Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The indoor environmental quality (IEQ) survey of Canadian households : a focus on indoor air quality,… Spetic, Wellington C. 2003

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2004-0008.pdf [ 8.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0074992.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0074992-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0074992-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0074992-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0074992-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0074992-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0074992-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0074992-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0074992.ris

Full Text

THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (IEQ) SURVEY OF CANADIAN HOUSEHOLDS: A FOCUS ON INDOOR AIR QUALITY, LIGHTING, AND ACOUSTICS by WELLINGTON C. SPETIC Bachelor of Science in Forestry, Sao Paulo State University, Brazil, 1996 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Faculty of Forestry Department of Wood Science We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 2003 © Wellington Chaves Spetic, 2003 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g ain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada ABSTRACT This study examined aspects of the Healthful Living concept in the Canadian housing market. This is a marketing research project which focused on what Canadian householders value and desire in the indoor environment of their homes, particularly the indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics. A nationwide sample consisting of 3,592 Canadian households was investigated revolving around issues of consumer demand for healthier homes. The major topics assessed were: 1) identification of consumer groups that show an interest in certain aspects of the indoor environment through demographic and psychographic segmentation; 2) measurement of the levels of importance and knowledge of some issues related to indoor environmental quality; and 3) willingness to pay for better indoor environmental quality. Results showed that 56% percent of the respondents are knowledgeable or have heard the term "Healthy House" before. Modeling using a logistic regression algorithm was conducted to determine whether the likelihood of paying more for better indoor environmental quality features could be predicted. Cluster analysis was used to identify consumer groups that valued or were more knowledgeable about some aspects of the indoor environmental quality. Products and materials promoting energy efficiency, natural light, better insulation, and non-allergic qualities were preferred in a choice/preference question of nine attributes regarding Healthier Homes. There seems to be a market and opportunities for the Healthful Living concept to establish itself in the Canadian housing sector which may offer great prospects to the Canadian wood industry and its segments. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS A B S T R A C T i i T A B L E OF CONTENTS ii i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 B A C K G R O U N D 3 2.1 HOUSING: H E A L T H AND THE ENVIRONMENT 3 2.2 SUSTAINANBLE AND HEALTHIER HOUSING 4 2.2.1 Design, Construction, and Use 5 2.2.1.1 Terminology 5 2.2.1.2 Programs and Initiatives 8 2.2.1.3 The concept of "ageing in place": universally-designed homes 10 2.2.2 Design, Construction, and Use: A Proposed Framework 12 2.3 OCCUPANTS' H E A L T H AND COMFORT 13 2.3.1 Indoor Air Quality 13 2.3.1.1 Thermodynamics 14 2.3.1.2 Contaminants 15 2.3.2 Acoustics and Lighting in the Home 19 2.4 HOUSING IN NORTHERN CLIMATES 20 2.4.1 Northern Japan and Northern Europe 20 2.4.2 Canada's Current Housing Market 23 2.5 T H E CONSUMER OF HEALTHIER HOMES 24 3 P R O B L E M STATEMENT A N D OBJECTIVES 25 3.1 OBJECTIVES 26 4 M E T H O D O L O G Y 27 4.1 M A R K E T I N G RESEARCH 27 iii 4.2 SAMPLING DESIGN 28 4.3 SURVEY INSTRUMENT 31 4.4 D A T A ANALYSIS 33 5 R E S U L T S 36 5.1 OVERVIEW . . . 36 5.2 SURVEY RESPONSES 37 5.3 DEMOGRAPHICS 40 5.4 DESCRIPTIVE AND INFERENTIAL STATISTICS (UNIVARIATE) 45 5.5 INFERENTIAL STATISTICS (MULTIVARIATE) 74 5.5.1 Cluster Analysis 74 5.5.2 Logistic Regressions 82 6 D I S C U S S I O N 91 6.1 CONSUMER D E M A N D FOR HEALTHIER HOMES 91 6.2 M A R K E T SEGMENTATION 95 6.3 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 97 6.3.1 Product and Material Selection 97 6.3.2 The Indoor Environmental Quality Concept and Product Life Cycle 98 6.4 LIMITATIONS 99 6.5 FUTURE STUDIES 100 7 C O N C L U S I O N 101 R E F E R E N C E S 103 A P P E N D I X A : T H E R M O D Y N A M I C S I N T H E H O M E ( S I M P L I F I E D ) 109 A P P E N D I X B : Q U E S T I O N N A I R E 112 A P P E N D I X C : C O V E R L E T T E R S 121 A P P E N D I X D : A N S W E R S T O T H E O P E N - E N D E D Q U E S T I O N S 125 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 4.2.1. Stratification (optimal') of Canadian households 31 Table 5.2.1 Number of responses and response rate. 38 Table 5.2.2. Group statistics for earlv and late respondents. 39 Table 5.2.3. Independent Samples Test for earlv and late respondents. 40 Table 5.3.1. Mean values of respondents' number of children and number of children living at home. __42 Table 5.4.1. Reasons for wanting to build or buv a home within the "other" category. 54 Table 5.4.2. Descriptive statistics for IAO SATI. LIT SATI. ACO SATI. and EGY SATI. 59 Table 5.4.3. Frequency distribution of IAO SATI. LIT SATI. ACO SATI. and EGY SATI. 59 Table 5.4.4. One-way ANOVA of the variables IAQ_SATI, LIT_SATI, ACO_SATI, and EGY_SATI. 60 Table 5.4.5. Scheffe test: multiple comparisons. 60 Table 5.4.6. Scheffe test: subsets of the means. 60 Table 5.4.7. Descriptive statistics for ACO IMP. IAO IMP. LIT IMP. and EGY IMP. 61 Table 5.4.8. Frequency distributions of ACO IMP. IAO IMP. LIT IMP. and EGY IMP. 62 Table 5.4.9. One-way ANOVA of the variables ACO IMP, IAQ IMP, LIT IMP, and EGY IMP. 62 Table 5.4.10. Scheffe test: multiple comparisons. 62 Table 5.4.11. Scheffe test: subsets of means. 63 Table 5.4.12. Descriptive Statistics: willingness to pav. 66 Table 5.4.13. Logarithmic transformation of the variables PAY_MIAQ, PAY_MLIT, and PAY MACO. 67 Table 5.4.14. Levene's test for homogeneitv of variances. 67 Table 5.4.15. One-way ANOVA for the variables LOG10 IA, LOG10 LI, andLOGlO AC. 68 Table 5.4.16. Scheffe test: multiple comparisons. 68 Table 5.4.17. Scheffe test: subset of means. 68 Table 5.4.18. Descriptive statistics for paired wood flooring and carpeting attributes. 72 Table 5.4.19. Z-test: paired wood flooring and carpeting attributes. 72 Table 5.5.1.1. Descriptive statistics for the variables used in the k-means cluster analysis. 75 Table 5.5.1.2. Final clusters centres. 76 Table 5.5.1.3. Iteration history. 77 Table 5.5.1.4. Euclidean distances between the final clusters. 77 Table 5.5.1.5. Descriptive statistics in each cluster for the four variables measuring level of satisfaction. 78 Table 5.5.1.6. One-way ANOVAs between clusters on four variables of level of satisfaction. 78 Table 5.5.1.7. Post hoc Scheffe test of IAQ SATI, LIT SATI, ACO SATI, and EGY SATI. 79 Table 5.5.1.8. Descriptive statistics in each cluster for the four variables measuring level of importance._ 79 Table 5.5.1.9. One-way ANOVA between clusters on four variables of level of importance. 80 Table 5.5.1.10. Post hoc Scheffe test of IAQJMP. 80 Table 5.5.1.11. Proportion of respondents from each age group in each cluster. 81 Table 5.5.1.12. Proportion of GENDER in each cluster. 81 Table 5.5.1.13. Proportion of respondents in each cluster with at least a condition or illness caused by a material or substance in the home. . 82 Table 5.5.2.1. Continuous and categorical independent variables used in the logistic regressions. 83 Table 5.5.2.2. Categorical variables coding for the logistic regressions. 84 Table 5.5.2.3. Variables entered in the equation for predicting willingness to pay more for better IAQ. _85 Table 5.5.2.4. Model summary: -2Log-Likelihood test. 87 Table 5.5.2.5. Chi-square tests for each of the entered variables. 87 Table 5.5.2.6.Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. 88 Table 5.5.2.7. Classification table of constant-only model and final model. 88 Table 6.1.1. Hypothetical responses to the predicting variables of paying more for better IAQ. 94 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.2.2.1. A proposed model associating housing with occupants' health, the environment, socioeconomics, and the elderly. 12 Figure 2.3.1 Housing and occupants' health and comfort. 13 Figure 4.1.1. Classification of Marketing Research. Adapted from Malhotra (1999) 28 Figure 5.2.1. Distribution of number of responses over time. 37 Figure 5.3.1. Respondents' current age categories. 40 Figure 5.3.2. Respondents' marital status. 41 Figure 5.3.3. Gender proportion among respondents. 41 Figure 5.3.4. Proportion of respondents that have children. 42 Figure 5.3.5. Respondents' level of education. 43 Figure 5.3.6. Occupations of households' primary wage earner. 43 Figure 5.3.7. Income levels among respondents. 44 Figure 5.4.1. Proportion of respondents' type of primary residence. 45 Figure 5.4.2. Categories within "other" type of residence. 46 Figure 5.4.3. Respondents' home ownership. 46 Figure 5.4.4. Living arrangements in respondents' primary residence. 47 Figure 5.4.5. Respondents' primary residence floor area. 47 Figure 5.4.6. Structural material used in respondents' primary residence 48 Figure 5.4.7. Frequency of participation in outdoor, indoor, and social activities. 49 Figure 5.4.8. Proportion of respondents that have had a condition or illness caused by materials or substances in their homes. 50 Figure 5.4.9. Most frequent type of conditions and illnesses caused by the presence of materials or substances inside the home. 50 Figure 5.4.10. Proportion of respondents with plans to renovate their residences within the next five years. 51 Figure 5.4.11. Reasons why respondents want to renovate their residences within the next five years. 51 Figure 5.4.12. Proportion or respondents planning to build or buy a home within the next five years. 52 Figure 5.4.13. When of those intending to build or buy a home in are intending to do so. 53 Figure 5.4.15. Respondents' material preference for new houses. 54 Figure 5.4.16. Preferred types of residences for respondents who intend to buy or build a home. 55 Figure 5.4.17. Preferred locations for new houses for respondents who intend to build or buy a home. 55 Figure 5.4.18. Cost expectations for a new house. 56 Figure 5.4.19. Decision-makers for building or buying a new house. 56 vii Figure 5.4.20. Proportion of respondents that have heard about Healthy Houses. 57 Figure 5.4.21. Type of media/communications from which respondents heard about Healthy House. 58 Figure 5.4.22. Respondents level of satisfaction with IEQ and energy efficiency in their homes. 58 Figure 5.4.23. Importance given by respondents to IEQ and energy efficiency in their homes. 61 Figure 5.4.24. How often respondents saw water condensation on windows and walls inside surfaces. 63 Figure 5.4.25. Appliances and features most often present in respondents' residences. 64 Figure 5.4.26. Thurstone scale: ranking and relative distances of preferred attributes. 65 Figure 5.4.27. Proportion of respondents willing to pay extra for better IEQ features. 66 Figure 5.4.28. Colours of wood presented to respondents. 69 Figure 5.4.29. Preferred wood colours for flooring, furniture, shelves, and cabinetry 69 Figure 5.4.30. Respondents' level of agreement with sixteen statements on IEQ and energy efficiency. _70 Figure 5.4.31. Respondents' rating of carpeting and wood flooring. 71 Figure 5.5.1.1. Number of cases in each cluster. 76 Figure 5.5.2.1. Histogram of standardized residuals. 89 Figure 6.2.1. Description of clusters showing potential market segments. 96 Appendix D. Categorization of the responses from the open-ended question "other considerations about Healthy Houses". 126 viii 1 INTRODUCTION In past decades, housing has become associated with a social determinant of health (Krieger and Higgins, 2002), especially since the energy crisis of the 1970's when new energy efficient, tighter, and better-insulated houses were built to save fuel for heat. As a consequence, the indoor environmental quality in houses and buildings became compromised (Small, 1983). In addition, environmental consciousness has quickly become a part of the housing industry during the last decade. Today, concepts such as "Healthy Houses", "Green Buildings", "Sustainable Architecture" and "Ecological Housing" are becoming much more common among housing stakeholders, changing the way houses and buildings are designed, constructed, and used (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation C M H C , 2002). Although the terminology has yet to be well articulated, in essence, there are four major target areas for sustainable and/or healthy housing design, construction, and use: the environment; the occupants; demographics; and socioeconomics. In this study, the major focus will be on occupants' health and comfort, and more specifically, on indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics in home environments. In Canada, people spend up to 90% of their time indoors and the majority of this time, at home (Contractor, 2000). Two thirds of the Canadians households own their own home, and for the most of them, housing is their largest form of wealth (The Economist, 2002). During the past two years, residential construction investments in Canada (new housing, renovations, and acquisition costs) are at all-time highs (CMHC, 2003). The preoccupation with the indoor environmental quality began as a result of the sophistication of measurements, the advance of medical technologies and by the increasing number of respiratory-related sicknesses (Health Canada, 2000). Today, inadequate lighting and acoustics in the home are also known to be causes of discomfort (Cohen, 2000; Hathaway et al., 1992). 1 Given that most homes in Canada are built of wood, these facts may offer opportunities for the Canadian wood industry and its segments. In order to increase the availability of healthier homes, the needs and wants of owners and occupants (the ultimate consumers of building products and services) need to be examined. The Healthy House Survey of Canadian Households is a marketing research project with a unique approach - the assessment of what Canadian households value and desire in certain aspects of their homes' the indoor environment. The main objectives of the study are to determine and to validate consumer demand for healthier homes in Canada, and more specifically: 1) to identify consumer groups that show an interest in certain aspects of the indoor environment demographic, psychographic and geographic segmentation; 2) to quantify the levels of importance given to and knowledge of some issues related to indoor environmental quality for these groups; and 3) to measure the willingness to pay for better indoor environmental quality. Section 2 presents a literature review and background information. Section 2.1 introduces the concept of housing with some brief historic information and discusses its relation with the environment and occupants' health and comfort. Terminologies and programs/initiatives evolving out of sustainable and healthier housing design, construction, and use are presented in section 2.2. This section ends by providing a framework summarizing these terminologies and initiatives. The main focus of this study, indoor environmental quality with respect to occupants' health and comfort, is discussed in Section 2.3. Section 2.4 presents information on housing in northern climates, including information on Canada's current housing market. Finally, some existing information about consumers' interest for healthier homes is presented in section 2.5. Problem statements and objectives are described in Section 3. Section 4 describes the research methodologies used in this study, while Section 5 presents its results. Discussion of the results and conclusions are presented in Sections 6 and 7, respectively. 2 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 H O U S I N G : H E A L T H A N D T H E E N V I R O N M E N T Since the primitive ages, humans have developed from the use of crude shelters, caves and huts as a source of basic protection from the elements to modern houses and apartments (Godish, 2001). "Castle or cottage, city, suburb or country, home is our sanctuary. It is a place to raise a family, entertain, live and, these days, work" (Contractor, 2000). The World Health Organisation, in its constitution, outlines health as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (Colburn, 1968). In North America, the correlation between housing and health was initiated in the mid-nineteenth century during the massive European immigration to the big cities on the East Coast. As most of the conventional housing resources were over crowded, many tenement houses were built. These dwellings soon created health and social problems (Mood, 1986). In demanding shelter from the harsh outdoor environment, at the same time making life more comfortable, designing and building houses may unconsciously introduce the occupants to contaminants and physical barriers that directly affect their life quality. Over the past three decades, housing has become increasingly associated with a social determinant of health. Evidence from public health agencies, building departments, and community housing advocates have related housing as a source of various infectious and chronic diseases. Mental health, a number of injuries, childhood development and nutrition problems, and even neighbourhood-level effects on health can be attributed to housing, as well (Krieger and Higgins, 2002). As far as the construction process is concerned, new attitudes and practices have captured the attention of builders and designers since the energy crisis of the 1970's (new energy efficient, tighter, and better-insulated houses were built to save fuel for heat). In addition, as it has occurred in numerous sectors and segments of the industrialised world after the RIO 92 summit, 3 environmental consciousness has started to play a role in the housing industry during the last decade. Today, words such as "green buildings", "sustainable architecture" and "ecological housing" are becoming much more common among housing stakeholders. This silent revolution of the way new homes and communities are developed, constructed, and used involves environmentally responsible construction practices, energy and resource efficiency, affordability, durability, and recyclability (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation C M H C , 2002). Section 2.2 will, based on a review of the current literature, define and propose a framework to depict the association of housing with all the aspects related to occupant health and comfort, the environment, communities and neighbourhoods, and the elderly. 2.2 S U S T A I N A N B L E A N D H E A L T H I E R H O U S I N G With fashionable and appealing messages such as, "We are part of the environment, let us be a healthy part", "Land development and site design", and "Community and cultural sensitivity" (ECHO, 2002 and Wagner, 2001), and words such as, "Healthy Housing: how to make your home a safer place, good for the homeowner and the environment" and "Universal design, accessible, barrier-free age friendly housing" (McLeister, 1999 and C M H C , 2001), developers and home builders are attempting to reach new potential segments* of the housing market. In order to meet this demand, they are differentiating their products and services. Effectively, most of these innovations still do not have governmental involvement in the form of building codes and regulations. The diffusion process of such innovations is being carried out in the form of educational programs, research, publications, guidelines, case studies, conferences and workshops (Barnett and Seldman, 1998). The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB, 2002), states that the vast majority of these new concepts are industry-driven * Segments are described by the division of a market into homogeneous groups which respond differently to promotion, communication, advertising and price (DSSResearch, 2001). 4 and voluntary. Other North American housing stakeholders interested in these new ideas are the Canadian Home Builders Association (CHBA), Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), and the American Lung Association (ALA). Also, numerous non-governmental and private organisations, and consulting firms are involved in this new emerging trend, many of whom will be cited throughout this review. Before touching on the principles of each concept, an important characteristic of "Green Buildings", "Sustainable Architecture", "Healthy Housing", "Universal, Barrier-free Environments", etc., is that they are not "all or nothing" ventures (NAHB, 2002). The absence of one or more of the principles does not discount the concept. Moreover, depending on the advocate in question, many of the principles of each concept overlap. 2.2.1 Design, Construction, and Use 2.2.1.1 Terminology The terms, "Green", "Ecological", and "Sustainable" are used by environmentalists to indicate modes of practices. From a housing perspective, these practices minimise the impact on the environment of site and material selection, construction processes, and the use and maintenance of buildings to produce healthier living places. This can be done while maintaining efficiency, beauty, layout and cost effectiveness (Environ Design Collaborative, 1999). The essential features of "Sustainable Architecture" are founded on the fact that the built space is not just location in which to situate a building. Instead, "Sustainable Architecture" assesses the impact of a building on the site's environment, the technology that makes the building operative, and the types of materials used in its construction. The concept also involves a well-considered utilisation of natural energy systems generating fewer pollutants without borrowing the earth's resources from future generations (Ray-Jones, 2000). 5 Other, more customised, terms used to represent the principles of "Sustainable Architecture" include the ideas of "Green Buildings", "Healthy Housing", and "Ecological Housing". Wagner (2001) describes "Green Buildings" as being the design and construction of buildings, and the development of sites, in a manner that makes efficient use of raw materials and natural resources, protects the environment and promotes sustainable communities. Nikken Sekkei (2000) states that the design of "Green Buildings" is based on three objectives: 1) they must create attractive spaces; 2) they must draw on the benefits of nature; and 3) their environmental impact must be at least half that of buildings designed by conventional standards. "Ecological Housing" is another term often found in the literature. This concept incorporates "...Green Building and Healthy Housing principles to foster good health for both the human occupants, and the surrounding ecosystem" (Echo, 2002). Consultation and educational programs on Ecological Housing appeal to the same principles of Sustainable Architecture, Green Buildings and Healthy Housing. The principles of sustainable and healthy housing designs, construction, and use can be summarised into the following four areas, regardless of the "label" (Green Building, Healthy House, etc.) that they fall under: (1) Occupants' Health and Comfort involves control/adjustments to and/or substitution of materials that may emit unhealthy gases and substances into the building after construction (Environ Design Collaborative, 1999). It considers long-term health and welfare in construction, accounting for thermal, moisture, visual and acoustic comfort of occupants and the provision of superior quality indoor environment (e.g. lighting, acoustics, temperature, ventilation and air quality) (CMHC, 2002, IRC, 2002, and Wagner, 2001). (2) Environmental Health includes energy efficiency, resource efficiency, and land use and site preparation. Energy efficiency encourages the use of efficient heating and ventilation system, reducing the consumption of electricity and other fossil fuels. It incorporates the use of 6 renewable energy, as well as the minimisation of heat loss during winter and heat gain during summer with the use of energy-saving systems such as solar technologies, thermal massing, and insulation. It also includes the energy used in the manufacturing of building materials and in the building construction (CMHC, 2002 and Environ Design Collaborative, 1999). Resource efficiency implies waste reduction, reuse and recycling during construction and throughout the entire life of the home. It includes water conservation, indoors and outdoors, and reduction of water pollution (NHBA, 2002). It also involves the selection of construction materials that are "softer" on the environment by encouraging the use of low impact and renewable materials over those that require extensive processing and generate toxic waste (Environ Design Collaborative, 1999). However, many materials that are "Green" outside the home may not be inside (designinggreen.com, 2002). Therefore, the selection of materials has to consider minimal harm to the environment during manufacture, use, and disposal of the material and to the people that make use of such materials inside their homes (Petersen, 2002). Land-use and Site Preparation refers to the integration of the building into the adjacent landscape, vegetation, and climate. It involves minimisation of paved surfaces and runoff to reduce erosion (Environ Design Collaborative, 1999 and N H B A , 2002). This principle also includes examining building location and orientation for efficiently using natural light and solar heat gain/loss throughout the year. 3) Socioeconomic Design involves a preoccupation with future generations. It advocates that buildings with longevity, ease of use, reuse, and beauty will demand less energy, less repair, and will be much easier to sustain in the future (Environ Design Collaborative, 1999 and Ray-Jones, 2000). Buildings must be acceptable and affordable for owners, builders and future generations with designs that are adaptable to occupants' changing needs (CMHC, 2002). Additionally, designers attempt to incorporate recycling facilities and layouts that accommodate more cooperative lifestyles. It considers historical preservation, mixed zoning (commercial and 7 residential use), and nearby transportation alternatives reducing car dependency (Environ Design Collaborative, 1999, Peterson, 2002, and Wagner, 2001). Conventional, sprawling developments are unhealthy, while pedestrian-friendly development patterns, cluster buildings*, and mixed-use development solutions can result in healthier and safer communities (Wilson, 2002). 4) Demographics involve the design and use of housing targeting the aging population where the concept of "ageing in place" has been the major driver of demand for this type of house (see following sections). 