AHRC08
Lifetime Affordable Housing in Australia – Assessing Life-Cycle Costs
Horne, R, Morrissey, J., O’Leary, T. - Centre for Design, RMIT University
Berry, M - AHURI-RMIT/NATSEM Research Centre, RMIT
Hamnett, S., Kellett, J., Irvine, S - UniSA
Abstract
Presently, rising housing costs are a potential brake on the Australian economy and have
particular social impacts relating to lower income households. In addition, improved
environmental performance of housing is required to avoid undesirable future impacts on
the environment and economy of Australia.
There is a lack of consensus amongst policy makers on the best means to address these
pressing issues collectively in housing policy, underpinned by a lack of systematic
research on the theory, practice and metrics of combining the policy objectives of
environmental sustainability and housing affordability. The debate concerning costs and
benefits of environmentally improved housing and impacts on housing affordability has
largely been framed as a choice between affordability and performance, two priorities in
opposition to one another. However for the long term economic, social and
environmental sustainability of Australia, affordability and environmental performance
are both required.
This paper details methods which will be applied to provide a clear, thorough and
systematic exploration of the commonalities, incompatibilities and tradeoffs between
affordability and sustainability. Existing approaches to life cycle costing will be
synthesised and applied to case studies of 4 standard Class 1 and 2 house designs.
For each design concept, three scenarios will be developed; baseline (5-star to current
building codes); enhanced (7-star to enhanced performance parameters) and world class
(approximately 9 star, approaching carbon neutral). Costs data will be collected and Life
Cycle Analysis applied to each scenario to calculate capital, payback and lifetime costs of
each, with emphasis on three key parameters; cost in dollars, Kgs of green house gases
(KgGHG) and litres of water used. This wide ranging empirical analysis will develop a
sufficient ‘case-book’ of evidence to make the affordability and sustainability aspects of
the housing debate explicit.
As a result, policy makers will be able to draw on systematic research which quantifies
and analyses the costs and environmental savings for different stages and types of
housing provision throughout the housing life cycle. This will subsequently enable
evidence-based policy approaches that necessarily achieve both lifetime affordability and
improved environmental outcomes.
SISRQ/EL 28/08
1
AHRC08
1. Introduction
It is an explicit assumption of this paper that we can no longer afford to delay major
efforts to improve the energy and water performance of housing, while also providing
quality, affordable housing for Australian families and individuals. Climate change is the
major environmental driver, and the Stern Review is particularly relevant in its focus on
economic costs and benefits of (in)action. It draws 6 major conclusions, the 3 most
pertinent to this study being:
 “There is still time to avoid the worst impacts, if we take strong action now.
 The costs of stabilising the climate are significant but manageable; delay would be
dangerous and much more costly.
 A range of options exists to cut emissions; strong, deliberate policy action is
required to motivate their take-up.” (Stern, 2006)
In the context of housing provision in Australia, the debate concerning public and private
costs/benefits of environmentally improved housing and impacts on housing affordability
has generated controversy amongst industry stakeholders and policy makers (Horne et al,
2006). The literature takes a variety of approaches, recommending policy perspectives,
conceptual assessment frameworks and undertaking quantitative studies in attempts to
address climate change and reduce energy consumption. However, there is a general
tendency for housing affordability and environment sustainability to be opposed choices,
with notable and growing exceptions especially in US and EU literature (e.g. Kellett
2006, Boardman et al 2005, Smith and Jones 2003, ) and there is a lack of systematic
research on the theory, practice, metrics and policy implications of combining these
objectives. Housing studies have much to add to the global sustainability debate but to
date, housing researchers have not engaged environmentalists in critical debate on
sustainability issues (Bhatti 2001). The affordability/sustainability opposition is a shortterm perspective in the view of the authors, and a longer term analysis is required, along
with evidence-based policy approaches that necessarily achieve both lifetime
affordability and improved environmental outcomes.
