Asset management strategies and sustainability in Dutch social housing
Nico Nieboer
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology,
PO Box 5030, NL – 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands E-mail: n.e.t.nieboer@tudelft.nl
Paper to be presented at the IAHS conference "Sustainability of the Housing Projects" in Trento, Italy, 21-25 September 2004
Congress topic: management schemes and maintenance Key words: sustainability, management, landlord, investment
Abstract
With 35% of the total housing stock in the Netherlands (Ministry of VROM, 2004), the social rented sector plays an important role in Dutch housing, and its management can be of great im-portance to the success or failure of sustainability programs. Although sustainable building has been high on the national political agenda, and although this was in a period of intensive policy developments in the Dutch social sector, there are indications that sustainability plays only a minor role in housing management decisions (Sunikka and Boon, 2002 and 2003). This paper is about recent strategic innovations in housing stock policy and investment decisions of social landlords, and the role of sustainability in these innovations. The paper deals with several case studies on this subject, and also goes into a recent survey among social landlords on investment policy and technical management, which gives a more comprehensive picture of the sector. We compare the results with those of an earlier, similar survey, held in 1997 (Straub, 1997). We conclude this paper with some recommendations for enlarging the role of sustainability in hous-ing management.
1 Introduction
In the last ten to twenty years, sustainable building is an important issue in the environmental policy of the Dutch national government. A substantial step forward was taken in 1995 with the introduction of the first national action plan on sustainable building. A National Package Sus-tainable Building, containing voluntary measures to improve environmental quality, has been introduced and is, up to now, regularly updated with new or modified items. In 1998, a start was made to include several measures from this action plan in mandatory building regulations (Van Hal, 1999). By now, many policy instruments have been implemented, including tax measures on green investments and a national centre for Sustainable Building.
Naturally, cooperation with the building sector is necessary for policy measures on sustain-ability to be effective. Thus, the attitude of this sector to measurements and instruments for sus-tainable building is very important. In this paper, we deal with the attitude of social landlords in the Netherlands towards the sustainable management of their housing stock. This group of land-lords is dominated by housing associations, being private associations with a number of manda-tory, public rights and obligations, mostly formulated in the Social-Rented Sector Management
Decree (BBSH – Besluit Beheer Sociale Huursector), which is based on the Housing Act. Hous-ing associations manage 99% of all homes in the social housHous-ing sector; the remainHous-ing 1% be-longs to local authorities. In the Netherlands, 35% of the total number of homes is in the hands of social landlords (Ministry of VROM, 2004). Because of this, the attitude of the social land-lords can be a powerful factor in the effectivity of government measures towards sustainable building.
The development of government policies on sustainability have more or less coincided with large changes in the political context of social housing. Since the late 1980s, after decades of strong central government intervention in the housing market, the Dutch national government policy embraces the reinforcement of market principles in social housing. As part of this policy, housing associations have gained much more administrative freedom. In the 1990s, direct finan-cial support for new building and refurbishment was completely withdrawn, which is unique in Western Europe (e.g. Boelhouwer, 1997, 1999; Dieleman, 1999).
The new policy context has set considerable challenges for the asset management of Dutch social landlords. Being transformed from operational, task-oriented organisations towards ‘so-cial entrepreneurs’, they have to operate in a more strategic, market-oriented way. As a result, the sector is, more than in the past, responsive to innovations to support management decisions. This might create a favourable climate for the development of strategies on relatively new is-sues, and sustainable housing management can be seen as one of these.
This paper deals with the question, in which way social landlords have used this climate to develop a more systematic and structured investment policy. We concentrate on strategies of landlords concerning the development of their housing portfolio. We focus on strategies that aim to support decisions about refurbishment, regular maintenance, sale or demolition, or about the choice between these investment options. We look for the role of sustainability in these strategies. It is evident that there are competing interests, such as market position, costs, af-fordability and technical possibilities. These interests may not always in favour of sustainable housing management. So, the main questions are:
- Which methods do Dutch social landlords use to systematise and structure their stock in-vestment decisions?
- What is the role of sustainability in these methods?
- What is the relative importance of sustainability in investment decisions of Dutch social landlords?
