Induction and characterization of T-cell responses to nonC-TL by in vitro sensitization

In theory, as the customer, home buyers should have significant potential to influence the design of a home and products and features that are incorporated, either by specifying their requirements for a product or service which a supplier then attempts to meet, or by refusing to purchase an offered product or service if it does not closely satisfy their needs or wants. Thus, customers have potential to act as drivers for sustainable design, but in many instances they also act as barriers. This may be because they are unaware of the sustainability techniques and technologies that builders could employ, and consequently do not ask for them to be incorporated in their house; they may not care at all; or they may even actively oppose particular sustainability initiatives. In the UK, the World Wide Fund for Nature (n.d.), in a study of sustainability and volume housing, found that two of the six key barriers to greater adoption of sustainability in the mainstream house building

sector were no perceived consumer demand for sustainable homes; and investors being seen as uninterested in house builders’ sustainability performance.

A growing body of literature is confirming perceptions that sustainability is not one of the higher priorities for customers. In New Zealand, Eves & Kippes (2010) found that

regardless of income levels, price was the most important decision-making factor, followed by location and then construction type. Typically only young or older buyers in high income brackets made sustainability or energy efficiency a major consideration in their purchase. The authors claimed that in most cases “…the number of bedrooms will be more important to the buyer than the actual energy efficiency savings or the reduction in damage to the environment” (p.205). Hurst (2012) suggested that perceived uncertainty about comfort benefits influenced perceptions about the benefits of energy efficiency, noting research by Crosbie and Baker (2010, cited in Hurst, 2012, p.365) which showed that many people who bought high energy efficient homes “…were dissatisfied with the performance and modified a number of the technologies to ‘override’ the smart systems in order to create a more comfortable internal environment”.

When this research commenced, there was very limited literature on this topic (also noted by Hurst, 2012). An exception was work by Penman (2000), who surveyed Australian housing customers (not focussed specifically on volume housing) and found that many had problems with the word ‘sustainable’, finding it cold and economic or associating it with ‘greenies’ and ‘way-out’ architecture. She noted the concept “…is too broad and nebulous, too much linked with alternative lifestyles, and too challenging to mainstream society” (2000, p. 5). She further observed that that nearly all clients surveyed considered that sustainability needed to be balanced against cost, but also comfort, function,

aesthetics and lifestyle. As one of the interviewed customers stated:

“I like the concept of being environmentally friendly but not with sacrifice…like running out of hot water” (Penman, 2000, p.19).

The potential scope of customer influence on innovation more generally was described in section 4.2.2, and suggests that the comparatively limited experience and technical knowledge of home buyers, as well as potentially limited time and determination to

actively participate in the design process of a home, does not support them in demanding innovation, including related to sustainability. As mentioned, Koebel & Cavell (2006) noted that significant client input typically only happens in high-end housing projects and this was confirmed to some extent by Penman (2000), who noted that there is a perception

amongst some in the building industry that people interested in sustainability tend to use the services of architects rather than project home builders.

A related, and equally important, aspect relating to customers who will also occupy their home is the sustainability impacts of their subsequent behaviour. Even if they are interested in buying a sustainable home, if they do not then know how to operate it optimally, or otherwise live a highly consumptive lifestyle, there will still be significant impacts. Authors such as Hurst (2012) have noted the significant impact of occupant behaviour on energy consumption. However, it is beyond the scope of this research to focus on occupant behaviour.

However, arguably a greater barrier is not so much a lack of interest, but rather a

perceived lack of willingness to pay. This concern is not confined to the housing industry.

Nidumolu et al. (2009) argue that there is a widespread fear across many industries that customers will not pay more for environmentally friendly products, particularly during a recession.

A sizeable proportion of builders appear to have a perception that clients, even if

expressing a general interest in environmental issues such as energy, are not likely to be willing to pay extra for it, and are “driven almost solely by cost factors when making design/building decisions” (Penman, 2000, p.5). This is reinforced by Ambrose et al.

(2005, p.340) who note that survey results “...indicate that the greatest single barrier to the adoption of energy efficient design principles by builders and designers is the perception that it is a costly exercise that will not be accepted by the client.” A national marketing manager from AVJennings, a large Australian volume builder, was quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald as saying:

“The simple fact is, if customers are asked if they like energy-efficient measures in homes, they say yes. But if you ask them to pay for it they would rather spend the money on a bigger home or a nicer kitchen” (Pryor, 2004, para. 13).

