PROFESIONALES IMPLICADOS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter further explores context surrounding dwelling adaptation and interventions for energy efficiency and comfort by describing and reviewing: concepts of equity, comfort and energy and their roles as motivators for dwelling adaptation activity; current intervention approaches encouraging energy and comfort improvements; critiques of intervention approaches; and theories that can help to improve intervention approaches.

Concepts and activity around equity, comfort and energy in dwellings are explored in order to establish them as legitimate motivators for dwelling adaptations. Major types of intervention approaches used around the world (and critiques of them) are reviewed in order to provide some understanding of: intervention activity over the last few decades; the types of interventions that have been applied in Tasmania and Australia; the

positives and negatives of various approaches; and possible ways to improve them. Theories of adaptation are presented because they: offer some background to adaptation and to interventions approaches; can potentially guide improvements to intervention approaches; and help to overcome current implementation problems.

In light of the topics this chapter explores, the chapter is guided by two questions: How does consideration of equity, comfort and energy efficiency motivate dwelling

adaptation efforts? What intervention approaches have been used to date to encourage dwelling adaptation for energy efficiency, comfort and equity and what has been the reaction?

To build a picture of and a critique around adaptation motivators and intervention approaches, this chapter drew on and reviewed academic literature, government reports, context observations (including reviews of stakeholder activity), media documents and focus groups.

4.2 Motivations of contemporary dwelling adaptation

This section responds to the questions: How does consideration of equity, comfort and energy efficiencymotivate dwelling adaptation efforts? Design, construction and dwelling culture have shifted under the influence of sustainability discourses and practices, including those informing climate change adaptation and mitigation

(Australian Building Codes Board 2004; Gleeson 2006; Low et al. 2005; Troy 2000b). In addition, the global economic crisis and the consequent slowing of economies, higher expenses, and economic and employment insecurity impinge upon the consideration of equity. The influence these economic related issues have on householder behaviour can be seen, for example, in the reduction of the value of residential building work

conducted for significant renovations and new builds in Tasmania over 2010–12 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012c: 4).

4.2.1 Equity, social capital and disadvantage

Understandings and agreement that people have a right to an adequate dwelling standard that will support equitable living circumstances was slow to emerge and be included in Australian legislation and policy. Nevertheless, that appreciation now underpins dwelling adaptation support and advocacy activity in Tasmania (Flanagan, J. 2007; Gabriel et al. 2010; Tasmanian Council of Social Services 2007), in common with other like jurisdictions (Howden-Chapman et al. 2011; Howden-Chapman et al. 2007; Preval et al. 2010).

Equity is defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1992) as ‘the quality of being equal or fair’. The United Nations Human Rights Declaration states that:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood [sic] (General Assembly of the United Nations 1948: Article 1).

Gleeson (2008: 2659) argues that housing scholars and stakeholders are looking to support fairness in urban environments as an enhanced form of equity. Fortune and advantage Gleeson says are ‘shaped by social relations’, and he asserts that no “policy direction, however, technically or economically compelling, should fail the equity test”. Australia supports the principles of intra-generational and inter-generational equity as

set out by the United Nations. This commitment can be seen in legal and welfare systems that seek to provide security and assistance to the populace, especially in cases of disadvantage. The right to an adequate standard of housing is one aspect of equity principles and declarations (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2009). At Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights it is stated that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well- being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of

unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control (General Assembly of the United Nations 1948).

Human rights advocates see that creating ‘adequate housing’ is a key way to empower people and enhance equity since:

Adequate housing is essential for human survival with dignity. Without a right to housing, many other basic human rights will be compromised, including the right to family life and privacy, the right to freedom of movement, the right to assembly and association, the right to health and the right to development (Sidoti 1997: 1).

Importantly, empowerment and equity are not simply apprehended by individuals. Stretton, for example, sees dwellings as sites of the production of social capital. In them are developed and maintained a range of skills and capacities that, over time, feed back into communities to enhance this form of capital (Stretton 1974; Stretton 1999). Stretton suggests that paying attention to and measuring the social capital benefits that domestic life provides may improve social and environmental conditions and these, in turn, foster communities that value equitable housing and are more equitable (and fair).

