Journal Pre-proof

Critical Barriers to Sustainability Attainment in Affordable Housing: International

Construction Professionals’ Perspective

Michael Atafo Adabre, Albert P.C. Chan, Amos Darko, Robert Osei-Kyei, Rotimi
Abidoye, Theophilus Adjei-Kumi

PII: S0959-6526(20)30042-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119995
Reference: JCLP 119995

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 10 August 2019

Accepted Date: 03 January 2020

Please cite this article as: Michael Atafo Adabre, Albert P.C. Chan, Amos Darko, Robert Osei-Kyei,
Rotimi Abidoye, Theophilus Adjei-Kumi, Critical Barriers to Sustainability Attainment in Affordable
Housing: International Construction Professionals’ Perspective, Journal of Cleaner Production
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119995

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Critical Barriers to Sustainability Attainment in Affordable Housing: International

Construction Professionals’ Perspective

Michael Atafo Adabre1; Albert P.C. Chan2; Amos Darko3; Robert Osei-Kyei 4; Rotimi
Abidoye5; Theophilus Adjei-Kumi6

1 Corresponding author’s address: Michael Atafo Adabre, Building and Real Estate
Department, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Tel:+85266450743
E-mail address: [email protected]
2Co-author’s address: Prof. Albert P.C. Chan, Building and Real Estate Department, Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. E-mail address: [email protected]
3Co-author’s address: Dr. Amos Darko Building and Real Estate Department, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. E-mail address: [email protected]
4 Co-author’s address: Dr. Robert Osei-Kyei, School of Computing Engineering and
Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Australia. E-mail address: r.osei-
[email protected]
5Co-author’s address: Dr. Rotimi Abidoye, Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Sydney,
Australia. E-mail address: [email protected]
6 Co-author’s
address: Prof. Theophilus Adjei-Kumi, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science
and Technology, Department of Building Technology, Ghana. E-mail address:
[email protected]
 Journal Pre-proof

Acknowledgement
This paper forms part of a research project entitled “Affordable Housing Supply: A
Comparative Study between Developed and Developing Economies”, from which other
deliverables have been produced with different objectives but sharing common background
and methodology. The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the Research Grants Council
(RGC) and the Department of Building and Real Estate, Hong Polytechnic University, for their
financial support in conducting this study. The authors are also thankful to the editors and
anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that helped to improve the quality of this
paper.
 Journal Pre-proof

Critical Barriers to Sustainability Attainment in Affordable Housing: International

Construction Professionals’ Perspective

Abstract
For a significant thrive towards sustainable development globally, sustainability attainment in
affordable housing for low-income earners is fundamental. Identifying obstacles to
sustainability attainment is primal to successful policy implementation. This study aims to
identify critical barriers (CBs) to sustainable affordable housing (SAH) from an international
perspective. To this end, 26 barriers were identified from comprehensive literature review and
empirical questionnaire survey was conducted with 51 affordable housing experts from various
countries around the world. Factor analysis on identified CBs revealed five components: green
retrofit-related; land market-related; incentive-related; housing market-related and
infrastructural-related barriers. Moreover, rank agreement analysis of the barriers components
showed high agreement levels on ‘incentive-related barriers’ and ‘housing market-related
barriers’ between experts from developing and developed countries. The research findings are
relevant to policy-makers and practitioners in adopting tactical measures for worldwide SAH.
Besides, the identified CBs serve as recommended set of barriers for further empirical study to
unearth local variations and context specific barriers to SAH in most countries.

Keywords: Affordable Housing; Critical Barriers; Sustainable Housing; Affordability

1
 Journal Pre-proof

1. Introduction
The good, the bad and the worse of housing! Housing provides an indispensable safety, security
and shelter needs. It also guarantees other social and economic growth. Socially, housing plays
a monumental role in tackling poverty, promoting social mobility and improving living
conditions. For instance, a study in the United States revealed that declining public health was
partly linked to increasing problems of inadequate access to affordable housing among
potential households (Pollack et al., 2010). Accordingly, adequate housing could prevent extra
expenditure by governments and policy-makers in providing health care facilities for diseases
such as tuberculosis, meningitis and cholera which are common among slum dwellers (Penrose
et al., 2010). Economically, housing could be a significant source of wealth to an individual
and to a nation. It could be an asset as well as an economic activity with multiplier effects.
Other sectors of an economy such as commerce, manufacturing and finance benefit once the
housing sector is booming. Therefore, a booming housing sector reduces unemployment.

However, like any construction project, housing could have negative impacts. Generally, the
construction industry is regarded as a resource-intensive business (Joglekar et al. 2018; Chan
et al., 2018). About 70% and 25% of cement products and steel products, respectively, are
consumed by the construction industry in many countries (Wang and Zhang, 2008).
Specifically, the housing sector is the major energy consumer and contributor to the global
greenhouse gas emissions. For example, heating and hot water provision among private
households in Europe account for 40% of the total energy consumption and 30% greenhouse
gas emission (Lechtenböhmer & Schüring, 2011). The resource consumption pattern and the
associated emission of greenhouse gases have detrimental effects on the environment, the
economy and the society. Left unbridled, the effects could be worse. High concentration of
greenhouse gases causes global warming, urban heat islands, floods, degraded quality of air
and health challenges (i.e. asthma or cardiovascular diseases).

Reactively, policy-makers have advocated for a global sustainable housing development

because of its benefits. International organizations have often intervened in this regard with
much focus on affordable housing for low-income earners. Typical of such interventions
include the formulation of worldwide housing policies towards improving a broader access.
For instance, previously, the World Bank recommended a universal policy of ‘the market
enabling strategy’ to facilitate housing supply in developing countries (Keivani & Werna,
2001). Similarly, the launch of the ‘Global Shelter Strategy’ by the United Nations General
Assembly introduced the enabling strategy into most housing policies (Ram & Needham,
2016). Furthermore, the global pursuit for sustainable housing is evinced in the United Nation
(UN) policy goal. Target 11.1 of the Sustainable Development Goal II states: ‘By 2030, ensure
access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums’
(UN, n.d.).

Moreover, in decision making for affordable housing, most low-income earners consider other
influencing factors and criteria beyond price affordability (Adabre and Chan, 2018). This has
often resulted in information asymmetry between developers (suppliers) and households
(demanders) in the affordable housing market. Concerning information asymmetry, demanders
have more information on housing requirements in their scale of preference beyond price while
suppliers could narrowly be focusing on price affordability. The ripple effects of information
asymmetry are the numerous housing overhangs as recorded in developing and developed
countries such as China, Malaysia, Ghana, Nigeria and the United Kingdom (Yuan et al., 2018;
Teck-Hong, 2012; Turok, 2016; Mulliner et al., 2013). Eventually, information asymmetry
creates a quandary in which there are abundant housing supplies while the need for housing

2
 Journal Pre-proof

and housing deficits continue to burgeon. Therefore, the negative effects of housing and the
repercussion of information asymmetry buttress the need for housing facilities that are not only
affordable but also sustainable.

A rule-of-thumb for affordable housing is that low-income households would spend no more
than 30% of their income on housing (Friedman & Rosen, 2018). Such facilities could be
sustainable when they are reasonably adequate in standard and location for a lower or middle-
income household and do not cost so much that a household is unlikely to be able to meet other
basic living costs on a sustainable basis (National Summit on Housing Affordable, 2006).
Integrating the two concepts, sustainable affordable housing (SAH) is “housing that meets the
needs and demands of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their housing needs and demand” (Pullen et al., 2010 p. 13). Households
need SAH for health benefits, comfort and economic benefits from energy and water efficient
technologies and reduced commuting cost (Sullivan and Ward, 2012; Golubchikov and
Badyina, 2012). Through sustainable practices, approximately 80% reduction in energy
consumption could be achieved in buildings (Lechtenböhmer & Schüring, 2011). Despite these
benefits, the global attainment of sustainable development in affordable housing is still low
due to barriers. Therefore, to enhance the implementation of worldwide policies for SAH, it is
fundamental to identify critical barriers to SAH from an international perspective.

In the light of the above background, the aim of this study is to investigate the critical barriers
that impede sustainable affordable housing from the views of experts around the world.
Notwithstanding the policy divergence and institutional arrangement among countries, the
research findings from a comparative perspective could have practical implications on policy
makers worldwide. The study findings and the suggested policies are integral to policy makers
(such World Bank, United Nation) and practitioners who seek appropriate measures to mitigate
barriers and thus foster SAH development for a sustainable society. This study adopts factor
analysis with Pearson correlation and rank agreement analysis for an objective classification
of the barriers and for assessing the level of agreement on the ranks of the barriers.

2. Literature Review
Based on the rule-of-thumb (no more 30% of household income on housing), affordable
housing includes social housing, though there are some differences. According to Czischke &
van Bortel (2018), rents are mostly related to costs or household income with regard to social
housing. However, in terms of affordable housing, rents are mostly derived from, but below,
the full-market rent. Thus, social housing accommodates people on very low income and those
with special needs. Notwithstanding the differences, the literature review covers both schemes
as housing for low-income earners.

Recently, initiatives are employed to make sustainable housing more broadly available for all
income groups especially for low-income earners in both developing and developed countries
(Sullivan and Ward, 2012). These initiatives are deployed to achieve the various goals of
sustainability - social equity, environmental protection and economic development (Adabre
and Chan, 2019). However, there are various impediments to the successful implementations
of some of the initiatives. In subsequent sections, a literature review is conducted on various
goals of sustainability and sustainability adoption barriers. This review culminates into the
development of a conceptual framework of barriers to sustainable affordable housing as well
as identification of the research knowledge gap.

2.1 Social Sustainability

3
 Journal Pre-proof

Social sustainability in affordable housing development can be defined as “development that

is compatible with the harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment that
encourages social integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the
population” (Polèse and Stren, 2000 p. 15-16). Besides, social sustainability highlights the just
distribution and consumption of housing resources (Trudeau, 2018). Bramley et al. (2006)
indicated that it involves the overlapping concepts of social capital, social cohesion and social
inclusion. Social capital includes the qualities of social organization such as networks, norms
and trust which support co-operation for communal benefits. Social capital is essential for
meeting the safety needs as well as preference and belonging needs of households (Trudeau,
2018). Concerning social cohesion, it refers to the need for a shared sense of morality and
common purpose, social interaction within communities or families, a sense of belonging to a
place and social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities. Social inclusion ensures that
individuals, families and neighbours have access to resources for efficient participation in the
social, economic and political activities of a community.

The attainment of social sustainability in affordable housing is trammeled by various barriers.

For instance, Trudeau (2018) and Nguyen et al. (2013) stated that ‘community opposition to
affordable housing projects’ is one of the main barriers to its realisation. Similarly, in the UK,
Sturzaker (2011) asserted that there is high community opposition to social housing. Besides,
income segregation among households is a barrier that affects social cohesion and social
inclusion (Massey et al., 2009). Furthermore, Bramley et al. (2006) indicated that lack of /
inadequate infrastructure development is a noted cause of social exclusion. Moreover, the
culture and attitude of a community could negatively affect the attainment of social
sustainability (Sullivan and Ward, 2012). For instance, ‘negative culture towards mortgage’
(Sidawi & Meeran, 2011) and ‘high mortgage default rates’ (Boamah, 2010) do not broaden
and strengthen participation by financial institutions for sustainable housing supply. Similarly,
‘poor maintenance culture of existing affordable housing’ could affect the quality of life of
households and consequently lower one’s needs of place belonging. Finally, Sulemana et al.
(2019) identified income inequality as one of the fundamental barriers to affordable housing.

2.2 Economic sustainability

Enhancing housing affordability of low-income earners is one of the main objectives of
affordable housing (Gan et al., 2017). Economic sustainability of affordable housing involves
consideration of the price / rental cost, the cost of transportation and the house operation cost
(e.g. energy bills) (Chan and Adabre, 2019). Reduced operation and transportation costs
prevent tradeoff in the budget of households in meeting shelter needs to the detriment of
attaining other basic needs (e.g. access to quality health care). Ultimately, for economic
sustainable housing, households’ residential take-up for such houses should be high (Pullen et
al., 2010). Furthermore, economic sustainability should take into account developers’ needs
(Gan et al., 2017). Yet, there are challenges that could inhibit economic sustainability
attainment in affordable housing projects.

Zhang et al. (2016) identified inadequate public funding as one of the barriers. In Huang et al.
(2015) and Hwang et al. (2017), high cost of the factors of housing production such as high
cost of serviced land and high cost of sustainable housing materials, respectively, were stated
as the causes of the colossal housing prices. Furthermore, Love et al. (2011) identified
inadequate government incentives as one of the main impediments to sustainable development
(green building). Obeng-Odoom and Amedzo (2011) pointed out that high inflation rate of
construction material and other factors of production was a key barrier to attaining economic
sustainability in affordable housing. Moreover, Boamah (2010) stated that ‘high interest rates’

4
 Journal Pre-proof

and ‘tight credit conditions’ are some of the challenges that negatively affect the affordable
housing market. On rental affordability, Obeng-Odoom (2010) contended that though rent
control policies are important to control housing rent escalation, they could create a ‘black
market’ leading to the paradox of higher rents. Similarly, Duvier et al. (2018a) and Duvier et
al. (2018b) elaborated on how quality data could improve the quality of housing services
offered to low-income earners. However, rent control policy was identified as one of the
barriers that could lead to loss of revenue and subsequently affect investment on quality data
among social housing owners (Duvier et al., 2018b).

2.3 Environmental sustainability

Environmental sustainability ensures land use efficiency, energy efficiency, effective
utilization of resources and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from housing facilities
(Chan et al., 2017; Gan et al., 2017). Nevertheless, its attainment is beset with various barriers.
Obeng- Odoom (2010) indicated that inadequate access to secure land is among the barriers.
Furthermore, zoning restrictions on land for affordable housing projects (such as restriction on
multifamily housing and compact development) and low-rise affordable housing do not ensure
efficient utilization of land for sustainable affordable housing (Mondal & Das, 2018).
Moreover, Winston (2010) stated that the sitting and construction of new affordable housing
units in outskirts of towns and cities encourages sprawl development which leads to a faster
use-up of land. Consequently, longer commuting has negative economic implication on
household income and could also lead to the emission of more greenhouse gases.

