1. INTRODUCTION
Building renovations that prioritise energy efficiency are essential if climate change mitigation targets are to be reached. Policies have therefore set ambitious energy efficiency targets, within both focused renovation policies—such as the European Union’s (EU) Renovation Wave Strategy (European Commission 2020)—and wider district-, city- and/or systems-level policies, such as positive energy districts (SET Plan Working Group 3.2. 2018) and climate-neutral cities (European Commission 2021).
The term ‘renovation’ is understood here as the practice of building alteration signifying substantial or major alterations to a building, including those focused on improving its energy performance (Wilson et al. 2015), or otherwise known as deep renovation or energy retrofit, which responds to energy savings of 60–90% (Konstantinou & Heesbeen 2021). Renovation can be performed as both a one-off major project as well as an ongoing activity over time (Fawcett 2014). Given the scale, diversity and ongoing nature of renovation, residential energy-efficient renovation can be understood as embedded in householders’ everyday routines, as well as co-shaped by social and cultural norms and aspirations (Aggeli 2021).1
Calls for residential energy efficiency are not new (e.g. Landsberg & Stewart 1980) but conventional policy and governance approaches have significant limitations (cf. Geels et al. 2015). For example, mainstream approaches too often adopt rigid frameworks that are strongly steered by solutionist agendas and are not set up to learn from failures (Foulds et al. 2023). Another example of such limitations is the rise of centralised advice models, such as one-stop shops, which primary provide information or procedural support, rather than fostering situated, experiential learning. Therefore, more experimentation is called for in order to prioritise learning through implementation (e.g. Bergmann et al. 2021; Broto & Bulkeley 2013). A fruitful area for such experimentation is in the knowledge being targeted. To date, there has been too much attention paid to intellectual forms of knowledge (Burchell et al. 2015; Warren & Foulds 2020) concerning, e.g. why individuals should think about renovation and what different technical specifications look like. Such knowledge can be termed as ‘know-that’ or ‘know-what’ (Ryle 1949). Instead, the authors advocate for a focus on ‘know-how’ (Duguid 2005; Konstantinou & Heesbeen 2021; Royston 2014a), which is practical knowledge about how to get renovations done as part of real-life situations. For example, how to effectively plan, manage and implement renovations.
Knowledge networks—as experiments that may or may not work as expected—could play a novel role in developing renovation know-how and creating opportunities for energy-efficient renovations. Inspired by Catney et al. (2013):
Knowledge Networks is defined here as multi-stakeholder groups who share a common interest in learning through doing. Learning through doing is achieved by participating in formal Network events as well as more informal exchanges between network Members.
The present authors argue that there is a clear empirical gap in the literature’s understanding of knowledge networks and similar initiatives.
The aim of this paper is therefore to investigate how experimental, locality-specific knowledge networks can support the development of renovation know-how. Specifically, what participation in these networks looks like in practice, and with what effects for the types of know-how that matter for renovation. By analysing four parallel knowledge networks across Europe, as part of the SHARED GREEN DEAL project,2 three contributions are made to debates on energy-efficient renovations:
New empirical evidence on how know-how is developed and shared through situated, collective learning.
Improved conceptual understandings of renovation know-how used to identify multiple, distinct types.
Practical and policy-relevant insights for the design and implementation of such networks.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of know-how and knowledge network literatures. Section 3 describes the methods, including a description of the four knowledge networks and what they did. Section 4 focuses on four types of renovation know-how that were most prominently observed, and discusses three lessons on how to share and develop know-how. Section 5 reflects on how knowledge networks can foster the development and sharing of know-how.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 WHAT IS RENOVATION KNOW-HOW?
Know-how is often distinguished from know-what (Royston 2014a). Know-what refers to theoretical or factual knowledge, e.g. descriptions of technical systems. The know-what can be passed from person to person via text or speech. In contrast to know-what, know-how can be defined as ‘a capacity to act in specific contexts’ (Søndergård et al. 2004: 8) or ‘the art of practice’ (Duguid 2005: 113). Know-how can also be described as competence or skill (Shove & Pantzar 2005). This distinction between know-what and know-how has roots in the conceptual distinction between epistêmê and technê in ancient philosophy (e.g. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2024). For renovation, examples of know-how could include do-it-yourself abilities, project management skills and competence in financial administration. Know-how and know-what can of course intersect (e.g. factual knowledge about a technology may help someone to operate it), but the distinction is helpful in drawing attention to an often-overlooked aspect of knowledge.
Know-how can be embodied: held in the form of established physical habits, routines and skills (Gram-Hanssen 2008). For example, technologies and heat flows can be monitored in homes through ongoing sensory engagements (e.g. sight, sound, thermoception) without much conscious thought (see Royston 2014a for examples). However, know-how can also take more conscious or cognitive forms, e.g. the know-how used to navigate administrative procedures when applying for grants for renovations projects. The authors are concerned here with both the embodied and the cognitive aspects of know-how, and see these as entangled.
A crucial question for this study concerns how know-how is developed and shared. Know-how can sometimes take the form of tacit or unspoken knowledge (as opposed to explicit or spoken knowledge). This is especially the case for the embodied aspects of know-how described above: it may be hard to communicate the bodily competences embedded in people’s routines. Tacit knowledge can include skills, insights, hunches and intuition, and it is hard to separate from the context where it exists (Castaneda & Toulson 2021). By definition, it cannot be transmitted through written or spoken communication, and so can only be developed through direct experience (Gram-Hanssen 2010).