Sustainability can have different meanings, such as: long-lasting, durable, stable, inexhaustible (mostly in relation to energy sources) and environment-friendly. It can also have a social aspect, for instance in ‘sustainable neighbourhoods’ and ‘sustainable communities’. In relation to urban regeneration, even indicators on land use, community benefits and employment are used (e.g. Hemphill et al., 2004). This paper is about the environmental aspects of sustainability, notably the consumption of energy and materials.
In this paper, we present the results of two recent researches of the OTB Research Institute for Housing that focus on housing asset management and the development of strategies in this territory. The studies take into account the various fields that landlords find relevant in their housing management (environment, finance, affordability, market position, market develop-ments etc.) and, thus, are not strictly directed to sustainability or any other field of interest. But although sustainability has only a marginal role in these researches, both studies contain evi-dence on the relative importance of this subject. The first research consists of case studies, car-ried out in 2003, on strategy development in housing asset management of nine social landlords. This research concentrates on methods and instruments for systematic development and struc-turing of investment decisions. The second research is a survey on housing asset management, held this year. This research gives a more representative picture of the relative importance of several subjects in housing management, among which environmental quality.
In the following section, we deal with the way in which the researches have been carried out. Next, we present the results of the research on strategy development in housing asset agement. After that, we present the results of the survey as far as the development of asset man-agement strategies is concerned. We also compare these results with the outcome of a similar survey that was held seven years ago (Straub, 1997). We conclude with remarks on the relative position of sustainability in housing asset management, and some recommendations to improve the relative position of sustainability in housing projects.
2 Research method
Case studies about systematic development and structuring of investment decisions
The case studies about systematic development and structuring of investment decisions research were held in the summer of 2003 and were carried out by interviews and document study. The choice for interviews was based on the explorative character of the research, in which the im-portant issues in stock development are brought forward by the landlords themselves (instead of selecting a set of predefined aspects beforehand).
We have not aimed at representativity. We have interviewed 9 housing associations, which form only 1 to 2 percent of the whole sector. The interviewed associations are relatively large: they own together about 200,000 homes, which is 8 to 9 percent of the total number in the sec-tor. The landlords have not been selected at random, but have been formed from two groups. 1. The first group consists of 6 housing associations that have participated in a research and
discussion platform of OTB Research Institute about asset management strategies. A main criterion for participation was that one or another form of such a strategy had already been developed. The platform existed from April to December 2003.
2. The second group consists of 4 housing associations that can be seen as a research advisory board. These four organisations are part of a group of 8 housing associations that partly fi-nance a comprehensive programme, to which this research belongs.
Because one of the landlords in the second group also participated in the first group, the number of landlords in the research is not ten, but nine. From the way in which these nine landlords are selected, it is likely to assume that their asset management is relatively advanced in comparison to the ‘average’ landlord in the social housing sector.
Survey about housing asset management
The survey about housing asset management was conducted in spring 2004. The population consisted of social landlords (mainly housing associations, but also some local authority hous-ing departments) that are member of Aedes, the Dutch umbrella organisation for social land-lords. The questionnaire was sent via the Internet to all members that are social landland-lords. Thus, no sampling took place.
The response to the questionnaire is low, namely 24% (125 out of 530). This percentage is too small to have a representative picture of the total social housing sector, but it gives strong indications.
3 Results of the case studies
The dynamics in the social housing sector has led to a range of methods for the development of asset management. These methods are so different from each other, that they can hardly be compared. Despite this lack of comparability we can divide these methods into three categories, which cover the large majority of the methods found at the organisations in the research. These categories are:
1. specification of certain aspects of housing supply or housing demand; 2. systematic weighing of different (sometimes opposing) goals and interests;
3. procedures for development of asset management strategies.
These categories do not exclude each other. For instance, a social landlord can develop an inter-nal procedure for policy development, and employs within this procedure a method to weigh different interests.
ad 1 Specification of certain aspects of the housing stock or the target group
Traditionally, housing need has been captured in terms of age, household size and income. Nowadays, many social landlords feel that these criteria are inadequate to base housing alloca-tion and housing supply on. In the last five to ten years, there is an increased interest in life-style as an important factor in housing choice. The idea behind it is that people do not want conflicts with the local residents and thus prefer to live among neighbours with a more or less similar pattern of norms and values. In the last years, several classifications were developed, in which present and potential tenants are categorised according to their life-style. In our research we have found three social landlords (WBA, Mitros and Delftwonen) that work with classifications based on life-style.
