IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i12p4984-d373240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Citizens’ Views on Adaptation to Bioclimatic Housing Design: Case Study from Greece

Author

Listed:
  • Veronika Andrea

    (Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace, 68200 Orestiada, Greece)

  • Stilianos Tampakis

    (School of Forestry and Natural Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Paraskevi Karanikola

    (Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace, 68200 Orestiada, Greece)

  • Maria Georgopoulou

    (Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace, 68200 Orestiada, Greece)

Abstract

Bioclimatic housing design is regarded as an important pillar towards energy policies. Additionally, it is closely affiliated with the performance of energy efficiency of buildings. The citizens’ views and their adaptation to energy saving practices can be utilized as an important data base in order to design, improve and properly manage urbanization and environmental challenges in the residential sector. For the capitalization of the citizens’ views in Orestiada, the newest city in Greece, simple random sampling was applied on data that were collected via personal interviews and with the use of a structured questionnaire. Reliability and factor analyses were applied for the data processing along with hierarchical log-linear analysis. The latter was utilized for the statistical clustering of citizens into given distinct groups—clusters, arising by factor analysis. The main findings revealed that the citizens are merely aware of bioclimatic principles, while only a small percentage of 28.8% adopts some primary bioclimatic disciplines. Conclusively, it should be noted that there is a need for effective planning towards empowerment on energy efficiency in the residential sector of the city. Notwithstanding, it should not be disregarded the need for the incorporation of conceptual frameworks in urban planning. This is an approach that prerequisites public awareness and the stakeholders’ participation in decision making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Veronika Andrea & Stilianos Tampakis & Paraskevi Karanikola & Maria Georgopoulou, 2020. "The Citizens’ Views on Adaptation to Bioclimatic Housing Design: Case Study from Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:4984-:d:373240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4984/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4984/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    2. Manzano-Agugliaro, Francisco & Montoya, Francisco G. & Sabio-Ortega, Andrés & García-Cruz, Amós, 2015. "Review of bioclimatic architecture strategies for achieving thermal comfort," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 736-755.
    3. Mushk Bughio & Thorsten Schuetze & Waqas Ahmed Mahar, 2020. "Comparative Analysis of Indoor Environmental Quality of Architectural Campus Buildings’ Lecture Halls and its’ Perception by Building Users, in Karachi, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-29, April.
    4. Igor Calzada, 2018. "(Smart) Citizens from Data Providers to Decision-Makers? The Case Study of Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    5. Zhengxin Ji & Yueqing Xu & Hejie Wei, 2020. "Identifying Dynamic Changes in Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand for Urban Sustainability: Insights from a Rapidly Urbanizing City in Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, April.
    6. Patricia Romero-Lankao & Daniel M. Gnatz & Olga Wilhelmi & Mary Hayden, 2016. "Urban Sustainability and Resilience: From Theory to Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, November.
    7. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226316529 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Troy Malatesta & Gregory M. Morrison & Jessica K. Breadsell & Christine Eon, 2023. "A Systematic Literature Review of the Interplay between Renewable Energy Systems and Occupant Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-27, June.
    2. Pajek, Luka & Košir, Mitja, 2021. "Strategy for achieving long-term energy efficiency of European single-family buildings through passive climate adaptation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 297(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Han-Shen Chen, 2020. "The Construction and Validation of a Sustainable Tourism Development Evaluation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    3. Goggin, Gerard & Vromen, Ariadne & Weatherall, Kimberlee & Martin, Fiona & Sunman, Lucy, 2019. "Data and digital rights: recent Australian developments," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19.
    4. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    5. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Pilar Jiménez-Medina & Andrés Artal-Tur & Noelia Sánchez-Casado, 2021. "Tourism Business, Place Identity, Sustainable Development, and Urban Resilience: A Focus on the Sociocultural Dimension," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 44(1), pages 170-199, January.
    7. Mihai-Răzvan Sanda & Cristina-Petrina Trincu-Dragusin, 2021. "Supreme Audit Institutions and the Strive Towards an Open Data Culture," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 1120-1130, December.
    8. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    9. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    10. Oberst, Christian & Harmsen - van Hout, Marjolein J. W., 2017. "Adoption and Cooperation Decisions in Sustainable Energy Infrastructure: Evidence from a Sequential Choice Experiment in Germany," FCN Working Papers 14/2017, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    11. Carmen de la Cruz-Lovera & Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro & Esther Salmerón-Manzano & José-Luis de la Cruz-Fernández & Alberto-Jesus Perea-Moreno, 2019. "Date Seeds ( Phoenix dactylifera L. ) Valorization for Boilers in the Mediterranean Climate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Ascione, Fabrizio & De Masi, Rosa Francesca & de Rossi, Filippo & Ruggiero, Silvia & Vanoli, Giuseppe Peter, 2016. "Optimization of building envelope design for nZEBs in Mediterranean climate: Performance analysis of residential case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 938-957.
    13. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Mikhail Rogov & Céline Rozenblat, 2018. "Urban Resilience Discourse Analysis: Towards a Multi-Level Approach to Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    15. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    16. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    17. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    18. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    19. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    20. Faruque As Sunny & Linlin Fu & Md Sadique Rahman & Zuhui Huang, 2022. "Determinants and Impact of Solar Irrigation Facility (SIF) Adoption: A Case Study in Northern Bangladesh," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:4984-:d:373240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.