J Hous and the Built Environ (2015) 30:275–292
DOI 10.1007/s10901-014-9406-5
ARTICLE
Critical factors affecting the implementation
of sustainable housing in Australia
Jay Yang • Zhengyu Yang
Received: 17 October 2012 / Accepted: 15 April 2014 / Published online: 24 April 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Improved public awareness of the environment and available technologies will
continue to highlight the importance of sustainable housing in the coming years. Despite
this potential, the majority of new housing development is still ‘‘project homes’’ with few
tangible sustainability measures. Different housing stakeholders tend to have different
perceptions and priorities on sustainability. To promote the uptake of sustainable housing
products, a study of the multi-dimensional issues affecting the implementation of sus-
tainable housing is necessary. This research investigates multiple factors that influence key
stakeholders’ decision-making toward sustainable housing adoption. Drawing insights
from combined questionnaire and interview studies, 12 critical factors and their inter-
relationships are identified based on professional views in the Australian housing industry.
The mutual influences, or driving force and dependency, of these factors are further
investigated via interpretive structural modeling to distinguish those requiring prominent
and immediate attention. A hierarchical model is developed to help key stakeholders
prioritize actions when implementing sustainable housing.
Keywords Sustainability Housing Framework Factors Mutual influence
Australia
1 Introduction
The Australian housing industry needs to respond to environmental sustainability. For a
67 % chance of keeping global warming within 2° above pre-industrial temperatures,
research has indicated that it would be necessary for Australia to de-carbonize its economy
by 2020 (Melbourne Energy Institute 2010). Since the construction and housing sector
J. Yang (&) Z. Yang
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]; [Link]@[Link]
123
276 J. Yang, Z. Yang
alone accounts for over 11 % of all carbon emissions in 2011 (Commonwealth of Australia
2013), industry practitioners are under pressure to deliver sustainable housing products
acceptable by the general market.
Despite the potential benefits and technological viability, voluntary uptake of sustain-
able housing is still in its infancy in Australia mostly driven by motives of experimenta-
tion, showcasing and marketing. For example, the Green Building Council of Australia
developed a voluntary approach, Green Star—Multi-Unit Residential, to benchmark sus-
tainable housing development in terms of eight areas of sustainability including energy,
indoor environment quality and emissions. Among hundreds of housing development
projects, only a modest 17 were endorsed as 4-star or above (GBCA 2011). Similarly, only
33 projects across Australia have been certified as being developed in a sustainable way
under the EnviroDevelopment scheme established by the Urban Development Institute of
Australia (UDIA 2011).
International research covered the issue of sustainable housing implementation, such as
sustainable housing outcomes from occupants’ experiences in Australia (Miller and Buys
2012); environmental performances of Turkish residential buildings (Cetiner and Ceylan
2013); eco-labeling of housing products in Hong Kong and the willingness to pay for them
(Yau 2012); and the ABIA framework developed to encourage environmentally respon-
sible behaviors and adoption of sustainable housing in the UK (Hayles et al. 2013). While
they identified various barriers to implementation, most relate to policy, performance or
occupants’ behavioral experiences. Problems of key housing stakeholders, particularly
those designing, developing and marketing sustainable housing products, have not been
studied systematically. Moreover, since the sustainability agenda exceeds traditional
economic boundaries to include social, environmental and institutional dimensions, limited
exploration of the mutual influences of these multi-bottom-line issues can lead to excessive
and sometimes convoluted policy making which may obstruct sustainable visions (Miller
and Buys 2013). Therefore, the research reported here sets out to establish a research
framework that facilitates a systematic understanding of the priorities and constraints of
key stakeholders in the housing industry, and in turn identify and promote their mutually
agreeable benefits and targets, to promote sustainable housing products. As part of the
overall research, the following discussions center on the exploration of ‘‘factors affecting
the implementation’’ (FAIs) of sustainable housing in Australia. The paper begins with a
description of sustainable housing evolution and multiple-bottom-line FAIs identified from
the existing literature. The significance of and inter-relationships between FAIs are iden-
tified through survey studies among key stakeholders in the Australian housing industry.
Semi-structured interviews then extend the survey findings to identify the critical FAIs.
Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) is finally applied to examine the quantitative mutual
influences (driving force and dependence) and in turn establish a hierarchical model to
guide stakeholder actions toward sustainable housing implementation.
2 Sustainable housing development in Australia
2.1 The evolution of sustainable housing concept and potential benefits
Contemporary research generally builds on the triple-bottom-line (TBL) principle to
rationalize the broad connotation of sustainability. In order to facilitate implementation,
recent thinking on sustainability tends to add an institutional or governance dimension to
the existing financial, environmental and social ones (Spangenberg 2002). Moreover,
123
Factors affecting the implementation 277
sustainability is increasingly highlighted as a positive concept that allows people to
improve quality of life and advance ecosystem health, rather than simply alleviating the
negative impacts from industrial growth (Birkeland 2008).
The definition of sustainability remains broad when it comes to the housing industry.
For example, sustainability was labeled with different terms such as ‘‘low carbon,’’ ‘‘zero
energy,’’ ‘‘high performance’’ and most commonly ‘‘green’’ (Lovell 2004; Schmidt 2008;
Wedding 2008). Housing sustainability should not, however, cover only the ‘‘green’’ aspect
of energy efficiency, but include resource usage, natural and socio-cultural systems, growth
and economic demands and the lifestyle of current generations (Cole 2005; Chiu 2004).