2.2.1.2 Programs and Initiatives Today, one of the most active advocates for Green Buildings is the Green Building Council. It is based in the United States but is also present in several countries, including Canada. The Council is responsible for the creation of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. In the US, L E E D provides a voluntary guideline for what constitutes a "green building". L E E D is a "design guideline and third-party certification tool which aims to improve occupant well-being, environmental performance and economic returns of buildings using established and innovative practices, standards and technologies" (USGBC, 2003). According to the Council, the actual criteria targets new construction projects only. A L E E D guideline has just been prepared for existing buildings and commercial interiors. For residences and other projects, a guideline will be available by the end of 2004. The L E E D rating system divides and rates new construction projects into 6 major areas: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, material and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design process. The project is rated and receives credits or points on each of the six areas. Out of a total of sixty-nine points, the final building can be certified in one of the * By clustering buildings on a site and preserving much of the land as open space, dependence on automobiles can be reduced and pleasant areas for walking can be provided (Wilson, 2002) 8 following four categories: 26-32 points "certified"; 33-38 points "certified silver"; 39-51 points "certified gold"; and 52-69 points "certified platinum" (USGBC L E E D version 2.1, 2003) There are also more specific initiatives. One example is the American Lung Association demonstration project, "Health House". The project concentrates its research and educational programs on the building envelope and its relation with the indoor environment. The A L A ' s Health House project addresses house tightness, air handler and ductwork tightness, zonal pressure balance, whole-house filtration and mechanical ventilation. Sealed combustion H V A C appliances, acoustics control and humidity control are also dealt with. Additionally, it covers areas such as window performance, waterproofing systems, insulation, attached garages, and fireplaces (McLeister, 1996). The term "Healthy Houses" was popularized in the late 1980's. "The Healthy House: How to Buy One, How to Build One, How to Cure a Sick One" by Bower (1989) was one of the first commercial publications dealing with the indoor home environment, especially air quality. In 1992, the author created an independent resource center (The Healthy House Institute) which offers publications and information about making houses healthy places to live. "We differ from the green-building movement in that our focus is on human health, rather than planetary health. Both are important environmental issues and they are, in fact, often compatible but not always" (The Healthy House Institute, 2003). In Canada, efforts in healthy housing programs were initiated in the early 1980's. At that time, such programs were mainly focused on energy-saving projects, the R-2000 program being a prime example. It was established in 1982 with the objective of reducing energy needs for water and space heating by 50% compared to houses built to the 1975 National Building Code of Canada. In 1991, the Advanced House program was launched as a complement to the on-going R-2000 program. The Advanced House program was a response to the Canadian Government's commitment to reduce CO2 production and global warming. Besides the energy-reduction 9 standards used in the R-2000 program, it introduced issues such as the selection of environmentally-friendly building materials, indoor air quality, water and waste reduction, recycling, and the elimination of chlorofluorocarbon gases (CFCs) (Shaw et. al. 2001). In "The Essentials of Healthy Housing", Canada's national housing agency, C M H C , defines what it promotes as the Five Essentials of its Healthy Housing program: 1) Occupant's Health; 2) Environmental Responsibility; 3) Energy Efficiency; 4) Resource Efficiency; and 5) Affordability (CMHC, 2002). 2.2.1.3 The concept of "ageing in place": universally-designed homes The idea of universally-designed homes and/or barrier-free environments is not associated with any of the concepts previously described. " A barrier-free environment is either a natural or a man-made environment in which there are no physical or psychological impediments or barriers that limit its utilisation by any user to the full extent of his or her abilities" (Champagne & Brink, 1985). "Universal Design" focuses on designing living spaces for everyone, in a way that makes life easier for occupants (Bady, 1999). The idea of Universal Design in housing goes even beyond the "barrier-free", "accessible", and "adaptable" environment. "It is an approach of creating everyday environments and products (entrance level, lever door handles, rocker panel light switches, cabinets with pull-out shelves, etc.) that are usable by all people to the greatest extent possible, regardless of age or ability" (Trachtman, et al., 1999). Such improvements are a response to a demanding ageing population in most of the developed countries, where a new concept of housing for the aged and/or disabled is rapidly escalating. This concept is known as "ageing in place". The ageing process is associated with some challenges that include a decline in physical and cognitive abilities of vision, hearing, strength, endurance, balance and reaction time, memory, mental flexibility, information processing, and sustained attention (Auriemma, et al., 10 1999). Ageing in place is an innovative concept that allows people to stay home when they become elderly and/or disabled. In North America, individuals over 65 years of age make up almost 13% of the population. The ageing of baby boomers, immigration and increased life expectancy with improved medical care are responsible for this reality (Auriemma, et al., 1999). In Japan, multi-generational housing and house space (expanded families) are increasing to accommodate the ageing population (Gaston et al., 2000). This is not surprising given that Japan has the oldest life-expectancy on the planet (77.64 years for men and 84.62 years for women), and older persons (above 65) currently outnumber children (below 15) for the first time since the census began in 1920 (Estadao, Associate Press, 2001). Improvements in medical care and the ageing baby boomer generation (in Japan, the baby boom was more intense and shorter than in North America) are also the main reasons for this growth (Cohen, 2000). In addition to the elderly and the disabled market segments, designers and builders will target the idea of Universal Design, particularly to the boomer generation as it ages (McLeister, 1996). In Canada, the boomer generation (those born between 1947 and 1966) is a diverse group ranging in age from their late 30s to early 50s. Today, 65% of Canadian households own their own home. Based on this percentage, households headed by 45 to 64 year-olds are, and will be, the fastest growing Canadian households for at least the next 10 years. Baby Boomers have been driving the Canadian housing market for the past 25 years and they will continue to do so as they retire. Boomers are generally a much more educated generation, and thus will have higher lifetime earnings to be invested in their retirement. They are computer-literate, educated and physically fit. Highly educated people are more likely to want bigger houses with more bedrooms, bathrooms, and features that enhance a more practical life-style in the home (The Economist, 2002; C H M C , 2001; USA Today Magazine, 1997). 2.2.2 Design, Construction, and Use: A Proposed Framework Figure 2.2.2.1 presents a proposed theoretical framework summarising the integration of healthy people, healthy housing, and a healthy planet. Sustainable & 0-kalthy 9-iousing Designs, Construction, and Use • Energy Efficiency • Resource Efficiency • Land-use and Site Preparation Healthy^ j\ &Canet Building Health Indoor Air Quality Acoustics Lighting V y Housing for the Aged Barrier-free Environments V; Accessible Plan y • Robust design • Longevity • Affordability • Sustainable for Generations M&althy Figure 2.2.2.1. A proposed framework associating housing with occupants' health, the environment, socioeconomics, and the elderly. There are four major target areas of sustainable and healthy housing design, construction, and use: the environment; the occupants; demographics; and socioeconomics. Each of the four areas includes its related issues below. Those included under "occupants" are the main focus of this study. Aspects of occupants' health are discussed in turn. 12 2.3 O C C U P A N T S ' H E A L T H A N D C O M F O R T Of the areas described in Section 2.2, this research project is particularly focused on aspects of occupant's health and comfort. As such, the focus of Section 2.3 will be on indoor environmental quality in the home and its relationship to occupants' physical and mental health. First, information on indoor air quality will be presented with focus on thermodynamic variables, ventilation, types of contaminants in the home, and respiratory related illnesses (e.g. asthma). Second, acoustics (noise and its sources) and lighting in the home will be assessed. Occupants' health and comfort Healthful Living v J 1 I Indoor Air Qua l i t y • Thermodynamics • Contaminants Figure 2.3.1 Housing and occupants' health and comfort. 2.3.1 Indoor A i r Quality Today, in most of developed countries, people spend up to 90% of their time indoors and, more specifically, an average of 65% of it at home (Contractor, 2000). After the energy crisis of the 1970s, new energy efficient, tighter, and better-insulated houses were built to save fuel for heat. Consequently, the ventilation and the thermodynamic variables inside the house were altered, worsening the quality of the air. Moreover, new building materials technology, while cost effective, introduced composites, glues, sealers, and furnishings unknown until then (Small, 1983). Indoor air quality became part of the lexicon as a result of the sophistication of measurements, the advance of medical technologies and by the unquestionably increasing number of respiratory-related sicknesses in recent years (i.e. a 60% increase in asthma between 13 Acoust ics • Noise and its sources Lighting Good-quality and energy-efficient lighting 1982 and 1996, according to the American Lung Association, 1999). Respiratory-related illnesses are second only to cancers as causes of adult death and disability on a worldwide basis (Asthma in Canada, 2002). Inadequate indoor air quality is identified as being one of the major causal and contributing factors in the increases of the occurrence of asthma (Health Canada, 2000). In Canada, more than 6% of the adult population (older than 12 years of age) and over 15% of children suffer from asthma. Asthma is the primary cause of hospital admission for children. Despite the decrease in the rate of asthma-related deaths, the occurrence among adults has been growing in the past 20 years. Asthma has an enormous impact on Canada's economy since it is the main cause of school absenteeism and the third cause of work loss; it costs nearly $600 million per year in direct expenses for medication, nursing, and medical care (Asthma in Canada - A Landmark Survey, 2000). 2.3.1.1 Thermodynamics Thermodynamics is an area of physics that deals with various forms of energy and how these affect temperature, pressure, volume, mechanical action, and work (Encarta, 2002) As far as thermodynamics in the home is concerned, there are four major variables that play a key role: moisture movement; dew point temperatures; pressures; and heat flow (ALA, 2001). By definition, thermodynamics states that the molecules of a substance tend to move from regions of high to low kinetic energy. For a simplified explanation of some thermodynamics variables and their roles in the indoor environment, the reader is directed to Appendix A . 14 2.3.1.2 Contaminants The indoor environment of residential buildings is vulnerable to four major types of potential* contaminants: inorganic; organic; combustion-generated; and biological (Godish, 2001). The existence, as well as the concentration, of contaminants is determined by their sources, the internal laws of thermodynamics, and the construction characteristics of the house. Other contributing factors include the population served (number of occupants per built area), the building type, age and condition, site aspects, and occupant behaviour (Small, 1983 and Godish, 2001). The major inorganic substances that offer health risks in the indoor environment are asbestos, radon, and lead. Asbestos is the generic name for various fibrous silicate minerals that have unique chemical and physical properties. Some applications of asbestos-containing materials are fireproofing, thermal and acoustic insulation, and abrasion products (Small, 1983). North American standards for indoor concentration of asbestos are less than 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre (National Ambient Air Quality Standards N A A Q S , 2001). The awareness of the risks of asbestos fibres became evident during the 1970s. Since then, there has been a great reduction in its use in residential construction, and millions of dollars have been spent on removing asbestos from public buildings. Proven health effects caused by asbestos fibres include lung cancer, inflammation of the membrane around the lungs (pleural disease), and asbestosis (lung scarring) (Godish, 2001). Radon (symbol Rn) is a colourless, odourless, radioactive gaseous element (atomic number 86) (Encarta, 2001). It is naturally found in the earth's crust, water, and air. Radon-222 is an isotope created as a result of the decay of radium-226. The decay series produces alpha (a) The presence of a contaminant alone, unless at excessive levels, does not pose a hazard. The danger to the occupants is result of the interaction of several factors. 15 and ((3) particles and gamma (y) rays. Radon-222 has a half-life of 3.8 days. The major sources of radon gas that have the potential to affect indoor air quality include: rocks/soil near and underneath the building, construction materials, groundwater, spring or well-water supplies, and natural gas. Health risks associated with radon-222 are in the form of respirable particles that may lead to lung cancer. Radon concentration is measured in picocuries** per litre (pCi/L). In Canada, the proposed guideline (upper limit) by the government is 21.6 (pCi/L) as the annual average concentration in a normal living area (Health Canada 1989; Godish 2001; and Small 1983). Lead (symbol Pb and atomic number 82) has been the most commonly used non-ferrous metal by humans for almost 10 thousand years. The group most affected by lead contamination in residences are children. In North America, most houses built before the 1980s may contain soil contamination and dust from paints, the major source of lead poisoning in young children (NAAQS, 2001; Godish 2001). Since the early 1950s, regulatory changes have decreased the lead content in paint from 1% solids by weight to 0.06% in 1978 (NAAQS, 2001). In Canada, lead has been eliminated or reduced in consumer paints, ceramic glazing, plumbing materials, and in the canning industry (CMHC, 1997). The main effects of lead poisoning (>60 (ig/dL in the blood) are serious cell damage to the brain, nervous, renal, reproductive, and cardiovascular systems (Small, 1983; Godish, 2001). Organic contaminants can be divided into four categories according to their volatility: very volatile organic compounds (VVOC); volatile organic compounds (VOC); semi volatile organic compounds (SVOC); and solid organic compounds. There are many organic contaminants in the The time period in which one-half of a given quantity of any radioactive element will decay to the next element in a decay sequence. ** A Curie (Ci) = the amount of radioactive material that produces 10"'° nuclear disintegrations per second. A picocurie = 1 x 10"12 curies. 16 home, hydrocarbons such as alkanes/alkenes, aldehydes, alcohol, ethers, ketones, esters, and acids. Sources of these substances are building materials and furnishings, cleaning and maintenance materials, human activity, disinfection products, and tobacco smoking and other combustion sources (Godish, 2001). Of all these organic contaminants, formaldehyde (the molecularly smallest and simplest aldehyde), has been one of the most discussed in the context of indoor environment. Formaldehyde (HCHO) is among the top ten organic chemical raw materials used in the US and Canada. Approximately 50% of all the HCHO consumed goes into the production of resins such as urea-formaldehyde (UF), phenol-formaldehyde (PF), and melanine-formaldehyde (Godish, 2001; Small, 1983). HCHO is a V V O C and became significant to the indoor air quality debate because of its emission from building materials. Most recently, resin manufacturers have promoted many improvements in their products. Emissions from pressed-wood products manufactured today are 80% to 90% less than those of the early 1980s. HCHO levels in houses built after 1990 in the US and Canada are much lower, unlikely to exceed 0.1 ppm (the 8-hour-average guideline). Still, there is "bad publicity" associated with formaldehyde, which is difficult to repair. Some health effects of formaldehyde include eyes, throat and skin irritation, respiratory disorders and allergies (Small, 1983; Godish, 2001). Several studies have tried to measure the cancer potential of HCHO. However, there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), formaldehyde is a Class 2A* suspected human carcinogen. IARC classifies agents (chemicals, mixtures, occupational exposures, etc.) into four categories, from Group 1, carcinogenic to humans; to Group 4, probably not carcinogenic to humans. 17 Combustion-generated contaminants are highly influenced by the occupants' behaviour in the indoor environment. Such contaminants include carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO x), and respirable particles (RSP). In most developed countries, the sources of combustion-generated contaminants indoors are mainly from vented and unvented combustion appliances (cooking, gas heating, fireplaces, etc.), motor vehicles (attached garages), tobacco smoking, and candles and incense burning (Small, 1983; Godish, 2001). Carbon monoxide is an extremely toxic, non-irritant, odourless, colourless, and tasteless gas. At low levels (10 to 100 ppmv), it causes headaches, sleepiness, fatigue, and nausea. At higher levels (several 100 ppmv), it is usually fatal. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is also a very toxic gas; an irritant, reddish-brown in colour, and with a strong odour (NAAQS, 2001). Biological contaminants in the home constitute of living organisms and include bacteria, viruses, fungi (mold and mildew), mites, and insects. Biological contaminants are dependent on moisture and temperature for their development. Bacteria and viruses are microscopic organisms that are easily airborne and highly sensitive to ultraviolet light. Molds proliferate on moist surfaces which have liquid water and/or relative humidity (RH) >50%. In the home, moisture normally comes from condensation, wet sites, occupant practices, vapour-generating sources, poor air circulation, cold floors, and leaks (NAAQS, 2001). Mold can even occur on substrate with no nutrients such as fibreglass, metal, and carpeting. In these cases, dust, human and animal skin and hair scales, and other organic substances serve as nutrients for the infestation. Asthma, allergic rhinitis and sinusitis, and pneumonitis are some examples of allergic illnesses cause by fungi (Health Canada, 2000). Mites have been reported to be one of the major causes of allergies, asthma, and dermatitis in North America and Europe (Health Canada, 2000). Dust mites are very small organisms, belonging to the arachnid class (related to spiders, ticks, and scorpions). The presence of dust mites is four times greater in residences with wall-to-wall carpeting compared to those with bare 18 floors. When associated with a favourable R H (>55%), carpeting, mattresses, and bedclothes seem to be the best environments for the decomposition of human skin scales, the mites' main food supply. Allergens from insects and pets are very common in residential buildings as well. A number of species of insects may be a source of allergens. Some of these species include cockroaches, flies, beetles, and crickets (Godish, 2001; NAAQS, 2001; Small 1983). 2.3.2 Acoustics and Lighting in the Home Sound transmission in the home (noise and its sources) and lighting are not emphasized as much as other factors in most definitions of environmentally sustainable designs (section 2.1). However, this study will also examine the value given by consumers to acoustics and lighting-related problems in the home, as well as identify any trends for new designs and products. For example, as described by the ideas of ageing in place and universal designs (refer to subsection 2.2.2), noise becomes critical in multi-generational houses with semi-independent* family activities (Cohen, 2000). There are two paths through which sound is transmitted in the home: direct sound transmission and flanking transmission. Direct sound transmission is the airborne sound that passes through the walls separating two rooms. Flanking transmission involves all other transmitted sound energy. These are mainly structure-borne sounds such as at the floor, walls, and floor/wall junctions (Nightingale et al., 2001). In the home, "sound waves may originate as airborne sound, then travel for some distance as structure-borne sound and be radiated again as airborne sound in another location" (Warnock, 1985). Lighting is another factor to the concept of indoor environmental quality. Lighting quality in the home becomes a hot button with the demanding ageing boomers (see subsection 2.2.2) wanting larger, newer and better quality homes with more rooms, more bathrooms, and * Two or more generations living in the same house but, normally, on different floors. 19 offices (Professional Builder, 1997). Good-quality lighting and energy-efficient lighting can be compatible (Veitch, 1998). An adequate amount of natural and artificial lighting is necessary to achieve a better atmosphere and living/working conditions in the building. Natural lighting has been associated with improvements in students' performance, workers' productivity, and decreases in absenteeism (Hathaway et al., 1992). 2.4 HOUSING IN NORTHERN CLIMATES Canada, northern Japan, and northern Europe make up an appealing framework for "Healthful Living" studies with similarities in market importance, climate, and housing types (especially with the prevalence of wood frame housing in Canada and Japan). Indoor and outdoor conditions are similar throughout the year in these three regions of the globe (between latitude 45 and 60 degrees North), with great temperature and precipitation variation throughout the year. Therefore, the design and construction requirements of the building envelope are comparable. It is important to reinforce that this study will look at Canadian households only. As mentioned in the introductory section, this study is part of a larger research project involving Canada and potentially northern Japan and northern Europe. Therefore, these two regions are discussed in the next section for contextual purposes. 2.4.1 Northern Japan and Northern Europe Japan is a country where wooden homes are by far the preferred type of residential housing. Although Japan's population is less than half of the US, housing starts in Japan stayed at similar levels compared to the US in the last decade (1.2 to 1.3 million house starts/year) (Japan Lumber Journal, 2002). There are three factors that offer opportunities for the Canadian wood industry in the Japanese market: 1) increases in certain types of construction (e.g. single-20 family dwellings) and in renovations; 2) the increase in the aged population that requires specialised housing; and 3) changes in the regulatory environment for residential construction in Japan (Cohen and Gaston, 2001). These opportunities exist not only for Canadian exporters, but for other countries as well. However, Canada's dominance in wooden construction, products, expertise, systems, and technology offer a clear competitive advantage for Canadian firms. Currently, Japan represents the second most important market for the Canadian wood industry, which averages $600 million in exports to Japan per year (Strategis Canada, 2001). Despite the recent deceleration in the Japanese economy, Hokkaido's prefecture in Northern Japan had almost 50,000 housing starts in 2000 (MLIT, 2001). This is more than BC and Alberta's starts combined (41,000) for the same year (Statistics Canada, 2002). The northern regions Hokkaido and Tohoku have the highest incidence of 2x4 starts among all regions (Lampert, 2000). Hokkaido is the northernmost island, with a population of almost 6 million. The major city in Hokkaido is Sapporo, with 1.8 million people (Lampert, 2000). The residential construction sector in Japan has been through significant changes in regulations. Japan's housing "big bang" was driven by regulatory changes, both mandatory and voluntary. The Government Housing and Loan Corporation (GHLC) provides funds for 45% of all expenditures and over 75% of all loans for new housing. As of June 2000, in order to qualify for a loan, builders must meet three GHLC specifications for constructing a new house: Energy Saving, Durability, and Barrier-Free (Cohen, 2000). Initiated in 1998, the Building Standard Law of Japan (BSL) has changed from a specification-based building code to a performance-based building code which is applied to all types of residential construction. Builders and designers, with the new BSL, are no longer tied to minimum performance levels specified by the code. Instead, builders and designers may offer the customer quality performance features based on the consumer's willingness to pay. The current BSL represents opportunities in new market segments that were not available under the old BSL (Cohen, 2000). 21 During the last decade, studies from the Housing Survey of Japan (cited in Lampert, 2000) have indicated that half of the Japanese population expressed dissatisfaction with their current living conditions, insulation and sound proofness, and care for the elderly (Lampert, 2000). As a result, and in combination with the economic downturn of 1997, the Japanese Government created the Housing Quality Assurance Law (HQAL) in April 2000 to improve housing quality and regain consumer confidence in Japanese homes. H Q A L has four major objectives: (1) to ensure that new houses have a 10-year warranty; (2) to provide consumers with a mechanism for resolving disputes with contractors; (3) to create a housing completion guarantee system; and (4) to create a number of "Housing Performance Indication Standards" against which houses can be compared (Cohen, 2000). The Housing Performance Indication Standards consists of nine indicators: structural stability, fire safety, durability, ease of maintenance, energy efficiency, air quality, light environment, acoustics, and barrier free designs (Japan Lumber Journal cited in Cohen, 2000). Recent studies have indicated that concerns regarding housing and health are increasing among Japanese households. Despite an inexistent formal definition of the term "healthy house", issues such as indoor air quality, use of natural materials, barrier-free designs, and energy efficiency, are frequent in the minds of Japanese administrators, builders, and consumers (Lampert, 2000; Gaston et. al., 2000). Research also indicated that areas such as energy efficiency, healthy housing, and seniors' housing are potentially promising market niches. Despite the contraction in 2001 and marginal growth in 2002 (0.3%) of the Japanese economy, further growth (1%) is expected for 2003 (Consensus Economics Inc. cited in The Globe and Mail , 2002). Europe, and more specifically the northern region (Scandinavia countries), provide different challenges regarding the "Healthful Living" concept. Today, two Scandinavian countries, Sweden and Finland, are both major global competitors of Canadian wood producers. 22 In Japan for example, Scandinavian softwood lumber gained a significant share of the Canadian and US markets during the 1990s. Canadian shipments of softwood lumber to western European countries have decreased from 4 million cubic metres to less than 470 thousands cubic metres during the last decade. This was due mainly to the supply of more cost competitive and lower quality products from eastern European countries, Russia, and the Baltic States. In fact, by unit value, Canadian exports of softwood lumber to Western Europe increased from $CDN 200/m3 to more than $CDN 600/m3 in the same period (Desclos, 2002; Gaston et al., 2000). It would be interesting to gauge (in a future study), whether sustainable and healthy designs in Northern Europe could offer any opportunities to the Canadian industry, particularly in terms of value-added products and services. Canadian housing products, technology, and expertise are already present in the U K , Russia, and Poland (Canadian Housing Export Centre, 2001). 2.4.2 Canada's Current Housing Market This research project will examine the housing market at a very favourable point in time as far as Canadian householders are concerned. In 2001, after the burst of the economic and financial bubbles and the attacks of September 11 t h, the American corporate sector (an important driver of the world's economy) suffered its worst recession since the 1930s. Despite losses in share prices and employment, consumers continued to spend and the housing sector has held the world economy aloft. Unlike other economic downturns, this one was not initiated by high inflation resulting in high interest rates. Low inflation and a good level of consumer confidence allowed North American Central Banks to cut interest rates to historic lows (The Economist, 2002). In Canada, where two thirds of the households own their own homes, housing is, for most people, the largest form of wealth. Increasing housing prices resulted in asset gains and encouraged homeowners to keep spending as they converted these gains into cash by taking out 23 bigger mortgages. Residential construction investments (new housing, renovations, and acquisition costs) reached 52.7 billion dollars in 2002, up by almost 21% from 2001. This was led mainly by low mortgage rates, employment growth, shortages in the rental and resale housing markets, and higher disposable incomes. In the first two quarters of 2002, the Canadian housing index* had already reached a 25-year high and the year ended notably with 205,000 housing starts compared to 151,653 units in 2000 and 162,733 in 2001 (CMHC, 2003 and Statcan, 2003). Spurred on by the housing market, economic recovery in Canada seems to be underway. With little evidence of increasing inflationary pressure, interest rates are likely to slowly rise. Thus, the housing market is expected to moderate rather than reverse sharply (The Economist, 2002). 