4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Case Study 1: “Measuring housing and transportation
affordability: A case study of Melbourne, Australia”. (2017),
Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 134–146.
This study primarily studied the association between the cost of housing and
transportation in terms of geography and the drawbacks of solely consideration
on housing affordability for families in Melbourne. According to this case study,
housing was an important part of urban planning and family decision-making.
At the same time, housing for an ordinary family is a large part of their wealth.
Housing has a unique dual role. It is not only an investment opportunity, but
also a kind of durable commodity that produces consumer services. However,
scholars generally believed that the recent real estate boom in some
organizations for economic cooperation and development, including Australia,
has led to a significant decline in housing supply capacity. As a result, the
differences between different regions have widened and various social and
economic problems have arisen.
The calculation of the comprehensive burden of housing and transportation is
affected by many factors, such as the choice of rent, the source of housing, the
location of housing, the mode of transportation, the distance and the purpose
of traffic, etc. However, due to the difficulty of data acquisition, it is difficult to
separate the influence of different factors on the cost, so this paper simplifies
the calculation method. Based on the calculation method of housing and
transportation affordability index, combined with the current situation and data
acquisition degree, the calculation of comprehensive burden is adjusted and
revised. In this study, the calculation is divided into two different types. One is
the calculation of individual housing and transportation affordability. In this
method, housing cost can be divided into two types: second-hand housing and
rental housing. The second is the calculation of housing and transportation
affordability based on the family original unit method, which excludes the
influence of individual and family choices on housing and transportation
affordability, and only considers the influence of different locations on housing
and transportation affordability.
Housing prices in 30 Australian cities are listed as "seriously unaffordable" by
the international report on affordable housing. Sydney is the third most
expensive housing market in the world, while Melbourne is the seventh. Rising
house prices have led to a sharp rise in the cost of living. Australia has
experienced an unprecedented mining boom in the past few years. During this
period, foreign capital poured in and the Australian monetary system expanded.
The loose credit environment has led to a rise in real estate prices and a boom
in consumption, leading to a surge of more than 50% in Australian housing
prices in recent years. In addition, Australia has implemented a relatively loose
immigration policy in the past few years, absorbing a large number of
immigrants, increasing the rigid demand for housing and constantly pushing up
house prices.
Figure 1, the Estimated Probability Distribution of Housing and Transportation Affordability in
Melbourne from the Case Study
The housing and transportation cost estimates are derived from public sources,
including the Victoria government open data catalog and ABS, such as the 2011
Australian census data, and a comprehensive survey of Victoria's tourism and
activities. The data are detailed in the median weekly rental, the average
number of vehicles per household, and the share of travel modes. The data of
vehicle operation cost, interest rate, median property price and bus fare are all
obtained from other open channels in Victoria. According to official data,
Melbourne's weighted average real estate price growth rate in 2018 was 9.6
per cent, compared with 3 % and 2.3 % in Victoria's public and private sectors
in the same period. In recent years, the growth rate of real estate price has
significantly hindered the income growth in the same period (Saberi et al, 2017).
In 2018, APRA implemented a number of strategies to slow down real estate
price growth. Specific measures include the requirement that loan institutions
reduce the growth rate of loans to investors to less than 10%, and raise the
capital adequacy requirements.
