舒適之“度”：環(huán)境政策面臨的挑戰(zhàn)

本·肖/Ben Shaw

尚晉 譯/Translated by SHANG Jin

舒適之“度”：環(huán)境政策面臨的挑戰(zhàn)

本·肖/Ben Shaw

尚晉 譯/Translated by SHANG Jin

本文以建成環(huán)境舒適度的各種研究和視角為出發(fā)點，討論了在維護環(huán)境穩(wěn)定性、生態(tài)系統(tǒng)運行以及社會和分配等問題加劇的全球形勢下，過度提高舒適度以及能源和資源需求所引發(fā)的問題。不同于影響規(guī)劃和建成環(huán)境舒適度的政策，本文關注的是消費者面臨環(huán)境決策時的行為研究，而這存在一個前提：舒適度在一定意義上是一種社會性構成，需要建筑、規(guī)劃和政策等領域的專業(yè)人士去創(chuàng)造。

舒適度，環(huán)境，政策，氣候，資源

我們?nèi)祟惖囊淮蠡咎卣骶褪悄軇?chuàng)造適應各種自然和建成環(huán)境的服裝和建筑。我們在地球上生活和工作的環(huán)境可謂千姿百態(tài)。但舒適度如何呢？從歷史上看，某些地方達到了空前的水平。而從個人經(jīng)驗看，在大面積的共享開放辦公空間中，日常工作環(huán)境或許是讓員工不滿的一個突出原因。溫度、照明、通風水平的選擇在下一秒就有可能激發(fā)截然相反的意見。例如，溫度在有些人看來不過是使用中的一個小細節(jié)，卻是影響建筑使用者的形象和福祉以及員工工作效率的關鍵因素。

不過這只是一個視角，而且非常狹隘，即使它指明舒適度是一個倍受爭議的問題。舒適度可以從多學科的角度進行更嚴格的考查。“過度舒適”可以是一個實際的設計問題，也可以是對人體生理需求及其在不同環(huán)境下的反應的研究；既關乎健康和福祉，又涉及哲學思考；是對特定環(huán)境的情感映射，也是對社會習俗、規(guī)范和構建的探索。對于舒適度的理念和范式的思考，查普爾斯和肖夫[1]提出了6大主題：

（1）舒適度、技術與社會——舒適的含義與技術和社會發(fā)展之間的關系；

（2）舒適度與室內(nèi)環(huán)境——建筑、工程與自然科學對室內(nèi)環(huán)境中熱舒適度的處理方式；

（3）舒適度與室外氣候——建筑師、地理學家與城市規(guī)劃師在室外氣候?qū)κ孢m度含義和效果的影響上的思考；

（4）舒適度、健康與幸?！餍胁W家、醫(yī)學家與社會科學家的研究；

（5）舒適度、文化與社會習俗——以人類學家和社會學家的理念為基礎；

（6）舒適度與氣候變化——化石燃料的消耗與舒適度的實現(xiàn)，以及對未來氣候變化中舒適度的影響之間的關聯(lián)。

最后一項是他們研究的動機。近來人們所期待的舒適度和條件是基于能源密集型技術的。這在很大程度上不是長期可持續(xù)的，至少以現(xiàn)在的方式是不行的。因此，他們的著眼點在于評估是否存在其他理念或范式能支撐低資源的舒適度。

舒適度與氣候變化之間的聯(lián)系是本文標題問題的第一個回答。從環(huán)境資源上看，他們現(xiàn)在及未來對建成環(huán)境舒適度的要求過高。最近的新建筑舒適度所需的能源、建筑資源、水、土地和交通資源，以目前的技術來看是不可持續(xù)的?！斑^度舒適”需要更為復雜的答案。

就能源而言，2010年建筑產(chǎn)生了全球近20%的溫室氣體[2]9。政府間氣候變化專門委員會（IPCC）指出，要讓溫度相對于前工業(yè)化水平的變化少于2℃，大氣濃度就需要在2100年達到450ppm的CO2當量[2]10。為實現(xiàn)這一點，就需要大量減少人類排放的溫室氣體（GHG），并大規(guī)模改變能源體系及用地。2100年達到這一濃度的方案是，2050年全球溫室氣體排放比2010年減少40%至70%；2100年CO2當量排放接近零或更低[2]10-11。

