Search

People living in short-term rental housing, henceforth temporary housing, are rarely consulted by professionals involved in the design process, whether regarding new or refurbished buildings. Knowing what is required for temporary dwellers to feel at home and how their meanings of home relate to household characteristics, activities, and indoor environmental quality, might result in better designs for these commonly small dwellings. To explore the views of temporary occupants about their home environment, we designed and conducted a survey directed to young people in the Netherlands, likely to be familiar with living in temporary accommodation (141 university students, 58 refugees who have received a permit to stay; henceforth named permit holders), 23 persons who were working 4 days and studying 1 day; henceforth named starters). Through factor analysis, six meanings of home were found to be statistically significant: Representation, privacy, sociability, rootedness, future, and appropriation. Multiple regression analyses and analyses of variance indicated that meanings of home were related to some household characteristics and the presence of light and cleanliness. Our study showed that measuring meanings of home might help understand not only how dwellings are used but also how to improve the design of small temporary dwellings. For instance, more possibilities for good or natural light, storage, and the display of personal possessions should be incorporated into the design of these small dwellings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, Public Rental Housing (PRH) has become the program of providing affordable rental housing to low- and middle-income households in China. Even though descriptions of the governance results are numerous, the previous studies are not underpinned by a theoretical foundation from a governance perspective, nor have they empirically examined whether PRH governance works on the ground. This explorative and empirical paper aims to fill this gap of an outcome-oriented evaluation of the impacts of governance as perceived by the final user. Central government formulated the objective for PRH governance as maintaining stability in the society. Whether the tenants perceive the goal of social stability as achieved was measured along three governance outcome dimensions: satisfaction with housing quality, satisfaction with housing quantity, and willingness to communicate with the government about PRH governance. Data were collected from questionnaires to PRH-tenants in Chongqing, the most important pilot city of PRH provision in China. The findings show that the perceived governance outcomes were quite mixed as tenants were moderately satisfied with PRH housing quantity, but less satisfied with housing quality, and thought they could relatively easily communicate with local government. In view of these mixed outcomes, to strengthen the effectiveness of PRH governance in the eyes of the tenants, this study suggests local governments: (1) to rethink and redevelop the performance evaluation; (2) to rethink the relations with non-governmental actors and organise a monitoring system that will assist in optimizing housing quality; and (3) to facilitate tenants' communication with local government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, government intervention in welfare states has witnessed a shift from 'government' to 'governance': policy making shifted from hierarchical government steering to mixed forms involving government, market and civic actors. Such terminology has also entered Chinese policy language on public rental housing (PRH) provision. To unravel the perceived power distribution in the relationships between the involved actors, this article draws from in-depth interviews in two Chinese cities: Chongqing and Fuzhou. The article thereby contributes new insights to the perceived power relations in Chinese PRH provision on the ground. It also develops an analytical framework based on Billis by complementing it with Social Network Analysis to measure the power relations. Such a framework will allow the comparison of different governance systems across time and different jurisdictions within and beyond China. This study shows the structures and mechanisms for non-governmental actors to play a role, which they do not have in the 'government' period, in the governance of PRH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution is a reflection on the critical analysis of Mark Stephens of the theoretical work on housing systems by Jim Kemeny. It concludes that the analysis of Stephens is a great incentive to continue the debate on housing and welfare started by Kemeny. The core of the review is that Stephens focusses on the so-called maturation of social rental housing as a replacement of government subsidies: can non-profit housing compete with commercial housing under smart conditions for social sustainability? Stephens is right that this maturation thesis does not hold and he provides convincing evidence for this. However, Stephens contribution neglects an important part of Kemeny's work: the link between housing and more in particular the role of home ownership in welfare states. Here is work to be done! This contribution concludes with emphasizing the link between housing and welfare systems and its underlying ideologies. Rules of the games such as laws for social rental housing are important, but even more important than laws are day to day beliefs among citizens and professionals of what is right and wrong in housing practice. In other words it needs further research to explore the role of housing in practice of populism and COVID19. How do underlying housing ideologies play a role in current practice and how do and can they change policies and practices in housing in different continents? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both Sweden and the Netherlands had housing systems that include broad models of municipal housing (Sweden) or social housing (Netherlands). These broad models, however, came under discussion due to the competition policy of the European Commission. Financial government support – state aid – for public or social housing is considered to create false competition with commercial landlords. The countries chose different ways out of this problem. The Netherlands choose to direct state aid to a specified target group and had to introduce income limits for dwellings owned by housing associations. Sweden instead chose to change the law regulating municipal housing companies and demands that these companies should act in a businesslike way' and with that aims to create a level playing field. This paper will describe why the two countries chose different options, the development during the first years, and also speculate about the consequences on the longer run and the future role of the public/social housing sector in housing and urban policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an attempt to promote efficiency and consumer choice, many governments in Europe have in recent years required social housing organisations to be more market-orientated and competitive. Competition, however, is being discussed and implemented without any detailed examination of what is meant by the term 'competition' outside