Occupant comfort, the housing industry and electricity infrastructure : understanding the synergies

Despite increasingly stringent energy performance regulations for new homes, southeast Queensland has a high and growing penetration of, and reliance on, air conditioners to provide thermal comfort to housing inhabitants. This reliance impacts on electricity infrastructure investment which is the key driving force behind rising electricity prices. This paper reports initial findings of a research project that seeks to better understand three key issues: (i) how families manage their thermal comfort in summer and how well their homes limit overheating; (ii) the extent to which the homes have been constructed according to the building approval documentation; and (iii) the impact that these issues have on urban design, especially in relation to electricity infrastructure in urban developments.

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.

Field hearings : future of the housing industry and federal housing policy : hearings before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, first and second sessions, October 10, 1981, (San Antonio, Tex.) and January 7, 1982 (San Francisco, Calif.).

Item 1013-A, 1013-B (microfiche)

Impact of inflation and related government actions on the housing industry [microform] : hearing before the Select Committee on Small Business, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, second session, on impact of inflation and related government actions on the housing industry, March 26, 1980.

CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 81 S721-2

Sustainable housing implementation through mutual benefits to stakeholders : a decision making approach

Improved public awareness and strong sentiments towards environmental issues will continue to create increasing demand for sustainable housing (SH) in the coming years. Despite this potential, the up-take rate of sustainable housing in new build and through home renovation is not as high as expected within the housing industry. This is in contrast to the influx of emerging building technologies, new materials and innovative designs seen in exemplar homes built worldwide. How we should use the increasing awareness of SH and emerging technologies as an impetus to change the un-sustainable designs and practices of the building industry is high on the agenda of the government and majority of the stakeholders involved. This warrants the study of multifaceted strategies that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders and integrated seamlessly into housing development processes. Specifically, the different perceptions, roles and incentives of stakeholders, who inevitably need to ensure their benefits and commercial returns, should be highlighted and acted upon. ----- This paper discusses the preliminary findings of a research project that aims to promote SH implementation by identifying and materializing the mutual benefits among key stakeholders. The aim is to be achieved through questionnaire surveys, structural equation modelling, interviews and case studies with seven major stakeholders within the Australian housing industry. This research identifies the influence and relationship of relevant factors, investigates preferences, similarities and differences between stakeholders on perceived benefits and in turn explores the mutual-benefit strategy package that facilitates decision making towards sustainable housing development.

Included by design : a case for regulation for accessible housing in Australia

Accessible housing is a scarce yet much needed commodity in Australia. A national agreement between industry and advocacy groups to a voluntary approach, called the Livable Design program, aims to provide access features in all new housing by 2020. Through a range of awareness raising initiatives, the program is anticipating increased supply by builders and increased demand by home-buyers. However the people who need accessible housing are the least likely and least able to buy it at the point of new sale and average homebuyers do not consider access features as a priority. This approach has not been successful overseas or in Australia in the past. Regulation with incentives supported by education and awareness has provided the best results, yet, regulation typically comes with controversy and resistance from the housing industry. A study is planned to identify how effective the Livable Design program is likely to be, what is likely to hinder it and why regulation is likely to be needed.

Challenges facing sustainable housing in Saudi Arabia : a current study showing the level of public awareness

Sustainable housing implementation requires strong support from the public, government and the housing industry. Lack of public awareness and understanding of the language and the meaning of sustainable housing may cause lack of public support. Salama stated that "sustainability or sustainable design is simply a rephrasing of some of the forgotten values of traditional architecture and urbanism"(Salama 2007). This exploratory paper examines public awareness of sustainable housing in Saudi Arabia. In developing countries, like Saudi Arabia, which have been experiencing a rapid rate of urbanisation, sustainable concept intervention is essential due to the scarcity of resources (Reffat 2004a). Sustainable building methods include the full use of the site design, passive solar design, natural light and ventilation. This paper reports on an exploratory survey on understanding the potential of the implementation of sustainable housing in Saudi Arabia. The main problem is that more than half of respondents were not aware of sustainable housing. Thus, one of the recommendations from the survey is to educate the public by using local media to inform people of the benefits of sustainable implementation to both new and existing housing stock.