在本世紀末消除碳排放是一個艱巨的挑戰(zhàn)，但要保持22世紀的舒適度就必須克服它，而行動的機遇正在逝去。即便大氣碳濃度穩(wěn)定在450ppmCO2當量上，熱浪還是會更頻繁地出現(xiàn)，而且更加持久，很多地區(qū)也會更密集地發(fā)生極端降水。海洋將持續(xù)變暖和酸化，全球海平面亦將提高[3]10。此外，不僅現(xiàn)有的風險會增大，自然和人類系統(tǒng)還會增加新的風險。它們分布不均，而各類弱勢人群都會受到更大影響，不論國家的發(fā)達程度如何。這就需要碳減排和對變化氣候的適應。[3]13

雖有應對能源和氣候問題的趨勢，但舒適度的實現(xiàn)不應是能源密集型而是資源密集型的——建筑材料、水、土地都是必須的。在全球?qū)用嫔?，《千年生態(tài)系統(tǒng)評估》[4]以4大標題表達了自然環(huán)境的現(xiàn)狀與未來。其第一項是：

“在過去的50年中，人類改變生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的速度和廣度超過了歷史上任何一個相似時期。其主要目的是滿足快速增長的食品、淡水、木材、纖維和燃料需求。這給地球生命多樣性造成了重大的、幾乎是無可挽回的損失?！?/p>

盡管這些變化為人類福祉和經(jīng)濟發(fā)展帶來了貢獻，但實現(xiàn)它們的代價是生態(tài)系統(tǒng)退化及特定人群的利益。若不加以遏止，將威脅后世從生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中受益的可能。在向生態(tài)系統(tǒng)不斷索取的背景下，控制其退化是一項艱巨的挑戰(zhàn)，需要超越當下的政策、體制和實踐的重大轉(zhuǎn)變。[4]1

保護氣候穩(wěn)定性、生態(tài)系統(tǒng)質(zhì)量及其所需的設施，都需要通過改變技術和行為降低總消費水平。然而，舒適度與消費之間的分配，以及誰在不同時空條件下從中獲益的基本問題，是當今和未來氣候與生態(tài)系統(tǒng)新挑戰(zhàn)的前提?！肚臧l(fā)展目標報告》突出了這一方面的進展，而未來行動的需求再清晰不過——全球約1/5的人口2010年每天收入不到1.25美元，與貧窮、教育、饑餓、兒童死亡率、水和衛(wèi)生有關的問題暴露出基本生活必需品的不足，更不要提舒適度。這就是對“過度舒適”的第二個回答[5]。對于全球大多數(shù)人，他們的回答是舒適度不足，甚至根本沒有。

這些挑戰(zhàn)非同小可。面對它們需要技術的進步，并將這些技術與新建設結合在一起，還需要有力的發(fā)展規(guī)劃和政策，以及一定程度的轉(zhuǎn)變行為。

盡管這些挑戰(zhàn)會變得難以承受，我們還是可以從《7個世紀的照明》[61139-177[6]172

建筑師、規(guī)劃師與政策制定者在處理這些問題上的合作需要加強，正是清華大學建筑學院與威斯敏斯特大學建筑環(huán)境學院2015年4月“闡釋可持續(xù)性”工作坊要傳達的重要信息。

實現(xiàn)向可持續(xù)未來的轉(zhuǎn)變是筆者所在的威斯敏斯特大學政策研究所（PSI）的研究重點。其主要工作是能源、交通、資源利用、城市與創(chuàng)新等政策問題。我們同政策制定者、社區(qū)和商家合作，理解政策的挑戰(zhàn)以及更可持續(xù)的未來道路。工作內(nèi)容還包括與政策評估相關的程序——政策如何能更加有效，以及研究與政策之間的相互作用——實證如何能帶來更多的社會影響。我們與舒適度研究相關的另一項工作是公眾行為和公眾對政策手段的反應。

英國和歐洲已在環(huán)境政策的標準手段上取得了一定成果：法規(guī)、金融手段、自愿協(xié)議以及更好的信息服務。不過，隨著大量的環(huán)境挑戰(zhàn)從關注生產(chǎn)拓展轉(zhuǎn)為兼顧生產(chǎn)與消費，消費者參與的問題就愈發(fā)關鍵了。