2.5 T H E C O N S U M E R O F H E A L T H I E R H O M E S Consumer behaviour is the study of the "processes involved when individuals or groups select, purchase, use or dispose of products, services, ideas or experiences to satisfy needs and desires". A basic principle of marketing states that companies exist to satisfy customer's wants and needs. However, these needs can be fulfilled only as long as the company learns and understands (preferably better than its competitors) the people or organisations that they are trying to sell their products and services to. Understanding customer behaviour is essential for the success of a marketing strategy (Solomon et. al., 2002). Few studies have measured householders (owners and renters) opinions about healthy housing and healthy features in the home. In Canada, a consumer survey prepared by C M H C in 1999 indicated that 29% of the adult Canadians had heard the term "Healthy Housing" (CMHC, 2001). In the US, the results of a survey of 529 households were published in 1997 by the * A composite index of housing starts (units) and house sales (multiple listing services) (Statistics Canada, 2002). 24 periodical Professional Builders. When asked how important healthy house features were, 50% of the respondents said that they would really like to have them, and 16% said they definitely wanted such features. When asked how much they would be willing to pay to have healthy home features included in their new home, 32% said that they would pay from US$ 1,000 to US$ 1,999 more. Twenty percent responded that they were willing to pay up to US$ 3,000, while 14% were willing to pay more than US$ 3,000 to have such features in their new homes (Lurz, 1997). 3 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES The literature indicates that there have been a great number of activities related to environmental friendly housing design, construction, and use. The number of ecofriendly substitutes for traditional materials is increasing and efforts in the form of educational programs have been directed at designers and builders. There is, however, an essential linkage missing in order to increase the availability of healthier homes: knowledge of consumers' needs and wants. Owners and occupants, the consumers of building products and services, are the ones who benefit from healthier homes and can demand that the marketplace meet their desires (Barnett and Seldman, 1998). This research project has, therefore, an interesting approach. This study will attempt to find what homeowners value and desire in a subset of three home indoor environment variables: indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics. Information from this study can be used to enable market segmentation and new product opportunities for the Canadian wood products industry in both national and international markets. 25 3.1 O B J E C T I V E S The main objectives of the study are to determine and to validate consumer demand for healthier homes in Canada. This research represents a beginning point for further projects on other markets. The specific goals are: 1. To identify consumer groups that show an interest in certain aspects of the indoor environment through demographic, psychographic, and geographic segmentation. 2. To quantify the levels of importance given to and knowledge of some issues related to indoor environmental quality for these groups. 3. To measure the willingness to pay for better indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics. A l l three specific objectives can be used in the development of marketing strategies aimed at healthier housing markets in Canada and abroad. 26 4 METHODOLOGY 4.1 MARKETING RESEARCH Corporations and organizations (for-profit and non-profit) are continuously trying to narrow the gap of knowledge between themselves and their customers. The process of learning the right information about the wants and needs of customers is essential for decision-makers. The task of gathering information on customers evolved from the principles and techniques used in Social Research: theory, data collection, and data analysis (Babbie, 2001). Marketing Research utilises some of the principles and techniques of Social Sciences and Psychology for the economic benefit of organizations by providing an understanding of customers through direct or indirect communications with them. Marketing Research helps management link the controllable marketing variables (product, pricing, promotion, and distribution) with the environment (economy, technology, competition, regulations, social, cultural and political factors) and customer groups (consumers, employees, shareholders, and suppliers) (Malhotra, 1999). "Marketing research is the systematic and objective process of generating information to aid in making marketing decisions" Zickmund (1997). Organizations normally decide on performing marketing research for two reasons: (1) to identify a marketing problem; and (2) to solve a marketing problem. Figure 3 shows the uses of each of these two types of marketing research (Malhotra 1999). Identifying a customer group or a segment is one of the major outcomes of undertaking problem-solving marketing research. Market Segmentation positions brands and costumer in the same space, identifying groups with relatively homogeneous perceptions (Malhotra, 1999). Each group or segment will respond differently to pricing, promotion, communication, advertising and other marketing mix variables. Market segmentation allows for the development of easier and more efficient marketing strategies by dealing with smaller groups of customers with many characteristics in common. 27 Segmentation allows for niche marketing, which offers opportunities for responsive buyers to find new products and help new buyers seek mature products. Efficiency is another incentive to divide a market into smaller groups. Researchers can make better use of marketing resources by focusing the marketing mix variables on the proper segments. Classification by demographic, geographic, psychographic, and behavioural variables is normally used as information for segmenting a market (DSS Research, 2001). Marketing Research - Market Potential - Market Share Market Character is t ics - Forecasting - Business Trends 4r 4 Problem Identification Research Problem-Solving Research 1 - Segmentation - Product research - Pricing research - Promotional research - Distr ibut ion research Figure 4.1.1. Classification of Marketing Research. Adapted from Malhotra (1999) 4.2 S A M P L I N G DESIGN Canadian households (home owners and renters) were selected as the t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n to be sampled in order to meet the objectives of this study (section 3.1). Householders are considered to be the appropriate group to provide the information required for this study and onto which inferences or generalisations can be made. Once the target population was identified, the working population was defined. Also known as the s a m p l i n g f r a m e , the working population for this study is a list of elements (households' names and addresses) from which the sample was drawn. A sampling frame of 10,000 randomly selected Canadian households was bought from a commercial list provider. A 28 sample of 4,000 was randomly drawn from the frame of 10,000. The sampling unit was the householder. There are firms or list brokers which specialise in providing mailing lists. These firms normally charge by unit (householder name). The decision to purchase 10,000 names for the sampling frame was justified by two constraints: total cost of the list and an accurate representation of the population. As number of households is somewhat positively correlated to the population (the more populous the region, the greater the number of households), the sampling frame was stratified by region of the country (see Table 4.2.1). In order to calculate the exact sample size using stratified random sampling, an estimate of the precision or error around the mean and its variability has to be known. Moreover, an estimate of per strata variation for a given variable of the study must be known as well. Not only were these estimates not known, but it is difficult to determine which variable should be selected from a large study with hundreds of variables. The final sample size was calculated according to the following premises: 1) that the total operation costs of designing, producing, implementing, and analysing the survey instrument was in accordance with the project's budget and; 2) that even with a conservative response rate (10%-15%), there would be sufficient subjects to statistically represent the total population (survey instrument, response rates, and statistical analyses will discussed in the next sub-section). Therefore, a sample size of 4,000 was affordable and would generate at least 400 responses, sufficient for most statistical analyses. Moreover, as a general rule, Malhotra (1999) suggests 500 as the minimum sample size for marketing research studies where problem identification research is to be performed (e.g. market potential), and that a typical range would be between 1,000 and 2,500 sample elements. Nevertheless, sample size calculations were conducted as a safeguard to determine whether the feasibility of the sample size with 4,000 householders would constrain statistical inferences onto the population. The value of the sample size was calculated using simple random sampling due to its simplicity and 29 because stratification was not used to increase the precision of estimates. For more details on the procedures used for the following calculations, refer to Kozak (1997). Given the sample size formula for simple random sampling: 1 n = E 1 + — 2 2 1 0 .05 / 2,30 Sy N y is the attitudinal variable "importance level" selected to base the sample size calculations on. The variable assumes the form of a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "extremely important" to "not at all important". 5 is the variance of the observations of the variable y. The variance was estimated as follows: s H * a s £ ) 2 = <a=») 2 =i.o t = 1.96, which is the t-value at infinity degrees of freedom with a = 0.05/2 (two tailed). E was set to 0.10, which means that a precision of plus or minus 0.10 around any parameter estimate is considered acceptable for distinguishing between significant differences. Finally, N is the size of the population used in the study (N = 11.6 million), which is the total number of Canadian households according to the 2002 census (Statiscan, 2003). The equation begins the calculation at oo degrees of freedom and ends if sample size (n) converges at greater than 30. If not, reiterations are made until sample size convergence is achieved. Using the given assumptions, a sample size of 385 was required to reach the precision specified. Therefore, even with budgetary restrictions and a low response rate (10%), a sample of 4,000 households is satisfactory. Canadian households were divided into 6 regions. Table 4.2.1 shows the distribution of the sample (4,000 households) within each region of the country. The sampling technique chosen was stratified random sampling (SRS) with optimal allocation of sub-samples. Elements within each sub-sample were drawn using simple random sampling. This is a probability 30 sampling method in that every element in the population has a known, non-zero, and equal chance of selection (Malhotra, 1999; Zickmund, 1997). The main reason for using SRS with optimal allocation was to better represent the population, and not necessarily to increase precision, given that the variability (standard deviations) of each stratum (region) was not known*. Optimal allocation consists of stratifying the sample considering not only the size (e.g. number of inhabitants) of the strata but also analytical considerations (e.g. climate, culture, etc.). These two criteria were applied to generate the six regions presented in Table 4.2.1. Table 4.2.1. Stratification (optimal) of Canadian households Region (Stratum) Name Provinces Sample Size 1 Atlantic Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, New Foundland and Labrador 600 2 Quebec Quebec 800 3 Ontario Ontario 950 4 Prairies Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan 750 5 British Columbia British Columbia 700 6 Northern Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut 200 Total 4,000 4.3 S U R V E Y I N S T R U M E N T This research project is characterised by its descriptive nature. This necessitates the need to have an efficient method of communication with the subject. To fulfill the objectives of the study, mail interviews were selected as the appropriate survey method. High geographic flexibility and low cost were the two major reasons for choosing mail survey. The design and * Upon completion of the analysis, no significant differences between strata were found. As a result, data were analyzed in aggregate for the entire sample. 31 administration of the mail survey was implemented based on the concepts prescribed by the Total Design Method (TDM) (Dillman 1972, 1978, 1983, Dillman et al 1974). A 38-question self-administered questionnaire, the survey instrument, was designed and divided into four sections. The questionnaire had seven pages printed in a reduced booklet format (7" x 8.5") and was entitled "The Healthy House Survey of Canadians Households" (see Appendix B). The term "Healthy House" was used in the survey for practicality. Ultimately, the objective, as mentioned before (see section 3.1), was to access householders' opinions and attitudes about the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) of their homes. Moreover, only a subset of features (i.e. indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics) was selected from the wide ranging Indoor Environmental Quality concept. Section I of the questionnaire posed general questions on the respondent's current housing status and Section II asked about their home building or purchasing plans. Section III revolved around more specific questions about the respondent's knowledge of the indoor environmental quality and the importance placed on IEQ features. Although some questions (e.g. questions 26 and 28) in Section III were not directly related to indoor environmental quality in the home, information provided by these questions may be useful in future wood product offerings. Section IV collected background and demographic information. A cover letter was also designed (see Appendix C). The cover letter had the purpose of inducing the respondent to complete and return the questionnaire. It included information such as the usefulness of the study, the respondent's importance to the study, a guarantee of confidentiality, and contact information should the respondent have any queries. Both the questionnaire and the cover letter were approved by the U B C University Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the Office of Research Services and Administration. Prior to the final setup of the questionnaire, a small pilot pretest was conducted. Twenty householders were asked to complete a draft version of the questionnaire. Pretesting the survey 32 instrument, even by a small group of respondents, helps to uncover any ambiguities, mistakes, and general misunderstandings which could compromise the validity and reliability of the data collected (Malhotra, 1999; Zickmund, 1997). Questionnaires, cover letters, envelops, and pre-paid return envelops were printed, coded, and packaged by a specialised printing services provider under the supervision of the researchers. For the first mail-out, a 7 1/2" x 10 1/2" envelope containing one questionnaire, one cover letter, and one pre-paid return envelop was sent to 4,000 Canadian households. For the first mail-out, coded questionnaires (from 1 to 4,000) were used so that nonrespondents could be keyed and identified in the sample. For the second mail-out, two weeks after the first, a reminder letter was sent to all of the 4,000 households. Finally, a third mail-out was sent to nonrespondents only. Due to budgetary constraints, the third mail-out was sent to 2,000 randomly selected nonrespondents (out of 3,052) households, and also included one questionnaire, one cover letter, and one pre-paid return envelop. A French version of the questionnaire and all cover letters was also developed. Equivalence of the translation was ensured to preserve reliability of the data collected for its aggregate use with the English version. The French-version questionnaires were sent to 800 households in Quebec for the first mail-out, 800 follow-up letters in the second, and 400 questionnaires to nonrespondents in the third mail-out. 4.4 D A T A A N A L Y S I S In this study, two types of data analyses were conducted: descriptive and inferential. Descriptive statistics were used to transform the raw data into an easier and more understandable manner (Zickmund, 1997). Calculations of averages, frequency distributions, and percentages distributions were used to a great extent to summarize the data. Inferential statistics were conducted in order to make generalizations onto the population to Canadian households by 33 performing hypothesis tests, determining relationships, and making predictions among variables (Bluman, 2001). The univariate and multivariate tests which were used to make inferences onto the population are described below. Univariate statistics are used when the research focuses on one variable at a time (Zickmund, 1997). In this study, univariate hypothesis tests included comparisons of two means and comparisons of proportions performing z-tests, as well as comparison of three or more means performing F-tests in one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs). The significance level used for all the analyses was a=0.05, except for comparisons of three or more proportions, where a Bonferroni correction was applied. The Bonferroni correction/adjustment procedure is used in cases where more than two tests are compared in particular study, meaning that the alpha level should be adjusted downward (SISA, 2003). In this study, a Bonferroni adjustment = 0.05/n was used, where n is the number of tests being conducted. Cluster Analysis and Logistic Regression were the two multivariate methods used. Cluster Analysis' major objective is to devise a scheme for grouping cases (Canadian householders) into classes or clusters so that similar ones are in the same class or cluster. Cases exhibit high homogeneity within clusters and high heterogeneity between clusters (Manly, 2000). A k-means cluster analysis was selected for this study. The k-means procedure attempts to identify relatively homogeneous groups of cases based on selected characteristics, using an algorithm that can handle large numbers of cases (SPSS Inc., 2003). Cluster analysis is commonly used in marketing research studies where segmentation of markets is intended (Vidal, 2003; Bigsby and Ozanne, 2002; Ozanne and Vlosky, 1997) Logistic Regression was used to create a model with the objective of predicting the probability of willingness to pay for better indoor environmental quality (IEQ) features in the home. Logistic regression modeling is relatively free of restrictions and allows for predictions of discrete outcomes such as group membership from a set of variables that may be continuous, 34 discrete, dichotomous, or a combination thereof (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000; Field, 2000). There are several justifications for this type of modeling, including: 1) good-fitting models describe patterns of association and interaction between variables; 2) inferences for model parameters evaluate which explanatory variables affect the response, while controlling effects of possible confounding variables; 3) the size of the estimated model parameters determine the strength and importance of the effects; and 4) the model's predicted values smooth the data and provide improved estimates of the mean for the response distribution (Agresti, 1996). In this study, attitudinal (continuous) variables and demographic (continuous and discrete) variables were used as independent variables. Studies in related fields have showed associations of demographics and psychographics with willingness to pay (Brownson et al., 2001; Dupont, 2000; Straugman and Roberts, 1999). The Thurstone paired comparison scaling procedure was one additional technique used to analyse householders' preference for IEQ features, energy efficiency, and materials. Specifically, Thurstone's case V from "The law of comparative judgment" was selected (Thurstone, 1927). The technique consists of presenting respondents a list containing paired attributes, and asking which attribute (in each pair) is their preferred one. For each pair, the proportion of times one attribute was selected in preference to other is calculated. The perceived differences between the proportions are assumed to be normally distributed and, consequently, z-scores corresponding to proportions are assigned to each attribute. Finally, a ranking scale is created with the distances (differences) from the attributes' standardized mean scores. For a more detailed description and formulation of the technique and its application in marketing research, see Malhotra, 1989 and 1986; Green and Tull, 1978; Green, 1954. 35 5 RESULTS 5.1 O V E R V I E W The section presenting the results of the study is divided into three sub-sections. The first, sub-section 5.2, addresses issues such as distribution of responses, response rate, and nonresponse error. Sub-section 5.3 presents demographic information and respondent characteristics. Sub-section 5.4 presents the results of the data analysis as a whole in its descriptive and inferential forms. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize, organize, and present the data from every question of the survey instrument. Inferential statistics allowing for generalizations onto the population of Canadian households were also used to a great extent in sub-section 5.4 and 5.5. Inferential statistics were used to present the results that were necessary to assist, support and, ultimately answer the research questions of the study as stated in the objectives section. Univariate and bivariate statistics (sub-section 5.4) and multivariate statistics (sub-section 5.5) techniques were used to compare, determine relationships, and make predictions among variables. 36 5.2 S U R V E Y RESPONSES The first mail-out was sent out in late April of 2003. Fifteen days later, a reminder/thank-you letter was sent to all participants. Finally, a replacement questionnaire and coverletter were sent to those who had not returned a completed survey 40 days after the first mail-out. A histogram with the number of returns along the survey implementation period is shown in Figure 5.2.1. 150 First mail-out 120 c o a. 3 90 1 60 ' 30 Reminder/Thank-you letter Replacement Questionnaire and Coverletter o - i 24.04.03 12.05.03 30.05.03 17.06.03 05.07.03 03.05.03 21.05.03 08.06.03 26.06.03 14.07.03 Figure 5.2.1. Distribution of number of responses over time. In total, four thousand questionnaires were mailed out. A little more than 10% (408 questionnaires) were returned as unknown, moved, or inexistent addresses. Taking these returns into account reduced the sample size to 3,592 households. The response rate was calculated from the adjusted sample size. Eight hundred and twenty four (824) householders responded to the survey out of the 3,592 who could be reached for a response rate of 23%. However, exactly 40 questionnaires out of the 824 were not completed or did not have adequate valid information. 37 These were not used, resulting in 784 valid responses. The adjusted response rate was decreased to 22%. Table 5.2.1 summarizes the calculations of the response rate. Table 5.2.1 Number of responses and response rate. Original sample size 4,000 Unknown/moved/inexistent 408 New sample size 3,592 Returned 824 Entered 784 Adjusted response rate(ARR) = X I Q O ... _ ^ _ x l 0 0 = 22% Newsamplesize 3,592 A response rate of 22% from a sample size of 3,592 is sufficient to conduct inferential statistics onto the Canadian household population, as well as draw conclusions about potential market segments (Babbie, 2000; Zickmund, 1997). However, response bias, if any, must be understood, accounted for, and preferably minimised. Respondent error is a type of error or bias which may occur in a survey research study such as this one. Respondent error is divided in two categories: nonresponse error and response bias. Response bias (in mail surveys) is, for the most part, out of the researcher's control due to the fact that these errors are made by respondents when answering the questionnaire. Social desirability, falsification, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding the question are examples of response bias (Zickmund, 1997). Nonrespondents - those who refused to participate - make up a critical group of the study. For the 22% of response rate to be an effective representation of Canadians households, respondents and nonrespondents should not be statistically different in the way they would respond to the survey (Kanuk and Berenson, 1975). To test differences between the groups of respondents and nonrespondents, valid responses were divided into early and late respondents to respectively represent the two groups. Armstrong and Overton (1977) 38 describe how "late" respondents can be treated as a "proxy" for nonrespondents. In this study, early respondents were assumed to be those who returned their questionnaire before receiving the third mail-out. Late respondents were those who returned their surveys after being contacted a third time. As can be seen from Table 5.2.2, there were 589 early respondents and 195 late ones (n=784). Four key variables were selected to compare the two groups: two demographic variables, A G E (age category) and INCOME (income category); one attitudinal variable IAQ_IMP (importance given to the indoor air quality in the home), and one awareness variable H E A R D _ H H (whether or not respondents have heard about healthy houses or not). For a better understanding of how these variables were measured and the meaning of their descriptive statistics, refer to Section 5.3 and 5.4. Table 5.2.2. Group statistics for early and late respondents. N Mean Std. Deviation A G E Early 589 7.60 2.46 Late 195 7.52 2.39 I N C O M E Early 589 5.70 3.17 Late 195 5.34 2.64 I A Q J M P Early 589 4.01 .80 Late 195 3.93 .90 H E A R D _ H H Early 589 1.44 .50 Late 195 1.44 .50 Table 5.2.3 shows the results of four r-tests comparing early and late respondents against each of the chosen variables. As can be seen under Sig. (2-tailed), none of the variables showed statistical differences at a=0.05 between early and late respondents. Therefore, there is no significant indication of nonresponse error in this study and inferences can be safely made. Table 5.2.3. Independent Samples Test for early and late respondents. Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Sig. Mean Std. Error F Sig. t df (2-tailed) Difference Difference A G E Equal variances assumed .49 .48 .40 782.00 .687 .08 .20 INCOME Equal variances not assumed 15.84 .00 1.59 393.41 .112 .37 .23 IAQ_IMP Equal variances not assumed 5.64 .02 1.07 301.96 .288 .08 .07 H E A R D _ H H Equal variances assumed .01 .92 .05 782.00 .959 .00 .04 5.3 D E M O G R A P H I C S Section IV (question 29 through 38) of the questionnaire (see Appendix B) served to collect demographic information from respondents. Question 29 asked respondents their current age. Figure 5.3.1 shows the percentages of respondents falling under the different age categories. Q 29: What is your current age? 15%" 10%-, 1% 0% 4% 12% 15%i 15% 11% 10% 16% 0% i 1 1 1 r 20 or younger 26 - 30 36 - 40 46 - 50 56 - 60 66 or more 21 - 25 31 - 35 41-45 51 - 55 61 - 65 Figure 5.3.1. Respondents' current age categories. People that were 66 years of age or more, along with baby boomers (those from 46 to 55 years of age), were the most common age categories. 40 Marital status was assessed in question 30. The majority of respondents (78%) are currently married or living in common law (see Figure 5.3.2). Q 30: What is your marital status? Single (never married) "1 Common Law "1 Married ~\ 0% 20% 40% Figure 5.3.2. Respondents' marital status. 60% Results from question 31 show that 36% of the respondents were female (see Figure 5.3.3). Q 31: What is your gender? Male 64.29% n=504 Female 35.71% n=280 Figure 5.3.3. Gender proportion among respondents. 