Home sweet homeNational Housing Federation (NHF) has announced 85,000 planned home will no longer be built in England after the government has made the decision to axe the regional house-building targets.

The report which was commissioned by the NHF has revealed that town halls substantially reduced plans for new homes after the new government decided to axe the previous government’s regional building strategies. There were only 123,000 homes built in 2009/10, which is the lowest figure since 1923.

Eric Pickles, the community secretary, dubbed the regional targets “a terrible, expensive, time-consuming way to impose house building.”

The South-west had the most cancellations with 60,000 new homes being axed.

The NHF warned that the government’s inability to replace the regional targets with another, will probably lead to a further slump in house-building across the country, regardless of local demand for new homes.

David Orr, NHF chief executive, said: “It is frankly disappointing that so many local authorities have decided to revise down the number of homes planned for their areas. Local authorities need to recognise that just because regional targets have gone, housing need has not.”

This seems to be yet another blow to the building trade, the recession is definitely still in effect, which is why it’s more important than ever to obtain discount building materials from builders surplus stores in order to benefit from cheap building materials so I guess that it’s more important than ever to use BuilderScrap.com.

Builderscrap.com are looking at the defra 2009 Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment survey.

The survey also included a number of measures to capture how often people used green spaces and the importance they placed on these in their lives. Around half (48%) of respondents said they used public gardens, parks, commons and other green spaces at least once a week with 10% saying they used these six or seven days a week. A quarter said that they used them either once a fortnight or once a month (26% of all respondents) with the same proportion reporting that they used them less than once a month or never (26%).
A large majority of respondents indicated that having public gardens, parks, commons and other green spaces nearby was important to them. Just 5% of respondents did not think that this was important to them (with the majority of these people saying it was “not very” rather than “not at all” important to them). Table 41 shows the results for these questions for both the current and 2007 Defra survey.

DEFRA September 2009

While the figures appear similar for each response about usage of green spaces, in total the proportion who claimed to use green spaces once a week or more had decreased from 54% in 2007 to 48% in 2009.

Respondents rated the importance of having green spaces nearby very highly and the total proportion rating this as very or fairly important had increased from 91% of respondents in 2007 to 95% in 2009. The biggest difference was in the proportion of respondents who said that having such spaces nearby was very important to them (up from 65% in 2007 to 74% in 2009). There was little variation in response by the type of area the respondent lived in – respondents living in villages were marginally more likely to say that having public gardens, parks, commons and other green spaces was very important to them than those living in cities and towns (80% compared with 75%).
In follow-up to these questions, respondents were asked to pick the three most important reasons for spending time in public gardens, parks, commons and other green spaces (from a list of eight options). As one of these top three reasons, the most frequently cited reason was fresh air (by 57% of respondents). This was followed by open space (44%), plants and wildlife (35%), scenery (30%), tranquillity (26%) and leisure opportunities (26%). There was little variation in response by type of area lived in, although respondents living in villages were more likely to cite plants and wildlife (46%) and scenery (42%) as important reasons for spending time in public gardens, parks and commons than those living in cities and towns (34% and 28% respectively).
An equivalent question was asked on the 2007 Defra omnibus survey to ascertain the most important reasons for respondents visiting open countryside – the top reason given at that time was also fresh air (mentioned by 61% of respondents), followed by scenery (56%), tranquillity (45%), open space (39%), and plants and wildlife (38%) which are the same reasons as those most frequently cited in 2009 though in a different order. Leisure opportunities were cited as a reason for visiting open countryside by around one in ten (11%) respondents.

Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey DEFRA September 2009

Want to know more about BuilderScrap.com… visit our Youtube Channel

As I’m sure you all know we’re a completely free website for the construction trade, set up by builders for builders, that aims to facilitate contact between different trades people and help them to use up surplus in the supply chain. BuilderScrap.com provides an outlet to encourage reuse of material that would otherwise be thrown away. It’s a way for the industry to work together to reduce the amount of builders’ waste sent to landfill.

Lets have a look at some of our more interesting available items…. with a water theme.

Executive Restrooms

A Swimming Pool Slide

Stainless Steel Urinal Trough

We do have a wide and varied range of items available

A little different than the usual stuff on BuilderScrap but an important issue that has arisen from man made influences on the environment.

 I was saddened today to read a report in the Guardian concerning the plight of the worlds primates. The report complied by a coalition of conservation groups and  primatolgists has stated that nearly half of all primate species face imminent risk of exticntion. Species such as the Orang Utan (above left) and the Golden Headed Langur (above right) have dwindled in numbers leaving these species under a very real threat of dissapearence.

The Golden Headed Langur could be down to as few as 60 individuals, simiraly species of Lemur and Gibbons have also been reported to be as low as 100 remaining individuals. In total there are 634 primate species, of which 48% are categorised by the IUCN as “red list” species. These are the species which are under greatest threat as the impacts of logging, hunting and smuggling take there toll upon them.

