IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i21p11823-d665474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Market for Eco Self-Build Community Housing

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo Newberry

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK)

  • Paul Harper

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK)

  • Thea Morgan

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK)

Abstract

This paper evaluates the potential of eco self-build community (ESBC) housing to act as a socially and environmentally sustainable housing solution that can address the demand for self-build and community housing whilst supporting the UK’s 2050 net-zero-carbon commitment. This model of housing is being piloted through schemes such as the Water Lilies project, an upcoming ESBC scheme providing self-finish houses and custom-build flats. The research aims to gain a broad understanding of the market for ESBC housing by analysing the data from people who registered interest in a plot or home and comparing this with data from a similar survey targeted at the market for conventional self-build and custom-build housing. The key findings are that: (1) the ESBC housing market is largely open to more than one build method, but with a greater preference for purchasing a completed home and self-finish than self-build, compared to the conventional market for self-build and custom-build that is primarily interested in self-build; (2) the ESBC housing market is looking for a variety of home sizes, though predominantly 2 and 3 bedrooms, that could be provided through houses and flats, compared to the conventional market for self-build and custom-build that is mostly seeking larger houses on single plots; (3) the most important housing aspects to the ESBC housing market are ‘green lifestyle’, ‘style and construction quality’, and ‘community spirit’, which differ to the conventional self-build and custom-build market, where they are ‘construction quality’, ‘internal appearance/layout’ and ‘location’; (4) living in a sustainable home is important to the market for conventional self-build and custom-build housing and on average, they would be willing to pay 27% more for a highly sustainable home than the average UK new build. The main drivers are that people want to reduce their environmental impact and reduce their home running costs. A key overall conclusion of the study is that a distinct market exists for ESBC schemes, where the priorities of prospective homeowners differ to those from the more general self-build market. For ESBC schemes, the provision of eco-housing and a sense of community are key priorities, whereas for the more general self-build market, location and the need to tailor the house design to the owner’s unique aesthetic and lifestyle preferences tend to be the most important factors. This paper discusses the implications of these findings and identifies opportunities for scaling up the delivery of ESBC housing.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Newberry & Paul Harper & Thea Morgan, 2021. "Understanding the Market for Eco Self-Build Community Housing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11823-:d:665474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11823/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11823/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gillich, Aaron & Saber, Esmail Mahmoudi & Mohareb, Eugene, 2019. "Limits and uncertainty for energy efficiency in the UK housing stock," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Paul Chatterton, 2013. "Towards an Agenda for Post-carbon Cities: Lessons from Lilac, the UK's First Ecological, Affordable Cohousing Community," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 1654-1674, September.
    3. Heffernan, Emma & Pan, Wei & Liang, Xi & de Wilde, Pieter, 2015. "Zero carbon homes: Perceptions from the UK construction industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 23-36.
    4. Steffie Broer & Helena Titheridge, 2010. "Eco-Self-Build Housing Communities: Are They Feasible and Can They Lead to Sustainable and Low Carbon Lifestyles?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(7), pages 1-33, July.
    5. Francesco Chiodelli & Valeria Baglione, 2014. "Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 20-34, January.
    6. Tony Hopkin & Shu-Ling Lu & Phil Rogers & Martin Sexton, 2016. "Detecting defects in the UK new-build housing sector: a learning perspective," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 35-45, January.
    7. Iqbal Hamiduddin & Nick Gallent, 2016. "Self-build communities: the rationale and experiences of group-build (Baugruppen) housing development in Germany," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 365-383, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Piotr Lis & Zuzanna Rataj & Katarzyna Suszyńska, 2022. "Implementation Risk Factors of Collaborative Housing in Poland: The Case of ‘Nowe Żerniki’ in Wrocław," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. Aimee Felstead & Kevin Thwaites & James Simpson, 2019. "A Conceptual Framework for Urban Commoning in Shared Residential Landscapes in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, November.
    4. Li, X. & Arbabi, H. & Bennett, G. & Oreszczyn, T. & Densley Tingley, D., 2022. "Net zero by 2050: Investigating carbon-budget compliant retrofit measures for the English housing stock," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    5. Xiaoqing Zhu & Tiancheng Zhang & Weijun Gao & Danying Mei, 2020. "Analysis on Spatial Pattern and Driving Factors of Carbon Emission in Urban–Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Communities: Cases Study in East Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    7. Stewart Barr & Justin Pollard, 2017. "Geographies of Transition: Narrating environmental activism in an age of climate change and ‘Peak Oil’," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(1), pages 47-64, January.
    8. Stefano Moroni, 2014. "Towards a general theory of contractual communities: neither necessarily gated, nor a form of privatization," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 3, pages 38-65, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Cozzolino, Stefano & Moroni, Stefano, 2021. "Multiple agents and self-organisation in complex cities: The crucial role of several property," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    10. Jenny Pickerill, 2017. "Critically Interrogating Eco-Homes," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 353-365, March.
    11. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    12. Oluwatobiloba Stephanie Ogunrin & Inna Vorushylo & Oghenovo Okpako & Neil Hewitt, 2022. "Domestic Energy Efficiency Scenarios for Northern Ireland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, April.
    13. Greenwood, Dan & Congreve, Alina & King, Martin, 2017. "Streamlining or watering down? Assessing the 'smartness' of policy and standards for the promotion of low and zero carbon homes in England 2010–15," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 490-499.
    14. Marson Korbi & Andrea Migotto, 2019. "Between Rationalization and Political Project: The Existenzminimum from Klein and Teige to Today," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 299-314.
    15. Aurora Greta Ruggeri & Laura Gabrielli & Massimiliano Scarpa, 2020. "Energy Retrofit in European Building Portfolios: A Review of Five Key Aspects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-38, September.
    16. Ziyi Wang & Zengqiao Chen & Cuiping Ma & Ronald Wennersten & Qie Sun, 2022. "Nationwide Evaluation of Urban Energy System Resilience in China Using a Comprehensive Index Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-36, February.
    17. Sanghoon Lee & Sanghyo Lee & Jaejun Kim, 2018. "Evaluating the Impact of Defect Risks in Residential Buildings at the Occupancy Phase," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    18. Onat, Nuri Cihat & Kucukvar, Murat, 2020. "Carbon footprint of construction industry: A global review and supply chain analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    19. Pablo Jimenez-Moreno, 2021. "Mass Customisation for Zero-Energy Housing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.
    20. Andrew Williams & Mark Goodwin & Paul Cloke, 2014. "Neoliberalism, Big Society, and Progressive Localism," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(12), pages 2798-2815, December.

    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:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11823-:d:665474. 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.