Next to a classification of (potential) tenants, there are also new classifications of the housing stock. While traditionally technical management was driven mostly by a regular maintenance planning cycle, diversification of the physical quality of the dwellings is used more and more as an instrument to adapt the stock to the large variety of individual housing preferences. The housing association of AWV has developed a classification related to convenience of the dwell-ing, like floor area and amenities (e.g. size of kitchen unit, number of wash basins, wall tiles in the bathroom, central heating). Using this classification, the AWV has assessed the present situation of its estates and has formulated the desired situation. In doing so, the AWV tries to structure its efforts to raise the average standard of its housing portfolio, which is one of its most important objectives.
Example of classification based on of life-style
Both the WBA and Delftwonen use a classification, developed by a private company (named SmartAgent Company) and based on individualism and compliance with traditional norms and values in society. On the basis of this classification, the following categories are formed (cf. Hagen, 2001, pp. 9-10):
- the ‘independent’ (individualistic and non-compliant people);
- the ‘dynamic individualistic’ (compliant and, of course, individualistic);
- the ‘community persons’ (non-individualistic, not specifically compliant or non-compliant); - ‘silent luxury’ (non-individualistic and compliant);
- ‘withdrawers’ (non-individualistic and non-compliant);
- the ‘embedded’ (very group oriented and non-individualistic, not specifically compliant or non-compliant).
These life-styles are used to determine for which people an estate is (potentially) attractive. In prac-tice, life-style is only used as a method of neighbourhood description and, thus, a source of informa-tion to potential tenants. In some cases, it plays a role in the formulainforma-tion of the future composiinforma-tion of the housing stock (e.g. realising homes for families, for lower-income people etc.). Allocation of homes according to life-style does not take place, because this is generally not allowed.
Table 1 Quality classification of housing association AWV (partial overview)
source: housing association AWV, Amsterdam
ad 2 Weighing of different goals and interests
As part of their current policy freedom, housing associations have to make their own decisions about the development of their housing stock. It is not surprising that in formulating stock pol-icy, social landlords have to ‘weigh’ different interests, like future market expectations, the pre-sent technical condition, the financial situation, government regulations and tenant preferences. These interests are mostly incomparable and sometimes contradictory, which makes the weigh-ing of these factors difficult. There are some more or less rational ‘techniques’ to tackle this problem. Although these techniques are rigid, they can be a valuable support in decision-making.
Among the methods to weigh different interests, the portfolio analysis is rather well known. This technique, derived from strategic business planning (e.g. Ansoff, 1984), has been applied by, among others, Van Vliet (1993) and Van den Broeke (1998) in the social housing sector. In a portfolio analysis, estates are assessed on the basis of their current market position (e.g. on the basis of vacancy and turnover rates) and their future market prospects (e.g. on the basis of hous-ing market research). The outcome of this analysis may be translated directly into suggestions for basic strategies to follow (e.g. ‘grow’ or ‘cherish’ when market position and prospects are good and ‘divest’ when market position and prospects are bad). In this way, portfolio analysis may contribute to a systematic approach to formulate strategies for the housing stock (cf. Van der Flier and Gruis, 2002).
Standard Standard Plus Comfort
General
Description Based on minimum requirements.
Describes the minimum requirements that must be met by all homes in the future.
Homes of high quality and service. Target groups are higher-income households, traditional families and the better-off elderly.
Criteria All criteria must be met. At least 25 of the 28 criteria must be met.
At least 23 of the 28 criteria must be met. Floor area requirements must be met anyway.
Floor area
floor area according to national Housing Quality Rate (specified by number of rooms)
(no requirements) Inner city Outskirts 1r >= 25 m² 1r >= 30 m² 2r >= 35 m² 2r >= 40 m² 3r >= 45 m² 3r >= 50 m² 4r >= 55 m² 4r >= 60 m² 5r >= 65 m² 5r >= 70 m² 6+r >=75 m² 6+r>= 80 m²
Inner city Outskirts 1r >= 30 m² 1r >= 35 m² 2r >= 41 m² 2r >= 46 m² 3r >= 52 m² 3r >= 57 m² 4r >= 63 m² 4r >= 68 m² 5r >= 74 m² 5r >= 79 m² 6+r >=85 m² 6+r >= 90 m² Kitchen
length of kitchen unit (no requirements) at least 170 cm at least 220 cm top cupboards (no requirements) at least 2 at least 4 space for household
appliances
at least 60 cm for refrigerator (with gas cooker on it)
at least 120 cm in total for refrigerator and gas cooker/furnace
at least 180 cm for refrigerator, gas cooker/furnace and dishwasher (or washing machine) (homes with 1 or 2 rooms: at least 120 cm)
connections gas, water, sewer, 3 rim-earth sockets
gas, water, sewer,
3 rim-earth sockets, if space available also connection for washing machine
gas, water, sewer,
4 rim-earth sockets, connection for dishwasher and/or washing machine
Four of the nine housing associations in the research have used the method of portfolio analysis at least once in their stock policy. Strictly speaking, they each use a variant of the method, be-cause the portfolio analyses that we have found differ from the classical form, in which financial aspects such as return and risk or market aspects such as market share and market growth are the central variables.
