Received: 7 December 2017 Revised: 5 April 2018 Accepted: 16 April 2018

DOI: 10.1002/sd.1854

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Housing providers' insights on the benefits of sustainable

affordable housing
AbdulLateef Olanrewaju1 | Seong Yeow Tan1 | Abdul‐Rashid Abdul‐Aziz2

1
Department of Construction Management,
Faculty of Engineering and Green Technology, Abstract
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia The present research aims to investigate the insights of housing providers on poten-
2
School of Housing, Building and Planning,
tial benefits of sustainable affordable housing. Housing providers need certainty on
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang,
Malaysia the benefits of sustainable affordable housing for homebuyers. We used a cross‐
Correspondence sectional survey questionnaire consisting of 23 benefits of sustainable affordable
AbdulLateef Olanrewaju, Department of
Construction Management, Faculty of
housing administered to 121 experts from the housing industry. In total, 82% of the
Engineering and Green Technology, Universiti housing professional respondents believed that sustainable affordable housing
Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia.
Email: abdullateef.olanrewaju@gmail.com
offered all 23 benefits included in the survey. The first five main benefits were an
Funding information increase in the comfort of homeowners, the enjoyment of natural ventilation, a reduc-
FRGS, Grant/Award Number: FRGS/1/2015/ tion in water bills, a reduction in electricity bills and an increase in housing values. An
TK06/UTAR/02/2
exploratory factor analysis returned 5 components: environmental, energy, social, cost
and status. The findings provide insight into the drivers of sustainable affordable
housing. A framework for the benefits of sustainable affordable housing was devel-
oped. The results will be useful for policy‐makers, developers, place managers,
housing associations and academics attempting to increase the supply and demand
of sustainable affordable housing.

KEY W ORDS

human factors, Malaysia, productivity, satisfaction, whole life appraisal

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N context of Malaysia, affordable housing is deemed as housing with a

price tag of RM250,000. Sustainable affordable housing is also
For decades, the Malaysian Government has initiated several mea- deemed to be affordable housing that is designed and constructed in
sures to ensure that its sustainable development goals are achieved compliance with sustainability requirements. A reasonable question
in the construction industry and, more specifically, the building sector is why is there a low supply of sustainable affordable buildings despite
(Hamid et al., 2014). However, recent research has found that the strong policy formulations? Initial suggestions are: (i) developers do
level of awareness of the concept of sustainable development is low not have an incentive to supply sustainable housing; (ii) stakeholders
(Abidin, 2010; Ang, Olanrewaju, Chia, & Tan, 2017; Ibrahim, Shafiei, are not certain about critical success factors of supplying sustainable
Said, & Ismail, 2013). A review of the literature shows that only a very housing; and (iii) stakeholders are not aware or certain about the ben-
small number of new buildings in Malaysia have incorporated sustain- efits of sustainable buildings. Nevertheless, as Williams and Dair
able elements into their design and construction. For example, only (2007a) have explained, it is important to be certain about the benefits
183 of 450 certified green buildings are residential buildings (GBI, of investing in a sustainably built environment. Certainty on the added
2018). Despite this, the country has a housing stock of 5.2 million, value is a source of information to pull the demand side and push the
and 100,000 housing units are being added annually to this figure. supply side. In fact, one of the main barriers to (supply) demand for
The supply of sustainable housing is increasing, but the supply of sus- sustainable buildings in the UK is the lack of data that measure its ben-
tainable affordable housing is nascent. Affordable housing carries dif- efits (Williams & Dair, 2007a), In Chile, clients do not demand sustain-
ferent meanings to different people. In the present study, and in the able buildings because they are not certain about it benefits (Häkkinen

Sustainable Development. 2018;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sd © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1
2 OLANREWAJU ET AL.

