Source
doi:10.3390/su132111823 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Summary
Newberry, Harper & Morgan (2021) present the first empirical study of the market for eco self-build community (ESBC) housing, using the Water Lilies 33-home net-zero-carbon development in Bristol as a case study. Two surveys are compared: Survey 1 (n=1,719, prospective ESBC buyers registered on the Bright Green Futures developer website, Nov 2018–Feb 2021) and Survey 2 (n=43, conventional self-build and custom-build market). The paper demonstrates that a distinct market for ESBC housing exists, with purchasing priorities — green lifestyle (4.37/5), community spirit (4.15/5), style and construction quality (4.28/5) — that differ fundamentally from the conventional self-build market (which prioritises construction quality, location, and internal appearance). Prospective buyers in the conventional self-build market are willing to pay on average 27% more for an ESBC home vs an average UK new build, driven by desire to reduce environmental impact (selected by 32/36 respondents) and save on running costs (22/36). Water Lilies ESBC homes achieve total energy costs of £165/year vs £915 for average UK new builds — an 82% reduction — through on-site solar PV, a 222 kWh community microgrid battery, and air source heat pumps.
Key thesis insights
-
Empirical proof of demand for eco community housing — 1,719 registered prospective buyers demonstrate real, measurable demand for green-plus-community housing that is distinct from mainstream and conventional self-build markets. Green lifestyle, community spirit, and construction quality rank above price and location — the inverse of conventional housing market priorities. This directly validates the thesis sub-question on demand: a credible market exists for self-sufficient community housing beyond ideological niche appeal. LIT_029
-
27% willingness-to-pay premium for sustainability, driven by rational motivations — Prospective conventional self-builders would pay 27% more for a net-zero ESBC home than an average UK new build, and 37% more than an average existing home. The drivers are rational financial and environmental: reduce environmental impact (89% of respondents) and lower running costs (61%). The premium is not ideological, making it a commercially viable demand signal. When combined with the 82% energy cost reduction (£165/year vs £915/year for average new build), the premium is straightforwardly economically justified. LIT_029
-
Community-led housing sector is tiny but structurally supply-constrained, not demand-limited — In England: 736 housing co-operatives, 19 Community Land Trusts, 18 cohousing communities; community-led output ~400 units/year (0.6% of total UK housing). Self-build overall: 8% of UK new homes vs 80% in Austria, ~60% in Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and France. The gap is not a demand failure — 32% of UK people want to build their own home but 83% are unaware of self-build registers. Barriers are supply-side: land, planning, finance, leadership. This analysis maps directly onto OT_010/011’s finding of the same structural barriers in NZ. LIT_029
-
Developer-led ESBC model as scalable delivery mechanism — The Bright Green Futures 14-stage development process (funding → land → design → planning → sales → community workshops → construction → resident-owned estate management company → move-in → reinvestment of 15–20% profit) addresses the central grassroots community housing failure mode (project completion risk and leadership dependency) while preserving end-user design participation, community asset ownership, and net-zero-carbon construction. Community spirit is delivered through designed shared infrastructure (community garden, common building) and facilitated process (workshops), not pre-existing social cohesion. This is a directly relevant model for evaluating developer-led eco community housing feasibility in NZ. LIT_029
-
Community spirit is a purchasing driver but personal design participation is not — ESBC buyers rated community spirit 4.15/5 but personal design and participation only 3.71/5 — the second-lowest score. Only 11% of conventional self-builders wanted their home to be part of a cohousing scheme; 52% had no preference. What buyers want is the outcome (community, low energy cost, environmental performance), not necessarily the process. Design flexibility and completed-home options attract a wider market segment than grassroots self-build approaches. This cautions against assuming participatory co-design is a prerequisite for community housing demand. LIT_029
Research connections
The project’s NZ community demand survey (SUR_001, closed with n=22) provides a direct NZ-context counterpart to this paper’s UK findings. Results should be cross-checked against LIT_029 on:
- Demand drivers — does the NZ sample similarly prioritise environmental impact reduction and running-cost savings, or do other factors (affordability, land access, lifestyle) rank higher?
- Community vs participation — does the NZ sample show the same disconnect between valuing community outcomes (high) and personal design participation (lower), or does participatory co-design carry more weight in NZ contexts?
- Willingness to pay — is there a comparable premium for sustainable/self-sufficient community housing in the NZ market, and if so, at what level relative to NZ new build prices?
- Profile differences — UK ESBC market is predominantly urban (Bristol); NZ survey likely captures rural/peri-urban intent — does this shift priority ordering?
The LIT_029 findings (particularly the 27% WTP premium and the community-spirit > participation hierarchy) can serve as the comparative benchmark against which NZ primary data is interpreted in the thesis demand chapter. LIT_029