uilding and planning legislation throughout Australia . Regulatory changes are required to achieve this innovation, as well as stakeholder engagement, itself dependent on behaviour change. Such cultural shift is essential to achieve better project outcomes, and it will be critical for the continuous development and improvement of organizations. Similarly, social acceptance plays a vital role in the implementation of any technology innovations .
While technology marches on, regulations and building codes lag behind. British Columbia in Canada recently revamped its building codes to allow taller buildings to be made from wood, but still capped their height at a modest six storeys (in comparison, the UK, Norway and New Zealand place no height restrictions on safely-made wooden high-rise).
|Motivation||Barriers identified||Opportunities identified|
|Stimulate property development market in Australia||Developers and builders unfamiliar with CLT product||Government assistance to develop car park sites|
|Gain approval for car park top developments||No CLT manufactured in Australia – need to import CLT panels from overseas||Locate infill development in centres, infrastructure to service growth|
|Address construction waste||Infill development solutions needed in inner-city location||Timber houses: public still needs to be educated that it’s better than brick or concrete|
|Adopt innovation||Financing of CLT projects through the banking sector is unclear||Needs to be pitched as a high-end market product|
|Want to use CLT in regional project||CLT not ‘affordable, social housing’ material||Manufacture—import from China or Vietnam to reduce cost?|
|Want advantage of being first to design with CLT||Public education lacking; user acceptance?||Undertake comparison of design in CLT with steel or concrete systems—LCA|
|Want to gain experience in designing with CLT||Fire engineering and meeting fire regulatory approvals||Use design for fire testing research|
|Seeking knowledge||Cost of fire testing||Need to address cost and affordability as part of sustainability|
|Share knowledge about feasibility, affordability||Developer confidence in gaining approvals—no-one wants to pioneer CLT|
|Improve durability in terms of weather, fungal and termite resistance|
|Need to train industry (up-skilling). Concern about number and size of projects|
6. Consumers and Residents: Mobilizing Behaviour Change to Build Liveable and Sustainable Cities
Users’ expectations and needs frequently focus on useability, affordability, comfort, cultural values and aspirational status goals, while the technical solution or construction system itself is less important to residents. Hence, the shift to infill buildings constructed in CLT requires behaviour change, to ensure these buildings will be acceptable to occupants as an alternative approach based on ideas of environmental construction (such as, for instance, new ‘passive house’ standards being slowly embraced by consumers).
We must understand that people do not necessarily make decisions in a logical way. Instead, behaviour is frequently governed by instinct, emotion, status, past events, current socio-cultural beliefs and values, and one’s peer or social group. Changing the behaviour of housing consumers will require significant insight or inspiration, a threat or an event that makes them think and re-evaluate actions or beliefs, thus initiating the process of change.
That buyers of apartments are really prepared to pay more for apartments in environmentally friendly buildings has been disputed for a long time. Architect Michael Green, for instance, notes: ‘95 per cent of the public tell us they would pay more because the building is green; but only 5 per cent really do’ .
Houses made of wood are, of course, nothing new to Australians. The ‘Queenslander’ house is a prefabricated timber house that can be dismantled and reassembled on other sites; and older style houses in Perth, for instance, are made of wood and are frequently plagued by termites and fire; they are less durable than brick structures and tend to have