentassets/223380aa0a7540f994136add0
e420bf7/forstudie-ombyggnad-andra-andringar-pbl-kunskapsbanken.pdf.
Brody, S. D. 2003. “Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on the Quality of Local Plans
Based on the Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management.” Journal Of Planning Education
& Research 22 (4): 407–419.
Buchanan, R. 1992. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” Design Issues 8 (2): 5–21.
Carroll, M. S., K. A. Blatner, P. J. Cohn, and T. Morgan. 2007. “Managing Fire Danger in the Forests of
the US Inland Northwest: A Classic ‘Wicked Problem’ in Public Land Policy.” Journal of Forestry 105
(5): 239–244.
Chantrelle, F. P., H. Lahmidi, W. Keilholz, M. El Mankibi, and P. Michel. 2011. “Development of a
Multicriteria Tool for Optimizing the Renovation of Buildings.” Applied Energy 88 (4): 1386–1394.
Colding, J., S. Barthel, and P. Sörqvist. 2019. “Wicked Problems of Smart Cities.” Smart Cities 2 (4):
512–521.
Coyne, R. 2005. “Wicked Problems Revisited.” Design Studies 26 (1): 5–17.
Crowley, K., and B. W. Head. 2017. “The Enduring Challenge of ‘Wicked Problems’: Revisiting Rittel
and Webber.” Policy Sciences 50 (4): 539–547.
Cultural Heritage Act [Kulturmiljölag] (SFS 1988:950). The Swedish Parliament’s Webpage. Accessed
May 20, 2019. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattnings
samling/kulturmiljolag-1988950_sfs-1988-950.
Energimyndigheten. 2017a. Energistatestik för flerbostadshus 2016: Energy Statistics for Multi-Dwelling
Buildings in 2016 (ES 2017:04). Bromma: Arkitektkopia AB. Accessed March 26, 2019. https://
energimyndigheten.a-w2 m.se/Home.mvc?ResourceId=5708.
Energimyndigheten. 2017b. Energiläget 2017. Bromma: Arkitektkopia AB. Accessed May 20, 2019.
https://energimyndigheten.a-w2 m.se/Home.mvc?ResourceId=5693.
Engels, F. 1873. The Housing Question [Electronic Resource, Reprinted Version and Translated from
German in 1970]. 3rd ed. Moscow: Progress publishers. Accessed May 20, 2019. https://courses.
arch.ntua.gr/fsr/132553/Engles%20-%20Housing%20Question%20B.pdf.
Eurostat. 2018. Archive: Consumption of Energy. Accessed May 10, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Consumption_of_energy.
Farsäter, K., Å Wahlström, K. Mjörnell, and D. Johansson. 2015, May. “A Synthesis of Studies on
Renovation Profitability.” In CEO 2015 – Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on
Construction Economics and Organization, edited by K. Kähkönen, P. Huovinen, and
M. Keinänen. Paper presented at CEO 2015 – the 8th Nordic Conference on Construction
Economics and Organization, Tampere, Finland (pp. 9-18), Tampere University of Technology,
Department of Civil Engineering, Construction management and Economics, Tampere.
Feenberg, A. 2012. Questioning Technology. London, New York: Routledge.
Feenberg, A. 2017. “Critical Theory of Technology.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies,
edited by U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. A. Miller, and L. Smith-Doerr, 635–663. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fiorino, D. J. 1990. “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional
Mechanisms.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 15 (2): 226–243.
Flint, J. 2004. “The Responsible Tenant: Housing Governance and the Politics of Behaviour.” Housing
Studies 19 (6): 893–909.
Foucault, M., and G. Deleuze. 1977. “Intellectuals and Power.” In Language, Counter-Memory,
Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, edited by D. F. Bouchard, 205–217. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Freeman, R. E. 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gilson, L. L., and C. B. Goldberg. 2015. “Editors’ Comment: So, What is a Conceptual Paper?” Group &
Organization Management 40 (2): 127–130.
Gram-Hanssen, K. 2013. “Efficient Technologies or User Behaviour, Which is the More Important
When Reducing Households’ Energy Consumption?” Energy Efficiency 6 (3): 447–457.
