4.2.1. The impacts of climate change on UK residential buildings
Forty points, thirty per cent and 41.03%, respectively, strongly agree and agree that flood causes significant damage to residential buildings in the UK compared to other impacts; this may arguably be due to increased precipitation. 18.66% and 52.24% of the respondents strongly agreed and agreed, respectively, that erosion also impacts UK residential buildings. According to the respondents, 31.34% and 36.57% strongly agreed and agreed that a temperature rise negatively impacts UK residential buildings.
This leads to the buildings suffering from the impacts of heatwaves; as supported by the respondents, 41.79% and 44.03%, respectively, strongly agreed and agreed with that effect. This may be due to a decrease in precipitation. Hence, 20.90% and 44.03% strongly agreed and agreed, respectively, that there is a reduction in the resilience of UK residential buildings. 24.63% and 41.79% strongly agreed and agreed that windstorms resulting from climate change affect UK residential buildings. 28.36% and 48.51% of the responses strongly agreed and agreed, respectively, that humidity due to climate change impacts UK residential buildings, hampering their sustainability. 26.12% and 47.01% strongly agreed and agreed, respectively, that climate change causes an increase in extreme cold, which impacts the quality of residential buildings; the building performance might be reduced.
4.2.2. Climate change affects the occupants of buildings.
On the impact of climate change has adverse effects on occupants of residential buildings in the UK, 26.12 and 51.49% strongly agreed and agreed respectively. Of which 29.85% and 48.51% strongly agreed and agreed respectively that climate change impacts increase the cost of building maintenance, which arguably maybe as a combination of other factors, such as building age, location, types and so on.
The culture and behaviour of residents are affected as 30.60% and 50% of the respondents strongly agreed and agreed respectively with that point. 25.37% and 41.04 % respondents respectively strongly agreed and agreed that the air quality is getting worse due to climate change, which affects the health and safety of the occupants of the UK residential buildings as opined by 27.61% and 51.49% respondents respectively strongly agreed and agreed. 17.16% and 50%, respectively, strongly agreed and agreed that the impacts of climate change have psychological consequences on the affected residential occupants. Hence, climate change is an essential factor affecting the viability of UK residential buildings, as strongly agreed (20.90%) and 56.72% of respondents. Hence, 40.30 and 52.24% strongly agreed that residential buildings should be more environmentally adapted to support measures to the impacts of climate change. Moreover, new buildings should be designed to improve their resilience to the impacts of climate change strongly agreed (56.72%) and agreed (37.31%) respectively by the respondents.
Hypothesis
H1: Climate change has a significant impact on residential building occupants.
H2: There is a significant impact of climate measures/policy on residential building occupants.
A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between the variables building and measures and the variable occupation.
The dependent variable (building occupants) was regressed on predicting variable climate change impacts and climate policy/measures to test hypotheses H1 and H2. ccbuilding significantly predicted building occupants,
F (2.131) = 82.26, p < 0.001, which indicates that the ccbuilding and climate measures play a significant role in shaping building occupants (b = 0.64, t=11.324,
p < .001). The results depict a positive effect of the ccbuilding on the occupants. H2 evaluates if climate measures have a significant effect on the building occupants. The results depict a positive effect of the climate measures on the occupants (b = 0.216, t= 2.710,
p < .008). Hence H2 was supported, as shown in
Table 2.
Moreover, the R2 = .557 depicts that the model explains 55.7% of the variance in building occupants. The following regression model is obtained: Occupants = 0.39 +0.64 · ccbuilding +0.22 · policy. When all independent variables are zero, the variable Occupants is 0.39. Through further evaluation, the null hypothesis that the coefficient of " ccbuilding " was zero in the population was rejected. Also, the null hypothesis that the coefficient of " policy " was zero in the population was rejected. R2: The model explains 55.7% of the variation in building occupants. R-squared adjusted: R2 adjusted is 0.551, showing that the model fits.
The ANOVA test result in
Table 2 validates the earlier result indicating whether there is significant difference between the variables that were found to be significant. The table below shows that the characteristics of the regression model are: 35.56 sum of squares, 0.120 mean square, 82.481 F-statistic (.001). The result of the ANOVA test shows that the observed variables were significant at 1% level.
Model Coefficients
Policy and ccbuilding both show significant coefficients (p 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). The ccbuilding coefficient is 0.64, implying that a one-unit change in ccbuilding results in a 0.64-unit change in building occupants. The policy coefficient is 0.22, implying that a one-unit change in policy results in a 0.22-unit change in building occupants.
Hypothesis
H0: There is no significant relationship between climate change and the well-being of the occupants of UK residential buildings.
A multiple linear regression analysis similar to
Table 2 was performed to examine the influence of the variables: Indoor air quality (Q28), health and safety (Q29)., psychological consequences (Q30)., and disruption of the occupants' family activities (Q31). Viability of residential housing in the UK (Q34). On the variable side, the UK's residential buildings are now impacted by climate change (Q9).
The results show that the independent variables positively affect the dependent variable (ccbuilding). Moreover, the R2 = .304 depicts that they explained 30.4% of the variance from the variable (ccbuilding), An ANOVA was used to test whether this value was significantly different from zero. Using the present sample, it was found that the effect was significantly different from zero, F=11.18, p = <.001, R2 = 0.3. The adjusted R2 is 0.28, indicating that the model may somewhat overfit the data. The standard error of the estimate is 0.69, which is the average distance between the observed and anticipated values.
Hypothesis
H0: There is no significant relationship between climate change and the deterioration of the fabric of a building.
A multiple linear regression analysis similar to
Table 2 was performed to examine the influence of the variables, reduced building resilience (15), and cost of maintenance (24) on the variable; Residential buildings in the UK are now being impacted by climate change (9).
H1: There is a significant relationship between climate change and the deterioration of the fabric of buildings. The dependent variable (ccbuilding) was regressed on predicting variables; reduced building resilience (15) and cost of maintenance (24) to test hypothesis H1. Hence, H1 was supported. The ANOVA findings (F=32.71, p.001) revealed that the overall model differs considerably from zero. The results clearly depicted that reduced building resilience (15) and cost of maintenance (24) have a positive effect on ccbuilding.