HTML (Español (España))
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
XML (Español (España))
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Revista de Arquitectura is an open access journal. More information...
Authors retain copyright and grant to the Revista de Arquitectura the right of first publication, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons (CC) BY-NC license.
Authors will sign a non-exclusive distribution license for the published version of the article by completing (RevArq FP03 Permission to Reproduce).
Self-archiving will comply with SHERPA/RoMEO guidelines and the Green classification.
To see in detail these guidelines, please consult...
Abstract
The main objective of this research is to identify a demographic profile of a group of people facing the purchase of a home with sustainable characteristics. Determining how these demographic variables can influence a purchase decision in the face of this new way of designing and building homes, this allows a detailed understanding of how potential clients experience during the purchase process. This research has a quantitative approach. Correspondence analysis was used in this research, which consists of a descriptive or exploratory method as scope. The sample is non-probabilistic at the convenience of the researcher. According to the results of this research, it is concluded that there is a specific profile of buyers of a home with attributes of sustainability. These buyers have demographic characteristics oriented to prefer stratum five (5), however, they require flexible conditions in terms of down payment, price, and clear differentiation factors in sustainable housing.
References
Agha, A., Shibani, A., Hassan, D., & Salmon, A. (2020). Building research establishment environmental assessment methodology on the UK residential projects. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 9(6), 183-189. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347982039_Building_Research_Establishment_Environmental_Assessment_Methodology_on_the_UK_Residential_Projects
Andrade Carreño, A. (2015). Los postulados fundamentales de la teoría de la modernidad reflexiva de Anthony Giddens. Acta Sociológica, (67), 87-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acso.2015.04.004
Assefa, G., Glaumann, M., Malmqvist, T., & Eriksson, O. (2010). Quality versus impact: Comparing the environmental efficiency of building properties using the Eco Effect tool. Journal Building and Environment, 45(5), 1095-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.10.001
Ballesteros García, C. (2018). La mejor solución a tu problema. Hacia una filosofía del marketing y el consumo. Gestão e Filosofia / Philosophy of Management (pp. 451-472). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26509992
Barr, S., & Gilg, A. (2006). Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and around the home. Geoforum Journal, 37(6), 906-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.05.002
Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID). (2018). Informe de sostenibilidad. http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0001639
Bonham-Carter, C. (2010). Sustainable communities in the UK. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0219-1_10
Bustillo Castillejo, M. C. (2011). El marketing social una respuesta del mundo mercantil al desarrollo sostenible. Saber, Ciencia y Libertad, 6(2), 169-176. https://doi.org/10.18041/2382-3240/saber.2011v6n2.2504
Cabeza, L., Barreneche, C., Miro, L., Morera, J., Bartoli, E., & Fernández, I. (2013). Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 536-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.017
Carrillo-Rojas, G., Andrade-Rodas, J., Barragán-Escandón, A., & Astudillo-Alemán, A. (2014). Impacto de programas de eficiencia energética eléctrica, estudio de caso: Empresas alimentarias en Cuenca, Ecuador. DYNA, 81(184), 41-48.
Fariña, T. J. (2002). Sostenibilidad y racionalidad de los procesos de urbanización. Textos sobre sostenibilidad. En Ecología y ciudad: raíces de nuestros males y modos de tratarlos. https://oa.upm.es/56484/
Fernández, L., & Gutiérrez, M. (2012). Bienestar social, económico y ambiental para las presentes y futuras generaciones. Información Tecnológica, 24(2), 121-130 http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642013000200013
FIABCI. (2019). Comisión de Legislación y Medio Ambiente de FIABCI Internacional. http://www.fiabcispain.com/
Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2010). Urbanism in the Anthropocene: Ecological urbanism or premium ecological enclaves? Journal City, 14(3), 298-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2010.482277
IDEAM. (2019). Inventario Nacional y Departamental de Gases Efecto Invernadero – Colombia. Instituto de Hidrología, Metoreología y Estudios Ambientales. http://documentacion.ideam.gov.co/openbiblio/bvirtual/023634/INGEI.pdf
Jackson, T. (2003). Sustainability and the 'Struggle for Existence': The Critical role of metaphor in society's metabolism. Environmental Values, 12(3), 289-316. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327103129341333
Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145474
Khare, A. (2014). Antecedents to green buying behaviour: a study on consumers in an emerging economy. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(3), 309-329. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-05-2014-0083
Kraftl, P., & Adey, P. (2008). Architecture/affect/inhabitation: Geographies of being-in buildings. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,98, 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600701734687
Lezama, J. L., & Domínguez, J. (2006). Medio ambiente y sustentabilidad urbana. Papeles de población, 12(49), 153-176. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-74252006000300007&lng=es&tlng=es.