2. Framing the debate: Housing affordability
Despite a lack of consensus across academic disciplines regarding a specific single
definition of affordability, there is broad agreement that it is a growing issue (Berry,
2003, 2006a,2006b; Yates and Gabriel, 2005). A variety of reasons contribute to this,
including increasing economic inequality, demographic change, fiscal constraint by
government, land prices (including the impact of infrastructure charges) and building
costs (Berry and Dalton, 2004). Household sizes are shrinking, while house sizes are
growing, and the population is ageing, providing a mismatch between existing stock and
future needs. Fiscal Policies such as First Home Owners Grants have contributed to rising
house prices, while reduced land supply, the speculative behaviour of private landowners
and perceptions of land supply shortages contribute to land price increases, with direct
effects on property prices (Property Council of Australia, 2006). Furthermore, low supply
SISRQ/EL 28/08
2
AHRC08
during high demand periods can have a lasting impact on housing prices (Berry and
Dalton, 2004).
Land price is also a significant component of housing price. Implicated in land price rises
are pressures to address urban sprawl by regulating land supply at the urban fringe
through planning initiatives such as urban growth boundaries. One outcome is intended to
be increased urban densities, and Rickaby (1987) forecasts 21% reduction in travel
distances, while ECOTEC (1993) estimated 16% reduction in transport emissions through
such measures. Current metropolitan planning strategies for Australian cities, such as the
Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide (2006) and Melbourne 2030 accept this as
conventional wisdom. However, although well-founded, such policies have potential land
inflation effects, unless sufficient, significant urban land such as brownfield and greyfield
sites can be located and utilised to meet needs (Horne et al 2006). Brownfields are
defined as ex-industrial sites which are unused and may or may not contaminated, while
greyfields are urban lands which are currently underutilised given their location and
potential. Major policy efforts are underway, for example in the UK, to utilise browfield
and greyfield land for housing for effectively (e.g. Urban Task Force, 2005).
Building costs have also risen. The relatively few extant studies examining the costs of
measures to improve the energy and water consumption of housing generally indicate that
any construction cost increases due to energy efficiency are marginal at around 1% of
build or 0.5% of house cost, and that resulting operating costs are lowered, quickly
paying back the additional build costs. This unpublished work relates to the ‘5 star’
mandatory energy performance requirement, introduced in national building codes from
2006. However, evidence of current average performance in other western countries of
around 7 stars shows that significant further improvements in house environmental
performance are possible (Horne et al, 2005).
The net result is that, when home prices rise more rapidly than incomes – as has been the
case in all of Australia’s hot housing markets over the past five to ten years – it becomes
more and more expensive to help working families purchase homes (Jacobus & Lubell,
2007; Figure 1).
SISRQ/EL 28/08
3
AHRC08
Figure 1: When home prices rise faster than incomes, the result is a growing affordability
gap (Jacobus & Lubell, 2007)
AHURI have conducted extensive research into this problem. The publication Housing
affordability: A 21st century problem provides a comprehensive examination and
overview of the drivers and dynamics involved in the current affordability problems
being experienced in Australia. In 2002-03, for example, of the 7.6 million households in
Australia, just under 1.2 million (16 per cent of all households) paid 30 per cent or more
of gross household income in meeting their housing costs. Of these, 862,000 were lowerincome households, defined as being in housing stress. A further 164,000 were moderateincome households. (Yates & Milligan, 2007; Figure 2).
Figure 2: Housing stress and housing affordability problems (Yates & Milligan
2007)
Overwhelmingly, previous studies of housing affordability decline in Australia have
concentrated on the threshold costs of accessing housing – e.g. buying a house on
mortgage or meeting up-front rental costs like the bond – and on the ongoing mortgage
repayment and rent payment. A range of other ongoing costs tend to be ignored in the
affordability debate – notably, rates, infrastructure charges, energy, water and other and
utility costs, house maintenance costs, insurance premiums, end of occupancy transaction
costs (e.g. stamp duty on mortgage discharge, real estate agent commissions, etc.). In
other words, the affordability debate is currently ‘front-end fixated’, while many of the
costs and benefits (internal and external) associated with the environmental performance
of houses are spread over the useful life of the dwelling.
3. Framing sustainability and housing
The central starting proposition of the wider research project (see below) is that
affordability and performance are not necessarily in opposition to one another. The aim
is to develop a clear, thorough and systematic exploration of the commonalities,
incompatibilities and tradeoffs between affordability and sustainability. The aim of this
paper is to outline a research approach to enable this wider aim to be achieved.