Equity is thus viewed as a key value of sustainability in its broadest sense affecting economic, social and environmental outcomes (Baker 2006; World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987: 43). As Chiu (2004: 73) explains:

The sustainable development perspective reinforces a primary equity concept in housing. That is, in a fair society, the basic housing needs of every household must be met, each enjoying at least a fundamental standard of accommodation as defined by the society.

In a neoliberal climate, however, social capital and equity both are seen as the responsibilities of active citizens more than of governments. But active citizenship presupposes a range of capacities that disadvantage may affect. In the case of low- income or disadvantaged households, for example, a lack of capacity is generally assumed to be a key barrier to adaptive works whether for social, economic or environmental purposes (Grothmann et al. 2005; Smit et al. 2006). In short, adapting dwellings requires capacity, but opportunity to develop capacity is related to

householder circumstances, including those pertaining to dwelling (Roaf et al. 2005: 117); and so the disadvantage is cyclical.

Particulars of capacity become important when considering disadvantage. Capacity is used in this thesis to mean the power, faculty or ability to achieve (Little et al. 1992: 280). Capacity tends to define the opportunities and the sort of adaptations householders can make and can be associated with an individual, a household, a social system and various other entities. Certain conditions are required to generate certain capacities and this occurs over long periods of time.

Climate change adaptation literature emphasises the importance of capacity and refers specifically to adaptive capacities that can be used to manage, cope with and respond to a given pressure resiliently. In general, the capacity to respond

is the system’s ability to adjust to a disturbance, moderate potential damage, take advantage of opportunities, and cope with the consequences of a transformation that occurs. Capacity [to respond] … is clearly an attribute of the system that exists prior to the perturbation (Gallopin 2006: 296).

Capacity limitations can occur at all levels of affluence. For instance, a person may have knowledge, but not the money or the time to act; another person may have time, but not the physical ability to act; and another person may have the time and the physical ability, but no understanding or motivation. Opportunities to make change are affected when there are numerous limitations or when the capacity needed cannot be used, traded or negotiated. A lack of capacity can be especially problematic where there are, for example physical disabilities, health issues or low incomes without adjunct support networks. Disadvantage is viewed in this study as a circumstance where various

capacity limitations make adapting difficult. When compared to other states of Australia a disproportionately high percentage of the Tasmanian population are described as

disadvantaged (Tasmanian Council of Social Services 2007) and points to a need for intervention policies and strategies to support dwelling adaptation.

4.2.2 Comfort

Broadly speaking, to be comfortable is to be ‘in a state of tranquil enjoyment’. Comfortable dwellings allow people ‘to be at ease’, supported, or even to be

strengthened by (and in) their environment (Harper 2001-2012).43 So a comfortable home provides supports householders to be at ease and tranquil.

Rybczynski (1986) argues that the concept of comfort and practices to foster being comfortable in the home have evolved in parallel with dwelling habits and cultural change. He shows how the meaning of comfort began as the idea of being able to ‘to strengthen or console … [and eventually broadened] to include people and things that afforded a measure of satisfaction, and … to mean tolerable or sufficient’. Only later, in the eighteenth century, comfort ‘acquired its sense of physical well-being and

enjoyment’ (ibid.:20).

In the modern context, aspirations for domestic comfort may be driven by physiological, psychological or cultural pressures, wants, expectations or actual needs. Comfort may come from various sources. For example, a comfortable bed may offer physical support, thermal comfort, and safety; a bottle of wine may offer comfort by promising access to a quenching, delicious treat; and, a heater may offer physiological comfort. No matter how it is understood, comfort has become a service that householders want and expect the home environment to provide (Shove 2003). Indeed, ‘[i]f a change occurs such as to produce discomfort, people react in ways which tend to restore their comfort’ (Roaf et al. 2005: 117). As such a widely aspired-to goal and service of the home, it is useful concept for intervention designs to respond to and aim to support.