PSI對歐洲委員會就影響消費者的政策設計進行了研究，下面我們列出了其中一些發(fā)現(xiàn)[7]。鑒于上述與氣候、生態(tài)系統(tǒng)以及《千年發(fā)展目標》相關的挑戰(zhàn)過于宏大，這些發(fā)現(xiàn)的目的是為了向所有解決實現(xiàn)舒適度所需的能源和資源增長問題的人提供建設性的意見。

現(xiàn)實中的消費者行為往往與經(jīng)濟學家和政策制定者設想的有所出入。與正統(tǒng)經(jīng)濟學的觀點相反，消費者很少權衡其購買決策的綜合成本與收益。他們會受到情感因素、他人行為、習慣以及思維捷徑的強烈影響，而這些都有助于加速決策。可以看到，消費者的偏好不是一致的，會隨時間以及獲得信息的情境和方式而變化。

這樣一來，雖然信息的提供和選擇是重要的，二者卻都不一定帶來更好的消費者決策或消費行為的改變。標準經(jīng)濟學思維的共同點在于，個人決策不佳是信息錯誤或不足導致的。而市場學和行為科學都證明了這種“信息赤字”模型是嚴重錯誤的。這在一定意義上源于一個事實：消費者在進行決策時幾乎不會去尋找、閱讀或正確地消化已有的信息。從根本上看，這個模型忽視了決定個人行為的其他大量因素。

政策制定者和其他試圖改變大眾行為的人若想有效地影響消費者的決策，就要考慮所有這些紛繁蕪雜的因素。對消費者行為更好的理解將為政策制定者帶來更多能實現(xiàn)目標的政策手段。應用到正確的情況中，它們的成本收益率就會高于傳統(tǒng)政策手段。

政策制定者還應牢記，消費者行為是針對具體情境和產(chǎn)品的。對于現(xiàn)有的消費者決策行為的指導依據(jù)，政策制定者需要記住，消費者的反應在不同的產(chǎn)品群和政策領域之間是不同的。

這些意見關注的是消費者行為在應對政策目標及實施時的作用，那些考慮如何將舒適度及相關的環(huán)境影響的信息以最佳方式加以傳達并付諸行動的人與此關系密切。舒適度在一定程度上是一種社會構建，并有可能被影響。不過，回到查普爾斯和肖夫前文的6大舒適度主題，如果要公平地實現(xiàn)舒適度而不造成無法接受的環(huán)境壓力，在這些研究和實踐的領域顯然是需要相互學習和反饋的。□

表：主要發(fā)現(xiàn)：我們對消費者行為了解多少？[7]5

消費者很少權衡決策的綜合成本與收益。相反，購買決策會在自發(fā)的、習慣性的條件下，或是在受到個人情感或他人行為的影響下做出。

消費者用思維捷徑幫助加速決策。這些捷徑會扭曲消費者的決策，包括偏向公認的品牌，并會受信息表達的方式以及環(huán)境的影響。

消費者對損失的反應強于盈利。這就意味著人們相對于盈利的刺激更不愿放棄或損失等值的商品。這種對損失的規(guī)避對人們解讀信息的方式有很大的影響，甚至讓消費者放棄決策。

消費者在購得商品后會對其更加珍重。此外，附加在產(chǎn)品上的價值不是一致的。它可以隨時間變化，受到商品之前的成本以及人賦予它的情感的影響。這就讓人不愿賣掉舊商品，即便置換的經(jīng)濟收益更高。

消費者更重視對近前的未來，而對遠期的節(jié)省大打折扣。這對消費者判斷家用設備的效率及全生命成本的價值會有影響。

過多的選擇會給消費者造成壓力，使決策變得困難。隨著選擇的增加，消費者考慮的選擇和綜合信息會減少，判斷信息的方式也會改變。當選擇極多時，消費者會徹底放棄選擇。

消費者會受到他人的強烈影響。這可能是一種間接影響的形式，比如看到鄰居或朋友購買商品；或是一種更為直接而明顯的影響，比如銷售人員對某種商品進行推銷。幾乎所有的消費決策都會受到某種社會影響的作用。

消費者用商品表達自我。商品滿足的絕不只是功能需求；它表達出一個人的特征以及此人現(xiàn)在和未來的意向。市場學最重要的一課就是人們購物的原因千差萬別；比如，有些人會考慮環(huán)境，而很多人則不會。