This study screened out the statistical areas with zero median mortgage
repayment or rent from the data. If the median is zero in the data of these
regions, it may be caused by many reasons. These reasons include being
bound by parliamentary District regulations that prohibit people from living in
such areas. Sample data may also be limited in areas where most homes are
completely occupied by owners without collateral. Therefore, this study applies
a similar filtering logic to the data of Vista whose average transportation time or
distance is zero. According to this case study, Melbourne's median household
weekly income ranges widely and varies widely between regions. The number
of figures can be from $577 / week to $2288 / week. The average income of
Melbourne's families is estimated at $1425 a week. According to the 2018
census, the population density of areas close to CBD is much higher than in the
suburbs. However, most of the housing in the eastern and Southeast suburbs
has very high chromium prices. This makes the weekly housing cost for
households in the region between $255 and $967. The housing in the
surrounding Melbourne area is relatively cheap. The cost of housing for most
families in the region ranges from $183 to $450 a week. This phenomenon
shows the spatial analysis results of the use of traditional housing affordability
measures. The median of family income in SA2 was used as the denominator
of affordability index. This can partly represent the housing pressures of existing
residents in Melbourne. The denominator is the median weekly household
income in Melbourne, which represents housing supply capacity, especially for
first-time buyers. It can be seen that most of the Melbourne metropolitan areas
can be divided into alternative areas by traditional measures, without
distinguishing whether middle-sized or regional income is used (Ley et al, 2020).
For example, in the case of the Mornington Peninsula area. Although housing
costs are significantly higher than the average of Melbourne, the average
household income in the region is lower due to the high concentration of retired
residents. Hence, the current housing supply does not seem to meet the needs
of local residents.
Figure 2, Cloud Map from the Case Study (Saberi et al, 2017)
According to the results of this study, the cost of living of residents decreases
with the distance from the central urban area and the central urban area.
However, the consumption level of Melbourne varies greatly from region to
region. As mentioned earlier, Melbourne has different regional characteristics.
The differences of regional characteristics of Melbourne are shown in various
aspects, such as income, population, employment opportunities, geographical
location, public infrastructure and services. The results show that the housing
cost of 61.0% of the metropolitan area of Melbourne is higher than the income
ratio of 25%. Therefore, if only the cost of housing is considered, the area can
be classified as alternative. If the median regional income is used, the ratio is
61.2%. In terms of the spatial characteristics of transportation and commuting
costs, the estimated transportation costs of households in this study range from
$120 to $388 per week. This value will vary in different regions in Melbourne.
Residents close to Melbourne's CBD have lower transportation costs (Saberi et
al, 2017). This is because the geographical advantage in the central area
makes it easier for these residents to reach various transportation
infrastructures and destinations. However, with the increase of the distance
between Melbourne residents' residence and CBD, the transportation cost of
families is also gradually increasing. This makes the distribution of
transportation costs show the opposite relationship with the distribution of
housing costs. The housing cost of families located in the urban center or CBD
area is higher, and the transportation cost is lower, while the housing cost of
families located in the urban fringe area is lower, but the transportation cost is
higher.
Through the case study of Melbourne, this paper proved that the traditional
method of measuring housing affordability is not representative, because it
ignores the cost of transportation or accessibility. These case studies adopted
new data-driven methods to estimate the family transportation cost. In order to
make up for the defects of the traditional measurement method, the public
transport cost, the operation and ownership cost of private vehicles, and the
working and non-working trips on weekdays and weekends are included in the
measurement framework. The results show that living in the suburbs far away
from the CBD of Melbourne metropolis does not necessarily reduce the cost of
living, but the specific situation is related to the geographical location of the
family.
Case Study 2: “Understanding the Lived Experiences of
Housing and Transport Stress in the "Affordable" Outer Ring:
A Case Study of Melbourne, Australia. Urban Policy and
Research”, (2021), 1–17.
This paper presents data collected from 73 qualitative interviews conducted in
three strategic outer suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. These findings show how
to experience the combined effects of housing and transportation costs in daily
life, including the choice of living and lifestyle. People have to make choices
and adaptations. Housing availability is a complex analysis problem. It is
considered to be highly correlated with family income, housing costs and the
cost of the remaining part of standard living. In analyzing this association,
assessing housing affordability is often limited by data availability and
measuring the cost-of-living components. Housing affordability is usually
defined and evaluated based on economic feasibility. This requires the neglect
of other important factors, such as transportation or accessibility costs.