However, know-how also can take the form of explicit knowledge and be shared through communication (e.g. conversations or lessons) and media (e.g. manuals and videos). In the examples of cycling and playing instruments, all these knowledge-sharing techniques can contribute to learning, alongside direct embodied experience. Situated learning can also take place within a community (e.g. a hobby group), when tacit knowledge is shared indirectly and redeveloped, rather than being transferred directly from one person to another (Pyrko et al. 2019).3 Tacit and explicit forms of know-how may be entwined. It is therefore important to consider both tacit and explicit aspects of know-how (and the relations between these) when investigating the sharing and development of know-how.
Based on these theoretical and conceptual insights, know-how can be situated, enacted and dynamic. It is also multifaceted and heterogenous: people may enact different kinds of know-how and styles of learning within their renovation practices, and these may vary across different aspects of renovation and across different contexts. Diverse types of know-how mean that researchers and practitioners need to provide diverse opportunities for knowledge-sharing; both experiential, embodied and hands-on, as well as cognitive and explicit. This study’s knowledge networks were therefore designed to create opportunities for sharing diverse kinds of renovation know-how.
2.2 KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS
A key starting point is Catney et al.’s (2013) work on community knowledge networks. They intentionally used the term ‘knowledge’ to signal a move away from information provision (Burgess et al. 1998). They also shared many other similar starting assumptions, including:
how there is merit in prioritising collective and experiential learning
that networks benefit from considering broader learning journeys rather than focusing on one-off events, which also complements the ongoing nature of renovation (Aggeli 2021)
a locality-oriented network enables community interactions and contextual exchanges that are not possible through a generic, cross-locality network—as indeed others have acknowledged in the setting up of their own networks (e.g. Janda & Killip 2013).
Inspiration is also drawn from scholars conducting relational work on knowledge networks—e.g. Cravey et al.’s (2001) social relations approach to their ‘socio-spatial knowledge networks’—in addition to relational work specifically on energy-efficient renovations. Indeed, Bolton et al. (2023: 1) recognised how renovations are fundamentally relational and thus depend on interactions between, amongst other influences, ‘family and friends, tradespeople’. Therefore, the present authors believe it essential that knowledge networks go beyond citizens to also engage professionals. For example, architects, engineers, plumbers, project managers, planners, building managers, financiers, etc., would all benefit from engaging with non-professional expertise on renovations (cf. Evans 2008), and vice versa.
Spanning this citizen–professional divide is especially important given that work on knowledge networks is dominated by the management studies literature, which the authors recognise has a long history (Phelps et al. 2012; Schönström 2005; Wang et al. 2014). In management studies, knowledge networks operate at the other end of the spectrum to Catney et al. (2013), in that they are almost entirely focused on professionals—usually being set up with the purpose of driving innovation (e.g. Lorentzen 2008) or exchanging knowledge among selected experts (e.g. Creech & Willard 2001). Relatedly, studies and interventions focused on these professional networks often span geographies and contexts, thereby, the authors would argue, restricting their network members’ learning to more abstract (i.e. less grounded in real-life examples that they can jointly observe and/or relate to together) and intellectual (i.e. know-what) discussions.
To reiterate: a knowledge network approach offers much potential for developing and sharing renovation know-how, especially when intentionally designed to span the citizen–professional divide, as part of a collective learning journey that embraces both tacit and explicit forms of know-how.
3. METHODS
This section details the knowledge networks, interview data and thematic analysis of interest. Further detail is available elsewhere on the experiments’ activities (Kovács et al. 2024), methodologies and networks’ memberships (Foulds et al. 2025b), and preliminary observations (Foulds et al. 2025a).
3.1 KNOWLEDGE NETWORK ORGANISATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The SHARED GREEN DEAL project funded local/regional authorities and not-for-profit organisations up to €22,000 to undertake local ‘social experiments’ to address behavioural, social and cultural dimensions of the EU Green Deal. These experiments were organised into six experiment streams,4 each aligning with a particular aspect of the Green Deal, and each focusing on a specific meso-unit. The efficient renovations experiment stream focused on the meso-unit of know-how, bringing together citizens and professionals to share knowledge around renovation. An open call was run to identify locations where the social experiments would be undertaken; interested local/regional authorities and not-for-profit organisations completed a detailed application form, which was assessed by a panel of reviewers from the SHARED GREEN DEAL consortium.
The four experiment locations for the efficient renovations stream were Vilnius (Lithuania), Nógrád County (Hungary), Zaragoza (Spain) and Mayo County (Ireland). Thus, there was an experiment situated in Northern, Eastern, Southern and Western Europe, two of which were rural (Hungary, Ireland) and two urban (Lithuania, Spain)—with this geographical spread achieved intentionally through the selection process. The local partners coordinating the experiments also had different relationships with local governance structures, whereby two local partners were embedded within or associated with the local government (Lithuania, Ireland), whereas the other two were not-for-profit organisations (Hungary, Spain). See Table 1 for a summary of each knowledge network’s characteristics.
