In my previous post I summarised AHURI’s set of interlinked research on circularity in housing. They found that there is a long way to go before we embed circularity into our housing systems, with a range of policies, standards, systems and processes that can be added as we work towards this.
One of the pieces of the puzzle that is worth a bit further consideration is the question of how to improve sustainability in social housing through the refit process. This question is of crucial importance so social housing, since like the rest of the housing market the new housing we produce is dwarfed by the volume of existing housing, most of which performs quite poorly on energy efficiency and sustainability.
The AHURI team examined this issue from two perspectives. First, they surveyed over 1,000 low income households, including about 130 social housing tenants, using what they refer to as a ‘discrete choice experiment’ to see what they thought about various options for sustainability improvements. They then discussed these results with a group of social housing provider stakeholders.
What the tenants said
The tenants were offered three sets of choices with three options in each, as shown in the diagram.
The results were as follows:
On energy affordability, solar panels were the most popular, with a replacement appliance a close second and servicing of all major appliances a distant third.
On quality and condition, new paint and carpet and a deep clean were neck and neck, with two hours of trade time a distant third.
On energy efficiency, ceiling insulation was preferred ahead of blinds or shading, with draught sealing clearly third.
What the researchers found interesting about this is that these choices don’t match the evidence on what are the most cost-effective ways to provide improvements. For instance, draft sealing is a very low-cost way to improve energy efficiency but was rated low by tenants, while the biggest ‘bang for buck’ on energy costs comes from making sure appliances are in the best possible repair.
I think this is interesting, but not really surprising. There’s a good deal of technical nerdery required to know what is the most cost-effective response. If you don’t know this, you are likely to go for something you can see, and when you are on a low income you are especially likely to leap at the chance to get something new. I also observe that with the exception of the deep clean, they have gone for things they are least likely to be able to do for themselves or get a friend to help with at mates’ rates.
What the providers said
In a sense, the feedback on this from providers was quite predictable. The researchers highlight a number of things coming out of this discussion.
Social housing providers are juggling a number of competing objectives, with limited income to meet them. They are required to maintain ageing housing stock while remaining financially viable with limited income. In this context, sustainability and reduced tenant energy costs can be seen as a ‘nice to have’ rather than an essential.
When they do get to do sustainability upgrades, the funding is often tied to particular types of projects (for instance, rooftop solar) rather than being available to do whatever is most cost-effective in any particular situation.
Just as providers face conflicting priorities, there are differences between stakeholders. Providers re focused on asset maintenance and financial sustainability, funders tend to have explicit environmental sustainability goals they are trying to meet, while tenants are mainly interested in the liveability of their homes.
What this points to is the absence of a clear policy framework. As with the wider circular economy issues, the sustainability of social housing is not anyone’s central policy concern and, aside from compulsory energy ratings for new construction, there is neither a clear policy intent around sustainability nor a financial framework for achieving it. The research ends up focusing on mandatory minimum standards but this remains a piece of work that hasn’t even got to the starting blocks. What would these standards be? How would they be enforced? Who would pay? We are barely at square one.
Some thoughts
It seems to me that it’s characteristic of professionals in any field to over-estimate how much other people understand their work. Naturally, the researchers understand what makes housing sustainable and energy efficient and so, to a great degree, do social housing asset managers although we shouldn’t take this for granted. On the other hand, if you ask and random group of people, whether they are low-income tenants or high-income home owners, what makes for sustainability and energy efficiency in their homes you might be surprised how little they know. Naturally if home owners have a bit of money to spend on upgrading their home they might take the time to find out, but tenants wouldn’t really be able to do much with this knowledge even if they had it.
This brings me to something that has long bugged me about the way social housing has developed in Australia. When I first started working in the sector back in the 1980s there was a lot of focus on tenant participation and even tenant control. Housing cooperatives were among the first community housing organisations to spring up around Australia, and other community housing organisations would often have tenants on their board. Even public housing authorities sponsored extensive tenant input into their operations.
Over time, this focus has dropped away. Housing cooperatives are now marginal to a sector dominated by large providers, and public housing authorities have increasingly distanced themselves from their tenants as supply limitations have forced them to focus on gatekeeping and homelessness responses. Tenants largely now find themselves on the outside of housing policy and housing management discussions. This research, excellent in many ways, is a good illustration. Tenants were asked their views through a structured survey, while providers and their representatives sat in the room with the researchers and shared their experiences. What would the researchers have found if these positions had been reversed, or if at least they had also sat down and discussed the findings with a group of tenants?
We will never know the answer to this question, so instead some observations. Environmental sustainability is not simply a ‘nice to have’ in a world that is crossing multiple ecological boundaries. It is something that should be central to everything that we do. It also has direct benefits to tenants in the form of more liveable homes and lower power bills. However, we would be crazy to just expect tenants to fall in line with our plans. They have their own needs and priorities. Living, as many do, in ageing homes which their landlords re struggling to maintain, they often have a long shopping list of improvements waiting for anyone who asks. Let’s make them our partners in this work, not merely its recipients.
Resources
Baker, E., Moore, T., Daniel, L., Caines, R., Padilla, H. and Lester, L. (2023) Sustainable social housing retrofit? Circular economy and tenant trade-offs, AHURI Final Report No. 397, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited, Melbourne. Download here.
Commenti