Inclusive housing in Australia : a question of responsibility and distributive justice

This thesis challenged the assumption that the Australian housing industry will voluntarily and independently transform its practices to build inclusive communities. Through its focus on perceptions of responsibility and the development of a theoretical framework for voluntary initiatives, the thesis offers key stakeholders and advocates a way to work towards the provision of inclusive housing as an instrument of distributive justice.

The link between infrastructure charges and housing affordability in Australia: Where is the empirical evidence?

Developer paid charges or contributions are a commonly used infrastructure funding mechanism for local governments. However, developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite a plethora of government reports and industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers and hence no data for which governments to base policy decision upon. This paper examines the question of who really pays for urban infrastructure and the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability. It presents the findings of a number of international empirical studies that provide evidence that infrastructure charges do increase house prices. Based on international findings, and in the absence of any Australian research, then these findings suggest that if the international findings are transferable, then there is empirical evidence to support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are a significant contributor to increasing house prices.

Critical factors affecting the implementation of sustainable housing in Australia

Improved public awareness of the environment and available technologies will continue to highlight the importance of sustainable housing in the coming years. Despite this potential, the majority of new housing development in Australia is still “project homes” with few tangible sustainability measures. Stakeholders tend to have different perceptions and priorities on sustainability. To promote the uptake of sustainable housing products, a study of the critical issues affecting the implementation of sustainable housing is necessary. This research investigates multiple factors that may influence key stakeholders’ decision-making towards sustainable housing adoption. Drawing insights from combined questionnaire and interview studies, 12 critical factors and their interrelationships are identified based on professional views in the Australian housing industry. The mutual influences, or driving force and dependency, of these factors are further investigated via Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) to distinguish those requiring prominent and immediate attention. A hierarchical model is developed to help key stakeholders prioritise actions when implementing sustainable housing.

Livable housing design : the voluntary provision of inclusive housing in Australia

This paper reports on a study of the voluntary provision of inclusive housing. The impetus for the study is the Livable Housing Design initiative, an agreement among Australian housing industry and community leaders in 2010 to a national guideline and voluntary strategy with a target to provide minimum access features in all new housing by 2020. Situated in and around Brisbane, Australia, the study problematises the assumption that the housing industry will respond voluntarily; an assumption which this study concludes is unfounded. The Livable Housing Design initiative asks individual agents to consider the needs of people beyond the initial contract, to proceed with objective reasoning and to do the right thing voluntarily. Instead, the study found that interviewees focused on their immediate contractual obligations, were reluctant to change established practices and saw little reason to do more than was legally required of them. This paper argues that the highly-competitive and risk-averse nature of the industry works against a voluntary approach for inclusive housing and, if the 2020 target of the Livable Housing Design initiative is to be reached, a mandated approach through legislation will be necessary. The Livable Housing Design initiative, however, has an important role to play in preparing the Australian housing industry to accept further regulation.

Who really pays for urban infrastructure? : the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia

This thesis advances the understanding of the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia through the development of an econometric model and empirical analysis. The results indicate substantial on-passing of these government charges to purchasers of both new and existing homes, thus negatively impacting housing affordability across the whole community. The results of this thesis will inform policy makers and assist in the development of evidence based policy related to housing affordability and funding of urban infrastructure. Being generic, the econometric model is expected to be a tool that is suitable for estimating similar house price effects in other housing markets.

The provision of visitable housing in Australia: Down to the detail

In response to the ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), Australian housing industry leaders, supported by the Australian Government, committed to transform their practices voluntarily through the adoption of a national guideline, called Livable Housing Design. They set a target in 2010 that all new housing would be visitable by 2020. Research in this area suggests that the anticipated voluntary transformation is unrealistic and that mandatory regulation will be necessary for any lasting transformation to occur. It also suggests that the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement are unfounded. This paper reports on a study that problematised these assumptions. The study used eleven newly-constructed dwellings in three housing contexts in Brisbane, Australia. It sought to understand the logics-of-practice in providing, and not providing, visitable housing. By examining the specific details that make a dwelling visitable, and interpreting the accounts of builders, designers and developers, the study identified three logics-of-practice which challenged the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement: focus on the point of sale; an aversion to change and deference to external regulators on matters of social inclusion. These were evident in all housing contexts indicating a dominant industry culture regardless of housing context or policy intention. The paper suggests that financial incentives for both the builder and the buyer, demonstration by industry leaders and, ultimately, national regulation is a possible pathway for the Livable Housing Design agreement to reach the 2020 goal. The paper concludes that the Australian Government has three options: to ignore its obligations under the CRPD; to revisit the Livable Housing Design agreement in the hope that it works; or to regulate the housing industry through the National Construction Code to ensure the 2020 target is reached.

Developer charges and housing affordabilty in Brisbane, Australia

Purpose - This paper empirically examines the effect of developer charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia. Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new urban infrastructure. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify passing on of these charges to home buyers. Design/methodology/approach - This research applies a hedonic house price model to 4,699 new and 25,053 existing house sales in Brisbane from 2005 to 2011. Findings – The findings of is research are consistent with international studies that support the proposition that developer charges are over passed. This study has provided evidence that suggest developer charges are over passed to both new and existing homes in the order of around 400%. Research limitations/implications - These findings suggest that developer charges are thus a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Practical/Social Implications: By testing this effect on both new and existing homes, this research provides evidence in support of the proposition that not only are developer charges over passed to new home buyers but also to buyers of existing homes. Thus the price inflationary effect of these developer charges are being felt by all home buyers across the community, resulting in increased mortgage repayments of close to $1000 per month. Originality/value - This is the first study to empirically examine the impact of developer charges on house prices in Australia. These results are important as they will inform governments on the outcomes of growth management strategies on housing affordability, providing the first evidence of its kind in Australia.

