Transcript Diapositiva 1 - ARC La Salle

A global multidisciplinary network on
housing research and learning
WHAT IS THE ADDED VALUE OF PUBLIC RENTAL HOUSING
PROGRAMME AS SOCIAL INNOVATION
Gojko Bežovan
Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Josip Pandžić
Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Bratislava, 25 September 2015
Second International Conference
SUMMARY
Zagreb’s public rental housing programme as
social innovation
• Public rental housing programme in city of Zagreb has
been created to meet the needs of young families with
children who are not eligible for residual social renting
housing and they can’t afford housing loans to buy
appropriate flats.
• Private renting housing market in cities is a fate for
majority of young families renting small and expensive
housing units, mostly without contract and, being subtenants and almost socially excluded people.
• Public rental housing programme comes like innovation
to meet pressing housing needs.
• Homeownership programme is not sustainable
Housing estate of Novi Jelkovec, Zagreb –
Location in the City
Housing estate of Novi Jelkovec – Zagreb
Housing Tenure Structure in Zagreb
2001 – 2011
Housing tenure
Households
Total
Households
Total
2001.
percentage
2011.
percentage
275,464
100.0%
303,441
100.0%
Homeownership
222,697
80.8%
259,833
85.6%
Private renting
11,742
4.3%
15,010
4.9%
Social housing
9,630
3.5%
6,589
2.1%
Renting part of flats
2,630
0.8%
3,478
1.1%
Housing – relatives
23,375
8.5%
16,325
5.4%
5,731
2.1%
2,160
0.7%
Others
Housing market challenges
• Croatian economy in recession sixth consecutive year and
lost 12.9% of GDP. Unemployment in 2014 was 17.3% .
From 2008 to 2013 risk of poverty was from 17.3 to 19.5%.
Budget deficit was 4.1% of GDP in 2014 and public debt
reached 78% of GDP. Migration of young to the West.
• Demand for housing loans going down and estimations
say that about 16% of housing loans are in repayment risk.
Share of housing loans in GDP in 2014 is 18.3%.
• From 2009 to 2014 housing prices in country went down
by 33.5% in Zagreb by 35.1%. Level of rent decreased,
estimated by 25%.
• Housing loans in Swiss Franc, increased number of
evicted families and now it is a public issue.
How does public rental housing programme
reach target groups?
• Recent survey of 270 families conducted in this
housing estate shows that before 64.8% were subtenants, and 21.9 living with parents. Households
exposed to an uncontrolled and instable housing
market of private renting sector and those living with
families became tenants in affordable public rental
housing.
• Previously, they lived in small and inadequate flats so
their housing needs were not met
• Program turned out to be very efficient, successfully
reaching target population
Level of quality of life
Research done is focused on the following variables
to measure the impact of this social innovation on
tenant’s welfare:
(1) Objective (number of rooms, flat size and rent
costs); and
(2) Subjective (satisfaction with housing quality and
safety; satisfaction with the neighbourhood
environment and infrastructure)
Table 1: Comparison of housing conditions before and
after entering the programme
Indicator
Number of rooms
Size in m2
Rent costs
Housing quality
assessment
Satisfaction with
environmentalinfrastructural
factors
Flat
Before
Now
Before
Now
Before
Now
Before
Now
Before
Now
N
269
269
267
267
182
182
268
268
262
262
M
2.13
3.11
57.75
85.38
1625.31
1700.65
5.67
7.42
23.15
23.47
SD
.96
.80
26.33
17.26
518.70
246.20
2.16
1.87
4.63
4.29
t
p
-13.72
.000
-14.390 .000
-1.964
.051
-9.740
.000
-.810
.418
Table 2. Comparison of satisfaction with particular
environmental-infrastructural
indicators
between
former and present housing
Indicator
Housing
Before
Safety
Quality of green
spaces or parks
Environmental
cleanliness
Privacy
N
M
SD
270 3.33 1.26
Before
270 3.69 1.31
Now
Before
270 3.93 1.11
270 3.69 1.06
Before
Now
p
270 3.56 1.29
Now
Now
T
270 3.43 1.29
2.212 .028
-2.094 .037
2.572 .011
270 3.38 1.36
270 4.39 .97 -9.588 .011
• Differences regarding the satisfaction with environmental-infrastructural factors
exist within the neighbourhood with regards to four housing blocks (A, B, C and D).
