Elsevier

Habitat International

Volume 114, August 2021, 102384
Habitat International

Australia's push to make residential housing sustainable - Do end-users care?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102384Get rights and content

Abstract

The Australian construction industry is transitioning to becoming more sustainable. Despite their crucial role, Australian communities as the end-users of this transition have been overlooked. Buildings contribute as much as 30% of the total waste produced and as much as 40% of total greenhouse gases. Residential construction makes up the biggest sector in construction; about 80% by cost. If sustainable construction is to be realised, it must take root in the housing sector. Little progress, however, has been made. Current literature places much of the blame with the owners and occupiers of houses – The line goes that builders would build sustainable houses if people really wanted them. The question arises: are reported societal concerns for sustainability merely superficial or supported by intention and commitment to act. This study aimed to test public resolve for a transition to sustainable residential housing. Three focus groups, drawn from three diverse communities within the greater Melbourne metropolitan region, were engaged in describing and explaining community views on the desirability of sustainable housing. The unanimous consensus is that people want housing to be more sustainable, but that this is not forthcoming because of the intransigence of government and builders to facilitate a needed culture of change within the residential housing sector. This study contributes to the field, providing a model that encapsulates various dimensions of community's, namely, end-users’ perceptions, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Findings provide a sound basis for future researchers to address the challenges identified. The study also raises awareness of policymakers and industry practitioners of the genuine needs and requirements of end-users of residential buildings.

Introduction

Sustainability has emerged as a major concern, with governments committing themselves to carbon emissions reduction targets, embrace of renewable energy sources and transition to a ‘greener’ economy (Li et al., 2020; Olanipekun et al., 2019). This presents a significant challenge since such transition requires fundamental shifts in how various industries are to be managed (Banihashemi et al., 2018). Perhaps less appreciated is the fact that it is construction practices that contribute the greatest impact on the environment (Shi et al., 2016; Zuo & Zhao, 2014), and if sustainability is truly to be embraced, there needs to be a fundamental change in the way buildings are built and operated (Goh et al., 2020; Martek et al., 2018). Buildings eat up one-third of all raw materials consumed (Doan et al., 2017). This includes one-third of all timber, one-sixth of all water, and 40% of everything else (Dixit et al., 2013). Buildings consume half of all the energy used on the planet in supporting the heating, lighting and other requirements of occupants, while a further 10% of this energy goes into producing building products (Wong & Zhou, 2015). Moreover, the demolition of buildings generates half of all the world's land-fill waste (Chileshe et al., 2018; Nikmehr et al., 2017). While 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are generated in cities, in Australia, one-third of this comes from the daily operation and maintenance of buildings (Udawatta et al., 2015).

Stakeholders in the construction industry must navigate between their moral obligation to be ‘sustainable’ and the challenges of practical business realities. Chief among these is the fact that sustainable houses can cost up to 30% more (Goh et al., 2020; Miller & Buys, 2013). In this regard, the impetus for change relies on the value proposition assessment decision of end-users (Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council, 2018; Cadman, 2006). While a transition to sustainable houses is theoretically possible, such a shift can only be driven by the collective demand of end-users (Berardi, 2013; Foong et al., 2017; Martek, Hosseini, Shrestha, Edwards, Seaton, et al., 2019; Rock et al., 2019).

Research shows that the Australian public is generally ‘on-board’ with the aspirations of the national sustainability agenda (Davis & Davis, 2021), but this has not translated into consumers pushing for ‘greener’ housing alternatives (Doan et al., 2017). Why is this? Could it be that sustainable houses are unaffordable (MacKillop, 2013), or unavailable, or even unwanted? The question has not been categorically tested, and specifically the catalysts – supports and incentives – that might prompt a threshold market transition to sustainable houses remain unknown (Ahmad et al., 2020; Rock et al., 2019). Despite the obvious centrality end-users play as market makers, conspicuously absent from analysis of the market for sustainable houses in Australia is the very role end-users play; their intentions, priorities and demands pertinent to sustainable houses (Foong et al., 2017; Martek, Hosseini, Shrestha, Edwards, Seaton, et al., 2019; Rock et al., 2019). By overlooking end-users of Australian residential housing, a major opportunity is being lost in charting a much-needed way forward in the campaign to make Australian houses sustainable (Ahmad et al., 2020; Martek, Hosseini, Shrestha, Edwards, Seaton, et al., 2019). This study, therefore, sets out to address this neglect by firstly investigating end-users’ attitudes to sustainable housing and secondly, by identifying the support needed from the industry, financial institutions and government in order to effect positive change.

