Search results

As a result of changes in housing policy in the 1980s and 1990s, social landlords in several European countries have to manage their stock in a more commercial way. They have to anticipate market developments and formulate a strategy for the development of their stock. This kind of asset management is referred to as “strategic housing management”. Being mainly a practitioners' business, and mostly of recent date, strategic housing management lacks a sound theoretical basis. Publications of “good” practice are scarce. This paper sets up a framework for strategic housing management of social landlords. The main question addressed is: “How can social landlords develop their asset management schemes in a strategic way?” From the theory on business planning and housing management, the paper defines strategic stock management and its characteristics. The paper uses Kotler's general model for strategic business planning and illustrates how this model can be applied to social landlords with various examples from The Netherlands and approaches from front‐runners among Dutch social landlords.

The chapter aims to analyze an innovative intervention in the context of public housing in Italy. Over the past decade, in Italy, neighborhoods with a high concentration of public housing have increasingly become spaces of exclusion, where conflicts are rife, due to a multiplicity of factors (e.g., immigration, social deprivation, ageing, health problems). In particular, because of the global economic crisis and the impoverishment of Italian families, competition and quarrels between lower middle-class natives and migrants have been exacerbated, undermining the recent fragile pattern of social cohesion. However, housing and urban policies are still residual, especially in the political agenda of mid-sized towns, which witness an ungoverned urban growth not always accompanied by a concurrent complete recognition of citizenship. Moreover, policies tackling rising social tension to reduce or prevent it are lacking. Nonetheless, at a local level, some more dynamic municipalities are starting to promote original initiatives also thanks to the sharing of the best national and international practices. In particular we wish to focus on the social mediation processes implemented to prevent conflict and promote sustainable cohabitation, improving relationships between neighbors and fostering empowerment and participation. In this perspective, the chapter explores a two-year project of social mediation for households living in public housing which has been developed in the Marche region.

Based on a case study of the Logan Renewal Initiative (LRI) in Queensland Australia, this chapter examines the competing aims bound up in programmes of urban renewal and the way different stakeholder groups advocate for one component of the programme while seeking to prevent another.

A qualitative case study approach is used based on interview and documentary material to elicit the competing views and opinions of local residents, state and local governments, housing providers and other stakeholders around a renewal programme.

It is found that there are two competing agendas bound up within the LRI, with gentrification at the heart of each. One focuses on the virtues of the social housing reform agenda, but sees gentrification as an unintended and undesirable outcome that needs to be carefully managed. The other is a place-improvement ambition that sees gentrification as an effective policy mechanism, but one that will be undermined by any increases in the stock of social and affordable housing.

The chapter emphasizes that programmes of renewal are rarely coherent policy tools, but are subject to change, contestation and negotiation as stakeholders compete to impose their own desired outcomes. In the case of the LRI, both outcomes will likely result in the marginalization of low-income groups unless their needs are placed at the forefront of its design.

The chapter engages critically with the widely held view that urban renewal is a means of gentrifying local neighbourhoods by showing how local conditions and circumstances render the relationship between renewal and gentrification far more complex that generally conceived.

This paper aims to assess the overall social housing development, point out factors affecting it and propose some policy implications for social housing development.

The research investigated investors, credit institutions and officials involved in social housing development. Bac Ninh province currently has 51 social housing projects that have been and are being implemented. The hypothetical regression model has seven latent variables and is tested by the criteria through the SPSS25.0 software.

There are 29 factors belonging to seven groups affecting housing development. Their impact rates range from 3.47% to 30.25%.

The study has only identified the factors affecting social housing development but has not undertaken an in-depth assessment of its development status and forecast for the future. Therefore, this gap needs to be further studied. The proposed research method could also be applied when researching social housing developments in other countries around the world.

To develop social housing to meet the needs of the real estate market, it is necessary to improve the policies that have the strongest impact first. Then, it is necessary to improve the factors with a smaller impact.

The study proposes policy implications for faster housing development for low-income people that improve their living standards.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the paper has studied for the first time social housing development and the factors affecting it. The paper also shows the level of their impact so that priority policies can be applied to each factor.