Our ability to develop clothing and shelter to tolerate widely differing natural and built environments is one of the defining characteristics of humankind. We live and function in virtually all environments across the globe. But what of comfort? In historical terms levels of comfort, at least for some, have reached unprecedented levels. From the personal experience of the issues raised by working in a large, shared, open-plan office, perhaps the one that generates the most immediate staff dissatisfaction on a daily basis is the immediate working environment. Choices and preferences about temperature, light, and ventilation levels can polarise views in seconds. Temperature, for example, may be seen by some as a small operational detail, but it is one which is critical to perceived and real welfare of a building's users and in the case of working environments staff productivity.

But this is just one perspective, and a parochial one at that, although it highlights that comfort can be a contested and controversial issue. Comfort can be viewed more rigorously through a multiplicity of disciplinary lenses. The question "How much is too much comfort?" can be addressed as practical design issue, an investigation into the body's physiological needs and its responses to different conditions, an issue of health and welfare, a philosophical enquiry, an emotional response to a particular setting, or an exploration of social conventions, norms and constructions. Chappells and Shove[1], in their review of the philosophies and paradigms of comfort, suggest six main families of literature on the theme:

(1) Comfort, technology and society – the relationship between meanings of comfort and the evolution of technologies and society,

(2) Comfort and the indoor environment – the ways in which building, engineering and natural sciences have considered thermal comfort in the indoor environment,

(3) Comfort and the outdoor climate – ideas from architects, geographers and urban planners about how outdoor climates affect the definition and achievement of comfort,

(4) Comfort, health and well-being – as investigated by epidemiologists, medical and social scientists,

(5) Comfort, culture and social convention – based on the ideas of anthropologists and sociologists,

(6) Comfort and climate change – the links between fossil fuel consumption and delivery of comfort and implications for comfort of future climate change.

This last area is the motivation for the research of Chappells and Shove. The conditions and comfort people have come to expect in recent times are based on energy-intensive technologies which are unlikely to be sustainable in the long term, at least in their current form. As such their interest is in evaluating whether alternative philosophies or paradigms may support less resource intensive delivery of comfort.

This link between comfort and climate change provides a first answer to the headline question of this article. On the basis of the environmental resources they require, current and developing expectations of comfort in the built environment are too much. The energy, construction resources, water, land, and transport demands required to supply comfort in most recent and new developments are unsustainable on the basis of current technologies. How much is too much is a more complicated answer to derive.

In terms of energy, in 2010, buildings were responsible for nearly 20 percent global greenhouse gas emissions.[2]9To have a likely chance of keeping temperature change below 2°C relative to preindustrial levels the IPCC indicate this requires reaching an atmospheric concentration level of about 450ppm CO2eq by 2100.[2]10Achieving this will require substantial cuts in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and large-scale changes in energy systems and potentially land use. Scenarios reaching these concentrations by 2100 are characterized by lower global GHG emissions in 2050 than in 2010, 40% to 70% lower globally, and emissions levels near zero GtCO2eq or below in 2100 .[2]10-11

Eliminating carbon emission by the end of the Century is an extraordinary challenge, yet a necessary one to address if comfort is to be maintained into the 22nd Century. The window of opportunity to act is closing. Even if the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are stabilised at 450ppm CO2eq "It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise" .[3]10Furthermore, existing risks will be amplified and new risks for natural and human systems will be created. These will be unevenly distributed and disadvantaged people and communities, whatever state of development their country may be in, will generally be affected more. Carbon mitigation to reduce and eliminate emissions and adaptation to a changed climate will be required.[3]13

There can be a tendency to focus on energy and climate but the delivery of comfort is not just energy intensive but resource intensive, with construction materials, water, and land being required to provide comfort. At the global level the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment[4]captures the status of and prospects for the natural environment in four headline findings the first of which states:

"Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth."