SISRQ/EL 28/08
4
AHRC08
First, the research area can be framed within the sustainability concept, for example,
using Spangenberg’s (2002) prism of sustainability (see Figure 3). Practical sustainable
development is ultimately concerned with combining, balancing or trading-off aspects of
these economic, social, environmental (and institutional) dimensions (Mazza & Rydin,
1997, p3). The political and economic challenge for sustainable development is how to
politically implement (social, institutional and environmental) targets for sustainability
benchmarks for production and consumption patterns while maintaining or improving the
standard of living and quality of life for the average citizen (Spangenberg, 2002, p298).
ENVIRONMENT
DIMENSION
INSTITUTIONAL
DIMENSION
SOCIAL
DIMENSION
ECONOMIC
DIMENSION
Figure 3. Prism of sustainability (Spangenberg, 2002)
The importance of the built environment for sustainable development is well highlighted
in the literature (Jones et al. 2007, UNEP, 2007; Ortiz et al., 2008) Studies suggest that
residential and commercial building sectors are responsible for about 30% of primary
energy consumed in OECD countries, for example and this is expected to rise in the
coming years (UNEP 2007). According to the Australian Government, buildings are
responsible for many of the most significant environmental impacts, including, 42% of
the energy, 25% of water used and 30% of the raw materials used (Internet Reference 1).
There is a global potential to reduce approximately 30% of the projected baseline
emissions by 2020 cost-effectively in the residential and commercial sectors, albeit by a
SISRQ/EL 28/08
5
AHRC08
concerted and concentrated effort (Levine et al. 2007). Energy-use reduction in buildings
needs to consider how buildings are designed, built and operated (Haapio, 2007). The
IPPC highlight this opportunity for reduced emissions and higher energy efficiencies of
our built environment, describing options such as smart design and flexible energy
solutions as appropriate measures to help reach this ambitious figure of 30% (IPPC
2007). Many of the homes we build today may be with us for as long as 100 years, so the
need to design and build homes that will be considered well-designed in twenty and thirty
years time is very apparent, and indeed, pressing. The design of residential housing
therefore plays a particularly important role to a more sustainable future.
Science is increasingly being called upon to provide information for complex
environmental decision-making (Liu, 2008). In terms of housing sustainability, building
designers and occupants have long been concerned about building performance (Ding,
2008). Both Clarke (1999) and Soebarto (2001) discuss how explicit performance
appraisal by simulation has become accepted as a best practice approach to building
design. Assessment methods play a valuable role by providing a clear declaration of the
key environmental considerations and their relative priority (Internet Reference 2).
At the early design stages, key decisions can greatly influence the subsequent
opportunities to reduce building energy use (Levine et al., 2007). Ding (2008) further
argue that in order for environmental building assessment methods to be useful as a
design tool, they must be introduced as early as possible to allow for early collaboration
between the design and assessment teams. With regard to the use of simulation tools
Haapio (2007) attests that the use and specific application of these tools can vary to a
great extent. The detailed definition of the use and purpose of any given tool is crucial to
its success. Questions such as where and when a tool should be used, who should use the
tool, and how the results from the assessment should be utilised are crucial to answer for
a successful tool (Haapio, 2007).
4. Key research questions
Despite research literatures on housing affordability and on sustainability, there is a lack
of systematic research on the theory, practice and metrics of combining the policy
objectives of environmental sustainability and housing affordability. Given current
trends, a range of research and policy challenges arise:
1. Systematic, transparent methods and studies of integrated lifetime environmental
and cost assessment of housing options in Australia are needed;
2. Energy and water savings options require specific study in the Australian context;
3. Relationships between housing environmental performance and socio-economic
factors require clear resolution to avoid adverse impacts (e.g. The Commonwealth
DHA (2003) predicts summer deaths to increase by up to 50% in Australia by the
year 2050);
4. Land supply and locational efficiency factors in housing affordability are growing
problems and the potential use of urban brownfield and greyfield sites require
systematic evaluation;
5. Current policies and fiscal measures tend to target initial costs of housing which can
have unintended effects, while long term policy perspectives are required to ensure
SISRQ/EL 28/08
6
AHRC08
long term housing affordability (incorporating investment and paybacks, split
incentives, future housing needs, and climate change adaptation).
From these challenges, a set of four linked research questions have been developed, as
follows:
 Research Question 1: What are the through-life costs and benefits of
predominant housing forms in Australia's major cities?