This study is one of the first of its kind in respect of the Australian residential market. For researchers, it contributes to the body of knowledge by exploring the dialectics regarding Australian end-users’ latent demand for sustainable housing, while also providing lessons for other countries. As for the world of practice, the insights regarding the mechanics of end-users’ decision making processes can be expected to inform policy makers and marketing managers.

Section snippets

Sustainable houses: The trend

Over the past two decades, there has been a growing interest and demand for sustainable houses (Darko & Chan, 2016). This has inspired a redirection in architecture, as well as reorientation in a sizeable amount of research around the world being devoted to exploring the various facets of sustainable houses (Martek et al., 2018; Sassi, 2006). These studies, however, have been heavily technology-oriented, whereas major barriers toward achieving sustainability in houses have their roots in

Previous studies on the topic

A review run on the now available research in the Australian context reveals that the majority of studies have focused on the role played by divergent stakeholders (Crabtree, 2005; Fastenrath & Braun, 2018; Graham & Warren-Myers, 2019; Warren-Myers & Heywood, 2018; Warren-Myers & McRae, 2017; Yang & Yang, 2015). There is however limited research primarily focusing on end-users’ perceptions of sustainable houses; their demands, interests or expectation (Martek, Hosseini, Shrestha, Edwards,

Sustainable residential housing: the theoretical framework

Certain theories and models, such as the theory of planned behaviour, the values–beliefs–norms theory, the technology acceptance model, and the norm activation model, are often utilized to investigate sustainable housing end-users’ perceptions, preferences, motivations and purchase intentions (He, Q. et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018; Zahan et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2018). This study adopts the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) as the theoretical framework by which to

Research methods

This study used focus groups as a means of data collection to capture end-users' perceptions of sustainable residential housing. Focus group is a self-contained exploratory method that involves data collection via a dynamic and interactive group discussion led by a moderator (Chan et al., 2012). According to Morgan (1997), a focus group is capable of integrating the purposes of the two most common qualitative methods - observations and interviews. As a research method, a focus group is

From focus groups to findings

In total, 148 (the motive for using sustainable homes and meaning of sustainable homes) and 78 (the role of government in the promotion of sustainable homes) data points were extracted and subsequently coded into 14 and 10 clusters, respectively (Table 2).

Sustainable homes: Meaning and motivations

The main results on the meaning and motivations to move into a sustainable home (Table 2) were integrated into the TPB framework (Fig. 1) to create a specific TPB based model for this study (Fig. 5).

This model can be used in future studies that investigate the end-users’ perceptions of sustainable homes in the Australian context and elsewhere. This will raise awareness of the main constructs of end-users’ perceptions. Perceived behavioural control, environmental concerns, and subjective

Conclusion

This study contributes to the field in two ways. First, it addressed the gap identified in the body of knowledge regarding the genuine needs, intentions and drivers of end-users of residential buildings to go green within the Australian context. This provides an innovative approach, namely, brining attention to the significance of focusing on the barriers and challenges of transition to sustainable housing practices from the vantage point of end-users of buildings. In doing so, the study adds

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This work was funded by the Integral Design Futures (IDF) funding scheme's 2017 program: Charting Pre-Design Sustainability Indicators (School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University).

References (99)

  • V. Garrett et al.

    Breaking the cycle: Producer and consumer perspectives on the non-adoption of passive solar housing in the US

    Energy Policy

    (2008)
  • M. Gollagher et al.

    Collaboration achieves effective waste management design at Brookfield Place Perth, Western Australia

    Procedia Engineering

    (2017)
  • E. Graham et al.

    Investigating the efficacy of a professional education program in promoting sustainable residential construction practices in Australia

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2019)
  • C. He et al.

    How to attract customers to buy green housing? Their heterogeneous willingness to pay for different attributes

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2019)
  • M.R. Hosseini et al.

    Sustainability by information and communication technology: A paradigm shift for construction projects in Iran

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2017)
  • J.J. Jia et al.

    Modeling the willingness to pay for energy efficient residence in urban residential sector in China

    Energy Policy

    (2019)
  • M. Judge et al.

    Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict intentions to purchase sustainable housing

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2019)
  • R.A.J. Khan et al.

    Are Pakistani homebuyers ready to adopt sustainable housing? An insight into their willingness to pay

    Energy Policy

    (2020)
  • J. Lee et al.

    Benefits of solar photovoltaic systems for low-income families in social housing of Korea: Renewable energy applications as solutions to energy poverty

    Journal of Building Engineering

    (2020)
  • H.X. Li et al.