Traditionally, housing affordability is measured by the ratio of housing
expenditure to family income. In general, more than 30 per cent of income is
used for housing costs (Smith et al, 2021). And households with incomes at the
bottom of the income range of 40 percent are considered to be under housing
pressure. This method is widely used in international housing policy because
of its simplicity, because it only relies on some variables that are usually easy
to calculate.
Figure 3, Median Income of Melbourne Family (Smith et al, 2021)
Taking public transportation as the travel mode of low-income families, the
research on the comprehensive burden of low-income families were divided
into three different scenarios, namely new house, second-hand house and
rental house. The average burden levels are 154%, 105% and 47% respectively.
That is to say, for low-income families, only the comprehensive burden of
renting houses is affordable. For the middle-income families who choose to
travel by bus, according to the conclusion, the average burden of second-hand
housing and rental housing is affordable. From the perspective of spatial pattern,
the comprehensive burden distribution of second-hand housing has obvious
structural characteristics. From the perspective of rental housing, the
comprehensive burden of the study area has basically achieved full coverage
of less than 60%, and its affordability is significantly stronger than that of new
and second-hand housing.
Figure 4, Rising of Housing Price in Major Cities of Australia (Ley et al, 2020)
The comprehensive burden of this case study shows that the areas with low
housing burden and high traffic burden are also concentrated in the periphery
of the city. In the main city, high housing burden and low traffic burden are the
main factors, followed by high housing burden and high traffic burden. Different
from the results of the original family unit method, the individualized
comprehensive burden study found that low housing burden and low traffic
burden areas appeared near the peripheral subway lines. The possible reason
is that the accessibility calculation of the original family unit method does not
consider the impact of congestion index on commuting time, and in real life,
subway is less vulnerable to traffic congestion than public transport and private
cars (Williams, 2020). Therefore, the individualized traffic burden research
clearly reflects the impact of congestion on the traffic cost, that is, the traffic
advantage of the communities along the subway is also greatly enhanced. In
addition, the difference between the original family unit method and the
individual method is also reflected in the new development area. The study of
family unit method shows that the new town of Melbourne belongs to the area
of low housing price and high transportation cost, while the individual study
finds that this area belongs to the area of low housing price and low
transportation cost. This may be because the newly developed areas have
relatively perfect functional support, which makes it more likely for residents to
get employment nearby, resulting in lower transportation costs.
Case Study 3: “Examining building age, rental housing and
price filtering for affordability in Melbourne, Australia”. (2021)
Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 58(4), 809–825.
This paper mainly studies the relationship between the housing affordability and
the housing age and surrounding transportation facilities in Melbourne.
Governments around the world have responded to the challenge of housing
affordability through supply side solutions. Proponents of these methods often
cite the concept of "filtering effect", arguing that over time, new supply will
naturally flow to low-income families, thereby increasing their affordability. This
study explores the characteristics of affordable housing in Melbourne, Australia,
and analyzes the impact of residence age on rental cost. In this paper, the
hedonic rent model is used to determine the nonlinear relationship between
construction age and rent, which reflects the premium of historical real estate
in inner Melbourne. This case also makes cluster analysis on the rental list, and
measures the affordability according to the cluster. The results of this case
study challenge the concept of filtering. It found that most of the contemporary
affordable housing was initially built as social housing or for low-income families
in the 1960s and 1970s. The case thinks that filtering is unnatural in this case,
but reflects the historical government expenditure and past construction
choices.
Figure 5, Amount of Housing Possessed by Families in Each Intervals of Ages in Victoria
(Bryant, 2014)
As this case study indicated, housing costs tended to fall with distance from the
city core, but the lower housing prices outside the city are often to balance the
relatively high transportation costs. Meanwhile, this case concluded that the
rapid rise in land prices in the heart of the capital had greatly offset the decline
in housing values. As a result, there is little filtered evidence in the suburbs and
the central suburbs. The growing value of the land has encouraged
redevelopment, demolition or construction of poorly located or very small
dwellings for niche markets. Due to the lack of public transport infrastructure in
suburban areas outside the city, families in urban fringe areas are more
dependent on the use of private vehicles. This dependence on the use of
private vehicles is usually related to the number of vehicles owned by each
household, travel time and travel distance. In Australia, transportation costs are
estimated to be the second or third highest category of average household
expenditure. Therefore, the traditional location affordability measure ignoring
transportation costs can not reflect the actual cost of housing.
