Review of Obstacles to the Delivery of Affordable Zero-carbon Homes in Scotland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within today’s environment of economic stagnation, every 1% increase in domestic energy prices leads around 8,000 households in Scotland to fuel poverty and nearly 25% of the population is experiencing some difficulty in heating their home properly. Operational energy use is having a significant economic impact on households’ daily life. Consequently, there is an urgent need for the delivery of affordable low/zero‐carbon homes in Scotland. In reality, the house‐building industry today has no systematic way to deliver such unconventional homes, despite government introducing targets for enhanced levels of sustainability in housing construction. In order to identify potential barriers that limit the industry’s capacity for the commercialisation of zero carbon homes, this study first explores the status quo of today’s affordable housing production in Scotland and secondly, it extends the scope to a review of successful low/zero‐energy affordable housing developments in Canada. This study concludes with the argument that Scottish homebuilding industry is experiencing the following challenges: an absence of clear definition (or value standards) of housing affordability and zero carbon homes; a relative unfamiliarity with passive energy and environmental design techniques and innovative building materials and systems including renewable energy technologies; and the lack of technical knowledge transfer training activities which often generates extra time and money in the building process. In Canada, the government tends to offer house‐builders and housing manufacturers systematic training in low‐energy housing delivery approaches, such as R2000 or/and Super E® programmes, and defines housing affordability as 32% of a household’s gross monthly income on mortgage principal, interest, taxes, and heating expenses. This paper also underpins the significance of a design charrette being implemented in the delivery of net zero‐energy affordable housing in Canada and suggests methods by which a similar approach could effect a more efficient construction process and a better performing, affordable housing product.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".