In the course of technology evolution occurring since the late 1900s, a large number of
sustainable technologies have been gradually introduced to the Australian housing
industry. Technologies considered ‘‘low-hanging fruit’’ (easily achievable), such as
structural insulation, glazing, passive heating and cooling design and water conservation,
have been driven into maturity. ‘‘Cutting-edge’’ energy saving measures such as the use of
wind turbines, solar panels and biomass have also proved ecologically appealing despite
their additional initial outlay (Eshraghia et al. 2014; Santin 2013). Housing estates built
with these sustainable measures not only have the potential to receive ‘‘green’’ grants and
streamlined land-use permits in the development stage, but also lead to direct cost savings
for occupants over the building’s lifetime. In addition, homebuyers have reportedly
enjoyed increased property values in countries such as the USA and the UK, where
sustainable features are an important determinant of market value (Lorenz et al. 2007).
Furthermore, sustainable housing may result in social advantages such as better consumer
confidence, increased functionality and durability, less maintenance, a better reputation and
most importantly, improved public health (Pilkington et al. 2011; Yates 2001; Yau 2012).
This research adopts a broad Australian context and generally accepted norm of sustainable
housing, i.e., those housing products that adopt sustainability principles to improve per-
formance and meet expected outcomes. These principles cover a wide span from technical
issues of energy efficiency, water saving and material innovation to social economical
measures such as indoor environment and accessibility improvement and responsiveness to
changing needs, affordability, social cohesion and cultural heritage. This message was
conveyed to and agreed upon by the respondents during the survey study of this research.
2.2 The complexity of sustainable housing development
Incorporating sustainability to housing development bears extreme complexity for two
reasons. There are multiple bottom lines of sustainability, and they have been constantly
evolving (Yang 2012). The supply chain of housing development involves dozens of
stakeholders who often have competing interests. Unlike direct economic activities, the
economic value of sustainability rests largely on sound environmental and social practices,
which often involve intangible, nonimmediate benefits yet more risks to stakeholders
(Panawek 2007; Wilkinson and Reed 2007; Miller and Buys 2013). This situation is
compounded by the diversity and multiplicity of stakeholders in the housing construction
industry, with each of them differing in the way they value and perceive sustainability
(Thabrew et al. 2009; Turcotte 2007; Winston 2010).
These complexities obstruct joint efforts by stakeholders to move toward sustainable
housing development. The foremost question in collaborative theories remains unsolved: in
what ways can multiple parties with own interests and professional priorities reach a
‘‘consensus’’ on the multi-dimensional knowledge itself? (Healey 2003; Innes 2004;
Margerum 2008). Specifically, the current implementation of sustainable housing was
123
278 J. Yang, Z. Yang
affected by a myriad of factors valued by single-issue interest groups, heading in various
directions toward different endpoints (Shin et al. 2008; Miller and Buys 2012; Famuyibo
et al. 2013). Various instruments often overlap in strengths and weaknesses in the absence
of an overarching goal, hindering the exchange of information, understating and, ulti-
mately, progress (Lowe and Oreszczyn 2008). Warnock (2007) argues that basic principles
for policy and prioritization and co-ordination need to be established. This approach
warrants the conceptualization of theoretical frameworks to consider all players in housing
supply chain and how they interact and behave under the sustainability paradigm on a
holistic basis (Famuyibo et al. 2013). For start, it is necessary to capture and calibrate as
many convoluted factors of sustainable housing delivery as possible for all key stake-
holders involved.
2.3 Identifying factors affecting the implementation of sustainable housing
In accordance with the evolving definitions and benefits of sustainability, multiple pull and
push factors can be identified as influential to stakeholders’ decision making for sustain-
able housing implementation. For example, Miller and Buys (2013) believe sustainable
housing as a product can be difficult to define and are strongly influenced by specific urban
context that extend users vision of sustainability. Housing market and regulators play
critical roles in limiting that vision; therefore, the implementation of sustainability. Lowe
and Oreszczyn (2008) point to insufficient interdisciplinary actions between technology,
economy and sociology specialists. They argue that the low level of interactions and
collaboration between these experts cause the lack of reliable life-cycle data from exem-
plar building projects. Aggravating this situation is the stereotyped additional cost of
sustainable features, which are oftentimes underrated or ignored in policy (Vandevyvere
and Neuckermans 2006). As a consequence, the sustainability of housing has not been
prioritized by stakeholders and this has impacted negatively on the nature of the housing
industry (Wilkinson and Reed 2007). Van Bueren (2007) thus supported collaborative
integration via clear leadership and partnership among stakeholders. This could potentially
facilitate long-term planning, early agenda-setting and the integrated design of sustainable
housing.
To guide subsequent data collection and analysis, this research first developed an
analytical protocol (Table 1) by summarizing the most commonly recognized factors in the
existing literature. In reference to Spangenberg’s sustainability prism (2002), these factors
are clustered into four categories: technical and design factors, economic factors, socio-
cultural factors and institutional factors. This FAI list was validated by five industry
experts and academics to ensure that the contents spell out what is meant to express from
an Australian housing industry point of view.
3 Research methodology
This research aims to develop a hierarchical framework that evaluates factors affecting the
implementation of sustainable housing (FAIs) in Australia. It adopted a threefold meth-
odology, consisting of both quantitative and qualitative methods.