    A review on renewable energy transition in Australia: An updated depiction

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2020)
  • Y. Liu et al.

    Promoting green residential buildings: Residents' environmental attitude, subjective knowledge, and social trust matter

    Energy Policy

    (2018)
  • H. Li et al.

    Quantifying stakeholder influence in decision/evaluations relating to sustainable construction in China – a Delphi approach

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2018)
  • I. Martek et al.

    Barriers inhibiting the transition to sustainability within the Australian construction industry: An investigation of technical and social interactions

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2019)
  • I. Martek et al.

    End-user engagement: The missing link of sustainability transition for Australian residential buildings

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2019)
  • A. Morris et al.

    Readiness for sustainable community: A case study of green star communities

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2018)
  • O.A. Olubunmi et al.

    Green building incentives: A review

    Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

    (2016)
  • W.Y. Saman

    Towards zero energy homes down under

    Renewable Energy

    (2013)
  • Q. Shi et al.

    Objective conflicts in green buildings projects: A critical analysis

    Building and Environment

    (2016)
  • S. Tapsuwan et al.

    Preferences for sustainable, liveable and resilient neighbourhoods and homes: A case of canberra, Australia

    Sustainable Cities and Society

    (2018)
  • J.K.W. Wong et al.

    Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green bim: A review

    Automation in Construction

    (2015)
  • A. Zalejska-Jonsson

    Stated WTP and rational WTP: Willingness to pay for green apartments in Sweden

    Sustainable Cities and Society

    (2014)
  • J. Zuo et al.

    Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review

    Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

    (2014)
  • T. Ahmad et al.

    Green buildings in Australia: Explaining the difference of drivers in commercial and residential sector

  • N.G. Akhimien et al.

    Incorporating circular economy into passive design strategies in tropical Nigeria

    International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering

    (2019)
  • O. Akinade et al.

    Design for deconstruction using a circular economy approach: Barriers and strategies for improvement

    Production Planning & Control

    (2019)
  • Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council

    High Performance: How buildings can make a major contribution to Australia's emissions and productivity goals

  • Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council

    The bottom line: The household impacts of delaying improved energy requirements in the Building Code, Building code energy performance trajectory project

    (2018)
  • S.S.A. Azis et al.

    The potential of implementing property tax incentives on green building in Malaysia

    American Journal of Economy

    (2013)
  • P. Bazeley

    Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies

    (2013)
  • M.A.H. Bhuiyan et al.

    Socio-economic impacts of home stay accommodations in Malaysia: A study on home stay operators in terengganu state

    Asian Social Science

    (2013)
  • R.M. Bizri

    A study of Islamic banks in the non-GCC MENA region: Evidence from Lebanon

    International Journal of Bank Marketing

    (2014)
  • L. Bryant et al.

    Home sustainability policy and mandatory disclosure: A survey of buyer and seller participation and awareness in qld

    (2012)
  • D. Cadman

    The vicious circle of blame

    (2006)
  • J. Carlson et al.

    Exploring the relationships between e‐service quality, satisfaction, attitudes and behaviours in content‐driven e‐service web sites

    Journal of Services Marketing

    (2010)
  • I.Y.S. Chan et al.

    Managing the stress of Hong Kong expatriate construction professionals in mainland China: Focus group study exploring individual coping strategies and organizational support

    Journal of Construction Engineering and Management

    (2012)
  • C. Choi

    Removing market barriers to green development: Principles and action projects to promote widespread adoption of green development practices

    Journal of Sustainable Real Estate

    (2009)
  • L. Crabtree

    Sustainable housing development in urban Australia: Exploring obstacles to and opportunities for ecocity efforts

    Australian Geographer

    (2005)
  • L. Crabtree et al.

    Sustainability uptake in housing in metropolitan Australia: An institutional problem, not a technological one

    Housing Studies

    (2009)
  • C.C. Cui et al.

    National identity and NATID: An assessment in Yemen

    International Marketing Review

    (2002)
  • Cited by (10)

    • Sustainability Information Provision (SIP) framework: A review of the promotion of sustainability in the residential sector

      2023, Building and Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      These challenges are referred to in Fig. 4 as “Process Facilitation Barriers”. These barriers include the lack of sufficient government support or policies to enforce information disclosure to buyers and end-users [2,7,15,23,25,26,30,55,70,76,101–103]. Similarly, builders' misconceptions that buyers and end-users are not interested in sustainability or that their main focus is cost savings [7,16,33] demotivate the initiation and development of the information disclosure process.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text