2.4 Institutional sustainability

It is predominantly argued that any analysis of sustainability issues needs to be connected to
broader themes such as social, economic and environmental sustainability. However, by solely
focusing on these three themes, the institutional / regulatory structure that is fundamental for
the attainment of the three themes is often neglected. Therefore, the development of SAH
requires a more holistic understanding and convergent policy approaches along social,
economic, environmental and institutional / regulatory goals (Sullivan and Ward, 2012).
Institutional / regulatory sustainability entails policy actions that ensure sensitive planning
controls and zoning that will encourage commitment to and involvement in sustainable housing
practices. Thus, while there are barriers related to social, economic and environment
sustainability, these barriers could result from an inefficient institutional / regulatory structure
(Sullivan and Ward, 2012).

Upon reviewing the literature, some institutional / regulatory barriers to SAH were identified.
According to Alam et al. (2019), lengthy planning and approval process is among the barriers
to sustainable construction practices. Besides, Winston (2010) identified inadequate skilled
labor as one of the barriers that hinder sustainable housing development. In Agyemang and
Morrison (2018), ‘weak enforcement of planning system control on land development’;
‘inadequate affordable housing policy / guidelines’ and ‘inadequate autonomy of local
authorities due to high central government interference or conflicting policies between local
authorities and central government on planning’ were identified as barriers that can affect the
operation of an institution for affordable housing supply. Similarly, Czischke & van Bortel
(2018) and Bardhan et al. (2018) identified ‘inadequate policy / guidelines’ as a barrier to
affordable housing or slum redevelopment for sustainable housing to low-income earners.
According to Boamah (2010), ‘inadequate mortgage institution’ is one of the main barriers that
affect financing of housing projects. Twumasi-Ampofo et al. (2014) and Gooding (2016)
identified ‘abandoned management of public housing facilities or projects by government’ as
a barrier that hinders housing development.

5
Table 1: List of Potential Barriers to Sustainable Affordable Housing with References and Country/ Economy of Study
Code Barriers References* Countries / Jurisdictions
B01 Inadequate affordable housing policy / guidelines [ 1 ]; [ 2 ]; [ 46 ]; [ 47 ]; [ 50 ] Ghana; Dublin; Malaysia; United Kingdom; India
B02 Inadequate public funding [ 3 ]; [ 4 ]; [ 5 ]; [ 47 ]; China; Australia; United Kingdom;
B03 Income inequality [ 6 ]; [ 7 ]; [ 8 ] Most Sub-Saharan African Countries; China;
B04 High cost of serviced land [ 9 ]; [ 10 ]; [ 11 ]; [ 36 ] Ghana; China; Hong Kong; Nigeria
B05 Income segregation [ 12 ]; [ 13 ]; [ 32 ]; United States of America; Australia; South African
B06 Inadequate infrastructure development / supply [ 14 ]; [ 15 ]; [ 32 ]; [ 51 ]; [ 56 ] Ghana; South Africa; India
B07 Zoning restrictions on land for affordable housing projects [ 17 ]; [ 18 ] United States of America;
B08 Poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of existing [ 19 ]; [ 20 ]; [ 21 ]; [ 22 ] Russia; Italy; Hong Kong; Australia;
housing facilities
B09 Delays in government approval process [ 23 ]; [ 24 ]; [ 22 ]; [ 36 ]; [ 51 ]; Hong Kong; Australia; Ghana; Nigeria; India;
[ 52 ] Singapore
B10 Tight credit conditions [ 25 ]; [ 21 ]; [ 22 ] United Kingdom; Hong Kong; Australia;
B11 Inadequate access to land for housing [ 2 ]; [ 26 ]; [ 36 ]; [ 49 ]; [ 51 ]; Ghana; Hong Kong; Nigeria; China; India; Mauritius;
[ 53 ]; [ 55 ]; Latin American Countries
B12 High cost of sustainable building materials / technologies [ 27 ]; [ 28 ]; [ 29 ]; [ 30 ] Canada; United States of America; Australia; Ghana;
Malaysia; Hong Kong; Singapore
B13 Lack of policies on land use planning system for housing [ 2 ] ; [ 59 ] Most Sub-Saharan African countries; Dubai
supply
B14 Abandoned management of public housing facilities / projects [ 31 ]; [ 32 ]; [ 53 ] Ghana; Mauritius
by government
B15 Community opposition to affordable housing projects [ 33 ]; [ 34 ]; [ 35 ]; [ 53 ]; [ 58 ] United States of America; Dublin; Mauritius; UK
B16 High approval cost due to high taxes and fees on developers [ 36 ]; [ 51 ] Nigeria; India
B17 Inadequate mortgage / financing institutions [ 36 ]; [ 37 ]; [ 38 ]; [ 41 ]; Nigeria; Ghana; India; Most Latin American countries
[ 51 ]; [ 54 ]
B18 High interest rates [ 25 ]; [ 36 ]; [ 39 ] United Kingdom; Nigeria; Ghana
B19 Inadequate incentive for private investors [ 40 ]; [ 41 ]; [ 45 ]; [ 47 ]; [ 48 ]; Ghana; United States of America; Canada; Australia;
UK; Singapore;
B20 High inflation rate [ 36 ]; [ 42 ]; [ 43 ] Ghana; Nigeria
B21 Conflicting policies between local authorities and central [ 2 ]; [ 22 ]; [ 56 ] Ghana; Australia; New Zealand
government on planning
B22 Rent control policies [ 26 ] ; [ 44 ] Ghana; United Kingdom
B23 Limited private partnership [ 36 ]; [ 45 ] Nigeria; Ghana
B24 Shortage of skilled labour [ 15 ]; [ 22 ]; [ 23 ] Dublin; Australia; Hong Kong
B25 High mortgage default rates by client [ 37 ] Ghana
B26 Negative culture towards mortgage [ 39 ] Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
*[1] Czischke & van Bortel (2018); [2] Agyemang and Morrison (2018); [3] Liu et al. (2015); [4] Zhang et al. (2016); [5] Hu & Qian (2017); [6] Chen et al. (2016); [7] Liddle (2017); [8]
Sulemana et al. (2019); [9] Arku (2009); [10] Wen and Goodman (2013); [11] Huang et al. (2015); [12] Massey et al. (2009); [13] Randolph & Tice (2014); [14] Power (2008); [15] Winston
(2010); [16] Oyebanji et al. (2017); [17] Hui & Soo (2002); [18] Mondal & Das (2018); [19] Paiho et al. (2015); [20] Gianfrate et al. (2017); [21] Tan et al. (2018); [22] Alam et al. (2019);
[23] Lam et al. (2009); [24] Taylor (2011); [25] McKee (2012); [26] Obeng-Odoom (2010); [27] Ibem (2011); [28] Ahn et al. (2013); [29] Yang & Yang (2015); [30] Chan et al. (2018);
[31] Twumasi-Ampofo et al. (2014); [32] Muringathuparambil et al. (2017); [33] Tighe (2010); [34] Winston (2010); [35] Trudeau (2018); [36] Makinde (2014); [37] Boamah (2010); [38]
Bangdome-Dery et al. (2014); [39] Sidawi & Meeran (2011); [40] Susilawati and Armitage (2005); [41] Chan et al. (2018); [42] Marks & Sedgwick (2008); [43] Sulemana et al. (2019);

6
[44] Duvier et al. (2018b); [45] Kwofie et al. (2016); [46] Winston (2010); [47] Sourani & Sohail (2011); [48] Yin et al.(2018); [49] Hu and Qian (2017); [50] Bardhan et al. (2018); [51]
Ram & Needham (2016); [52] Hwang & Ng (2013); [53] Gooding (2016); [54] Blanco et al.(2016); [55] Echeverry et al. (2007); [56] Murphy (2016); [57] Daniel & Hunt (2014).
[58] Sturzaker (2011); [59] Alawadi et al. (2018)

7
 Journal Pre-proof

1 Table 1 shows the list of barriers identified from the literature review. In summary, the
2 systematic literature review culminated into the development of a conceptual framework of
3 barriers to sustainable affordable housing (as shown in Fig. 1). This framework shows that
4 there exist relationships or associations among the barriers in each group. Thus, these barriers
5 do not exist in isolation but could have effects on or are correlated with one another. The
6 hypothetical relationships among the barriers are represented by the double-arrow curved lines
7 that connect one group of barriers to another group of barriers.

8 From the literature review, it was found that prior studies were focused mainly on country-
9 specific programs for sustainable housing or sustainable affordable housing. Besides, most of
10 these studies concentrated on residential facilities of high-income earners while studies on
11 sustainability attainment in affordable housing are insufficient. The notional reason is that
12 sustainability and affordability are two diametric terms – one cannot be achieved without
13 compromising on the other. Consequently, there is dearth empirical study from an international
14 perspective on critical barriers for the gap between sustainable housing and affordable housing.
15 Accordingly, an empirical investigation on these barriers from an international perspective
16 could be germane considering that such study could benefit organizations such as the World
17 Bank and the United Nation (UN) that could incorporate the findings into their international
18 programs. Another impetus for this study is based on the fact that the largest area of residential
19 development in most developing and developed countries are to be found in low-income
20 settlements (Obeng-Odoom, 2010; Sullivan and Ward, 2012). Therefore, if significant
21 achievement on sustainable housing is to be made in both developing and developed countries,
22 it is vital to figure out strategies of making low-income residential facilities sustainable. This
23 could be achieved by first identifying the critical barriers to sustainable affordable housing.

8
 Barriers to Sustainability Attainment in Affordable Housing

Social Sustainability Barriers Environmental Sustainability Institutional Sustainability

Barriers Economic Sustainability
Barriers
1. Income inequality among Barriers
households 1. Inadequate access to land / 1. Delays in government
2. Income segregation among sitting and construction of new 1. Inadequate public funding
approval process
households affordable housing in outskirts 2. High cost of serviced land
2. Rent control policies
3. Poor maintenance culture / of town and cities due to 3. High cost of sustainable
3. Inadequate mortgage /
inadequate retrofitting of existing inadequate land supply in building materials /
financing institutions
housing cities technologies
4. Conflicting policies between
4. Community opposition to 4. High approval cost due to
local authorities and central
affordable housing projects 2. Low-rise affordable housing high taxes and fees on
government on planning
5. High mortgage default rates by development developers
5. Weak enforcement of
client 5. Inadequate incentives for
planning system control on
6. Inadequate infrastructure private investors
property development
development 6. High interest rates
6. Abandoned management of
7. Negative culture towards 7. High inflation rates
public housing facilities /
mortgage 8. Tight credit conditions
projects by government
7. Shortage of skilled labour
8. Inadequate affordable
housing policy
9. Zoning restrictions on land
for affordable housing

The double-arrow-curved line that connects each group indicates that the
group of barriers do no exit in isolation but are related to one another

Fig. 1: A Conceptual Framework on Barriers to Sustainability Attainment in Affordable Housing

9
 Journal Pre-proof

24 3. Research Methodology
25 3.1 Research Process
26 A six-stage research process was employed for this study (shown in Fig.2). The first stage involves
27 a comprehensive review of the literature as detailed in section 2 of the study. This led to the
28 problem identification, which forms stage 2 and detailed in section 1. Then, in stage 3, the barriers
29 to SAH were identified from the literature review. Subsequently, a framework was developed from
30 the list of barriers. Stage 4 entails questionnaire design from the list of barriers in Table 1. This
31 stage also includes the techniques deployed for data analysis (i.e. factor analysis (FA) with Pearson
32 correlation (PC) and rank agreement analysis (RAA)). The results of the analysis and suggested
33 policies are reported in stage 5. Finally, stage 6 of the study contains the conclusions with
34 recommendation. A summary of the various stages is shown in Fig. 2.

Stage 2: Problem identification –

Barriers to sustainable affordable
housing (Detailed in Section 1)

Stage 6: Conclusions with

Stage 1: Comprehensive literature
recommendations (Detailed in
Research Process review (Detailed in Section 2)
Section 6)

Stage 5: Identification of CB and Stage 4: Methods & Analysis –

Stage 3: Identification of barriers
suggested policies (Detailed in Survey, ranking, FA with PC & RAA
(Detailed in Section 2)
Sections 5.1 -5.3) (Detailed in Sections 3.1 – 4.3)

Fig. 2: Research Process for the Study

35
36 3.2 Identification of Potential Barriers to SAH
37 To identify the barriers to SAH, a comprehensive literature review was first conducted. The
38 sources for this review are mainly secondary sources such as academic journals, government
39 reports and technical literature on barriers to sustainable affordable housing. This compendium of
40 materials was systematically reviewed for the identification of barriers to sustainable affordable
41 housing in both developing and developed countries. Consequently, a set of 26 potential barriers
42 was identified with their respective references and the countries / economy that the barriers were
43 identified from (as shown in Table 1).
44
45 3.3 Pilot Study and Questionnaire Design
46 This study uses only questionnaire survey for data collection to achieve objective and quantifiable
47 results. Prior to the actual questionnaire administration, the first draft of the questionnaire was
48 piloted among two professors and two post-doctoral research associates who are experts in both
49 sustainable housing and affordable housing. Essentially, the pilot study was conducted to eliminate
50 ambiguities in the questions. Besides, the appropriateness of the technical terms and
51 comprehensiveness of the list of barriers were checked. The questionnaire was finalized after
52 receiving and implementing constructive comments from the pilot study participants. The final
53 questionnaire consists of the 26 identified set of barriers (as shown in Table 1). The questionnaire

