Search results

In pursuit of affordable housing, the Sustainable Urban Development Act of 2021 contains regulations for community land trusts (CLTs) in Peru. This study aims to assess whether the CLT model can be an effective tool for low-income housing generation in the Peruvian context.

This study draws upon information collected from qualitative research and official statistical data to identify the main problems in the Peruvian housing sector. The authors gathered evidence from specialised literature to examine the benefits and drawbacks of CLT implementation and functionality as experienced in the USA, England and Canada in contrast to Puerto Rico and Brazil. To assess the potential effectiveness of the CLT model in Peru, the results from the examination of both groups of countries are analysed and contrasted with the evidence from the Peruvian experience.

Through micro-scale interventions in places with a consolidated sense of community, the CLT model can be an effective tool for affordable housing generation. However, no robust evidence suggests that the CLT model could be an effective tool for large-scale intervention in cities with disorganised and accelerated growth. Moreover, the level of housing affordability defined by the CLT model may be insufficient for people from the lowest-income percentiles.

Peruvian CLT adaptation will require a shift in individual property mind-sets. Furthermore, the model should be enhanced by governmental support through public subsidies and backed by mortgage loans and land grant programmes.

The aim of this study is to define land use policy sources of barriers to community-based housing options in practice.

The paper accentuated the need to tackle land use sources of barrier to Community Land Trust (CLT) performance, through text analysis of semi-structured interview responses from key stakeholders.

This study found out that there is a need to ameliorate stakeholder approach to community-based housing (CBH), which is hampered by restrictive land use sources of barriers that occur in an urban and rural context. These barriers were found to include both planning inadequacies and a systemic inefficient network of knowledge transfer practices between stakeholders. Recommendations include the need for drastic policy intervention through the political willingness to address Section 106 shortcomings in the choice of affordable housing supply models, and the inaccessibility of land below market rate in an endogenous prescriptive planning system.

This paper highlights the subjective limitations of the CLT model in regards to grey areas between setting boundaries to what is an acceptable level of concessions to CBH and the socio-economic impact or benefits of a completely deregulated social housing system. These boundaries do vary from system to system, hence the need for UK housing institutions to address identified inherent barrier sources and their reconciliation with international best practices. Therefore, greater roles can be accorded to the CLT model in the UK affordable housing dynamics based on its confirmed strengths and merits.

This paper adds to literature through the practical identification and interpretation of various key stakeholder perspectives on sources of CLT barriers and an idealised strategy to tackling them accordingly. This contributes to the housing affordability debate on the viability of CBH options, and how it could be invariably hampered by direct and indirect effects of planning and restrictive land use policies in practice.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the evolution in the provision of public services’ delivery, with a specific focus on housing policies. New practices are being implemented, thanks to the cooperation of the public sector, private, and nonprofit actors. Rather than just providing assistance to households with income levels falling below specific thresholds, social housing addresses the broader and more complex areas of vulnerability that affect several categories, such as single parents, young students and professionals, and temporarily unemployed people. Co-production also comes into the picture, since many social housing projects require that beneficiaries contribute to the implementation of the project itself, for example by managing the buildings and common areas or by creating communities.

The chapter will start from considerations on the emergence of new housing needs. It will then review the literature on the concept of co-production of public services and provide a definition of social housing. Then, examples of social housing will be analyzed based on specific criteria derived from the literature and the theoretical framework. The methodology is qualitative and based on descriptive case analysis.

The chapter analyzes the evolution of public housing policies by taking into account the social and economic changes that have determined greater and more complex areas for public intervention, adopting a twofold approach of partnership and collaboration between the three sectors, and of co-production of public services by directly engaging the users.

This paper aims to assess financial interoperability implications associated with first-time buyers (FTB) in housing development and the role of the community land trust shared equity housing model (CLT SEHM).

The interoperability optimisation process adopted by this study involved triangulated findings from the literature, semi-structured interviews and questionnaire surveys. The text analysis of interview responses was actualised with Nvivo 9.0. This process informed the validation of themes through a questionnaire survey (purposive sampling), of which findings were subsequently analysed with statistical methods including binary logistic regression to validate interoperability rational and implications.