The first quantitative research was conducted via an on online questionnaire to collect
and compare views on the significance of and correlations between the 19 FAIs identified
in the analytical protocol. Such surveys allow various stakeholders to be involved in
discovering ‘‘real’’ needs and demands (Saunders et al. 2009). Due to the distribution of
123
Table 1 Analytical protocol
Code FAIs Key reference
Vandevyvere McGraw-Hill Williams van Adeyeye Lorenz Wilkinson Lutzkendorf Lowe and Shin Ryghaug Osmani
and Construction and Dair Bueren et al. et al. and Reed and Lorenz Oreszczyn et al. and and
Neuckermans and (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2008) (2008) Sørensen O’Reilly
(2006) US Green (2009) (2009)
Building
Council
(2006)
Technical and design factors
T1 Inadequate or untested sustainable X X X
Factors affecting the implementation
technologies or materials
T2. Lack of professional education and X X X X X X
training programs for industry
T3. Lack of methodologies and tools to X X X X X X
consistently define and measure
sustainability
T4. Lack of integrated design for life- X X
cycle management
T5 Insufficient cost-benefit data from X X X X X X X
interdisciplinary research
Economic factors
E1. Unclear benefits from future X X X X X X X
legislation, policy and market
change
E2. High investment cost X X X X X
E3. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or X X X X X X
other investment advantages
Socio-cultural factors
S1. Reluctance to leave the comfort X X X X
zone and change traditional
practices
279
123
Table 1 continued
280
Code FAIs Key reference
Vandevyvere McGraw-Hill Williams van Adeyeye Lorenz Wilkinson Lutzkendorf Lowe and Shin Ryghaug Osmani
123
and Construction and Dair Bueren et al. et al. and Reed and Lorenz Oreszczyn et al. and and
Neuckermans and (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2007) (2008) (2008) Sørensen O’Reilly
(2006) US Green (2009) (2009)
Building
Council
(2006)
S2. Insufficient reputation, brand X X X X
recognition and competitive
advantage
S3. Lack of social conscience in climate X X X X X X X
change and natural resource
preservation
S4. Insufficient demand-side education X X X X X X
from media and other channels
S5. Contested functionality for end users X X X X X
Institutional factors
I1. Lack of collaborative integration X X X X X X X
I2. Lack of inter-stakeholder X X X X
communication networks
I3. Inadequate policing of green- X X
washing and unsustainable
practices
I4. Slow and unwieldy administrative X X X
processes in certifying and policy
making
I5. Lack of a comprehensive code/ X X X X X X X X
policy package to guide action on
sustainability
I6. Duplication and confusion arising X X X X
from parallel policies/legislation
J. Yang, Z. Yang
Factors affecting the implementation 281
government body officials, financial lenders, developers, builders, architects/designers,
other consultants and real estate agents around Australia, and the time and resource lim-
itation, probability sampling seems impractical. The survey population was, therefore,
confined to 53 organizations acknowledged as being at the forefront of sustainability
implementation across Australia, and 27 other reputed organizations without a strong focus
on sustainability. The former is best placed to provide positive experiences involving
sustainable housing and a considerable understanding of the advantages and disadvantages
during sustainable development. The latter may reflect more on the industry perceptions of
housing development in general. The questionnaire was comprised of four sections: (1)
respondent details, (2) general opinions on sustainable housing implementation, (3) rating
of FAI importance and (4) further comments. The core questions under ‘‘Rating of FAI
importance’’ were designed using a five-point Likert’s scale from ‘‘1’’ (Not at all impor-
tant) to ‘‘5’’ (Extremely important). To ensure their validity, before sending the ques-
tionnaires to the full sample group, six pilot surveys were conducted with two builders, two
university professionals and two consultants. This confirmed that each question adequately
addressed and measured its intended focus
The findings of the questionnaire were developed further via semi-structured interviews.
This was to further explore the current status of the 19 FAIs so as to confirm the signif-
icance of each and inter-relationships between them. This requires interviewees to have
robust knowledge and extensive experience in housing development and sustainability
issues. Accordingly, a ‘‘purposeful snowball sampling’’ method was adopted to obtain
information from 14 interviewees from the original sample and another 6 interviewees
from outside this group. The former involved interviewees clarifying facts from their
original questionnaire responses, while the latter was newly identified experts and repre-
sentatives who helped to ascertain the degree of generalization in the results (Adams et al.
2010). Three pilot interviews were conducted with one industry consultant and two aca-
demics in the field of housing in order to test the suitability and comprehensibility of
questions.
The synthesized findings from the questionnaire and interview study led to the
identification of 12 critical FAIs and their contextual relationships. However, these
contextual relationships tend to be unorganized and complex and in turn cannot be
directly used to facilitate stakeholder decision making. This research, thus, utilized ISM
to transform the unordered inter-relationships into structural and quantifiable mutual
influences (driving force and dependence). This will lead to the development of a
hierarchical model to help stakeholders prioritize their sustainability agendas into policy-
making and action plans. According to Janes (1988) and Ahuja et al. (2010), ISM
methodology helps to impose order and direction on the relationships between elements
in a complex system. It is an appropriate methodology to transform these unclear, poorly
articulated and abstract influences into a visible, well-defined overall structure portrayed
by a graphical model.
4 Results and discussion
The responses from both the quantitative questionnaire and qualitative interviews provided
valuable insights into the current status of the 19 FAIs in the implementation of sustainable
housing, and strategies to deal with the existing challenges. The results are discussed
below.
123
282 J. Yang, Z. Yang
4.1 Background information
Fifty valid responses were received out of 163 initial attempts, which translates to a response
rate of 30.7 %. This conforms to an acceptable respondent rate of approximately 30 % for a
survey focusing on gaining responses from the construction industry practitioners (Akintoye
2000; Love and Smith 2003). Both the questionnaire respondents and interviewees were
suitably distributed over the seven key stakeholders groups of government bodies, devel-
opers, architects/designers, builders, other consultants, financial institutions and real estate
agencies. In total, 60.4 % of the questionnaire respondents have had at least 10 years
industry experience at a senior level and hold a position of either manager or director. All 20
interviewees are involved with sustainable housing development currently or previously and
85 %hold a director/manager position in their organizations (Table 2). A breakdown of the
geographical spread of the respondents and interviewees is summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
The surveys cover major states of Australia including Victoria, New South Wales,
Queensland and Tasmania. While Queensland-based practitioners are the majority, 17 sur-
vey respondents (85 %) have had interstate work experiences. All were asked to provide
perspectives from broad work experiences and ignore organizational and/or region differ-
ences. Furthermore, all Australian states have very similar government structures, policy
frameworks and professional organization in housing development; thus, the data obtained
are believed to be sufficiently representative for the Australian context.
