Public housing estates throughout Australia is currently undergoing a phase of comprehensive renewal. One commonly stated reason by governments for this is to provide tenants a better experience in social housing by replacing housing stock that may no longer be fit for purpose and by injecting new services, community initiatives and private households into the neighbourhood. This follows the idea of neighbourhood effects, where the presence of higher-income private households is expected to have positive impacts on disadvantaged social tenants. In reality, however, how do these renewal initiatives actually play out in practice? Through two case studies from suburban Sydney, Australia, this presentation reports on the findings of two current longitudinal studies of public housing estate renewals. It focusses especially on tenants and private residents' reflections of their experiences and outcomes of the renewals.
The Australian Senate's Environment and Communications References Committee recently published the Final Report of its Inquiry on current and future impacts of climate change on housing, buildings and infrastructure. This came about after extensive community consultation on the back of parliamentary flip-flopping regarding if and how Australia will meet our Paris Agreement obligations.This Inquiry Report details the potential impacts that continued climate change may have on urban and coastal areas, on different socio-demographic groups, on our economy, on our health and wellbeing, and on the adaptability of our current homes and workplaces. Our submission to this Inquiry (#24) highlighted the findings of our CRC LCL-funded project, particularly the negative impacts lower income households will continue to endure if their access to energy efficient products and renewable energy sources remain price-prohibitive, when split incentives persist so that landlords remain reticent about performing sufficient upgrades, and worsening climate change means the poor quality housing that these families live in will get even more unbearable in extreme weather conditions.
Energy affordability is an increasing challenge for social housing tenants. In recognition of this, many social housing providers (SHPs) across Australia are placing stronger strategic emphasis on improving the energy performance of their stock (Milligan et al., 2015). There are a number of avenues through which SHPs can access assistance from local, state and federal government agencies to support this improvement. Support ranges from provision of information, funding to support implementation of upgrades to existing stock, and grant and low-cost loans to encourage improved energy performance in new constructions.Despite the presence of both organisational desire and government support, energy efficiency improvements in the social housing sector have to date largely been limited. Activity has been restricted to new constructions, and small proportions of existing stock managed by SHPs with the capacity to deliver complex upgrade programs.This paper explores the numerous financial, structural and institutional barriers that hinder energy efficiency improvements through 21 interviews with senior management at SHPs across metropolitan and regional NSW. These multilayered barriers are mapped out, and their prevalence among SHPs of different sizes and tiers of registration is explored. Successful strategies that some SHPs have employed to overcome these barriers are discussed. Through the interviews, the sector's general framing of energy efficiency primarily as an asset management issue is highlighted, contrasting its motivations of improving tenant wellbeing and the liveability of the dwellings.
Energy affordability is an increasing challenge for social housing tenants. In recognition of this, many social housing providers (SHPs) across Australia are placing stronger strategic emphasis on improving the energy performance of their stock (Milligan et al., 2015). There are a number of avenues through which SHPs can access assistance from local, state and federal government agencies to support this improvement. Support ranges from provision of information, funding to support implementation of upgrades to existing stock, and grant and low-cost loans to encourage improved energy performance in new constructions. Despite the presence of both organisational desire and government support, energy efficiency improvements in the social housing sector have to date largely been limited. Activity has been restricted to new constructions, and small proportions of existing stock managed by SHPs with the capacity to deliver complex upgrade programs. This paper explores the numerous financial, structural and institutional barriers that hinder energy efficiency improvements through 21 interviews with senior management at SHPs across metropolitan and regional NSW. These multilayered barriers are mapped out, and their prevalence among SHPs of different sizes and tiers of registration is explored. Successful strategies that some SHPs have employed to overcome these barriers are discussed. Through the interviews, the sector's general framing of energy efficiency primarily as an asset management issue is highlighted, contrasting its motivations of improving tenant wellbeing and the liveability of the dwellings.