Figure 6, Results about the Conditions of the Affordable Housing in Melbourne from Case
Study
As this case study stated, Melbourne had the largest population growth in 2013,
with 4.3 million residents. Melbourne covered an area of about 10000 square
kilometers, including 31 districts. In this city, the distribution of private car
ownership and the use of public transport also have great spatial differences.
Previous studies on real estate and traffic characteristics are based on
Melbourne to explore these characteristics. Melbourne has low density
residential development, different distribution of work and other activities, and
a radial train network designed primarily to transport individuals from the
suburbs to CBD (Palm et al, 2021). In addition, the government of Melbourne
encouraged new development policies in the marginal areas of cities with low
land and inconvenient traffic, and created a city environment where housing
and transport demand did not match supply. As a result, the accessibility of
transport and various activities in Melbourne's internal areas is higher than that
in the external areas (Raynor, 2021). In the peripheral areas with
underdeveloped public transport infrastructure, the ownership of private cars is
also significantly higher among Melbourne residents.
In terms of the spatial distribution of housing pressure, the area with the
greatest housing pressure is Melbourne city center. Based on the study of
housing affordability shown in Figure 6, occupation and living location, this
paper found that families living and working in the city center bear more housing
pressure than those working in the city but living in other areas. This means
that the housing burden of the central city aggravates the income and spatial
polarization phenomenon, thus reducing the housing choice of low-income
groups. The lack of suitable affordable housing means that many employees
either pay a high proportion of their income on housing or live far away from
their workplace. The result is that most of the people living in the city center and
high cost of living areas are young people, rich people and families without
children. But whether this kind of spatial polarization city can ensure the
sustainable development of the area is a question.
4.7. Discussion
Through the three case studies, it is indicated that as house prices continue to
rise, down payment, stamp duty and various fees rise rapidly. As the population
continues to grow, the situation will only get worse if we do not act. House prices
have always been a high concern topic in Australia. In recent years, especially
in Sydney, Melbourne and other big cities, the soaring housing prices have
forced the Australian government to intervene. The Australian government has
taken measures such as increasing the stamp duty and limiting the speculation
of international buyers, which has made the house price maintain a relatively
stable situation since 2017 (Bryant, 2017).
Although external demand has further pushed up house prices, low interest
rates are also the main driving force of Australian house prices. The low
mortgage rate brought by the Bank of Australia's loose policy stance is likely to
stimulate the further growth of house prices. And high prices increase the risk
of over inflation in the real estate market. The increase in house prices exceeds
the growth of household disposable income. The longer the time is, the greater
the chance of bubble formation and expansion (Lee, 2020). Economic
imbalance is followed by congestion and worsening commuting conditions in
Melbourne, which is bound to become a huge restriction of urban development.
It can be seen from this that, in addition to making great efforts to renovate the
real estate market, the top priority for Victoria is to solve the problem of
unbalanced regional development. After all, social development problems are
closely linked, and controlling the real estate market can only get twice the
result with half the effort.
Restrictive policies on housing supply, such as urban integration and
urbanization, have been implemented in Australia for many years. These
policies, as well as complex local and state policy processes, are believed to
be responsible for the rise in housing costs. Recently, some national planning
systems have introduced a series of reforms, resulting in a surge in the number
of housing approvals. At the same time, banks have introduced low interest
rates, and investors' demand for housing investment has also increased.