10
 Journal Pre-proof

54 has two main sections. The first section contains questions that solicit for the demographic data of
55 potential respondents while the second section includes questions on critical success criteria,
56 critical success factors, barriers and risks to sustainable affordable housing. This paper reports the
57 findings on the barriers. Potential respondents were requested to indicate their level of agreement
58 on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) with regard to the
59 criticality of the barriers to SAH.
60
61 3.4 Data Collection
62 The questionnaire was administered through emails to affordable housing experts who are also
63 knowledgeable in sustainable housing. The experts were mainly identified through journal
64 publication and databases (membership directories e.g. Housing and Development Board and
65 Hong Kong Housing Authority). Experts in both sustainable and affordable housing studies were
66 identified based on the titles and content of their publications. Terms such as “sustainable” or
67 “adequate” and “affordable” or “low-income” housing were identified from the titles or content of
68 their publications. Emails with an attached Microsoft Word document of the questionnaire were
69 then sent to experts. Additionally, a web link generated through Survey Monkey was included in
70 the emails to provide an option for online response to the questionnaire. To enhance higher
71 participation in the survey, potential respondents were invited to forward the questionnaire and
72 web link to other experts whom they deemed appropriate, based on their industrial or academic
73 experience, to provide the information as requested in the questionnaire. Approximately 200
74 questionnaires were administered.
75
76 A three-month period was allowed for data collection. Due to difficulties in soliciting the views of
77 international experts (Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2017), 51 valid responses were received. The responses
78 were received from experts from 18 different countries including developed countries (35
79 responses) and developing countries (16 responses). These two broad categories of countries are
80 further classified into continents (as shown in Table 2). A challenge in this approach to
81 questionnaire administration is the accurate estimation of the response rate since some of the
82 questionnaires were possibly forwarded to other potential participants by some of the respondents.
83 However, it is generally suggested and agreed among scholars that a minimum sample size of 30
84 could be used for analysis (Ott and Longnecker, 2015; Chan et al., 2017). Therefore, the 51 number
85 of responses could be considered relatively high for the parametric analysis employed in this study.
86 Yet, with a larger sample size, future study could use other robust analysis or test of significant
87 difference between mean scores of the various barriers.
88
89 3.5 Respondents’ Profile
90 Preliminary analysis of the data was conducted to determine the respondents’ background
91 information. This form of analysis is important to evaluate the reliability and credibility of the data
92 (Chan et al., 2017). The preliminary analysis revealed that most of the respondents are
93 professionals in housing-related disciplines. Constituents of the professionals include academics /
94 researchers (55%), architects (18%), quantity surveyors (6%), project / construction managers
95 (4%), engineers and other related disciplines (17%). Moreover, most of the respondents had
96 extensive industrial and / or research experience in affordable housing projects. More than 60%
97 respondents had above 10 years of working experience in at least one of the following housing
98 types – social housing (40%), public housing (38%) and / or cooperative housing (15%).
99
100 Table 2: Respondents’ Profession, Country, Years of Experience and Housing Type Handled
Profession, Country & Continent of respondent, Number of Cumulative
Years of experience and housing type handled Responses Percent Percent
Profession

11
 Journal Pre-proof

Academic / researcher 28 55 55
Architect 9 18 73
Quantity Surveyor 3 6 79
Project / Construction manager 2 4 83
Engineer 1 2 85
Others 8 15 100
Country of Origin of Respondents
Developing Countries 16 31 31
Developed Countries 35 69 100
Continents of Countries
North America 15 29 29
Asia 15 29 58
Europe 9 18 76
Oceania 8 16 92
Africa 3 6 98
South America 1 2 100
Years of Experience
≤ 10 years 20 39 39
11-20 years 10 20 59
> 20 years 21 41 100
Housing Type Handled
Social housing 37 40 40
Public housing 35 38 78
Cooperative housing 14 15 93
Others 6 7 100
101
102 4 Data Analysis
103 The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS version 20) was employed for data analysis. The
104 analysis techniques include mean score, relative analysis of criticalities (normalization),
105 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient test, FA with PC and rank agreement analysis. In determining the
106 relative criticalities of the barriers, the mean value was calculated for each barrier. Then, based on
107 the calculated mean values, the normalization scores were computed for the barriers for both
108 responses from developed and developing countries. Using the normalized scores, the criticality
109 of a barrier was determined. Only barriers with normalized scores ≥ 0.5 were deemed critical
110 barriers (Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2017). If two or more barriers have the same normalised scores,
111 their standard deviations (SD) are used to rank them. Barriers with low standard deviations are
112 ranked higher.
113
114 4.1 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient
115 The Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) is one of the often-used techniques for assessing the reliability of a
116 scale. It measures the internal consistency among a list of items in a questionnaire to determine
117 the reliability of the questionnaire (Chan et al., 2018). Fornell and Larcker (1981) provided ranges
118 of values for an acceptable CA. Values ranging from 0.7 to 0.8 are acceptable while values above
119 0.8 are excellent. Therefore, with an estimated CA value of 0.82, it shows that there is an excellent
120 internal consistency among the barriers. Consequently, FA was employed to identify the
121 underlying components of barriers.
122
123 4.2 Factor Analysis
124 Factor analysis (FA) is data reduction technique that is used for identifying a comparatively small
125 number of factors (Adabre and Chan, 2019). It reduces and regroups large number of variables
126 into smaller interrelated and critical groups of variables based on the scores of respondents (Li et
127 al., 2011). These groups can be used to describe relationships among a list of many related
128 variables (Pallant, 2010). Essentially, FA was employed in this study to provide an objective and

12
 Journal Pre-proof

129 smaller interrelated classifications of barriers for the rank agreement analysis. Thus, through FA
130 analysis, the four broad groups of barriers conceptualised from the literature review could be
131 categorized into manageable interrelated groups. Prior to conducting FA, the appropriateness of
132 the data was assessed. So, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and
133 Bartlett’s test of sphericity were employed to examine the data appropriateness for FA. The KMO
134 measures the sampling adequacy that represents the ratio of the squared correlation between the
135 variables to the squared partial correlation between the variables. It ranges from 0 to 1, with 0.5
136 deemed appropriate for FA. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity checks the presence of correlation
137 among variables. It tests if the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would be an
138 indication that the potential barriers are unrelated and therefore are not appropriate for FA. If the
139 value for the Bartlett’s test is large with an associated high level of significance (less than 0.05),
140 then the correlation matrix of the population is not an identity matrix and therefore FA would be
141 suitable (Pallant, 2010).
142
143 4.3 Rank Agreement Analysis on the Barriers
144 The results of the factor analysis were subsequently analyzed using rank agreement analysis.
145 Similar analysis was employed in Okpala and Aniekwu (1988) to compare the views and
146 consensus of three groups of respondents on the ranking of factors which cause high cost of
147 construction in Nigeria. In this study, rank agreement analysis was conducted to determine the
148 level of consensus between respondents from developing countries and developed countries on the
149 ranking of the critical barriers. This is worthwhile in order to find out if there are groups of barriers
150 which impede sustainable affordable housing in both developing and developed countries. The
151 rank agreement analysis is a quantitative method that uses the “rank agreement factor” (RAF)
152 (Zhang, 2005). The “RAF shows the average absolute difference in the ranking of factors between
153 two groups” (Zhang, 2005 p. 11). Given the two groups of respondents – those from developing
154 countries (Group 1) and those from developed countries (Group 2) – let the rank of a barrier within
155 a component in group one be Ri1 while the rank of the same barrier within the component of group
156 two be Ri2, N is the number of barriers in each component and the number of groups (which in this
157 case is two) is represented by k. Then, (Ri1 – Ri2) of a barrier is the difference in ranks that are
158 obtained from the two groups – developing and developed countries. Ri of a barrier is the sum of
159 the ranks of the barrier from developing and developed countries. Using the following equations,
160 as provided in Okpala and Aniekwu (1988), Zhang (2005) and Adabre and Chan (2019), the RAF
161 could be determined as follows:
𝑁
162 Ri = ∑𝑖 = 1(𝑅𝑖𝑗)…………………………………………………………….… equation (1)
163 𝑅𝑖𝑗 is the sum of the ranks given to a particular critical barrier by the two different groups
164 The mean value of the total ranks (𝑅𝑗2) is given by
1 𝑁
165 𝑅𝑗2 = 𝑁∑ (𝑅 )……………………………………………….…… equation (2)
𝑖 = 1 𝑖𝑗
166 The RAF is defined as
𝑁
∑𝑖 = 1 |𝑅𝑖1 ― 𝑅𝑖2|
167 RAF = 𝑁
………………………………………………….... equation
168 (3)
169 The maximum rank agreement factor (RAFmax) is given by
𝑁
∑𝑖 = 1 |𝑅𝑖 ― 𝑅𝑗2|
170 RAFmax = 𝑁
……………………………………………......... equation
171 (4)
172 The percentage disagreement (PD) is given by

13
 Journal Pre-proof

𝑁
∑𝑖 = 1 |𝑅𝑖1 ― 𝑅𝑖2|
173 PD = 𝑁
x 100……………………………………........…...equation
∑𝑖 = 1 |𝑅𝑖 ― 𝑅𝑗2|
174 (5)
175 The percentage agreement (PA) is given by
176 PA = 100 ― PD……………………………………………………...........equation (6)
177
178 5. Results of the Survey
179 5.1 Ranking Analysis Results
180 The means, standard deviations (SD) and normalization scores for all the 26 barriers were
181 computed for responses from both developing and developed countries (see, Table 3). Using the
182 normalized scores, 18 barriers were identified as critical (barriers with normalization scores ≥ 0.50)
183 from experts of developing countries. The top five critical barriers to sustainable affordable
184 housing according to the normalized scores include: B04 – high cost of serviced land – was ranked
185 first (score = 1.00). The second critical barrier is B06 – inadequate infrastructure development
186 (score = 0.95) – followed by both B05 – income segregation (score = 0.90) and B18 – high interest
187 rates (score = 0.90) while B13 – lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use
188 planning system for housing supply – ranked as the fifth critical barrier (score = 0.84). However,
189 from the views of experts in developed countries, 15 critical barriers were identified. The top five
190 critical barriers include: B01 – inadequate affordable housing policy – was ranked as the most
191 critical barrier (score = 1.00). The second most critical barrier was B02 – inadequate public funding
192 (mean = 0.95) followed by B03 – income inequality – as third (mean = 0.88) and then B05 –
193 income segregation – as fourth (score = 0.85). Finally, B04 – high cost of serviced land – was
194 ranked as the fifth critical barrier (mean = 0.84) (in Table 3).
195
196 Table 3: Ranking of Potential Critical Barriers to SAH
Code Developing Countries Developed Countries
Mean SD Normalization Rank Mean SD Normalization Rank
B01 4.286 0.611 0.79b 12 4.333 0.802 1.00b 1
B02 4.357 0.929 0.84b 9 4.233 0.817 0.95b 2
B03 4.357 1.008 0.84 b 10 4.100 0.923 0.88b 3
B04 4.571 0.851 1.00 b 1 4.000 0.900 0.84b 5
B05 4.429 0.756 0.90b 3 4.033 1.159 0.85b 4
B06 4.500 0.760 0.95 b 2 3.667 0.922 0.67b 8
B07 3.786 0.975 0.42 19 3.900 0.960 0.79b 6
B08 4.143 1.099 0.68 b 15 3.548 1.091 0.61b 10
B09 4.143 0.893 0.68b 14 3.484 1.061 0.58b 13
B10 4.357 0.745 0.84 b 6 3.533 0.973 0.61b 10
B11 4.071 0.917 0.63b 16 3.516 0.926 0.60b 12
B12 4.214 0.864 0.74 b 13 3.567 0.898 0.62b 9
B13 4.357 0.633 0.84b 5 3.419 1.119 0.55b 15
B14 4.357 0.842 0.84 b 8 3.452 1.207 0.57b 14
B15 3.357 1.447 0.11 25 3.800 1.157 0.74b 7
B16 4.357 0.842 0.84b 6 3.000 0.910 0.34 17
B17 4.214 0.802 0.74b 11 2.900 1.062 0.30 18
B18 4.429 0.756 0.90 b 4 2.733 1.048 0.21 22
B19 4.000 0.961 0.58b 18 2.839 1.128 0.27 19
B20 4.000 0.679 0.58 b 17 2.655 0.857 0.17 25
B21 3.786 0.975 0.42 19 2.742 1.210 0.22 20

14
 Journal Pre-proof

B22 3.714 0.994 0.37 21 2.613 0.989 0.15 24

B23 3.429 1.222 0.16 24 2.690 1.004 0.19 23
B24 3.286 0.914 0.05 26 2.742 1.154 0.22 21
B25 3.500 1.224 0.21 23 2.567 1.000 0.13 26
B26 3.214 0.893 0.00 27 2.300 0.837 0.00 27
197 Note: SD = Standard deviation
198 Normalized score = (mean – minimum mean) / (maximum mean – minimum mean)
199 b The normalized value indicates that the barrier factor is critical (normalized ≥ 0.50)

200
201
202 5.2 Results of Factor Analysis (FA) with Pearson Correlation (PC)
203 Only barriers that were deemed critical from the perspective of developing or developed countries
204 were considered for subsequent analysis. In all, 20 critical barriers were considered for FA and
205 PC. PC was conducted for better interpretation of the results of the FA and to determine the
206 associations among the barriers as postulated in the literature (shown in Fig. 1). Table 4 shows the
207 correlations among the barriers. For FA, the KMO and Bartlett’s test were conducted. The KMO
208 obtained is 0.527. This value is acceptable since it satisfies the 0.50 threshold (Chan et al., 2018).
209 The value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was large (600.551) with a high level of significance
210 (0.000). Thus, the results of the KMO and the Bartlett’s test give credence of the suitability of the
211 data for FA. Consequently, the principal component analysis was selected with further selection
212 of the varimax rotation to identify the underlying groups of barriers. Table 5 is a summary of the
213 FA results with only 19 barriers successfully loaded (the loading of these barriers ≥ 0.50). Five
214 underlying components were extracted, which explain 64.989% of variance. The variance
215 compares approvingly with 62.82% of variance in a recent study (Chan et al., 2018). These five
216 components explain the highest percentage (> 50) of variance. Therefore, a model with these five
217 components can be used to satisfactorily represent the data from developing and developed
218 countries. The components were named based on a common theme of their underlying barriers.