Table 1
SHARED GREEN DEAL’s renovation stream’s knowledge network characteristics.
| VILNIUS, LITHUANIA | NÓGRÁD COUNTY, HUNGARY | ZARAGOZA, SPAIN | MAYO COUNTY, IRELAND | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local partner type | Local/regional authority | Not-for-profit organisation | Not-for-profit organisation | Local/regional authority |
| Setting | Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural |
| Knowledge network focus | Multi-apartment buildings | Single-occupancy buildings | Multi-apartment buildings | Single-occupancy buildings |
| Total knowledge network members | 38 | 31 | 34 | 36 |
| Gender | ||||
| Man | 16 (42%) | 15 (50%) | 19 (56%) | 16 (44%) |
| Woman | 22 (58%) | 15 (50%) | 15 (44%) | 20 (56%) |
| Participant type | ||||
| Professional | 17 (45%) | 12 (40%) | 17 (50%) | 16 (44%) |
| Citizen | 21 (55%) | 18 (60%) | 17 (50%) | 20 (56%) |
In each location, a knowledge network was established by the local partners, focusing on multi-stakeholder and locality-specific learning, to help create opportunities and develop potential for energy-efficient renovations. By the end of the year-long experiments, the final network sizes ranged from 32 to 38, totalling 140 members across the four networks. Over the course of the experiments, 14 participants dropped out across the four networks. Each network included both professionals and citizens, with efforts made to have a balanced split, e.g. the percentage of professional participants across the four networks ranged from 44% to 56%, with an average of 48.5%. Diversity within these groups was also sought, e.g. the authors recruited professionals spanning a variety of renovation professions and job roles (e.g. renovation finance, architecture, tradespeople), and citizens with different experiences of renovation. The local contexts inevitably strongly steered the final network memberships, e.g. through the dominance of multi-apartment building residents in Lithuania and Spain, compared with the predominantly detached-house residents in Hungary and Spain.
Gender was a focus and a cross-cutting theme that was designed-in the social experiments of the SHARED GREEN DEAL project, and which relates to a forthcoming parallel analysis. By gender, a wide range of characteristics, practices and social roles were considered that go beyond the binary of gender equality and representation, and engage with the ways that people perform social roles and everyday practices. Along these lines, efforts were made to encourage women participants within the knowledge networks, as householders or renovation professionals, to help pushback against the dominance of men in the building sector. Indeed, two of the networks had more women network members than men (Vilnius; Mayo County), with Nógrád County having an even split of genders and Zaragoza having fewer women (Table 1).
All knowledge networks followed the same overall journey from April 2023 to July 2024, in that they: organised a network launch event to introduce the purpose of the network and establish shared expectations; hosted a final event to reflect on the experience of the experiment and next steps; with different activities organised between these events, which focused on sharing renovation know-how. For example, each network organised eco-tours of homes that had been renovated or were to be renovated. Other activities included visiting manufacturer showrooms to test out the latest energy efficiency technologies, and presentations outlining relevant funding mechanisms for home renovation. Over the course of this journey, each local partner had a designated SHARED GREEN DEAL consortium partner to provide support and guidance, including through monthly online meetings. There was flexibility in the nature and focus of these network events to ensure that local visions and needs were accounted for.
3.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
A total of 40 semi-structured interviews (10 in each location) were undertaken with knowledge network members between March and May 2024. A piloting phase was critical for tailoring the interview protocols to local contexts, and, as such, there were slight variations between each location’s protocol. These variations related to the different activities organised by the knowledge networks and the terminology used in the local context, rather than the thematic content of the interviews. The interviews were conducted by the local partners who had established relationships with the knowledge network members. Interviews were conducted in the local language, and predominantly conducted in-person. Each interview was audio-recorded and transcribed, and, when required, translated into English to enable analysis. All interview materials, including the interview protocol, and anonymised transcripts from the interviews are available open access on Zenodo (SHARED GREEN DEAL 2025).
The purpose of the interviews was to learn about individuals’ experiences of participating in the local experiment. As such, interview questions covered a range of topics, including their general experience of the experiment, the impacts of the experiment on their knowledge, the social dynamics of the experiment, the wider context of the experiment, and recommendations. Across the questions, an emphasis was placed on knowledge and knowledge-related processes. To capture as diverse experiences of the experiment as possible, a purposive sampling approach was taken when local partners were recruiting the interview participants with the focus placed on interviewing knowledge network members with different characteristics (e.g. gender, participant type, number of knowledge network events attended). Across the sample of 40 interview participants, the authors attained a spread of 52.5% professionals, 47.5% citizens; and 37.5% men, 62.5% women. For further details on the interview participants, see Foulds et al. (2025b).
To preserve participants’ anonymity when quoting from the interview transcripts, the following notation is used: LT = Vilnius, Lithuania; HU = Nógrád County, Hungary; ES = Zaragoza, Spain; and IE = Mayo, Ireland, e.g. [IE9; Woman; Citizen].
3.3 THEMATIC ANALYSIS
An iterative analysis approach was adopted to analyse the 40 interview transcripts, with this including both inductive and deductive elements. The analysis was conducted by five researchers, and was a collaborative and open process that centred around the development of a reference codebook. The analysis involved the following five phases (for further details, see Foulds et al. (2025b):
Familiarisation and scoping
Inductive codebook based on eight transcripts discussed in depth by the coding team.