a conventional 'market', as is the case in social housing. It is not clear what exactly is meant by competition and this paper therefore focuses on the question of how competition can be operationalised and how it can be measured in practice. This paper concentrates on social housing in England and the Netherlands: two countries where competition in social housing is an issue. These two countries also have different social housing models. For both countries, we build on an evaluative framework based on the economic concepts of rivalry, risk and choice and then analyse the data to establish whether competition can be measured in a convincing way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urban renewal in the Netherlands has become a matter of ‘networking’. Housing associations, Dutch social landlords, became financially independent in the 1990s and have a responsibility in urban renewal. It is a joint responsibility in which local authority, social landlord and tenants are dependent on each other. This situation is rather new and needs some getting used to, as the two case studies show. The paper concludes that taking account of the complexity of networks could improve the chances of gaining support for problem definitions and solutions. This would result in agreement about goals and win–win package deals for actors, and ultimately in ‘more’ progress in urban renewal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social rental housing has once again captured a strong position on the Dutch political agenda. This has happened especially since the European Commission sent a letter to the Dutch government indicating that the Dutch social rental sector was not considered EU-proof from the viewpoint of the European Union's competition policy. The letter coincided with criticisms from Dutch politicians that housing associations had not been performing well enough for some time, given their abundant resources. However, in an international context, the Dutch social rental sector is often regarded as a good system for providing affordable housing to those who need it, without the sector being marginalized and stigmatized. Jim Kemeny has classified this market as one in which the social rental sector in due course competes with the private rental sector on equal or almost equal terms as a unitary rental market. The starting point of this paper is whether the achievement of a unitary rental sector is threatened by the EU's competition policy. It will also discuss two other possible threats to the future of the Dutch unitary rental market: the threat to take surplus capital away from housing associations and have government decide on what to invest; and the attractiveness of home-ownership to households. We conclude that the character of the Dutch unitary rental sector is indeed under threat, although mostly by stealth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2018, the average number of occupants per dwelling is steadily decreasing, creating a demand for small, affordable housing. According to European Union energy targets, new small homes should be energy efficient. However, data clearly shows that energy efficient homes are mostly unaffordable and there is an urgent need to design and build small affordable zero energy homes. However, a sustainable business model for small affordable zero energy homes has not yet been developed in European countries. The Housing 4.0 Energy project explores the development of affordable zero energy homes in three countries: the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland. This study explores the business models and potential for scaling up the five schemes (Ireland operates three schemes in different counties). The results of this study may be useful to practitioners, policy makers, and small families facing the problem of affordable zero energy homes. The Dutch scheme targets a market of self-builders of low-middle income households. In the Flemish scheme, non-profit social rental agencies provide the houses for low-income groups. In Ireland, local authorities provide social housing for applicants on waiting lists. The Business Model Canvas (BMC) is used to analyse the business models for affordable zero energy homes in these countries. Data is collected mainly through interviews and focus group meetings with experts. The results show that all schemes create environmental, social and economic sustainability values for low/low-middle income households by providing energy efficient, comfortable and affordable homes. Several barriers to the upscaling of these homes were identified, such as cultural barriers in design, building materials, as well as legal and technical barriers. The technical barriers can be addressed in a relatively short time, but overcoming cultural and behavioural barriers might be more difficult. Engaging government, market participants, and providers can accelerate the development of these schemes. Examples of different schemes and the courses developed during the project can be used to disseminate the results of the business models of these schemes. Finally, the business models of the schemes can be modified and adopted for the development of affordable zero energy homes in other countries. • It investigates the innovative business models of affordable zero energy houses for five schemes. • It examines the upscaling potentials of the innovative business models in three different countries. • The business model Canvas is used to describe the business models of five schemes. • The proposed sustainability values including the economic, social and environmental values are evaluated for five schemes. • The institutional and building process barriers of upscaling five schemes are explored in three different countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, housing is increasingly unaffordable for young people, many of whom rely on intergenerational transfers of assets to enter home ownership. This paper aims to qualitatively analyze the impacts of the welfare state and family reciprocity on young people's opportunity to access home ownership. Evidence from in-depth interviews with parents and young adults from Chongqing, Southwest China, shows that intergenerational transfers play an indispensable role in young people's opportunity to access home ownership. Such transfers are mainly motivated by the expectation of generalized reciprocity for old age care. The welfare state plays a role by lessening the pressure of unwanted reciprocity. Families with a local urban background, who tend to have more access to public welfare due to China's dualist welfare system, are less eager to invest in intergenerational transfers or expect less reciprocity if they are transferred. We argue that policies that encourage homeownership and that restrict social rental housing will put pressures on families and could potentially offset the policy intentions to improve the fertility rate and labor force participation. • Reciprocity motivates intergenerational transfers over children's home. • Rural parents eager to help in children's home purchase, but barely able • Urban parents provide transfers as a favor. • Limited welfare state and housing tenure bias encourages intergenerational transfers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]