41 In questions 32 and 33, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had any children. If so, they were asked how many children they had and how many are currently living at home. Figure 5.3.4 and Table 5.3.1 present the results from these questions, respectively. Q 32: Do you have any children? Yes 83.29% n=653 Figure 5.3.4. Proportion of respondents that have children. Eighty-three percent of the respondents stated that they have children. For those with children, the average number of children was 2.6, with an average of one child still living at home. Q 33: How many children do you have and how many live at home? Table 5.3.1. Mean values of respondents' number of children and number of children living at home. N_CHILDR L I V _ H O M E N 653 653 Mean 2.63 1.00 Std. Deviation 1.47 1.10 Skewness 2.90 .97 Kurtosis 17.88 .58 42 In question 34 and 35, respondents were asked to indicate their levels of education and occupations, respectively. Figures 5.3.5 shows that 45% of the respondents have a college or university degree. Q 34: What is the highest level of education that you have received College or University High School Postgraduate School Pr imary School Other t z ^ 10% 20% 30% 40% Figure 5.3.5. Respondents' level of education. In Figure 5.3.6, it can be seen that the two most frequent occupations were "professional or technical" with 28% of the responses, followed by "retired" with 25%. Q 35: Please check one category that best describes the occupation of the household's primary wage earner. Professional or technical ~\ Retired Manager or administrator ~ Labourer ~ Services Other Salesperson "j Clerical Machine operator Farmer/farm manager Housekeeper Crafts worker 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%. Figure 5.3.6. Occupations of households' primary wage earner. 43 Income was measured in question 36, where respondents were asked to select one of 12 categories of annual income before taxes. Categories ranged from 1) less than $20,000 to 12) $120,000 and over. Results showing the distribution of incomes are shown in Figure 5.3.7. The most frequent categories of total annual household income was "$60,001 to $80,000" (15% of the respondents), followed by "$40,001 to $50,000" (13%). Q 36: Please check the one that gives the best estimate of total annual household income before taxes. $120,001 and over SI 10,001 to $120,000 $100,001 to $110,000 $90,001 to $100,000 $80,001 to $90,000 $70,001 to $80,000 -$60,001 to $70,000 -$50,001 to $60,000 " $40,001 to $50,000 " $30,001 to $40,000 " $20,001 to $30,000 -. less than $20,000 -7% 2% 0% 5% 7% 8% 15% 11% 13% 11% 10% 7% 5% 10% 15% Figure 5.3.7. Income levels among respondents. 44 5.4 D E S C R I P T I V E A N D I N F E R E N T I A L STATISTICS (UNIVARIATE) In this section, descriptive statistics are presented for the responses to every question in the questionnaire, except for demographics which were presented in Section 5.3. Results are shown in the same order in which the questions were asked. Univariate and bivariate inferential statistics are conducted for the variables necessary to directly and indirectly address to the objectives of the study. Section I of the questionnaire (questions 1 through 9) revolved around respondents' current housing status, general health and physical behaviour, and home renovation plans. Question 1 asked participants about their current housing type. Figure 5.4.1 presents the results as proportions of the total. With more than 80% of the responses, detached houses were the most common type of residence among respondents. Q 1:Which of the following best describes your primary residence? Other 8.55% n=67 Town House 4.21% \ . = : n=33 = Apartment 5.87 % " = = n=46 "== 81.38% n=638 Detached House Figure 5.4.1. Proportion of respondents' type of primary residence. The "other" category came in second with 9% of the responses. Figure 5.4.2 shows categories of housing type within "other" as described by respondents. 45 duplex semi detached mobile condo ~ bungalo ~ cottage ~ basement apt 16 14 11 n = 67 missing = 9 0 5 Count 1 0 1 5 Figure 5.4.2. Categories within "other" type of residence. Results from question 2 are presented in Figure 5.4.3. It can be seen that almost 90% of the respondents in this survey own their homes. Q 2: Do you currently own or rent your primary residence? i 009; Own Rent Other Figure 5.4.3. Respondents' home ownership. Question 3 asked respondents about whom they live with in their primary residence (Figure 5.4.4). The figure shows that the majority of respondents live with spouses or common law partners and/or live with children/a child. 46 Q 3: Who lives with you in your primary residence? Spouse/Common Law Child/Children None i 90 Parents ~| Friend Other 613 370 19 18 17 n=784 Figure 5.4.4. Living arrangements in respondents' primary residence. Question 4 asked respondents about the size of their primary residence in square feet. Respondents could choose from 7 categories of house sizes ranging from less than 550 ft2 to more than 2,051 ft2. Figure 5.4.5 shows the distribution of proportions in each category. The house size category with the highest proportion was the category "between 1,151 ft2 and 1,450 ft2", with 26% of the total. Q 4: What is the approximate floor area of your primary residence? More than 2.051 112 -Between 1,751 ft2 and 2,05(1112 -Between 1,451 112 and 1,750 112 -Between 1,151 ft2 and 1.450 112 Between S51 112 and 1,150112 Between 551 112 and 850 112 Less than 550 112 14% 11% 14% 11% 3% 26% 21% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Figure 5.4.5. Respondents' primary residence floor area. 47 In question 5, respondents were asked about the main structural material used in their home (Figure 5.4.6). Wood was the most frequently selected structural material for houses, with more than 80% of the responses. Q 5: To the best of your knowledge, what is the main structural material used in your primary residence? 75% 509 25% ()%' 81% 9% 6% 3% 0% i i i Wood Concrete Other Masonry Don't know 0% Steel Figure 5.4.6. Structural material used in respondents' primary residence Respondents were asked in question 6 to indicate how frequently they participated in physical and social activities. The rationale here was to examine the effects, if any, of these activities on various attitudinal and demographic variables. The choices included outdoor activities (hiking, walking, biking), indoor activities (fitness centres, dancing), and going out (dinner, movies, theatre, concerts). Each activity had five categories of frequency that they could choose from: 1) more than once a week; 2) once a week; 3) two to three times a month; 4) once a month; and 5) less than once a month. Figure 5.4.7 shows the frequency distribution for each of the three variables "outdoor activities", "indoor activities", and "going out". 48 Q 6: How often do you participate in the following activities? Indoor Activities Going out Less than once a month Once a month 2-3 times a month Once a week More than once a week 47% 7% 13% 10% 23% Less than once a month Once a month 2-3 times a month Once a week More than once a week 26% 23% 27% 16% Outdoor activities Less than once a month Once a month "j 2-3 times a month Once a week More than once a week 14% 6% 10% 16% 54% Figure 5.4.7. Frequency of participation in outdoor, indoor, and social activities. It can be seen from Figure 5.4.7 that the majority of respondents, 54%, said that they participate in outdoor activities more than once a week. For indoor activities, most of the respondents, 47%, participated less than once a month. Going out had a more even distribution among the categories. The most common category was "2-3 times a month", with 27% of the responses. The next question concerned health. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had had any type of condition or illness which they believed to have been caused by the presence of certain materials or substance inside their homes*. If the answer was positive, they were asked to indicate which condition or illness it was. Figure 5.4.8 shows the proportion of respondents indicating that they have had at least one type of condition or illness. Almost 1/3 (32%) of the * Upon completion of the analysis, it was realized that, given the way that question seven was phrased, responses may reflect not only opinions of those who have had conditions or illnesses caused by the presence of materials and substances inside their homes, but also those who think that the presence of these materials and substances may cause (even if they never had any) conditions and/or illnesses in the home. Nonetheless, both groups of respondents are of interest to this study. 49 respondents had at least a condition or illness which was caused by the presence of materials or substances inside their homes. No 68.24%\ n=535 \ ^Yes 31.76% n=249 Figure 5.4.8. Proportion of respondents that have had a condition or illness caused by materials or substances in their homes. Figure 5.4.9 shows the frequency distribution of the conditions or illnesses among respondents. Allergy was the most frequent illness followed by asthma and skin irritation. Q 7: In the list below, please indicate a condition which you believed to be caused by the presence of certain materials or substances inside your home. Allergies Asthma , Skin Irritation "| Seasonal Depression "j CoIdH 29 Other 187 65 62 42 n=249 11 Figure 5.4.9. Most frequent type of conditions and illnesses caused by the presence of materials or substances inside the home. The last two questions from Section I of the questionnaire concerned respondents' intentions to renovate their homes. Question 8 asked them to indicate whether or not they had 50 plans to renovate in the next five years. Figure 5.4.10 shows that 42% of the respondents intend to do so. Q 8: Do you have plans to renovate your primary residence within the next 5 years? Figure 5.4.10. Proportion of respondents with plans to renovate their residences within the next five years. Figure 5.4.11 summarizes the results of question 9, where respondents who plan to renovate, indicated their reasons for doing so. Changing the bathroom layout and changing the exterior appearance were the most commonly mentioned reasons for wanting to renovate. Change bathroom layout Change exterior appearance Add shelves/cabinetry Other Add or alter interior wall Structural /Material decay Add rooms Change floor plan Improve sound insulation Have more natural light Improve the air quality Q 9: Why do you want to renovate? 50 42 40 38 37 73 69 104 102 96 89 n=332 Figure 5.4.11. Reasons why respondents want to renovate their residences within the next five years. 51 Section II of the questionnaire (questions 10 through 17) dealt with respondents' intentions to build or to buy a home. Question 10 asked them to indicate whether they intended to build or buy a home within the next five years. Figure 5.4.12 shows that 22% of the respondents intend to do so. Question 10 also served as a filter question. Those who said "yes" were asked to continue on Section II, while those who said no were asked to go to Section III. Q 10: Do you plan to build or buy a home within the next five years? No 78.44% n=615 n=169 Figure 5.4.12. Proportion or respondents planning to build or buy a home within the next five years. In question 11, potential home "builders" or "buyers" were asked to indicate specifically when they intend to build or buy a home. Figure 5.4.13 shows the proportion of respondents who intend to build or buy a home over four time periods. The categories "in three to four years" and "in 5 years" were the most common responses at a total of 60%. 52 Q 11. When do you intend to buy or build a home? 30.77% n=S2 in three to four years 28.40% n=48 in one or two years 28.99% n=49 11.83% in five years n=20 in six month Figure 5.4.13. When of those intending to build or buy a home in are intending to do so. Respondents indicated their primary reasons for wanting to build or buy a home in question 12 (Figure 5.4.14). "Other" was the most frequent response, followed by "want better quality house" and "want larger house", respectively. Q 12: What is the primary reason for wanting to build or buy a new residence? Other Want better quality house Want larger home Want newer home Want better neighbourhood Want healthier home Current home's value has increased Job/Marital change " Mortgage rates are attractive 28 23 22 16 15 66 53 50 n=169 Figure 5.4.14. Reasons for wanting to build or buy a home with the next 5 years. Since the "Other" category ranked first, Table 5.4.1 serves to categorize the most common responses. 53 Table 5.4.1. Reasons for wanting to build or buy a home within the "other" category. Frequency Percent Missing 8 12% down sizing 15 23% to own 11 17% moving 10 15% retiring 10 15% accessibility 2 3% investment 2 3% change style 1 2% farming 1 2% larger yard 1 2% location, profit 1 2% neighbourhood 1 2% privacy 1 2% rental 1 2% want studio 1 2% Total 66 100% Question 13 asked respondents to choose their preferred structural material in a new house. Figure 5.4.15 indicates that the majority (53%) of those who intend to buy or build a home within the next five years prefer wood as the structure material. Q 13: What material would you prefer as the main structural component of your new house? 50%" 409 30%' UK! 1 I Wood Doesn't matter Concrete Have not decided yet Steel Masonry Figure 5.4.15. Respondents' material preference for new houses. 54 When asked about the types of residence that they would want (question 14), most of the respondents (83%) stated that they would prefer to build or buy detached houses (see Figure 5.4.16). Q 14: What type of residence do you intend to build/buy? Detached House Town House Other Apartment Figure 5.4.16. Preferred types of residences for respondents who intend to buy or build a home. In terms of the location of the new house (question 15), Figure 5.4.17 shows that the first and second most preferred locations are "rural" areas and "suburban" areas with 37% and 36% of the responses, respectively. Q 15: What is your preferred location for your new residence? 20% Rural Other Urban Other Suburban Downtown Figure 5.4.17. Preferred locations for new houses for respondents who intend to build or buy a home. 55 In question 16, respondents were asked to indicate how much they expected to pay for a new house. There were six categories of house costs ranging from "less than $100,000" to "more than $300,000". Figure 5.4.18 shows that most of the respondents (27%) expect to pay between $100,000 and $150,000 for a new house. Q 16: How much do you expect to pay for your new residence? Between $1(10,(1(10 and $150,000 Between $150,001 and $200,000 H n=36 Between $200,001 and $250,000 Between $250,001 and $500,000 10% 15% 20% 25% Figure 5.4.18. Cost expectations for a new house. The last question in Section II (question 17) asked who makes the decision to build or buy a new home. Results (Figure 5.4.19), show that most of the respondents decided to build or buy a new house themselves or with their spouse/partner. Q 17: Who made the decision to build/buy a new house? 141 n=169 decided invself 106 14 I I I other family members spouse/partner other Figure 5.4.19. Decision-makers for building or buying a new house. 56 Section III (question 18 through 28) of the questionnaire revolved around the Healthy House idea. More specifically, it asked questions about indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics. These questions on indoor environmental quality (IEQ) were supplemented by questions on energy efficiency, as well. The information collected was mainly on attitudes, awareness, and preferences. Additionally, willingness to pay for better IEQ was assessed. In question 18, respondents were asked whether or not they had ever heard the term "Healthy House" before. More than a half of the respondents (56%) had heard about Healthy Houses (see Figure 5.4.20). Q 18: Have you ever heard the term "Healthy House"? 43.75% 56.25% Figure 5.4.20. Proportion of respondents that have heard about Healthy Houses. Question 19 asked respondents to identify the types of media/communications from which they had seen or heard about the concept of Healthy Houses (Figure 5.4.21). Of the 441 responses to this question, TV, newspapers, and magazines were the three most common responses. 57 Q 19: Where did you hear the term "Healthy Houses"? T V Newspaper • Magazine " Radio ' Friends " Other • 29 75 74 247 226 212 n=441 Figure 5.4.21. Type of media/communications from which respondents heard about Healthy House. Questions 20 and 21 provide key attitudinal variables for this study. Each question measures respondents' level of satisfaction of and importance given to IEQ and energy efficiency in their homes. Question 20 asked respondents to indicate their level of satisfaction with their home's indoor air quality, lighting, acoustics, and energy efficiency. A five-point interval scale was used, ranging from completely dissatisfied (1) to completely satisfied (5). Figure 5.4.22 shows the distribution of the means for the four variables. Q 20: How satisfied are you with the following attributes in your home? Completely Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Completely dissatisfied dissatisfied nor dissatisfied satisfied satisfied Lighting H 4.0 IAQH 3.9 Acoustics "1 3.7 Energy Efficiency "I 3.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Figure 5.4.22. Respondents level of satisfaction with IEQ and energy efficiency in their homes. 58 On average, all variables were rated between "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" and "somewhat satisfied". Lighting and energy efficiency, with means of 4.0 and 3.5 respectively, received the highest and the lowest satisfaction ratings. To test for significant differences between variables, a one-way A N O V A was conducted on level of satisfaction with IEQ and energy efficiency. The variables used were IAQ_SATI (satisfaction with indoor air quality), LIT_SATI (satisfaction with lighting), ACO_SATI (satisfaction with acoustics), and EGY_SATI (satisfaction with energy efficiency). Table 5.4.2 presents descriptive statistics with values for means, skewness, and kurtosis provided for all the variables. Table 5.4.2. Descriptive statistics for IAQ_SATI, LIT_SATI, ACO_SATI, and EGY_SATI. N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis IAQ_SATI 784 3.90 1.03 -.852 .038 LIT_SATI 784 4.00 1.02 -.981 .229 A C O _ S A T I 784 3.72 1.12 -.628 -.546 EGY_SATI 784 3.46 1.20 -.433 -.901 It can be seen from Table 5.4.2 that the values of skewness and kurtosis for the four variables are acceptable (within ±1.5). Furthermore, Table 5.4.3 shows that at least 99% of the values from IAQ_SATI, LIT_SATI, ACO_SATI, and EGY_SATI are within ± 3 standards deviations from their means. Therefore, normality of the variables is assumed to be met for the analysis of variance. Table 5.4.3. Frequency distribution of IAQ_SATI, LIT_SATI, ACO_SATI, and EGY_SATI. IAQ SATI LIT SATI A C Q SATI E G Y IMP Mean ±3 std = 0.81,6.99 Mean ±3 std = 0.94,7.06 Mean ±3 std = 0.36,7.08 Mean ±3 std = -0.14.7.06 Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 1 -Completely dissatisfied 15 1.9 11 1.4 24 3.1 47 6.0 2 - Somewhat dissatisfied 89 11.4 90 11.5 121 15.4 164 20.9 3 - Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 100 12.8 68 8.7 122 15.6 116 14.8 4 - Somewhat satisfied 337 43.0 335 42.7 299 38.1 295 37.6 5 - Completely satisfied 243 31.0 280 35.7 218 27.8 162 20.7 784 100.0 784 100.0 784 100.0 Tnlal 2M 100 0 59 Results from the one-way A N O V A indicates (p=0.000) that there is at least one variable in the group which is significantly different from the others at <x=0.05 (see Table 5.4.4). Table 5.4.4. One-way ANOVA of the variables IAQ_SATI, LIT_SATI, ACO.SATI, and EGY_SATI. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 130.782 3 43.594 36.497 .000 Within Groups 3740.992 3132 1.194 Total 3871.774 3135 Tables 5.4.5 and 5.4.6 present the Scheffe post-hoc test. Multiple comparisons of the means indicate that level of satisfaction with lighting and indoor air quality are statistically equal but significantly different from the other means in the group. The mean of energy efficiency is significantly higher than the mean for acoustics. Table 5.4.5. Scheffe test: multiple comparisons. (I) (J) Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. IAQ Lighting -.10 .343 Acoustics .18* .017 Energy Efficiency .44* .000 Lighting Acoustics .28* .000 Energy Efficiency .54* .000 Acoustics Energy Efficiency .26* .000 *• The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Table 5.4.6. Scheffe test: subsets of the means. Subsets N 1 2 3 Energy Efficiency 784 3.46 Acoustics 784 3.72 IAQ 784 3.90 Lighting 784 4.00 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. 60 Question 21 measured respondents' level of importance given to the same four variables. A five-point interval scale was used as well, from being not at all important (1) to extremely important (5). In Figure 5.4.23, the means for level of importance given to lighting, IAQ, energy efficiency, and acoustics are shown. Q 21: How important are the following attributes in your home? Not at all Somewhat Important Very Extremely important important important important Energy Kl Lighting - 3.8 1 IAQ - 4.0 1 I'ficiency ™ 4.2 Acoustics - 3.1 | i 1 1 i 1 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Figure 5.4.23. Importance given by respondents to IEQ and energy efficiency in their homes. A l l three IEQ variables were rated, on average, between "important" and "very important". Energy efficiency, with a mean of 4.2, was rated higher, between "very important" and "extremely important". A one-way A N O V A was applied to these "importance" questions to test the equality of means. Table 5.4.7 presents values of means, skewness, and kurtosis for the variables ACO_IMP (importance given to acoustics), IAQ_IMP (importance given to indoor air quality), LIT_IMP (importance given to lighting), and EGY_IMP (importance given to energy efficiency). Table 5.4.7. Descriptive statistics for ACOJMP, IAQJMP, LITJMP, and EGYJMP. N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis A C O J M P 784 3.15 .93 -.037 -.216 I A Q J M P 784 3.99 .82 -.341 -.466 L I T J M P 784 3.81 .75 -.098 -.282 E G Y J M P 784 4.17 .79 -.549 -.339 61 The table shows low values of skewness and kurtosis. In addition, frequency distributions (Table 5.4.8) for the four variables show that all variables have 99% of their values within ± 3 standard deviations from the mean. Therefore, the four variables are considered to be normally distributed for the analysis. Table 5.4.8. Frequency distributions of ACOJMP, IAQ_IMP, LITJMP, and EGYJMP. A C O IMP IAO IMP LIT IMP E G Y IMP Mean ±3 std = 0.36,5.94 Mean ±3 std = 1.53,6.45 Mean ±3 std = 1.56,6.06 Mean ±3 std = 1.80,6.54 Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % 1 - Not at all important 29 3.7 3 .4 2 .3 2 .3 2 - Not very important 148 18.9 14 1.8 16 2.0 7 .9 3 - Important 341 43.5 209 26.7 252 32.1 153 19.5 4 - Very important 209 26.7 319 40.7 374 47.7 315 40.2 5 - Extremely important 57 7.3 239 30.5 140 17.9 307 39.2 Total 784 100.0 784 100.0 784 100.0 784 100.0 The one-way A N O V A table indicates that at least one of the means is statistically different at a significance level of 5% (Table 5.4.9). Table 5.4.9. One-way ANOVA of the variables ACOJMP, IAQ JMP, LITJMP, and EGYJMP. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 467.307 3 155.769 227.670 .000 Within Groups 2142.875 3132 .684 Total 2610.182 3135 The Scheffe post-hoc test (Tables 5.4.10 and 5.4.11) reveals that each of the four variables A C O J M P , I A Q J M P , L I T J M P , and E G Y J M P are statistically different from one another. Table 5.4.10. Scheffe test: multiple comparisons. (I) (J) Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. Acoustics IAQ -.84* .000 Lighting -.66* .000 Energy Efficiency -1.02* .000 IAQ Lighting .18* .000 Energy Efficiency -.18* .000 Lighting Energy Efficiency -.36* .000 *• The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 62 Table 5.4.11. Scheffe test: subsets of means. Subsets 1 2 3 4 Acoustics 3.15 Lighting 3.81 IAQ 3.99 Energy Efficiency 4.17 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. In question 22, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they found or saw water condensation on the inside surface of their house's windows and walls. The purpose of this question was to verify whether or not respondents were aware of the humidity level inside their homes (high relative humidity in the home may compromise the indoor air quality - see section 2.3.1.1). A five-point interval scale was used, with (1) being never and (5) being very often. Figure 5.4.24 shows that, on average, respondents found or saw water condensation on the inside surfaces of windows more than on walls. Q 22: During the winter, how often do you see water condensation on the inside surfaces of your home's Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often Windows Walls 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Figure 5.4.24. How often respondents saw water condensation on windows and walls inside surfaces. In question 23, respondents were presented with a list of eight home attributes and they were asked to indicate which they had in their homes. Figure 5.4.25 shows how many times out of a total of 784 responses that an attribute was selected. Vacuum cleaners and exhausts (both in the bathroom and in the kitchen) were the most common features in respondents' residences. 63 Q 23: Which of the following do you have at your residence? Vacuum cleaner Exhaust in the hathroom (to the outside) Exhaust in the kitchen (to the outside) Air dchiimidiller Extra heater Humidity sensor Gas fireplace Air purifier 226 213 162 159 116 643 521 475 Figure 5.4.25. Appliances and features most often present in respondents' residences. Question 24 was one of the key items included in the questionnaire. Here, respondents were presented with a preference/choice scale of measurement. The Thurstone Scale (Thurstone, 1927) was the method chosen for this type of measurement. First, a list of nine attributes regarding IEQ, energy efficiency, and material preference was prepared. A table containing 36 pairs of attributes (all combinations) was presented to the respondents: 9<-2 9! - = 36 pairs of attributes (9-2)!2! As far as their home was concerned, respondents were asked to choose the more important attribute in each of the 36 pairs. Results of question 24 are presented in a Thurstone scale format (Figure 5.4.26). The scale shows the rank of the preferred attributes as well as relative distances between them. The origin of the scale, which is assigned to the number-one ranked attribute, is set to zero. The scale distance of each attribute is found by their cumulative distances from the origin. In the figure, it can be seen that energy efficiency was the top-ranked attribute, followed by natural light and thicker insulation. The lowest ranked attributes were inside-noise proof, forced ventilation, and artificial lighting. 64 Q 24: The following list contains 36 pairs of attributes related to indoor air quality, acoustics, and lighting. For each pair, please decide which you consider to be more important in your home and check it. 0 - k Energy Efficiency -0.5 — < Natural Light - ( Thicker Insulation -1.0 — * Anti-Allergic Materials ^"""""-Air Tightness -1.5 — ^ ^~-Outside Noise-Proof -2.0 1 II 1 --Inside Noise-Proof Forced Ventilation -* Artificial Light -2.5 — -3.0 Ill Figure 5.4.26. Thurstone scale: ranking and relative distances of preferred attributes. Question 25 assessed respondent's willingness to pay for better IEQ features. First, they were asked to indicate whether they would be willing to pay more if better indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics were guaranteed in their new home. Second, they were to indicate the percentage over and above the cost of the house that they would be willing to pay for such assurances. Figure 5.4.27 shows three charts with the proportion of respondents willing to pay more for better IEQ features. Many of the respondents were willing to pay more, particularly for better indoor air quality (56%). Just below half of them (44%) were willing to pay more for better lighting, while approximately 40% were willing to pay more for better acoustics. 65 Q 25: If a guarantee could be made to you that your new house would have better indoor air quality, lighting system, and acoustics, would you be willing to pay extra for these features? Indoor air quality No 60.08% Acoustics No 155.87% Lighting Figure 5.4.27. Proportion of respondents willing to pay extra for better I E Q features. Table 5.4.12 shows results from the second part of question 25. Means, medians, skewness, and kurtosis for the distributions of percentages that respondents were willing to pay over and above the cost of the house for better IEQ features are given. Q 25: How much would you be willing to pay for these features? Table 5.4.12. Descriptive Statistics: willingness to pay. P A Y _ M I A Q P A Y _ M L I T P A Y _ M A C O N 442 346 315 Mean 8.69% 7.87% 7.54% Median 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Skewness 4.59 3.83 3.55 Kurtosis 33.66 22.23 16.03 66 As can be seen from the table, the mean values for the three variables, P A Y _ M I A Q (willing to pay more for better indoor air quality), P A Y _ M L I T (willing to pay more for better lighting), and P A Y _ M A C O (willing to pay more for better acoustics), were 8.69%, 7.87%, and 7.54%, respectively. However, skewness and kurtosis show that the three variables deviate from normality (values above 1.5). In order to meet the assumption of normality to use a one-way A N O V A , the variables were transformed to logarithmic distributions. Table 5.4.13 shows the new and more acceptable values of skewness and kurtosis for each of the IEQ variables renamed L O G I O J A , LOG10JLI, and LOG10_AC. Table 5.4.13. Logarithmic transformation of the variables PAYJVIIAQ, PAYJVILIT, and PAY_MACO. PAYJVI IAQ L O G I O J A P A Y _ M L I T LOG10_LI P A Y _ M A C O LOG10_AC N 442 442 346 346 315 315 Mean 8.688 .874 7.868 .833 7.5359 .799 Skewness 4.588 .073 3.834 .016 3.550 .262 Kurtosis 33.662 .444 22.231 .277 16.030 .131 Table 5.4.14 shows Levene's test for the equality of variances and indicates that variances for the three tested variables do not statistically differ from each other (p=0.583). Table 5.4.14. Levene's test for homogeneity of variances. Levene Statistic d f l df2 Sig. .539 2 1100 .583 A one-way A N O V A was conducted to test for equality of means among the variables L O G I O J A , LOG10_LI, and LOG10_AC with an alpha level of 0.05. Statistics from the one-way A N O V A are presented in Table 5.4.15. With a p-value of 0.005, at least one of the three means is significantly different. 