4.2 FAIs significance
The average mean score and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for each FAI to
establish their level of significance and spread dispersion (Tables 3, 4). The mean values of
Table 2 Statistical data of
Interviewee types Percentage (%)
interviewees
By profession
Government agency officials 15
Developers 15
Builders 15
Architects/designers 10
Consultants 25
Financial institutions 10
Real estate agents 10
By executive level
Director/manager 85
Other 15
Table 3 Geographical spread of survey respondents and interviewees
Geographical spread
NSW (%) VIC (%) QLD (%) TAS (%)
Questionnaire respondents 16 20 56 8
Interviewees 10 20 60 10
123
Factors affecting the implementation 283
Table 4 Ranking of the 19 FAIs
FAIs Mean SD Rank
Economic factors 4.08
E2. High investment cost 4.12 0.86 1
E1. Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market change (e.g., 4.08 0.93 2
increasing energy price and carbon tax)
E3. Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment incentives (e.g., green land- 4.06 0.82 3=
use price and access possibility, green mortgages and funding or other
government subsidies)
Institutional factors 3.84
I5. Lack of a comprehensive code or policy package to guide action regarding 4.06 0.83 3=
sustainability
I3. Inadequate policing of green-washing and unsustainable practices 4.02 0.85 5=
I4. Slow and unwieldy administrative processes in certifying and policy making 3.84 1.01 8=
I1. Lack of collaborative integration (e.g., clear leadership and roles among 3.82 0.73 10=
stakeholders)
I6. Duplication and confusion arising from parallel policies/legislation 3.78 0.96 12
I2. Lack of inter-stakeholder communication networks (e.g., a central knowledge 3.55 0.87 16
hub)
Technical and design factors 3.74
T4. Lack of integrated design and life-cycle management 4.02 0.95 5=
T5. Insufficient interdisciplinary research to demonstrate the cost-benefit data 3.90 0.98 7
T2. Lack of professional education and training programs 3.82 1.17 10=
T3. Lack of methodologies and tools to consistently define and measure 3.61 0.95 13
sustainability
T1. Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials 3.35 1.11 19
Socio-cultural factors 3.58
S1. Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and change traditional practices 3.84 0.99 8=
S4. Insufficient media promotion of scientific advantages from sustainable housing 3.59 1.19 14
S3. Lack of social conscience in climate change and natural resource preservation 3.57 1.21 15
S5. Contested functionality for end users (e.g., health, comfort, maintenance ease) 3.53 1.14 17
S2. Insufficient reputation, brand recognition and competitive advantage 3.37 0.95 18
the 19 FAIs ranged from 3.35 to 4.12, which indicated a discrepancy in significance among
various FAIs. Modest values of SD (0.73–1.21) suggested an insignificant diversity in
respondent rating.
Across the four micro-categories, stakeholders believed economic factors affect their
benefits the most (mean value = 4.08). ‘‘High investment cost’’ (E2) (mean value = 4.12)
is the most significant issue identified by all. Interviewees perceived a 2.5–10 % extra cost
on a sustainable housing project, depending on the level of sustainability targeted. One
consultant stated ‘‘If housing is to be sustainable economically it is got to be affordable.’’
Closely following E2 is ‘‘Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market
change’’ (E1) and ‘‘Inadequate or inefficient fiscal or other investment incentives’’ (E3),
with an importance level of 4.08 and 4.06, respectively. This result reveals that the current
housing industry in Australia values economic returns over all other forms of softer
benefits. The significance of E3 was further supported by those who take direct risks such
as developers, builders and homebuyers.
123
284 J. Yang, Z. Yang
The broad category of institutional factors being ranked second overall (mean
value = 3.84) confirms the need for better policy-making and intensive collaborative
structures around sustainability. ‘‘Lack of a comprehensive code or policy package to guide
action regarding sustainability’’ (I5) (mean value = 4.06) was ranked third with a small
SD of 0.83, which signifies a collective need for a consistent mechanism to systemize
available instruments for sustainability, rather than a one-sided energy efficiency mandate.
Next in this category is I3 ‘‘Inadequate policing of green-washing and unsustainable
practices’’ (mean value = 4.02); however, two interviewees indicated that this issue would
be automatically solved as soon as reliable cost-benefit data are established. ‘‘Slow and
unwieldy administrative processes in certifying and policy making’’ (I4, mean
value = 3.84, ranked 8th) and ‘‘Duplication and confusion arising from parallel policies/
legislation’’ (I6, mean value = 3.78, ranked 12th) also raised considerable concerns from
developers, builders and consultants. Fourteen belongs in the policy-making field and
should be aligned with I6. Two developers commented that the two factors together
represent the effectiveness of policy making and require more resources and money to be
allocated from governments. I1 ‘‘lack of collaborative integration’’ was ranked 10th with
the smallest SD of 0.73 among all 19 FAIs. This finding reinforced a collective call for
more intensive collaboration as the fundamental factor to maximize mutual benefit for
stakeholders.
Questionnaire results revealed that the housing industry believes sustainable technol-
ogies and design are feasible and economically viable and do not obstruct sustainable
housing development in large. This is evidenced by the fact that ‘‘Inadequate or untested
sustainable technologies or materials’’ (T1) scored only 3.35 and was subsequently ranked
last among all FAIs. However, one interviewee advised that ‘‘Given the current technol-
ogy, designers struggle to get eight stars once more renewable thoughts come into play’’. In
fact, two other FAIs highlighted in this category were considered crucial to sustainable
performance: ‘‘Lack of integrated design and life-cycle management’’ (T4) (mean
value = 4.02, ranked 5th) and ‘‘Insufficient research to demonstrate the cost-benefit data’’
(T5) (mean value = 3.90, ranked 7th). These two factors emphasize benefits to housing’s
life cycle and could eventually solve the ‘‘who pays and when’’ puzzle. This in turn could
drive sustainable housing development into a market-oriented cycle as many have
expecting for some time.