In curating this collection of 12 papers, we aimed to include a diverse range of contributions to enable a wide set of voices. While still largely Europe and North America focused, the Research Topic spans the Global North and South as well as the Eastern and Western hemispheres. This highlights the breadth and depth of research into energy justice across all corners of the globe but also, as the collection points out, shows that the experiences of energy injustice remain woefully common across many geographic and social contexts. The contributions come from a mix of established scholars as well as from emerging researchers publishing from their doctoral research, or their first publications. They also come from a range of disciplinary backgrounds, from architecture, environmental studies, geography, political sciences, psychology, and public and urban affairs to name a few. This diversity of disciplinary, geographic and experiential backgrounds is reflected in the varied yet complementary approaches this collection of papers took to addressing the broad topic.
The study was undertaken by researchers at UNSW Sydney, with the assistance and support of the City of Sydney Council.The aim of this research was to develop a survey tool for on-going assessment of social interactions and social cohesion at a large-scale urban renewal site that could be used to:➢ Measure the nature of social cohesion and social interaction and identify opportunities and barriers residents face in contributing to social cohesion and community development.➢ Understand the wellbeing of residents and workers, including their satisfaction with and attachment to the area, their local area preferences and desires, and their plans for the future.The results of the survey were presented to staff across the City of Sydney Council. It is expected that the survey findings will be used to inform Council's investments and activities across a range of areas, including community development, civic engagement, communications, placemaking, land use planning, open space and public domain planning, and local business development. The implications for practice presented here are preliminary and it is expected that City staff will further analyse and apply the survey findings to inform their work going forward. The City intends for the survey to be undertaken on a recurring basis over coming years, to monitor changes to the social fabric over time as the urban renewal area develops.Implications for community development: Green Square is an area with a large proportion of new residents (72% of survey respondents have lived in the area for 5 years or less), but that majority (70%) plan to remain resident in the area for a number of years. People feel more strongly connected to community at the larger scales of Sydney and Australia than at the local level of the suburb and street, but there is a desire to build more local connections, with the majority (68%) of residents wanting to have more interaction with others who live and work in the area.Private renters and younger people in particular desire more local social connection. Importantly, connection to community at the building scale is higher than at the suburb or street level, and the building scale was the only scale at which sense of community increased between 2017 and 2020. This suggests that community development at the building level is promising, but also that there is room to further develop community connections at the local suburb level. Interventions to encourage social interaction will be needed that engage residents who demonstrated a desire for greater involvement in social interactions but are constrained because of a lack of time and/or knowledge about the opportunities available to them, and a lack of confidence when dealing with strangers.Implications for civic engagement Around a third (32%) of residents felt they understood their rights around planning and urban development in the local area, slightly higher than in 2017 (27%). A smaller percentage (17%) felt they had made a civic contribution by working with others to improve the area. One in five felt that their thoughts about local issuescould be heard by people who make a difference (22%) and that there was strong local leadership in the area (18%), demonstrating a slight improvement from 2017 (when the figures were 20% and 15% respectively). There is potential for improved engagement amongst residents in the area as demonstrated by their willingness to be engaged in political discussions, with more residents having participated in other research (25%) and signed petitions (35%). There was also a substantial increase in the proportion of people who had joined a protest or demonstration from 8% in 2017 to 17% in 2020. The survey also revealed that relationships between language spoken at home and civic engagement are complex. People who speak a language other than English at home are less likely to be involved in communicating with a local politician or participated in the running of a strata or community title scheme. However, participation in research and council planning processes were equal or higher amongst people who speak a language other than English at home. There were also differences between people who speak a Chinese language and other language at home, with participation in online discussions, attendance at community events and sending letters to the media being higher amongst Chinese speaking residents than those speaking another language at home. In comparison, participation in a protest or demonstration was higher for those speaking English and another language at home compared to Chinese-speaking residents. These observed differences are based on small sample sizes and should therefore be treated with caution. However, they suggest that different strategies may be needed to encourage civic engagement of people who speak a language other than English at home and that different strategies may be more effective for different language groups.Implications for communications: Aside from time constraints, difficulty in finding information about social activities (26%) was the second most common limitation given by residents to socialising with others in the area. Barriers to participate in community activities were more pronounced among people speaking languages other than English at home. However, there are some interesting differences when comparing people speaking a Chinese language at home and people speaking another language at home, notably that people speaking a Chinese language are more likely to say that they are not confident with strangers, not interested in getting involved and have difficulty accessing facilities or venues, but are less