Codebook development
More detailed version of the codebook (also based on an expanded inductive analysis of 12 transcripts) discussed again in depth by the coding team.
Codebook enhancement and testing
The codebook was inductively finalised through the whole five-person coding team coding the same four transcripts (16 transcripts).
Deductive coding
The remaining 24 transcripts were coded in line with the finalised codebook. Whilst the codebook was not under development during this phase, the authors remained open to insights outside of the agreed coding framework through use of ‘Other’ codes within every category and their coding memos.
Final interpretation and prioritisation
Coder reflections with peer reviewers, namely the local partners who collected the data and ran the networks, and a four-person academia and practitioner advisory board.
The authors carefully ordered the transcripts when coding to ensure a range of characteristics were captured throughout. Specifically, they ordered transcripts according to as wide a spread as possible of participant type, gender, renovation stage and number of network events attended.
The authors’ approach to coding rejected positivist ideals related to intercoder reliability; as such, they were not pursuing replicability across the coders. Rather, they embraced the opportunities provided by the multiple interpretations and perspectives of the multiple coders, and how this informed the codebook. The input of multiple coders into the codebook enabled a shared, collaborative learning journey, opportunities for reflexivity, and contributed to richer outcomes with a deeper familiarity of the data and coding framework.
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 TYPES OF RENOVATION KNOW-HOW SHARED IN KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS
The different types of renovation know-how are presented below. These were developed through their knowledge networks’ activities. The four interlinked types are not exhaustive, but were most prevalent during their interview discussions.5
4.1.1 Technical know-how
Technical know-how is practical knowledge that relates to technology, infrastructure and buildings, e.g. how to choose, buy, install or maintain heating equipment. Delivering technical knowledge is often the focus of standard information-based schemes to promote renovation (e.g. telling householders the estimated cost savings from different thicknesses of loft insulation; Energy Saving Trust 2025). However, this study’s network approach aimed to go beyond an information-deficit approach by sharing technical know-how that was meaningful, localised, relevant and actionable.
Know-how about technology, infrastructure and buildings was the type most frequently mentioned by network members as being shared within the network. This included in-depth know-how about specific renovation options, challenges and solutions. For example:
I learned about insulation, how it can be put into lofts, how it can be put into roofs, how it can be put into walls. I learned about different heating techniques, underfloor heating. Air to water, heat pumps […].
[IE3; Woman; Citizen]
Within network activities, renovation professionals as well as citizens saw themselves as refining and deepening their knowledge, as well as sharing their existing technological expertise. Again, issues of ‘how’ stand out:
[I know] about legislation, energy saving percentages and energy efficiency. […] But I didn’t know so much about construction solutions and how they were implemented in a building. So, being able to participate in the tours has allowed me to learn about solutions […] how thick the insulation has to be, how the windows have to be and what accessibility solutions can also be used […] basic technical things that help me to better understand what the renovation of a house entails.
[ES2; Woman; Professional]
Technical know-how could relate to any stage of the renovation process (e.g. planning, implementing, post-installation) and was seen as something that people continued to develop over long time periods. This supports the authors’ view of renovation and renovation know-how as ongoing and evolving phenomena. These quotations also illustrate how renovation practices involve a range of materials (e.g. technologies, buildings) and know-how for assessing, commissioning, managing and maintaining all these materials.
4.1.2 Administrative and financial know-how
Administrative and financial know-how is practical knowledge about how to navigate the bureaucratic governance of renovations processes, including their financial aspects. Administrative and financial know-how emerged as crucial concerns to network members, and a lack of know-how about these aspects was a major obstacle to renovation. This kind of know-how intersects with the technical know-how because administrative tasks—such as calculating financial costs/benefits and applying for regulatory approvals—demand a thorough understanding of the specific technologies and buildings involved.
Within the networks, know-how about the administrative and financial aspects of renovation were commonly shared, including about how to access subsidies and grants, or how to navigate the complex regulations governing renovations (which varied across the different locations). For example, a citizen in Spain (who was new to renovations) explained:
I have learnt, because I didn’t even know that there was such a thing as incentives.
[ES6; Woman; Citizen]
Another citizen said a presentation at a specific network event provided the financial confidence she needed to commit to a renovation:
We had researched everything pretty thoroughly, and even the [solar] panels, we had researched them. But we were just at that stage where we weren’t 100% sure […] it was actually at that meeting where [name] presented […] that’s what really swayed me from sitting on the fence to going for it […].
[IE9; Woman; Citizen]
As well as citizens, professional network members also gained this kind of know-how. For example:
What was most novel or interesting was the funding for these renovations […] for example, how the installation [of solar panels] was done, from what funding, what was the process of applying, who helped, who didn’t help, who needed help, what kind of help was needed, that was definitely new, I think.
[HU7; Man; Professional]
Developing comprehensive and up-to-date administrative know-how is a crucial challenge, including among professionals, especially since administrative requirements are site specific and keep changing. The complexity of regulatory systems means that maintaining this know-how can be difficult, even for experienced professionals.
It is argued here that administration is fundamentally a know-how issue for renovations: it demands specialised skills, competences and confidence. Administrative processes are likely to be especially complex for vulnerable households that rely on subsidies, and for multi-family blocks (with complex rules), so may be a particular burden for these households.
