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.

Building a successful partnership to increase affordable rental housing supply in Queensland

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has been experiencing a severe decline since 2001. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite high demand for affordable housing, there has been limited supply generated by non-government housing providers. One possible solution to promote an increase in affordable housing supply, like other infrastructure, is through the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships and private financing. This research aims to identify current issues underlying decision-making criteria for building multi-stakeholder partnerships to deliver affordable housing projects. It also investigates strategies for minimising risk and ensuring the financial outcomes of these partnership arrangements. A mix of qualitative in-depth interviews and quantitative surveys has been used as the main method to explore stakeholder experiences regarding their involvement in partnership arrangements in the affordable housing sector in Queensland. Two sets of interviews were conducted following an exploratory pilot study: one set in 2003-2004 and the other in 2007-2008. There were nineteen respondents representing government, private and not-for-profit organisations in the first stage interviews and surveys. The second stage interviews were focussed on twenty-two housing providers in South East Queensland. Initial analyses have been conducted using thematic and statistical analyses. This study extends the use of existing decision making tools and combines the use of a Soft System Framework to analyse the ideal state questionnaires using qualitative thematic analysis. Soft System Methodology (SSM) has been used to analyse this unstructured complex problem by using systematic thinking to develop a conceptual model and carrying it to the real world situations to solve the problem. This research found that the diversity of stakeholder capability and their level of risk acceptance will allow partnerships to develop the best synergies and a degree of collaboration which achieves the required financial return within acceptable risk parameters. However, some of the negativity attached to future commitment to such partnerships has been found to be the anticipation of a worse outcome than that expected from independent action. Many interviewees agree that housing providers' fear of financial risk and community rejection has been central to dampening their enthusiasm for entering such investment projects. The creation of a mixed-use development structure will mitigate both risk and return as the commercial income will subsidise the affordable housing development and will normalise concentration of marginalised low-income people who live in a prime location with an award winning design. In addition, tenant support schemes and rent-to-buy incentive programs will encourage them to secure their tenancies and significantly reduce the risk of rent arrears and property damage. There is also a breakthrough investment vehicle offered by the social developer which sells the non-physical but financial product to individual and institutional investors to mitigate further financial risk. Finally, this study recommends modification of the current value-for-money framework in favour of broader partnership arrangements which are more closely aligned with risk minimisation strategies.

Developing sustainable housing through building utilities and transport innovation

Sustainability concerns every citizen. Housing affordability and sustainable solutions are being highlighted in research and practice in many parts of the world. This paper discusses the development of a Commuter Energy and Building Utilities System (CEBUS) in sustainable housing projects as a means of bridging the gap between current median house pricing and target affordable house pricing for low income earners. Similar scales of sustainable housing development cannot be achieved through independent application of current best practice methods in ecologically sustainable development strategies or transit oriented development master plans. This paper presents the initial stage of research on first capital and ongoing utilities and transport cost savings available from these sustainable design methods. It also outlines further research and development of a CEBUS Dynamic Simulation Model and Conceptual Framework for the Australian property development and construction industry.

Industrialized housing in China : a coin with two sides

China today is experiencing a time when housing is needed more than ever and one approach satisfying this need is by industrialization - a streamlined process aimed at generating profits and promoting energy efficiency in the housing sectors. Although large housing programs have been completed in China, few housing projects have been built in an industrialized manner. One contributing factor is that industrialization is not omnipotent and, just as a coin has two sides, not all the outcomes of industrialization are beneficial. In this paper, a preliminary assessment is made of these two sides - the benefits and hindrances of industrialized housing in China - by literature review and survey. Case studies are used to verify the questionnaire survey results and from which the advantages and disadvantages involved are compared. The findings indicate the need for formulating policies to encourage industrialized housing in China and for well-planned R&D themes to be implemented simultaneously with industry practices in the near future.

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.