likely to say that they do not feel welcome than people speaking another language at home.Residents would like to receive information about social activities through social media (63%), e-mails (56%), noticeboards in public places and their buildings (52%) and websites (36%). The City can provide such information through City-specific social media and through partnering with other social media platforms known to be actively used in the area, as well as collaborating with building managers. These approaches were effective in promoting the survey to residents. However, preferences for information differ greatly by age and language spoken at home. People aged over 50 were much less likely to want to receive information via social media (36%). However, e-mailed community newsletters were a more popular option amongst people over 50 (56%). People speaking a Chinese language at home are more likely to want to receive information via social media, noticeboards in public places or their building, websites, at the local community centre or library and in local newspapers and businesses and less likely to want to receive this information via word of mouth than both people speaking English and those speaking other languages at home. These results indicate that a variety of communication methods will be needed to reach all groups. However social media, e-mailed community newsletters and websites are important sources of information.Implications for placemaking: The majority of residents (90%) agreed that the area is a good place to live. This proportion has changed little since the 2014 and 2017 surveys and did not change before and after the introduction of the Covid-19 restrictions. This suggests that a high level of satisfaction with the area. However, people felt more strongly connected to Australia, Sydney and the inner city and surrounds than to their local area, street or building. Respondents to the 2020 survey were less connected to the communities at different scales than in 2017, with the exception of the building scale. As there is a relationship between length of residence and community attachment, this likely reflects the high proportion of residents who have lived in the area for less than six years, but nevertheless suggests that there is potential for further community development at the local scale.Implications for land use planning: The things people most commonly said they disliked about the area related to the danger of overdevelopment and the impacts of construction on the area and its overall density. Many people were also concerned about heavy traffic (48%) and parking (31%). However, while improvements to traffic management and public transport were the most important improvements residents wanted to see in 2017 (mentioned by 49% and 50% of resident respectively), in 2020 they remained important (mentioned by 43% and 43% of residents respectively) but were no longer the most commonly mentioned improvement. This likely reflects the gradual maturity of Green Square as a neighbourhood, where most hard infrastructure is now in place. More than half (58%) of residents travel to work or study using public transport and almost half (47%) of people said they moved to the area because of the proximity to public transport, demonstrating the important role that public transport plays in the attractiveness of the area.Notably, improvements that residents wanted to see in the area differed between age groups with younger people more likely to desire a greater variety of cafes, restaurants and bars, evening activities and public transport that connects to more parts of the city, while older people were more likely to desire landscaping in streets and parks a greater variety of retail shops and improved traffic management.Implications for open space and public domain planning: Parks and public spaces are significant locations for social interaction in Green Square and heavily used by residents. After cafes and restaurants, local (79%) and regional (66%) parks were the most commonly used local facilities. This could influence local land use planning and infrastructure development in Green Square and in future urban renewal areas, as it indicates that parks are important in facilitating local social interaction. However, there remains an important role for more formal community facilities, especially for particular groups, demonstrated by the higher proportion of unemployed people making use of community centres (19%) compared to the population as a whole (10%).Implications for local business: The most common places where people socialise with others in Green Square is cafes, restaurants and/or pubs (52%) and incidental interaction also commonly occurs in these places (52%). Cafes and restaurants are also the most commonly used services and facilities (94% of residents). Such businesses are therefore playing an important social role in the area, and two-thirds of residents (65%) said that they would like to see a wider variety of cafes, restaurants and bars in the area in the future. This suggests that the ideal of mixed-use development encouraging greater social interaction is supported by the findings in this case and has implications for development application planners who are making decisions about new businesses in the area.
The extent and impact of energy poverty and deprivation are high on governments' agenda. These impacts are particularly acute for low-income households, who may have less financial flexibility to afford energy and employ efficiency remedies. The homes that they reside in may also be less energy efficient for other reasons, including housing quality, split incentives and strata governance issues. While some policies and programs exist, how effectively they assist in addressing these various issues is less widely known. Given the vast numbers of potentially relevant primary sources, there is a need to identify most relevant, reliable and unbiased secondary studies on this topic using systematic or meta-analytic methodologies.The main objective of this rapid systematic review is to synthesise knowledge from secondary literature employing systematic review and meta-analytic approaches on the mix and effectiveness of policy and program options for improving the energy efficiency of the homes in which low-income households reside. The commissioned review question fits more with the scoping/mapping review definition than with classical rapid review. However, given the methodology used to find, screen and assess the studies, the "rapid review" label is also appropriate. Rapid reviews generally use simplified systematic review methodology to accelerate the review process, while still trying to minimise the risk of bias.