15
219
Table 4: Pearson Correlation (PC) Matrix of Critical Barriers
CODE B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B18 B19 B20
B01 r 1.000
B02 r .185 1.000
B03 r .413** .207 1.000
B04 r .223 .086 .160 1.000
B05 r .122 .086 .237 .044 1.000
B06 r .274 .013 .061 .263 .337* 1.000
B07 r .000 -.028 .243 .193 .141 .106 1.000
B08 r .205 .061 .331* .193 .608** .523** .185 1.000
B09 r .241 .203 .296* .015 -.007 -.168 .129 .169 1.000
B10 r .053 .215 .080 .231 .250 .305* -.001 .385** .141 1.000
B11 r .293* .193 .032 .133 -.033 .098 .160 -.012 .609** .329* 1.000
B12 r -.060 .218 -.210 -.059 -.107 -.151 .247 -.181 .398** .111 .322* 1.000
B13 r .267 .029 .237 .293* .390** .502** -.078 .400** .131 .391** .069 .159 1.000
B14 r .260 .214 .173 .104 .211 .333** -.031 .422** .185 .559** .292* .161 .500** 1.000
B15 r .349* .123 .481** .076 .007 -.014 .528** .194 .289 .018 .119 .033 -.071 .103 1.000
B16 r -.109 .093 -.010 .095 .287 .592** .242 .161 .256 .160 .078 .417** .245 .152 -.173 1.000
B18 r -.078 -.031 -.060 .345* .235 .503** -.076 .303* .191 .594** .259 .230 .484** .284 -.307* .469** 1.000
B19 r -.025 -.106 .050 .270 -.090 .173 .048 .096 .522** .235 .453** .450** .262 .100 -.105 .223 .363* 1.000
B20 r -.084 -.021 -.032 .228 .127 .358* -.228 .235 .257 .492** .242 .221 .514** .420** -.378** .442** .789** .451** 1.000
220
221 r =Value for Pearson correlation.
222 p= Value of significance
223 *Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
224 **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)
225
226 (B01= Inadequate affordable housing policy / guidelines; B02 = Inadequate public funding; B03 = Income inequality; B04 = High cost of serviced land; B05 = Income segregation; B06
227 = Inadequate infrastructure development; B07 = Zoning restrictions on land for affordable housing projects; B08 = Poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of existing housing
228 facilities; B09 = Delays in government approval process; B10 = Tight credit conditions; B11= Inadequate access to land for housing; B12 = High cost of sustainable building materials /
229 technologies; B13 = Lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use planning system for housing supply; B14 = Abandoned management of public housing facilities / projects
230 by government; B15 = Community opposition to affordable housing projects; B16 = High approval cost due to high taxes and fees on developers; B18 = High interest rates; B19 =
231 Inadequate incentive for private investors; B20 = High inflation rate)

16
232 Table 5: Rotated Component Matrix
Codes Barriers to Sustainable Affordable Housing Components
1 2 3 4 5
Component 1 Green retrofit -related Barriers
B14 Abandoned management of public housing facilities / projects 0.796 – – – –
by government
B10 Tight credit conditions 0.781 – – – –
B08 Poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of housing 0.639 – – – –
facilities
B05 Income segregation 0.522 – – – –
Component 2 Land market-related Barriers
B13 Lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use – 0.707 – – –
planning system for housing supply
B04 High cost of serviced land – 0.636 – – –
B18 High interest rate – 0.573 – – –
B20 High inflation rate – 0.554 – – –
Component 3 Incentive-related Barriers
B12 High cost of sustainable building materials / technologies – – 0.780 – –
B09 Delays in government approval process – – 0.749 – –
B11 Inadequate access to land – – 0.709 – –
B19 Inadequate incentives for private investors – – 0.635 – –
Component 4 Housing market-related Barriers
B15 Community opposition to affordable housing projects – – – 0.802 –
B03 Income inequality – – – 0.716 –
B01 Inadequate affordable housing policy / guidelines – – – -0.555 –
Component 5 Infrastructural-related Barriers
B07 Zoning restrictions on land for affordable housing projects – – – – 0.758
B16 High approval cost due to high taxes and fees on developers – – – – 0.736
B06 Inadequate infrastructural development – – – – 0.539
B02 Inadequate public funding – – – – -0.779

Eigenvalue 7.172 3.049 2.444 1.632 1.299

Variance (%) 29.884 12.706 10.185 6.802 5.413
Cumulative variance (%) 29.884 42.589 52.775 59.576 64.989
233 Extraction method: Principal Component;
234 Analysis Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

17
 Journal Pre-proof

235 5.2.1 Results and Discussion of Principal Component Analysis

236
237 5.2.1.1 Component 1: Green retrofit-related Barriers
238 The underlying barriers in this component emphasize the challenges associated with retrofitting
239 or maintenance of affordable housing facilities. Accordingly, this component is named ‘green
240 retrofit-related barriers’; it is the most dominant among the five components and explains the
241 highest level of variance (29.9%). The constituents of this component consist of four barriers.
242 These barriers together with their loadings include: ‘abandoned management of public housing
243 facilities / projects by government’ (79.6%); ‘tight credit condition’ (78.1%); ‘poor
244 maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of existing housing facilities’ (63.9%) and
245 ‘income segregation’ (52.2%) (see Table 5 for variance and loading values).
246
247 The correlation matrix (in Table 4) shows some significant relationships / associations among
248 some of the critical barriers as postulated in Fig 1. For instance, there are significant
249 correlations between ‘abandoned management of public housing facilities / projects by
250 governments’ (B14, identified in Fig. 1 as an institutional sustainability barrier) and ‘tight
251 credit conditions’ (an economic sustainability barrier) (r= 0.559, p =0.01); between ‘abandoned
252 management of public housing facilities / projects by governments’ (B14, an institutional
253 sustainability barrier) and ‘poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of housing
254 facilities’ (B08, a social sustainability barrier) (r= 0.422, p =0.01); between ‘tight credit
255 conditions’ (B10, an economic sustainability barrier) and ‘poor maintenance culture /
256 inadequate retrofitting of housing facilities’ (B08, a social sustainability barrier) (r= 0.385, p
257 =0.01); and finally between ‘poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of housing
258 facilities’ (B08) and ‘income segregation’ (B05) (r = 0.608, p=0.01), which were both
259 identified in Fig. 1 from the literature view as social sustainability barriers.
260
261 There is an increasing trend of the proportion of aged residential buildings to the total number
262 of buildings as observed in most countries (Tan et al., 2018; Power, 2008). Consequently,
263 debates abound on whether to demolish or refurbish older housing facilities in order to achieve
264 reduction in greenhouse gas emission as well as reduce energy consumption in homes. Power
265 (2008) reckoned that refurbishing older housing facilities to high environmental standards is
266 more feasible in achieving the stated goals in addition to a significant carbon reduction. For
267 instance, an estimated 80% cut in energy used has been achieved in renovated homes in
268 Germany (Power, 2008). Similarly, in Italy, the maintenance of low energy houses contributed
269 to a saving of 26% - 35% residential energy consumptions (Blengini and Carlo, 2010).
270 Moreover, refurbishment encourages façade retention, encourages neighborhood renewal,
271 generates more employment opportunities than new housing construction and are socially more
272 satisfactory with less environmental impact and reduction in fuel poverty.
273
274 Therefore, most existing affordable housing facilities can be made sustainable through retrofit
275 or green retrofit (Tan et al., 2018; Curado & de Freitas, 2019; Casquero-Modrego & Goñi-
276 Modrego, 2019). Retrofit is the replacement of elements or components of a building. In a
277 broader perspective, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) defined green retrofit as “any
278 kind of upgrade at an existing building that is wholly or partially occupied to improve energy
279 and environmental performance, reduce water use and improve comfort and quality of the
280 space in terms of natural light, air quality and noise – all done in a way that it is financially
281 beneficial to the owner.” Green retrofit of aged affordable housing facilities could offer an
282 alternative measure to reduce household energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
283 (Tan et al., 2018). Besides, since retrofitted buildings provide more comfort to residents, they

18
 Journal Pre-proof

284 enhance social sustainability in housing. Thus, it can improve environmental, social and
285 economic sustainability of aged affordable housing facilities.
286
287 Yet, the rate of retrofit to upgrade existing affordable housing to sustainability standards is low
288 (Chiang et al., 2015; Tan et al., 2018). Green retrofit implementation is plagued with some
289 barriers, namely, ‘abandoned management of public housing facilities / projects by
290 government’, ‘tight credit conditions’ and ‘poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting
291 of housing facilities’. High upfront cost of retrofitting, limited budget and high fiscal burden
292 on government have often resulted in the abandonment of public affordable housing or poor
293 maintenance of aged affordable housing facilities (Liang et al., 2016). Liu et al. (2015) noted
294 that public involvement in energy saving retrofitting of housing facilities is often neglected.
295 Consequently, poor living environments are often associated with older buildings that exist
296 without proper management and maintenance (Chiang et al., 2015). Furthermore, poor
297 maintenance and abandonment of affordable housing facilities could lead to value decline of
298 adjacent buildings in the neighborhood. Therefore, there can be a domino effect on the type of
299 households who leave the neighborhood (increase in high-income household mobility rate) and
300 low-income households who may have no option of affording other housing facilities except
301 to stay in that neighborhood. This could eventually cause income segregation within a
302 neighborhood.
303
304 Strategies could be implemented to ensure successful green retrofitting of aged affordable
305 housing facilities. First, information dissemination programs and knowledge transfers from
306 material suppliers and energy advisors could be initiated to inform households on the
307 technologies and benefits of green retrofit. Then, directive-based policies should be
308 implemented (Tan et al., 2018). This should include action plan and guidelines for green
309 retrofit. Besides, regulation-based policies should be established. Such policies could make
310 green retrofit mandatory for aged housing facilities that are not sustainable. Since succeeding
311 governments could abandon management of housing facilities (Twumasi-Ampofo et al., 2014),
312 an established routine maintenance of low-cost housing facilities could be made mandatory
313 and monitored. This could be used to evaluate the performance of governments in meeting
314 sustainable development goals in affordable housing facilities / low-cost housing. This would
315 help accelerate the retrofitting of unsustainable housing facilities built in the past (Weherill et
316 al., 2014).
317
318 Since ‘tight credit condition’ was identified as one of the critical barriers with a significant
319 relationship with ‘poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of housing facilities’, the
320 next form of required policy could be financial enabling policy. Some of which include low-
321 interest or interest-free loans and financial subsidies for green retrofit. Subsidized upgrading
322 of unsustainable and derelict affordable housing facilities could improve the sustainability of
323 such housing facilities. Low-interest loans could be used to incentivize low-income households
324 and real estate developers for housing energy renovation. For instance, in Singapore, the
325 Building Retrofit Energy Efficiency Finance (BREEF) scheme is an incentive scheme that
326 provides financing to building owners for energy retrofit (Tan et al., 2018). Through the
327 provision of financial incentives, retrofit technologies could be adopted for sustainable
328 affordable housing. Some of these technologies include grey water collection and re-use,
329 daylight sensors, green material, building-integrated photovoltaics and green roofs / walls,
330 window frames with thermal breaks (Wilkinson and Feitosa, 2015). Given its benefits of indoor
331 temperature reduction and improvement in indoor air quality, financial subsidies for green roof
332 / wall is considered an efficient method for green retrofit of existing building.
333

19
 Journal Pre-proof

334 Finally, evaluation-based policies should be established for supervising and monitoring the
335 performance of the implemented policies. Building assessment tools could be developed
336 specifically for sustainable affordable housing or adopted from other assessment tools (i.e.
337 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED and Sustainable Building Assessment
338 Tool, SBAT) for evaluation of sustainability performance of affordable housing facilities.
339
340 5.2.1.2 Component 2: Land market-related Barriers
341 This component consists of four barriers and it explains 12.06% of the total variance. The
342 barriers and the percentage of their loadings in bracket include: ‘lack of policies / weak
343 enforcement of policies on land use planning system for housing supply’ (70.7%); ‘high cost
344 of serviced land’ (63.6%); ‘high interest rates’ (57.3%) and ‘high inflation rate’ (55.4%) (see,
345 Table 5 for variance and loadings).
346
347 Some significant correlations exist among the barriers. For instance, (in Table 4), there are
348 significant correlations between ‘lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use
349 planning system for housing supply’ (B13, an institutional sustainability barriers) and ‘high
350 interest rates’ (B18, an economic sustainability barrier) (r=0.484, p=0.01); between ‘lack of
351 policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use planning system for housing supply’ (B13)
352 and ‘high inflation rates’ (B18, an economic sustainability barrier) (r=0.514, p=0.01); between
353 ‘lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use planning system for housing
354 supply’ (B13) and ‘high cost of serviced land’ (B04, an economic sustainability barrier)
355 (r=0.293, p=0.05); between ‘high cost of serviced land’ (B04) and ‘high interest rate’ (B18)
356 (r=0.345, p=0.05); between ‘high interest rate’ (B18) and ‘high inflation rate’ (B20) (r=0.789,
357 p=0.01), both identified in the literature as economic sustainability barriers. The significant
358 correlations among these barriers indicate that they are directly or indirectly related to supply
359 and demand of land. Therefore, this component is labelled as ‘land market-related barriers’.
360
361 ‘Lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use planning system for housing
362 supply’ could lead to land price escalation (Agyemang and Morrison, 2018). Infrastructure
363 supply within a community reduces the land available for housing development while
364 increasing the desire among potential households to live in that community. This increases
365 demand for land thereby increasing prices of land. The increase in the land price / value could
366 be attributed to the infrastructure supply, mostly provided by the state. Without adequate
367 planning control, increase in land price / value is freely captured by land owners and
368 developers. According to Agyemang and Morrison (2018 p.2640), there is an “opportunity cost
369 in not attempting to extract some form of economic rent from private investors for affordable
370 housing provision”. Due to lack of policies / weak policies enforcement of planning control on
371 infrastructural development, the uplift in land value leads to an upsurge in land prices.
372 Consequently, ‘lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use planning system for
373 housing supply’ leads to high cost of serviced land. Besides, general inflation rate of a country
374 is one of the macroeconomic variables that affect land prices. The relative price of land is
375 positively linked to the expected inflation rate, as shown in the positive correlation between
376 them (r=0.514, p=0.01). An increase in the expected inflation rate triggers an instant increase
377 in the relative price of such ‘store of value’ real assets (i.e. land) (Feldstein, 1980).
378
379 Furthermore, high cost of serviced land impedes sustainable affordable housing development.
380 For example, Huang et al. (2015) concluded that housing deficit and high housing prices in
381 Hong Kong are due to high cost of land. Besides, the findings of Huang et al. (2015) revealed
382 that land in areas of high land prices will experience longer holding periods than land in areas
383 with low prices. The effect of high cost of serviced land is the postponement of housing