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change,17(3-4), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004
Lothenbach, B., Scrivener, K., & Hooton, R. (2011). Supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research,41(12), 1244-1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.12.001
Malone, K., & Tranter, P. (2003). Out of bounds: Insights from children to support a cultural shift towards sustainable and child-friendly cities. UNSW- Australian Defence Force Academy RMIT University. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/apo-nid309600.pdf
Marres, N. (2011). The costs of public involvement: Everyday devices of carbon accounting and the materialization of participation. Economy and Society, 40(4), 510-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.602294
Mejía, M. (2018). Proyecto arquitectónico de viviendas colectivas, empleando el tapial como sistema constructivo en Chua Bajo, Huaraz [Tesis pregado]. Universidad se San Pedro. http://repositorio.usanpedro.edu.pe/handle/USANPEDRO/8376
Michael-Lee Johnstone, L. P. (2014). Exploring the gap between consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing behavior. Springer Science+Business Media, 311.
Michel, N. (2016). Construcciones sostenibles: Incentivos para su desarrollo en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Cuaderno Urbano: espacio, cultura y sociedad, 20(20), 119-138. http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1853-36552016000100006&lng=es&tlng=es.
Mohd Noor, A. M., Muhammad, A., Kassim, A., Muhammad Jamil, C. K., Mat, N., Mat, N., & Salleh, H.S. (2012). Creating green consumers: How environmental knowledge and environmental attitude lead to green purchase behaviour? International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5(1), 55-71. http://www.universitypublications.net/ijas/0501/html/GDE209.xml
Naciones Unidas. (1992). Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. https://www.un.org/spanish/esa/sustdev/agenda21/riodeclaration.htm
Ochoa, P. (2014). Estudio de caso: Diseño de viviendas ambientales de bajo costo, Cuenca (Ecuador). Maskana Revista Científica,5(1). http://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/handle/123456789/5587
Perry, B., & May, T. (2010). Urban knowledge exchange: Devilish dichotomies and active intermediation. International Journal of Knowledge- Base Development,1(1-2), 6-24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2010.032583
Pilaj, H. (2015). The choice architecture of sustainable and responsible investment: Nudging investors toward ethical decision-making. J Bus Ethics, 140, 743-753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2877-9
Quastel, N. (2009). Political ecologies of gentrification. Urban Geography, 30(7), 694-725. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.30.7.694
Sarduy Domínguez, Y. (2007). El análisis de información y las investigaciones cuantitativa y cualitativa. Revista Cubana de Salud Pública, 33(3). http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-34662007000300020&lng=es&tlng=es.
Schreiner, C., & Sjoberg, S. (2005). Empowered for action? How do Young people relate to environmental challenges? Beyond Cartesian Dualism. Science & Technology Education Library, 29, 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3808-9_5
Seyfang, G. (2010). Community action for sustainable housing: Building a low-carbon future. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7624-7633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.027
Siemens. (2009). The green city index. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:cf26889b-3254-4dcb-bc50-fef7e99cb3c7/gci-report-summary.pdf
Winter, A. (2018). The green city citizen: Exploring the ambiguities of sustainable lifestyles in Copenhagen. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1837
World Green Business Council (WGBC). (2020). The business case for green building: A review of the costs and benefits for developers, investors and occupants. https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/business-case-green-building-review-costs-and- benefits-developers-investors-and-occupants
Yang, C. H., Wang, C., & Chen, J. M. (2016). Fusion of “Naadam” and Multiculture from the Perspective of AGIL Paradigm: Taking Fuxin Mongolian Autonomous Country as an example. Journal of Shenyang Sport University, 35(3), 131-135. https://stxb.magtech.com.cn/EN/Y2016/V35/I3/131#2
##submission.citations.for##