Table 3: Differences in level of satisfaction with environmental-infrastructural
factors regarding housing blocks
Environmentalinfrastructural factors
Safety
Quality of green spaces or
parks
Environmental cleanliness
Block
N
M
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
102
53
23
92
102
53
23
92
102
53
23
92
3.32
3.09
3.48
3.42
3.55
3.81
4.26
4.33
2.87
2.96
4.13
4.14
SD
F
1.299
1.244
.889
.994
1.294
1.191
1.287
9.478
.810
.813
1.295
1.358
25.837
.626
.897
p
.447
.000
.000
Housing estate of Novi Jelkovec with A, B, C and D housing
blocks
Event Name
Coping with the crisis
• Part of the problem with which this population was
dealing were related to housing costs; a big share of
usually low-income households’ budget – especially if
they were renting flats in the private rental market – was
spent on housing costs while other needs regularly
remained unsatisfied. These households still use various
strategies of coping with high housing costs (Table 4).
• Part of tenants with lower education and with low income
rent larger flats and they have problems with paying rent
and living cost, not eligible for housing allowance (flat
examples are following)
Table 5. Frequency distribution for strategies of coping
with high housing costs
Coping strategies
Limit energy consumption
Limit expenses for other needs
Work overtime
Spend our savings
Sell assets
Rent out part of flat
Look for a cheaper flat
Financial aid from family and friends
Seek housing allowance
Have additional jobs
Bank loans
Other
Yes
f
206
207
124
62
17
0
25
58
23
93
182
13
No
%
77.2
77.5
46.3
23.7
6.4
0.0
9.4
21.7
8.6
34.8
67.9
5.9
f
61
60
144
200
248
266
241
209
243
174
86
207
%
22.8
22.5
53.7
76.3
93.6
100.0
90.6
78.3
91.4
65.2
32.1
94.1
Big flat examples:
(1) 3-room flat – 100.03 m2
(2) 4-room flat – 134.57 m2
Event Name
Additional findings
With the purpose of better understanding the position of different
families as users of this innovation we tested two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Tenants with lower education and lower income
which live in larger flats have more complaints related to
conditions and costs of housing.
The hypothesis has partly been confirmed that tenants with
lower monthly income estimate housing costs as higher.
Hypothesis 2: Tenants who were previously rented smaller flats
are more satisfied with housing conditions.
The hypothesis has partly been confirmed that they are more
satisfied with the size of flats. Furthermore, they are more
satisfied with facilities and the environment in this housing
estate.
Conclusion (I)
• With reaching target groups vulnerable on the housing market
(93%) this innovation fulfilled an important part of its mission.
• The residents’ quality of life in public rental housing has been visibly
improved compared to their previous housing. They live in new,
decent and sufficiently large flats with stabile contracts where they can
control their life and make plans for their future.
• Stabile housing contract for five years means real social integration,
demographic investment and contribution to social cohesion.
• As the housing estate where they live is still in construction, the
level of the quality of life in that respect is partly reduced. However,
inside this housing estate the quality of life differs in terms of green
spaces, parks and a clean environment.
• During the crisis households with a lower income have been
threatened with a rather high rent and high living costs. They cope
with these challenges mostly by limiting other expenses for other
needs and consumption of energy, borrowing from banks and making
more money.
Conclusion (II)
• In terms of internal organisation and mode of working,
the innovation is rather stabile and only a marginal number
of tenants terminated contracts and left housing. There is
more room for the interaction of this innovation with the
local welfare system.
• As output, this innovation made affordable decent housing
for vulnerable social groups. The residents' wellbeing and
quality of life have been enhanced and this is the outcome
of this innovation. The innovation addressed the vital needs
and enabled beneficiaries to plan their future – contributing
thus to social integration, active citizenship and
strengthened social cohesion - which is considered as the
impact of the innovation. In that way this innovation has
clear contour of social investment project.
If you would like more information about the content of this
presentation please contact:
[email protected]
[[email protected]]
[[email protected]]
or visit our web site
www.oikonet.org
This project is funded with support from the European Commission (Project number 539369-LLP12013-1-ES-ERASMUS). This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission
cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.