This paper presents preliminary findings of a recent research project on the barriers that lower-income households in fourAustralian cities – Sydney, Adelaide, Hobart, and Darwin – face in reducing their carbon consumption, and the impact ofprograms implemented by federal and state governments and support organisations to assist such reductions. Following a briefexplanation of the methodology (policy reviews, focus group discussions with lower-income households, and interviews withsupport service providers and advocacy groups), it outlines issues that underlie the complexity of carbon reduction among lowerincome households. These include housing quality and tenure; health conditions; and user understanding and perspectives on lowcarbon living and environmental decision-making. This is followed by a review of the types of carbon reduction programscurrently available to households living in different Australian jurisdictions. The paper will then reflect on focus groupparticipants' views of their access to these programs, their perceived effectiveness in achieving genuine carbon reduction, andhow these programs fit in (or not) to the less formal carbon reduction techniques already employed by lower income households.It also highlights the challenges and limitations support service providers and advocacy groups face in connecting lower-incomehouseholds to carbon reduction programs. It concludes with a discussion of potential policy avenues to address the barriers to lowcarbon living and ensure the intended outcomes of these carbon reduction programs are met in the longer term for those on lowerincomes.
Australian society is becoming more culturally diverse (ABS 2012a). In contrast, it is also becoming less welcoming in many ways. Research by the Scanlon Foundation (Markus 2016), for example, has documented an increase in racism in Australia over the last ten years, including verbal abuse, physical violence, and worsening local relations (see also Acharya 2017; Reconciliation Australia 2016). Such a shift undermines the country's social cohesion and political stability, and the health and well-being of individuals, particularly migrants (Dunn et al. 2016).Australian research on everyday multiculturalism has demonstrated that local neighborhoods are important sites for tackling racism and fostering intercultural understanding. Everyday multiculturalism, as distinct from official multicultural policy, is concerned with the quotidian daily encounters between individuals who share culturally diverse social spaces, including local residential communities (Ho et al. 2015; Wise and Velayutham 2009). Increasingly, cities are places where large proportions of the population live in apartments (ABS 2014). At the same time, most migrants to Australia settle in cities and migrants are over-represented as a proportion of dwellers in private apartments (see below). This trend suggests the importance of apartments as key elements of urban neighborhoods and the specific roles they may play as significant places of intercultural interaction. These roles have not yet been properly recognized, even in very recent research (see e.g. Fincher et al. 2014; Harris 2016; Neal et al. 2013).
This research reviews different emerging digital and disruptive technologies, such as blockchain, in relation to housing, housing assistance and planning systems. While much work has been done in opening up property data assets across governments, significant work is required on data standards, privacy standards and data sharing across government, industry and the non-profit sectors.
Governments in Australia and internationally have increasingly been turning to third sector (i.e.'not-for-profit' non-government) organisations to deliver social services including health,education, and community services. This has included placing growing reliance on not-for-profit (NFP) providers to procure housing and deliver housing management services to those whose needs cannot be met by the market.This is the Final Report of a three-year project which investigated how larger housing NFP organisations in Australia have been developing and positioning themselves for future opportunities and challenges. Organisational adaptations to policy and market changes over a six-year period point to a dynamic process of growth and hybridisation in Australian NFP housing organisations similar to that seen internationally. Understanding development of such entities is of vital interest to governments advancing investment and regulatory strategies for the sector, to private lenders into the sector and to the sector itself.
Reliable measures of provider efficiency and effectiveness are fundamental in enabling governments to determine how best to deliver social housing services. However, Australia's existing suite of official social housing performance measures is seriously inadequate in this. This project, therefore, developed and trialled a conceptual framework and methodology to address this problem. The research responded to the longstanding policy-maker and industry interest in improving performance metrics for Australian social housing; a sector encompassing both the public housing authorities and the not-for-profit landlord entities which cater for low and very low-income households.