 Research Question 2: What are the real through-life costs and benefits of
utilising urban brownfield and greyfield sites to supply more affordable
housing around employment centres to enhance locational efficiency?
 Research Question 3: How do the costs and benefits identified in 1 and 2
impact on housing affordability over the short and long terms?
 Research Question 4: How can the perceived trade-off between affordability
and housing performance be overcome by market and regulatory mechanisms
including: (a) financial incentives and disincentives (private/public) to
encourage environmental performance in housing: (b) regulatory and planning
reform, including policies to encourage denser residential redevelopment on
existing brownfield and grey field urban sites: and (c) refining affordability
policy mechanisms to ensure long-term as well as short term positive
outcomes?
5. The Lifetime Affordable Housing ARC Linkage Project
Funding was obtained from the ARC Linkage scheme, along with industry partners
(VicUrban, Building Commission Victoria, Land Management Corporation), RMIT
University and UniSA, to undertake the project, split into 4 phases, presented here as
Themes with a 5th Theme of information dissemination and communication being
addressed throughout the project.
Theme 1: Housing life cycle costs and benefits
Life cycle costing of environmental performance is in its infancy. Existing approaches to
Life Cycle Analysis will be synthesised and cases of 4 standard Class 1 and 2 house
designs will be developed for use in the study. For each design concept, three scenarios
will be developed; baseline (5-star to current building codes); enhanced (7-star to
enhanced performance parameters) and world class (approximately 9 star, approaching
carbon neutral). While there will be an emphasis on the climate zones in the case study
areas, performance across all other Australian climate zones will also be modelled.
Capital, payback and lifetime costs of scenarios will be calculated, with emphasis on
three key parameters; $, kgGHG and litres of water used. Results will be expressed in
terms of $ per kg GHG saved and $ per l water saved. Other environmental impacts
(biodiversity, indoor environment quality, toxicity, stormwater) will also be evaluated.
Theme 2: Locational efficiency costs and benefits
Research conducted under this theme will seek to quantify the economic and
environmental benefits of increased provision of affordable housing on sites within urban
areas, rather than on greenfield sites at the urban periphery. Current data on brownfield
and greyfield land availability will be supplemented with new research identifying
SISRQ/EL 28/08
7
AHRC08
appropriate locations for affordable housing based on demand factors such as land prices,
sustainable travel options and the location of employment. The costs of interventions
required in order to release land within the case study locations will be assessed against
the economic, social and environmental benefits identified. Existing methodological
approaches, which will be adapted and applied to the case study areas, include those
developed by CI Hamnett and colleagues to compare the energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions of alternative housing forms in outer, inner and city centre locations.
Theme 3: Affordability implications
In addressing research question 3, the assessments from Themes 2 and 3 will be
integrated and directions for fiscal and policy approaches developed. The analysis will
identify, categorise and quantify the main financial and time costs that impact on the
household over the short, medium and long term for the key case study scenarios. As
such it will focus on the internal costs and benefits and those externalities that affect
households, rather than the broader community. Relevant data will also be collected from
ABS, industry and government sources and tested against the specialist knowledge of the
Partner Organisations.
Theme 4: Policy and transition mechanisms
In the light of the integrated analyses presented in answer to the first three research
questions, the use of particular policy instruments to minimise the long term net cost to
households and the broader community of housing developments will be investigated.
For each particular development scenario, derived from the case studies, the analysis will
identify the cost consequences for households over the long term, the real (as opposed to
perceived) trade-offs between environmentally performing housing and cost to the
household, and the government policy interventions that would be required to enable
households to minimise their long term housing costs. The second stage will focus on the
external costs imposed on third parties in each scenario, and analyse the implications for
government policy interventions aimed at minimising those costs while not
compromising housing affordability.
6. Progress to Date
Literature reviews of planning, affordability, financing/shared equity, and building
environmental rating tools have been undertaken. Existing approaches to life cycle
costing have been synthesised and are currently being applied to case studies of 4
standard Class 1 and 2 house designs. For each design concept, three scenarios are being
developed; baseline (5-star to current building codes); enhanced (7-star to enhanced
performance parameters) and world class (approximately 9 star, approaching carbon
neutral). Costs data is being collected and Life Cycle Analysis applied to each scenario to
calculate capital, payback and lifetime costs of each, with emphasis on three key
parameters; cost in dollars, Kgs of green house gases (KgGHG) and litres of water used.