Comfort aspirations are seen as significant drivers for energy conservation and

adaptation of dwellings. An Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey conducted in three editions in 2002, 2005 and, most recently, in 2008 found that

measures used to conserve energy in households, such as insulation, were adopted mostly for comfort and lifestyle reasons, rather than from a desire to save energy (2008: 7).

For Australians in general, and over 80 per cent of Tasmanians in particular, the study found the main reason to install insulation in houses was to achieve comfort (ibid.: 7, 28). In Tasmania, only 10 per cent of respondents said that cost saving was the main reason for insulating, and using less energy was the main reason for less than five per cent of those respondents (ibid.: 28).

Focus group members also saw comfort as an important incentive for dwelling adaptation. One State Government representative reasoned,

I would rather sell a comfy cushion than a hair shirt. Like telling everybody that they are going to have to tighten their belts and turn down their thermostats and live in the gloom and all the rest of it, they turn off. But maybe the driver is, ‘Listen, you can have a much more comfortable house for no extra money, healthier, happier environment, get rid of those cold drafts and it won’t cost you much, in fact it will save you money in the long term and your house will be worth more at the end of it (SGFG May 2008).

Due to the concept of comfort having a variety of meanings, it is not clear that everyone is aspiring to the same comfort goals. In this investigation, and because of its

relationship to health and energy use, physiological comfort is the type of comfort focussed on and aspired to. Humans have fairly narrow internal thermal states that they must maintain to remain healthy and in a state of physiological ease: ‘People in every society have the same physiology and core temperature of around 37.5°C, and the same adaptive mechanisms to keep their bodies at this core temperature in even the most extreme climates’ (Roaf et al. 2005: 34). To maintain this thermal core temperature (and be physiologically comfortable) people have to balance heat input and outputs from the body with the minimum of effort. Lowry (1991: 113-4) explains that for people

physiological

comfort accompanies minimal energy use in maintaining thermal equilibrium.

We are “uncomfortable” when feedback control is necessary and very

uncomfortable when emergency mechanisms, such as sweating or shivering, are required [original emphasis].

Physiological discomfort, including in housing, can lead to ill health and, in extreme hot and cold temperatures, can lead to death (Douglas et al. 2003; Howden-Chapman et al. 2007; World Health Organization (WHO) 2007: 3). The risk of illness increases as temperatures moves away from optimum conditions (Roaf et al. 2005: 130). When people are healthy but inactive, 18-24°C is generally a safe temperature range. When the temperature drops below 16°C the body’s resistance to respiratory infection begins to reduce; below 12°C there is an increase in the possibility of cardiovascular issues; and, below 5°C the risk of hypothermia increases.

Due to the significance of climatic conditions to physiological wellbeing, the World Health Organization (WHO) has set standards for thermal comfort in buildings. The temperature ranges specified are limited at 21/22°C for living areas and 18°C for other areas such as bedrooms (Ranson 1988b). These temperature ranges guide policy but are rarely met in indoor domestic environments in Australia during cold or hot weather events, unless a dwelling is passively well-designed or has heating and cooling appliances (which cause extra expense and environmental impacts).

People who are healthy and able to keep active, and who have access to variety of dwelling areas are often physiologically more comfortable. People who are elderly, disabled, or very young often have reduced thermo-regulatory responses, and are more vulnerable to physiological discomfort (Roaf et al. 2005). In addition, householders with issues of capacity, such as low incomes, are also less able to control their thermal

environment and are therefore more vulnerable to physiological (and other forms of) discomfort.

Despite housing authorities understanding the impacts of discomfort on vulnerable populations, there has not yet been any significant change in housing policy. In

Tasmania, members of the SCS, the LGFG and the SGFG focus groups (October 2007, May 2008) observed that the relationship between health and housing stock was not yet well-acknowledged in policy, commercial activity or other institutional activities. The SG and LG focus groups (October 2007, May 2008) also acknowledged that although the passive energy performance of dwellings was understood to affect physiological comfort and occupant health, the relationship was rarely supported through policy (LGFG October 2007). This recognition-policy action gap is not uncommon: in the United States, improvements to indoor environments have been identified that would

drive occupant health improvements and productivity gains worth billions of dollars and yet remain undone (Fisk 2000).