4.1.3 Know-how for managing social relationships
Know-how for managing social relationships refers to interpersonal skills, such as negotiation, communication, advocacy and collaboration. For example, one network member described their skills in gathering information and support from others:
I ask a lot of questions and […] whoever has had the misfortune to know me […] the phone can ring. […] ‘Hey, can you help me with this …?’ Fortunately, in all cases I have received positive responses.
[ES1; Man; Citizen]
It also involves skills in avoiding conflict, managing it, and anticipating and resolving tensions.
A key issue in terms of social relationship skills concerned negotiating with tenant and/or owner associations to get renovations done on shared buildings. Conflict and anticipated risk of conflict were major barriers to be overcome when contemplating renovations on a multi-household building. Navigating these tensions demanded patience, persuasion and diplomacy. On winning a vote for renovation in their apartment block, one network member said:
I just had to talk to almost everybody personally, because people are indifferent. […] I had to persuade people about the renovation. […] I have the necessary contacts and I was able to talk with them personally. I called them […] you just have to work with the people.
[LT10; Woman; Citizen]
This type of know-how was also important for professionals. In the Hungarian case, numerous interviewees mentioned a particular individual who had strong skills in working between the Roma community and other stakeholders such as local officials. This kind of skill was hugely valued; the professional was described as ‘priceless’ [HU10; Woman; Citizen]. Others talked about the importance of bringing together different associations, stakeholders and non-governmental organisations, and the skills this required.
The knowledge networks supported people to use and develop this know-how. For example, one network member said:
I also persuaded the residents of my house to come [to a network event] and that’s when the renovation started in our house.
[LT3; Man; Citizen]
Meanwhile, one professional said that a barrier to renovations was the struggle to communicate effectively with residents who often appeared materialistic and selfish: ‘I don’t know how to engage them’ [LT9; Man; Professional]. It is clear that skills in social relationships are an important aspect of renovation know-how, which appears to be rarely mentioned in existing sources on renovation policy and practice.
4.1.4 Know-how about renovation actors
Know-how about renovation actors refers to knowing who is involved in renovation in a particular context, and their roles and capabilities; in particular, who can be asked for help and information. This is obviously connected to the social skills of managing relationships, but know-how about specific people and contacts emerged as surprisingly important in the interviews too, and is therefore granted dedicated attention here. However well informed, an individual cannot know everything about renovation; they cannot even know what knowledge they will need in a few months. But they can know how to find the right help, and which renovation actors to trust. For example:
Above all, [the network] has allowed me to know more places to knock on to ask for that information. I mean, there comes a time when you can’t get any more things in your head. […] But […] more than learning directly, we have seen doors to knock on to clarify things.
[ES1; Man; Citizen]
Within the network, know-how was shared about professionals, e.g. citizens sharing the details of contractors they recommended for renovations work. The network provided know-how that helped people avoid ‘cowboy builders’ and ‘cowboy contractors’, according to one network member, who said a fear of these was a big ‘stumbling block’ to people considering renovations. They went on to say:
there’s nothing better than word of mouth […] this network has cemented […] the relationships, and again they’re local. […] It’s real people coming to your door to help you out with stuff.
[IE2; Woman; Citizen]
Among the professionals in the network, know-how about contacts was also highly valued, including the development of networks with professionals in different areas of the renovations sector (e.g. professionals in the construction side connecting with professionals in the administration and governance side).
I was able to meet a wide range of people from the banking sector, the contractor sector, and other people. […] It helped me to know who to contact, where to go, what grants I might be able to apply for.
[HU1; Woman; Professional]
These findings on the importance of know-how about actors expand the authors’ conceptualisation of renovation as relational, and support the emphasis of Catney et al. (2013) and Janda & Killip (2013) on localised, context-specific knowledge-sharing.
4.2 LESSONS ON SHARING AND DEVELOPING RENOVATION KNOW-HOW
This section considers the specific processes, mechanisms and techniques through which the networks facilitated the sharing and building of know-how.
4.2.1 Bring together citizens and professionals
The interactions between citizens and professionals during knowledge network events facilitated the development of know-how. Across the experiment locations, network members reflected on the value of bringing together a diverse collection of individuals around the topic of renovation:
it was a good chance to get to meet other individuals and professionals and to get their opinion on problems or issues that we had encountered or how we were going to go about works.
[IE9; Woman; Citizen]
The learning opportunities available to network members were informed by both their personal characteristics and their sustained interactions with other network members (Pyrko et al. 2017). For citizens, they commented on the value of engaging professionals who are ‘experts’ in renovation [LT4; Woman; Citizen]. The configuration of knowledge networks, and the presence of ‘expert’ professional knowledge, provided the space for informed and dynamic interactions that were responsive to the needs and priorities of network members:
It is very positive to have a contractor at an event like this so you can ask the contractor any questions right there and then, in person.
[HU2; Woman; Citizen]
Knowledge network discussions, and the know-how shared, were grounded within the local context, including, e.g. details on available grants, again supporting Catney et al.’s (2013) emphasis on contextualised knowledge exchange.
Professional network members were able to deepen their understanding of potential clients’ needs and priorities by interacting with citizen network members. The experiential processes of renovation shared by citizen network members during events informed professional practices. Across all four experiment locations, professional network members reiterated how the knowledge networks enabled them to better understand the renovation process for non-professionals, such as the process of applying for funding for renovation activities [HU7; Man; Professional]. As reflected by a professional in Zaragoza:
Often their [citizens’] motivations are different from mine and they have made me understand better what their problems are, what their motivations are, what their frustrations are.
