Handling uncertainty in housing stock models

Housing stock models can be useful tools in helping to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of retrofits to residential buildings; however, existing housing stock models are not able to quantify the uncertainties that arise in the modelling process from various sources, thus limiting the role that they can play in helping decision makers. This paper examines the different sources of uncertainty involved in housing stock models and proposes a framework for handling these uncertainties. This framework involves integrating probabilistic sensitivity analysis with a Bayesian calibration process in order to quantify uncertain parameters more accurately. The proposed framework is tested on a case study building, and suggestions are made on how to expand the framework for retrofit analysis at an urban-scale. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

Prices need no preferences: social trends determine decisions in experimental markets for pain relief.

OBJECTIVE: A standard view in health economics is that, although there is no market that determines the "prices" for health states, people can nonetheless associate health states with monetary values (or other scales, such as quality adjusted life year [QALYs] and disability adjusted life year [DALYs]). Such valuations can be used to shape health policy, and a major research challenge is to elicit such values from people; creating experimental "markets" for health states is a theoretically attractive way to address this. We explore the possibility that this framework may be fundamentally flawed-because there may not be any stable values to be revealed. Instead, perhaps people construct ad hoc values, influenced by contextual factors, such as the observed decisions of others. METHOD: The participants bid to buy relief from equally painful electrical shocks to the leg and arm in an experimental health market based on an interactive second-price auction. Thirty subjects were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions where the bids by "others" were manipulated to follow increasing or decreasing price trends for one, but not the other, pain. After the auction, a preference test asked the participants to choose which pain they prefer to experience for a longer duration. RESULTS: Players remained indifferent between the two pain-types throughout the auction. However, their bids were differentially attracted toward what others bid for each pain, with overbidding during decreasing prices and underbidding during increasing prices. CONCLUSION: Health preferences are dissociated from market prices, which are strongly referenced to others' choices. This suggests that the price of health care in a free-market has the capacity to become critically detached from people's underlying preferences.