67 Table 5.4.15. One-way ANOVA for the variables LOGIOJA, LOG10_LI, and LOG10_AC. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1.043 2 .521 5.272 .005 Within Groups 108.797 1100 .099 Total 109.840 1102 Consequently, a Scheffe post-hoc test was performed to identify which of the means differed. Tables 5.4.16 and 5.4.17 show that the means for indoor air quality and acoustics are statistically different from each other. More specifically, IAQ is significantly higher than acoustics, but neither differs significantly from lighting. Table 5.4.16. Scheffe test: multiple comparisons. (I) IEQ (J) IEQ Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. Acoustics Lighting -.034 .388 IAQ -.074* .006 Lighting IAQ -.041 .196 *• The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Table 5.4.17. Scheffe test: subset of means. Subsets IEQ 1 2 Acoustics .799 Lighting .833 .833 IAQ .874 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Question 26 asked about respondents' preferences for wood colours in different applications in the home. From the list of five colours below, respondents were asked to select their preferred choice for flooring, furniture, shelving, and cabinetry applications. 68 Figure 5.4.28 Colours of wood presented to respondents. Figure 5.4.29 shows four bar charts with the results of the respondents' wood colour preferences in each of the four applications. The first chart shows that medium wood colours (3) and (4) were the most preferred for flooring. For furniture, the second chart shows that darker wood colours (3) and (2) were the most preferred. The third and forth charts show that, for shelves and cabinetry, lighter colours more slightly favoured. Q 26: Assuming that the following applications in your home were made of wood, which colour would you prefer? 50% 50% 40% 30% 20% i 10% Furniture 31% 31% 14% • 9% 40% 30% 20% 10% ^ 0% Shelves 31% 27% 24% -13% Figure 5.4.29. Preferred wood colours for flooring, furniture, shelves, and cabinetry In question 27, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with 16 statements regarding energy efficiency and general aspects of the indoor environmental quality. A five-point Likert scale was used, with (1) being "strongly agree" and (5) being "strongly 69 disagree". Results of the respondents' opinions on the sixteen statements are presented in Figure 5.4.30. The mean value for each statement is given in ascending order (i.e. from the most agreeable to the least agreeable statement). The preoccupation with energy efficiency and the interest in knowing more about materials that cause allergies are among the most agreeable statements. On the other hand, the occurrence of mold and the preference for artificial lighting in the home are among the least agreeable ones. Q 27: For each of the following statements, state your level of agreement. Strongly Don't Strongly agree Agree know Disagree disagree ( E N E _ C O N ) Energy efficiency is a major concern in my house ( T O X I C ) I never had problems with any toxic substance in my home ( L E A D ) The paints used in my bouse have low level of Lead ( R A D O N ) I have never heard about Radon-related problems in my community ( A L L E R G Y ) I'd like to find out or to know more about materials which cause allergies (M ITES) I don't think mites are a problem in my house ( H U M I D I T Y ) I generally know the humidity level of my house ( S A F E R ) Today wilh newer technologies, building materials are much safer ( S H T _ D A Y ) Short days in the winter make me feel down ( N A T L _ L I T ) I wish I had more natural light in my home ( C O O K I N G ) Cooking smells spread through the rooms of my house ( M A T E R I A L ) Some materials may have trigged allergies in my house ( E _ A R T _ L I ) Too much energy is spent in my house on artif icial l ighting ( M O L D ) I frequently find mold on some surfaces in my house ( L I G H T _ O N ) In the summer, I have to turn the lights on even dur ing the day ( A R T _ N A T L ) I prefer artif icial l ighting over natural light 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.4 2.0 I 3.0 4.0 — I 5.0 Figure 5.4.30. Respondents' level of agreement with sixteen statements on IEQ and energy efficiency. The last question (question 28) from Section III of the questionnaire dealt with product preference. Respondents were asked to indicate their opinion on six attributes with respect to wood flooring and carpeting. Respondents compared wood flooring and carpeting in terms of pleasantness, attractiveness, healthiness, durability, affordability, and environmental friendliness. 70 A seven-point interval scale ranging from -3 to 3 was used to measure respondents' thoughts on each attribute. Figure 5.4.31 presents the mean values for wood flooring (continuous line) and carpeting (dotted line) for each attribute. Q 28: Please rate the two types of flooring below on each of the following Unpleasant -3 i -2 i -1 l 0 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 l 3 • i Pleasant Unattractive -3 i -2 ..! -1 L. 0 \ l 1 1 1 v' 1 2 1 3 i i Attractive Unhealthy -3 i ICan -2 1 jeting - i " >'(5' 1 i \ i \ J 2 1 3 i i Healthy N \ Wood flooring i • yl Not Durable -3 i -2 i -I | N 0 1 2/ 1/ 3 i i Durable Expensive -3 i -2 i -1 1 2 1 3 • i Economical Environmentally Unfriendly -3 i -2 i -1 1' / ' o , i , i \ 2 1 3 . i Environmentally Friendly Figure 5.4.31. Respondents' rating of carpeting and wood flooring. It can be seen from the figure that wood flooring scored more positively on every attribute except for affordability, which had similar means for both products according to respondents. Statistical comparisons in order to assess equality of means of the ratings were conducted using six independent z-tests (one for each pair of attributes). The variables used for the z-tests were: pair 1, W_PLEASE (wood flooring pleasantness) and C_PLEASE (carpeting pleasantness); pair 2, W_ATTRAC (wood flooring attractiveness) and C _ A T T R A C (carpeting attractiveness); pair 3, W _ H E A L T H (wood flooring healthiness) and C _ H E A L T H (carpeting healthiness); pair 4, W _ D U R A B L (wood flooring durability) and C _ D U R A B L (carpeting durability); pair 5, W_ECONOM (wood flooring affordability) and C _ E C O N O M (carpeting affordability); pair 6, W_ENVFRI (wood flooring environmental friendliness) and C_ENVFRI (carpeting environmental friendliness). Table 5.4.18 shows descriptive statistics for the six pairs of variables. Table 5.4.19 presents the results of the six paired comparisons at a=0.05. It can be 71 seen that respondents rated wood flooring significantly higher (/?=0.000) than carpeting on all attributes but affordability (p=0.957). Table 5.4.18. Descriptive statistics for paired wood flooring and carpeting attributes. Mean N Std. Deviation Pair 1 W _ P L E A S E 2.39 784 .96 C _ P L E A S E .56 784 2.09 Pair 2 W _ A T T R A C 2.45 784 1.03 C _ A T T R A C 1.01 784 1.75 Pair 3 W _ H E A L T H 2.38 784 1.07 C _ H E A L T H -1.26 784 1.59 Pair 4 W _ D U R A B L 2.15 784 1.18 C _ D U R A B L -.10 784 1.66 Pair 5 W _ E C O N O M .10 784 1.98 C _ E C O N O M .09 784 1.60 Pair 6 W_ENVFRI 1.60 784 1.50 C_ENVFRI -.98 784 1.57 Table 5.4.19. Z-test: paired wood flooring and carpeting attributes. Paired Differences 95% C. I. of the Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error -Mean uinerence Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 W _ P L E A S E - C _ P L E A S E 1.83 2.42 .09 1.66 2.00 21.19 783 .000 Pair 2 W _ A T T R A C - C_ATTRAC 1.43 2.03 .07 1.29 1.58 19.78 783 .000 Pair 3 W _ H E A L T H - C _ H E A L T H 3.65 2.00 .07 3.50 3.79 50.96 783 .000 Pair 4 W _ D U R A B L - C L D U R A B L 2.25 2.12 .08 2.10 2.40 29.67 783 .000 Pair 5 W_ECONOM - C _ E C O N O M .01 2.64 .09 -.18 .19 .05 783 .957 Pair 6 W_ENVFRI - C_ENVFRI 2.58 2.36 .08 2.42 2.75 30.68 783 .000 The last two questions of the questionnaire were open-ended questions. In question 37, respondents could express other considerations that they had in mind regarding the concept of Healthier Homes. Question 37 had 219 responses. Question 38 (n=112) allowed respondents to openly give any additional comments about Healthier Homes and Healthful Living. Responses from question 37 were tallied into similar categories and are presented in Appendix D, along 72 with a list of the 219 statements. Indoor environmental quality features were the most common category (44/219=20%) in "other considerations" followed by miscellaneous (40/219=18%) and features related to homes' localization/site or neighbourhood with (28/219=14% of the responses. A list of the 112 responses (statements) from question 38 was included as well (see Appendix D). 73 5.5 INFERENTIAL STATISTICS (MULTIVARIATE) Two main multivariate techniques were used in this study: cluster analysis and logistic regression. First, results from the cluster analysis are presented. One-way A N O V A and z-tests for proportions were used to characterize and distinguish each cluster. Then, results from logistic regressions are presented along with their supporting significance tests. 5.5.1 Cluster Analysis Figure 5.4.30 showed means for the Likert scale ratings of question 27. Except for the variable A R T _ N A T L , "I prefer artificial light over natural light", all fifteen remaining variables were used to perform a k-means cluster analysis. As can be seen from Table 4.5.1.1, this variable was excluded from the analysis because of its non-normal distribution (skewness and kurtosis above 1.5). Four variables out of the fifteen used for the cluster analysis had their values inverted* on the five-point interval scale. The four variables were: 1) "I have never heard about Radon-related problems in my community"; 2) "I generally know the humidity level of my house"; 3) "I don't think mites are a problem in my house"; and 4) "I never had problems with any toxic substances in my home". In this way, all fifteen variables (statements) were stated in the affirmative voice. * These statements were originally presented in a negative voice to defect for acquiescence bias. 74 Table 5.5.1.1. Descriptive statistics for the variables* used in the k-means cluster analysis. Valid Mean Skewness Kurtosis S H T J D A Y 784 2.69 .275 -1.129 L IGHT_ON 784 4.17 -1.396 1.192 NATL_LIT 784 2.73 .272 -1.206 E_ART_LI 784 3.44 -.485 -.576 A R T _ N A T L 784 1.62 1.859 3.813 E N E _ C O N 784 2.07 1.161 .873 R A D O N 784 3.73 -.798 .030 L E A D 784 2.24 .734 .443 HUMIDITY 784 3.51 -.604 -.034 M O L D 784 4.13 -1.358 1.184 MITES 784 3.59 -.739 -.442 COOKING 784 2.83 .338 -1.220 TOXIC 784 3.91 -1.129 1.013 A L L E R G Y 784 3.33 -.137 -.806 M A T E R I A L 784 2.31 .928 .312 SAFER 784 2.54 .577 .203 •Refer to Figure 5.4.30 for the meaning of each variable. A k-means cluster analysis was run with two, three and four clusters. The chosen final solution was the analysis containing three clusters since three distinct groups were formed: one more "positive and agreeable" group (cluster 1), one less "positive and agreeable group" (cluster 2), and a relatively neutral group (cluster 3) with values between cluster 1 and cluster 2. Since the five-point interval scale had the same structure for each statement, low scores represented a more interested, positive, and agreeable attitude towards the IEQ idea whereas higher mean scores showed less interested, negative and less agreeable attitude in relation to IEQ. Figure 5.5.1.1 shows the number of respondents in each cluster. 75 Cluster 2 n=345 44% n=139 18% —Cluster 3 Figure 5.5.1.1. Number of cases in each cluster. Table 5.5.1.2 presents the final clusters centres. It can be observed that, in general, cluster 1 had values lower than cluster 2 and that cluster 3 had values in between the two extremes. Table 5.5.1.2. Final clusters centres. Cluster 1 2 3 S H T J 3 A Y 2.1 3.2 2.9 LIG H T_O N 3.7 4.5 4.3 N A T L _ L I T 1.8 3.4 3.2 E _ A R T _ L I 2.8 3.9 3.S E N E _ C O N 2.0 2.2 2.1 R A D O N 3.9 3.8 3.3 L E A D 2.4 2.0 2.4 HUMIDITY 3.2 3.7 3.6 M O L D 3.6 4.5 4.4 MITES 3.6 4.4 1.7 C O O K I N G 2.3 3.1 3.3 TOXIC 3.7 4.3 3.3 A L L E R G Y 2.7 3.8 3.5 M A T E R I A L 2.0 2.5 2.4 SAFER 2.6 2.5 2.5 For the final three cluster solution, convergence was achieved after 17 iterations (see Table 5.5.1.3). Table 5.5.1.4 presents the final distances between cluster centres. Cluster n=300 38% 76 Table 5.5.1.3. Iteration history. Change in Cluster Centers Iteration" 1 2 3 1 5.514 6.023 5.802 2 .277 .365 .449 3 .098 .142 .308 4 .071 .122 .267 5 .053 .083 .178 6 .027 .080 .213 7 .049 .038 .143 8 .045 .031 .093 9 .029 .029 .110 10 .018 .037 .108 11 .018 .013 .044 12 .010 .012 .029 13 .014 .013 .000 14 .000 .014 .035 15 .000 .011 .027 16 .000 .014 .034 17 .000 .000 .000 Convergence achieved due to no or small change in cluster centers. The maximum absolute coordinate change for any center is .000. The current iteration is 17. Table 5.5.1.4. Euclidean distances between the final clusters. Cluster 1 2 3 1 - 3.121 3.238 2 3.121 - 2.997 3 t 3.238 2.997 -Due to the exploratory nature of cluster analysis, it is difficult to confirm significant differences between clusters. In order to do so, equality of means and equality of proportions from the attitudinal and demographic variables of respondents in each cluster were tested. First, the four variables regarding level of satisfaction with indoor air quality, lighting, acoustics, and energy efficiency were used to run a one-way A N O V A between clusters in order to see whether respondents in each cluster had different levels of satisfaction with respect to the IEQ and energy 77 efficiency in their homes. Table 5.5.1.5 shows descriptive statistics for the four variables in each cluster. Table 5.5.1.5. Descriptive statistics in each cluster for the four variables measuring level of satisfaction. IAQ_SATI LIT _SATI ACO_ _SATI EGY_ _SATI Clusters N Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 300 3.47 1.10 3.56 1.12 3.32 1.19 3.07 1.22 2 345 4.25 .81 4.32 .78 3.99 .99 3.77 1.09 3 139 3.96 1.02 4.14 .94 3.92 1.01 3.54 1.20 Total 784 At a = 0.05, the four one-way A N O V A tables show (see Table 5.5.1.6) that at least one mean is significantly different among the three clusters in all four cases 09=0.000). Table 5.5.1.6. One-way ANOVAs between clusters on four variables of level of satisfaction. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. IAQ_SATI Between Groups 98.292 2 49.146 52.757 .000 Within Groups 727.545 781 .932 Total 825.837 783 LIT_SATI Between Groups 98.199 2 49.100 54.101 .000 Within Groups 708.800 781 .908 Total 806.999 783 ACO_SATI Between Groups 78.999 2 39.500 34.262 .000 Within Groups 900.383 781 1.153 Total 979.383 783 EGY_SAT1 Between Groups 77.873 2 38.936 28.936 .000 Within Groups 1050.902 781 1.346 Total 1128.774 783 Post hoc Scheffe tests are shown in Table 5.5.1.7. Means of the variable IAQ_SATI were significantly different from each other in all three clusters, with respondents in cluster 1 being the least satisfied and respondents from cluster 2 being the most satisfied. Means of the responses for cluster 1 were significantly different from clusters 2 and 3 (statistically equal) for 78 all of the other variables. Therefore, respondents from cluster 1 were significantly less satisfied than those from clusters 2 and 3 with regards to lighting, acoustics, and energy efficiency of their homes. Table 5.5.1.7. Post hoc Scheffe test of IAQ_SATI, LIT_SATI, ACO_SATI, and EGY_SATI. (I) CLUSTER (J) CLUSTER Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. IAQ_SATI 1 2 -.780* .000 3 -.497 * .000 2 3 .282* .012 LIT_SATI 1 2 -.768* .000 3 -.587* .000 2 3 .181 .134 ACO_SATI 1 2 -.671* .000 3 -.601* .000 2 3 .070 .864 EGY_SATI 1 2 -.692* .000 3 -.466* .001 2 3 .226 .159 *• The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Respondents' level of importance of IEQ and energy efficiency was used for the second attitudinal characterization of clusters. Descriptive statistics using the four variables for level of importance of IEQ and energy efficiency are shown in Table 5.5.1.8. Table 5.5.1.8. Descriptive statistics in each cluster for the four variables measuring level of importance. A C O J M P I A Q J M P LIT .IMP E G Y . . IMP Clusters - N Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 1 300 3.20 .92 4.08 .78 3.85 .72 4.21 .75 2 345 3.12 .93 3.92 .83 3.80 .77 4.13 .80 3 139 3.13 .98 3.97 .88 3.74 .78 4.19 .82 Total 784 Table 5.5.1.9 presents the results of four one-way A N O V A s and show that only the means for I A Q J M P are significantly different in at least one cluster (/?=0.039). 79 Table 5.5.1.9. One-way ANOVA between clusters on four variables of level of importance. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. A C O J M P Between Groups 1.111 2 .556 .636 .530 Within Groups 682.428 781 .874 Total 683.540 783 I A Q J M P Between Groups 4.408 2 2.204 3.269 .039 Within Groups 526.529 781 .674 Total 530.938 783 L I T J M P Between Groups 1.081 2 .540 .950 .387 Within Groups 444.220 781 .569 Total 445.301 783 E G Y J M P Between Groups 1.024 2 .512 .830 .437 Within Groups 482.072 781 .617 Total 483.097 783 A post hoc Scheffe test of I A Q J M P reveals that respondents in cluster 1 gave a statistically higher importance to the indoor air quality than respondents in cluster 2. Ratings from respondents in clusters 1 and 3, as well as clusters 2 and 3 were statistically the same (see Table 5.5.1.10). Table 5.5.1.10. Post hoc Scheffe test of IAQJMP. (I) CLUSTER (J) CLUSTER Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. I A Q J M P 1 2 .164* .040 3 .112 .413 2 3 -.052 .817 *• The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. There is a lack of market information on segments of Canadian households interested in Healthful Living and the Indoor Environmental Quality concept. This is particularly true for demographic characteristics. For this reason, as an initial approach, two basic demographic variables were selected to assist in the characterization of the three clusters: A G E and GENDER. The variable A G E was grouped and a new variable A G E j G R O U P was divided into "younger" (from 20 or younger to 40 years of age), "mid-life or baby boomers" (from 41 to 60), and "older" 80 (61 and over). Table 5.5.1.11 shows the proportion of the three age groups within each cluster. Equality of proportions between clusters for each age group was conducted using z-tests for proportions at a = 0.017*. It can be seen from Table 5.5.1.11 that cluster 1 has significantly less respondents in the "older" category than do clusters 2 and 3. There are significantly more respondents in the "younger" category in cluster 1. In addition, the proportion of "boomers" was statistically different between cluster 1 and cluster 3, with cluster 1 having a higher proportion. Table 5.5.1.11. Proportion of respondents from each age group in each cluster. C L U S T E R " Age Group l 2 3 boomers % within C L U S T E R 60.0% 51.9% 42.4% older % within C L U S T E R 14.7% 30.7% 39.6% younger % within C L U S T E R 25.3% 17.4% 18.0% a- Proportions above the same line are statiscally equal. Proportions from the demographic variable GENDER are shown in Table 5.5.1.12. Again, a z-test was used to test the equality of the proportions of males and females between each cluster. It can be seen that cluster 1 has significantly more female respondents than cluster 2 at a = 0.017. Table 5.5.1.12. Proportion of GENDER in each cluster. C L U S T E R 3 1 3 2 Female % within C L U S T E R 41.7% 36.7% 30.1% Male % within C L U S T E R 58.3% 63.3% 69.9% a- Proportions above the same line are statiscally equal. * The Bonferroni adjustment was used in order to ensure that the overall alpha level remained at 0.05 (i.e. 0.05/3=0.017) (SISA 2003). 81 A variable related to respondents' health was used in the last cluster characterization analysis. Table 5.5.1.13 describes the percentage of respondents in each cluster that had any condition or illness caused by the presence of certain materials or substances in their home. A z-test for proportions was conducted to check if the percentages of respondents who had any condition or illness were statistically the same among the three clusters. The results show that all three clusters have significantly different proportions at a = 0.017. In cluster 1, almost half of the respondents had conditions or illnesses, while in cluster 2 less than 20% had. Table 5.5.1.13. Proportion of respondents in each cluster with at least a condition or illness caused by a material or substance in the home. C L U S T E R " Condition 1 2 3 Yes % within CLUSTER 48.7% 17.4% 30.9% No % within CLUSTER 51.3% 82.6% 69.1% Proportions above the same line are statiscally equal. 5.5.2 Logistic Regressions Section 5.5.2 presents the results of three binary logistic regressions*. Logistic regression is characterized by having only two possible outcomes for the dependent variable. Three dichotomous variables were chosen as the dependent variables: P A Y _ I A Q (pay more for better IAQ or not), PAY_LIT (pay more for better lighting or not), and P A Y _ A C O (pay more for better acoustics or not). Ten continuous and seven categorical variables were selected as independent variables. The same seventeen independent variables were used for each of the three analyses. Complete results (all tables, figures, and model equation) of the logistic regression are presented for the variable P A Y J A Q . For brevity, only model equations of the other two dependent variables are presented. 82 The continuous and categorical independent variables used for the analyses and their description are shown in Table 5.5.2.1. Table 5.5.2.1. Continuous and categorical independent variables used in the logistic regressions. Continuous variables Description INCOME A G E A C O J M P I A Q J M P L I T J M P E G Y J M P IAQ_SATI LIT_SATI ACOJSATI EGYJSATT Categorical variables G E N D E R CHILD CONDITIO A C T O U T ACTIN OUTGOING H E A R D J t H Households' annual Respondents' age Level of importance Level of importance Level of importance Level of importance Level of satisfaction Level of satisfaction Level of satisfaction Level of satisfaction income before taxes given to acoustics given to indoor air quality given to lighting given to energy efficiency with the indoor air quality with lighting with acoustics with energy efficiency Respondents' gender Whether or not respondents lived with child/children Whether or not respondents had conditions or illness caused by the presence of substances or materials in the home Frequency of outdoors physical activities Frequency of indoors physical activities Frequency of social activities Whether or not respondents heard about Healthy Houses before The variable CHILD was created from question 3 of the questionnaire (see Figure 5.4.4). Respondents who lived with child/children were coded 1, while those who did not live with child/children were coded 0. The same principle was used to create variables ACTOUT, ACTIN, and OUTGOING (see Figure 5.4.7). For the three variables, respondents who answered from "more than once a week" thru "2-3 times a month" were grouped as "more active" and coded 1. Those whose answers were either "once a month" or "less than once a month" were grouped as "less active" and coded 0. Table 5.5.2.2 presents the categorical variables used to conduct the logistic regressions and their respective codes. The continuous variables were entered in the analyses with their original measurements. 83 Table 5.5.2.2. Categorical variables coding for the logistic regressions. Frequency Parameter coding (1) OUTGOING more 401 1 less 383 0 H E A R D _ H H yes 441 1 no 343 0 CHILD yes 370 1 no 414 0 CONDITIO yes 249 1 no 535 0 A C T O U T more 623 1 less 161 0 ACTIN more 358 1 less 426 0 G E N D E R Female 280 1 Male 504 0 Results of the stepwise (forward) logistic regression using P A Y _ I A Q as the dependent variable with seventeen independent variables are presented in Table 5.5.2.3. The constant and the variables that were entered into the model are shown for each of the seven steps. In total, seven variables (four continuous and three categorical) significantly predicted the probability of paying more for better indoor air quality. The variables were: INCOME, A G E , I A Q J M P , IAQjSATI, GENDER, ACTIN, and H E A R D J f f l . It can be seen from step seven in the table, under ExpB, that H E A R D J i H has the highest value for odds (1.907). Odds (ExpB) of greater than one indicate that, as the value of the predictor increases, the odds of the predicted event occurring increase. Conversely, the opposite occurs when ExpB is less than one. Having heard of the term Healthy Houses increases the odds of paying more for better IAQ by factor of 1.907. INCOME, I A Q J M P , and ACTIN have positive relationships with the dependent variable, as well. Therefore, being more involved in indoor activities, giving higher importance to IAQ, or being in a higher income category each increase the willingness to pay more for better indoor air quality. In addition, these three variables' 95% confidence intervals for ExpB do not contain one, which indicates a very reliable positive relationship with the predicted 84 variable. On the other hand, A G E , IAQ_SATI, and GENDER have negative relationships with the dependent variable by having ExpB values below one with reliable confidence intervals (do not contain one). Table 5.5.2.3. Variables entered in the equation for predicting willingness to pay more for better IAQ. B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) 95.0%CI.forEXP(B) Lower Upper Step 1 IAQ_SATI -.438 .077 32.321 1 .000 .645 .555 .751 Constant 1.981 .316 39.335 1 .000 7.252 Step 2 INCOME .144 .026 31.185 1 .000 1.155 1.098 1.215 IAQ_SATI -.448 .078 33.182 1 .000 .639 .548 .744 Constant 1.225 .340 12.951 1 .000 3.403 Step 3 INCOME .138 .026 27.693 1 .000 1.148 1.090 1.208 I A Q J M P .493 .096 26.440 1 .000 1.638 1.357 1.977 IAQ_SATI -.452 .081 31.160 1 .000 .637 .543 .746 Constant -.687 .508 1.829 1 .176 .503 Step 4 INCOME .137 .026 27.038 1 .000 1.147 1.089 1.208 HEARD J-IH(l) .523 .156 11.313 1 .001 1.688 1.244 2.289 I A Q J M P .489 .097 25.330 1 .000 1.630 1.348 1.972 IAQJ3ATI -.464 .082 32.099 1 .000 .629 .535 .738 Constant -.907 .518 3.064 1 .080 .404 Step 5 INCOME .117 .027 18.463 1 .000 1.124 1.066 1.186 HEARD J I H ( l ) .634 .161 15.426 1 .000 1.885 1.374 2.586 I A Q J M P .444 .098 20.402 1 .000 1.559 1.286 1.890 IAQ_SATI -.404 .084 23.136 1 .000 .668 .566 .787 A G E -.106 .035 9.054 1 .003 .899 .839 .964 Constant -.104 .584 .032 1 .859 .901 Step 6 GENDER( l ) -.463 .169 7.517 1 .006 .629 .452 .876 INCOME .107 .028 15.156 1 .000 1.113 1.055 1.175 HEARDJ-IH( l ) .654 .162 16.201 1 .000 1.923 1.399 2.644 I A Q J M P .464 .099 21.826 1 .000 1.590 1.309 1.931 IAQ_SATI -.426 .085 25.050 1 .000 .653 .553 .772 A GE -.123 .036 11.566 1 .001 .884 .823 .949 Constant .242 .602 .161 1 .688 1.274 Step 7 GENDER( l ) -.491 .170 8.330 1 .004 .612 .438 .854 INCOME .102 .028 13.448 1 .000 1.107 1.048 1.169 HEARD_HH(1) .646 .163 15.716 1 .000 1.907 1.386 2.625 I A Q J M P .474 .100 22.527 1 .000 1.607 1.321 1.955 IAQJ5ATI -.420 .085 24.271 1 .000 .657 .556 .776 ACTIN(l) .323 .159 4.108 1 .043 1.381 1.011 1.886 A G E -.121 .036 11.013 1 .001 .886 .825 .952 Constant .057 .610 .009 1 .926 1.058 85 That is, respondents who are more satisfied with IAQ, older, or female are less likely to pay more for better indoor air quality. Table 5.5.2.3 also shows the regression coefficients (B) for each of the predicting variables. The fundamental logistic regression equation is given as: ef1 P(Y) = i+e" where Y is the probability of a case being in one of the categories of the dependent variable and jU. is the equation: H = B0 + B,X, + B2X2 + -- + BkXk with a constant Bo, coefficients Bj, and predictors Xj for k predictors (j = 1,2,...,k). Consequently, substituting the formula with the values from step seven of Table 5.5.2.3, the final model can be written as follows: .057+ (-. 121AGE) + (-.427/1Q _ SA TI)+(-.49IGENDER)+. 102INCOME + A74IAQ _1MP+323 ACTIN+.M6HEARD _HH P(y)= 1 + 057+ (-. 12\AGE)+(-A2IAQ _ SATI)+(-.49 IGENDER)+. 