However, there is little evidence that deregulation can improve efficiency (Han
et al, 2021). On the contrary, the effective way to improve efficiency is to adopt
strategies such as effective housing ownership supported by the state. Some
scholars have discussed and proposed the possibility of introducing and
adjusting the Singapore model (McLaren, 2016), that is, most people own their
own houses through public housing. At the same time, the government has
imposed restrictions on the use of private cars. In this way, people will be more
motivated to take public transport when they travel or commute to their
destinations.
The reform of housing security and urban planning in Australia has been
discussed comprehensively by many scholars. They have determined some
current policies and planning countermeasures for housing security. These
policies include encouraging the development of housing, ensuring rental
housing and building social and public housing (Lehoux et al, 2018). The
existing policies mainly focus on increasing the demand of first-time home
buyers and investors, while reducing the obstacles to new housing
development. Although there are more and more literatures about housing
security and housing security related policies, few current urban policies
recognize the importance of transportation cost in housing security planning
(Ley et al, 2020). Previous studies have recognized the link between
transportation and housing affordability, and this paper will further strengthen
this link empirically (Johnson, 2018).
Australia's major central cities have gradually reduced public investment in local
transport infrastructure to encourage more public-private partnerships.
Moreover, the government overemphasized the method of user payment. It also
means that infrastructure is no longer free or compulsory to pay for urban
development (Williams, 2020). This is believed to lead to rising house prices
and improved transport accessibility. Some of the strategies being considered
by large cities in Australia include integrating transport planning with land use
planning, solving housing accommodation problems by mixing land use and
urban density around transport hubs, and promoting urban growth along
existing and planned railways, such as the new plan of railways proposed by
the Australian Government in 2021.
These case studies demonstrated the close relationship between transportation
and housing capacity. Based on this close connection, local and state
governments suggest that housing planning take into account both the
accessibility of transport infrastructure and the development of new residential
areas. In addition, some scholars have studied the relationship between traffic
accessibility and property value (Lee, 2020). The research showed that over
time, the relationship is not as strong as previously thought. Therefore,
improving traffic accessibility will not necessarily lead to long-term growth of
real estate value. This is especially obvious in areas with mature transportation
network. In general, the findings highlight the need to address transport
convenience needs and housing supply to meet future housing supply. This
also supports the view of some previous studies that improving transport
infrastructure can effectively increase the supply of housing and help people
reduce their daily commuting time.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Introduction
In Australia, there is no unified definition of housing affordability. Because there
are many factors affecting housing affordability, it is difficult to define and
measure it accurately. Different understanding of housing affordability will lead
to different definitions. In addition, different types of families are faced with
different housing affordability problems. The location fixity of housing
determines its location relationship with employment place, school and other
urban public service facilities, and causes corresponding transportation cost,
which becomes an important part of family living expenses. The theory of urban
spatial structure shows that land use and transportation are closely coupled in
urban space. Residents' choice of residential location is a trade-off process
between housing cost and transportation cost, which is often reflected in the
relationship between the two costs. The comprehensive affordability index of
housing and transportation studied in this paper provides a new perspective to
measure residents' housing affordability more comprehensively. Compared
with the traditional housing affordability index, this new index focuses on the
regularity of housing cost and transportation cost in urban space. Therefore, it
can be more accurate and closer to the real measurement of the impact of
residential location choice on the level of family welfare. This is particularly
important for low-income families, because many low-income people live in
remote but inconvenient places for the sake of low housing prices. Only
considering the housing cost will overestimate their ability to pay, but not the
transportation cost of daily commuting. Melbourne buyers are forced to choose
location. Public transport infrastructure is scarce in remote areas, but the
burden of housing is low. The burden of housing in the central area is great,
although public transportation brings great convenience and low commuting
cost. Finally, the government or planning department may need to combine
public transport planning with the construction of affordable housing (Raynor et
al, 2021).
