Wind-resistant low-rise buildings in the tropics

High-wind events such as storms and hurricanes cause severe damage to low-rise building (housing, schools, and industrial, commercial, and farm buildings). Roof claddings often suffer the worst, which then leads to accelerated damage to the whole building. Australia leads the way in solving this international problem through extensive research and development work, and has adequate documents in place. This paper first illustrates briefly the nature of high-wind events and then the commonly observed damage to buildings. Australian research work and design practice are then described, based on which suitable design recommendations for wind-resistant buildings are presented.

Food and Brisbane households : dietary, social and health consequences of food insecurity

Background & Aims: Access to sufficient amounts of safe and culturally-acceptable foods is a fundamental human right. Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Food insecurity therefore occurs when the availability or access to sufficient amounts of nutritionally-adequate, culturally-appropriate and safe foods, or, the ability to acquire such foods in socially-acceptable ways, is limited. Food insecurity may result in significant adverse effects for the individual and these outcomes may vary between adults and children. Among adults, food insecurity may be associated with overweight or obesity, poorer self-rated general health, depression, increased health-care utilisation and dietary intakes less consistent with national recommendations. Among children, food insecurity may result in poorer self or parent-reported general health, behavioural problems, lower levels of academic achievement and poor social outcomes. The majority of research investigating the potential correlates of food insecurity has been undertaken in the United States (US), where regular national screening for food insecurity is undertaken using a comprehensive multi-item measurement. In Australia, screening for food insecurity takes place on a three yearly basis via the use of a crude, single-item included in the National Health Survey (NHS). This measure has been shown to underestimate the prevalence of food insecurity by 5%. From 1995 – 2004, the prevalence of food insecurity among the Australian population remained stable at 5%. Due to the perceived low prevalence of this issue, screening for food insecurity was not undertaken in the most recent NHS. Furthermore, there are few Australian studies investigating the potential determinants of food insecurity and none investigating potential outcomes among adults and children. This study aimed to examine these issues by a) investigating the prevalence of food insecurity among households residing in disadvantaged urban areas and comparing prevalence rates estimated by the more comprehensive 18-item and 6-item United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Security Survey Module (FSSM) to those estimated by the current single-item measure used for surveillance in Australia and b) investigating the potential determinants and outcomes of food insecurity, Methods: A comprehensive literature review was undertaken to investigate the potential determinants and consequences of food insecurity among developed countries. This was followed by a cross-sectional study in which 1000 households from the most disadvantaged 5% of Brisbane areas were sampled and data collected via mail-based survey (final response rate = 53%, n = 505). Data were collected for food security status, sociodemographic characteristics (household income, education, age, gender, employment status, housing tenure and living arrangements), fruit and vegetable intakes, meat and take-away consumption, presence of depressive symptoms, presence of chronic disease and body mass index (BMI) among adults. Among children, data pertaining to BMI, parent-reported general health, days away from school and activities and behavioural problems were collected. Rasch analysis was used to investigate the psychometric properties of the 18-, 10- and 6-item adaptations of the USDA-FSSM, and McNemar's test was used to investigate the difference in the prevalence of food insecurity as measured by these three adaptations compared to the current single-item measure used in Australia. Chi square and logistic regression were used to investigate the differences in dietary and health outcomes among adults and health and behavioural outcomes among children. Results were adjusted for equivalised household income and, where necessary, for indigenous status, education and family type. Results: Overall, 25% of households in these urbanised-disadvantaged areas reported experiencing food insecurity; this increased to 34% when only households with children were analysed. The current reliance on a single-item measure to screen for food insecurity may underestimate the true burden among the Australian population, as this measure was shown to significantly underestimate the prevalence of food insecurity by five percentage points. Internationally, major potential determinants of food insecurity included poverty and indicators of poverty, such as low-income, unemployment and lower levels of education. Ethnicity, age, transportation and cooking and financial skills were also found to be potential determinants of food insecurity. Among Australian adults in disadvantaged urban areas, food insecurity was associated with a three-fold increase in experiencing poorer self-rated general health and a two-to-five-fold increase in the risk of depression. Furthermore, adults from food insecure households were twoto- three times more likely to have seen a general practitioner and/or been admitted to hospital within the previous six months, compared to their food secure counterparts. Weight status and intakes of fruits, vegetables and meat were not associated with food insecurity. Among Australian households with children, those in the lowest tertile were over 16 times more likely to experience food insecurity compared to those in the highest tertile for income. After adjustment for equivalised household income, children from food insecure households were three times more likely to have missed days away from school or other activities. Furthermore, children from food insecure households displayed a two-fold increase in atypical emotions and behavioural difficulties. Conclusions: Food insecurity is an important public health issue and may contribute to the burden on the health care system through its associations with depression and increased health care utilisation among adults and behavioural and emotional problems among children. Current efforts to monitor food insecurity in Australia do not occur frequently and use a tool that may underestimate the prevalence of food insecurity. Efforts should be made to improve the regularity of screening for food insecurity via the use of a more accurate screening measure. Most of the current strategies that aim to alleviate food insecurity do not sufficiently address the issue of insufficient financial resources for acquiring food; a factor which is an important determinant of food insecurity. Programs to address this issue should be developed in collaboration with groups at higher risk of developing food insecurity and should incorporate strategies to address the issue of low income as a barrier to food acquisition.