102INCOME+ A1AIAQ _ IMP+323 ACTIN+.M6HEARD _HH where Y is the probability of paying more for better indoor air quality. Table 5.5.2.4 presents the results of a -2Log-Likelihood goodness-of-fit test. For each variable entered into the model at each of the seven steps, the value of the -2Log-Likelihood decreases, indicating improvement in the model as a whole. The Table also shows values for Nagelkerke R 2 , which is the comparable, but not equivalent, to R 2 in simple regression (the amount of variation in the dependent variable that is explained by the predicting variables). For the final model, Nagelkerke R 2 = .202, which is an acceptable value in logistic regression (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000). 86 Table 5.5.2.4. Model summary: -2Log-Likelihood test. Step -2 Log likelihood Nagelkerke R Square 1 1038.896 .059 2 1005.654 .112 3 978.002 .155 4 966.601 .172 5 957.431 .185 6 949.843 .196 7 945.724 .202 Table 5.5.2.5 shows the Chi-square significance tests for each step, a measure of how well the model improved since the last step. For each variable entered, the difference between the new model's -2Log-Likehood statistics is compared to the previous one using a Chi-square distribution at a = 0.05. The Table shows that the difference in the -2Log-Likelihood between the model in step seven from the model in step six is 4.119, which is significantly better (p = 0.042). Moreover, it shows that the model is significant as the -2Log-Likelihood of the constant-only model minus the -2Log-Likelihood of the final model has a Chi-square of 128.34 (p=0.000). Table 5.5.2.5. Chi-square tests for each of the entered variables. Step Model Chi-square df Sig. Chi-square df Sig. Step 1 35.169 1 .000 35.169 1 .000 Step 2 33.243 1 .000 68.411 2 .000 Step 3 27.651 1 .000 96.063 3 .000 Step 4 11.401 1 .001 107.464 4 .000 Step 5 9.171 1 .002 116.634 5 .000 Step 6 7.588 1 .006 124.222 6 .000 Step 7 4.119 1 .042 128.340 7 .000 Table 5.5.2.6 presents the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, which tests the hypothesis that the observed data is significantly different from the values predicted by the 87 model. The non-significant sigma values (p>0.05) seen in the table indicate that the predicted data does not statistically differ from the observed data, which is desirable for modeling. Table 5.5.2.6.Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Step Chi-square df Sig. 1 2.615 2 .270 2 6.967 8 .540 3 2.521 8 .961 4 10.370 8 .240 5 2.522 8 .961 6 8.428 8 .393 7 3.268 8 .916 A classification table (Table 5.5.2.7) shows that 69% of the cases were correctly classified after all the significant predicting variables were added to the model, against 56% for the constant-only model. Table 5.5.2.7. Classification table of constant-only model and final model. Predicted Willingness to Observed pay extra for IAQ No Yes Percentage Correct Step 0 a Willingness to pay No 0 342 .0 extra for IAQ Yes 0 442 100.0 Overall Percentage 56.4 Step 7 Willingness to pay extra for IAQ Overall Percentage No Yes 188 93 154 349 55.0 79.0 68.5 a - Constant-only model. A final supporting analysis to validate the model involves an inspection of the residuals. A deviance from normality of the residuals distribution indicates the presence of outliers or influential cases. The distribution of the standardized residuals is shown in Figure 5.5.2.1. 88 Figure 5.5.2.1. Histogram of standardized residuals. Less than 1% of the values (5/784 = 0.64%) were below -2.5 and none were above 2.5. Therefore, normality is assumed given that at least 99% of the standardized values are within ±2.5 standard deviations. Rerunning the analysis without the 5 extreme cases showed no significant improvement and, therefore, all cases were kept for the final model. The following model equations were obtained from the logistic regressions using PAY_LIT and P A Y _ A C O as the dependent variables and the same seventeen independent variables. For PAY_LIT, the model shows that there are six significant predicting variables: .036+(-.095AGE)+(-.337177 _ SATI) + .062INCOME + .2831/7" _ IMP+306ACTIN+3S0HEARD _ HH P(Y)= 1 + e.036+(-.095AG£) + (-.337ZJr_SA77)+ .062INCOME+ .2&3LIT _ IMP+306ACTIN+3&0HEARD _HH where Y is the probability of paying more for better lighting. For P A Y _ A C O , the logistic regression model contains four significant predicting variables: 89 £-1 .363 + (-.329ACO _SATI)+ .09&INCOME+ A23ACO_IMP + .475 HEARD _ HH ' 1 + -1.363+(-.329ACO_5Ar/)+ .098INCOME+ A23ACO_IMP+ A15HEARD _ HH where Y is the probability of paying more for better acoustics. 6 DISCUSSION 6.1 C O N S U M E R D E M A N D * F O R H E A L T H I E R H O M E S Overall, there seems to be a strong interest in the concept of Indoor Environmental Quality and Healthier Homes on the part of Canadian householders. Figure 5.4.20 showed that 56% of the respondents have heard of the term Healthy House before. In a US study, 50% of the respondents said that they would really like to have Healthy House features and 16% said that they definitely wanted such features in their new home (Lurz, 1997). In 1999, a study by C M H C (Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation) stated that 29% of the adult population in Canada had heard about Healthy Houses (CMHC, 1999). Although data from the C M H C study was unavailable to conduct statistical comparisons, the 56% found in this study suggests a trend toward greater awareness of the concept by Canadians. Moreover, results from question 19 of the questionnaire (see Figure 5.4.21) showed that the majority of the respondents heard about Healthy Houses on television, which indicates an increase in popularity of the concept given that TV is one of the major communication vehicles used to target the general public (Burnett et al., 2001). Previous studies with US householders had also found a willingness to pay more for certain Healthy House features (e.g. Professional Builder, 1997). In this study, respondents showed more interest and willingness to have better indoor air quality than better lighting, and to a lesser extent, better acoustics. Fifty-six percent of the respondents were willing to pay extra for better indoor air quality features in their home, 44% for better lighting, while only 39% were willing to do so for better acoustics (see Figure 5.4.27). These preferences are confirmed by the * This term is interchangeably used with level of interest and willingness to pay and does not refer to "demand" in the economic sense. 91 different premiums that respondents were willing to pay over and above the cost of the house for each of the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) features. Indoor air quality is the feature for which householders are willing to invest the most (see Table 5.4.13). Furthermore, the indoor air quality issue was one the most frequently cited features under "other considerations" (question 37), one of the open-ended questions on healthful living of the questionnaire. One householder said that "healthy housing is an important issue, as my doctor informs me that allergies are an increasing part of his practice, and he feels housing (or its indoor air) may be a prime factor". Thirty-two percent of the respondents have had some type of condition or illness related to materials or substances in their homes (see Figure 5.4.8). That also may have contributed to the stronger association between IAQ and Healthier Homes than lighting or acoustics, as stated by the following householders: "Air quality is by far the most significant Healthy House factor"; "In my opinion, air quality is a major concern especially in new modern homes because of off gassing from building materials, paints, carpets, adhesives, calking, manufactured wood products (OSB, etc.) In my opinion artificial lighting is unhealthy especially fluorescent, incandescent is better but more expensive. I would recommend large energy efficient windows for natural light". Another way to quantify consumer demand for Healthier Homes is with the results of the logistic regressions. A more detailed examination of the predicting variables of the logistic models allows for a better characterization of those who are more likely to pay more for better IEQ features. This is an unprecedented method of studying willingness to pay for IEQ features. The notion of consumer willingness to pay has been well investigated in other areas and there have been different schools of thought regarding its strength to predict the "real world" (Dupont, 2000; Hansen, 1997; Straugman and Roberts, 1999). However, that is outside the scope of this study. 92 Nevertheless, the first interesting observation that can be made is the fact that knowledge of the Healthier Home concept is positively related to willingness to pay for better IAQ, lighting, and acoustics. The confirmation, for example, that being more aware of a product, service, or concept increases the chances of paying more for it, should be of interest to developers of products and promotional strategies. Demand for better IEQ was also validated by factors such as income, the level of satisfaction with, and the level of importance given to each particular IEQ feature. Attitudinal aspects, such as the level of satisfaction with the indoor air quality, lighting and acoustics in the home, each had negative relationships with the willingness to pay more for these features. That is, the less satisfied Canadian householders are with the feature in question, the more likely they are to pay more for them. Similarly, the more importance they give to indoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics, the more likely they are to pay a higher premium for them. Not surprisingly, income had a positive relationship with willingness to pay. Householders with higher incomes are more likely to pay more for IEQ features. The justification for this argument is that families in the higher income categories can more readily tolerate increases in costs derived from improvements in indoor environmental quality (Straugman and Roberts, 1999). Interestingly, age was not related to willingness to pay more for better acoustics, but had a negative relationship with indoor air quality and lighting. Older people were less likely to pay extra for either of these two features. In related fields such as ecology and green marketing, seniors generally tend to be less sensitive to environmental issues. The justification is that those who have lived in a time period in which certain issues (such as the ones related to IEQ) have been irrelevant, are less likely to be concerned about these issues (Straugman and Roberts, 1999). Two more variables were significantly related to willingness to pay for better indoor air quality; in particular, gender and level of physical activity. Women showed less interest in 93 paying more for better IAQ than men. In a related field study, Dupont (2000) pointed out that the level of interest and participation in a given activity and earnings (women have earned less than men on average) may have a bearing on women's attitude towards willingness to pay. Levels of physical activity were significant predictors as well. People that are more physically active (e.g. indoor gym, dancing) at least three times a month are more likely to pay more for better indoor air quality. Interestingly, levels of physical of activity have been associated with gender and income before; "men tend to be more engaged in physical activities than women and people in the higher income categories tend to be more physically active" (Brownson, et al. 2001). In this study, gender, levels of physical activity, and income were each significant predictors of willingness to pay for better indoor air quality. In all three models, the inclusion of demographic and psychographic variables significantly improved the models when compared to analyses that used either type separately. For the sake of illustration, Table 6.1.1 below presents the responses of a hypothetical Canadian householder to the questionnaire used in this study, "The Healthy House Survey of Canadian Households". Table 6.1.1. Hypothetical responses to the predicting variables of paying more for better IAQ. Age Gender Income Physical activity (e.g. fitness centre, dancing) Heard about Healthy Houses? IAQ Importance IAQ Satisfaction 20 or younger 21 - 2 5 26 - 3 0 31 - 3 5 35 - 4 0 | f - 4 5 46 - 5 0 51 - 5 5 56 - 6 0 60 - 6 5 66 or more Female Male less than $20,000 $20,001 to $30,000 $30,001 to $40,000 $40,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $60,000 $60,001 to $70,000 ^ T 6 " , M i " V $ T o , o o Q $80,001 to $90,000 $90,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $110,000 $110,001 to $120,000 $120,001 and over More No Less jXes Extremely important . .iv^ oL , important Important Not very important Not at all important Completely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat ^ • • , • ^ 'dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied 94 The responses were entered in the model to predict the probability of paying more for better indoor air quality. The probability that this householder would pay more for better IAQ is 89%. 6.2 M A R K E T S E G M E N T A T I O N The fact that the cluster analysis revealed three distinct groups in the study suggests that there could be a great potential for finding significant differences between such groups, thus enabling market segmentation of customers. The group which best represents the segment of interest was cluster 1. Householders classified in cluster 1 had similar positive attitudes and agreeable opinions towards the fifteen Likert scale statements from question 27 (see Figure 5.4.30). Therefore, cluster 1, representing 38% of the population, can be considered to be a target segment that values healthful living and has a strong market potential. Characterization of the clusters using attitudinal information showed that cluster 1 was also composed of individuals that were the least satisfied with IEQ and energy efficiency in their homes. Individuals in cluster 1 give more importance to the indoor air quality than those in cluster 2, the cluster with the lowest potential to value healthful living. Demographic characterization showed that cluster 1 was composed of mid-life individuals who, in many cases, have had previous home-related conditions or illnesses. Sixty percent of the individuals in cluster 1 are considered to be baby-boomers (those born between 1947 and 1966). Baby Boomers have been the major drivers of the Canadian housing market for the past 25 years and represent the wealthiest of all age categories (CHMC, 2001). Individuals with previous home-related conditions or illnesses tend to be more aware and involved in issues regarding their health (Health Canada, 2000), which may have contributed to grouping those householders in cluster 1. In addition, women were significantly more dominant in cluster 1 than in cluster 2. This is an interesting finding considering that women had a negative correlation with willingness to 95 pay for better indoor air quality. This may mean that, although women were proportionally more present in the group which values healthful living the most, they are not necessarily willing to pay extra for it. Cluster 2 is the group with the least potential to demand IEQ features. Cluster 3, on the other hand, represents a moderate potential to demand IEQ features and a unique market opportunity with respect to mite-related issues. Cluster 3 accounts for 18% of the population and individuals in this cluster generally considered that mites (cluster centre of 1.7) are a major problem in their homes (see Table 5.5.1.2). Figure 6.2.1 summaries the characteristics and the composition of each cluster. Potential market segments for Indoor Environmental Quality and Healthful living features \ Cluster 1 Householders with high potential to value and buy into Healthier Homes features Least satisfied with the IEQ and energy efficiency. Give high importance to IAQ. High proportion of women. High proportion of mid-life and younger and low proportion of older. 1 Higher likelihood of previous home-related conditions or illnesses. Cluster 2 Householders with low potential to value and buy into Healthier Homes features Most satisfied with the IEQ and energy efficiency. Give the least importance to IAQ. Low proportion of women. Low proportion of younger and high proportion of older. Little previous home-related conditions or illnesses. Cluster 3 Householders with moderate potential to value and buy into Healthier Homes features Fairly satisfied with the IEQ and energy efficiency. Give high importance to IAQ. Concerns with mite-related issues. 1 High proportion of women. 1 Low proportion of younger and high proportion of older. 1 Some previous home-related conditions or illnesses. Figure 6.2.1. Description of clusters showing potential market segments. 96 6.3 O T H E R CONSIDERATIONS 6.3.1 Product and material selection An important observation can be made with regards to the choice for wood flooring over carpeting. In the past two decades, wood flooring has captured market share from carpeting and other floor covering materials to become one of the fastest-growing segments in North American flooring markets (Blanchet et al., 2003). Health-related issues play an important part; the difference between the ratings of wood flooring and carpeting in the healthiness item was the largest according to the householders (refer to Figure 5.4.31). Although both types of flooring were rated statistically the same on the cost effectiveness item, the actual rating value was towards a neutral position on the interval scale (close to zero). This presents another positive point for wood flooring as it has usually been perceived as a high-cost alternative. As one householder states: "/ would prefer to have no carpeting in the house. However, changing floor cover can be expensive ". Demand for wood flooring over carpeting seems to continue to grow, triggered by health-related issues and has caused a reaction from the carpeting industry. They are incorporating words such as "indoor air quality", "low emissions", and "no formaldehydes" into their marketing strategies and are publicizing a number of testing programs (The Carpet and Rug Inst., 2002). Interestingly, the preoccupation with the indoor air quality has also caught the attention of value-added wood products manufacturers. Products such as the no-formaldehyde-added M D F have been targeted to the similar markets (Sierra Pine, 2002). The Thurstone paired comparison analyses of IEQ attributes gives an indication of the potential opportunities for products and materials that promote healthful living (see Figure 5.4.26). Rated as the preferred attributes in the home, products and materials promoting energy efficiency, natural light, better insulation, and non-allergic qualities, may have an array of opportunities when targeted to Canadian households. 97 Another interesting (current) trend can be observed with regards to wood colours for different applications in the home (refer to Figure 5.4.29). Products such as cabinetry and shelves are currently preferred in light wood shades, whereas moderate to dark wood colours are preferred for furniture. Wood floorings are preferred in moderate to light colours. Marketers of wood products should take note of these current trends. 6.3.2 The Indoor Environmental Quality Concept and Product Life Cycle From the consumer's point of view in the current Canadian housing market, the concepts of Indoor Environmental Quality, Healthier Homes, and/or Healthful Living sits at the introductory stage of the product life cycle. Despite the potential for growth, only a select group of consumers have been demanding products and services related to more healthful living. These are the so-called innovators. With regards to promotional strategies, the concept is being disseminated through educational programs, case studies, conferences and workshops (Barnett and Seldman, 1998), again indicating that it is in its introductory stages of its product cycle (Solomon et al., 2000). The concept is still not commonly understood, being named, defined, and characterized differently depending on who the advocates are. "There is still much redundancy and the message gets diluted: there is the need to minimize the Tower of Babel effect"* (Porter, 2003). By understating the needs and wants of Canadian householders, the concept of Healthier Homes can be better defined and marketing strategies better structured to reach more consumer groups. Results of this study showed the possibility of identifying markets segments that value IEQ features and healthful living, as well as consumer groups willing to pay a premium for such features. Moreover, the level of importance given to and satisfaction with IEQ features were * The term refers to the fact that the advocates of the Healthy House concept may have common objectives but are "talking different languages". 98 assessed. Effectively, all of the information gathered in this study can be used to position the concept of Healthier Homes towards the growth stage on its product life cycle. In particular, products that are developed, designed, and marketed as being natural, bright, energy efficient, "non-off-gassing", or non-allergic may offer great opportunities to the Canadian wood industry, especially for the following segments: • Manufactured homes (e.g. prefabricated homes); • Panelboards (e.g. particleboard, MDF, OSB); • Cabinetry (e.g. kitchen, bathroom); • Windows and doors (solids and panelboards); and • Wood flooring (solids, engineered, and laminated). 6.4 L IMITATIONS There are a few limitations that must be taken into account when considering the findings of this study. First, this was a cross-sectional* study of Canadian households nationwide with unprecedented design and objectives. This makes it difficult to find sources of time series or comparative information for the results, as well as for the methodologies used. Secondly, respondents that had not heard about Healthy Houses before may have taken a different approach to the questions when compared to those who are more familiar with the term. In these cases, respondents learned about the concept as they read through the questionnaire. Individuals less interested and/or less knowledgeable can increase the response bias of the survey by deliberating falsifying answers or unconsciously misrepresenting their opinions (Zickmund, 1997). * "A study in which various segments of a population are sampled and data are collected at a single moment in time" (Zickmund, 1997). 99 5 F U T U R E STUDIES The findings of this study suggest that there are opportunities for further investigations garding sustainability, health, comfort, and housing. Four main suggestions are: • There is opportunity for further research given the results of the present study, such as comparative analyses over time to gauge market acceptance of the Healthier Home concept. • The utilization of larger sample sizes, especially by province, is recommended to enable better opportunities to geographically segment markets. • The investigation could be broadened to include the concept of sustainability and housing. This study focused on occupants only (see Figure 2.2.2.1). Further research could include the environment, demographics, or socioeconomic aspects of housing design, construction, and use. • This study could be expanded to other countries. As described before (see section 2.4), there may be opportunities for Canadian technologies, expertise, and products especially in northern Japan (Hokkaido region) and northern Europe. 100 7 CONCLUSION This study examined certain aspects of Indoor Environmental Quality in the Canadian housing market. It represents an initial point for further research projects on other areas of sustainability, health, comfort, and housing in Canada, as well as other markets. A nationwide sample consisting of 3,592 Canadian households was investigated revolving around issues of consumer demand for healthier homes. The major topics assessed were: 1) identification of consumer groups that show an interest in certain aspects of the indoor environment through demographic, psychographic, and geographic segmentation; 2) measurement of the levels of importance and knowledge of some issues related to indoor environmental quality; and 3) willingness to pay for better Indoor Environmental Quality in the home. The main findings revealed that the majority of the respondents (56%) are knowledgeable or have heard the terminology regarding Healthier Homes before. Modeling using a logistic regression algorithm was conducted to determine whether the probability of paying more for better indoor environmental quality (IEQ) features could be predicted. Knowledge of the concept of Healthier Homes or having heard of the concept along with age, income, gender, level of physical activity, and level of satisfaction and importance given to indoor air quality (IAQ), were significant predictors of willingness to pay for better IAQ in the home. For better lighting, having heard of the concept, along with age, income, level of physical activity, and level of satisfaction and importance given to lighting in the home, were significant predictors. Having heard of the concept, along with income and level of satisfaction and importance given to acoustics in the home, were significant predictors of willingness to pay more for better acoustics. Identification of consumer groups that valued or were more knowledgeable about the idea of Healthier Homes (positioning themselves as potential customers) was carried out using a &-means cluster analysis, from which three clusters were identified. Cluster 1, representing 38% of the respondents, and cluster 3, accounting for 18%, respectively grouped householders as high 101 and moderate potential consumers of the three indoor environmental quality features. Individuals in Cluster 2 were considered the ones with the lowest market potential. Subsequent characterizations of Cluster 1 revealed that individuals in that cluster were mainly composed of those respondents who were least satisfied with the IEQ and energy efficiency in their homes, but gave high importance to indoor air quality. Cluster 1 had also a high proportion of women, mid-life and younger individuals, a low proportion of elderly, and people who had previous home-related conditions or illnesses. Furthermore, products and materials promoting energy efficiency, natural light, better insulation, and non-allergic qualities were preferred in a choice/preference question of nine Healthy Houses attributes, "...from this questionnaire, I like the concept and I will certainly be on the watch for further materials", stated one homeowner. The awareness of the "Healthier Home" concept has been growing among Canadians. In addition to the specific results previously described, information available from this study can ultimately be used for two major purposes: it can be used to (1) inform the industry to create supply; and (2) educate consumers to create demand. This is an important juncture at this time in Canada, as far as the idea of healthful living is concerned (i.e. asthma is at an all time high, increasing environmental awareness, ageing population). In short, there currently seems to be a potential market and opportunities for the concept of Healthier Homes to establish itself. 102 REFERENCES Agresti, A. (1996) An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley and Sons. American Lung Association (1999). http://www.lungusa.org/pub/minority/asthma_OO.html (Sep 04, 2001). Armstrong, J. S. and Overton, T. S. Estimating Non-Response Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14: 396-402. August 1977. Asthma in Canada. "A Landmark Survey™" (2003). http://www.asthmaincanada.com/execsumm/execsumm_en.pdf (Aug. 17, 2003). Asthma Statistics. Online. Available, http://www.asthmaincanada.com/stats/ (December 01, 2002). Auriemma, D. et al. Home Modifications for the Elderly: Implications for the Occupational Therapist. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics. Vol. 16, No. 3/4, 1999, pp. 135-144 Babbie, E. The Practice of Social Research. 9 t h ed. Belmont, California, 2000. Baby Boomers' Ageing Won't Curtail Demand. USA Today Mag., 4/97, V.125,1. 2623, p4, 2p. Bady, S. Coming of age. Professional Builder. Newton: May 1999. Vol. 64, Iss. 6; p. 50, 9 pgs. Barnett, R., and Seldman, N. 1998. Raising Consumer Demand. Wanted: More Green Buildings. In Business 20(3): 36-38. Bigsby, H. and Ozanne, L. K. The Purchase Decision: Consumers and Environmentally Certified Wood Products. Forest Products Journal. Madison: Jul/Aug 2002. Vol. 52, Iss. 7/8; p. 100, 6 pgs. Blanchet, P. et al. Evaluation of Various Engineered Wood Flooring Constructions. Forest Products Journal. May 2003; 53, 5, pg 30. Blueman, A.G. 2001. Elementary Statistics: a step by step approach, 4 t h edition. Bower, J. (1989) .The Healthy House: How to buy one, How to build one, How to cure a sick one. Carol Publishing Group. 1989. Brownson, R. C. et al., Environmental and Policy Determinants of Physical Activity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. Washington: Dec 2001. Vol. 91, Iss. 12; p. 1995, 9 pgs. Burnett, J. et al. An Introduction to Integrated Marketing Communications. First Canadian Edition. Prentice Hall, 2001. Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation (1997). Lead in Your Home, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/bch_pubs/leadhome/booklet.pdf (July 25, 2002). Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation (2001). Consumer Intentions to Buy or Renovate a Home. http://cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/homadoin/maintrst/foan/foan_004.cfm (January 23, 2001). 103 Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation (2001). Housing the Boom, Bust and Echo Generations. http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/socio/socio77-e.pdf (July 1, 2001). Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation (2001). The Five Essentials of Healthy Housing. http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/burema/repi/hehorepl/hehorepl_001.cfm (Jun. 22, 2003). Canadian Home Builders Association (CHBA). Online. Available, www.chba.ca (March 23, 2002) Champagne, J. R., Brink, S. Designing Homes for the Aged. NRCC. Ottawa, 1985. Cohen, D. Changing Populations, Changing Houses. Symposium on Ageing and Health: Environment, Work and Behaviour. Harvard School of Public Health. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Sep. 2000. Cohen, D. H. and Gaston, C. 2001. Trends and changes in Japanese building regulations. Published by CMHC, 35 pages downloadable from http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/homadoin/excaprex/repu/repu_010.cfm. Colburn, H. N. Health and housing, Canadian Welfare Council. Ottawa, 1968. Consensus Economics, 2002. Online. Available, http://www.consensuseconomics.com/ (June 22, 2002). Consumer Survey of the Healthy Housing Initiative. CMHC 1999. Cited in http://www.cullbridge.com/healthy.htm (August 23, 2002). Declos, P. 2002. Exploring New Paths: The North American Forest Industry in Transition. Market Outlook, Europe. Forintek Canada Corp. Conference Proceedings. Vancouver, B.C., Oct. 27-29. Dianne Walsh Astry; Dan McLeister; Professional Builder, Newton; Sep 1999, Vol. 64, Iss. 11, pg. 119, 2 Pgs-Dillman, D. A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design. New York: Wiley, cl978. DSS Research, 2001. Online. Available, http://www.dssresearch.com/marketsegment/ (March 06, 2003). Dupont, D. Gender and Willingness-To-Pay for Recreational Benefits from Water Quality Improvements. Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Conference of the International Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade, July 10-14, 2000, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. ECHO. 2002. Online. Available, www.blackfen.com/echo/about.html (May 12, 2002) Encarta Dictionary. Online. Available. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx. (July, 03 2002). Environ Design Collaborative - Green Strategies, 1999. Online. Available. http://www.cstone.net/edc/edc/greendes.htm (May 29, 2002). Environ Design Collaborative. Green, Ecological or Sustainable Architecture (2002). http://www.environdc.com/edc/greendes.htm (Aug. 11, 2003). Field, A. P. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS For Windows: Advanced Techniques For The Beginner; Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000. Gaston C, Cohen DH, Fell D. Wood market trends in Japan. Victoria, B. C : Forest Renewal BC with Forintek Canada Corp. and Natural Resources Canada, 2000. 104 Godish, T. Indoor Environmental Quality. Lewis Publisher, Boca Roton, 2001. Green, B. F. Attitude Measurement. Cited in: Scaling; a sourcebook for behavioral scientists. Edited by Gary M . Maranell. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co., 1974. Green, P. E. and Tull, D. S. Research for marketing decisions. Prentice-Hall, cl978. 4th ed. Hansen, E. Forest Certification and its role in marketing strategy. Forest Product Journal. 47(3): 16-22, 1997. Hathaway, W.E. et al., 2003. A study into the effects of light on children elementary school age. http://www.naturallighting.com/articles/effects_of_lighting_on_school_children.htm (Aug. 3, 2003). Health Canada, Centre for Chronic Prevention and Control Chronic Respiratory Diseases (2003). http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca (Aug. 30, 2003). Health Canada. The Health Effects of Radon. Online. Available, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/rpb/pdf/radoneng.pdf (May 27, 2002). Healthy house Rx; Anonymous; Contractor, Newton; Aug 2000; Vol. 47, Iss. 8 pg. S3, 2 pgs. Hutcheon, N. B. Humidity in Canadian Buildings. Canadian Building Digests, Number 1, 1960. Idosos ultrapassam criancas no Japao (2001). Associate Press. http:/www.estadao.com.be/agestado/noticias/2001/jun/29/98.htm (June 29, 2001). Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), Environment, and Design, http://www.designinggreen.com/english/index.htm. Online. Available. (May 22, 2002). Institute for Research in Construction (IRC). Advancing Canadian Housing Technology: A report of IRC Housing Activities Prepared for the Canadian home builders' association. Online. Available. www.nrc.ca/irc/ircpubs. (Feruary 24, 2002). International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Online. Available, http://www.iarc.fr/ (May 29, 2002). Japan Lumber Journal. Online. Available, www.jlj.gr.jp/c-profile.html (May 28, 2002) Kanuk, L. And Berenson, C. Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review. Journal of Marketing Research 12: 440-53. Novemer 1975. Kozak, R. A. An Analysis Of The North American Specifiers Of Structural Materials In Nonresidential Construction. Ph.D. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 267 p. Krieger, James & Higgins, Donna L. Public health matters - housing and health: Time again for public health action. American Journal of Public Health. May 2002, Vol. 92, No 5: 758-768. Lampert, G and Ikeata, S., 2000.Trends in the Japanese Housing Market. CMHC publication. NHA 2514. Ottawa , Canada. 45 p. Latta J. K. and Garden, G. K. Temperature Gradients Through Building Envelopes. Canadian Building Digests, Number 36, 1962. 105 Lurz, W. H. How To Design Spaces For New-Home Buyers. Professional Builder. Newton: Aug 1997. Vol. 62, Iss. 11; p. 62, 2 pgs. Malhotra, N. K. Marketing Linen Services to Hospitals: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Investigation. Journal of Health Care Marketing, Mar86, Vol. 6 Issue 1, p43, 8pgs. Malhotra, N. K. Marketing Research: an applied orientation. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1999. Malhotra, N. K. Segmenting Hospitals for Improved Management Strategy. Journal of Health Care Marketing, Sep89, Vol. 9 Issue 3, p45, 8p. Manly, B F. J. Multivariate Statistical Methods : A Primer. New York: Chapman and Hall, 2000. McLeister, D. Virginia Builder Finds Asset In Accessible Housing. Professional Builder, 1996. Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport, 2001 (MLIT) cited in http://www.sugisyst.co.jp/emarket.htm (March 06, 2002). Mood, Eric W. A.P.H.A. - C.D.C. recommended minimum housing standards. St. Mary's Press, Hollywood, MD, 1986. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). US EPA - Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards. Online. Available, http://www.epa.gov/ (July 27, 2001). National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). Building Greener, Building Better: The quite revolution, http://www.nahbrc.org/ (April 20, 2002) Nightingale, T.R.T. et al., 2001. Flanking Sound Transmission in Wood-Framed Construction. Canadian Acoustics, v.29, no. 3, Sept. 2001, pp 58-59. Nikken Sekkei Group. Sustainable Architecture in Japan. The green buildings of Nikken Sekkei. John Wiley & Sons, June 2001 224 pages. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Online. Available, http://www.osha.gov/ (May 29, 2002). Ozanne, L. K. and Vlosky, R. P. Willingness to Pay for Environmentally Certified Wood Products: A Consumer Perspective. Forest Products Journal. Madison: Jun 1997. Vol. 47, Iss. 6; p. 39, 10 pgs. Petersen, M . Green Building Definitions. Online Available, http://www.globalgreen.org/index.cfm. (May 29, 2002). Porter, D. Building, Marketing and Financing Green Construction. The National Green Building Conference and Awards. March 30- April 1, 2003. Baltimore, MD. Ray-Jones, A. Sustainable Architecture: The Green Buildings of Nikken Sekkei. 2000. Shaw, C. Y. et al., 2001. Canadian Experience in Healthy Housing. International Symposium on Current Status of Indoor Air Pollution by Organic Compounds and Countermeasures for Healthy Housing (Tokyo, Japan, 1/12/2001), pp. 31-35, January 18, 2001. Online. Available, www.nrc.ca/irc/pubs Sierra Pine Composite Solutions. Online Available, http://www.sierrapine.com/ (April 1, 2003) 106 Simple Interactive Statistical Analysis (SISA). Online. Available, http://home.clara.net/sisa/ (September, 2003) Small, B. M. Indoor air pollution and housing technology. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Policy Development and Research Sector. Ottawa, 1983. Solomon, M . R. et al,. Consumer behaviour: buying, having and being. 2nd Canadian ed. Pearson Education Canada Inc., Toronto 2002. SPSS Inc. (2002). SPSS Cluster Analysis. Chicago: SPSS, Inc. Statistics Canada, 2002. http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/Economy/Manufacturing/manuf05.htm (March 06, 2003). Strategis. Canada Business And Consumer Site. Online. Available. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/engdoc/main.html (May 28, 2002) Straughan, R. D. and Roberts, J. A. Environmental Segmentation Alternatives: A Look At Green Consumer Behavior In The New Millennium. The Journal of Consumer Marketing. Santa Barbara: 1999. Vol. 16, Iss. 6; p. 558. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. Using Multivariate Statistics. 4 t h ed. Needham Heights 2001. The Asthma in Canada A Landmark Survey. Online. Available. http://www.asthmaincanada.com/execsumm/. (December 01, 2002). The Carpet and Rug Institute. Online. Available, http://www.carpet-rug.com/ (April 1, 2003) The Economist, 2002. Going through the roof. http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm7_Story_ID=1057057 (April 24, 2002). The Healthy House Institute. Online. Available, http://www.hhinst.com/ The US Green Building Council. Online. Available, http://www.usgbc.org/ (June 22, 2003). Thurstone, L. A Law of Comparative Judgment. Cited in: Scaling; a sourcebook for behavioral scientists. Edited by Gary M. Maranell. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co., 1974. Trachtman, L.H. et al. The Universal Home: Are We Ready for It? Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics. Vol. 16, No. 3/4, 1999, pp. 1-18. Understanding Asthma (2003). http://www.asthmaincanada.com (Aug. 29, 2003). Veitch, J. Improved Lighting Quality Benefits People and the Environment. Construction Innovation. Volume 3, Number 2, Winter 1999. Vidal, N. G. Chain of Custody Certification: Current Status and Level of Knowledge in the North American Solid Wood Sector. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry. Thesis. M.Sc, 2003. 107 Wagner, P. Keep in mind the environment when building. Home and Garden 2002. http://www.xpresssites.com/lee/racine/XpSpecialSections/HOMEANDGARDEN/STORY_81. (Aug. 7, 2003). Warnock, A.C.C. Introduction to Building Acoustics. Canadian Building Digests, Number 236, 1985. Wilson, A. G. Air Leakage in Buildings. Canadian Building Digests, Number 23, 1961. Wison, A., 2002. Spraw And Health: Are Modern Land-Use Patterns Making Us Sick? Environmental Building News, Volume 11, Number 4, April 2002. Zikmund, W. G. Exploring marketing research. 6th ed. Fort Worth, Texas: Dryden, 1997. 108 APPENDIX A: THERMODYNAMICS IN THE HOME (SIMPLIFIED) 109 Moisture is measured in terms of Relative Humidity (RH) levels; that is, the percentage of water vapour in the air relative to the maximum that can be held by the air at a given temperature (Encarta, 2002). "The relative humidity within a building will depend on the moisture content of the outside air, the ventilation rate, the rate at which moisture is lost through the building enclosure, and the rate at which moisture is supplied to the air within the building" (Hutcheon, 1960). The main sources of moisture in a home are lifestyle (cooking and showering), number of occupants, leaks, and ground/atmospheric moisture. When a home is being heated, moisture wants to migrate outside and when it is air-conditioned, the opposite occurs (ALA, 2001). Dew point temperature is defined as the temperature at which the air cannot hold all of the moisture in it and dew begins to form (Encarta, 2002). It is a function of temperature and the relative humidity. If the dew point temperature is 10 °C, for instance, any surface in the home that reaches this temperature will have liquid water on it. Raising the temperature or lowering the R H brings the surfaces above the dew point and water condensation is avoided (ALA, 2001). Pressures can be caused by internal sources (exhaust fans, chimneys and vents, and clothes dryers) and external factors (wind and temperature). If there is air leakage - cold air entering the house and/or warm air leaking out - it is a result of pressures and cracks (openings in windows, doors, walls and roofs). The elimination of either one ceases the problem (Godish, 2001). Air leakage depends on the design and condition of the building enclosure, the quality of materials and workmanship, and the air pressure differences through cracks and openings. Air leakage into and out of the building is called infiltration and exfiltration, respectively (Wilson, 1961). Heat flow is a rate and a function of the difference in temperature indoors/outdoors and thermal resistance. The temperature drop or rise across the components of a wall (materials and 110 assembly) is proportional to its thermal resistance (Latta and Garden, 1962). There are three ways for heat to transfer: convection - heat movement in liquid and gases; conduction - heat movement through or along an object (contact); and radiation - the transfer of heat in the forms of waves (ALA, 2001). An additional issue to be considered is v e n t i l a t i o n . Ventilation refers to the means of distributing fresh air to habitable spaces. There are two basic types of ventilation: natural and artificial. The first relies on the temperature and the wind, and cannot be controlled by the occupant. Man-made ventilation depends on appliances that exhaust or refresh the air (ALA, 2001). The ventilation rate is measured in air change per hour (ACH). Good ventilation alone is an extremely useful mechanism to a healthy indoor air condition (Godish, 2001). I l l APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE The Healthy House Survey of Canadian Households UBC The University of British Columbia Faculty of Forestry Department of Wood Science 113 Section I We would like to start by asking you some general questions about your current housing status. 1. W h i c h of the fol lowing best describes your primary residence? (Please check only one box) 1. • Detached House 2. • Apartment 3. • Town House 4. • Other ("Please specify") 2. Do you currently own or rent your primary residence? (Please check only one box) 1. • Own 2. • Rent I 3. • Other (specify). 3. W h o lives with you in your primary residence? (Check all that apply) 1. • Spouse/Common Law 3. • Parents 5. • Friend 2. • Child/Children 4. • No one 6. • Other (specify) 4. What is the approximate floor area of your primary residence? (Please check only one box) 1. • Less than 550 ft2 4. • Between 1,151 ft2 and 1,450 ft2 I 6. • Between 1,751 ft2 and 2,050 ft2 2. • Between 551 ft2 and 850 ft2 5. • Between 1,451 ft2 and 1,750 ft2 7. • More than 2,051 ft2 3. • Between 851 ft2 and 1,150 ft2 5. To the best of your knowledge, what is the main structural material used in your primary residence? (Please check only one box) 1. • Concrete! 2. • Wood | 3. • Masonry | 4.D Steel | 5. • Don't Know | 6. • Other (specify). 6. How often do you participate in the following activities? (For each statement, please check one box) More than once a week Once a week 2-3 times a month Once a month Less than once a month Outdoor Activities - e.g. Hiking, Walking, Biking • • • • • Indoors Activities - e.g. Fitness Centre, Dancing • • • • • Going out for Dinner/Movies/Theatre/Concerts • • • • • 7. In the list below, please indicate a condition which you believed to be caused by the presence of certain materials or substances inside your home. (Please check all that apply) l.D Allergies 3.D Asthma 5.D Skin Irritation 7. • None of them 2.U Cold 4.D Seasonal Depression 6.D Other 8. Do you have plans to renovate your primary residence within the next 5 years? (Please check only one box) • Yes | • No (Go to Section II) I 9. Why do you want to renovate? (Please check all that apply). l.D Add shelves/cabinetry 4.D Structural/Material decay 7.D Improve sound insulation 10.D Change bathroom layout 2.D Improve the air quality 5.D Change floor plan 8.D Add or alter interior walls l l . D Other 3.D Add rooms 6.D Have more natural light 9.D Change exterior appearance 114 ) Section II Home building or purchasing plans. 10. D o you plan to bui ld or buy a home within the next 5 years? (Please check only one box) l . D Yes | 2.D No (go to Section III) | 11. • . . . in six month • ... in one or two years • .. .in three to four years • . . . in five years 12. What is the primary reason for wanting to build or buy a new residence? (Please check all that apply). l . D Want newer home 4.D Mortgage rates are attractive 7.D Want healthier home 2.D Want larger home 5.D Want better quality house 8.D Current home's value has increased 3.D Job/Marital change 6.D Want better neighbourhood 9.D Other (specify 13. What material would you prefer as the main structural component of your new house? (Check only one box) l .D Concrete I 2.D Wood I 3.D Steel I 4.D Masonry I 5.D Have not decided yet 6.D Doesn't matter 14. What type of residence do you intend to build/buy? (Please check only one box) l . D An apartment 3.D A townhouse (adjacent house with individual entrance) 2.D A detached house 4.D Other (specify) 15. What is your preferred location for your new residence? (Please check only one box) l . D Downtown | 2.D Other Urban | 3.D Suburban | 4.D Rural | 5.D Other (specify) | 16. H o w much do you expect to pay for your new residence? (Please check only one box) l . D Less than $100,000 3.D Between $150,001 and $200,000 5.D Between $250,001 and $300,000 2.D Between $100,000 and $150,000 4.D Between $200,001 and $250,000 6.D More than 300,000 17. W h o made the decision to build/buy a new house? (Please check all that apply). l . D Myself 2.D Spouse/Partner 3.D Other family members 4.D Other Section III Level of Knowledge and Importance of Healthy Houses 18. Have you ever heard the term "Healthy House"? D Y e s | D No | 19. Where from? (Check all that apply) l . D Newspaper | 2.D Magazine 3.D T V | 4.D Friends | 5.D Radio | 6.D Other | 115 iefore continuing to the next questions, we would like to define the following terms related to Healthy Houses. a) Indoor Air Quality: the degree to which the air inside the home is free of contaminants. b) Acoustics: an environment which is sound insulated from outside and through-wall noise. c) Lighting: the indoor brightness or illumination of the home from natural or artificial lighting. d) Energy Efficiency: the use of electrical or other energy in an economical way. 20. H o w satisfied are you with the fol lowing attributes in your home? (Please check one box for each attribute) Completely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied Indoor air quality • • • • • Lighting • • • • • Acoustics • • • • • Energy efficiency • • • • • 21. H o w important are the following attributes in your home? (Please check one box for each attribute). Not at all important Not very important Important Very important Extremely important Acoustics • • • • • Indoor air quality • • • • • Lighting • • • • • Energy efficiency • • • • • 22. During the winter, how often do you see water condensation on the inside surfaces of your home's (Please check one box for each surface). Very often | Often | Sometimes | Rarely | Never | Windows | • | • | • | • | • | Walls | • | • | • | • | • | 23. W h i c h of the fol lowing do you have at your residence? (Please check all that apply). l . D Exhaust in the bathroom (to the outside) 4.D Humidity sensor 7.D Air purifier 2.D Extra heater 5.D Exhaust in the kitchen (to the outside) 8.D Vacuum cleaner 3.D Air dehumidifier 6.D Gas fireplace 116 24. The fol lowing list contains 36 pairs of attributes related to indoor air quality, acoustics, and lighting. For each pair, please decide which you consider to be more important in your home and check it. [An example: air tightness 0 x • forced ventilation]. (Please check only one box for each pair). 1 Air Tightness Artificial Light 19 Outside Noise-Proof Energy Efficiency 2 Anti-Allergic Materials Forced Ventilation 20 Inside Noise-Proof Thicker Insulation 3 Air Tightness Natural Light 21 Natural Light Outside Noise-Proof 4 Artificial Light Natural Light 22 Anti-Allergic Materials Thicker Insulation 5 Forced Ventilation Artificial Light 23 Natural Light Energy Efficiency 6 Outside Noise-Proof Anti-Allergic Materials 24 Artificial Light Outside Noise-Proof 7 Air Tightness Outside Noise-Proof 25 Forced Ventilation Energy Efficiency 8 Thicker Insulation Artificial Light 26 Artificial Light Inside Noise-Proof 9 Natural Light Thicker Insulation 27 Anti-Allergic Materials Air Tightness 10 Inside Noise-Proof Anti-Allergic Materials 28 Forced Ventilation Natural Light 11 Natural Light Anti-Allergic Materials 29 Outside Noise-Proof Forced Ventilation 12 Forced Ventilation Inside Noise-Proof 30 Inside Noise-Proof Natural Light 13 Ai r Tightness Thicker Insulation 31 Thicker Insulation Forced Ventilation 14 Energy Efficiency Anti-Allergic Materials 32 Energy Efficiency Thicker Insulation 15 Energy Efficiency Air Tightness 33 Thicker Insulation Outside Noise-Proof 16 Inside Noise-Proof Outside Noise-Proof 34 Inside Noise-Proof Energy Efficiency 17 Anti-Allergic Materials Artificial Light 35 Forced Ventilation Ai r Tightness 18 Inside Noise-Proof Air Tightness 36 Energy Efficiency Artificial Light 25. If a guarantee could be made to you that your new house would have better indoor air quality, lighting system, and acoustics, how much would you be wi l l ing to pay for these features? (Please check one box for each feature). Not willing to pay extra Would pay over above the cost of the house 1. Indoor air quality CJ 2. Lighting • % 3. Acoustics • % 26. Assuming that the following applications in your home were made of wood, which colour would you prefer? (For each application write in the appropriate number) . Flooring Furniture 1 2 3 . Shelves 5 . Cabinetry 117 27. For each of the fol lowing statements, state your level of agreement. (Circle one number for each statement) Short days in the winter make me feel down. Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree 2 3 4 | 5 In the summer, I have to turn the lights on even during the day. | 1 2 3 4 I 5 I wish I had more natural light in my home. 1 2 3 4 5 Too much energy is spent in my house on artificial lighting. 1 2 1 3 4 5 I prefer artificial lighting over natural light. 1 2 3 4 5 Energy efficiency is a major concern in my house. | 1 2 | 3 4 5 I have never heard about Radon-related problems in my community. 1 2 | 3 4 5 The paints used in my house have low levels of Lead. | 1 2 1 3 4 1 5 I generally know the humidity level of my house. | 1 2 3 4 5 I frequently find mold on some surfaces in my house. | 1 2 3 4 5 I don't think mites are a problem in my house. 1 2 3 4 1 5 Cooking smells spread through the rooms of my house. | 1 | 2 | 3 4 5 I never had problems with any toxic substance in my home. 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Some materials may have trigged allergies in my home. | 1 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 I'd like to find out or to know more about materials which cause allergies. | 1 2 1 3 | 4 5 Today with newer technologies, building materials are much safer. 1 2 3 4 | 5 28. Please rate the two types of flooring below on each of the fol lowing attributes. (Circle the appropriate number). (-) 1. Wood Flooring (+) (-) 2. Carpeting (+) Unpleasant! - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Pleasant Unpleasant] - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Pleasant Unattractive - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Attractive Unattractive - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Attractive Unhealthy - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Healthy Unhealthy - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Healthy Not Durable - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Durable Not Durable - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Durable Expensive - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Economical Expensive - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Economical Environmentally Unfriendly - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Environmentally Friendly Environmentally Unfriendly - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Environmentally Friendly Section I V Background Information (Strictly Confidential) Xy Just to remind you, information from this survey is confidential and your responses to this section w i l l be used only in association with your responses to the previous sections. Results from this study w i l l be reported in aggregate form only thus maintaining the anonymity of each participant. 29. What is your current age? (Please check one box). l.D 20 or younger 4.CJ 3 1 - 3 5 7.D 4 6 - 50 10.D 6 0 - 6 5 | 2.D 2 1 - 2 5 5.D 3 5 - 4 0 8.D 51 - 55 1 1 . • 66 or more 3.CJ 2 6 - 3 0 6.CJ 41 - 4 5 9.CJ 5 6 - 60 118 30. What is your marital status? (Please check one box). l . D Married | 3.D Common law | 5 . • Single (never married) | 2.U Separated | 4.D Divorced | 6.D Widowed | 31. What is your gender? ! . • Female 1 2 . D Male | 32. D o you have any children? (Please check one box). ! . • Yes 2 .D No (Go to question 34) I 33. H o w many children do you have? H o w many live at home? 34. What is the highest level of education that you have received? (Please check one box). l . D Primary School 3.D College or University (major) 5.D Other (Specify) 2.U High School 4 • Postgraduate School rdegreel 35. Be low is a list of occupations. Please check one category that best describes the occupation of the household's primary wage earner. (Please check only one box). l . D Services (e.g., police officer, waiter, cook) 7.D Labourer (e.g., handyman, electrician, carpenter) 2 . D Housekeeper 8.D Professional or technical (e.g., accountant, engineer, nurse) 3.D Crafts worker 9.D Clerical (e.g., secretary, cashier, bank teller, office clerk) 4.D Farmer/farm manager 10 .D Machine operator 5.D Salesperson (e.g., realtor, sales clerk, stockbroker) l l . D Retired 6.D Manager or administrator ! ? . . • Other fPlease specifv) 36. Listed below are several categories of income. Please check the one that gives the best estimate of total annual household income before taxes. l . D less than $20,000 4.D $40,001 to $50,000 7.D $70,001 to $80,000 IO.D $100,001 to $110,000 2 . D $20,001 to $30,000 5.D $50,001 to $60,000 8.D $80,001 to $90,000 l l . D $110,001 to $120,000 3.D $30,001 to $40,000 6.D $60,001 to $70,000 9.D $90,001 to $100,000 12 .D $120,001 and over 37. What other considerations come to mind when you think about Healthy Houses? 38. D o you have any additional comments about Healthy Houses or Healthful l iv ing? 119 Thank you for your time and cooperation in filling out this survey. Your participation is greatly appreciated. If you would like a summary of the survey results, please leave your name and address below and a copy will be sent to you upon completion. Name: Ad d ress: 120 APPENDIX C: COVERLETTERS APPENDIX D: ANSWERS TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS IEQ Miscellaneous Loc/site/neighbourhood Interior/Exterior Design Trees/Plants Cost Cleaning activities/products Water Universal design Biological - pets, insects, etc Social/psychological Safety Alternative Energy 44 15 13 13 13 10 19 40 28 n=219 Appendix D. Categorization of the responses from the open-ended question "other considerations about Healthy Houses". Q 37. What other considerations come to mind when you think about Healthy Houses? 1. Animals and floor plan play a role. My home is very close to the Pat Bay Hwy as I get a lot of soot inside especially when windows are open in summer. 2. Pleasant comfortable living areas 3. Carbon dioxide levels, humidity levels, proper ventilation/exhaust 4. Frequency of furnace cleaning; area in which you live -high/low level of allergens 5. Water purification system - recycle water for lawns etc. Awnings + over head fans. We own 4 fans. 6. I would prefer to have no carpet in the house. However, alter floor cover can be expensive. 7. Healthy housing is an important issue, as my doctor informs me that allergies are an increasing part of his practice + he feels housing may be prime factor 8. Aesthetics 9. With electrical heating, propane stoves, our house is very dry in winter. Humidifiers have damaged windows without them, we suffer severe stuffiness and sleep disturbance, dry skin etc. 10. Security (vandalism), fire escape routes 11. Healthy cleaning products 12. A healthy house requires fresh air exchange which (in winter) is a trade off with heating costs. 