Home sustainability policy and mandatory disclosure. a survey of buyer and seller participation and awareness in Qld

Sustainability Declarations were introduced by the Queensland State Government on 1 January 2010 as a mandatory disclosure measure for all dwelling sales in the State. The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact this policy decision has had in the homebuyer decision-making process in the first year since its introduction and to consider the effectiveness of the legislation in meeting its policy objectives. This quantitative research comprised a two-part process: the first stage surveyed the level of compliance by the real estate industry with the legislative requirements. Stage two comprised an online survey of Real Estate Institute of Queensland members to determine what impact the Sustainability Declaration has had on home buyer decision making and how effective the legislative mechanisms have been in achieving the policy objectives. This paper assesses the initial impact of this initiative over its first year in operation. These preliminary findings indicate a high level of compliance from the real estate industry, however results confirm that sustainability is yet to become a criterion of relevance to the majority of homebuyers in Queensland. These quantitative findings support anecdotal evidence that the objectives of the legislation to increase homebuyer awareness and relevance of sustainability issues in the home are not being achieved. Sustainability Declarations are a first step in raising homebuyer awareness of the importance of sustainability in housing. Further monitoring of this impact will be carried out over time. This is the first research undertaken to assess the impact of this new mandatory disclosure legislation in Queensland, Australia. The findings will inform policy makers and assist them to assess the effectiveness of the current legislation in achieving its policy objectives.

An analysis of holding cost impact on housing affordability in relation to midsized Greenfield residential property developments in South East Queensland

The position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian situation counters the experience demonstrated in many other parts of the world in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, with residential housing prices proving particularly resilient. A seemingly inexorable housing demand remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by high levels of population growth fuelled by immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand level ensures problems related to housing affordability continue almost unabated. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability relates to holding costs. Although only one contributor in the housing affordability matrix, the nature and extent of holding cost impact requires elucidation: for example, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely - and in some instances completely ignored. In addition, ambiguity exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements that comprise holding costs, thereby affecting the assessment of their relative contribution. Such anomalies may be explained by considering that assessment is conducted over time in an ever-changing environment. A strong relationship with opportunity cost - in turn dependant inter alia upon prevailing inflation and / or interest rates - adds further complexity. By extending research in the general area of housing affordability, this thesis seeks to provide a detailed investigation of those elements related to holding costs specifically in the context of midsized (i.e. between 15-200 lots) greenfield residential property developments in South East Queensland. With the dimensions of holding costs and their influence over housing affordability determined, the null hypothesis H0 that holding costs are not passed on can be addressed. Arriving at these conclusions involves the development of robust economic and econometric models which seek to clarify the componentry impacts of holding cost elements. An explanatory sequential design research methodology has been adopted, whereby the compilation and analysis of quantitative data and the development of an economic model is informed by the subsequent collection and analysis of primarily qualitative data derived from surveying development related organisations. Ultimately, there are significant policy implications in relation to the framework used in Australian jurisdictions that promote, retain, or otherwise maximise, the opportunities for affordable housing.

Impact fees and new housing cost: A comparative analysis of the empirical models

Developers and policy makers are consistently at odds over the debate as to whether impact fees increase house prices. This debate continues despite the extensive body of theoretical and empirical international literature that discusses the passing on to home buyers of impact fees, and the corresponding increase to housing prices. In attempting to quantify this impact, over a dozen empirical studies have been carried out in the US and Canada since the 1980’s. However the methodologies used vary greatly, as do the results. Despite similar infrastructure funding policies in numerous developed countries, no such empirical works exist outside of the US/Canada. The purpose of this research is to analyse the existing econometric models in order to identify, compare and contrast the theoretical bases, methodologies, key assumptions and findings of each. This research will assist in identifying if further model development is required and/or whether any of these models have external validity and are readily transferable outside of the US. The findings conclude that there is very little explicit rationale behind the various model selections and that significant model deficiencies appear still to exist.

Smarten up! applying market design theory to greyfields housing supply : a background paper

This paper examines whether recent innovation in market design can address persistent problems of housing choice and affordability in the inner and middle suburbs of Australian cities. Australia's ageing middle suburbs are the result of a low density and highly car-dependent garden city greenfield approach to planning that failed to consider possible future resource or environmental constraints on urban development (Newton et al., 2011). Described as 'greyfield' sites in contrast to greenfield (signalling the change from rural to urban land use) and 'brownfield' (being the transformation of former industrial use to mixed use, including housing), intensification of development in such areas is expected to deliver positive social, economic and environmental outcomes (Trubka et al., 2008; Gurran et al., 2006; Newton et al., 2011; Goodman et al., 2010). Yet despite broad policy consensus progress remains elusive (Major Cities Unit, 2010). In this paper we argue that the application of market design theory, specifically through the internet-based coordination of market information, offers a new policy approach and practical measures to address these problems.

Applying market design theory to 'greyfields' housing supply

This paper examines whether innovation in market design can address persistent problems of housing choice and affordability in the ageing inner and middle suburbs of Australian cities. Despite policy consensus that urban intensification of these low density, ‘greyfield’ areas should be able to deliver positive social, economic and environmental outcomes, existing models of development have not increased housing stock or delivered adequate gains in sustainability, affordability or diversity of dwellings in greyfield localities. We argue that application of smart market and matching market principles to the supply of multi-unit housing can unlock land, reduce development costs and improve design.

Beyond the 'at risk' individual : housing and the eradication of poverty to prevent homelessness

The 2008 White Paper on Homelessness (Australian Government 2008) constitutes a watershed initiative outlining the future for Australian homelessness policy. This contemporary homelessness policy is diverse and it continues to unfold and evolve during implementation. Nevertheless, it is characterised by the explicit intention to move beyond the former crisis based system, and the espousal of achieving measurable outcomes of permanently ending homelessness (Australian Government 2008).