20
 Journal Pre-proof

384 development which leads to inflations in the prices of existing housing or supply of housing at
385 high prices. Consequently, supplied houses may not be economically sustainable in terms of
386 price affordability. Besides, at high cost of serviced land, developers may borrow from
387 financial institutions for land purchase. On borrowed capital for land purchase, the effect is
388 high cost of financing. This ultimately increases the overall land price and the cost of housing
389 development. For example, Wen and Goodman (2013) found a direct positive relationship
390 between housing price and land price. Though they concluded that housing price has a greater
391 influence (0.7109 elasticity of housing price) on land price than land price does on price of
392 housing, the elasticity of land price was estimated at 0.1698 which means the increment is 4.19
393 times that of land price on housing price.
394
395 To overcome some of the barriers in the land market, governments could provide land as equity
396 to developers. In developing countries (i.e. most African countries) where customary land
397 tenure system is dominant, collaboration could be established between private investors and
398 individual owners of land. In this form of collaboration, land owners provide land to developers
399 as equity for housing development. The adoption and implementation of such policy could
400 prevent private developers from incurring the initial land cost and high interest rates on
401 borrowed funds. Essentially, the developer could rather channel these sums of money, mostly
402 dedicated to the land purchase, to earlier start of the project and the adoption of sustainable
403 technologies and materials for sustainable housing. At the completion of such projects, a
404 number of housing units could be allocated to the land owners based on an agreement between
405 the parties. With this strategy, it is expected that the land cost, high interest rates on borrowed
406 funds for land purchase and the bureaucratic procedure of land acquisition could be obviated.
407 Thus, the supplied sustainable houses could be price affordable. If the land is provided by the
408 government, the number of houses given to the government could be allocated to low-income
409 earners. This could be a strategy for ensuring mixed-income housing. Therefore, social
410 sustainability could be achieved while the adoption of sustainable technologies will lead to
411 environmental and economic sustainability attainment.
412
413 5.2.1.3 Component 3: Incentive-Related Barriers
414 The total variance accounted by this component is 10.2%. The underlying barriers and their
415 percentage factor loadings include: ‘high cost of sustainable building materials / technologies’
416 (78.0%); ‘delays in government approval process’ (74.9%); ‘inadequate access to land’
417 (70.9%) and ‘inadequate incentives for private investors’ (63.5%) (shown in Table 5).
418
419 In Table 4, there exist statistical significant correlations between ‘high cost of sustainable
420 building materials’ (B12, an economic sustainability barrier) and ‘inadequate incentives for
421 private investors’ (B20, an economic sustainability barrier) (r=0.450, p=0.05); between
422 ‘inadequate incentives for private investors’ (B20, an economic sustainability barrier) and
423 ‘delays in government approval process’ (B09, an institutional sustainability barrier) (r=0.522,
424 p=0.01); between ‘inadequate incentives for private investors’ (B20, an economic
425 sustainability barrier) and ‘inadequate access to land’ (B11, an environmental sustainability
426 barrier) (r=0.453, p=0.01); between ‘high cost of sustainable building materials’ (B12, an
427 economic related barrier) and ‘delays in government approval process’ (B09, an institutional-
428 related barrier) (r=0.398, p=0.01) and between ‘high cost of sustainable building materials’
429 (B12, an economic sustainability barrier) and ‘inadequate access to land’ (r=0.322, p=0.01).
430
431 The significant correlations among these barriers are coherent since they measure the same
432 problem. This component is labelled as ‘incentive-related barriers’. Studies have shown that
433 developers are trammeled by barriers to sustainable affordable housing. For instance, in the

21
 Journal Pre-proof

434 USA higher cost of sustainable building materials (green products) and inadequate government
435 incentives were identified as some of the barriers that thwart sustainable development (Ahn et
436 al., 2013 and Chan et al., 2016). In the case of UK, Parsons et al. (2010) highlighted some
437 importance of rainwater and storm water collection for a sustainable resource utilization.
438 However, findings of their study revealed a substantial shortage of interest in installing
439 rainwater harvesting system in most houses. Attributable to the shortage of interest were
440 financial and economic constraints of which the absence of incentives was significant.
441
442 Similarly, Chan et al. (2018) identified higher initial cost as among the barriers to the adoption
443 of green building technologies among developing and developed countries. Elaborating on the
444 cost, Van Bueren and Priemus (2002) stated that strategies for sustainable affordable housing
445 mostly require few raw materials and more labor than conventional modes of construction of
446 affordable housing. For example, it is estimated that depending on the project site, sustainable
447 practices could increase the cost of the initial design, extra design services, certain green
448 features and commission as much as 2-7% (Alwaer and Clements-Croome, 2010). Though
449 some sustainable housing technologies (such as passive water heaters, energy efficient lighting,
450 reflecting foil on exposed windows to reduce solar gains and shading devices / overhang) could
451 be achieved at a minimal cost of two-figure sum in dollars, other sustainable materials /
452 technologies could be expensive. For example, photovoltaic (solar) panels which can reduce
453 household energy consumption by 80 percent can be costly (Sullivan and Ward, 2012).
454 Therefore, integrating some of these technologies into housing facilities could make the
455 housing facilities unaffordable to low-income earners.
456
457 Furthermore, delays in project approval is one of the identified barriers to sustainable
458 affordable housing. Taylor (2011) estimated that review and approval procedure for
459 development could be 18 months duration. So, the implementation of sustainable technologies
460 in affordable housing may increase the complexity of construction because there could be
461 additional submissions and approvals as compared to traditional form of construction (Lam et
462 al., 2009). For example, in Singapore and Hong Kong, lengthy preconstruction process or
463 delays caused by green requirements was identified as one of the barriers that affect the
464 successful implementation of green construction (Hwang and Ng, 2013; Lam et al., 2009). As
465 direct construction cost is linked to time, any delay in work flow due to review and approval
466 would have economic effects (Lam et al., 2009).
467
468 Strategies could be implemented to curtail some of these barriers. Adequate financial
469 incentives (such as tax incentives, direct grants and rebates) could be offered to developers to
470 reduce the high cost of purchasing and adoption of sustainable housing materials or
471 technologies (DuBose et al., 2007). For example, tax exemptions could be offered to
472 developers who integrate sustainable technologies (green features) into affordable housing
473 projects (Nguyen et al., 2017). Besides, since ‘delay in approval’ is positively correlated to
474 inadequate incentives for private investors (r=0.522, p=0.01, see, Table 4), non-financial
475 incentive such as expedited permitting could significantly save developers time and cost in
476 permit approval process. This could be done in exchange for developers committing to the
477 integration of stated sustainable materials or technologies into affordable housing projects
478 (Perkins and McDonagh, 2012; Choi, 2009). Integrating affordable housing schemes and green
479 building (GB) schemes through green procurement, such as requiring green features at the
480 tendering stage, would encourage sustainable affordable housing development (Perkins and
481 McDonagh, 2012). With regard to the barrier – inadequate access to land, land allotment to
482 developers can be used as an incentive to ensure sustainable affordable housing. This will
483 eliminate delays in land registration and cost of financing on developers’ borrowed capital.

22
 Journal Pre-proof

484 5.2.1.4 Component 4: Housing market-related Barriers

485 The extracted barriers with their factor loadings include ‘community opposition to affordable’
486 (80.2%); ‘income inequality’ (71.6%) and ‘inadequate affordable housing policy / framework’
487 (55.5%). This cluster explains 6.8% of the total variance (shown in Table 5) and is named
488 ‘housing market-related barriers’.
489
490 The correlation matrix shows some statistical significant associations among the barriers. There
491 are significant correlations between ‘community opposition to affordable housing projects’
492 (B15, a social sustainability barrier) and ‘income inequality’ (B03, a social sustainability
493 barrier) (r=0.481, p=0.01); between ‘community opposition to affordable housing projects’
494 (B15, a social sustainability barrier) and ‘inadequate affordable housing policy’ (B01, an
495 institutional sustainability barrier) (r=0.349, p=0.05) and between ‘income inequality’ (B03, a
496 social sustainability barrier) and ‘inadequate affordable housing policy / guidelines’ (B01, an
497 institutional sustainability barrier) (r=0.413, p=0.01) (shown in Table 4).
498
499 ‘Inadequate affordable housing policy / guidelines’ as a critical barrier could result from fiscal
500 burden on the budget of most governments. Due to pressure on budgets of governments, the
501 scarce resources are often allocated for the provision of other basic needs. Thus, housing
502 provision could be relegated to the market. In a typical market-dominant model, housing is
503 commodified and provided to those who are willing and able to pay (Drudy and Punch, 2002).
504 Considering the incremental cost of adopting sustainable technologies and the predominance
505 of the market-model, supplied sustainable housing are often beyond the income capacity of
506 most low-income earners, without governments’ intervention. The consequence of the
507 dominance of a market model is an inadequate affordable housing policy / guidelines for low-
508 income earners. This could lead to ‘income inequality’ and ‘community opposition to
509 affordable housing’.
510
511 The market-dominance model has various outcomes with regard to efficiency, quality and
512 equity. For instance, since housing could be a consumption good and an investment, high-
513 income earners could purchase more houses in anticipation of making profit in the near future
514 (Drudy and Punch, 2002). As high-income earners earn profit from such investments, from the
515 perspective of partial equilibrium, there is an outward shift in their demand curve with a
516 corresponding increase in their demand for more housing, ceteris paribus. If supply is inelastic,
517 the market equilibrium price increases correspondingly. This heightens the income inequality
518 (gap) between high-income earners and low-income households. Thus, ‘inadequate affordable
519 housing policy’ is associated with income inequality (r=0.413, p=0.01, as shown in Table 4).
520 Income inequality could lead to rent increase, decrease housing consumption and decrease
521 residual income of low-income households (Dewilde and Lancee, 2013). For instance, an
522 increase in the market equilibrium price results in a decrease in the quantity of housing
523 consumed among low-income earners. A study by Matlack and Vigdor (2008) revealed a
524 continual significant relationship between inequality and crowding among low-income
525 households. This is because low-income tenants respond to increasing inequality by reducing
526 consumption to the point where expenditures on housing remain roughly steady. It was
527 suggested in Matlack and Vigdor (2008) that allowing for product differentiation in housing
528 could possibly alter the effects of income inequality. However, product differentiation could
529 lead to community opposition depending on the “degree of product differentiation in the
530 housing market”.
531
532 “Opposition to affordable housing is often motivated by homeowners’ fear that their property
533 values will decline” (Nguyen, 2005 p. 15). Reasons for opposition to affordable housing

23
 Journal Pre-proof

534 include low quality designs of affordable housing facilities, which are often linked to the fear
535 of declining property values of neighbouring facilities. Upon a critical review of hedonic price
536 studies, Nguyen (2005) concluded that proximally located affordable housing can negatively
537 affect neighbouring property values. This could be attributed to inadequate affordable housing
538 development policy such as low-quality design and poor management and maintenance; low
539 compatibility between affordable housing and residential facilities of the host neighbourhood
540 and high concentration of affordable housing within a specific area. Community opposition
541 causes spatial segregation of low-income residential facilities, which leads to homogenous
542 community development. This does not encourage social mx – a requirement for social
543 sustainability.
544
545 For social sustainability attainment, income inequality must be controlled for fair distribution
546 and consumption of housing resources. This can be achieved by using vertical equity (Chiu,
547 2003). Vertical equity is based on “fairness” notion of government taxation. It is an unequal
548 treatment of people whose positions (i.e. income) are unequal. The main aim of vertical equity
549 is for redistribution of wealth or income mostly through taxations. Through vertical equity
550 policies (taxation), revenues realised could be used to subsidize the purchase of sustainable
551 technologies for retrofitting of existing unsustainable affordable or low-cost housing. Such
552 revenues could also be channelled into green housing construction for low-income earners.
553 Moreover, they could be used to improve the design, quality, management and maintenance of
554 affordable housing as well as improve on the compatibility between new affordable housing
555 facilities and neighbouring housing facilities. This could reduce community opposition to
556 affordable housing and thus improve on social sustainability attainment.
557 Another strategy to avoid community opposition to affordable housing is diversity. Diversity
558 of income categories at a very low scale within a residential community could lead to an
559 effective mixed neighborhood (Van Kempen and Bolt, 2009). Mixed neighborhood could
560 eliminate the negative neighborhood effects associated with segregation due to community
561 opposition to affordable housing. Besides, it improves social cohesion, liveability and
562 neighborhood reputation. Moreover, it offers low-income earners an opportunity to extend their
563 social networks by interacting with middle and high-income earners who could act as role
564 models (Costarelli et al., 2019).
565
566 5.2.1.5 Component 5: Infrastructural-related Barriers
567 Lastly, component 5 consists of four barriers: ‘zoning restrictions on land for affordable
568 housing projects’ (75.8%); ‘high approval cost due to high taxes and fees on developers’
569 (73.6%); ‘inadequate infrastructural development’ (53.9%) and ‘inadequate public funding’
570 (77.9%) (in Table 5). This component explains 5.4% of the total variance and is named
571 ‘infrastructural-related barriers’. The correlation matrix (in Table 4) shows only one significant
572 association between ‘high approval cost due to high taxes and fees on developers’ (B16, an
573 economic sustainability barrier) and ‘inadequate infrastructure development’ (B06, a social
574 sustainability barrier) (r=0.592, p=0.01).
575
576 Owing to zoning restrictions on land, most affordable housing facilities are constructed in
577 outskirts of towns and cities (Winston, 2010). Consequently, infrastructure such as roads are
578 required to provide transport link among the housing facilities and social amenities. However,
579 key infrastructure frequently arrives after affordable housing development and occasionally
580 not at all. Funding is mostly reduced in large scale building programs on account of cost
581 overruns and construction variations which may alter the end product usually far from the
582 initial proposal (Power, 2008). Subsequently, inadequate transport link among infrastructure
583 could increase commuting distance and cost. This makes affordable housing projects not