Another method to support the weighing of different interests is a decision tree. This method is similar to a portfolio analysis in content, for it also makes use of a limited number of indicators to define a strategy for a group of homes. The main difference is the form and the fact that more than two factors can be included in the model. Two housing associations (WBA and Delftwonen) use a decision tree as part of their asset management strategies. In both cases, the decision tree contains elements of a classical portfolio analysis, such as market share and market expectation (WBA, 2002; Gruis and Van Sprundel, 2003).
Decision tree used by Delftwonen
Delftwonen uses a decision tree, based on a ‘classic’ portfolio analysis, in which strategies are based on assessments of future market perspective, current lettability and economic opportunity costs (the latter measured as the ratio between the Net Present Value under continued social rent at the one hand and the market value at the other).
Market per-spective
Lettability Economic opportunity costs General strategy
Low Grow Good High Milk No risk Low Reinforce Bad
High Improve marketing, retreat
Low Maintain
Good
High Maintain (for now)
Risk
Low Reinforce, retreat
Bad
High Improve marketing, retreat
The general strategies in this decision tree are, shortly described, as follows:
- Improve marketing: improve lettability, but without increasing economic loss, for example by changing allocation criteria and being more active in marketing. If investments in quality are deemed necessary, they should be financed by the sale of dwellings in the same product-group;
- Grow: develop more of these products and cherish the ones in the current stock;
- Maintain: continue current policy for these products;
- Milk: improve financial return by increasing rents;
- Retreat: sell or demolish;
- Reinforce: improve lettability, for example by investments in quality, decreasing rents and better marketing. An increase in the economic loss is acceptable.
Portfolio analysis by Wooncom
The variant of the housing association of Wooncom contains a combination of indicators about let-tability (turnover rate, vacancy rate etc.) and a price-quality rate. If an estate performs badly accord-ing to these indicators (bad lettability and high price-quality rate), measures like rent reduction, physi-cal improvement or a less strict allocation policy are considered. If these measures are not feasible or regarded as ineffective, disposition is a plausible option.
The WBA uses its decision tree for strategies on the neighbourhood level instead of the estate level. These strategies are defined on the basis of market share (retreat if this is too low), neighbourhood potential (market expectations), lettability, liveability and technical condition of the stock. The combination of these factors determines the general strategy to be followed in the respective neighbourhood (e.g. more variety in the stock, disposition, additional rent increase, consolidation or a combination of these strategies).
ad 3 Procedures for development of asset management strategies
As a consequence of the tendency towards a more business-like management, several process models have been set up to develop this kind of policy in a systematic way (Nieboer and Gruis, 2001). Basically, these models consist of a stepwise description of the actions to be taken to formulate stock policy and provide individual landlords with a framework for policy making. The models are specifically designed for the social sector because, unlike most private land-lords, Dutch social landlords have a geographically concentrated stock and must meet a number of legally imposed public tasks. This implies that, compared to commercial landlords, social landlords must pay more attention to social and political considerations, as well as factors con-cerning the neighbourhoods in which the housing stock is concentrated.
Although a number of models have been made to develop strategic stock management in a systematic way, only a few models have been published. There are two probable reasons for this. First, many models are constantly changing and are adapted to every new situation, accord-ing to specific (local) circumstances. Second, several models have been developed by consult-ants, who are not always willing to publish their models because of commercial reasons.