This wide ranging empirical analysis will develop a sufficient ‘case-book’ of evidence to
make the affordability and sustainability aspects of the housing debate explicit.
SISRQ/EL 28/08
8
AHRC08
Authors such as Citherlet & Defaux, (2007) categorise the environmental impacts of
households into direct impacts, incurred during use and operation and indirect impacts,
incurred during the building life span, material fabrication, transport, maintenance and
elimination. Costs to households may also be assessed in theses terms. Citherlet &
Defaux, (2007) argue for the presentation of costs and impacts in a series of stages, as
follows:
 Construction
 Operation
 Elimination / disposal
 Heating
 Ventilation
 Electricity
 DHW
For the purposes of our initial review, costs incurred by households may be divided into
initial or capital costs and ongoing or operational costs.
Initial costs
Initial cost factors relating to sustainability include the investment in ‘green building’
infrastructure such as insulation and renewable energy resources. Costs may be affected
by a number of factors, as shown in Table 1.
•
•
•
•
Increase of initial costs
Insulation, double glazing, solar
HWS, water tanks, green materials,
advanced technologies, etc
Premiums charged by builders and
tradespeople unfamiliar with
sustainable features
Higher interest rates, insurance, if
borrow more
Carbon price will increase costs of
energy-intensive materials
•
•
•
•
•
•
Decrease of initial costs
Reduced infrastructure costs
(energy supply, roads etc)
‘Green’ discount loans (improved
ability to repay loan)
Smaller, simpler heating and
cooling equipment and HWS
Fewer light fittings
Smaller, smarter floorplan
Economies of scale
Table 1: Factors affecting initial costs factors
Ongoing costs
In regard to ongoing costs, the mean (average) weekly housing costs for all households
was $185 in 2005-06, according to the ABS. There is, however, considerable variation in
housing costs with 43% of all households paying $75 or less per week. For owners
without a mortgage, the average weekly housing costs were $29, which represented 3%
of average gross weekly income for those households. Owners with a mortgage paid an
average of $338 per week on housing costs, which represented 20% of their average gross
weekly income; although about 36% of this amount was repaying the principal
outstanding on the loan. Households renting from private landlords paid an average of
$223 per week, representing 19% of their average gross income. Households renting from
SISRQ/EL 28/08
9
AHRC08
state and territory housing authorities paid an average of $100 per week, representing
17% of their average gross income (Internet Reference 3).
Table 2 presents some of the factors relating to ongoing cost factors for households
relating to sustainability
•
Increase of ongoing costs
Higher maintenance for solar HWS,
rainwater tanks etc
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Decrease of ongoing costs
Need to own fewer cars and drive
less
Lower energy and fuel bills
Reduce carbon prices and total
carbon permit costs
Less wear and tear on appliances
Lower replacement costs (eg
carpet), painting, etc
Lower health costs, less absenteeism
from work
Improved comfort means enjoy
staying home in heat
Able to stay if disabled or ageing
Table 2: Factors effecting ongoing costs in relation to sustainability
Energy use is an area of particular concern. In terms of residential energy use, overall
energy use is predicted to grow by 53% by 2029-30. This is driven by the trend of
increased appliance use and appliances which use 'standby' power. While appliances only
account for 17% of energy consumed in Victorian homes, they generate 40% of
household greenhouse pollution as most appliances use electricity rather than gas. Energy
in the residential sector is mainly used for space heating and cooling, and water heating.