Saudi Arabia’s sustainable housing limitations : the experts’ views

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to attempt to bridge the gap between sustainable housing and the use of smart technologies to improve the level of sustainability in the housing construction in Saudi Arabia, by discussing the barriers and enablers concerned with applying sustainability to housing construction in Saudi Arabia, which utilises smart technologies. Design/methodology/approach A Delphi method survey was employed, for which 25 individuals from three key stakeholder groups of the Saudi housing sector participated. They were asked about their degree of agreement (or disagreement) about the various barriers and enablers of applying sustainability to housing construction in Saudi Arabia, which utilises smart technologies. This research paper must be considered as an indicative study of selected experts that do not represent in any way the total population of Saudi Arabia. Findings Lack of public awareness has been identified as the most significant barrier in implementing sustainable housing development in Saudi Arabia, which utilises smart technologies. Raising awareness of the public to the benefits of sustainable housing and enlightening key project stakeholders in the design of sustainable housing are both essential in order to overcome the barriers discussed in this paper. In addition, it is important to adopt smart sustainable construction methods, exemplified by but not limited to, appropriate water preservation and wastewater treatment systems that are simultaneously smart and sustainable. Research limitations/implications This particular research has dealt with only barriers and enablers in the application of sustainability to housing in Saudi Arabia, which utilises smart technologies. For a more complete understanding, there is a need for further analysis of supplementary factors. Practical implications A study such as this, which identifies and prioritises barriers and enablers, could prove useful in guiding or encouraging the relevant ministry in Saudi Arabia to develop policies founded in the implementation of sustainability to the housing sector. Originality/value This research is a preliminary investigation into the implementation of sustainable housing development as it relates to Saudi Arabia.

Does sustainable housing construction provide the home owner with a greater investment return?

Over the past 20 years there has been a considerable push at all three tiers of Government and private industry in Australia to improve the energy efficiency and sustainability levels of residential housing. A number of these initiatives have been voluntary, such as solar power and solar heating rebates, with other mandatory measures being incorporated into building standards and codes. Although the importance of energy efficiency and sustainable materials have been widely conveyed both at the academic and public level, it does not always reflect in the residential house purchase decision by typical house buyers, including residential property investors. This paper will analyse a range of housing markets in Brisbane to determine the investment performance of those markets over the past 3 years to determine any significant differences between new residential suburbs and older residential suburbs where houses have not been constructed to the current energy efficiency and sustainability guidelines. The range of suburbs to be analysed will focus on middle to lower high value suburbs, with a particular focus on residential housing in Master Planned Communities to determine if socio-economic factors and development size and scope have an impact of the purchase and investment performance of sustainable houses in comparison to older housing stock. The paper confirms that the residential property market shows a higher capital return for residential property built under stricter sustainability guidelines than similar located and type of property built prior to the BCA 2004 and older style project type homes erected prior to 2000.

Data requirements of hedonic models in determining the impact of infrastructure charges on new housing costs

The use of hedonic models to estimate the effects of various factors on house prices is well established. This paper examines a number of international hedonic house price models that seek to quantify the effect of infrastructure charges on new house prices. This work is an important factor in the housing affordability debate, with many governments in high growth areas having user-pays infrastructure charging policies operating in tandem with housing affordability objectives, with no empirical evidence on the impact of one on the other. This research finds there is little consistency between existing models and the data sets utilised. Specification appears dependent upon data availability rather than sound theoretical grounding. This may lead to a lack of external validity with model specification dependent upon data availability rather than sound theoretical grounding.

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.

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.

Strategies and solutions for housing sustainability : building information files and performance certificates

The overall aim of this research project was to provide a broader range of value propositions (beyond upfront traditional construction costs) that could transform both the demand side and supply side of the housing industry. The project involved gathering information about how building information is created, used and communicated and classifying building information, leading to the formation of an Information Flow Chart and Stakeholder Relationship Map. These were then tested via broad housing industry focus groups and surveys. The project revealed four key relationships that appear to operate in isolation to the whole housing sector and may have significant impact on the sustainability outcomes and life cycle costs of dwellings over their life cycle. It also found that although a lot of information about individual dwellings does already exist, this information is not coordinated or inventoried in any systematic manner and that national building information files of building passports would present value to a wide range of stakeholders.

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.

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.