The models that have been published have a common-sense sequence of analysis, formulat-ing provisional policy options, testformulat-ing (ex ante evaluatformulat-ing) these options (option appraisal), and formulating definitive options (see figure 1). These strategies consist of a series of planned measures towards the housing stock. Some models also pay explicit attention to the policy prin-ciples of the landlord or to the implementation of the planned measures (see Van Vliet, 1993; Van den Broeke, 1995, 1998; Nieboer and Gruis, 2001).
Figure 1 General outline of existing models for developing asset management strategies
Two landlords in the research, namely the AWV and Delftwonen, have used a process model to develop their asset management strategies. It must be said, however, that both models have been
analysis of present situation, assessment of estates
provisional policy options per estate/dwelling classifying policy
options
appraisal of provisional pol-icy options
definitive policy options per estate/dwelling
introduced in cooperation with external advisors. They were used for the ‘first time’ development of a strategic asset management plan. Because of this, it is doubtful if the landlords will use this model repeatedly when a change or a further development of strategies will be felt necessary. It is more likely that the plans resulting from the procedural models will evolve over time and that perhaps, after a number of years, a wholly new plan will be developed along the lines of a similar model. Figure 2 depicts the model that has been used with the AWV. The model for Delftwonen contains different phases, but the general outline is similar.
Figure 2 Process model of the AWV for developing asset management strategies
An important element in the process model of the AWV is the classification of policy options. This classification is useful to structure the great variety of investments. So, more general, pre-structured policy options are chosen in the beginning. These options are specified later, particu-larly in phase 6, when estate management plans are drawn up. The more general options in phase 4 indicate either the type of dwelling after the eventual investment (result) or the type of investment itself (process). The options are classified on the basis of the main relevant factors for investment decisions, like hold/disposition, remaining exploitation period and target group. As we stated earlier in this paper, the AWV also uses a classification related to physical quality standards like technical condition, floor area, and amenities.
4 Results of the survey
Following Van den Broeke (1995, p. 20), strategic asset management can be described as all activities of a landlord in order to adapt its housing stock to both its objectives and the devel-opments in housing demand. 71 % of the social landlords have documented this kind of policy in current investment plans. With 72% of these landlords (that is 65% of all respondents), the stock policy is based on a written corporate mission and (possibly quantified) corporate objec-tives for the entire stock. 19% of these landlords (have also formulated a corporate mission and
4.
POLICY OPTIONS PER ESTATE 4.
POLICY OPTIONS PER ESTATE 1.
PROCESS AGREEMENTS
3.
WEIGHING OF FACTORS AND INTERESTS 7. IMPLEMENTATION 7. IMPLEMENTATION 6.
ESTATE MANAGEMENT PLANS 6.
ESTATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
DEFINING CLASSIFICATION OF POLICY OPTIONS ANALYSIS OF PRESENT SITUATION 5.
objectives, but for only a part of the stock (e.g. in a district plan). The other 9% have not based their stock policy on a written corporate mission and corporate objectives.1
An indication of the relative position of sustainability can be obtained by comparing the in-fluence of different factors in asset management. We have asked the social landlords that have a current investment plan based on their strategic asset management, to which extent the follow-ing aspects and considerations play a role in definfollow-ing the stock policy and the investment and exploitation decisions based on it. The following table states the results.
Table 2 Percentages of social landlords according to the perceived influence of different aspects and considerations, as for 2004 (n=90)
aspect/consideration No influ-ence Some influence Considerable influence Very con-siderable influence Technical quality 1,1 32,2 52,2 14,4
Convenience quality (floor size, amenities etc.) 1,1 10,0 57,8 31,1
Environmental quality 25,6 57,8 16,7 0,0
Urbanistic quality 15,6 53,3 31,1 0,0
Government regulations 30,0 48,9 18,9 2,2
Type of dwellings (single/multi-family etc.) 5,6 26,7 57,8 10,0
Year of building or refurbishment 12,2 43,3 37,8 6,7
Social issues in street, neighbourhood, district 10,0 31,1 48,9 10,0
Market perspective (lettability) 2,2 15,6 42,2 40,0
Life-style of inhabitants 24,4 46,7 27,8 1,1
Wishes of sitting tenants 8,9 51,1 38,9 1,1
Exploitation result 10,0 40,0 43,3 6,7
Book-keeping value and/or ‘going-concern value’ (net present value)
11,1 48,9 36,7 3,3
Market value 17,8 40,0 36,7 5,6
Social return 13,3 41,1 38,9 6,7
Availability of subsidies 46,7 46,7 6,7 0,0
Own capital and/or solvency 10,0 36,7 44,4 8,9
The table shows that environmental quality is, generally speaking, not an important factor in the stock policy of Dutch social landlords. Only 16,7% of the landlords have indicated that this factor plays a considerable or very considerable role in decision-making. Of all the aspects men-tioned in the table, only ‘availability of subsidies’ scores less. The most important considera-tions are related to convenience quality (floor space, amenities in the dwelling etc.) and market perspective (lettability).