24
 Journal Pre-proof

584 economically and environmentally sustainable due to high greenhouse gas emissions that could
585 be linked to longer commuting distance (Power, 2008).
586
587 Besides, inadequate infrastructural supply could be a barrier to the sitting and construction of
588 affordable housing within cities. For instance, one of the main reasons for zoning restrictions
589 on land for affordable housing projects is to avoid possible congestion on existing limited social
590 amenities (Tighe, 2010). Due to tight budget, most governments try to resolve the problem of
591 inadequate infrastructure by increasing taxes and approval fees on developers so that the
592 realised revenue could be used to augment infrastructure provision. However, when developers
593 incur high taxes and permit fees for housing development, the taxes and permit fees are
594 invariably transferred onto potential households in the form of higher house prices, thus making
595 housing prices very high and economically unsustainable.
596
597 To avoid the problems of inadequate infrastructural supply, high-density development and
598 mixed-land use are crucial. These developments encourage proximity to infrastructure.
599 Proximity to infrastructure and services has relevant outcomes such as vehicle emission
600 reduction and the wellbeing of citizens. These forms of development are key elements for an
601 efficient access to local services and for promoting fairer transport models. They promote a
602 walkable and cycling community. These alternatives of transport are considered as
603 fundamental ingredients in an integrated, intermodal transportation system and they offer
604 households transportation options and provide continuity from home to destination
605 (Southworth, 2005). Walking and cycling gain merits as sustainable means of transport since
606 they are “energy efficient and low pollutant” (Marquet and Miralles-Guasch, 2015). Besides,
607 communal facilities should be provided in addition to housing facilities to promote social
608 contact (Winston, 2010).
609
610 Although high-density development is important, Turok (2016) noted that extreme high-
611 density development could have detrimental effects. High-density development could increase
612 traffic congestion. Consequently, this could increase the travelling time of households and
613 associated difficulties in pedestrian movement which could discourage brief walking trips
614 (walking trips that take no more than 10 minutes). Similarly, a study conducted by Marquet
615 and Miralles-Guasch, (2015 p.263) revealed that “as density increases from the more dispersed
616 areas to the denser ones, so does the use of the neighborhood for brief trips. However, once a
617 certain density threshold is surpassed, proximity utilization no longer varies significantly. For
618 areas above the 35.00 inh / km2, density ceases to be found as significant for proximity use.”
619
620 5.3 Results of Rank Agreement Analysis on the Critical Barriers
621 The results of the FA were subsequently used for the rank agreement analysis to determine the
622 level of agreement between experts from developing and developed countries. Using the
623 equations as provided in subsection 4.3 on rank agreement analysis, the percentage
624 disagreement (PD) was first calculated before estimating for the percentage agreement (PA) of
625 each component. Recall eqn (5), the percentage disagreement (PD) is given by
𝑁
∑𝑖 = 1 |𝑅𝑖1 ― 𝑅𝑖2|
626 PD = 𝑁 x 100………………………………….......................................... eqn (5)
∑𝑖 = 1 |𝑅𝑖 ― 𝑅𝑗2|
4
627 For green retrofit-related barriers, using the figures as shown in Table 6, PD = 6 x 100
628 = 67%
629 Therefore, PA is given by, recall eqn (6)
630 PA = 100 ― PD…………………………………………….…………………………...eqn (6)
631 PA = 33 %

25
 Journal Pre-proof

632 Similarly, using the values shown in Table 6 for land market-related barriers, with a PD of
4
633 67% (PD = 6 x 100), the PA is given by
634 PA = 100 ― PD
635 PA = 33 %
2
636 Using the same approach, the PD for incentive-related barriers was estimated as PD = 6 x
637 100 = 33%
638 Therefore, the percentage agreement (PA) is given by PA = 100 ― PD = 67%.
639
640 For housing market-related barriers (using the figures as shown in Table 6), the PA is
641 estimated at 50% while the percentage agreement for infrastructural-related barriers was
642 estimated at 0%.
643
644 Results of the rank agreement analysis between experts from developing and developed
645 countries are shown in Table 6. With regard to ‘green retrofit-related barriers’, ‘income
646 segregation’ was the highest ranked barrier by both groups. However, with a mean score of
647 4.357, ‘tight credit condition’ ranks second among experts from developing countries, followed
648 by ‘abandoned management of public housing facilities or projects’ (4.357) and then ‘poor
649 maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of housing facilities’ (4.143). Among experts
650 from developed countries, ‘poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting of housing
651 facilities’ ranks second with a relatively low mean score (3.548), followed by ‘tight credit
652 conditions’ with a comparatively low mean score (3.533) and then ‘abandoned management of
653 public housing facilities’ with a mean score of 3.452. As a result of the high differences in
654 rankings of the various barriers under ‘green retrofit-related barriers’, a relatively low rank
655 agreement level of 33% was calculated (as shown in Table 6 and in eqn. 5 & 6).
656
657 From the rank agreement analysis on ‘land market-related barriers’, ‘high cost of serviced land’
658 was the highest ranked barrier between experts from developing and developed countries with
659 mean scores of 4.571 and 4.000, respectively. However, on subsequent rankings of barriers
660 from the perspective of experts from developing countries, ‘high interest rates’ ranks second
661 with a relatively high mean score (4.429). The third ranked barrier is ‘lack of policies / weak
662 enforcement of policies on land use planning system for housing supply’ with a mean score of
663 4.357. Finally, ‘high inflation rate’ ranks fourth with a high mean score of 4.000. Among
664 experts from developed countries, ‘lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use
665 planning system for housing supply’ ranks second with a relatively lower mean score (3.419).
666 The third ranked barrier is ‘high interest rate’ albeit a lower mean score (2.733) and finally,
667 ‘high inflation rate’ with a mean score of 2.655. Therefore, aside the barrier ‘high cost of
668 serviced land’ that is ranked highest and equally from both groups of experts, the other barriers
669 were ranked differently. Consequently, a rank agreement level of 33% was estimated between
670 experts from developing and developed countries (as shown in Table 6).
671

26
672
Table 6: Rank Agreement Analysis of Barriers to SAH
Barriers to Sustainable Affordable Housing Developing Countries Developed Countries Agreement Analysis
Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Ri (Ri1 – Ri2) | (Ri – Rj2) |
Component 1: Green retrofit-related Barriers
B14: Abandoned management of public housing 4.357 0.842 3 3.452 1.207 4 7 1 2
facilities / projects by governments
B10: Tight credit conditions 4.357 0.745 2 3.533 0.973 3 5 1 0
B08: Poor maintenance culture / inadequate retrofitting 4.143 1.099 4 3.548 1.091 2 6 2 1
of housing facilities
B05: Income segregations 4.429 0.756 1 4.033 1.159 1 2 0 3
Rj2= 5 Sum = 4 Sum =6
Component 2: Land market-related Barriers
B13: Lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on 4.357 0.633 3 3.419 1.119 2 5 1 0
land use planning system for housing supply
B04: High cost of serviced land 4.571 0.851 1 4.000 0.910 1 2 0 3
B18: High interest rates 4.429 0.756 2 2.733 1.048 3 5 2 0
B20: High inflation rate 4.000 0.679 4 2.655 0.857 4 8 1 3
Rj2= 5 Sum = 4 Sum = 6
Component 3: Incentive-related Barriers
B12: High cost of sustainable building materials 4.214 0.864 1 3.567 0.898 1 2 0 3
B09: Delays in government approval process 4.143 0.893 2 3.484 1.061 3 5 1 0
B11: Inadequate access to land 4.071 0.917 3 3.516 0.926 2 5 1 0
B19: Inadequate incentives for private investors 4.000 0.961 4 2.839 1.128 4 8 0 3
Rj2= 5 Sum = 2 Sum = 6
Component 4: Housing Market-related Barriers
B15: Community opposition to affordable housing 3.357 1.447 3 3.800 1.157 3 6 0 2
B03: Income inequality 4.357 1.008 1 4.100 0.923 2 3 1 1
B01: Inadequate affordable housing policy / guidelines 4.286 0.611 2 4.333 0.802 1 3 1 1
Rj2= 4 Sum = 2 Sum =4
Component 5: Infrastructural -related Barriers
B07: Zoning restrictions on affordable housing 3.786 0.975 4 3.900 0.960 2 6 1 1
B16: High approval cost due to high taxes and fees 4.357 0.842 2 3.000 0.910 4 6 1 1
B06: Inadequate infrastructural development 4.500 0.760 1 3.667 0.922 3 4 1 1
B02: Inadequate public funding 4.357 0.929 3 4.233 0.817 1 4 1 1
Rj2= 5 Sum = 4 Sum = 4
673

27
 Journal Pre-proof

674 Concerning ‘incentive-related barriers’, one of its underlying barriers - ‘high cost of sustainable
675 building materials’ - was ranked the highest barrier to SAH by experts from both developing
676 and developed countries with mean scores of 4.214 and 3.567, respectively. Among experts
677 from developing countries, ‘delays in government approval process’ ranks second followed by
678 ‘inadequate access to land’ and then ‘inadequate incentive for private investors’. However,
679 among experts from developed countries, ‘inadequate access to land’ ranks second with a mean
680 score of 3.516. The third and fourth ranked barriers are ‘delays in government approval
681 process’ and ‘inadequate incentives for private investors’, respectively. Due to the closeness
682 and similarities in the ranks of the underlying barriers, a rank agreement level of 67% was
683 estimated.
684
685 This value indicates a relatively high level of consensus between experts from both group of
686 countries on the effects of the underlying barriers on SAH. Similarly, Chan et al., (2018)
687 conducted a comparative study on the critical barriers to green construction in Ghana, USA,
688 Canada and Australia. Findings of their study showed that ‘high cost of sustainable building
689 materials / technologies (green building technologies)’ was the top barrier in these countries.
690 Furthermore, ‘inadequate incentives for private investors’ was ranked among the top five
691 barriers in both Ghana and USA. Moreover, ‘delays in government approval process’ is a
692 common barrier for both traditional and sustainable affordable housing development in both
693 developing and developed countries (Zhang et al., 2012; Lam et al., 2009).
694
695 With regard to ‘housing market-related barriers’, ‘income inequality’ is the highest ranked
696 barrier with a mean score of 4.357 among experts from developing countries. ‘Inadequate
697 affordable housing policy / guidelines’ ranks second (mean score of 4.286). With a mean score
698 of 3.357, ‘community opposition to affordable housing’ ranks third. Among experts from
699 developed countries, ‘inadequate affordable housing policies / guidelines’ is the highest ranked
700 barrier (mean score of 4.333). ‘Income inequality’ ranks second with a mean score of 4.100.
701 ‘Community opposition to affordable housing’ ranks third which is similar to the ranking
702 among experts from developing countries, although its means value (3.800) is relatively high
703 among experts from developed countries. As a result of the closeness in ranks among the
704 barriers, a rank agreement level of 50% was estimated (as shown in Table 6 and in eqn. 5 & 6).
705
706 The relatively high rank agreement level on ‘housing market-related barriers’ between both
707 groups of respondents is possibly due to the housing supply approach adopted in most
708 developing and developed countries. Since ‘inadequate affordable housing policy’ ranks high
709 in both cases, this could possibly be attributed to the dominance of the market model in housing
710 supply among most countries. Fiscal austerity evinced in budgetary constraints among
711 governments has often been stated as the influencing factor for this approach to housing supply
712 (Drudy and Punch, 2002; Zhang et al., 2016). In the market model approach, housing supply
713 is considered as a personal investment, profit-making or wealth generation. Besides, this model
714 encourages speculative acquisition of land, hoarding, monopoly elements and segregation
715 (Drudy and Punch, 2002). Corollary of the market-dominance model is income inequality. It
716 is, therefore, not surprising that income inequality was also rated high by respondents from
717 both developing and developed countries.
718
719 Concerning ‘infrastructural-related barriers’, there was a vast difference in the rankings of the
720 underlying barriers between experts from developing and developed countries. Among experts
721 from developing countries, ‘inadequate infrastructural development’, with a mean score of
722 4.500, is ranked the highest. ‘High approval cost due to high taxes and fees on developers’
723 ranks second with a mean score of 4.357. Third is ‘Inadequate public funding’ followed by

28
 Journal Pre-proof

724 ‘zoning restrictions on affordable housing’ (mean score of 3.786). However, among experts in
725 developed countries, ‘inadequate public funding’ is first with a mean score of 4.233. Then,
726 ‘zoning restrictions on affordable housing’ ranks second with a relatively high mean score
727 (3.900). ‘Inadequate infrastructural development’ and ‘high approval cost due to high taxes
728 and fees’ rank third and fourth, respectively, with mean scores of 3.667 and 3.000. Although
729 the underlying barriers had high mean scores, they are ranked differently in both groups of
730 experts. For instance, while ‘zoning restriction on affordable housing’ was ranked high among
731 experts from developed countries, it was relatively ranked low among experts from developing
732 countries. Thus, the high differences in the ranks of the underlying barriers under this
733 component yielded a rank agreement level of zero (0), which indicates no consensus on the
734 ranks of the barriers.
735
736 In summary, the underlying barriers in “incentive-related barriers” and “housing market-
737 related barriers” are implicated in the inadequate sustainable affordable housing in most
738 developing and developed countries. Therefore, global policies on incentives for developers
739 (such as adequate supply of low-cost serviced land, expedited permitting and subsidies for low-
740 income household) are crucial for sustainability attainment in affordable housing or low-cost
741 housing. These incentives could enable developers and low-income households to purchase
742 energy efficient technologies and other sustainable housing technologies. Besides, given the
743 dominance of the market model in housing supply among most countries, governments need
744 to intervene. Through governments’ interventions, sustainable affordable housing could be
745 made available to low-income earners. The interventions could be in various forms such as
746 redistribution policies through taxation. Besides, effective public-private partnership could be
747 an efficient strategy in providing sustainable affordable housing to low-income earners.
748

29
Table
7497: Summary on Barriers, Rank Agreement Level and Suggested Policies for Sustainability Attainment in Affordable Housing
Components of Barrier Underlying Barriers Rank Agreement Suggested Policies for Sustainable Affordable Housing
Level

Green retrofit -related  Abandoned management of public housing 33%  Political will and commitment to low-cost housing
Barriers facilities / projects by government
 Tight credit conditions  Financial enabling policies (i.e. low interest loans or interest
free loans; revolving fund for retrofitting)
 Poor maintenance culture / inadequate  Regulation-based policies on routine maintenance / retrofitting
retrofitting of housing facilities of low-cost housing
 Information dissemination programs; Knowledge transfers
from material suppliers and energy advisors; directive based
policies; regulation-based policies; evaluation-based policies
 Income segregation  Inclusionary housing, mixed neighbourhood / diversity of
income categories at a low scale within a residential
community

Land market-related  Lack of policies / weak enforcement of 33%  Taxation on property / capital gains on land for sustainable
Barriers policies on land use planning system for affordable housing supply
housing supply  Land-use planning system for housing supply
 High cost of serviced land  Partnership between land owners and developers for housing
supply; Governments’ supply of land as equity for public-
private partnership or providing land subsidy to developers
 Limited holding periods of vacant land to prevent speculation
of land prices
 High interest rate  Availability of low interest rates financing schemes /
mortgage; governments adopting long-term financing strategy
such as bond-financed affordable housing delivery approach
other than using short-term strategies such as treasury-bills
 High inflation rate  Taxation on property / capital gains on land for sustainable
affordable housing supply
 Long-term financing other than short-term financing strategies
for sustainable affordable housing supply