While much research highlights socio-cultural issues as one of the main barriers to
sustainable housing development, this research shows the opposite (mean value = 3.58,
ranked 4th among 4). ‘‘Lack of social conscience in climate change and natural resource
preservation’’ (S3), ‘‘Contested functionality for consumers’’ (S5) and ‘‘Insufficient rep-
utation, brand recognition and competitive advantage’’ (S2) were all ranked in the bottom
five with a mean value of 3.57, 3.53 and 3.37, respectively. This indicates the attitudinal
readiness and heightened awareness of environmental issues among government officials,
industry practitioners and consumers. The interview results also indicate that these three
factors are becoming obsolete due to a changing regulatory environment and heightened
public awareness in the past decade.
4.3 The identification of critical FAIs
A list of critical factors affecting the implementation (FAI) was eventually finalized based
on the survey and interview findings over a three-step examination. In Step 1, seven
insignificant or less essential factors were removed from the original FAI list. Particularly,
‘‘Unclear benefits from future legislation, policy and market change’’ (E1) and
123
Factors affecting the implementation 285
‘‘Reluctance to leave the comfort zone and change traditional practices’’ (S1) were sep-
arated from the rest of the list because of the low ranking. To facilitate the analysis in Step
2, the nonparametric test Spearman’s rho was employed to describe the correlations
between each pair of FAIs based on the questionnaire results. This resulted in two pairs of
FAIs being merged into two single FAIs due to their inherent connections. Firstly, T1
‘‘Inadequate or untested sustainable technologies or materials’’ and T4 ‘‘Lack of integrated
design and life-cycle management’’ were combined as one factor ‘‘Technology and Design
R&D’’ due to connection between them (correlation coefficient = 0.376). This was sup-
ported by interview findings where one consultant highlighted that these two factors
together laid the foundation of R&D. Additionally, I4 and I6 were merged to become
‘‘Effective regulating mechanism’’ (correlation coefficient = 0.555). Finally in Step 3, two
latent factors emerged in the interview study were subsequently added: ‘‘market demand’’
and ‘‘market scale’’. After the analysis presented thus far, 10 essential FAIs and two
emerging factors were identified as the critical factors of sustainable housing (CFAMBs)
affecting the implementation of sustainable housing. They are (1) technology and design
R&D, (2) professional re-education and up-scaling, (3) rating tools, (4) cost-benefit data,
(5) cost Issues, (6) incentive system, (7) public education and awareness, (8) green
washing, (9) effective regulatory system, (10) market demand, (11) market scale and (12)
innovative collaboration. These form the essential elements of the mutual-benefit
framework.
4.4 Building the ISM model based on FAI mutual influences
The individual inter-relationships between each pair of critical FAIs were identified
through qualitative content analysis and the Spearman’s rho test. This research utilizes ISM
to present these complex relationships and further transform them into structural and
quantifiable mutual influences to facilitate stakeholder decision making. It should be noted
that the factor ‘‘innovative collaboration’’ was not included in the modeling as it is pre-
identified as the fundamental driving factor of all other critical factors according to the
survey findings. However, it will be incorporated in the final structural model. The ISM
process follows four steps and will be discussed in the following sections (Ahuja et al.
2010; Singh and Kant 2008).
Step 1: Formulating a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of elements to display
the pair-wise relationship between FAIs
In Step 1, four symbols are used to denote the existence of a relation between any two
FAIs (i and j) the direction of their inter-relationship. The connotation of these symbols
and corresponding examples is given in Table 5. The initial SSIM was developed
accordingly as shown in Table 6.
Step 2: Developing a reachability matrix from the SSIM and checking the matrix for
transitivity
The Initial SSIM is then transformed into a binary matrix, called the reachability matrix,
by substituting V, A, X, O by 1 and 0 as appropriate. The rules for the substitution of 1’s
and 0’s are also shown in the last column of Table 5. However, before the reachability
matrix is finalized, transitive links that may exist between remotely connected variables
need to be investigated. For example, in Table 6, there is no direct relationship between
FAI 1 ‘‘Technology and Design R&D’’ and FAI 7 ‘‘Public Education and Awareness’’.
However, FAI 1 aggravates FAI 4 ‘‘Cost-benefit Data’’ and FAI 4 aggravates FAI 7.
123
286 J. Yang, Z. Yang
Table 5 Symbols of mutual influence in ISM and examples
Symbol Rationale Example Displayed value in
reachability matrix
V FAI i will Stronger rating tools to measure sustainability will (i, j) entry = 1
aggravate FAI j increase the economy scale of sustainable housing. (j, i) entry = 0
Therefore, the mutual influence between FAI 3 and
FAI 11 is ‘‘V’’
A FAI i will be Cost issues will be alleviated by the increased (i, j) entry = 0
aggravated by economy scale and the corresponding possibility of (j, i) entry = 1
FAI j wholesale manufacturing. Thus, the mutual
influence between FAI 5 and FAI 11 is ‘‘A’’
X FAI i and j will When cost issues are alleviated through wholesale (i, j) entry = 1
aggravate each manufacturing of sustainable technologies and (j, i) entry = 1
other products, developers and builders tend not to claim
and charge for green features they did not
incorporate; this will in turn lessen the cost burden
on customers. Therefore, the mutual influence
between FAI 5 and FAI 8 is ‘‘X’’
O FAI i and j are No direct relationship appears to exist between BSC 2 (i, j) entry = 0
unrelated (Professional Education and Up-scaling) and BSC 9 (j, i) entry = 0
(Effectiveness of Regulating System), so the
relationship is ‘‘O’’
Table 6 Initial structural self-interaction matrix of critical FAIs
No Critical FAIs 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
1 Technology and design R&D A O O O O A V V O A
2 Professional re-education and up-scaling O O O O V O O A A O
3 Rating tools V O A O V O O A O O
4 Cost-benefit data O O O O V A O O O O
5 Cost issues A V O X O A O O O O
6 Incentive system O O A O O O O O O O
7 Public education and awareness O V O V O O O O O O
8 Green washing O O O O O O O O O O
9 Effective regulatory system O O O O O O O O O O
10 Market demand V O O O O O O O O O
11 Market scale O O O O O O O O O O
Hence, according to Step 4 of the ISM process, it can be inferred that FAI 1 has an
aggravating impact on FAI 7. Thus, in the final reachability matrix, the cell entry (Row 1,
Column 7) is 1 as shown in Table 7. It should be noted that adjustments on transitive links
were only conducted for one iteration to ensure that indirect links are strong enough
between FAIs. Several other transitive links were changed in the same way and shown in
Table 7, together with the driving power and the dependence of each FAI. The driving
power for each FAI is the total number of FAIs (including itself) on which it might impact.
