Contextualizing Radon Mitigation into Healthy and Sustainable Home Design in the Commonwealth of Kentucky: A Conjoint Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indoor radon constitutes a public health issue in various regions across the United States as the second leading cause of lung cancer following tobacco smoke. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advises radon mitigation interventions for residential buildings with indoor radon concentrations exceeding the threshold level of 4 pCi/L. Despite considerable research assessing the technical effectiveness of radon mitigation systems, there remains a gap in understanding their broader influence on occupant behavior and preferences in residential design. This study aims to investigate the impact of residing in radon-mitigated homes within the Commonwealth of Kentucky—an area known for elevated radon concentrations—on occupants’ preferences regarding healthy home design attributes. The objectives of this research are twofold: firstly to determine if living in radon-mitigated homes enhances occupant awareness and consequently influences their preferences toward health-related home attributes and secondly to quantitatively evaluate and compare the relative significance homeowners assign to health-related attributes such as indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and water quality relative to conventional attributes including home size, architectural style, and neighborhood quality. The overarching purpose is to explore the potential role radon mitigation initiatives may play in motivating occupants towards healthier home construction and renovation practices. Using choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis, this paper compares preferences reported by homeowners from radon-mitigated homes against those from non-mitigated homes. While the findings suggest a relationship between radon mitigation and increased preference for indoor air quality, the cross-sectional design limits causal interpretation, and the possibility of reverse causation—where health-conscious individuals are more likely to seek mitigation—must be considered. The results provide novel insights into how radon mitigation efforts might effectively influence occupant priorities towards integrating healthier design elements in residential environments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".