Incentive-related Barriers  High cost of sustainable building materials / 67%  Access to low-interest loans; subsidies on cost of sustainable
technologies technologies
 Delays in government approval process  Non-financial incentives (i.e. expedited permitting approval

30
 on land acquisition and land titling)
 Inadequate access to land  Land allotment as an incentive for public-private partnership
 Inadequate incentives for private investors  Providing financial incentives for developers (i.e. tax
incentives, tax exemptions, direct grants and rebates)

Housing market-related  Community opposition to affordable housing 50%  Improve compatibility between low-cost housing and
Barriers projects neighbouring facilities; improved design, quality,
management and maintenance of affordable housing; mixed
neighbourhood / diversity of income categories at a low scale
within a residential community; bottom-up, community
engagement approach to planning for affordable housing
 Income inequality  Vertical equity of government taxation for income
redistribution; subsidies for energy retrofitting; horizontal
equity i.e. transparent allocation of housing facilities
 Government provision of subsidies to households
 Inadequate affordable housing policy /  Tailored building regulation or codes as standards for
guidelines assessing sustainability in affordable housing

Infrastructural-related  Zoning restrictions on land for affordable Nil (0%)  Mixed housing development and high-density development
Barriers housing projects
 High approval cost due to high taxes and fees  Tax exemption such as Low-income Housing Tax Credit
on developers (LIHTC)
 Inadequate infrastructural development  Compact housing development or high-density housing
construction in urban areas
 Siting low-cost housing within cities / towns
 Providing infrastructural subsidy to developers
 Land-use planning system for infrastructure supply
 Inadequate public funding  Linking commercial development approval to funding for
housing / charging developers in towns and cities impact fees
of development
 Public-private partnership
 Effective participation of “non-profit” developers
750

31
 Journal Pre-proof

751 6. Conclusions
752 This study identified critical barriers that hinder sustainable affordable housing development.
753 Through a questionnaire survey, data on barriers were collected from 51 affordable housing
754 experts from various countries around the world. These experts are also knowledgeable in
755 sustainable housing. The data were analysed using ranking analysis (mean and normalization
756 scores), factor analysis with Pearson correlation and rank agreement analysis.
757
758 The research findings revealed that 19 critical barriers impede sustainable affordable housing
759 in developing countries. The top five critical barriers include: ‘high cost of serviced land’
760 followed by ‘inadequate infrastructural development’, ‘income segregation’, ‘high interest
761 rates’ and then ‘lack of policies / weak enforcement of policies on land use planning system
762 for housing supply’. However, from the perspective of respondents from developed countries,
763 the top five critical barriers include: ‘inadequate affordable housing policy’, ‘inadequate public
764 funding’, ‘income inequality’, ‘income segregation’ and ‘high cost of serviced land’. Through
765 factor analysis of the combined critical barriers from the perspective of developing and
766 developed countries, five components were obtained, namely, green retrofit-related; land
767 market-related; incentive-related; housing market-related and infrastructural-related barriers.
768 Rank agreement analysis of the underlying barriers in the various components showed high
769 rank agreement level between respondents from both developing countries and developed
770 countries on ‘incentive-related barriers’ (rank agreement level of 67%) and ‘housing market-
771 related barriers’ (rank agreement level of 50%). However, a low rank agreement level (33%)
772 was obtained for ‘green retrofit-related barriers’ and ‘land market-related barriers’ with no
773 agreement (0%) on infrastructural-related barriers.
774
775 This study has limitations worth stating with regard to the interpretation and generalization of
776 its findings. First, the findings of the study rely on a relatively small sample size, which could
777 affect their generalizability. Therefore, future study could use much larger sample size from
778 both developing and developed countries for the rank agreement analysis. This could reveal
779 much insight on the rank agreement analysis in this study. Besides, with larger sample size,
780 other parametric analysis could be employed to test the significant difference among the
781 barriers that impede sustainable affordable housing from developing and developed countries.
782 Furthermore, the study reports on barriers to sustainable affordable housing from only the
783 perspective of affordable housing experts. Future study could include the views of low-income
784 residents by using additional data collection technique such as interviews to provide a broader
785 and bias-free view on barriers to sustainable affordable housing.
786
787 Albeit the limitations, the research findings have significant practical and theoretical
788 contributions worth stating. Practically, the research findings could enable policy makers and
789 practitioners to adopt global pragmatic measure to promote sustainable affordable housing.
790 Besides, in the light of the barriers identified, the study highlights the measures which are worth
791 considering among international policymakers for sustainable affordable housing. Unlike
792 previous studies, the present study proffers in-depth understanding of the barriers to sustainable
793 affordable housing from an international perspective as well as recommendations for
794 overcoming those barriers. As such, the findings of this study have practical implication for
795 international organization such as the World Bank and the United Nations. These organizations
796 could incorporate the findings and recommendations into their international programmes for
797 promoting sustainable affordable housing across the globe. Promoting sustainable affordable
798 housing across the globe would contribute to achieving the target 11.1 of the Sustainable
799 Development Goal 11 of the United Nation, which highlights the need for Sustainable
800 affordable housing for all by 2030. Theoretically, future study could investigate the

32
 Journal Pre-proof

801 interrelationship between the identified critical barriers and critical success criteria towards
802 developing a model for sustainable affordable housing. The identified barriers could also be
803 employed for further study to unravel context specific barriers among developed and
804 developing countries.
805
806 References
807 Adabre, M. A., & Chan, A. P. (2018). The ends required to justify the means for sustainable
808 affordable housing: A review on critical success criteria. Sustainable Development, 26,
809 1-14
810 Adabre, M. A., & Chan, A. P. (2019). Critical success factors (CSFs) for sustainable affordable
811 housing. Building and Environment, 156, 203-214
812 Agyemang, F. S., & Morrison, N. (2018). Recognising the barriers to securing affordable
813 housing through the land use planning system in Sub-Saharan Africa: A perspective from
814 Ghana. Urban Studies, 55(12), 2640-2659.
815 Ahn, Y. H., Pearce, A. R., Wang, Y., & Wang, G. (2013). Drivers and barriers of sustainable
816 design and construction: The perception of green building experience. International
817 Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 4(1), 35-45.
818 Alam, M., Zou, P. X., Stewart, R. A., Bertone, E., Sahin, O., Buntine, C., & Marshall, C.
819 (2019). Government championed strategies to overcome the barriers to public building
820 energy efficiency retrofit projects. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 56-69.
821 Alawadi, K., Khanal, A., & Almulla, A. (2018). Land, urban form, and politics: A study on
822 Dubai's housing landscape and rental affordability. Cities, 81, 115-130.
823 Alwaer, H., & Clements-Croome, D. J. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority
824 setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent
825 buildings. Building and environment, 45(4), 799-807.
826 Arku, G. (2009). Housing policy changes in Ghana in the 1990s: Policy review. Housing
827 Studies, 24(2), 261-272.
828 Asumadu-Sarkodie, S., & Owusu, P. A. (2016). A review of Ghana’s energy sector national
829 energy statistics and policy framework. Cogent Engineering, 3(1), 1155274.
830 Bangdome-Dery, A., Eghan, G. E., & Afram, S. O. (2014). Overview of Self-Help (Self-Build)
831 Housing Provision in Ghana: Policies and Challenges. Developing Country Studies, 8(2),
832 165-179.
833 Bardhan, R., Debnath, R., Malik, J., & Sarkar, A. (2018). Low-income housing layouts under
834 socio-architectural complexities: A parametric study for sustainable slum
835 rehabilitation. Sustainable cities and society, 41, 126-138.
836 Blanco, A., Gilbert, A., & Kim, J. (2016). Housing tenure in Latin American cities: The role
837 of household income. Habitat International, 51, 1-10.
838 Blengini, G. A., & Di Carlo, T. (2010). The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and
839 materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy and buildings, 42(6), 869-880.
840 Boamah, N. A. (2010). Housing Affordability in Ghana: A focus on Kumasi and Tamale.
841 Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management, 3(3), 1-11
842 Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2006, April). What is ‘social
843 sustainability’, and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it.
844 In Sustainable Communities and Green Futures’ Conference, Bartlett School of
845 Planning, University College London, London
846 Casquero-Modrego, N., & Goñi-Modrego, M. (2019). Energy retrofit of an existing affordable
847 building envelope in Spain, case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 395-405.
848 Chan, A. P. C., Darko, A., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2017). Strategies for promoting green building
849 technologies adoption in the construction industry—An international
850 study. Sustainability, 9(6), 969.

33
 Journal Pre-proof

851 Chan, A. P. C., Darko, A., Olanipekun, A. O., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2018). Critical barriers to
852 green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of
853 Ghana. Journal of cleaner production, 172, 1067-1079.
854 Chan, A. P., & Adabre, M. A. (2019). Bridging the gap between sustainable housing and
855 affordable housing: The required critical success criteria (CSC). Building and
856 Environment, 151, 112-125.
857 Chan, A. P., Darko, A., Ameyaw, E. E., & Owusu-Manu, D. G. (2016). Barriers affecting the
858 adoption of green building technologies. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(3),
859 04016057.
860 Chen, G., Glasmeier, A. K., Zhang, M., & Shao, Y. (2016). Urbanization and income inequality
861 in post-reform China: a causal analysis based on time series data. PloS one, 11(7),
862 e0158826.
863 Chiang, Y. H., Li, J., Zhou, L., Wong, F. K., & Lam, P. T. (2015). The nexus among
864 employment opportunities, life-cycle costs, and carbon emissions: a case study of
865 sustainable building maintenance in Hong Kong. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109,
866 326-335.
867 Chiu, R. L. (2003, November). Sustainable development: A new perspective for housing
868 development. In National Housing Conference 2003, Adelaide, 26-28 November 2003.
869 Choi, C. (2009). Removing market barriers to green development: principles and action
870 projects to promote widespread adoption of green development practices. Journal of
871 Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 107-138.
872 Costarelli, I., Kleinhans, R., & Mugnano, S. (2019). Reframing social mix in affordable
873 housing initiatives in Italy and in the Netherlands. Closing the gap between discourses
874 and practices?. Cities, 90, 131-140.
875 Curado, A., & de Freitas, V. P. (2019). Influence of thermal insulation of facades on the
876 performance of retrofitted social housing buildings in Southern European
877 countries. Sustainable Cities and Society, 48, 101534.
878 Czischke, D., & van Bortel, G. (2018). An exploration of concepts and polices on ‘affordable
879 housing’in England, Italy, Poland and The Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built
880 Environment, 1-21.
881 Daniel, M. M., & Hunt, R. J. (2014). Changing housing policies and housing provision in Jos,
882 Nigeria. Habitat international, 42, 203-213.
883 Drudy, P. J., & Punch, M. (2002). Housing models and inequality: perspectives on recent Irish
884 experience. Housing Studies, 17(4), 657-672.
885 DuBose, J. R., Bosch, S. J., & Pearce, A. R. (2007). Analysis of state-wide green building
886 policies. Journal of Green Building, 2(2), 161-177.
887 Duvier, C., Anand, P. B., & Oltean-Dumbrava, C. (2018a). Data quality and governance in a
888 UK social housing initiative: Implications for smart sustainable cities. Sustainable cities
889 and society, 39, 358-365.
890 Duvier, C., Neagu, D., Oltean-Dumbrava, C., & Dickens, D. (2018b). Data quality challenges
891 in the UK social housing sector. International Journal of Information
892 Management, 38(1), 196-200.
893 Echeverry, D., Majana, E., & Acevedo, F. (2007). Affordable housing in Latin America:
894 improved role of the academic sector in the case of Colombia. Journal of Construction
895 Engineering and Management, 133(9), 684-689.
896 Feldstein, M. (1980). Inflation, tax rules, and the prices of land and gold. Journal of Public
897 Economics, 14(3), 309-317.
898 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
899 variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.

34
 Journal Pre-proof

900 Friedman, R., & Rosen, G. (2018). The challenge of conceptualizing affordable housing:
901 definitions and their underlying agendas in Israel. Housing Studies, 1-23.
902 Gan, X., Zuo, J., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chang, R., & Wen, T. (2017). How affordable housing
903 becomes more sustainable? A stakeholder study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162,
904 427-437.
905 Gianfrate, V., Piccardo, C., Longo, D., & Giachetta, A. (2017). Rethinking social housing:
906 Behavioural patterns and technological innovations. Sustainable cities and society, 33,
907 102-112.
908 Golubchikov, O., & Badyina, A. (2012). Sustainable housing for sustainable cities: a policy
909 framework for developing countries.
910 Gooding, T. (2016). Low-income housing provision in Mauritius: Improving social justice and
911 place quality. Habitat International, 53, 502-516.
912 Hu, F. Z., & Qian, J. (2017). Land-based finance, fiscal autonomy and land supply for
913 affordable housing in urban China: A prefecture-level analysis. Land Use Policy, 69,
914 454-460.
915 Huang, J., Shen, G. Q., & Zheng, H. W. (2015). Is insufficient land supply the root cause of
916 housing shortage? Empirical evidence from Hong Kong. Habitat international, 49, 538-
917 546.
918 Hui, E. C., & Soo, J. A. (2002). Development conditions and supply of housing: evidence from
919 Hong Kong. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 128(3), 105-138.
920 Hwang, B. G., & Ng, W. J. (2013). Project management knowledge and skills for green
921 construction: Overcoming challenges. International Journal of Project
922 Management, 31(2), 272-284.
923 Hwang, B. G., Zhu, L., & Tan, J. S. H. (2017). Green business park project management:
924 Barriers and solutions for sustainable development. Journal of cleaner production, 153,
925 209-219.
926 Ibem, E. O. (2011). The contribution of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to improving
927 accessibility of low-income earners to housing in southern Nigeria. Journal of Housing
928 and the Built Environment, 26(2), 201-217. doi:10.1007/s10901-011-9213-1
929 Joglekar, S. N., Kharkar, R. A., Mandavgane, S. A., & Kulkarni, B. D. (2018). Sustainability
930 assessment of brick work for low-cost housing: A comparison between waste based
931 bricks and burnt clay bricks. Sustainable cities and society, 37, 396-406.
932 Keivani, R., & Werna, E. (2001). Refocusing the housing debate in developing countries from
933 a pluralist perspective. Habitat International, 25(2), 191-208.
934 Kwofie, T. E., Afram, S., & Botchway, E. (2016). A critical success model for PPP public
935 housing delivery in Ghana. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(1), 58-
936 73.
937 Lam, P. T., Chan, E. H., Chau, C. K., Poon, C. S., & Chun, K. P. (2009). Integrating green
938 specifications in construction and overcoming barriers in their use. Journal of
939 Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 135(4), 142-152.
940 Lechtenböhmer, S., & Schüring, A. (2011). The potential for large-scale savings from
941 insulating residential buildings in the EU. Energy efficiency, 4(2), 257-270.
942 Li, Y. Y., Chen, P. H., Chew, D. A. S., Teo, C. C., & Ding, R. G. (2011). Critical project
943 management factors of AEC firms for delivering green building projects in
944 Singapore. Journal of construction engineering and management, 137(12), 1153-1163.
945 Liang, X., Peng, Y., & Shen, G. Q. (2016). A game theory based analysis of decision making
946 for green retrofit under different occupancy types. Journal of cleaner production, 137,
947 1300-1312.
948 Liddle, B. (2017). Urbanization and inequality/poverty. Urban Science, 1(4), 35.