The study identified positive financial interoperability outcomes for a successful synergy between the CLT SEHM and FTBs. From the analysis, there were sustainable results for average income multiple and property transfer/resale value for the CLT SEHM compared to conventional models. However, for the most at risk FTB groups, recommendations included increased concessions for CLT SEHM developments to incentivise bespoke rent purchase hybrid schemes.

This research provided a good starting point for achieving an improved level of efficiency necessary for the introduction of emerging/renewed alternative housing models into mainstream operational capabilities in housing and local development policies.

This paper aims to explore the case for the radical reform of land policy worldwide. It does so, however, in the context of present problems posed by the prevailing coronavirus pandemic. It is a strategic study, not a scientific analysis and is oriented towards the field of the built environment in general and the real estate industry in particular.

Although it draws on concepts of land management long extolled and covers concerns currently circulating about the prospects for urban planning and property development post-pandemic, the synthesis is original.

The concluding counsel is that land policy reform, being a component factor of so much of society's endeavours, should figure far more prominently across the political platforms of the world.

Most of the material regarding the “Great Land Question” is based on findings from countless strategic foresight studies conducted by the author over the past 25 years and re-assessed in light of the pandemic. If correct, the practical implications will be significant.

This is a review of existing models.

The aim of this paper is to assess the current potential of community entrepreneurship in neighbourhood revitalisation in the US and the UK. The global economic crisis has had a major impact on government spending for urban regeneration. In the context of these austerity regimes, in many European countries, community entrepreneurship and active citizenship are increasingly considered as a means to continue small-scale urban revitalisation. This paper investigates recent literature on both British community enterprises (CEs) and American community development corporations (CDCs).

Starting from a seminal article, this paper reviews literature focusing on the role of CEs and CDCs in neighbourhood revitalisation. Differences and similarities are analysed, taking into account national context differences.

While CDCs have a relatively successful record in affordable housing production in distressed areas, CDCs are fundamentally limited in terms of reversing processes of community decline. CEs in the UK have focused on non-housing issues.

This paper asks the question what CEs can learn from CDCs in terms of scope, aims, strategies, accountability, assets and partnerships with public and private actors. However, a systematic literature review has not been conducted.

This comparison reveals not only similarities but also differences with regard to aims, organisational characteristics, cooperation on multiple scales and community participation. Apart from lessons that can be learned, this paper provides recommendations for further research that should cover the lack of empirical evidence in this field.

Post-pandemic renewal has to be much more radical. In this chapter we develop a considered response to reimagining the public sector with a focus on Liverpool City Region, its local economy and local government. By drawing on wider ideas of new municipalism, new narratives of how to make local economies more social through public investment, accountability and democratic governance can be made. The local scale offers the frame through which this can be examined as we make the case for new municipalism in the Liverpool City Region.

As scholar-activists we have been involved in responding to the continuous austerity imposed on local government. We research and debate the social and economic problems faced in the Liverpool City Region and present some of our findings here. In our work, through an organisation known as ‘Beacon’ – a grass roots movement agitating for new municipalism – we make the case for new policy initiatives and seek to demonstrate a need for a different type of public sector reform through local government.

In the context of the ‘levelling up’ agenda of the UK government, there remains concern across the city region about how local government can function given the ongoing austerity imposed from the centre. We have a public sector that has faced disinvestment in communities for over a decade and because of this, we reimagine public sector renewal by advocating for a new municipalism based on strategies of economic and political innovation that can lead to greater levels of democracy, accountability, wealth creation and distribution. We show examples outside of the UK, such as in the US and Spain, where embryonic forms of new municipalism are evident.

Our work sets out a roadmap to achieve a new municipalist agenda in the Liverpool City Region through an activist movement, Beacon. We bring together ideas and practices that are often underway elsewhere that have real political and economic impacts. In articulating the need for renewal, not only must we critically reflect on underpinning problems but seek to campaign for the change we advocate. The challenge we face is one of coordination and scale.