Synergies and goal conflicts for climate change policy and spatial planning

The purpose of this paper is to identify goal conflicts – both actual and potential – between climate and social policies in government strategies in response to the growing significance of climate change as a socioecological issue (IPCC 2007). Both social and climate policies are political responses to long-term societal trends related to capitalist development, industrialisation, and urbanisation (Koch, 2012). Both modify these processes through regulation, fiscal transfers and other measures, thereby affecting conditions for the other. This means that there are fields of tensions and synergies between social policy and climate change policy. Exploring these tensions and synergies is an increasingly important task for navigating genuinely sustainable development. Gough et al (2008) highlight three potential synergies between social and climate change policies: First, income redistribution – a traditional concern of social policy – can facilitate use of and enhance efficiency of carbon pricing. A second area of synergy is housing, transport, urban policies and community development, which all have potential to crucially contribute towards reducing carbon emissions. Finally, climate change mitigation will require substantial and rapid shifts in producer and consumer behaviour. Land use planning policy is a critical bridge between climate change and social policy that provides a means to explore the tensions and synergies that are evolving within this context. This paper will focus on spatial planning as an opportunity to develop strategies to adapt to climate change, and reviews the challenges of such change. Land use and spatial planning involve the allocation of land and the design and control of spatial patterns. Spatial planning is identified as being one of the most effective means of adapting settlements in response to climate change (Hurlimann and March, 2012). It provides the instrumental framework for adaptation (Meyer, et al., 2010) and operates as both a mechanism to achieve adaptation and a forum to negotiate priorities surrounding adaptation (Davoudi, et al., 2009). The acknowledged role of spatial planning in adaptation however has not translated into comparably significant consideration in planning literature (Davoudi, et al., 2009; Hurlimann and March, 2012). The discourse on adaptation specifically through spatial planning is described as ‘missing’ and ‘subordinate’ in national adaptation plans (Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012),‘underrepresented’ (Roggema, et al., 2012)and ‘limited and disparate’ in planning literature (Davoudi, et al., 2009). Hurlimann and March (2012) suggest this may be due to limited experiences of adaptation in developed nations while Roggema et al. (2012) and Crane and Landis (2010) suggest it is because climate change is a wicked problem involving an unfamiliar problem, various frames of understanding and uncertain solutions. The potential for goal conflicts within this policy forum seem to outweigh the synergies. Yet, spatial planning will be a critical policy tool in the future to both protect and adapt communities to climate change.

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.

Does the housing market respond to information disclosure? : Effects of toxicity indices in Japan

The policy instruments that provide information on a firm's or facility's environmental performance, such as the U.S. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register system (PRTRs) used in some European countries and Japan, play an important role in encouraging firms or facilities to improve their environmental performance, if investors, consumers and residents recognize their environmental performance. This study uses a hedonic approach to explore how the Japanese rental housing market responds to carcinogenic risk arising from releases and transfers of chemical substances produced and used at close facilities. We found that residents do not perceive carcinogenic risk generated more than 1.0 km away from their residence and that they seem to recognize the increased carcinogenic risk at distances from 0.5 km to 1.0 km away; a 1% increase in carcinogenic risk reduces the average rent by 0.0007%. The distance at which residents perceive the risk arising from such facilities is less than in previous studies. This suggests that the risk perception recognized in previous studies may capture the other externalities in addition to the chemical risk because the risk is measured by the distance.

Person-Centred Approaches to Private Housing for People with Disability : Impediments, Difficulties and Opportunities

Objective The main objective of the project was to explore the barriers and obstacles impeding a person-centred approach to planning and private housing for people with disability. Method Methodologically, the project involved explanation building using a multiple case study approach supported by a contextual study. It focussed initially on three organisations and their attempts to integrate innovative and what they regarded as person-centred models of housing into the private housing market for people with disability. It also included a fourth case highlighting the experiences of individuals with disability in accessing suitable and affordable housing. Results Using an ecological framework, the project found that: • Challenges exist within systems (such as the macro cultural, economic, regulatory systems through to local community, family and intra personal systems) as well as with interaction between systems • Reaching across systems is a key role for organisations and individuals but is very challenging with distance from the individual as well as from the policy/funding/service systems being a key aspect of the nature and extent by which they are challenged • In the case of housing for people with disability a ‘disability space’ is assumed and maintained disparately within each system and is separate from the ‘mainstream space’ with the established policy, legal, funding structures making it difficult to move between the two spaces. Conclusions Based on these findings, the project makes recommendations for government, community organisations, the housing industry, people with disability and their families and support networks, as well as for future research. An overarching recommendation is the need to address housing stock availability and suitability by adopting a mainstream approach rather than a disability-first/disability-specific approach.

Profiling the nature and context of the Australian prefabricated housing industry

The current state of the prefabricated housing market in Australia is systematically profiled, guided by a theoretical systems model. Particular focus is given to two original data collections. The first identifies manufacturers and builders using prefabrication innovations, and the second compares the context for prefabricated housing in Australia with that of key international jurisdictions. The results indicate a small but growing market for prefabricated housing in Australia, often building upon expertise developed through non-residential building applications. The international comparison highlighted the complexity of the interactions between macro policy decisions and historical influences and the uptake of prefabricated housing. The data suggest factors such as the small scale of the Australian market, and a lack of investment in research, development and training have not encouraged prefabrication. A lack of clear regulatory policy surrounding prefabricated housing is common both in Australia and internationally, with local effects in regards to home warranties and housing finance highlighted. Future research should target the continuing lack of consideration of prefabrication from within the housing construction industry, and build upon the research reported in this paper to further quantify the potential end user market and the continuing development of the industry.

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.