Livable housing design: Is it likely to work?

The need for accessible housing in Australia is acute. Both government and the community service sector recognise the importance of well designed accessible housing to optimise the integration of older people and people with disability, to encourage a prudent use of scarce health and community services and to enhance the liveability of our cities. In 2010, the housing industry, negotiated with the Australian Government and community representatives to adopt a nationally consistent voluntary code (Livable Housing Design) and a strategy to provide minimal level of accessibility in all new housing by 2020. Evidence from the implementation of such programs in the United Kingdom and USA, however, serves to question whether this aspirational goal can be achieved through voluntary codes. Minimal demand at the point of new sale, and problems in the production of housing to the required standards have raised questions regarding the application of program principles in the context of a voluntary code. In addressing the latter issue, this paper presents early findings from the analysis of qualitative interviews conducted with developers, builders and designers in various housing contexts. It identifies their “logics in use” in the production of housing in response to Livable Housing Design’s voluntary code and indicates factors that are likely to assist and impede the attainment of the 2020 aspirational goal.

The implementation of sustainable housing through mutual benefits to key stakeholders

Among the Australian general public, there are increasing concerns about environmental issues. Accordingly, sustainability in the housing industry is also becoming a priority on the development agenda. However, putting the principles of ecological sustainability into practice within social and economic development requires intensive involvement of major stakeholders such as governments, developers, builders, consumers and a range of other professionals. Establishing a sustainable value entails asymmetric life-cycle returns, making it important for major stakeholders to appreciate the benefits of this new agenda not only for the individual businesses but also for other supply chain partners. This context warrants the study to promote collective benefits for key stakeholders by establishing a mutual-benefit framework for sustainable housing implementation. A research was carried out in the hope to establish a mutual-benefit framework by investigating challenges of achieving benefits (CABs) from sustainable housing development in a multi-stakeholder context. In the research work reported in this article, a comparative questionnaire study was first conducted among seven stakeholder groups in the Australian housing industry, to examine the importance and inter-relationships of CABs. In-depth interviews then furthered the survey findings with a focus on stakeholder diversity. The synthesized findings of the survey and interview study lead to the identification of 12 critical mutual-benefit factors and their mutual influence. Based on such a platform, a systematic framework is developed with the aid of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), to identify the patterns of stakeholder benefit materialisation, suggest the priority of critical factors and provide related stakeholder-specific action guide for sustainable housing implementation.

Critical Factors of Promoting Market Demand of Sustainable Housing in Australia

Strong regulatory pressure on environmental issues and the improved public awareness will continue to influence the market demand for sustainable housing in the coming years. Despite this potential, the voluntary up-take rate of sustainable practices is not as high as expected within the new built housing industry. This is in contrast to the influx of emerging building technologies, new materials and innovative designs as seen in office buildings and exemplar homes built worldwide. One possible reason for this is that key stakeholders such as developers, builders and consumers do not fully understand and appreciate the tangible and mutual benefits of sustainability in their professional and business activities. This situation warrants the study of a multifaceted strategy that integrates the needs of multiple stakeholders. This research investigates multiple factors that affect key stakeholder’s benefits in sustainable housing implementation. Drawing insights from a quantitative study on a questionnaire survey and a qualitative study of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in the Australian housing industry, 11 critical factors of driving market demand for sustainable housing were unearthed. Their inter-relationships were identified with the aid of Interpretive Structural Modelling. The study concludes with a hierarchical model that amalgamates the strategies for the decision making of key stakeholders.