So how have humans allowed and initiated the decline of some of our closest living relatives? All over the world we have seen widespread deforestation and the destruction of primate habitat, often these areas have suffered as countries have struggled for economic growth, leading to the clearance of these lands for increased levels of agriculture. Pressures have also come from hunters and smugglers, for example in China primate hearts have been used in traditional medicines.
 
Due to the very low numbers  of individuals within certain species the threat of extinction is now very high for some primates, an event such as a cyclone or an outbreak of disease could spell the end for an entire species. With such fragile populations, the ease at which these species could fail is increasing, any disaster or event such as the above could have massive ramifications and the loss of these species forever.

So what is being done to save these primates? Deforestation is a key element to any deal to tackle climate change, not only in saving these fantastic animals but also due to the importance of rainforest areas in locking in carbon and preventing more greenhouse gases from entering the environment. Plans for developed countries to give money to developing countries to maintain their areas of forest and take action against illegal logging. In terms of the conservation of primate species conservation work is been undertaken by  a number of zoos and scientists to try to bolster the numbers of these animals. A list of the top 25 list has also been documented in order to create greater public awareness and also to try to encourage governments to become more active in conservation measures.

It seems so deeply saddening that the human race has nearly driven so many of its closest relatives to near extinction. It seems strange how this situation has been allowed to reach such dramatic levels with nearly 50% of all primate species as endangered. Surely the plight of primates has, at least to some extent, been known for a considerable length of time, even if the full extent was unknown. The real situation is however if there is no action now it will be too late and these creatures will become little more than a lifeless image in a book for future generations.

Again, not our usual subject of discussion, but I hope you enjoyed reading, please let us at BuilderScrap know if you have any comments.

At the BuilderScrap.com office we’re discussing Carbon offsetting and we’d love to hear your thoughts. Comments not just from our regular visitors using the site to trade Builders Surplus but people who believe its either a great idea so simply doesn’t work.

Carbon offsetting schemes operate in a number of areas, to compensate for travel emissions but also for emissions coming from energy use in the home. Respondents who had ever paid into a scheme or were thinking about paying in were asked what they would be willing to offset (choosing items from a pre-coded list of three options). In total 371 were asked this question. Just over half (51%) of these respondents said they would be willing to offset the electricity and/or gas that they and their household used. This was followed by 29% who said they would be willing to offset the flights they take for holidays and 26% their annual car mileage. A smaller proportion of respondents (14%) said they would not be willing to offset any of these three items while 7% indicated that they did not know. Results from this question are summarised in Table 35.

This same group of respondents were also asked whether they would be most interested in paying into projects in the UK, projects in other countries (particularly in developing countries), or whether they did not mind which. Just under half (46%) of these respondents expressed a preference for paying into a UK-based project, with 15% expressing a preference for paying into projects in other countries. Slightly fewer than a third (29%) indicated that they did not mind which type of scheme.

As anybody who’s watched the television adverts about climate change knows travel, transport and in-particular car ownership are hot topics.

BuilderScrap.com are continuing to post about the current Defra report on attitudes to environmental issues. As part of the survey, respondents were presented with three statements about travel and transport. Respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each of these. The findings are summarised in Figure 12 and Table 33.

About half (49%) agreed that they would only travel on a bus if they had no choice with 21% strongly agreeing with this. Just over one third (37%) disagreed with the statement.

Nearly half (44%) of respondents agreed that ‘people who fly should bear the cost of the environmental damage that air travel causes’, with less than one third (27%) disagreeing with this.

In contrast, over half (55%) of respondents disagreed with the statement “for the sake of the environment car users should pay higher taxes” (including just over one quarter, 28%, who strongly disagreed).

The results from the current survey are broadly consistent with those from the 2007 Defra survey, with a small increase in the proportion of respondents who agreed that ‘I would only travel by bus if I had no other choice’ (up by 3%).

Attending the home builders convention in Las Vegas might be the most important date in your calendar but emissions when flying long haul have a negative effect on our environment. Surely we all know this? BuilderScrap.com aren’t suggesting you stop but lets be smart about it. Lets look at the detail.

Slightly fewer than half of respondents (41%) had taken a flight in the twelve months prior to the survey (between March 2008 and February 2009) for leisure, holidays or for visiting friends or family. This represents a small decrease over the last two to three years – 45% of respondents in the 2007 Defra survey said they had flown during the year 2006.

Those who had flown in the last 12 months were asked how many flights they had taken within the UK, to other European countries and to countries outside of Europe. The results from these questions are presented in Table 31 compared with results from the 2007 Defra survey.

Respondents who had flown in the last year were most likely to have flown to other countries within Europe (75%), followed by flights to countries outside Europe (41%). About one quarter who had flown in the last year said they had taken a flight within the UK (24%). For each of these destination categories, it was most likely that respondents had flown once within the 12 month period.

