舒适之“度”：环境政策面临的挑战

本·肖/Ben Shaw

尚晋 译/Translated by SHANG Jin

舒适之“度”：环境政策面临的挑战

本·肖/Ben Shaw

尚晋 译/Translated by SHANG Jin

本文以建成环境舒适度的各种研究和视角为出发点，讨论了在维护环境稳定性、生态系统运行以及社会和分配等问题加剧的全球形势下，过度提高舒适度以及能源和资源需求所引发的问题。不同于影响规划和建成环境舒适度的政策，本文关注的是消费者面临环境决策时的行为研究，而这存在一个前提：舒适度在一定意义上是一种社会性构成，需要建筑、规划和政策等领域的专业人士去创造。

舒适度，环境，政策，气候，资源

我们人类的一大基本特征就是能创造适应各种自然和建成环境的服装和建筑。我们在地球上生活和工作的环境可谓千姿百态。但舒适度如何呢？从历史上看，某些地方达到了空前的水平。而从个人经验看，在大面积的共享开放办公空间中，日常工作环境或许是让员工不满的一个突出原因。温度、照明、通风水平的选择在下一秒就有可能激发截然相反的意见。例如，温度在有些人看来不过是使用中的一个小细节，却是影响建筑使用者的形象和福祉以及员工工作效率的关键因素。

不过这只是一个视角，而且非常狭隘，即使它指明舒适度是一个倍受争议的问题。舒适度可以从多学科的角度进行更严格的考查。“过度舒适”可以是一个实际的设计问题，也可以是对人体生理需求及其在不同环境下的反应的研究；既关乎健康和福祉，又涉及哲学思考；是对特定环境的情感映射，也是对社会习俗、规范和构建的探索。对于舒适度的理念和范式的思考，查普尔斯和肖夫[1]提出了6大主题：

（1）舒适度、技术与社会——舒适的含义与技术和社会发展之间的关系；

（2）舒适度与室内环境——建筑、工程与自然科学对室内环境中热舒适度的处理方式；

（3）舒适度与室外气候——建筑师、地理学家与城市规划师在室外气候对舒适度含义和效果的影响上的思考；

（4）舒适度、健康与幸福——流行病学家、医学家与社会科学家的研究；

（5）舒适度、文化与社会习俗——以人类学家和社会学家的理念为基础；

（6）舒适度与气候变化——化石燃料的消耗与舒适度的实现，以及对未来气候变化中舒适度的影响之间的关联。

最后一项是他们研究的动机。近来人们所期待的舒适度和条件是基于能源密集型技术的。这在很大程度上不是长期可持续的，至少以现在的方式是不行的。因此，他们的着眼点在于评估是否存在其他理念或范式能支撑低资源的舒适度。

舒适度与气候变化之间的联系是本文标题问题的第一个回答。从环境资源上看，他们现在及未来对建成环境舒适度的要求过高。最近的新建筑舒适度所需的能源、建筑资源、水、土地和交通资源，以目前的技术来看是不可持续的。“过度舒适”需要更为复杂的答案。

就能源而言，2010年建筑产生了全球近20%的温室气体[2]9。政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）指出，要让温度相对于前工业化水平的变化少于2℃，大气浓度就需要在2100年达到450ppm的CO2当量[2]10。为实现这一点，就需要大量减少人类排放的温室气体（GHG），并大规模改变能源体系及用地。2100年达到这一浓度的方案是，2050年全球温室气体排放比2010年减少40%至70%；2100年CO2当量排放接近零或更低[2]10-11。

在本世纪末消除碳排放是一个艰巨的挑战，但要保持22世纪的舒适度就必须克服它，而行动的机遇正在逝去。即便大气碳浓度稳定在450ppmCO2当量上，热浪还是会更频繁地出现，而且更加持久，很多地区也会更密集地发生极端降水。海洋将持续变暖和酸化，全球海平面亦将提高[3]10。此外，不仅现有的风险会增大，自然和人类系统还会增加新的风险。它们分布不均，而各类弱势人群都会受到更大影响，不论国家的发达程度如何。这就需要碳减排和对变化气候的适应。[3]13

虽有应对能源和气候问题的趋势，但舒适度的实现不应是能源密集型而是资源密集型的——建筑材料、水、土地都是必须的。在全球层面上，《千年生态系统评估》[4]以4大标题表达了自然环境的现状与未来。其第一项是：

“在过去的50年中，人类改变生态系统的速度和广度超过了历史上任何一个相似时期。其主要目的是满足快速增长的食品、淡水、木材、纤维和燃料需求。这给地球生命多样性造成了重大的、几乎是无可挽回的损失。”

尽管这些变化为人类福祉和经济发展带来了贡献，但实现它们的代价是生态系统退化及特定人群的利益。若不加以遏止，将威胁后世从生态系统中受益的可能。在向生态系统不断索取的背景下，控制其退化是一项艰巨的挑战，需要超越当下的政策、体制和实践的重大转变。[4]1

保护气候稳定性、生态系统质量及其所需的设施，都需要通过改变技术和行为降低总消费水平。然而，舒适度与消费之间的分配，以及谁在不同时空条件下从中获益的基本问题，是当今和未来气候与生态系统新挑战的前提。《千年发展目标报告》突出了这一方面的进展，而未来行动的需求再清晰不过——全球约1/5的人口2010年每天收入不到1.25美元，与贫穷、教育、饥饿、儿童死亡率、水和卫生有关的问题暴露出基本生活必需品的不足，更不要提舒适度。这就是对“过度舒适”的第二个回答[5]。对于全球大多数人，他们的回答是舒适度不足，甚至根本没有。