& Belloni, 2011; Serpell, Kort, & Vera, 2013). In a study involving the for example those from the manufacture and transport of building
UK, the USA, Canada and New Zealand, Hayles (2006) found that to materials, demolition materials and transportation associated with
increase the uptake of sustainable affordable housing, consumers urban sprawl, the result is an even greater impact on the climate. For
must first be educated, because unless consumers are aware of the example, the energy embodied within a single building's envelope is
benefits, they will not demand it. In recent research conducted involv- around 8–10 times the annual energy used to heat and cool a building.
ing 69 countries showed that client demand was a major factor in the From the above statistics, it is clear that buildings are part of the threat
increase in supply of sustainable buildings (Dodge Data & Analytics, to sustainable development. Nevertheless, they can also be a solution.
2017). However, previous studies in Malaysia have stopped at investi- Affordable housing accounts for more than 70% of buildings in
gating the awareness and readiness of developers regarding the con- most countries. Affordable buildings are generally defined as those
cept of sustainable development (Abidin, 2010; Ibrahim et al., 2013). for people falling in a medium income range and below (Demographia,
Being aware of the existence of a product or service does not corre- 2017; Olanrewaju & Woon, 2017). In Malaysia, more than 90% of
late with the ability to understand its benefits. However, awareness affordable housing was neither designed nor constructed to comply
of the benefits of a product or service is a major driving force and with sustainability requirements. Therefore, if affordable housing is
should not be at a broad level. Instead, it should be at an operational supplied and operated to reduce energy and water consumption, curtail
level. In explaining the barriers toward sustainable buildings in OECD carbon emissions and enhance its occupants' productivity, this will save
(Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development) coun- millions of tonnes of CO2 and will increase the users' well‐being and
tries, it was noted that a lack of consumer awareness on operational total user value systems. Some 85% of Malaysian houses are provided
benefits was a major obstacle to sustainable housing (OECD, 2002, by private developers. However, while developers in the UK, Australia
p. 23). Furthermore, previous studies were not specifically related to and Hong Kong have been delivering sustainable affordable housing,
affordable housing supply. Therefore, the present research aims to in Malaysia this has yet to commence. In fact, despite strong policy
investigate the experience of the housing industry of the benefits of commitments, the awareness among Malaysian developers of the
sustainable affordable housing to homebuyers. For housing providers concept of sustainable development is low (Abidin, 2010). Moreover,
to stimulate housing demand, cognizance of the benefits of sustain- readiness to apply sustainable concepts is at a moderate level (Ibrahim
able housing is required by the providers. Furthermore, previous et al., 2013), and the housing industry has little awareness of green
research on this topic has used several case studies and interviews building rating tools (Hamid et al., 2014). Ang et al. (2017) questioned
regarding the benefits of sustainable buildings (Ang et al., 2017; homebuyers during a Property Fair and found that they had low aware-
Dempsey, Brown, & Bramley, 2012; Miller & Buys, 2013; Olanrewaju, ness of sustainable affordable housing. The authors' findings appeared
Tan, Lee, Ayob, & Ang, 2016; Williams & Dair, 2007a). Nevertheless, it to justify the low awareness of sustainability concepts and a sluggish
is necessary to examine the benefits of sustainable housing from a readiness to implement sustainability concepts in housing delivery.
cross‐sectional approach. This is important to ensure generalizability, The authors found that there is a systematic need to create awareness
transferability, knowledge sharing and a lack bias (Cohen, Manion & on the benefits of sustainable buildings among homebuyers in the
Morrison, 2011; Sekaran & Bougie, 2010; Scotland, 2012). housing industry. However, the initial question is: Is the housing indus-
try cognizant of the benefits of sustainable housing? The main obstacle
to the slow uptake of implementing sustainable measures in affordable
2 | B A C K G R O U N D A N D CO N C E P TU A L housing delivery stems from a lack of understanding on the benefits to
J U S TI F I C A T I O N homebuyers, even among housing providers. While there is no defini-
tive list on the benefits of sustainable housing, Table 1 contains bene-
Sustainable development, or sustainability, has many interpretations. fits collated from the literature for various types of buildings.
Ihlen and Roper (2014) drew attention to the difference between sus- Other likely benefits include supporting urban regeneration and
tainability and sustainable development. In the present study, for onto- revitalization, minimizing the use of materials, facilitating building
logical reasons, the two terms are used interchangeably. The topical adaptation, reducing medical bills and enjoying tax credits.
issues faced in the effort toward sustainable development goals are
the need to integrate economic, environmental and social aspects in
decision‐making. At a practical level, sustainable development is a prac- 3 | O U T L I N E OF M E T H O D O L O G I C A L
tice that integrates various criteria, including energy efficiency, durabil- ISSU ES
ity, waste minimization, social impact, good indoor environments,
durability, pollution control, whole life appraisal user‐friendliness and Research starts with a (research) paradigm involving a set of ideas,
user comfort. The impact of building construction and operation on sus- perceptions, concepts, experiences, beliefs and the thoughts of the
tainability issues is huge. For instance, buildings consume more than researcher concerning both theories and practices in a particular filed.
40% of the world's energy, release one‐third of CO2 ouput, use 25% A research paradigm consists of ontology, epistemology, approach,
of harvested wood, release about 50% of fluorocarbon output, make design, methodology and method. As Hitchcock and Hughes (1995,
up 40% of landfill materials, use 45% of energy in operations, represent p. 21) noted, ontological assumptions lead to epistemological assump-
40% of greenhouse gas emissions and use 15% of the world's usable tions; these, in turn, lead to methodological considerations; and these,
water (Killip, 2006; Sherwin, 2000; UNEP‐SBCI, 2014; Wood, 2006). in turn, lead to issues of instrumentation and data collection (Cohen
When other CO2 emissions attributable to buildings are considered, et al., 2011, p. 5). Ontology is concerned with what we claim to know
OLANREWAJU ET AL. 3