Dependence of a FAI is the total number of FAIs (including itself) which may be impacting
upon it. This preliminarily depicts the mutual influence of FAI s in a quantitative manner.
123
Factors affecting the implementation 287
Table 7 Final reachability matrix
NO. Critical FAIs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Driving
power
1 Technology and design R&D 1 1* 1* 1 1 0 1* 1* 0 1* 1 8
2 Professional re-education 1 1 0 1* 1* 0 1 0 0 1* 0 6
and up-scaling
3 Rating tools 1* 1 1 0 1* 0 1 1* 0 1* 1 8
4 Cost-benefit data 1* 1 1 1 0 0 1 1* 0 1* 1* 8
5 Cost issues 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1* 0 1 1 5
6 Incentive system 1 1* 1* 1 1 1 1* 1* 0 1* 9
7 Public education and awareness 0 0 0 0 1 0 1* 1 0 1* 1* 5
8 Green washing 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
9 Effective regulatory system 1* 1* 1 1* 0 1 1* 0 1 0 1* 8
10 Market demand 1* 0 0 0 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
11 Market scale 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1* 0 1* 1 5
Dependence 8 6 5 5 9 2 7 8 2 9 7
* Denotes transitive links
Table 8 Overview of partition levels
Levels No. FAIs Reachability Antecedent Intersection
set R set A set I
8 8 Green washing 5,8 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,11 5,8
10 Market demand 1,5,10,11 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11 1,5,10,11
7 5 Cost issues 5,11 1,2,3, 5,6,7, 11 5,11
11 Market scale 1,5,7, 11 1,3,4,5,7,9,11 1,5,7, 11
6 7 Public education and awareness 7 12,3,4,6,7,9 7
5 1 Technology and design R&D 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,6,9 1,2,3,4
2 Professional re-education 1,2,4 1,2,3,4,6,9 1,2,4
and up-scaling
4 3 Rating tools 3 3,4,6,9 3
3 4 Cost-benefit data 4 4,6,9 4
2 6 Incentive system 6 6,9 6
1 9 Effective regulatory system 9 9 9
Step 3: Partition the reachability matrix into different levels
The partition levels were identified based on the final reachability matrix as a hierar-
chical reference for the final model. The 11 FAIs were prioritized and grouped into 8 levels
after 11 iterations of analysis as shown in Table 8. Elements in the top levels of the
hierarchy will not reach any elements above their own level. In other words, the high-level
FAIs would generally have little impact on FAIs above their level, while the lower-level
FAIs tend to provide a foundation for tackling those below their level.
123
288 J. Yang, Z. Yang
Fig. 1 Categorization of FAIs
Level 4: dependent
factors
Level 3: linkage
factors
Level 2: driving
factors
Level 1: the
fundamental factor
Fig. 2 Hierarchical model of FAIs
Step 4: MIC–MAC analysis and directed graph to conceptualize the ISM model
Based on the quantifiable driving power and dependence identified in Table 7, analysis
of cross-impact matrices–multiplication applied to classification (MIC–MAC) analysis was
123
Factors affecting the implementation 289
conducted to divide the critical FAIs into different groups. By assigning the level of
dependence and driving power as the x-coordinate and y-coordinate of each CFAMB,
respectively, all the CFAMBs are classified under four quadrants (Mandal and Deshmukh
1994). Figure 1 shows that the 11 FAIs fall in the first three quadrants as driving variables,
linkage variables and dependent variables. No particular CFAMBs were identified in the
quadrant ‘‘autonomous variables’’, which normally defines factors disconnected from the
system. This proves the solidarity of the FAI selection in terms of their significance and
inter-relationships.
On such a platform, a structural model is established by means of vertices or nodes and
lines of edges to visualize the partitioned levels in Table 8 into the four categories. This
model is depicted in Fig. 2 where the 12 critical FAIs are grouped under the four levels
according to their mutual influence as indicated with arrows. If the achievement of FAI j
will help tackle FAI i, then an arrow points from i to j.
5 Discussions
Based on the shared vision of 12 critical issues in the structural model in Fig. 2, different
strategies were developed and prioritized to enforce the implementation of sustainable
housing in Australia. The structural model consists of four levels of implementation,
highlighting that resolution of critical FAIs on the bottom levels could help promote FAIs
on the higher-up-dependent levels. This offers a vision and the opportunity for a prioritized
agenda for policymaking. Industry practitioners may also be able to using findings of this
research to formulate guidelines or checklists to drive their business initiatives and engage
with most appropriate stakeholders according to their professional needs.
Specifically, the first level includes the pre-identified factor ‘‘innovative collaboration’’,
serving as ‘‘a prerequisite’’ for the other 11 factors in the model. It is the fundamental
factor that creates and communicates mutual benefits for multiple stakeholders. This factor
calls for a clear stakeholder structure that explicates the leadership and individual roles and
outlines how each stakeholder can ultimately benefit from engaging in sustainable housing
as opposed the conventional housing.