Rebuilding housing after a disaster : factors for failure

Unlike most normal construction projects, post-disaster housing projects are diverse in nature, have unique socio-cultural and economical requirements, and are extremely dynamic and thus necessitate a meaningful and dynamic response. Post-disaster reconstruction practices that lack a strategy compatible with the severity of disaster, community culture, socio-economic requirements, environmental condition, government legislations, and technical and technological situations, often fail to operate and respond effectively to the needs of the wider affected population. Factors that frequently pose real threats to the eventual success of reconstruction projects are rarely given appropriate consideration when designing such projects. Research into past reconstruction practices has shown that ignoring these factors altogether or failing to give them meaningful consideration can affect housing reconstruction projects. In other words, they either miss their targets altogether or undergo serious modifications after their occupancy, subsequently resulting in an overall loss of project resources. This article touches upon the common factors that negatively impact the outcome of such projects.

UK planning controls and the market responsiveness of housing supply

There is growing international interest in the impact of regulatory controls on the supply of housing The UK has a particularly restrictive planning regime and a detailed and uncertain process of development control linked to it. This paper presents the findings of empirical research on the time taken to gain planning permission for selected recent major housing projects from a sample of local authorities in southern England. The scale of delay found was far greater than is indicated by average official data measuring the extent to which local authorities meet planning delay targets. Hedonic analysis indicated that there is considerable variation in time it takes local authorities to process planning applications, with the worst being four times slower than the best. Smaller builders and housing association developments are processed more quickly than those of large developers and small sites appear to be particularly time intensive. These results suggest that delays in development control may be a significant contributory factor to the low responsiveness of UK housing supply to upturns in market activity.

Housing supply and planning delay in the South of England

There is growing international interest in the impact of regulatory controls on the supply of housing The UK has a particularly restrictive planning regime and a detailed and uncertain process of development control linked to it. This paper presents the findings of empirical research on the time taken to gain planning permission for selected recent major housing projects from a sample of local authorities in southern England. The scale of delay found was far greater than is indicated by average official data measuring the extent to which local authorities meet planning delay targets. If these results are representative of the country as a whole, they indicate that planning delay could be a major cause of the slow responsiveness of British housing supply.

Planning delay and the responsiveness of English housing supply

There is growing international interest in the impact of regulatory controls on the supply of housing. Most research focuses on the supply impacts of prescribed limits on land use but housing supply may also be affected by the process of planning monitoring and approval but this is hard to measure in detail. The UK has a particularly restrictive planning regime and a detailed and uncertain process of development control linked to it, but does offer the opportunity of detailed site-based investigation of planning delay. This paper presents the findings of empirical research on the time taken to gain planning permission for selected recent major housing projects in southern England. The scale of delay found was far greater than is indicated by average official data measuring the extent to which local authorities meet planning delay targets. Hedonic modelling indicated that there is considerable variation in the time it takes local authorities to process planning applications. Housing association developments are processed more quickly than those of large developers and small sites appear to be particularly time-intensive. These results suggest that delays in development control may be a significant contributory factor to the low responsiveness of UK housing supply to upturns in market activity.

Elmwood Housing, Detroit, Michigan, 1964 (unbuilt project)

[Conceptual Sketch], untitled. Purple crayon sketch on tracing paper, 12x25 inches [from photographic copy by Lance Burgharrdt]

Elmwood Housing, Detroit, Michigan, 1964 (unbuilt project)

[Conceptual Sketches],untitled. Blue ink sketches on yellow loose-leaf paper, 8 1/2 x 11 inches [from photographic copy by Lance Burgharrdt]

Elmwood Housing, Detroit, Michigan, 1964 (unbuilt project)

[Conceptual Sketches], untitled. Blue ink sketches on yellow loose-leaf paper, 8 1/2 x 11 inches [from photographic copy by Lance Burgharrdt]

Elmwood Housing, Detroit, Michigan, 1964 (unbuilt project)

[Conceptual Sketches], untitled. Black ink sketches on yellow loose-leaf paper, 8 1/2 x 11 inches [from photographic copy by Lance Burgharrdt]