[ES2; Woman; Professional]
By bringing together both citizens and professionals within the networks, the networks’ activities illuminated the social aspects of renovation that needed to be considered alongside the more technical aspects on which many professionals focus.
Despite the knowledge networks being configured as a space for everyone to ‘meet as equals’ through their ‘transversal and flat, not hierarchical’ design [ES5; Woman; Professional], a challenge throughout the events was ensuring the views of professionals were not prioritised over those of citizens in practice. The impact of these power dynamics was somewhat mitigated through the facilitation of events by the local partners and by having a balanced representation of citizens and professionals within the network. However, professional expertise was still seen as ‘higher value’ in many cases, with both positive (respect for professional training) and negative (less resourcing of citizen-based knowledge sharing) implications. The need to consciously navigate power dynamics within the networks mimics the experiences of the researchers involved in co-production processes whereby different actors and knowledges are combined (Minna et al. 2024). Therefore, to help address these power dynamics, future knowledge networks should undertake exercises to make space for reflexive processes within their configuration and running.
4.2.2 Ensure learning is hands-on and situated
The development and sharing of renovation know-how was firmly enabled by the interactive nature of the network activities. While the social and collective nature did enable learning amongst the network members, consideration is also needed about the network members’ interactions not with other people, but with material elements (e.g. buildings, technologies, devices). This builds on the aforementioned arguments of Gram-Hanssen (2008) and Royston (2014a) on the importance of the material and embodied aspects of know-how. The contributions of ‘eco-tours’ formed a set of activities that all four knowledge networks undertook. Eco-tours provide people with access—usually with an interactive tour element—to environmental initiatives, so that they can be inspired and learn. There are many examples from the last 10–15 years where community groups or professional associations have, for example, opened up low- to net zero-energy homes (Berry et al. 2014; Hamilton & Killip 2009).
Overall, the hands-on nature of the networks’ events was described as a particularly effective means of learning how to undertake renovations. Network members were extremely complimentary in this regard, noting that the eco-tours were an especially ‘rare’ [ES2; Woman; Professional] opportunity that enabled them to ‘learn directly’ [ES10; Woman; Citizen] in the very places where renovations happened. As such, the eco-tours were as consistently regarded as the moments where members learnt the most. This is supportive of other literature that has similarly reiterated the value of such tours in helping people hear at first-hand about practicalities and experiences (e.g. Hamilton 2011; Hendriksen & Foulds 2015).
A clear reason for such successes was due to how learning was no longer intellectual or abstract, i.e. restricted to the written and theoretical, as opposed to experiential, illustrative and practical, as one network member indicated:
there is nothing better than first-hand experience. It’s better to have someone who tells you about it in their own flesh, than to read a thousand guides, a thousand reports.
[ES5; Woman; Professional]
This physical, situated aspect of the tours was raised in almost every interview, with particular reference to sensory experiences of, for example, ‘seeing’ and ‘showing’. For example, there was much reflection on the merits of ‘seeing practical examples’ [IE6; Woman; Professional]. In addition, the ability ‘to feel, to touch, to experience’ was described as ‘the most valuable thing’ [LT2; Woman; Professional]. Another member explained how ‘[p]eople couldn’t have touched the materials beforehand, they couldn’t have known’, and thus would never have been able to move past ‘the theory’ [LT8; Woman; Professional].
The experiential, situated nature of these activities was therefore key in giving network members ‘confidence’ to renovate, as it was ‘a brilliant way to demonstrate that this work can be done’ [IE7; Man; Professional]. Indeed, the large-scale and thus usually ambitious nature of an energy-efficient renovation could often be overwhelming, and therefore members reflected on how seeing and speaking about renovations in situ helped them ‘to see that it can be done’ [ES2; Woman; Professional]. As such, some network members realised that there was no need ‘to be scared [… which] cuts down an awful lot of fear’ [IE2; Woman; Citizen]. These findings on confidence and fear speak to the aforementioned understanding of know-how as ‘a capacity to act in specific contexts’ (Søndergård et al. 2004: 8); the authors suggest that this capacity should be understood not only as a physical or intellectual competence but also as a sense of agency: a confidence in one’s capacity to act.
The only relevant critique noted in the interviews was that networks’ activities involved events and meetings that were not eco-tours. Whilst the merits of introductory and closing network meetings are useful, future network exercises should continue to be centred around eco-tours, or at least around activities that have hands-on and situated learning at their core. The possibility of including other sorts of activities (e.g. talk-based information events and briefings) would need careful consideration, as they were deemed not as enjoyable and not as effective in developing know-how. (Note that citizens who are less able to participate in eco-tours would not have participated in the first place, so do not form part of the sample.)
4.2.3 Create inclusive spaces that foster the sharing of know-how
The networks were deliberately designed to create safe, inclusive spaces in which diverse knowledges were valued. These inclusion efforts, which were noticed by network members, were crucial in creating conditions for the sharing of know-how. For example, there were inclusion criteria that local partners were obliged to target, so diverse network members were actively sought and valued. As a result, the knowledge networks became spaces where everyone could feel confident their contribution was welcome, regardless of background. This fostered a dynamic of mutual respect and an ethos that ‘there were no stupid questions’.