Inclusive housing in Australia – a voluntary response

The lack of inclusive housing in Australia contributes to the marginalization and exclusion of people with disability and older people from family and community life. The Australian government has handed over the responsibility of increasing the supply of inclusive housing to the housing industry through an agreed national access standard and a voluntary strategy. Voluntary strategies have not been successful in other constituencies and little is known about what would work in Australia today. Findings from a research project into the voluntariness of the housing industry indicate that a reliable and consistent supply is unlikely without an equivalent increase in demand. The strategy has, however, an important role to play in the task of changing housing industry practices towards building more inclusive communities.

A framework of promoting stakeholder mutual benefits for sustainable housing implementation

Strong regulatory pressure and rising public awareness on environmental issues will continue to influence the market demand for sustainable housing for years to come. Despite this potential, the voluntary uptake rate of sustainable practices is not as high as expected within the new built housing industry. This is in contrast to the influx of emerging building technologies, new materials and innovative designs as showcased in office buildings and exemplar homes worldwide. One of the possible reasons for this under-performance is that key stakeholders such as developers, builders and consumers do not fully understand and appreciate the related challenges, risks and opportunities of pursuing sustainability. Therefore, in their professional and business activities, they may not be able to see the tangible and mutual benefits that sustainable housing may bring. This research investigates the multiple challenges to achieving benefits (CABs) from sustainable housing development, and links these factors to the characteristics of key stakeholders in the housing supply chain. It begins with a comparative survey study among seven stakeholder groups in the Australian housing industry, in order to examine the importance and interrelationships of CABs. In-depth interviews then further explore the survey findings with a focus on stakeholder diversity, which leads to the identification of 12 critical mutual-benefit factors and their interrelationship. Based on such a platform, a mutual-benefit framework is developed with the aid of Interpretive Structure Modelling, to identify the patterns of stakeholder benefit materialisation, suggest the priority of critical factors and provide related stakeholder-specific action guidelines for sustainable housing implementation. The study concludes with a case study of two real-life housing projects to test the application of the mutual-benefit framework for improvement. This framework will lead to a shared value of sustainability among stakeholders and improved stakeholder collaboration, which in turn help to break the "circle of blame" for the current under-performance of sustainable housing implementation.

Getting in the door : the voluntary provision of accessible housing in Australia

This paper outlines the methodology used in a PhD qualitative research study on the agency of the housing industry in Australia in the provision of accessible housing. Previous studies have identified the need for an increased supply of accessible housing to optimise the inclusion and participation of all people, yet the demand for accessible housing by new home buyers is minimal and voluntary strategies to increase supply have typically failed. In 2010, housing industry leaders agreed to adopt a national voluntary access guideline for housing (Livable Housing Design) and a strategy to provide minimum access features in all new housing by 2020. This study explores the “escaped” phenomenon; how individual agents within the housing industry respond to such initiatives. As the paper is written mid-study it uses a preliminary theme in the findings, that is, minimal demand, to illustrate the methodology of the research.

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.

Livable Housing Design : Who will take responsibility?

Current housing design and construction practices do not meet the needs of many people with disability and older people, and limits their inclusion and participation in community and family life. In spite of a decade of advocacy for regulation of access within residential environments, the Australian government has opted for a voluntary approach where the housing industry takes responsibility. Housing industry leaders have indicated that they are willing to transform their established practice, if it makes good business to do so, and if there is a demand from home buyers. To date, there has been minimal demand. In 2010, housing industry and community leaders formalised this commitment in an agreement, called Livable Housing Design, to transform housing design and construction practices, with a target of all new housing providing minimal access by 2020. This paper reports on a study which examined the assumption behind Livable Housing Design agreement; that is, individuals in the housing industry will respond voluntarily and take responsibility for the provision of inclusive housing. From interviews with developers, designers and builders in Brisbane, Queensland, the study found a complex picture of competing demands and responsibilities. Instead of changing their design and construction practices voluntarily to meet the future needs of users over the life of housing, they are more likely to focus on their immediate contractual obligations and to maintain the status quo. Contrary to the view of the government and industry leaders, participants identified that an external regulatory framework would be required if Livable Housing Design’s 2020 goal was to be met.