5.2. Main Conclusion
As a result, once the transportation cost is taken into account, the living cost of
the outer suburbs can hardly be reduced to an acceptable level, while the living
cost of the residents near the suburbs can be significantly reduced. However,
the comprehensive analysis of location affordability cannot be based only on
the distribution of housing and transportation costs. Location affordability is also
affected by lifestyle, neighborhood characteristics and demography in different
areas. The study also investigated the spatial characteristics of new housing
and transportation availability metrics. For example, the most disadvantageous
areas will be concentrated in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, while the
relatively good areas will also be concentrated around the city center (Saberi et
al, 2017).
The first case study in this paper introduced the innovative method of
affordability of housing and transportation to study the comprehensive burden
of housing and transportation in the central urban area of Melbourne. The
generalized concept of time cost is included in the calculation of transportation
cost, and the transportation cost data are obtained through accessibility
analysis and Transportation Survey, that case study stated the comprehensive
housing burden of Melbourne from two different aspects, excluding the
influence of family choice and the tendency of actual family choice. Finally,
according to the research results of comprehensive burden, the paper put
forward relevant suggestions and Enlightenment from the perspective of
residents and urban government (Han et al, 2021).
5.3. Recommendation
There are many factors influencing housing affordability. Many studies have
identified some factors related to housing affordability, such as interest rate,
income level, construction cost, land supply and house price, and these factors
are intertwined. At present, one of the biggest problems for low-income families
is that it is difficult to find affordable and suitable housing. Sustainable housing
is a residential building with energy saving, environmental protection, health
and comfort and efficiency. Its core is to pay attention to the energy
conservation and pollution reduction of buildings and the harmony between
human and nature with the concept of sustainable development. In order to
balance the burden of housing and transportation, the concept of sustainable
development can be introduced into the planning of housing, because reducing
the burden of transportation is closely related to the establishment of ecological
travel.
Paying attention to ecological benefits in housing design and construction has
been widely accepted by rich families all over the world. However, the question
is whether this should be made a mandatory requirement for housing for all
income groups. The resulting increase in housing costs will come at the
expense of smaller housing areas, fewer garages, or reduced household
spending on energy, water, and travel (Obremski et al, 2019). Housing location
is very important to realize sustainable economic development. In view of a
series of problems caused by the extension of suburbs, the new urbanism puts
forward the development mode of "public transport led development unit". Its
core is to take the regional traffic station as the center, take the appropriate
walking distance as the radius, design the distance from the center of the town
to the edge of the town, which is only a quarter of a mile or five minutes' walk,
to replace the dominant position of cars in the city. Within this radius, medium
and high-density residential buildings will be built to increase the residential
density of the community, from 1 residential unit per acre to 6 units. Mixed
residential buildings and supporting public land, employment, business and
service facilities will effectively achieve the purpose of composite function, and
integrate the relationship between public transportation and land use mode
from the regional macro perspective. According to the view of new urbanism,
providing medium and high-density housing near transportation stations and
corridors can ensure that residents can make more convenient use of public
transport, thus reducing the use of private cars and reducing the cost of
transportation and infrastructure. In Australia, there is no case of community
organizations participating in housing development. In the United States, public
participation in housing design and development has achieved good results
(Squire et al, 2021).
In order to improve the affordability of housing, we need to reduce the cost of
housing. Therefore, in housing planning and design, housing should be built
near public transport, infrastructure and community facilities, and the impact of
climate and sunshine should be fully considered. Good housing design can
make housing warm in winter and cool in summer, and reduce the use of energy.
For example, the rational use of sunlight can increase the use of solar energy,
thus replacing the use of electricity and gas. Housing design should also
provide high-quality public open space to attract residents of all ages to
participate in community activities. It can help reduce the cost of housing use
and achieve good community interaction. In addition, in order to achieve the
sustainability of housing, it is needed to provide community facilities, compact
design, pedestrian friendly design and ecological housing. It can be seen that
sustainable housing and affordable housing have many common
characteristics. Therefore, it is possible for affordable housing to be sustainable
by introducing community participation in housing design and obtaining
ecological housing through government subsidies.