Physiological comfort is not just derived from housing stock performance, but is also a consequence of householder practices; both the dweller and the dwelling have agency when creating comfort in housing. In relation to the dweller, people use various methods to attain physiological comfort in their dwellings. Physiological comfort can, for example, be embodied by means of physical activity, dressing, or eating and drinking. In relation to managing thermal conditions in dwellings, after clothes,

‘buildings are our third skin’ (Roaf et al. 2005: 33). Various features and functions can be manipulated in the physical dwelling to create more ‘comfortable’ environments with the use of resources and technologies. Passive or active strategies can be used, such as enclosing and resisting heat-flow via the building shell, ventilation, solar control, and inputting or extracting heat (see chapter four for further discussion). Indeed, improving the passive performance of a building shell and improving comfort appliances are key methods of reducing vulnerability due to thermal variation whilst maintaining

affordability.

In another vein, perceptions about physiological comfort needs in the home are influenced by cultural expectations and habitual practices, and collectively these also inform energy use and the environmental impacts of dwelling (Cole et al. 2008; Cooper 2009; Strengers 2008). As Shove (2003:194) suggests:

Roughly half the energy in the world is used in buildings, and much of that is devoted to keeping them ‘comfortable’, whether through heating or cooling. In simple energy related terms, understanding what comfort means, how it is defined and how it is realized is of immense environmental significance, especially since conventions of comfort appear to be converging around the world in ways that require the use of resource-intensive technology. If sustainability is our focus, then so are meanings of comfort and the manner of its provision.

Controlling thermal environments by using air conditioning has made people less thermally flexible, creating expectations for temperatures to be maintained in thin thermal bands (Chappells et al. 2005; Shove 2003). In Australia, the effect of these expectations can be seen in the increasing number of heating and cooling appliances being used in more rooms of more houses (Pink et al. 2010: 91); certainly, this trend is apparent in Tasmania (SGFG October 2007). Nevertheless, in her work to achieve more

sustainable dwelling outcomes, Shove (2003) has argued that people do not need to live in narrow temperature bands scripted by building and air-conditioning codes, business- as-usual solutions and cultural expectations. Shove suggests that householders can use different methods to create comfortable spaces but acknowledges with others that alternative methods may be limited by the complex technology used for indoor climate control and the scripting that comes with such specialist and dedicated equipment (Cooper 2009; Ingram et al. 2007; Strengers 2008).

At the same time, it is often hard to distinguish between what are reasonable

expectations for physiological comfort and what are culturally produced expectations in excess of real needs. In this respect:

There is surprisingly little effort made in the research literature to separate wants from needs … This [lack of distinction] reflects the problem that, beyond the physiological basics, what constitutes a necessity is relative, subjective, and reflects a person’s experience, expectations, and circumstances. These needs have also tended to evolve over time so that yesterday’s luxuries become tomorrow’s necessities (Peattie 2010: 200).

In this light, the ‘manufacture’ of high consumption expectations around comfort can be re-examined. Not surprisingly in socio-technical and sustainable consumption literatures an assumption underlying much of the work on expectations, wants and needs is that— when influenced by cultural expectations—people will be led to over-consume, rather than to consume less (Chappells et al. 2005; Peattie 2010; Shove 2003). Simply referring to overconsumption is to oversimplify the issue, since, for example, maintaining basic levels of comfort in a low quality house in Tasmania may drive people to consume large amounts of energy to meet need and not cultural expectations or fashions. Maintaining basic physical comfort in Tasmania can often require the use of large amounts of supplemental heating through most of autumn, winter and spring, and sometimes even during periods in summer (Anglicare 2002; Flanagan, J. 2007).

Therefore, although socio-technological critiques of dwelling comfort identify

important considerations, they have not provided substantive suggestions as to how to intervene in dwelling practices to stem overconsumption of energy; nor have they fully