This study applied Salama's (2006, 2007) framework for affordable housing research and compared house and neighborhood satisfaction and future house aspirations of low income residents' who are dwelling in two different types of affordable houses; social houses and gecekondus in Izmir, Turkey. The study applied survey technique and 54 residents (27 in social housing area and 27 in gecekondu area) were interviewed. The results showed that residents' family characteristics were different on some issues (education, employment, household size) and similar on others (homeownership, income, duration of residence, and life style). Physical conditions were poor in both areas, but were far worse in gecekondus. Residents' evaluations of the current house and the neighborhood confirmed this argument. Despite such differences in physical conditions, when residents' general satisfaction with the house and the neighborhood was compared, residents of the two areas gave similar positive responses. In fact, majority of both residents reported that the house and the neighborhood had a positive effect on their life. Moreover, both residents' aspirations for future house were similar and limited in two areas. The applied value of these results and areas for future research are discussed.

The study was designed to assess the attitudes, strategic readiness and drivers and barriers to the adoption of sustainable retrofit within the UK social housing sector.

The study was undertaken using a structured questionnaire that was completed by 130 providers of social housing.

The study showed that social housing providers were aware of the sustainable retrofit agenda, but with varying levels of strategic readiness. Immediate benefits to residents were seen as important drivers, as opposed to more remote issues such as climate change. The emerging nature of the sustainable retrofit market was seen as a major potential risk for residents.

The study represents a snap-shot of adoption and effectiveness issues, therefore does not show the trajectory of adoption which should be addressed in a follow-up study.

The social housing sector has been viewed as a market maker for the sustainable retrofit market. The study shows the attitudes of the sector to this role.

The study has implications for the understanding social housing providers’ engagement with the sustainable retrofit market to address fuel poverty and climate change. Social housing's role as market maker has implications for policies such as Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation.

The study covers approximately 20 per cent of the social housing stock under management and gives a robust perspective of current views on adoption and effectiveness of retrofit technologies within the social housing sector. This is useful for both other social housing providers and policy makers.

Addressing the housing needs of the displaced communities is an essential part of a recovery programme that has distinct links to livelihoods, health, education, security and social and family stability. The housing factor acts as a social centre for family and friends, a source of pride and cultural identity and a resource that commands both political and economic importance. Therefore, addressing the housing needs of the displaced communities should be seen as a mode to promote resilience and sustainable communities. Instead, the consideration of housing needs merely as a physical need results in many issues to the communities, including no access to livelihood, poor living condition, health problems, lack of financial independence, lack of social satisfaction and social cohesion, and sometimes even recreates and worsens the existing vulnerabilities of displaced communities. Within this context, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the factors to consider when addressing the housing needs of the displaced communities, promoting resilience and sustainable communities.

The research team of the project titled REbuildinG AfteR Displacement (REGARD) conducted 47 in-depth interviews in four partner countries (the UK, Sweden, Estonia and Sri Lanka) with officials, community representatives, social support networks, agency networks, etc. Apart from that, focus group discussions were conducted with the community members in Sri Lanka covering both conflict-induced and disaster-induced displacement.

The findings of this paper revealed that the housing factor has a significant role in rebuilding communities and determining the long-term satisfaction of displaced communities. Further, the results present eight essential factors to consider when addressing the housing needs of the displaced communities, promoting resilient and sustainable communities.

The findings are helpful for future planners, urban designers, architects and policymakers who work in the resettlement field. Planners, urban designers and architects can use these identified factors to cross-check their resettlement planning and designing strategies in addressing the housing needs of the displaced communities. Further, policymakers can mainstream these identified factors into the resettlement housing-related policies and regulations.

Addressing the housing needs of the displaced communities is an essential part of a recovery programme that has distinct links to livelihoods, health, education, security and social and family stability. The housing factor acts as a social centre for family and friends, a source of pride and cultural identity and a resource that commands both political and economic importance. Therefore, addressing the housing needs of the displaced communities should be seen as a mode to promote resilience and sustainable communities. Instead, the consideration of housing needs merely as a physical need results in many issues to the communities, including no access to livelihood, poor living condition, health problems, lack of financial independence, lack of social satisfaction and social cohesion, and sometimes even recreates and worsens the existing vulnerabilities of displaced communities. Within this context, this paper investigates the factors to consider when addressing the housing needs of the displaced communities, promoting resilience and sustainable communities.

English social housing providers are increasingly turning to social impact measurement to assess their social value. This paper aims to understand the contextual factors causing this rise in the practice, specifically within this sector; the mechanisms that enable it to be effectively implemented within an individual organisation and the outcomes of successful implementation for individual organisations and more widely across the sector and beyond.