Figure 4 presents a breakdown of residential energy use for 2004-2005 (Data taken from
Victorian Energy Efficiency Action Statement, Department of Sustainability and
Environment, 2006, Internet Reference 4)
SISRQ/EL 28/08
10
AHRC08
Figure 4: Residential sector energy services 2004-05 (Internet Reference 5)
Application of costs data
A number of studies have been carried out which provide signposts to the direction
costing investigations could take. Mithraratne & Vale (2004) describe a life-cycle
analysis model based on embodied and operating energy requirements and life cycle costs
over the useful life of a residential building. The model applied is based on generic
construction types and uses current prices for building related activities and energy. The
model also includes an indicator of environmental impact. The study applied this
developed model and looked at 3 variations of a Building Industry Advisory Council
(BIAC) standard house. For example, regarding the addition of extra insulation, the
following findings are given:
“The initial cost of construction increases with the additional insulation and remains higher
throughout the useful life….Although the marginal increase in cost does not provide benefit to the
individual house owner, it could buffer the owner against any sudden increases in energy prices,
while providing improved comfort and additional health benefits” (Mithraratne & Vale,
2004)
Risk and future cost scenarios
Bound with the financial implications of higher environmental performance are a series
of assumptions about future energy costs. In particular, environmental impacts must be
considered together with the costs to households, considered in the context of energy
price rises, carbon taxes and global warming implications. Papers such as Martinsen et al.
(2007) apply scenario analysis to examine the implications of energy price dynamics and
future energy systems. Figures 5 and 6 describe 3 various energy price scenarios: Figure
5 presents future projected prices of 6 fuels under these scenarios, while Figure 6 presents
the predicted impact of a CO2 penalty on CO2 emissions, for each of the scenarios.
SISRQ/EL 28/08
11
AHRC08
Figure 5: Prices of imported energy carriers in $2000/GJ (Martinsen et al., 2007)
Figure 6:CO2 emissions in the price scenarios with and without a CO2 penalty
(Martinsen et al., 2007)
Scenarios such as these will be developed during the course of the Lifetime Affordable
Housing project. Sources of data such as the Australian Energy, National and State
projections to 2029-30 publication (ABARE, 2005) will be explored for this end (Figure
7).
SISRQ/EL 28/08
12
AHRC08
Figure 7. Australian energy projections to 2029-30 (ABARE, 2005)
Alan Pears (pers.comm. 2008) carried out some calculations demonstrating how such
scenario analysis could be applied to assess the impact of CO2 costing on two
households, an energy efficient household and a business as usual household. Figure 8
presents these findings and gives some idea of how costing data may be applied to
develop useful scenarios for planners and decision makers. Shown are the annual costs to
the two case-study households, under the two costing scenarios, CO2 at $30 per tonne
and CO2 at $50 per tonne.
SISRQ/EL 28/08
13
AHRC08
Figure 8: Household energy savings for an efficient ‘average’ household per annum
(Alan Pears, pers.comm. 2008)
7. Conclusion
The aim of the project is to provide policy makers with systematic research which
quantifies and analyses the costs and environmental savings for different stages and types
of housing provision throughout the housing life cycle. This will subsequently enable
evidence-based policy approaches that necessarily achieve both lifetime affordability and
improved environmental outcomes.
References
ABARE, 2005. Australian energy national and state projections to 2029-30. Abare research report
06.26. Canberra.
Berry, M. (2003) “Why is it Important to Boost the Supply of Affordable Housing in Australia and How Can We Do it?, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 21, no. 4.
Berry, M. (2006a) Housing Affordability and the Economy: A Review of Labour Market Impacts
and Policy Issues, Final Report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute,
Melbourne, August.
Berry, M. (2006b) Housing Affordability and the Economy: A Review of Macroeconomic
Impacts and Policy Issues, Final Report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute,
Melbourne, June.
Berry, M. and Dalton, T. (2004) “Housing prices and Policy Dilemmas; A Peculiarly Australian
Problem?”, Urban Policy and Research , vol.22, no. 1
Bhatti, M (2001) 'Housing/Futures? The challenge from environmentalism.' Housing Studies, vol.
16, no. 1, pp. 39-52.
Boardman B, Darby S, Killip G, Hinnells M, Jardine C N, Palmer J and Sinden G (2005) 40%
House, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford
Citherlet, S., Defaux, T., 2007. Energy and environmental comparison of three variants of a
family house during its whole life span. In: Building and Environment 42 (2007) 591–598.
Clarke, JA. 1999. Prospects for truly integrated building performance simulation. In: Nakahara N,
Yoshida H, Udagawa M, Hensen J, editors. Proceedings of Building Simulation ’99
SISRQ/EL 28/08
14
AHRC08
Conference, Vol.III, International Building Performance Simulation Association, Kyoto,
Japan. 1999, p. 1147–55.
Ding, G. 2008. Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. In Journal
of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 451–464.