Grey, C., and H. Willmott. 2005. Critical Management Studies: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gustafsson, M., M. S. Gustafsson, J. A. Myhren, C. Bales, and S. Holmberg. 2016. “Techno-Economic
Analysis of Energy Renovation Measures for a District Heated Multi-Family House.” Applied Energy
177: 108–116.
Häkkinen, T. 2007. “Assessment of Indicators for Sustainable Urban Construction.” Civil Engineering
and Environmental Systems 24 (4): 247–259.
Hameed, A. A., I. H. Yasser, and I. M. Khoder. 2004. “Indoor Air Quality During Renovation Actions: A
Case Study.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 6 (9): 740–744.
Harrestrup, M., and S. Svendsen. 2015. “Full-Scale Test of an Old Heritage Multi-Storey Building
Undergoing Energy Retrofitting with Focus on Internal Insulation and Moisture.” Building and
Environment 85: 123–133.
Harvey, D. 2008. The Right to the City [Electronic Resource]. Accessed May 21, 2019. https://
purochioe.rrojasdatabank.info/harvey2008.pdf.
Head, B. W. 2019. “Forty Years of Wicked Problems Literature: Forging Closer Links to Policy Studies.”
Policy and Society 38 (2): 180–197.
Hernandez, R. R., S. B. Easter, M. L. Murphy-Mariscal, F. T. Maestre, M. Tavassoli, E. B. Allen, and M. F.
Allen. 2014. “Environmental Impacts of Utility-Scale Solar Energy.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 29: 766–779.
Heuts, F., and A. Mol. 2013. “What is a Good Tomato? A Case of Valuing in Practice.” Valuation Studies
1 (2): 125–146.
Högdal. 2013. Halvera mera: Slutrapport. Stockholm: BeBo. Accessed April 8, 2019. https://www.
bebostad.se/library/1683/halvera-mera-slutrapport.pdf.
Horn, R. E., and R. P. Weber. 2007. New Tools for Resolving Wicked Problems: Mess Mapping and
Resolution Mapping Processes. Strategy Kinetics LLC. Accessed May 22, 2019. https://www.
strategykinetics.com/New_Tools_For_Resolving_Wicked_Problems.pdf.
Inrikesdepartmentet. 1965. Höjd bostadsstandard: betänkande avgivet av bostadsbyggnadsutrednin-
gen (SOU 1965:32). Stockholm: ESSELTE AB. Accessed March 26, 2019. https://weburn.kb.se/
metadata/108/SOU_617108.htm.
Keoleian, G. A., S. Blanchard, and P. Reppe. 2000. “Life-Cycle Energy, Costs, and Strategies for
Improving a Single-Family House.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 4 (2): 135–156.
Kpamma, Z. E., T. Adjei-Kumi, J. Ayarkwa, and E. Adinyira. 2017. “Participatory Design, Wicked
Problems, Choosing by Advantages.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
24 (2): 289–307.
Kyttä, M., A. Broberg, T. Tzoulas, and K. Snabb. 2013. “Towards Contextually Sensitive Urban
Densification: Location-Based softGIS Knowledge Revealing Perceived Residential
Environmental Quality.” Landscape and Urban Planning 113: 30–46.
Lewis, M. W. 2000. “Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide.” The Academy of
Management Review 25 (4): 760–776.
Lewis, M. W., and W. K. Smith. 2014. “Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective: Sharpening the
Focus and Widening the Scope.” The Journal of Applied Science 50 (2): 127–149.
Lönngren, J., and K. Van Poeck. 2021. “Wicked Problems: A Mapping Review of the Literature.”
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 28 (6): 481–502.
Mangold, M. 2016. “Challenges of Renovating the Gothenburg Multi-Family Building Stock: An
Analysis of Comprehensive Building-Specific Information, Including Energy Performance,
Ownership and Affordability.” Doctoral dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg. Accessed March 26, 2019. https://research.chalmers.se/publication/239970.
Martinaitis, V., A. Rogoža, and I. Bikmanien. 2004. “Criterion to Evaluate the ‘Twofold Benefit’ of the
Renovation of Buildings and Their Elements.” Energy and Buildings 36 (1): 3–8.
Martínez Àvila, C. 2018. “Stakeholder Participation in Property Development.” Doctoral thesis, Lund
University, Lund.
Martínez Àvila, C., R. Nilsson [now Sundling], S. Olander, and A. Landin. 2016. “An exploratory study
of the practice of stakeholder participation in densification projects.” In K. Kaehkoenen,