As we stated in the introduction, the survey is compared to the findings of a similar survey in 1997. That survey was held under social landlords that owned at least 2,000 homes on 31st December 1996. In the following table the results of the two surveys are compared, as far as the influence of environmental quality is concerned.
1In the earlier version of this survey, held in 1997, the respective questions were not posed. Consequently, no
Table 3 Percentages of social landlords according to the perceived influence of envi-ronmental quality, as for 2004 and 1997
population No influ-ence Some influence Considerable influence Very con-siderable influence n
all social landlords in 2004 25,6 57,8 16,7 0,0 90
social landlords > 2,000 homes in 2004 21,9 59,4 18,8 0,0 64 social landlords > 2,000 homes in 1997 27,1 55,8 17,1 0,0 129 The modest role of environmental quality in stock policy and investment decisions is also true of social landlords owning more than 2,000 homes: only 18,8% of the landlords have indicated that this factor plays a considerable or very considerable role. This percentage is almost the same as in 1997 (17,1%). The, relatively speaking, largest shift is in the percentage of landlords where environmental quality does not play a role in investment decisions. As for landlords with more than 2,000 homes, this percentage has dropped from 27,1% in 1997 to 21,9% in 2004.
5 Conclusions and recommendations Conclusions
The social housing sector in the Netherlands has undergone a remarkable shift from a govern-ment-driven sector towards a much more market-oriented sector. This has led to a variety of innovations. In this paper, we have considered innovations applied by nine social landlords, which we expect to be relatively advanced compared to the ‘average’ social landlord in the sec-tor. We have confined ourselves to methods that offer a systematic procedure for decision-making about stock investments.
In our research, we have found several new ways of working. These innovations are so dif-ferent from each other, that they are hardly comparable, although they share the common objec-tive of supporting asset management. From this variety of ‘apples and oranges’ one might con-clude that the Dutch social housing sector, or at last the nine landlords in the research, appears to be receptive to innovations as far as new ways of decision-making in asset management is concerned. However, the number of innovations is modest and, in addition, unevenly spread. With four of the nine landlords we have not found one innovation, some of the other five land-lords show several innovations. In addition, a further research into the effect of these innova-tions on investment decisions has shown that this influence is modest and sometimes hard to recognise.
Sustainability does not play a role in the methods outlined above, at least not in the way in which these methods are applied. The results of the recent OTB survey confirm the minor role of sustainability in asset management, and show little increase in this respect compared to 1997. This, in turn, is in line with the findings of Sunikka and Boon (2002), although they have ob-served some ‘progress’ since 1993, when another research on sustainability in housing man-agement was held (Quist and Van den Broeke, 1994).
These results are rather contradictory to the outcome of a survey, held in 2001 (SBR, 2001), in which 78% of the interviewed housing associations have indicated to take measures in the field of sustainable building (choice of materials, covenant with other parties, requirements for contractors etc.) (p. 30). Although 36% of the housing associations that take sustainable meas-ures have said to take sustainable building measmeas-ures in the initial phase of the building process (p. 43), the results of our research show that most measures, if they are any, are not taken in the earlier stages of investment decision-making. The examples given in the study of Sunikka and Boon (2002) indicate that environmental efforts in the housing sector are mostly related to the way in which the investments are carried out, and not to the choice of the type of investment. For example, sustainability may play role in the way in which refurbishment and demolition take place, but it is largely ignored in the choice between refurbishment and demolition.
Recommendations
This paper does not go into the reasons for this, as we suppose, sad conclusion. But insofar the reason is in the lack of tools that landlords easily can apply, the methods mentioned in this pa-per can be helpful. We explain this for two of the methods mentioned earlier.