The impact of planning delays and other holding costs on housing affordability

Housing affordability is gaining increasing prominence in the Australian socioeconomic landscape, despite strong economic growth and prosperity. It is a major consideration for any new development. However, it is multi-dimensional, has many facets, is complex and interwoven. One factor widely held to impact housing affordability is holding costs. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires clarification. It is certainly more multifarious than simple calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. For example, preliminary analysis suggests that even small shifts in the regulatory assessment period can significantly affect housing affordability. Other costs associated with “holding” also impact housing affordability, however these costs cannot always be easily identified. Nevertheless it can be said that ultimately the real impact is felt by those whom can least afford it - new home buyers whom can be relatively easily pushed into the realms of un-affordability.

Drivers constraints and the future of off-site manufacture in Australia.

Much has been written on Off-site Manufacture (OSM) in construction, particularly regarding the perceived benefits and barriers to implementation. However, very little understanding of the state of OSM in the Australian construction industry exists. A ‘scoping study' has recently been undertaken to determine the ‘state-of-the-art’ of OSM in Australia. This involved several industry workshops, interviews and case studies across four major states of Australia. The study surveyed a range of suppliers across the construction supply-chain, incorporating the civil, commercial and housing segments of the market. This revealed that skills shortages and lack of adequate OSM knowledge are generally the greatest issues facing OSM in Australia. The drivers and constraints that emerged from the research were, in large measure, consistent with those found in the US and UK, although some Australian anomalies are evident, such as the geographical disparity of markets. A comparative analysis with similar studies in the UK and US is reported, illustrating both the drivers and constraints confronting the industry in Australia. OSM uptake into the future is however dependent on many factors, not least of which is a better understanding of the construction process and its associated costs.

Can Risk Management boost the supply of Affordable Housing Development and Management?

A shortage of affordable housing is a major problem in Australia today. This is mainly due to the limited supply of affordable housing that is provided by the non-government housing sector. Some private housing developers see the provision of affordable housing for lower income people as a high risk investment which offers a lower return than broader market-based housing. The scarcity of suitable land, a limited government ‘subsidy’, and increasing housing costs have not provided sufficient development incentives to encourage their investment despite the existing high demand for affordable housing. This study analyses the risk management process conducted by some private and not-for-profit housing providers in South East Queensland, and draws conclusions about the relationship between risk assessments/responses and past experiences. In-depth interviews of selected non-government housing providers have been conducted to facilitate an understanding of their approach to risk assessment/response in developing and in managing affordable housing projects. These developers use an informal risk management process as part of their normal business process in accordance with industry standards. A simple qualitative matrix has been used to analyse probability and impacts using a qualitative scale - low, medium and high. For housing providers who have considered investing in affordable housing but have not yet implemented any such projects, affordable housing development is seen as an opportunity that needs to be approached with caution. The risks associated with such projects and the levels of acceptance of these are not consistently identified by current housing providers. Many interviewees agree that the recognition of financial risk and the fear of community rejection of such housing projects have restrained them from committing to such investment projects. This study suggests that implementing improvements to the risk mitigation and management framework may assist in promoting the supply of affordable housing by non-government providers.

Can risk management boost the supply of affordable housing development and management?

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the risk management process conducted by some private and not-for-profit affordable housing providers in South East Queensland, and draw conclusions about the relationship between risk assessments/responses and past experiences.----- Design/methodology/approach: In-depth interviews of selected non-government housing providers have been conducted to facilitate an understanding of their approach to risk assessment in developing and in managing affordable housing projects. Qualitative data are analysed using thematic analysis to find emerging themes suggested by interview participants.----- Findings: The paper finds that informal risk management process is used as part of normal business process in accordance with industry standards. Many interviewees agree that the recognition of financial risk and the fear of community rejection of such housing projects have restrained them from committing to such investment projects. The levels of acceptance of risk are not always consistent across housing providers which create opportunities to conduct multi-stakeholder partnership to reduce overall risk.----- Research limitations/implications: The paper has implications for developers or investors who seek to include affordable housing as part of their portfolio. However, data collected in the study are a cross-section of interviews that will not include the impact on recent tax incentives offers by the Australian Commonwealth Government.----- Practical implications: The study suggests that implementing improvements to the risk mitigation and management framework may assist in promoting the supply of affordable housing by non-government providers.----- Originality/value: The focus of the study is the interaction between partnerships and risk management in development and management of affordable rental housing.

An evaluation of viability of public private partnerships in social infrastructure procurement projects in Queensland, Australia

Public private partnerships (PPP) have been widely used as a method for public infrastructure project delivery not only locally and internationally, however the adoption of PPPs in social infrastructure procurement has still been very limited. The objective of this paper is to investigate the potential of implementation of current PPP framework in social affordable housing projects in South East Queensland. Data were collected from 22 interviewees with rich experiences in the industry. The findings of this study show that affordable housing investment have been considered by the industry practitioners as a risky business in comparison to other private rental housing investment. The main determents of the adoption of PPPs in social infrastructure project are the tenant-related factors, such as the inability of paying rent and the inability of caring the property. The study also suggests the importance of seeking strategic partnership with community-based organisation that has experiences in managing similar tenants’ profiles. Current PPP guideline is also viewed as inappropriate for the affordable housing projects, but the principle of VFM framework and risk allocation in PPPs still be applied to the affordable housing projects. This study helps to understand the viability of PPP in social housing procurement projects, and point out the importance of developing guideline for multi-stakeholder partnership and the expansion of the current VFM and PPPs guidelines.