Throughout experiment activities, the SHARED GREEN DEAL consortium emphasised the value of experiential know-how. As noted in the existing literature, this emphasis contrasts with mainstream approaches that focus on building ‘energy literacy’ (Burchell et al. 2015). Crucially, the authors’ emphasis on experiential knowledge meant that no one felt ‘illiterate’—every network member could actively contribute to sharing know-how: ‘I never felt that my words were useless’ [HU3; Woman; Citizen]. Sharing know-how can make the sharer vulnerable (i.e. exposed to judgement); people will not risk this unless they trust they are in a safe space.
Network members noted that safe, inclusive spaces were created and held through specific efforts by knowledge network organisers. Indeed, the local partners worked hard to connect (often one on one, and over time) with individuals and understand their particular situations and interests. This ongoing commitment demonstrated to network members that they, and their knowledge, were valued:
There is a lot of work on your part in terms of communication […] the welcome is warm, and the communication is pleasant. You have done everything right.
[LT9; Man; Professional]
Such connection cannot be delivered via ‘efficient’ mass communication channels or outsourced to algorithms: it is the investment of time and care that creates meaningful engagement, encouraging the open sharing of experiences. The wider experimental design also helped create inclusive spaces by allowing local tailoring of activities, while simultaneously providing centralised guidance and support for group facilitators.
These findings about inclusion and care contribute to a growing literature that stresses trust and rapport as key to the adoption of energy-efficient renovations (de Wilde 2019; Mogensen & Thøgersen 2024; Murtagh et al. 2021); the experiments demonstrate how visible, consistent commitments to the creation of inclusive spaces can catalyse the sharing of know-how for efficient renovations.
Finally, one network member highlighted the value of the:
participation of the most vulnerable neighbours, from working class neighbourhoods […] a voice that is not usually present.
[ES8; Man; Citizen]
Once members joined the knowledge networks, the experiments’ inclusive practices were effective in centring these seldom-heard voices. However, the experiments were not as successful in recruiting energy-vulnerable network members as hoped for, and because non-members were not included in data collection, the authors cannot pinpoint reasons for this fact. Possible barriers could include time constraints (including work/caring commitments) and a perception that renovations are an issue for homeowners. One way to engage tenants with similar initiatives could be to tailor activities to their situation; tenants could share know-how on, for example, reversible adaptations, funding eligibility and negotiations with landlords. Past research has also found that situating energy-poverty programmes within services already accessed by vulnerable people can be more effective than external events (Royston 2014b). For truly inclusive know-how-sharing, the authors therefore suggest that future knowledge network exercises should recognise that engaging vulnerable people is not just a simple communications task, and thus should prioritise their needs across every stage of its design and implementation.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 HEADLINE FINDINGS AND KEY MESSAGES
This paper investigated the role of experimental, locality-specific knowledge networks in developing renovation know-how, offering both new empirical evidence and conceptual insights into how renovation learning unfolds in practice. The study’s distinctive contribution lies in showing how diverse types of renovation know-how emerge through situated, collective, citizen–professional interaction; in providing a typology of four types of know-how rarely brought together; and in demonstrating the value of ‘learning-by-doing’ approaches for renovation governance. These contributions are grounded in the rare opportunity to analyse four year-long experimental networks implemented across Europe (Lithuania, Hungary, Spain and Ireland), which engaged 140 citizens and professionals over 50 events.
Renovation know-how was not only successfully shared through the networks, but also took multiple, distinct forms. Four key types emerged: technical know-how; administrative and financial know-how; know-how for managing social relationships; and know-how about renovation actors. While technical know-how was the most frequently discussed, this type of knowledge should not be dismissed as purely intellectual, theoretical or abstract. Rather, technical know-how can be deeply practical, and thus its dominance in participant narratives simply reflects the material demands of renovation and the value of demystifying technical processes.
Equally important, though less frequently acknowledged in the existing literature, were the other three types of know-how. Administrative and financial know-how—which is too often dismissed in discussions around know-how, as being too closely associated with institutions and past information campaigns—actually proved to offer vital, practical capacities for doing renovations. Know-how around managing social relationships, meanwhile, encompassed the skills needed to coordinate with neighbours and manage interpersonal dynamics. Finally, know-how about renovation actors involved recognising who to trust and how to engage with professionals. These latter two types of know-how especially underscored how deeply social undertaking a renovation truly is. While not intended to be exhaustive, this typology offers a starting point for further enquiries into the diverse and situated forms of knowledge that enable energy-efficient renovation. Identifying these distinct, situated forms of know-how constitutes one of the paper’s core conceptual contributions.
Through the experimental, learning-by-doing approach, three lessons were identified for the effective development and sharing of renovation know-how. These lessons advance practical understanding of how renovation-related knowledge networks can be implemented effectively:
Bringing citizens and professionals together in shared learning environments proved essential. Unlike previous knowledge network studies that tended to separate these groups, this study’s networks demonstrated the value of citizen–professional dialogue, as well as reflexivity.
Hands-on and situated learning was consistently more impactful than abstract or decontextualised attempts to build know-how. The eco-tours—where participants visited homes at various stages of renovation or even toured supplier facilities—were particularly effective.