This paper aims to investigate the potential of the “image-idea” of a “circular economy” for re-thinking property in law: In particular, to develop a strategy for making visible “alternative property practices” of community ownership across the subject areas of business and property law, to enhance the visibility of models of community ownership and interrogate their potential.

Case study research was undertaken into three public houses to investigate the ways in which the orthodoxies of property and ownership in the academy are challenged by evidence of “alternative property practices” in the community.

Using this approach renders visible tensions between the logics of economic value and social asset, carried in processes of abstraction and materiality, and mediated within the field of property by the development of techniques for holding property as title and benefit. It reveals the ways in which “property” as idea, practice and technique is used by people seeking to disrupt or defend against the economic logic of profit and investment. It raises questions concerning how property and law is imaged in the academy and it introduces one way of using an image-idea to open new perspectives and potential.

These implications emerge: the partiality of orthodox accounts of property; the importance of thinking property in terms of life-cycle and logics ecologies, field and techniques; how an model-theory derived from one discipline can be repurposed, in a second life, in an other discipline as an “image-idea” to refresh the host discipline; the significance of investigating “community assets” within and for property law and the need for more research into “alternative property practices” and the importance of case studies.

An enhanced knowledge of the development and potential of “community assets” within the academy, and of the potential to promote and support “alternative property practices” with the requisite legal skills and techniques – alongside a consideration of the limits of formal law in terms of policy expectations.

The research is of value to community activists in thinking how law can be used to support community development in terms of holding community assets; and the limitations of formal law which then requires an embedded approach considering how the development of practices and narratives can support community initiatives in relation to property held for community benefit.

There has been very little coverage of “community assets” within legal research, especially moving across business and property as subject areas, and no coverage on public houses taken into community ownership. This paper combines an introduction to the relevant legal forms with a consideration of the use of them in practice: considering, in particular, how practices and narratives deployed by and within the community think and present “property” as a means by which to counter the economic logic of profit. All this is made possible through the use of case-studies made visible by the utilization of the image-idea of the circular economy – used here not as a model-theory, but rather as an aid to opening thinking into new territories accessed through new perspectives.

This paper gives an account of the development and pioneering management practices of a community‐owned and managed agency, Walterton and Elgin Community Homes (WECH), locating these in the context of continuing concerns and emerging aspirations over the role of social housing, with developing UK national policy and a proposed statutory “Right to Transfer” for tenants.

This report provides a narrative of the recent development of social housing policy development and the evolving practice of WECH. This is the essential historical and social policy background to a recent study into the health and well‐being benefits of empowerment through community ownership of social housing. This first paper refers to and discusses the wider implications of the data collected during the well‐being research and literature review, indicating that the population of the WECH estates experience a sense of belonging, and of being involved, which contrasts markedly with statistics for comparable populations in comparable areas of deprivation. Further analysis of the key findings of the original study will be published in Part two.

The benefits of more community‐owned services include the more efficient and holistic management of properties. Community‐based, resident‐controlled housing associations offer a secure foundation for building in additional services as part of the continued drive to devolve public services to the local level, including hosting of a substantial range of community services, for example the reintegration of the Police into the community. The principle of community ownership of council estates is also valuable in its own right for informing the direction of housing management and policy and where to target effort. The experience and practice of WECH supports the proposition that community ownership of social housing may be an exceptionally effective means for improving and sustaining wellbeing in poor neighbourhoods.

This paper argues that Government policy should actively support mass mutualisation as a means for improving wellbeing on council/social housing estates and for empowering poorer communities to take greater responsibility for their welfare. Regardless of the extent of mutualisation, many of the practices involved are transferable to non‐mutual social landlords, and may be seen as markers of good practice for agencies intending to taken on social housing via transfer.

There is continued interest in the transfer of social housing stock to new provider agencies. WECH has been the only large‐scale statutory transfer until now of council housing in England and Wales to a mutual, community‐owned housing association. WECH's experience is especially relevant for evidencing the significant advantages governments could obtain through encouraging many more transfers of council estates to community housing associations.