A number of researchers have provided examples to further support builders’ perceptions of a lack of client willingness to pay. Hoffman & Henn (2008) cited one study in Florida (by Grosskopf & Kibert, 2006) which found that consumer willingness to pay was strongly correlated to capital cost recovery, declining by 25 per cent on average for each two-year increase, and suggested this might be particularly the case for people who turnover homes quickly. This tendency to ‘over-discount the future’ (Hoffman & Henn, 2008) is

described further under section 4.3.5. A US study by Purdie (2009, cited in Hurst, 2012) found that purchasers would not pay a premium for energy efficient homes. Studies claiming that customers are willing to pay may not necessarily follow up such claims with actual evidence to support them (for example, Mandell & Wilhelmssen, 2011 cited in Hurst, 2012).

A similar phenomenon has been observed with regard to safety features in housing (which could be argued to be a social dimension of a sustainable home). Discussions with first home buyers, people buying a second or later home, home renovators, and

residential property investors (Minnery et. al., 2003) revealed that customer knowledge of safety in homes was extremely variable, ranging from poorly informed to very well

informed. If people thought much about safety at all, they generally felt that it was an important issue for groups such as children, older people and those with disabilities, but

“not for them and not right now” (Minnery et. al., 2003, p. 8). However, even those who were well informed “traded off safety improvements against aesthetics, convenience or cost” (p. 1). In general, safety was not a consideration in decisions to purchase a home (Minnery et. al., 2003), with issues such as price and location over-riding any safety issues. For example, polished wooden floors were preferred over carpets because of their attractiveness and relative ease of maintenance, despite the fact that they posed a

greater slip hazard. There was also an expectation amongst home buyers that

government regulation would identify and overcome safety problems, particularly in newer homes. Given that builders claimed that safety fixtures and features would be included if consumers asked for them, Minnery et. al (2003) concluded that there was little likelihood of rapid improvements in this area.

A problem which exacerbates the barrier of the perceived lack of willingness to pay from customers is the situation that the benefits from sustainable buildings are rarely enjoyed by the building designers or those financing construction (an issue known as ‘split incentives’). While the developer [or builder] knows the capital cost of various

sustainability features, it is more difficult to be sure of the potential future savings to the occupier (Dewick & Miozzo, 2002). While in some cases, savings from lower energy and water use can more than off-set the additional up-front costs of a green home (US Green Building Council, 2007) given the current relatively low prices for energy and water, this is not necessarily the case and payback periods may be long. Further, the initial buyer may only live in a more sustainable house for a few years and therefore may not value the benefits of features with long payback periods or obtain a higher resale value in

recognition of its features. (Mandatory disclosure attempts to address this by provision of

improved information for buyers). Even where an initiative could be expected to pay itself back within the expected occupancy of the house, customers may not always be prepared to pay more upfront. This is because households tend to heavily discount the value of future benefits in their decision making, ignoring the cashflow implications and the long-term financial benefits (discussed further in section 4.3.5).

There is a tendency during building investment decisions to ignore or critically undervalue many of the attributes of sustainable buildings (Kats et al., 2003). This is, in part, because

“…traditional property valuation techniques are not fully capable of clearly addressing and accounting for sustainability issues when determining market value” (Lorenz et al., 2007, p. 120). Indeed, the challenges of measuring the impact of sustainable design features or other aspects of environmental and social performance on the building’s market value are so great that “...it has been called the ‘Holy Grail’ in contemporary sustainability research within the property and construction sector (Hirigoyen, 2005, cited in Lorenz et al., 2007, p. 132). The authors argue that one of the main reasons it is difficult to establish the relationship between sustainability features and market value is because many hedonic studies used within such studies have significant data limitations, relying on crude input relating to attributes such as number, age or size of building features, or other

subjective/qualitative judgements based on implicit assumptions. To overcome the present limitations in terms of being able to accurately relate sustainability features with market value, (Lorenz et al, 2007, p. 142) argue that “...the description of property assets needs to be widened to include a range of technical, functional, environmental and social issues”.

In the context of volume housing, houses are built and sold quickly, and builders seek to maximise their profit. Dewick & Miozzo (2002) suggest that the corporate governance structure, profit motivation and extent of shareholder ownership are important institutional barriers to sustainable building, resulting in a perception of conflict between economic and environmental bottom lines. This discourages inclusion of techniques or products that cost more but are not similarly valued by paying customers.