A realist theory-based approach is applied to the study of a small number of social housing organisations and leaders within the sector to explore the use of social impact measurement. The paper addresses three questions: Why is social impact measurement being adopted in this sector? How is it successfully implemented? And what happens (outcomes) when it is successfully implemented? Addressing these questions necessitates deeper insight into the contextual pressures that have brought to the fore social impact measurement within the sector and the beneficial outcomes the practice provides (or is anticipated to provide) to social housing providers. The methodological approach of Realist Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley, 1997, 2004) is used to structure and analyse the empirical data and findings into a programme theory for social impact measurement. Realist Evaluation provides a programme theory perspective, seeking to answer the question “what works, for whom and in what circumstances?”. In this research, the “whom” refers to English social housing providers and the circumstances are the contextual conditions experienced by the sector over the past decade. The programme theory aims to set out the links between the contextual drivers for social impact measurement, the mechanisms that bring about its implementation and the outcomes that occur as a result. Within this, greater detail on the implementation perspective is provided by developing an implementation theory using a Theory of Change approach (Connell et al., 1995; Fulbright-Anderson et al., 1998). The implementation theory is then embedded within the wider programme theory so as to bring the two elements together, thereby creating a refinement of the overall theory for social impact measurement. In turn, this paper demonstrates its importance (the outcomes that it can achieve for organisations and the sector) and how it can effectively be implemented to bring about those outcomes.

Social housing providers use social impact measurement both internally, to determine their organisational priorities and externally, to demonstrate their value to local and national governments and cross-sector partners then to shape and influence resource allocation. The practice itself is shown to be an open and active programme, rather than a fixed calculative practice.

The intensive nature of the research means that only a limited number of cases were explored. Further research could test theories developed here against evidence collected from a wider range of cases, e.g. other types of providers or non-adopters.

The research makes a strong contribution to practice in the form of a re-conceptualisation of how social impact measurement can be shown to be effective, based on a deeper understanding of causal mechanisms, how they interact and the outcomes that result. This is of value to the sector as such information could help other organisations both to understand the value of social impact measurement and to provide practical guidance on how to implement it effectively.

As the practice of impact measurement continues to develop, practitioners will need to be aware of any changes to these contextual factors and consider questions such as: is the context still supportive of impact measurement? Does the practice need to be adjusted to meet the needs of the current context? For instance, the recent tragedy at Grenfell Tower has led to a reconsideration of the role of social housing; a new Green Paper is currently being drafted (Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2018). This may have a number of implications for social impact measurement, such as a rebalancing of emphasis on outcomes relating to environmental improvements, towards outcomes relating to the well-being of tenants.

Existing literature is largely limited to technical guides. This paper links theory-based evaluation to practice contributing to social housing practice.

The aim of this article is to explore the everyday life experiences of elderly (+70 years) living with young locals and refugees in a collaborative housing project before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. The paper discusses the importance of the spatial dimension in the conceptualization of social integration.

The main method is a qualitative case study based on observations of settings, document/video analysis, online diary entries made by ten residents and eight semi- structured interviews conducted with the residents.

SällBo was conceived as a new type of collaborative housing in which elderly, young locals and refugees share common spaces with the aim of enabling social integration. In this context, COVID-19 interrupted the ongoing processes of living together after four months of moving to the house. The three main themes that emerge from the empirical material are (1) changes in the use of common spaces and social interactions, (2) residents' resilient coping responses during the pandemic and (3) insights for future design of collaborative housing based on their experience. The pandemic caused a moment of institutional vacuum, which triggered the agency of the residents whilst developing social bonds and social bridges among them.

Social connection created in everyday life at SällBo's common spaces has triggered processes of social integration.

The ongoing processes of social integration have included the spatial dimension. We understand social integration as a process that involves people from different generations and ethnical backgrounds, which takes place in common spaces and everyday life as different modes of socialization.

The purpose of this paper is to present new evidence on the reasons for and consequences of residualisation of the social rented sector in the UK.

The paper uses a new analysis of data from the 2001 Census at a small spatial scale (lower level super output areas) to produce estimates of the proportion of social housing in each area. The second piece of evidence is an analysis of who enters and leaves the social sector in England, drawing on survey data and an exit survey of tenants leaving social housing which asked their reasons for moving. The survey included people not normally captured by the main household surveys because they do not remain a reference person.

The analysis shows that very few places are still dominated by social renting. It suggests that in so far as the sector is becoming more residualised, this is caused by the differing profiles of those moving into and out of social housing.

While the small numbers in the exit survey mean that it is not statistically significant, it nevertheless suggests that leaving the social sector is largely a result of positive choices, whereas entering social housing is much more the result of constrained choices.

The paper concludes that it is poverty rather than tenure residualisation that needs to be addressed.

This paper presents two new pieces of evidence that together contribute to the residualisation debate in the UK and more widely in countries with a shrinking or small social rented sector.