This handbook entry examines the issue of housing in the Anthropocene. The issue of housing in the Anthropocene involves many factors and aspects with respect to housing given the facts of climate change. To limit these factors and possible through-lines for this entry, housing in the Anthropocene will be analyzed according to three dimensions to make sense of the future of housing needs alongside climate change: (1) Housing and human population. The fundamental questions with respect to housing in the Anthropocene (...) involve human population, and the concurrent creation of more housing given increases in the human population in the future; (2) Housing and spatial requirements. Following on from the extra requirements for human housing given increases in human population, the critical issue of spatial requirements for this housing will be addressed; (3) Housing and net zero. The third section of this entry examines the possibility of housing in the Anthropocene reaching net zero and thus not contributing further to climate change. For the purposes of this entry, a time ceiling of 2050 will constrain each section, and limit the possibility of this entry becoming embroiled in overly speculative science fiction. (shrink)

This article reassesses the concept of a house from a non-human perspective. The two worlds that collide in this article are philosophical analyses that are “beyond the human” and sustainable engineering house design. By analyzing the houses of ten animal species for shelter/skin properties, life pedagogy, materials and resources, thermal dynamics, and structural elements, we speculate on the future of housing. The premise of this article is that “beyond the human” philosophy opens a new visage to comprehend and conceptualize what (...) a house could be. Beyond the human theorizing is defined by philosophy that has gone beyond framing an exploration internally to the benefit of themselves, as human subject. This article speculates that considering animal house construction is a way forward for thought in a changing climate. (shrink)

Companies faced with a crisis sometimes blame others in their communications, when they feel that responsibility for the negative event lies elsewhere. Research has argued that stakeholders often react negatively to this type of message, because they perceive them as an unfair attempt to deny responsibility. In four experiments, examining blame directed at an employee and a supplier, we complement existing research by demonstrating that blame-giving messages can be persuasive in certain circumstances. Blame-giving communications can improve perceptions of firm ethicality (...) more than apologies or an absence of corporate communication. This effect, in turn, reduces negative word-of-mouth intentions. The study identifies several boundary conditions for this effect. For blame-giving to be effective, a credible third party needs to identify who is responsible for wrongdoing, and the company needs to use vivid communication with detailed information about the culprit. Furthermore, blame-giving can backfire: when stakeholders doubt the company’s honesty, this type of messaging is seen as manipulative. The study contributes to a developing research stream on the relative effectiveness of different types of crisis communications by demonstrating that, in certain circumstances, blame-giving messages are more persuasive than apologies. Moreover, our analysis offers guidelines on how to design these messages to make them acceptable to stakeholders. (shrink)