M. Keinaenen, M. Prins, H. Wamelink, B. Giddings, K. Ku, M. Feenstra, A. Saari, P. Huovinen, and
S. Nenonen (Eds), Proceedings of the 20th CIB World Building Congress – Intelligent Built
Environment for Life, Presented at the 20th CIB World Building Congress 2016, 30 May to 3 June,
Tampere, Finland.
Masoso, O. T., and L. J. Grobler. 2010. “The Dark Side of Occupants’ Behaviour on Building Energy
use.” Energy and Buildings 42 (2): 173–177.
Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and
Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” Academy Of Management
Review 22 (4): 853–886.
Morelli, M., L. Rønby, S. E. Mikkelsen, M. G. Minzari, T. Kildemoes, and H. M. Tommerup. 2012. “Energy
Retrofitting of a Typical Old Danish Multi-Family Building to a ‘Nearly-Zero’ Energy Building Based
on Experiences from a Test Apartment.” Energy and Buildings 54: 395–406.
Nilsson (now Sundling), R. 2017. “Vertical Extension of Buildings.” Licentiate thesis, Lund University, Lund.
Olander, S. 2007. “Stakeholder Impact Analysis in Construction Project Management.” Construction
Management and Economics 25 (3): 277–287.
Olsson, R. 2007. “In Search of Opportunity Management: Is the Risk Management Process Enough?”
International Journal of Project Management 25 (8): 745–752.
Olsson, S., T. Malmqvist, and M. Glaumann. 2015. “Managing Sustainability Aspects in Renovation
Processes: Interview Study and Outline of a Process Model.” Sustainability 7 (6): 6336–6352.
Ott, W., R. Bolliger, V. Ritter, S. Citherlet, D. Favre, B. Perriset, M. de Almeida, and M. Ferreira. 2014.
Methodology for Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation
(Annex 56): Methodology and Assessment of Renovation Measures by Parametric Calculations.
Minho: University of Minho.
Peters, B. G. 2017. “What is so Wicked about Wicked Problems? A Conceptual Analysis and a
Research Program.” Policy and Society 36 (3): 385–396.
Planning and Building Act [Plan- och bygglag] (SFS 2010:900). The Swedish Parliament’s. Accessed
May 22, 2019. webpage: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/plan–och-bygglag-2010900_sfs-2010-900.
RISE. 2019. Renobuild. Accessed May 13, 2019. https://renobuild.se/.
Rittel, H. W., and M. M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4
(2): 155–169.
Roberts, N. C. 2000. “Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution.” International Public
Management Review 1 (1): 1–19.
Rosol, M. 2013. “Vancouver’s ‘EcoDensity’ Planning Initiative: A Struggle Over Hegemony?” Urban
Studies 50 (11): 2238–2255.
Sandberg, K., T. Orskaug, and A. Andersson. 2016. “Prefabricated Wood Elements for Sustainable
Renovation of Residential Building Facades.” Energy Procedia 96: 756–767.
Santangelo, A., and S. Tondelli. 2017. “Occupant Behaviour and Building Renovation of the Social
Housing Stock: Current and Future Challenges.” Energy and Buildings 145: 276–283.
Schmidt-Thomé, K., M. Haybatollahi, M. Kyttä, and J. Korpi. 2013. “The Prospects for Urban
Densification: A Place-Based Study.” Environmental Research Letters 8: 025020.
Simon, H. A. 1956. “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment.” Psychological Review 63
(2): 129–138.
Smith, W. K., and M. W. Lewis. 2011. “Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of
Organizing.” Academy of Management Review 36 (2): 381–403.
Smith, N., and P. Williams. 2013. Gentrification of the City. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Socialdepartementet. 1961. Bostadsbyggnadsbehovet: preliminär uppskattning av bostadsbyggnad-
sutredningen (SOU 1961:51). Stockholm: Iduns tryckeriaktiebolag Esselte AB. Accessed March
26, 2019. https://weburn.kb.se/metadata/255/SOU_615255.htm.
Spicer, A., M. Alvesson, and D. Kärreman. 2009. “Critical Performativity: The Unfinished Business of
Critical Management Studies.” Human Relations 62 (4): 537–560.
Stevenson, F., and A. Leaman. 2010. “Evaluating Housing Performance in Relation to Human