ECOTEC (1993) Reducing Transport Emissions through Planning, DoE/DoT, London.
Government, Property Council of Australia, Sydney.
Haapio, A., Viiraniemi, P., 2008. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools.
In: Environmental Impact Assessment Review (2008) In Press
Horne, R E, Hayles, C, Hes, D, Jensen, C, Opray, L, Wakefield, R, and Wasiluk, K (2005)
International comparison of building energy performance standards. Report to Australian
Greenhouse Office, Department of Environment and Heritage, September.
Horne, R E, Wasiluk, K, Lee, M and Iyer-Raniga, U. (2006) Integrating Outcomes - Housing
Affordability. Discussion Paper, Building Commission.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers UNEP. Valencia, Spain.
Internet Reference 1: http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/energyefficiency/buildings/
Internet Reference 2: http://www.sb05.com/academic/4&5_IssuePaper.pdf
Internet Reference 3:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4130.0.55.
001Main%20Features2200506?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4130.0.55.001&issue=
2005-06&num=&view
Internet Reference 4: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/www/html/1820-energy-use-by-sector.asp)
Internet Reference 5: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/www/html/1820-energy-use-by-sector.asp)
Jacobus, R. and Lubell, J. (2007) ‘Preservation of Affordable Homeownership: A Continuum of
Strategies’, Centre for Housing Policy Brief.
Jones, P., Patterson, J., Lannon, S., 2007. Modelling the built environment at an urban scale—
Energy and health impacts in relation to housing. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 83
(2007) 39–49.
Kellett J (2006) Energy Service Companies: A Route to a More Sustainable Adelaide?
Environmental Institute of Australia & New Zealand Conference, Adelaide, September
Levine, M., D. Ürge-Vorsatz, K. Blok, L. Geng, D. Harvey, S. Lang, G. Levermore, A.
Mongameli Mehlwana, S. Mirasgedis, A. Novikova, J. Rilling, H. Yoshino, 2007:
Residential and commercial buildings. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution
of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)],
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Liu, Y., Gupta, H., Springer, E., Wagner, T., (2008). Linking science with environmental decision
making: Experiences from an integrated modeling approach to supporting sustainable
water resources management. In: Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 846-858
Martinsen, D., Krey, V., Markewitz, P., 2007. Implications of high energy prices for energy
system and emissions—The response from an energy model for Germany. In: Energy Policy
35 (2007) 4504–4515
Mazza, L. & Rydin, Y., 1997. Urban Sustainability: Discourses, Networks and Policy Tools. In:
Progress in Planning, Volume 47, Issue 1, p 1-74.
Mithraratne, N, Vale, B., 2004. Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. In: Building
and Environment 39 (2004) 483 – 492
SISRQ/EL 28/08
15
AHRC08
Ortiz, O. Castells, F., Sonnemann, G. 2008. Sustainability in the construction industry: A review
of recent developments based on LCA. In: Construction and Building Materials (2008) In
Press
Rickaby P (1987) ‘Six Settlement Patterns Compared’, Environment and Planning B, No 14.
Smith, MT & Jones, P (2003) 'The Impact of Energy Efficient House Construction on
Homeownership Costs: A Comparitive Study in Gainesville, Florida.' Family and
Consumer Sciences Research Journal, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 76-98.
Soebarto, V.I., Williamson, T.J., 2001. Multi-criteria assessment of building performance: theory
and implementation. In: Building and Environment 36 (2001) 681–690.
Spangenberg, J. H., 2002. Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: frameworks for
indicators measuring sustainable development. In: Ecological Indicators, Volume 2, Issue
3, p 295-309.
Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. HM Treasury/Cambridge
University Press, UK. ISBN-10: 0521700809
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2007) Buildings and Climate Change- Status,
Challenges and Opportunities UNEP, Geneva.
Urban Task Force (2005) Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance, Urban Task Force, London,
Yates, J. and Gabriel, M (2006) Housing Affordability in Australia, National Research Venture 3,
Research Paper 3, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne, February.
Yates, J., Milligan, V., Berry, M., Burke,T., Gabriel,M., Phibbs, P., Pinnegar, S., Randolph, B.,
2007. Housing affordability: A 21st century problem National Research Venture 3:
Housing affordability for lower income Australians. AHURI, Melbourne.
SISRQ/EL 28/08
16