The second level includes those regulatory factor FAIs which fell into the first quadrant
in Fig. 1. They are effective regulating mechanism, incentive system, reliable cost-benefit
data and a consistent nationwide rating tool. These normally have robust driving power but
weak dependence, and therefore define what we call ‘‘driving variables’’. They are the
necessary initial triggers for a positive cycle of sustainable housing development and drive
FAIs on higher levels before mainstream market buy-in occurs. Particularly, two factors
should be acted on immediately: an incentive system to reward production of sustainable
housing (such as a tax reduction scheme) and a government-allied, scientific and longi-
tudinal cost-benefit database. Firstly, access to funds in order to finance sustainable
housing still remains the domain of government investment rather than private financial
lenders. Failure in this regard is normally the major cause of the ‘‘valley of death’’ between
the demonstration and full market uptake of any innovation (Sustainability Victoria 2011).
Secondly, in relation to the cost-benefit database, it is the most significant barrier to
‘‘economies of scale’’ and should go hand in hand with the existing rating tools.
Level 3 includes three factors with relatively strong driving power and dependence:
technology and design R&D, professional education and up-scaling and public education
and awareness. They are defined as the ‘‘linkage variables’’ of sustainable housing
development and play the intermediate roles in delivering the driving forces from level 1
123
290 J. Yang, Z. Yang
and 2 to level 4. In fact, these R&D and educational factors can create geometric effects in
influencing market demand and have always had a stronger influence than regulatory
factors (the top-down approach) in boosting market scale. This finding supports the sig-
nificance of the education and awareness campaign by Lutzkendorf and Lorenz (2005) and
Osmani and O’Reilly (2009). However, the progress of educational is much slower than
regulations in achieving reform.
Level 4 includes the four FAIs with weak driving power, but strong dependence in the
last quadrant of Fig. 1. It includes four dependent yet decisive factors that ultimately
indicate the success or failure of the implementation of sustainable housing: market scale,
cost issues, green washing and market demand itself. However, this market adaptation
process has limited creative force in itself. As one interviewee indicated, it would be
unrealistic for end users to ask for ten-star housing in terms of the level of energy effi-
ciency accredited by the building code of Australia in the first place, because the supply
side has not presented anything for consumers to feel and understand. However, challenges
on this level could consecutively be tackled once other factors on the three lower levels are
resolved. For example, pressure from green washing will be alleviated as soon as cost
issues are tackled, education is in place, and a consumer-friendly rating tool is established.
6 Conclusions
This research aims to establish a hierarchical model that encompasses critical factors
affecting the implementation of sustainable housing in Australia. This was achieved
through a quantitative questionnaire study, a qualitative interview study and ISM. The
systematic model prioritizes 12 critical factors affecting implementation, distinguishes four
categories of factors based on their interdependency and driving force and calls for the
attention and coherent strategies of resolution from government agencies and housing
industry practitioners. Particularly, three critical factors are highlighted as the foundation
of this model and requiring urgent action. One imperative is to establish a clear reward
system by the governments and developers. A cost-benefit research regime with scientific
rigor and a longitudinal approach needs to be developed. However, environmental col-
laboration should be acted upon as the prerequisite to achieve the first two initiatives.
This investigation of the complex mutual influences among critical factors bridged the
gap in previous research, where the examination of individual factors led to the devel-
opment of isolated strategies for sustainable housing implementation. It is recognized that
this study represents a small sample and as such is more an Australian expert evaluation
rather than a fully fledged worldwide industrial viewpoint. Opportunities exist to tailor-
make-specific strategies for each critical factor. For example, the specific needs of different
key stakeholders may be taken into consideration to generate interest among certain
stakeholder groups, rather than reaching out for all encompassing solutions. The findings
are generally applicable in those developed countries sharing similar political and eco-
nomic systems with Australia. But political, cultural and religious influences do impact
upon housing development practices. Therefore, in future research, this work can be
expanded and tested in other regions. More emphasis will also need to be placed on the
specific benefits, risks and collaboration activities that cater for individual stakeholders in
order to pursue systematic implementation of the identified hierarchical model.
123
Factors affecting the implementation 291
References
Adams, J., Khan, H. T. A., Raeside, R., & White, D. (2010). Research methods for graduate business and
social science students. Writing, 14(3), 161–164.
Adeyeye, K., Osmani, M., & Brown, C. (2007). Energy conservation and building design: The environ-
mental legislation push and pull factors. Structural Survey, 25(5), 375.
Ahuja, V., Yang, J., & Shankar, R. (2010). Benchmarking framework to measure extent of ICT adoption for
building project management. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5),
538–545.
Akintoye, A. (2000). Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice. Construction Man-
agement and Economics, 18(1), 77–89.
Birkeland, J. (2008). Positive development: From vicious circles to virtuous cycles through built environ-
ment design. Earthscan.
Cetiner, I., & Ceylan, N. (2013). Environmental consequences of rehabilitation of residential buildings in
Turkey: A case study of Istanbul. Building and Environment, 69, 149–159.
Chiu, R. (2004). Socio-cultural sustainability of housing: A conceptual exploration. Housing, Theory and
Society, 21(2), 65–76.
Cole, R. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions and roles. Building
Research and Information, 33(5), 455–467.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2013). Australia green emission inventory system. [Link]
[Link]/[Link]. Accessed 28 November 2013.
Eshraghia, J., Narjabadifama, N., Mirkhania, N., Khosroshahia, S., & Ashjaeeb, M. (2014). A compre-
hensive feasibility study of applying solar energy to design a zero energy building for a typical home in
Tehran. Energy and Buildings, 72, 329–339.