TABLE 1 Summary of previous studies on the benefits of sustainable buildings

References Key benefit

Williams and Dair (2007b), Spiegel and Meadows (2010), USGBC (2008), Ahn, Pearce, Wang, and Wang (2011), Increase user comforts
OECD (2002)
Spiegel and Meadows (2010), John, Clements‐Croome, and Jeronimidis (2005), Ahn et al. (2011), OECD (2002), Enjoy natural ventilation
Allen et al. (2016)
Williams and Dair (2007b), Spiegel and Meadows (2010), Burnett, Chau, Lee, and Edmund (2008), OECD (2002), Reduce water bills
Ahn et al. (2011), Allen et al. (2016), Fowler, Rauch, Henderson, and Kora (2010), McGraw‐Hill Construction
(2013), Hamilton (2015)
Williams and Dair (2007b), Spiegel and Meadows (2010), Burnett et al. (2008), OECD (2002), Allen et al. (2016), Reduce electricity bills
Fowler et al. (2010)
Burnett et al. (2008), USGBC (2008), Fowler et al. (2010), McGraw‐Hill Construction (2013), Hamilton (2015) Increase housing value
Burnett et al. (2008), USGBC (2008) Increase neighborhood stability
Spiegel and Meadows (2010) Increase lifespan of the house
Williams and Dair (2007b), Spiegel and Meadows (2010) Reduce transportation cost
Spiegel and Meadows (2010), McGraw‐Hill Construction (2013) Reduce penalties and fines to
homeowners
Spiegel and Meadows (2010), Fowler et al. (2010) Reduce adaptability and
refurbishment costs
Williams and Dair (2007b), Spiegel and Meadows (2010), USGBC (2008), OECD (2002) Reduce household waste generation
Burnett et al. (2008), John et al. (2005), USGBC (2008), Ahn et al. (2011), OECD (2002), Allen et al. (2016), Increase homeowners'/users'
Hamilton (2015) productivity
Spiegel and Meadows (2010), OECD (2002), John et al. (2005), Fowler et al. (2010), Hamilton (2015) Reduce pollution
Spiegel and Meadows (2010), Hamilton (2015) Reduce variations and claims during
construction
OECD (2002), Spiegel and Meadows (2010), Hamilton (2015) Reduce use and ownership of private
cars
Williams and Dair (2007b), Burnett et al. (2008), OECD (2002), USGBC (2008), Ahn et al. (2011), Hamilton (2015) Promote cultural and neighborhoods
integration
Burnett et al. (2008), Spiegel and Meadows (2010), Hamilton (2015) Enhance the image of housing
OECD (2002), Allen et al. (2016) Enhance the status of occupants
Spiegel and Meadows (2010), OECD (2002), Fowler et al. (2010), Hamilton (2015) Reduce CO2 emissions
USGBC (2008), Spiegel and Meadows (2010) Reduce crime rate