Reference
Bryant, Lyndall. (2017). Housing affordability in Australia: an empirical study of
the impact of infrastructure charges. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 32(3), 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-016-9527-0
Bryant, Lyndall, & Eves, Chris. (2014). The link between infrastructure charges
and housing affordability in Australia: where is the empirical evidence?
Australian
Planner,
51(4),
307–317.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.877509
Han, Hoon, Kim, Sumin, Jin, Mee Youn, & Pettit, Chris. (2021). Providing
affordable housing through urban renewal projects in Australia.
International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development,
9(2), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.9.2_41
Johnson, Carol. (2018). The Australian Right in the "Asian Century": Inequality
and Implications for Social Democracy. Journal of Contemporary Asia,
48(4), 622–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2018.1441894
Lee, Chyi Lin, & Locke, Martin. (2020). The effectiveness of passive land value
capture mechanisms in funding infrastructure. Journal of Property
Investment & Finance, 39(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-072020-0084
Ley, David, Mountz, Alison, Mendez, Pablo, Lees, Loretta, Walton-Roberts,
Margaret, & Helbrecht, Ilse. (2020). Housing Vancouver, 1972–2017: A
personal urban geography and a professional response. The Canadian
Geographer, 64(4), 438–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12663
Lehoux, Pascale, Pacifico Silva, Hudson, Pozelli Sabio, Renata, & Roncarolo,
Federico. (2018). The Unexplored Contribution of Responsible Innovation
in Health to Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability (Basel,
Switzerland), 10(11), 4015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114015
Ley, David. (2021). A regional growth ecology, a great wall of capital and a
metropolitan housing market. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 58(2),
297–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019895226
McLaren, J., Yeo, A., Sweet, M., (2016). Australia is facing a housing
affordability crisis: is the solution to this problem the Singapore model of
housing? Aust. Acc. Bus. Financ. J. 10 (4), 38–57.
Obremski, Helena, & Carter, Claudia. (2019). Can self-build housing improve
social sustainability within low-income groups? Town Planning Review,
90(2), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2019.12
Palm, Matthew, Raynor, Katrina Eve, & Warren-Myers, Georgia. (2021).
Examining building age, rental housing and price filtering for affordability in
Melbourne, Australia. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 58(4), 809–
825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020927839
Raynor, Katrina, & Coenen, Lars. (2021). Business model innovation and
scalability in hybrid affordable housing organisations: empirical insights and
conceptual reflections from Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09836-x
Ryan-Collins, Josh. (2021). Breaking the housing–finance cycle:
Macroeconomic policy reforms for more affordable homes. Environment
and
Planning.
A,
53(3),
480–502.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19862811
Saberi, Meead, Wu, Hongzhi, Amoh-Gyimah, Richard, Smith, Jonathan, &
Arunachalam, Dharmalingam. (2017). Measuring housing and
transportation affordability: A case study of Melbourne, Australia. Journal of
Transport
Geography,
65,
134–146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.10.007
Sen, Suman, Charles, Michael B, & Harrison, Jennifer L. (2021). Determinants
of Commute Distance in South East Queensland, Australia: Implications for
Usage-based Pricing in Lower-density Urban Settings. Urban Policy and
Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2021.1922376
Squires, Graham, Javed, Arshad, & Trinh, Hai Hong. (2021). Housing charges
to fund bulk infrastructure: innovative or traditional? Regional Studies,
Regional
Science,
8(1),
65–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2021.1882883
Williams, Galina, & Nikijuluw, Ruth. (2020). The economic and social benefit of
coal mining: the case of regional Queensland. The Australian Journal of
Agricultural
and
Resource
Economics,
64(4),
1113–1132.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12401
Zalejska-Jonsson, Agnieszka, Wilkinson, Sara J, & Wahlund, Richard. (2020).
Willingness to Pay for Green Infrastructure in Residential Development—A
Consumer
Perspective.
Atmosphere,
11(2),
152.
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11020152