First, it is not only possible to specify the housing stock on the basis of conveniences or tar-get group, but also on the basis of environmental quality and environmental performance. In this respect, we can think of requirements concerning energy and water consumption, such as en-ergy-saving amenities and insulation. We can also think of categories related to the EU energy labelling that must be implemented in national regulations by 2006.
Second, aspects of sustainability can easily be fit in portfolio analyses and decision trees. The indicators that we have found in our research are mostly related to market position, but indicators about sustainability (or an other field) can be used as well. For instance, we can imag-ine that homes performing badly in terms of energy consumption require another type of in-vestment (or more inin-vestment or earlier inin-vestment) than homes that perform well in that re-spect. Thus, the methods that we have found in our research are not designed for sustainability purposes, but offer opportunities for (further) development of a sustainable housing manage-ment.
Acknowledgement
We thank Geert Vijverberg at OTB Research institute, Delft University of Technology, for pro-viding the survey data from his recent and yet unpublished research.
References
Ansoff, H.I. (1984), Implanting strategic management, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Boelhouwer, P. (ed.) (1997), Financing the social rented sector in Western Europe, Delft: Delft University Press
Boelhouwer, P. (1999), International comparison of social housing management in Western Europe, Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, no. 3, pp. 225-240
Dieleman, F.M. (1999), The impact of housing policy changes on housing associations: experi-ences in the Netherlands, Housing Studies, no. 2, pp. 251-260
Gruis, V. & M. van Sprundel (2003), Strategisch voorraadbeleid Delftwonen [Strategic asset management Delftwonen], Delft: Delft University Press
Hagen, G.J. (2001), ‘Motivational profiling’ in de woningmarkt [‘Motivational profiling’ on the housing market], Tijdschrift voor de Volkshuisvesting, no. 3, pp. 6-11
Hemphill, L., J. Berry & S. McGreal (2004), An indicator-based approach to measuring sustain-able urban regeneration performance: part 1, conceptual foundations and methodological framework, Urban Studies, no. 4, pp. 725-755
Ministry of VROM (2004), Cijfers over wonen 2004 [Housing in figures 2004], The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment
Nieboer, N. & V. Gruis (2001), A model for strategic stock management in social housing,
Quist, H.J. & R.A. van den Broeke (1994), Duurzaamheid en het beheer van de
woningvoor-raad [Sustainability and the management of the housing stock], Delft: Delft University Press /
OTB Research Institute
SBR (2001), Attitude t.a.v. Duurzaam Bouwen en Nationaal Pakket Woningbouw –
Utiliteits-bouw en algemeen gebruik informatiebronnen [Attitude towards Sustainable Building and
Na-tional Package Residential and Utilitarian Building and general use of information sources, Rot-terdam: Stichting Bouwresearch
Straub, A. (1997), Strategisch voorraadbeleid en technisch beheer in de corporatiepraktijk [Strategic stock management and technical management in housing associations’ practice], Delft: Delft University Press / OTB Research Institute
Sunikka, M. & C. Boon (2002), Housing associations and sustainable management;
environ-mental efforts in the Netherlands’ social housing sector, Delft: Delft University Press / OTB
Research Institute
Sunikka, M. & C. Boon (2003), Environmental policies and efforts in social housing: the Neth-erlands, Building Research & Information, no. 1, pp. 1-12
Van den Broeke, R.A. (1995), Voorraadbeleid bij voorhoedecorporaties: model en praktijk [Stock management at advanced housing associations: model and practice], Delft: Delft Univer-sity Press / OTB Research Institute
Van den Broeke, R.A. (1998), Strategisch voorraadbeleid van woningcorporaties:
informati-evoorziening en instrumenten [Strategic stock management of housing associations: information
providing and instruments], Delft: Delft University Press Press / OTB Research Institute
Van der Flier, K. and V. Gruis (2002), The applicability of portfolio analysis in social housing management, European Journal of Housing Policy, no. 2, pp. 183-202
Van Hal, A. ([1999]), Beyond the backyard: sustainable housing experiences in their national
context, Best (the Netherlands): Æneas
Van Vliet, J. (1993), Integraal Voorraadbeheer [Comprehensive Stock Management], Delft: Delft University Press
WBA (2002), Vastgoedsturing bij Woningbedrijf Amsterdam [Real estate control at ‘Woning-bedrijf Amsterdam’], [Amsterdam]: Woning‘Woning-bedrijf Amsterdam (present name: Ymere)