13. Exposure to direct sunlight and nearby trees. 14. How reliable is the information? What are some simple but effective changes I can make in my house? 15. Location of your home - Surroundings, direction placement i.e. Natural sunlight/prevailing wind/shelter. Our home is an Easter red Cedar log home - story and 1/2 - wood flooring - very little _ w/paint - natural insulation except for roof area. Lovely windows w/skylights - that open. Fresh air/natural ventilation. 16. Solar energy 17. Thermo geothermal 18. Convenience, brightness, low maintenance, restful 19. Healthy water supply 20. A house where no toxic materials were used in building as in "masonite" (chipboard), toxic sealers, paints, flooring. Ceramic +hardwood flooring being healthy. Windows should open for ventilation. 21. Occupants including pets. Lack of mobility of occupants due to illness et al. 22. Expense 23. Dust control, ultra fine particulates, glue gases 24. In location where there is not outside source of pollution ie smoke or fumes 25. Proximity to environmental toxins/pollutants. Earthquake proofness, carbon monoxide sensors. There is gross one - rats - the poison used to kill them at my friends' rental house was chocking me weeks after applied. 26. Spacious / airy and in the north also secure 27. Lack of information 28. Attractive inside and out, neat yards etc 29. Connais pas 30. Design + lay out also important. Recently did a total rebuild. Used energy efficient (furnace etc) life breath, etc. Hardwood floors, windows, etc. But also considered layout - we want to be able to live here safely when we are seniors. 126 31. A good air filtration system. Recycling household water (inside out to garden), more trees etc. Planted around houses or saved. 32. Safety of wood stoves. Does this create any dangers of carbon monoxide inside at low levels but day in and day out? 33. Environnment - quartier - milieu de vie - voisinage amenagement pay sage - plantes - jardin 34. Moi je suis endicape, beaucoup de maison ou d'endroit public sont encore tres difficile d'avees. 35. You made no mention of keeping a house clean 36. Pets, materials used for cleaning, products used in the yard, (weed killers) 37. Real wood versus man made wood - off gassing 38. Concept auvent sans trop de cloisons. Superficie restrient en masimisation des diffirents espaces 39. Cost; practical assessment of Healthy house criteria ( are current methods valid and thorough)Do plants help or hurt air quality. In my bedroom. 40. Floor Plan - layout (smooth traffic flow vs. frustration) health and Happiness of individuals who reside there adequate built-in storage space. 41. No mildew 42. The proximity of the house location to major industrial sites; mills, refineries, mines etc 43. Garages especially attached garages are associated with health risks) Healthy systems, water filtration etc 44. Proximity to natural areas i.e. bushes 45. Living space - outdoors - adequate yard and garden 46. Need to be good for people (health) environmentally friendly, and reasonable cost. 47. Air quality by far the most significant HH factor. 48. Currently there are 2 people in the home who suffer from migraine headaches - could be something to consider? 49. Every solution to a problem tends to result in a new problem. A healthy house requires balance which is difficult to achieve. 50. Residence constryit avec materaux respentant les normes de l'habitation et de l'energie 51. Des soins condenus et attentips pour ceux qui en ont besoin 52. Environment exterieur 53. Bathroom safety features for all ages, ramps for wheel chair accessibility for all ages at times of construction. 54. Utilisation de materiaux qui ne sont pas toxique (done elemination du plom dans les peintures) ni allergenes. 55. Filtration de l'air e t de l'eau 56. Nous ceurions etre miex renseigne 57. There are many households' products, cleaning fluids, and oils etc that are stored in houses. I wonder how do these effect air quality in the house 58.1 live in a 30 year old home and any renovations are an improvement in regards to lighting + energy efficiency 59. Plants + trees outside 60. Protection 61. Neighbourhood air quality 62. Cost 63. Keeping more of my pay, to make my home healthy and energy efficient 64. Residence exempt de moisissure - avec bon eclairage, bon chauffage - materiaux sains, jas de tapis 65. Ease of movement through the house. Safety of stairs, ease of access to garage, exterior. Maintenance tasks that are able to be carried out by 65+ owners. 66. A happy, healthy house makes a happy healthy family 67. Less is sometimes more, less extras 68. Healthy neighbourhood 69. Take care of the house 70. Healthy houses are those which are built in peaceful areas and have enough facilities 71. The local area around it for business like dust from cement companies or others 72. Natural light, no carpets 73. Paix, calme, amour 74. Economie 75. Concerns about new technology not being tested properly eg formaldehyde insulation 76. House plants colour schemes (paints) view and landscaping 77. Roof and hot water sources (solar heat). Also wind generation possibilities as supplemental power. Dust content of air may be important as well 78. Proximite des voisins 79. Insulation - dry basement - smog free area 80. Concept interessant, modele du futur 81. They would be more expensive, environments can be too antiseptic, air tight 82.1 think some houses built 1950 - 1980 have problems. We have a 1910 house which is very light and airy, leaks heat but we keep the temp low and wear sweaters. I doubt we would ever buy a house built in the last 40 years. We might renovate but if we ever moved we would look for another old house. We love the character and feel. Of course the concept of a healthy house is good and I think the industry should adopt it. 83.Orientation de la residence 84. Good air circulation (natural open windows) non allergic materials. 85. View, trees, traffic, location 86. If I were building a house, health would be a consideration, but environmental issues would be more important to me. 87. A healthy house is a house that has a dry basement -(most homes in the east have basements)Proximity to major expressways (in S. Ontario - a problem with all new housing developments) 88. Easy to clean, roominess (mentally relaxing to have your own space) ease of maintenance, durability 89.1 have considered installing an air exchanger because in order to maintain higher air quality my energy consumption is compromised 90. Bugs - presence of ants, spiders, earnings or others. Plants # of households plants in residence 91. Use of chemicals (pools household industrial) dry cleaning frequency (clothing draperies etc) 92. Systeme de chauffage avec filter electronique pour eliminer la poussiere. Echanger d'air centrel 93. Allergies are not a problem at our house 94. A home that is clean and free of clutter 95. Aucune 96. Our biggest concern are water quality and liquid manure smells 127 97. Perfumes, near trees flat are a fire hazard, car and diesel exhaust 98. Access to outdoors / fresh air 99. Etre bien dans sa maison 100. Health of family members, location - urban or rural. Impurities in air or soil. Extra cost - how necessary due to location, weather etc. 101. We live in a rural area with little external noise. That is a factor in my answer. 102. Fresh air - clean outside air clean vacuum cleaners - not throwing dirty back in the house 103. We have an older home > 50 years. It has red hardwood floors. It has Douglas fir doors basement etc. It is insulated but the outdoors still comes through, more to heat. However, there are no garbage composites in my home. I have asthma so has 1 of my children. My old home with its partial flow through ventilation helps keep us breathing. If we lived in on of the new homes basically in a plastic bag full of wood products where saw dust or wood particles/chips are manufactured together in a soup of modern chemicals gassing off over the years, I would not exist. Carpeting is bad. It as put into homes because it as cheap and was accepted because you didn't have to sweep anymore. The dirt magically disappeared. These days with new wood products, if I were to buy a new home I would have to air it out for years before I could live in it. 104. Water source 105. I live in small northern community. It would cost a lot to have a healthy house constructed. Builders around here must have all materials shipped to them -information on this type of house is lacking 106. Good neighbourhood, green areas within walking distance 107. House designs are overwhelmingly inappropriate to Canada climate; use 10 times much energy, indoor pollution in winter. 108. Etre a fair dans la maison 109. Balance between cost of materials and attractiveness of final product. In our region some materials are difficult/expensive to obtain and to have installed ie wood floors harder to come by than carpet because of lack of trades people, high cost of labour 110. Insect control (screens etc) 111. Fumes from new home (wood floors, carpets, vinyl, paints, etc. Solar power 112. Your questions are mainly structural but I believe the way a house is cleaned contributes to a healthy house 113. Beaucoup de luminasite 114. Terrain suffisamment grand 115. Ideal 116. Windows e glass 117. Bon pour la sante des occupants e pour lenvironment. Sain, simple, luminous 118. Proximite du voisinage (eviter trop grand proximite) eviter trop grade surface habitable 119. Materials used in plumbing and electrical as well as in the foundation 120. I am a senior living in Yellowknife NT. Now I think a bungalow one floor on level - no stairs would be healthier if I was building a new house - good fresh air circulation good insulation easy to open doors and windows ( for elderly people) good flat entrance, small yard 121. Residence paisible au boru de l'eau en pleine nature 122. Ergonomics, in furnishings and structural i.e. staircases, light switch placement, door handles. Telecommunications i.e. cable telephone and data access in most rooms, bedrooms, living room, kitchen but not bathrooms. 123. Many homes built today are air tight, requiring ventilation, made of materials that off gas that are not natural products i.e. carpets, solvents etc. They should be banned 124. Safety, ease of maintenance, cleaning 125. Facile d'entretien 126. Furnaces 127. Une maison propre 128. If you live in a house you like you put up with little. My house is over 130 yrs old and definitely not air tight. 129. Age of houses 130. Higher costs 131. The environment it is in bad smells and possible toxic substances around the neighbourhood 132. Avantageux pour l'environementainsi que pour le ou les proprietaires. 133. Landscaping garbage in yards 134. Air pollution 135. City - wide dust control 136. The community, industry, radiant heat, thermal heat versus forced air, other fuel burning appliances 137. Location, solar or wind energy 138. L'environment, zone industrialle vs zone rurale 139. Chauffage solare, chambres a l'etage-pieces divisees insonorisees 140. Space both within and without the house 141. Proper ventilation, effective air exchange system, carpet is evil 142. Une place au il fait bon vivre e en sante 143. L'enplacement de la residence y est pour beaucoup (ville, campagne, bord de l'eau) 144. Personnes ages seulement 145. Sleep with windows open to allow fresh air, weekly housecleaning and vacuuming 146. Safety related, bais in bath, anti-slip, in bath, electrical safety, secure locks, adequate number of outlets, no string cords, fire retardant, smoke detctors, wter quality furnace/gas safety 147. Limited amount of stairs 148. Type of insulation used 149. Proper attic ventilation, air vents in spits should be kept clear 150. Black resin used to seal insulation. Don't know what it is, but looks bad 151. The people living in them are mentally health as well as physically 152. Pas asses informe sur le concept residence sante 153. Espace libre, moins de bruit 154. People in lower income brackets are forced to accept poorer levels of healthy living conditions 155. A good air filtration system that uses plants and a heated floor. Forced air as heating system is the worst for spreading allergen + cooking smells 128 156. Grande aeration - materiau prope comme bois isolation adequate 157. Overall efficiency 158. Environment exterior arbres emplacement de batiment etc 159. Je erois que ce perais un concept formidable pour la sante et le moral de chaque personne 160. Bon voisinage - beau decor exterieur 161. Vivre tres loin des usines 162. Beau coup devision exterieure maison acceuillante 163. No chip board or glued sawdust lumber. Foam or plastics 164. To clean a house frequently once a week 165. Cleanliness 166. Outdoor accessibility like balcony garden or solariums 167. Construction material /air circulation - surroundings environment, radon, pulp mill pollution. 168. Une maison bien aeree 169. Flooring, kitchen/bathroom 170. La decoration sent aider a mieux vivre dans une maison par exemple, des condos vivres stimulent certaines personnesalor que ca en emervnet d'autres 171. Pet hair and dander management 172. Sante mental attitude des gens 173. Good kitchen layouts safe exits from 2nd floor in case of fire 174. Not enough research done on r2000 homes building codes leaking condos 175. Des gens a la sante fragile sont souvent attires par ce concept 176. Wood stoves 177. Residence sante = bieu organise / bien ranee / propre malere le mouvement - l'activite 178. Etre hien ou on 179. Building techniques, and building codes 180. I don't want a completely airtight home - even when it's 40 below. I think its better to have the air exchange. 181. SAD lights 182. Harmful cleaners not used to disinfect homes. Pesticides are not used around home and tracked indoors 183. Not having mice or other creepy creatures 184. New houses should be made healthy and efficient by municipal codes 185. Sheathing and siding materials toxic fumes in case of fire during burning of heavily manufactured materials e.g. vinyl siding, OSB, carpet 186. Qualite de vie 187. Mold spores within ventilation systems, healthy home have to be met with healthy products as well as harvest/manufacturing techniques i.e. forest 188. Alternative energy sources of solar, wind and heating systems such as heat pumps, also air filtration 189. Honest information on all building materials and structures 190. We built our home in 1990 and are extremely pleased with the quality of our home 191. Heating 192. Type of pets in a home 193. Good air quality, no chemicals on lumber etc, natural lighting 194. Upkeep 195. Good clean drinking water 196. Impact of building on the environment the full cost of materials life cycle costing 197. I read conflicting views in the press, magazines, etc about indoor air quality 198. Cleaning products 199. Good relationship with your family. Wife and children 200. Blending in with surroundings 201. Water purifying systems, solar energy 202. Electric floor heating? Buzzing dimmed incandescent light lead or galvanized pipes. UFFI cheap carpet r 2000 sucks. Asbestos, water leaks, rodents 203. No pets especially if you have carpet 204. Not to big 205. Impact of pets on air quality 206. Clean water 207. Regarding outside-noise proof we found this important due to our home location which is on a highway, besides a snowmobile trail and a golf course 208. Clean and good air quality 209. Healthy vs. unhealthy wood floors?, environmentally friendly carpet 210. The cost of a healthy home. The importance to make the public aware of such a crucial topic. We are running out of time 211. Natural gas 212. Handicapped accessibility 213. Water quality, outside environment, safety 214. Safety, durability of products 215. Pets 216. Water purification 217. No dust 218. The area where the house is situated 219. Smoke free, chemical free and environmentally friendly Q 38. Do you have any additional comments about Healthy Houses and Healthful living? 1. In my opinion drip systems based on rain water, solve panels. Composting is tied into a healthy house. Also the choice of siding, paving and roofing materials. 2. Very thought provoking around my own knowledge of factors - good luck on your master's thesis - hope you do well!! 3. Media tells us we should run our tap water a few minutes in the morning to remove impurities caused from the pipes. This is a sinful waste of our water. I think we need plumbing made from a material which will not contaminate the water. 4. Better house locations for heat gain e.g. passive solar proper landscaping to initiate cooling or wind screening in the cold. 5. Lots of outlets, larger breaker boxes 129 6. In my opinion air quality is a major concern especially in new modern homes because of off gassing from building materials; paint, carpet, adhesives, calking, manufactured wood products (OSB, etc.) In my opinion artificial lighting is unhealthy especially fluorescent, incandescent is better but more expensive; I would recommend large energy efficient windows for natural light. 7. Sec III 24 I assume that tightness means fitting doors + windows plus any outside ventilation pipes, dryers (etc) are properly ventilated 8. It is a new concept + term for me, however, from this questionnaire I like the concept + I will certainly be on the watch for further materials. 9. Our home was built in 1998, using a Styrofoam block system - 21/2" of Styrofoam outside and inside with 6" of cement in the center. Result R50 (+-), airtight = (air exchanger) super quiet, energy efficient - comparable union gas bill Jan 97, with Jan 98 = 40% savings with new system. 10. Furniture should be wood. No toxic cleaning materials should be used in housekeeping. NO pesticides (inside or outside). Note: we got environmental illness from materials used in building our home (1993). We've removed carpets and cushion floor putting in ceramic flooring. We use no toxic cleaners and have 4 air purifiers going all the time we're home. 11. A level of Health Standards for housing should be by law like we have for Car Standards. 12. I'm very pleased you're doing this research as 3 people -my partner + 2 very close friends, have become sick though molds growing behind walls, above ceiling, under floors etc. It's very scary, + both landlords were indifferent + would not take responsibility. I suspect it is a widespread problem. I also know that when I'm around new paint or carpet I often have trouble breathing. I think anything that raises awareness as to what's making us sick in our homes is valuable information. More power to you and good luck on your Master's! I hope this research will be used to promote healthier homes. 13. Ability to be seasonally comfortable 14. Energy efficiency is more important to us than Healthy Houses. Probably because we have no allergies or respiration ailments. 15. More recycling bins (compost etc). To cut down drastically on waste. 16. These new plastics wrapping they put on the insides and outsides of new houses. I think that is sealing the houses too much. 17. Bonne chance: jetrouve l'idee de votre these tres bonne. 18. A house should be warm, comfortable and clean. Air quality is a concern. 19. With today's recycling maybe garbage + sorting storage 20.1 think more research should be done on the materials used to build + furnish our homes 21. After I clean the filters in the electronic air cleaner there is a strong odour of ozone for 1-2 days. I'm somewhat concerned about the health effects of the ozone 22. FENG SHUI makes a difference. De-cluttering makes a huge difference. 23.1 designed and built our present house 20 years ago and overall it has been most satisfactory 24. There are too many chemicals put in building products also all the food we eat 25.1 think there aren't enough resources available to check quality of your living apace. I would like to have someone come by + check for levels of everything but wouldn't have a clue who to contact. We have an air exhaust/change system + our next door neighbour has a bus. As soon as he turns it on, our house is stinking of diesel. We have a new baby + sometimes have to leave our house on turn off system. Contractors should be more aware of installation or placement of these things! - Good luck in your survey! 26. It's an important consideration in anyone's life -especially as we get older. 27. For what you pay for homes theses days, they should already be "healthy". 28. Residence etanche est une homme circulationd'air 29. Maison ensoleillee - beaucoup de lumiiere naturalle 30. Heating systems to have 100% better filter systems to assist people with allergies, more sky lights to be in roofing systems so that on dull dreary days the is more natural light. If some one would like to do a thesis on seniors housing, when down sizing is needed and the affordability of such housing for all different incomes I may be surprised with the lack of some. Remember if you are 50 years old now soon 70. 31. Une residence sante est une residence don't les entretiens sont adequats (eliminations des poussieres, dechets, moisissures). 32. La contraction des maisons de annee 60 ne sont pas confome pour l'energie depensee 33. Living in an industrial free environment automatically gives us a healthier life and most renovations are based on economics and not health. 34. Une bonne condition de vie 35. We don't need a royal commission to study it. We don't need a government cabinet member to over see it. We don't need new taxes to fund it. We need to keep more of our money to keep making improvements and maintain our homes. 36. Solvents for adhesives are a major concern for me. Particularly those that persist for long periods of time. Sizing in new rugs are also a concern. 37. Healthy houses deserve healthy style living people 38. Clean the house keep it enjoyable 39. Given the high costs of building a home, good construction with the energy efficiency, good lighting, and healthy materials should not be optional for extra cost but expected in the original cost of the home. 40. A house having so many trees around is a healthy house 41. Campagne loin des villes loin des voisins 42. It seems that every time you turn around there is something else that causes health problems or products become more energy model. It is a vicious circle that seems to never end. 43. Aucun 44. House location eg close to industrial sites, toxic waste, run off - water quality etc 45. Yards as centres of activity, connection with the environment, are critical 130 46. House built in 1998 with "blue max" foam and cement windows. Air tightness for superior to frame construction. Piped for air exchange but not yet in place so vent important. In country good air flow on all sides. Large south facing windows and triple glass so captures solar heat in winter and deflects in summer 47. My wife often gets a headache 48. Une guute d'eau dans l'ocean par rappot a lameliotation des bonnes conditions de vie du monde exterieur (de la maison sante) effet de serre, pollution, etc 49. Lawn pesticides use, chlorine in neighbourhood pools 50. Practicality over aesthetics, surrounding green space, breathing space (inside + out) situated in diversified community 51. If you're considering aspects of fitness you should also consider aspects of diet. 52. You may want to add a section about yard work, use of pesticides, fertilizers, (chemical natural composting) also recycling programs ( do you use any none some etc) 53. We have retired to the country and live in a 100 yr old house with a new addition. It is difficult to respond to these questions as the new addition varies from the old structure. 54. Space for physical activity ( workout play for children) in winter, inclement weather 55.1 wish I would have had more info when my house was being constructed. There seems to be more information forthcoming on healthy living 56. Ji soulraite qu'il se construise plus de residences sante 57. Modern materials and technology should enable houses that do not need to be connected to water, sewer or electricity- power requirements less than 1/10 present. Passive solar, photovoltaic, thermal mass, photochemical glass, acrylamid, convection, filtration, etc. Unheaded from grid, building oriented to sun with waste composting, rain water recycler, UV sterilizer, etc 58. Je sain damenages eci it an est tres bien 59. Healthful living in a healthy house must be cleanliness 60. How long will it take to make all homes in Canada healthier and what would be the cost? There would have to be a major demolition project involved as most homes outside my neighbourhood are over 35 yrs old. In theory this would be a great concept but logically it couldn't fly for several reasons, poverty, economically due to regions etc. So, who will benefit - 1% of Canada's population? 61. Household pets as possible source of allergens 62. We have been brought up with the belief we must control everything when if we go with the natural way of things I believe we would be better off (healthier). Forestry and farming have been mechanized to the point where I wonder if we consider the energy input into growing trees or corn is worth while 63. Get out of your can and walk. Forget the pizza and the dark areas 64. Both are a benefit to society at all ages 65. Flower and vegetable garden outside the house 66. It has a lot to do with how you live and do daily tasks in and around your house 67. Je crais que le theme residence sante n'est pas tres connu, mais le principe est de plus en plus populair 68. Air quality and water 69. Mes communitaires sur feuille ci-jointe 70. Je crois que la campagne est mieux pour la sante 71.1 feel that the government should subsidize the building of healthy, fuel efficient homes as it would cut down on the medical cost of the millions of people who are adversely affected by environmental toxins and eventually we would use much less fossil fuels and electricity. If we could afford solar heat and other more environmentally friendly forms of energy e.g. Windmill power such as they use in Palm Springs. 72. Plus d'humanite plus d'amour plus de nature 73. Yes if you have ideas about the enclosed subjects would like to hear from you 74. Use of cleaning agents used 75. Hair traps used in shower drain, bathtubs etc 76. We use bio degradable, non toxic cleaning products and personal care products for the most part 77. Never thought about it 78. Pas de commentaires 79. All home owners who rent dwellings to renters should have to meet certain standards pertaining to healthy houses or healthy living 80. Insects like spiders and ants is also a concern in the house - so is top water 81. Grande penetration pour beaucoup de luminiere naturelle 82. Prenche le grand air fiat beaucaup de biere pour le corps et l'esprit 83. Si j'etais plus peune, j'aimerais vive dans le concept de residence sante 84. Harmonie dans la maison 85. Ne cause pas d'allergies et apporte une bonne qualite de vie 86.1 would build a house that can breathe with none of the above materials in it as mentioned in question number 37 than that's what I would call a healthy home 87. To live in a mold free home 88. We are quite content 89. No encouragement to make houses safe or accessible by any level of government 90. There is a great need to clean up outside air quality as well. Home has become a safe zone during a good part of the year and makes outdoor activities which I like to do near impossible 91. Comportement familiale 92. A spot of garden or place for potted plants - balcony etc 93. II fant considerer que les residences sante sont surtout un concept gui occupent les gens a la sante fragile 94. Gerer une residence sante demande: savoir - jugement et dexterite 95. R2000 regulations have stopped walls from breathing. Water stay trapped and turns to mold 96.1 think that a little dirt keeps you healthy 97. None that I can think of 98. When I built my house in 1981,1 researched a lot about solar and energy efficiency. I built facing south. Wood floors and tile and most rooms have 2 or more windows. I use electric/hot water heating. Energy costs for family of 4 $1800 a year approx. 99. More research into alternative materials to lower building costs 100. More solid wood less chemical products 131 101. Developing homes then incorporate or encourage composting and recycling materials at home 102. Something we dream of (reading) but we may never get 103. Wood burning 104. It's a great idea. I think healthy houses would be a big seller 105. Cost would be a great factor 106. A good topic to be included with general life skills for high school students 107. Cleaning habit, cleaning supplies 108. A good healthy home 109. Due to the low heights of our ceiling we feel that is the cause of dust being blown more from our ceiling fans 110. We all need to live a more healthier life eat well, take nutritional supplements and enjoy life to its fullest in happiness and health 111. Outdoor shrubs and tree location help filter dirt and noise 112. Survey is a good idea it makes you think about the environment you live in. 132 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0074992/manifest

Comment

Related Items