While these changes have contributed to human well-being and economic development they have been achieved at the cost of ecosystem degradation, at cost to some groups of people and, unless addressed, threaten the ability of future generations to benefit from ecosystems. The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems in the context of increasing demand for their services is huge and will require significant changes in policies, institutions and practices that are not currently underway.[4]1

Preserving climate stability and the quality of ecosystems services they require all point to a reduction in aggregate levels of consumption through changes to technology and behaviour. Yet the fundamental issue of the distribution of comfort and consumption and who enjoys their benefits spatially and temporally underlie this and further adds to the challenges of climate and ecosystems. The Millennium Development Goals Reporthighlights progress in this regard but the need for further action is only too clear – just under a fifth of the global population lived on less $1.25 per day in 2010 and issues related to poverty, education, hunger, child mortality, water and sanitation highlight obvious lack of basic necessities let alone comfort[5]. This provides a second answer to the "How much is too much?" For a very significant proportion of the global population the answer is they do not enjoy enough, if any, comfort.

These challenges are huge. Addressing them requires technological development, the integration of these technologies into new and existing developments, strong planning and policy frameworks for development and at least some degree of behavioural change.

While these challenges can become overwhelming some possible encouragement can be taken from the historical perspective in relation to artificial light given in Seven Centuries of Light Services[6]139-177. This illustrates both the level of change that has occurred in relation to artificial light –an important aspect of building comfort – and the issues associated with long-term technological and social change. In the UK the average British family consumes 200 times more light per year than it did in 1800 and as an economy twenty-five thousand times more light is consumed now compared to 1800. Some encouragement can be taken Fouquet and Pearson highlighting the fact that the changing technologies of lighting went from being more or less non-existent to dominant in periods of less than 50 years, which would have seemed interminable to those living through the change. Less encouraging in relation to environmental impacts is an observation on the impact of rebound effects, "…policies that focus on improving energy efficiency are likely, in the absence of rising energy prices, to reduce energy use by less than the resulting efficiency improvements"[6]172.

The need for greater coordination and joint working between architects, planners and policymakers in addressing these challenges was an important message to come out of the recent Tsinghua SA/University of Westminster Interpreting Sustainability Workshop held in April 2015.

Achieving the transition to a sustainable future is the central focus of the research of Policy Studies Institute (PSI) at the University of Westminster, my host institution. Our work focuses on policy issues such as energy, mobility, resource use, cities and innovation. We work with policy-makers, communities and businesses to understand policy challenges and options for a more sustainable future. We also work on policy processes associated with policy appraisal and evaluation – how policy can be more effective and the processes of research and policy interaction – how evidence can generate more social impact. One of our more relevant work in relation to the agenda on comfort is that related to public behaviours and public responses to policy instruments.

In the UK and Europe much has been achieved with the standard toolkit of environmental policy: regulation, financial instruments, voluntary agreements and better information provision. However as many environmental challenges broaden from being production focused to being both production and consumption-related issues around the engagement of consumers are critical.

Below we present some findings from a review PSI conducted for the European Commission on designing policy to influence consumers[7]. Given the rather overwhelming scale of the challenges presented above in relation to climate, ecosystems and the Millennium Development Goals these findings are presented with the intention of offering constructive insights for all those involved in addressing the implications of the increasing energy and resources associated with delivering comfort.

Consumer behaviour in the real world often differs from that predicted by economists and policy-makers. Contrary to the beliefs of economic orthodoxy, consumers very rarely weigh-up the full costs and benefits of their purchasing decisions. Instead, they are strongly influenced by emotional factors, the behaviour of other people, by habits, and by the use of mental short-cuts, which all help to speed up decision-making. Rather than being consistent, consumer preferences have also been shown to be inconsistent, changing over time and according to the situation and the way in which information is presented.

In turn, while information provision and choice are important, neither necessarily leads to improved consumer decision-making or changes in consumer behaviour. A common feature of standard economic thought is the belief that when individuals make poor choices it is the result of misinformation or a lack of information. Both marketing and the behavioural sciences have proven this "informationdeficit" model to be deeply flawed. In part, this stems from the fact that consumers rarely search out, read or properly digest all of the information that is available to them when making a decision. More fundamentally, the model neglects the wealth of other factors that determine individuals' behaviour.

Policy-makers and others seeking to change people's behaviours need to take into account all of these different factors if they are to effectively influence consumer choice. An improved understanding of consumer behaviour gives policymakers a wider range of policy instruments with which to achieve policy objectives. Used in the right circumstances, these instruments are likely to be more cost-effective than more traditional policy instruments.

