Search results

Although a UK trajectory toward zero-carbon development for all new housing by 2016 has been set, the cost of building such homes and the changes implied for current constructional culture, together with lack of fiscal incentives, makes the target very difficult to achieve. Moreover, the recent governmental clarification of the definition of zero-carbon housing may make it impossible. This paper proposes a prototype construction (see also the associated paper in this issue) and examines in detail both the constructional and cost barriers to eliminating carbon emissions from tightly limited total thermal and electrical consumption targets (not more than 70 kWh/m2). Having established generous access to sunlight and daylight as prerequisites, a related health issue is air quality, especially with air-tight construction. While thermal and hygroscopic capacity can mediate between quality and efficiency, current norms for Scottish housing are notably poor in both respects. A key aim is to assess whether specification for a ‘low-carbon house’ can be cost effective. An analysis is undertaken to asses the increased cost associated with integration of energy efficient measures in the proposed prototype model. The specification of the building envelope and associated renewable technologies are addressed with reference to their cost implication on the overall build cost. Finally potential governmental incentives are proposed to not only meet the 2016 target, but also to promote enthusiasm by the end user. The paper concludes that low-carbon and zero-carbon scenarios would require radical changes of funding/fiscal and building cultures.

Taking its cue from the UK government's declaration that every new home should be ‘zero-carbon’ by 2016, this paper explores how close a flexible, prototype-housing model might come to meeting this target (accepting that there is currently some ambiguity between the respective official ‘zero-carbon’ definitions regarding off-site renewable supply). The prime aim is to design economically (affordable by housing associations) to the European ‘passive house’ standard of no more than 15 kWh/m2 for space heating and a maximum total consumption of 70 kWh/m2 adding in hot water and electricity. The model also prioritizes generous access to sunlight and daylight, as well as realistic levels of air change in a low-volume, intensively occupied scenario. Associated aims are: a) to meet thermal loads without use of fossil fuels such as gas or oil; and b) to employ architecturally integrated active solar thermal and electrical arrays to respectively meet at least one third of the water heating and electrical loads. Micro-wind generation is excluded from the study as too site-dependent. A subsidiary agenda is to achieve a flexible plan in terms of orientation and access, and to provide utility facilities that support the environmental strategy (e.g. drying clothes without compromising energy use or air quality). The paper goes on to address equivalent prospects for retrofit, briefly discusses institutional and other barriers to achievement, and muses on how much of the balance of the electrical demand can be met renewably in Scotland in the near future.

This exploratory study investigates whether product type, utilitarian versus hedonic, affects consumers' likelihood of choosing a brand linked to a cause. The sample consists of 128 young Chinese Singaporeans. Unlike prior research done in Western countries, the respondents in this study were more likely to buy cause‐linked brands for practical than for hedonic products. They were also more likely to pay a price premium for cause‐linked practical products. This difference is attributed to the Confucian values that are espoused by the Chinese. Additionally, finds that specifying the amount donated to the cause increases the likelihood of purchasing cause‐linked brands that are priced at 10 to 25 percent premiums over comparable alternatives. Discusses implications for marketers and future research directions.