Creating inclusive spaces where trust could be built over time (even though resource intensive) was vital for enabling open exchange.
5.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS
Together, these empirical and conceptual insights form the basis for five implications.
First, it is important to stress that the positive outcomes, in terms of, for example, developing know-how and general enjoyment, reported here were not inevitable. They were the result of sustained relational work by the local partners who designed, hosted and nurtured the networks over time.6 Overall, the success of these knowledge networks therefore signals not simply the potential value of the model of, for example, prioritising know-how, but the importance of the way networks should be implemented: attentive facilitation, locally responsive adaptation of activities, sensitivity to participants’ emerging concerns and the cumulative relationship-building enabled by repeated interpersonal contact. These relational conditions were central to the networks’ achievements and cannot be assumed as automatic features of knowledge networks or similar initiatives.
Second, the findings demonstrate that the networks’ impacts were as much about trust as about knowledge. While developing renovation know-how remained a core intention, participants repeatedly pointed to trust- and relationship-building—between citizens, between citizens and professionals, and between professionals themselves—as equally consequential. In a field where renovations are often fraught with risk and uncertainty, such trust became both an outcome and a mechanism enabling learning and action.
Third, these insights provide a critical counterpoint to the rapid rise of renovation one-stop shops across Europe. While such services can efficiently centralise information, offer administrative support and even sometimes do certain renovation tasks on someone’s behalf, the authors assert that one-stop shops are structurally limited in the forms of know-how they can meaningfully support. One-stop shops cannot easily cultivate embodied, situational or tacit knowledge; they cannot respond fluidly to locally emerging concerns; and crucially, they do not generate the reciprocal trust and mutual recognition that arose through the networks’ collective learning environments. Moreover, one-stop shops typically do little to directly support professionals’ own learning, whereas this study’s networks created horizontal exchanges across trades, governance, finance and community expertise.
Fourth, because this study was explicitly designed as an experiment, its implications for scaling must be approached with caution. Knowledge networks should not be understood as a model that can be replicated through context-free templates or static programme designs. The very success of the networks rested on continual, situated and iterative learning-by-doing among both participants and the local organisers themselves. Importantly, the network organisers benefitted from their local embeddedness and also from learning alongside others running parallel networks in different European contexts. Working within a shared strategic and methodological framework—supported by common mentors in the SHARED GREEN DEAL consortium—enabled local partners to adapt activities to their own contexts while still drawing on collective insights. Any attempt to ‘scale’ knowledge networks therefore needs to focus on expanding these enabling conditions for reflective, locally responsive experimentation, rather than attempting to reproduce a single fixed model.
The study had limitations. Participation was partially self-selecting, as people who felt a network approach would not suit them may have declined to participate. Nevertheless, the networks did meet several diversity targets and did not serve only one socio-demographic group. The one-year duration also constrained what could have been achieved, and vulnerable households remained harder to reach than hoped. Together, these factors perhaps indicate significant unrealised potential: longer term knowledge networks could deepen trust, broaden participation and help normalise renovation as a shared social endeavour rather than an individual responsibility.
Decision-makers should prioritise the process and the learning environment—not just the learning outcomes—and avoid predefined assumptions about what participants need or want to learn. Providing opportunities for situated, multisensory, dialogic learning, while working closely with local community groups who hold vital contextual understanding appears essential. The promise of knowledge networks lies precisely in these small-scale, relational details that enable people to act.
Notes
[1] Some existing literature explores the experiences of renovation from occupant and professional perspectives, e.g. the complexities of applying for energy grants, and communication between tradespeople and clients. Aspects of know-how are often tacitly present in this study; however, the authors do not have scope for a full review here.
[2] SHARED GREEN DEAL is an EU Horizon2020 project focusing on forms of social experimentation, with a focus of intervening at the meso-level. Meso-approaches prioritise social influences and phenomena that exist in the middle ground between individuals (micro) and systems (macro) (Foulds et al. 2025c). The project covers all policy areas of the EU’s Green Deal, with a particular emphasis on: efficient renovations, clean energy, sustainable mobility, preserving biodiversity, the circular economy and sustainable food.
[3] Aspects of sharing know-how are also considered within the literature on communities of practice (e.g. Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger et al. 2002). However, the authors do not have scope to review this here fully.
[4] SHARED GREEN DEAL experiment streams were: clean energy, the circular economy, efficient renovations, sustainable mobility, sustainable food and preserving biodiversity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the interview participants, network members and this study’s local partner organisations (Let’s Renovate the City, Vilnius; ECODES, Zaragoza; Climate Action Louisburgh Locality and Mayo County Council; and Habitat for Humanity Hungary, Nógrád County) for their support. The authors are also grateful to Marcela Noreña Ospina and Pia Wieser, of Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF), for their support and assistance in organising and managing the overall delivery of the four experiments. Thanks also to Lara Houston and Melanie Rohse (both Anglia Ruskin University—ARU) for their useful comments made on an earlier draft of the paper.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
DATA ACCESSIBILITY
All anonymised interview transcripts are freely available on Zenodo at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15076033
ETHICAL APPROVAL
Ethical approval from Anglia Ruskin University’s (ARU) Global Sustainability Institute’s Research Ethics Panel (number GSIDREP/ETH2122-0358) was obtained before data collection, following standard considerations for informed consent, anonymity and data management.