这些挑战非同小可。面对它们需要技术的进步，并将这些技术与新建设结合在一起，还需要有力的发展规划和政策，以及一定程度的转变行为。

尽管这些挑战会变得难以承受，我们还是可以从《7个世纪的照明》[61139-177[6]172

建筑师、规划师与政策制定者在处理这些问题上的合作需要加强，正是清华大学建筑学院与威斯敏斯特大学建筑环境学院2015年4月“阐释可持续性”工作坊要传达的重要信息。

实现向可持续未来的转变是笔者所在的威斯敏斯特大学政策研究所（PSI）的研究重点。其主要工作是能源、交通、资源利用、城市与创新等政策问题。我们同政策制定者、社区和商家合作，理解政策的挑战以及更可持续的未来道路。工作内容还包括与政策评估相关的程序——政策如何能更加有效，以及研究与政策之间的相互作用——实证如何能带来更多的社会影响。我们与舒适度研究相关的另一项工作是公众行为和公众对政策手段的反应。

英国和欧洲已在环境政策的标准手段上取得了一定成果：法规、金融手段、自愿协议以及更好的信息服务。不过，随着大量的环境挑战从关注生产拓展转为兼顾生产与消费，消费者参与的问题就愈发关键了。

PSI对欧洲委员会就影响消费者的政策设计进行了研究，下面我们列出了其中一些发现[7]。鉴于上述与气候、生态系统以及《千年发展目标》相关的挑战过于宏大，这些发现的目的是为了向所有解决实现舒适度所需的能源和资源增长问题的人提供建设性的意见。

现实中的消费者行为往往与经济学家和政策制定者设想的有所出入。与正统经济学的观点相反，消费者很少权衡其购买决策的综合成本与收益。他们会受到情感因素、他人行为、习惯以及思维捷径的强烈影响，而这些都有助于加速决策。可以看到，消费者的偏好不是一致的，会随时间以及获得信息的情境和方式而变化。

这样一来，虽然信息的提供和选择是重要的，二者却都不一定带来更好的消费者决策或消费行为的改变。标准经济学思维的共同点在于，个人决策不佳是信息错误或不足导致的。而市场学和行为科学都证明了这种“信息赤字”模型是严重错误的。这在一定意义上源于一个事实：消费者在进行决策时几乎不会去寻找、阅读或正确地消化已有的信息。从根本上看，这个模型忽视了决定个人行为的其他大量因素。

政策制定者和其他试图改变大众行为的人若想有效地影响消费者的决策，就要考虑所有这些纷繁芜杂的因素。对消费者行为更好的理解将为政策制定者带来更多能实现目标的政策手段。应用到正确的情况中，它们的成本收益率就会高于传统政策手段。

政策制定者还应牢记，消费者行为是针对具体情境和产品的。对于现有的消费者决策行为的指导依据，政策制定者需要记住，消费者的反应在不同的产品群和政策领域之间是不同的。

这些意见关注的是消费者行为在应对政策目标及实施时的作用，那些考虑如何将舒适度及相关的环境影响的信息以最佳方式加以传达并付诸行动的人与此关系密切。舒适度在一定程度上是一种社会构建，并有可能被影响。不过，回到查普尔斯和肖夫前文的6大舒适度主题，如果要公平地实现舒适度而不造成无法接受的环境压力，在这些研究和实践的领域显然是需要相互学习和反馈的。□

表：主要发现：我们对消费者行为了解多少？[7]5

消费者很少权衡决策的综合成本与收益。相反，购买决策会在自发的、习惯性的条件下，或是在受到个人情感或他人行为的影响下做出。

消费者用思维捷径帮助加速决策。这些捷径会扭曲消费者的决策，包括偏向公认的品牌，并会受信息表达的方式以及环境的影响。

消费者对损失的反应强于盈利。这就意味着人们相对于盈利的刺激更不愿放弃或损失等值的商品。这种对损失的规避对人们解读信息的方式有很大的影响，甚至让消费者放弃决策。

消费者在购得商品后会对其更加珍重。此外，附加在产品上的价值不是一致的。它可以随时间变化，受到商品之前的成本以及人赋予它的情感的影响。这就让人不愿卖掉旧商品，即便置换的经济收益更高。

消费者更重视对近前的未来，而对远期的节省大打折扣。这对消费者判断家用设备的效率及全生命成本的价值会有影响。

过多的选择会给消费者造成压力，使决策变得困难。随着选择的增加，消费者考虑的选择和综合信息会减少，判断信息的方式也会改变。当选择极多时，消费者会彻底放弃选择。

消费者会受到他人的强烈影响。这可能是一种间接影响的形式，比如看到邻居或朋友购买商品；或是一种更为直接而明显的影响，比如销售人员对某种商品进行推销。几乎所有的消费决策都会受到某种社会影响的作用。

消费者用商品表达自我。商品满足的绝不只是功能需求；它表达出一个人的特征以及此人现在和未来的意向。市场学最重要的一课就是人们购物的原因千差万别；比如，有些人会考虑环境，而很多人则不会。

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

参考文献/References：

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comfort, environment, policy, climate, resources

威斯敏斯特大学建筑与建成环境学院政策研究所

2015-06-17