or assume to know in a situation. Ontology is generally classified into is an appropriate method where information on population size is not
positivism and constructivism. The metaphysical orientation of this available. However, its findings may not be generalizable. Neverthe-
research is positivism ontology. The key assumption in positivism less, with large numbers of respondents, the findings can be represen-
ontology is that realities are discovered rather constructed. It also tative (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). The survey was conducted in two
assumes one reality. As Easterby‐Smith, Thorpe, and Jackson (2012) phases. The first phase was administered to respondents who
explained, positivism ontology is appropriate if: (i) a researcher is able attended the ARCHIDEX2017 (International Architecture, Interior
to remain independent from the construct being observed, (ii) a study Design & Building Exhibition 2017) in the Kuala Lumpur Convention
can be conducted objectively without personal bias, (iii) a hypothesis Centre. ARCHIDEX is an annual event that is attended by architects
can be formulated first without an observation, (iv) a concept can be and other stakeholders in the construction sector (i.e., engineers, cli-
operationalized, (v) there are sufficient samples to generate findings ents, developers, quantity surveyors) in Malaysia and other South‐East
and (vi) a cross‐sectional analysis can be conducted. Collectively, the Asian countries. ARCHIDEX2017 was held between July 19 and 22
present research meets these assumptions. Consequently, the episte- 2017. The survey was conducted on July 22 2017 and 37 completed
mological direction of the present research is its objectivism. survey forms were returned. The second survey based on purposive
Epistemology is concerned with how one knows a reality or truth. This sampling was administered to experts in the housing sector including
demands a researcher to observe “actions” and to not participate in architects, quantity surveyors and engineers. The second survey com-
“actions” (Cohen et al., 2011). The benefits of sustainable affordable menced on September 18 and ended on October 28 2017. Altogether,
housing are real, can be identified, and can be measured by respon- 84 completed surveys forms were received. The benefits included in
dents and researchers. However, the study also has trails of construc- the survey form were obtained from Table 1 and the authors' experi-
tivism. For instance, in the present research, an exploratory factor ences. The questionnaire was presented in two pilot surveys that
analysis was conducted to determine an association between the ben- included clients, developers and developer organizations. The respon-
efits of sustainable affordable housing. Primary data were collected dents were asked to tick the degree of the benefits that sustainable
through hand delivery and based on convenience sampling. Conve- affordable housing offered to owners/occupiers on a five‐point scale,
nience sampling is a type of data collection in which a survey is admin- where 1 denoted extremely beneficial, 5 denoted least beneficial, 3
istered to those who are available, accessible and willing to respond. It denoted beneficial, and 2 and 4 were located in between. The
4 OLANREWAJU ET AL.

TABLE 2 Cross‐tabulation between respondents' academic qualifications and academic backgrounds

Academic qualification Architecture Quantity surveying Engineering Estate management Town planning Others Total
Diploma 0 7 1 2 0 2 12
BSc 3 28 8 6 2 6 53
MSc/MBA 18 9 7 5 0 2 41
PhD 3 0 7 1 0 0 11
Other 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
Total 24 44 23 14 2 14 121

constructs were positively worded. The degree of benefit was calcu- 4.1 | Demographic profiles of the respondents
lated by a weighted mean score. That is, a mean score/beneficial index
Analysis showed that 86% of the respondents had obtained a degree
of 1.00–1.79 denoted extremely beneficial, 1.80–2.59 very beneficial,
and most (36%) of the respondents had degrees in quantity surveying
2.60–3.39 beneficial, 3.40–4.19 less beneficial and 4.20–5.00 least
(Table 2). A majority of those with PhDs had a degree in engineering
beneficial. There was a common difference of 0.8 between each of
and most of those with MBAs/MScs had a degree in architecture. A
the scales. To ensure that the results were not influenced by the
total of 40% had degrees in architecture or engineering. Most of the
authors, missing data were not replaced with a mean or mode of a
respondents held strategic positions (Figure 1) and about 90% had
valid response. The mode technique was used to analyze the demog-
more than 5 years of working experience (Table 3). Approximately
raphy of the respondents and to determine the distribution of the
12% had more than 20 years' work experience. Most of those with
respondents with respect to the scales. All data gathered were ana-
more than 15 years' work experience were architects and most of
lyzed by using the SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1.
those with more than 20 years' work experience were managing direc-
tors. Most of the respondents were experts in the housing industry
4 A N A L Y Z I N G TH E R E S U L T S O F TH E
| (Figure 2). Thirty per cent belonged to associations for architects,
SURVEY engineers and quantity surveyors. Many of those who selected “other”
belonged to the Master Builders Association Malaysia and The
In total, 121 completed responses were received during the survey Malaysian Developers' Council. However, around 40% did not specify
period. The results are presented in the tables and figures and their membership. Table 3 also contains the respondents' positions.
discussed in the following sections.

FIGURE 1 Respondents' positions [Colour figure can be viewed at FIGURE 2 Respondents' professional memberships [Colour figure
wileyonlinelibrary.com] can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 3 Cross‐tabulation between respondents' positions and work experience (years)

Current position Not more than 5 years 5–10 years 10–15 years 15–20 years 20 years and above Total

Managing director 0 1 1 5 8 15
Manager 0 1 1 3 0 5
Project manager 0 0 7 1 1 9
Principal partner 0 1 3 4 0 8
Manager 0 1 1 3 2 7
Architect 0 2 8 11 0 21
Engineer 2 4 3 4 0 13
Quantity surveyor 12 10 8 6 1 37
Partner 0 0 1 2 0 3
Other 1 1 0 0 2 1
Total 15 21 33 39 14 121
OLANREWAJU ET AL. 5