Policy-makers should also remember consumer behaviour is both context-and product-specific. While the existing evidence on consumer behaviour provide guidance on how people make choices, policy-makers need to remember that consumer responses will vary across product groups and policy areas.

These insights focus on the role of consumer behaviour in responding to and delivering policy objectives and are relevant to those considering how messages about levels of comfort and associated environmental impact can be best communicated and acted on. Comfort is clearly to some degree a social construct that it may be possible to influence. However, returning to Chappells and Shove's six families of literature on comfort discussed earlier there is obviously a need for these research and practice domains to interact and learn from one another if comfort is to be delivered equitably and without unacceptable levels of environmental distress. □

參考文獻/References：

[1] Chappells H., Shove E. 2004. Comfort: A review of philosophies and paradigms. Paper produced for the Future Comforts: re-conditioning urban environments project [OL]. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/ projects/futcom/fc_litfinal1.pdf.

[2] IPCC, 2014a. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

[3] IPCC, 2014b. Climate Change 2014, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. [OL]. http://www. ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_ FINAL_SPM.pdf.

[4] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Synthesis. [OL]. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index. html.

[5] United Nations, 2014. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014. [OL]. http://www. un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/ MDG%202014%20English%20web.pdf.

[6] Fouquet. R., Pearson P.J.G. 2006. Seven Centuries of Energy Services: The Price and Use of Light in the United Kingdom (1300-2000), The Energy Journal, Vol 27, 1: 139-177.

[7] PSI, 2009. Designing policy to influence consumers: Consumer behaviour relating to the purchasing of environmentally preferable goods. A project under the Framework contract for economic analysis ENV.G.1/ FRA/2006/0073 – 2nd. [OL]. http://www.psi.org.uk/ site/project_detail/real_world_consumer_behaviour_ relating_to_the_purchase_of_environmentally_p.

Some key findings: what do we know about consumer behaviour?[7]5

Consumers rarely weigh up all the costs and benefits of choices. Instead, purchasing decisions may be made automatically, habitually, or be heavily influenced by an individual's emotions or the behaviour of others.

Consumers use mental short-cuts to help speed up decision-making. These short-cuts can distort consumers' decisions and include relying on recognised labels or brand names, and being influenced by the way in which information is presented and the context.

Consumers respond more to losses than gains. This means people are more reluctant to give something up or suffer loss than they are motivated by benefits of equal value. This aversion to loss has a significant impact on the way in which people interpret information and can lead to consumers avoiding making choices altogether.

Consumers value products much more once they own them. In addition, the value placed on a product is inconsistent. It can vary over time, and can be affected by the previous cost of the product and the emotional attachment someone places on a product. This makes people reluctant to trade in old products, even when it would be cost-effective to replace them.

Consumers place a greater value on the immediate future and heavily discount future savings. This impacts on the way in which consumers value the efficiency and lifetime costs of appliances.

Too much choice can be overwhelming to consumers, making decisionmaking difficult. As choice increases, consumers may consider fewer choices, process less overall information and evaluate information differently. When choice is particularly excessive, consumers may actually avoid making a choice altogether.

Consumers are heavily influenced by other people. This might take the form of an indirect influence, for example from seeing neighbours or friends buying a product, or a more direct, explicit influence, for example when a salesperson persuades someone to buy a certain product. Nearly all consumption choices are subject to some kind of social influence.

Consumers use products to make a statement about themselves. Products meet far more than just a functional need; they make a statement about a person's identity and about the type of person they are and would like to be. One of the most important lessons from marketing is that people buy products for very different reasons; for example, while some people may be motivated by concern for the environment, many others will not.

Comfort: How Much Is Too Much? The Challenge for Environmental Policy

This article highlights the many research framings and perspectives of comfort in relation to the built environment. It addresses the question of how much is too much by placing the trend for increased comfort and its energy and resource requirements in the context of the pressing global challenges of maintaining climate stability, viable ecosystems and addressing social and distributional issues. Considering the policy framework that will affect the planning of built environment and comfort within it, the article highlights research findings on insights into how consumers behave in relation to environmental choices. This focus on the role of the consumer is based on the premise that comfort is at least partly a social construct which those working in architecture, planning and policy need to be able to shape.

comfort, environment, policy, climate, resources

威斯敏斯特大學建筑與建成環(huán)境學院政策研究所

2015-06-17