35
 Journal Pre-proof

949 Liu, W., Zhang, J., Bluemling, B., Mol, A. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Public participation in
950 energy saving retrofitting of residential buildings in China. Applied energy, 147, 287-296.
951 Love, P. E., Niedzweicki, M., Bullen, P. A., & Edwards, D. J. (2011). Achieving the green
952 building council of Australia’s world leadership rating in an office building in
953 Perth. Journal of construction engineering and management, 138(5), 652-660.
954 Makinde, O. O. (2014). Housing delivery system, need and demand. Environment,
955 Development and Sustainability, 16(1), 49-69.
956 Marks, G. N., & Sedgwick, S. T. (2008). Is there a housing crisis? The incidence and
957 persistence of housing stress 2001–2006. Australian Economic Review, 41(2), 215-221.
958 Marquet, O., & Miralles-Guasch, C. (2015). The Walkable city and the importance of the
959 proximity environments for Barcelona’s everyday mobility. Cities, 42, 258-266.
960 Massey, D. S., Rothwell, J., & Domina, T. (2009). The changing bases of segregation in the
961 United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
962 Science, 626(1), 74-90.
963 Matlack, J. L., & Vigdor, J. L. (2008). Do rising tides lift all prices? Income inequality and
964 housing affordability. Journal of Housing Economics, 17(3), 212-224.
965 McKee, K. (2012). Young people, homeownership and future welfare. Housing Studies, 27(6),
966 853-862.
967 Mondal, B., & Das, D. N. (2018). How residential compactness and attractiveness can be
968 shaped by environmental amenities in an industrial city?. Sustainable cities and
969 society, 41, 363-377.
970 Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K., & Maliene, V. (2013). An assessment of sustainable housing
971 affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method. Omega, 41(2), 270-279.
972 Muringathuparambil, R. J., Musango, J. K., Brent, A. C., & Currie, P. (2017). Developing
973 building typologies to examine energy efficiency in representative low-cost buildings in
974 Cape Town townships. Sustainable cities and society, 33, 1-17.
975 Murphy, L. (2016). The politics of land supply and affordable housing: Auckland’s Housing
976 Accord and Special Housing Areas. Urban Studies, 53(12), 2530-2547.
977 National Summit on Housing Affordable, 2006 –Achieving a National Affordable Housing
978 Agreement: Background paper 2: Key Terminology and Indicators, National Summit on
979 Housing Affordability.
980 Nguyen, H. T., Skitmore, M., Gray, M., Zhang, X., & Olanipekun, A. O. (2017). Will green
981 building development take off? An exploratory study of barriers to green building in
982 Vietnam. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 8-20.
983 Nguyen, M. T. (2005). Does affordable housing detrimentally affect property values? A review
984 of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(1), 15-26
985 Nguyen, M. T., Basolo, V., & Tiwari, A. (2013). Opposition to affordable housing in the USA:
986 Debate framing and the responses of local actors. Housing, Theory and Society, 30(2),
987 107-130
988 Obeng-Odoom, F. (2010). An urban twist to politics in Ghana. Habitat International, 34(4),
989 392-399.
990 Obeng-Odoom, F., & Amedzro, L. (2011). Inadequate housing in Ghana. Urbani Izziv, 22(1),
991 127-137.
992 Okpala, D. C., & Aniekwu, A. N. (1988). Causes of high costs of construction in
993 Nigeria. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(2), 233-244.
994 Osei-Kyei, R., & Chan, A. P. (2017). Perceptions of stakeholders on the critical success factors
995 for operational management of public-private partnership projects. Facilities, 35(1/2),
996 21-38.
997 Ott, R. L., & Longnecker, M. T. (2015). An introduction to statistical methods and data
998 analysis. Nelson Education.

36
 Journal Pre-proof

999 Oyebanji, A. O., Liyanage, C., & Akintoye, A. (2017). Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for
1000 achieving sustainable social housing (SSH). International Journal of Sustainable Built
1001 Environment, 6(1), 216-227.
1002 Paiho, S., Abdurafikov, R., & Hoang, H. (2015). Cost analyses of energy-efficient renovations
1003 of a Moscow residential district. Sustainable Cities and Society, 14, 5-15.
1004 Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS
1005 program [Rezaei A, Persian trans].
1006 Parsons, D., Goodhew, S., Fewkes, A., & De Wilde, P. (2010). The perceived barriers to the
1007 inclusion of rainwater harvesting systems by UK house building companies. Urban
1008 Water Journal, 7(4), 257-265.
1009 Perkins, M. A., & McDonagh, J. (2012). New Zealand local government initiatives and
1010 incentives for sustainable design in commercial buildings.
1011 Polèse, M., & Stren, R. E. (Eds.). (2000). The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the
1012 management of change. University of Toronto Press
1013 Power, A. (2008). Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to
1014 increase our environmental, social and economic viability? Energy Policy, 36(12), 4487-
1015 4501.
1016 Pullen, S., Arman, M., Zillante, G., Zuo, J., Chileshe, N., & Wilson, L. (2010). Developing an
1017 assessment framework for affordable and sustainable housing. Australasian Journal of
1018 Construction Economics and Building, The, 10(1/2), 60.
1019 Ram, P., & Needham, B. (2016). The provision of affordable housing in India: Are commercial
1020 developers interested?. Habitat International, 55, 100-108.
1021 Randolph, B., & Tice, A. (2014). Suburbanizing disadvantage in Australian cities: sociospatial
1022 change in an era of neoliberalism. Journal of urban affairs, 36(sup1), 384-399.
1023 Sidawi, B., & Meeran, S. (2011). A framework for providing lifelong finance to the owners of
1024 affordable dwellings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Cities, 28(2), 138-146.
1025 Sourani, A. & Sohail, M., 2011. Barriers to addressing sustainable construction in public
1026 procurement strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering
1027 Sustainability, 164 (4), pp. 229 - 237.
1028 Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of urban planning and
1029 development, 131(4), 246-257.
1030 Sturzaker, J. (2011). Can community empowerment reduce opposition to housing? Evidence
1031 from rural England. Planning Practice and Research, 26(5), 555-570.
1032 Sulemana, I., Nketiah-Amponsah, E., Codjoe, E. A., & Andoh, J. A. N. (2019). Urbanization
1033 and income inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainable Cities and Society, 48,
1034 101544.
1035 Sullivan, E., & Ward, P. M. (2012). Sustainable housing applications and policies for low-
1036 income self-build and housing rehab. Habitat International, 36(2), 312-323.
1037 Tan, Y., Liu, G., Zhang, Y., Shuai, C., & Shen, G. Q. (2018). Green retrofit of aged residential
1038 buildings in Hong Kong: A preliminary study. Building and Environment, 143, 89-98.
1039 Taylor, J. M. (2011). Sustainable building practices: Legislative and economic
1040 incentives. Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment (MISBE),
1041 Association of European Schools of Planning, Dortmund, Germany.
1042 Teck-Hong, T. (2012). Housing satisfaction in medium-and high-cost housing: The case of
1043 Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 36(1), 108-116.
1044 Tighe, J. R. (2010). Public opinion and affordable housing: A review of the literature. Journal
1045 of Planning Literature, 25(1), 3-17
1046 Trudeau, D. (2018). Integrating social equity in sustainable development practice: Institutional
1047 commitments and patient capital. Sustainable cities and society, 41, 601-610.
1048 Turok, I. (2016). Housing and the urban premium. Habitat International, 54, 234-240.

37
 Journal Pre-proof

1049 Twumasi-Ampofo, K., Osei-Tutu, E., Decardi-Nelson, I., & Ofori, P. A. (2014). A model for
1050 reactivating abandoned public housing projects in Ghana. IISTE Journal of Civil and
1051 Environmental Research, 6(3), 6-16.
1052 UN. (n.d.). Sustainable development goal 11. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11
1053 (Nov. 22, 2019)
1054 Van Bueren, E. M., & Priemus, H. (2002). Institutional barriers to sustainable
1055 construction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29(1), 75-86.
1056 Van Kempen, R., & Bolt, G. (2009). Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the
1057 Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24(4), 457.
1058 Wang, H., & Zhang, X. (2008). An analysis on the resource consumption in the Chinese
1059 construction industry. Constr. Econ.
1060 Wen, H., & Goodman, A. C. (2013). Relationship between urban land price and housing price:
1061 Evidence from 21 provincial capitals in China. Habitat International, 40, 9-17.
1062 Wetherill, M., Swan, W., & Abbott, C. (2014). The influence of UK energy policy on low
1063 carbon retrofit in UK housing. Gas, 31239(4357), 35596.
1064 Wilkinson, S., & Feitosa, R. (2015). Retrofitting housing with lightweight green roof
1065 technology in Sydney, Australia, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Sustainability, 7(1), 1081-
1066 1098.
1067 Winston, N. (2010). Regeneration for sustainable communities? Barriers to implementing
1068 sustainable housing in urban areas. Sustainable Development, 18(6), 319-330.
1069 Yang, J., & Yang, Z. (2015). Critical factors affecting the implementation of sustainable
1070 housing in Australia. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(2), 275-292.
1071 Yin, B. C. L., Laing, R., Leon, M., & Mabon, L. (2018). An evaluation of sustainable
1072 construction perceptions and practices in Singapore. Sustainable cities and society, 39,
1073 613-620.
1074 Yuan, J., Li, W., Zheng, X., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2018). Improving Operation Performance
1075 of Public Rental Housing Delivery by PPPs in China. Journal of Management in
1076 Engineering, 34(4).
1077 Zhang, C., Jia, S., & Yang, R. (2016). Housing affordability and housing vacancy in China:
1078 The role of income inequality. Journal of Housing Economics, 33, 4-14.
1079 Zhang, X. (2005). Critical success factors for public–private partnerships in infrastructure
1080 development. Journal of construction engineering and management, 131(1), 3-14
1081 Zhang, X., Shen, L., Tam, V. W., & Lee, W. W. Y. (2012). Barriers to implement extensive
1082 green roof systems: a Hong Kong study. Renewable and sustainable energy
1083 reviews, 16(1), 314-319.
1084

38
 Journal Pre-proof

Michael Atafo Adabre1; Albert P.C. Chan2; Amos Darko3; Robert Osei-Kyei 4; Rotimi
Abidoye5; Theophilus Adjei-Kumi6

Authors’ contribution

Conceived the idea on the need for an international study on barriers to sustainable affordable
housing 1,2 & 3

Conducted data collection1 & 2

Data analysis and interpretation of results1,2,4 & 5

Provided revision of content of manuscript 4,5 & 6

Provided grammatical revisions to the manuscript 3, 4 & 6

1 Corresponding author’s address: Michael Atafo Adabre, Building and Real Estate
Department, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Tel:+85266450743
E-mail address: [email protected]
2Co-author’s address: Prof. Albert P.C. Chan, Building and Real Estate Department, Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. E-mail address: [email protected]
3Co-author’s address: Dr. Amos Darko Building and Real Estate Department, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. E-mail address: [email protected]
4 Co-author’s address: Dr. Robert Osei-Kyei, School of Computing Engineering and
Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Australia. E-mail address: r.osei-
[email protected]
5Co-author’s address: Dr. Rotimi Abidoye, Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Sydney,
Australia. E-mail address: [email protected]
6 Co-author’s
address: Prof. Theophilus Adjei-Kumi, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science
and Technology, Department of Building Technology, Ghana. E-mail address:
[email protected]
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of Interest Statement

Michael Atafo Adabre1; Albert P.C. Chan2; Amos Darko3; Robert Osei-Kyei 4; Rotimi
Abidoye5; Theophilus Adjei-Kumi6

The authors of the manuscript whose names are listed above certify that the manuscript titled
“Critical Barriers to Sustainability Attainment in Affordable Housing: International
Construction Professionals’ Perspective” has not been published neither is it under
consideration for publication elsewhere.

1 Corresponding author’s address: Michael Atafo Adabre, Building and Real Estate
Department, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Tel:+85266450743
E-mail address: [email protected]
2Co-author’s address: Prof. Albert P.C. Chan, Building and Real Estate Department, Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. E-mail address: [email protected]
3Co-author’s address: Dr. Amos Darko Building and Real Estate Department, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. E-mail address: [email protected]
4 Co-author’s address: Dr. Robert Osei-Kyei, School of Computing Engineering and
Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Australia. E-mail address: r.osei-
[email protected]
5Co-author’s address: Dr. Rotimi Abidoye, Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Sydney,
Australia. E-mail address: [email protected]
6 Co-author’s
address: Prof. Theophilus Adjei-Kumi, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science
and Technology, Department of Building Technology, Ghana. E-mail address:
[email protected]
 Journal Pre-proof

HIGHLIGHTS

1. Sustainability attainment in affordable housing for low-income earners is fundamental

for a significant sustainable development.
2. Identifying obstacles to sustainability attainment is primal to successful policy
implementation
3. Globally, ‘incentive-related’ and ‘housing market-related’ barriers are implicated in the
inadequate sustainable affordable housing (SAH).
4. The research findings are relevant to policy-makers in adopting measures for SAH
5. Organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nation (UN) could incorporate
the findings into their international programs.