Around half (55%) of those who had taken a flight within the UK had done so once. Similarly, around half (56%) who had taken a flight to another country within Europe had done this once, while nearly two-thirds (63%) who had taken a flight outside of Europe had done this once.

The mean number of flights taken within the UK had increased from 0.4 to 0.8 between 2007 and 2009. However, this appears to have been driven partly by a small proportion of respondents (less than 1%) who had taken a very large number of flights within the UK (20 or more in the last 12 months). Also the proportion of respondents who had flown within the last year and had taken at least one flight within the UK had increased to just less than one quarter (from 18% in 2007 to 24% in 2009).

The mean number of flights taken to other countries within Europe and to countries outside Europe had not changed since the 2007 Defra survey.
All respondents including those who had not flown in the last twelve months were asked the extent to which they had considered taking fewer flights. The question was asked using the stages of change response scale and the results are presented in Table 32 (including as a percentage of all respondents and of all respondents who had flown in the last 12 months).

About one quarter of respondents said they were already taking fewer flights and maintaining this as a behaviour. The proportion of respondents who reported that they were taking fewer flights was similar regardless of whether it was expressed as a proportion of all respondents or of those who had flown in the previous 12 months. Of those who had flown in the last 12 months, nearly one quarter (22%) were at the pre-contemplative stage of reducing the number of flights they took and more than one third (36%) said they had considered taking fewer flights but had rejected the idea – the latter compared with 21% of all respondents reporting this. A small proportion, of those respondents who had flown in the last 12 months, were contemplating the behaviour (6%) or had relapsed after trying to take fewer flights (3%).

More from BuilderScrap.com on our habits.  To all those contractors and white van men. This questionnaire includes a number of questions which use the stages of change response scale to assess how willing people were to alter the way they used their cars (including cutting down on the amount they drove). The results from these questions are shown in Table 30.

Of the five behaviours shown in Table 30, the majority of drivers reported they were already driving in a fuel efficient way and intended to keep this up (78% of all drivers were classified at the maintenance stage). Of the remaining respondents these were split between those unaware of driving in a fuel efficient way (6%); those who had rejected doing this (4%); those thinking about it (6%); and those who had tried it but relapsed (4%).
Nearly two-thirds (62%) of all drivers said they had switched to walking or cycling instead of driving for short, regular journeys and intended to keep this up (the maintenance stage), although nearly one in five (18%) had rejected the idea of switching to walking or cycling (the second largest group for this behaviour). It should be noted that those who said they had already switched mode of transport need not have switched all of their short regular journeys. For example, a respondent who had switched to walking to instead of driving to work might still be making short regular trips by car for other purposes such as shopping.

In comparison, about a quarter (26%) of drivers said they had switched to public transport instead of driving for regular journeys (the maintenance stage), although nearly half (47%) had rejected this behaviour. One in ten (10%) drivers were at the pre-contemplation stage indicating that they “hadn’t really given the idea any thought” with a similar number either contemplating this switch (6%) or having made the switch only to relapse into using their car again (5%).

Just 1% of drivers had switched to and maintained use of an electric / hybrid / LPG car with the same proportion having switched at some point in the past and relapsed. Just over half (53%) said they had rejected the idea of switching and a quarter (26%) were at the pre-contemplation stage, having never really thought about doing this. However, 16% of drivers claimed to be contemplating making this switch.

The Builderscrap.com team are back from the Christmas break. This next post states that respondents were quite likely to already be buying fresh food that had been grown when it is in season in the country where it was produced – 60% had done this and were maintaining the behaviour while a further 3% had tried this but had relapsed. Very few respondents (6%) had rejected the idea of buying locally in season produce but one in five (21%) were at the pre-contemplation stage indicating that they “hadn’t thought about doing this” or “hadn’t heard” about it.

The omnibus survey included some additional questions about seasonal food. Firstly, omnibus respondents were presented with a fuller definition of what seasonal food was before being asked whether they ever purchased it:
‘Seasonal food is defined as food that is grown outdoors or produced during the natural growing / production period for the country or region where it is produced. It need not necessarily be consumed locally. As a result less energy is likely to have been used in its production’

Providing this fuller definition led to responses that were broadly similar to the response already presented in Table 22. Just over half (55%) said they were already buying seasonal food and maintaining this as a behaviour, 9% said they were contemplating it, 6% had thought about it but had rejected the idea, and 19% were at the pre-contemplation stage (having either never thought about it or having never heard of it). A comparison of responses to these two questions is provided in Table 23.

All respondents in the omnibus survey were also asked what factors might encourage them to buy more seasonal produce. More than one third (37%) of respondents said that they would buy more “if the price was similar to the food they usually bought / if it was cheaper”. A smaller proportion (14%) said that they would if shops made it clearer which food was seasonal, 9% if packaging on food told them it was seasonal and 6% if shops only sold seasonal produce. Just over one in ten (11%) said that nothing would make them buy more seasonal food because they wanted to buy the food they desired whenever they wanted.