Behaviour: New Challenges.” Building Research & Information 38 (5): 437–441.
Suhr, J. 1999. The Choosing by Advantages Decisionmaking System. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Sundling, R., Å. Blomsterberg, and A. Landin. 2019. “Enabling Energy-Efficient Renovation: The Case
of Vertical Extension to Buildings.” Construction Innovation 19 (1): 2–14.
Sundling, R., S. Olander, P. Wallentén, S. Burke, R. Bernardo, and Å Blomsterberg. 2019. “Lifecycle
Profit Analysis of Prefabricated Multi-Active Façades.” International Journal of Building
Pathology and Adaptation 37 (5): 565–578.
Taskinen, T., A. Hyvärinen, T. Meklin, T. Husman, A. Nevalainen, and M. Korppi. 1999. “Asthma and
Respiratory Infections in School Children with Special Reference to Moisture and Mold
Problems in the School.” Acta Paediatrica 88 (12): 1373–1379.
Thollander, P., J. Palm, and J. Hedbrant. 2019. “Energy Efficiency as a Wicked Problem.” Sustainability
11 (6): 1569.
Thuvander, L., P. Femenías, K. Mjörnell, and P. Meiling. 2012. “Unveiling the Process of Sustainable
Renovation.” Sustainability 4 (6): 1188–1213.
Turney, D., and V. Fthenakis. 2011. “Environmental Impacts from the Installation and Operation of
Large-Scale Solar Power Plants.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (6): 3261–3270.
Valdes-Vasquez, R., and L. E. Klotz. 2012. “Social Sustainability Considerations During Planning and
Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 139 (1): 80–89.
Venus, D., and K. Höfler. 2017. Evaluation of the Impact and Relevance of Different Energy Related
Renovation Measures on Selected Case Studies (Annex 56). Minho: University of Minho.
Vyas, G. S., K. N. Jha, and N. R. Rajhans. 2019. “Identifying and Evaluating Green Building Attributes
by Environment, Social, and Economic Pillars of Sustainability.” Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems 36 (2-4): 133–148.
Warhurst, C., and D. Nickson. 2009. “‘Who’s Got the Look?’ Emotional, Aesthetic and Sexualized
Labour in Interactive Services.” Gender, Work & Organization 16 (3): 385–404.
Wharton, A. S. 2009. “The Sociology of Emotional Labor.” Annual Review of Sociology 35: 147–165.
Yildiz, S., S. Kivrak, and G. Arslan. 2017. “Factors Affecting Environmental Sustainability of Urban
Renewal Projects.” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 34 (3–4): 264–277.

Why Are We Not Renovating More An Elaboration of The Wicked Problem of Renovating Apartment Buildings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Are We Not Renovating More An Elaboration of The Wicked Problem of Renovating Apartment Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/gcee20

Why are we not renovating more? An elaboration

Rikard Sundling & Henrik Szentes

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1969371

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 22 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1791

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Why are we not renovating more? An elaboration of the

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Rikard Sundling rikard.sundling@construction.lth.se

pace to solve a shortage of residential buildings (Socialdepartementet 1961; Inrikesde-

(1) There is no deﬁnitive formulation of a wicked problem

Addressing wicked problems

Figure 1. Aspects inﬂuencing apartment building renovation.

Is technical viability wicked?

Is ﬁnancial viability wicked?

Is environmental performance wicked?

enough research evidence to suggest that gentriﬁcation is, to a signiﬁcant extent, a

Is the urban environment wicked?

Is tenant behaviour wicked?

Current relevant policies

Is the aspect of current relevant policies wicked?

Is a decision to initiate a renovation project a wicked problem?

(1) There is no deﬁnitive formulation of a wicked problem – similarly, there is no deﬁnition

continual assessment of future needs of renovation of each building. Moreover,

Prior attempts to manage the wickedness of renovation

You might also like