Famuyibo, A., Duffya, A., & Strachan, P. (2013). Achieving a holistic view of the life cycle performance of
existing dwellings. Building and Environment, 70, 90–101.
Green Builidng Council of Australia. (2011). [Link] Accessed 01
October 2011.
Hayles, C., Dean, D., Lappin, S. A., & McCullough, J. E. (2013). Climate change adaptation: A decision
support framework to encourage environmentally responsible behaviour. Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment, 2(2), 192–214.
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.
Innes, J. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20.
Janes, F. (1988). Interpretive structural modelling: a methodology for structuring complex issues. Trans-
actions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 10(3), 145–154.
Lorenz, D. P., Truck, S., & Lutzkendorf, T. (2007). Exploring the relationship between the sustainability of
construction and market value: Theoretical basics and initial empirical results from the residential
property sector. Property Management, 25(2), 119–149.
Love, P. E. D., & Smith, J. (2003). Benchmarking, benchaction, and benchlearning: rework mitigation in
projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 19, 147.
Lovell, H. (2004). Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change. Journal of Environmental
Policy & Planning, 6(1), 35–55.
Lowe, R., & Oreszczyn, T. (2008). Regulatory standards and barriers to improved performance for housing.
Energy Policy, 36(12), 4475–4481.
Lutzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. (2005). Sustainable property investment: Valuing sustainable buildings
through property performance assessment. Building Research and Information, 33(3), 212–234.
Lutzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. (2007). Integrating sustainability into property risk assessments for market
transformation. Building Research and Information, 35(6), 644–661.
Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. (1994). Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling (ISM).
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14(6), 52–59.
Margerum, R. D. (2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental
Management, 41(4), 487–500.
McGraw-Hill Construction, & US Green Building Councill. (2006). Green building smartmarket report.
Melbourne Energy Institute. (2010). Zero Carbon Australia: Stationary energy plan. Melbourne: University
of Melbourne.
Miller, W., & Buys, L. (2012). Performance evaluation of eight contemporary passive solar homes in
subtropical Australia. Building and Environment, 56, 57–68.
Miller, W., & Buys, L. (2013). Factors influencing sustainability outcomes of housing in subtropical
Australia. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2(1), 60–83.
123
292 J. Yang, Z. Yang
Osmani, M., & O’Reilly, A. (2009). Feasibility of zero carbon homes in England by 2016: A house builder’s
perspective. Building and Environment, 44(9), 1917–1924.
Panawek, K. (2007). Changing light green to deep green: mainstreaming green building in Hamilton
County. Master Thesis, the College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning, University of Cincin-
nati, USA.
Pilkington, B., Roach, R., & Perkins, J. (2011). Relative benefits of technology and occupant behaviour in
moving towards a more energy efficient, sustainable housing paradigm. Energy Policy, 39(9),
4962–4970.
Ryghaug, M., & Sørensen, K. H. (2009). How energy efficiency fails in the building industry. Energy Policy,
37(3), 984–991.
Santin, O. G. (2013). Occupant behaviour in energy efficient dwellings: evidence of a rebound effect.
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28, 311–327.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. London: Financial
Times.
Schmidt, C. W. (2008). Bringing green homes within reach: Healthier housing for more people. Environ-
mental Health Perspect, 116, A24–A31.
Shin, D., Curtis, M., Huisingh, D., & Zwetsloot, G. I. (2008). Development of a sustainability policy model
for promoting cleaner production: A knowledge integration approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,
16(17), 1823–1837.
Singh, M., & Kant, R. (2008). Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling
approach. Proceedings of International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, IEEE, Singapore, 2–4 December, pp. 2091–2095.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2002). Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: Frameworks for indicators
measuring sustainable development. Ecological Indicators, 2(3), 295–309.
Sustainability Victoria. (2011). Business models for enabling sustainable precincts. Research report. http://
[Link]/resources/documents/Business_Models_For_Enabling_Sustainable_
Precincts_Research_Report_v2.pdf. Accessed 12 December 2010.
Thabrew, L., Wiek, A., & Ries, R. (2009). Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts:
Applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17(1), 67–76.
Turcotte, D. A. (2007). A framework for sustainable housing development in the United States. PhD Thesis,
Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA.
Urban Development Institute of Australia. (2011). [Link]
asp?ID=57. Accessed 01 October 2011.
Van Bueren, E. (2007). Establishing sustainability: Policy successes and failures. Building Research and
Information, 35(5), 543–556.
Vandevyvere, H., & Neuckermans, H. (2006). From sustainable housing sciences to sustainable housing
policies: Challenging the social responsibility of researchers and designers. In Proceedings of the
world congress on housing transforming housing environments through design, Pretoria, South Africa.
Warnock, A. C. (2007). An overview of integrating instruments to achieve sustainable construction and
buildings. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18(4), 427–441.
Wedding, G. (2008). Understanding sustainability in real estate: A focus on measuring and communicating
success in green building. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
USA.
Wilkinson, S. J., & Reed, R. G. (2007). The structural and behaviourial barriers to sustainable real estate
development. In Proceedings of the American Real Estate Socienty (ARES) Conference. San Francisco,
USA.
Williams, K., & Dair, C. (2007). What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by
stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustainable Development, 15(3), 135–147.
Winston, N. (2010). Regeneration for sustainable communities? Barriers to implementing sustainable
housing in urban areas. Sustainable Development, 18, 319–330.
Yang, J. (2012). Editorial: Promoting integrated development for smart and sustainable built environment.
Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 1(1), 4–13.
Yates, A. (2001). Quantifying the business benefits of sustainable buildings. Centre for Sustainable Con-
struction, BRE. [Link]
Accessed 01 October 2011.
Yau, Y. (2012). Eco-labels and willingess to pay: A Hong Kong study. Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment, 1(30), 277–290.
123