A majority of the respondents worked with housing developers had adequate knowledge and skills to provide unbiased and valid
and many were from contractor organizations (Table 4). On the bases information which reflected the housing industry.
of the profiles of the respondents, it was inferred that the respondents

4.2 | Analysis of the benefits of sustainable

TABLE 4 Categories of the respondents' organizations
affordable housing
Organization Frequency Per cent
Firstly, reliability and validity tests were performed to determine the
Government 2 1.639
strength of the data collected. The reliability test results indicated that
Developer 46 37.705
Cronbach's alpha for all the determinants was very high (0.930). The
Contractor 23 18.852
validity test was based on construct validity. The construct validity
Private client 16 13.115
revealed how well the results confirmed the theoretical framework
Private quantity surveying firm 18 14.754
(Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). Construct validity is assessed through dis-
Private architectural firm 12 9.836
criminant and convergent validity. Convergent validity was used
Other 5 4.098
because it was consistent with the aims of the present research. An
inspection of the Spearman correlation results suggested that all the
TABLE 5 One‐sample test results criteria were correlated. It is important to stress that the correlation
Significance results obtained were within the recommended threshold of less than
Benefit t (two‐tailed) Lower Upper SEM
0.80. In fact, only the correlation between “reducing water bills” and
Reduce electricity bills 17.413 .000 1.039 1.305 0.067 “reducing electricity bills” exceeded 0.70. Most correlations ranged
Increase user/ 18.922 .000 0.947 1.168 0.056 between 0.20 and 0.50. A correlation of more than 0.80 implied that
homeowner
comforts the two variables probably measured the same factors, while a correla-
Reduce crime rate 21.668 .000 1.497 1.798 0.076 tion of less than 0.1 suggested caution, as it indicated that the con-
Reduce water bills 18.126 .000 1.000 1.246 0.062 structs were not related. Of the 300 correlations, fewer than 20 had
Increase housing value 19.737 .000 1.099 1.344 0.062 a correlation of less than 0.1. Therefore, both the reliability and the
Reduce adaptability and 21.139 .000 1.241 1.497 0.065 validity tests indicated that the “benefits” were suitable for the aims
refurbishment costs of this research. Table 5 contains the statistics of one‐sample t‐tests
Reduce pollution 19.122 .000 1.271 1.565 0.074 conducted to examine the measurements of the population with
Reduce household 20.351 .000 1.251 1.520 0.068 respect to the each of the benefits. The null hypothesis was that sus-
waste generation
tainable affordable housing could not offer any benefits (H0: U = U0)
Reduce transportation 17.491 .000 1.170 1.469 0.075
cost and the research hypothesis was that sustainable affordable housing
Reduce cost CO2 22.447 .000 1.465 1.748 0.072 would offer benefits (Hr: U > U0). U0 was the population mean and
emissions 1.5 was set as the t‐test level. Table 5 demonstrates that the signifi-
Promote cultural and 23.209 .000 1.365 1.619 0.064 cance (i.e., Pr > |t|) of each of the factors (Hr: U > U0) shows that all
neighborhood
integration
the benefits are statistically significant. The degrees of freedom for
all the factors was 120. Furthermore, small standard errors, in this case
Enable adaptations 21.489 .000 1.243 1.495 0.064
close to zero, suggested that the measurements of the respondents
Reduce penalties and 21.700 .000 1.229 1.476 0.062
fines to developer with respect to the factors were reflections of the population. The
and homeowners
standard errors measured the accuracy of the extent to which the sam-
Reduce variations and 20.532 .000 1.311 1.591 0.071
ple mean was close to the population mean. A small standard error is
claims during
construction an indication that a sample mean is a more accurate replication of an
Reduce medical bills 24.268 .000 1.611 1.897 0.072 actual population mean. More specifically, standard errors show that
Enjoy tax credits 23.699 .000 1.510 1.785 0.070 a sample mean is plus or minus 1.96 standard errors from a population
Enjoy natural ventilation 15.377 .000 0.957 1.240 0.071 mean. Moreover, there is little difference between the lower and upper
Reduce use and 19.267 .000 1.302 1.600 0.075 limits of the scores. The standard deviation for the benefits, being less
ownership of than 1.0, is an indication of consistency. The statistics suggest that the
private cars
factors measured what they intended to measure. Consequently, all
Increase lifespan of 18.013 .000 1.160 1.447 0.072
the house the benefits can be obtained in sustainable affordable housing.
Increase homeowners'/ 25.260 .000 1.277 1.494 0.055 Although the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test could not confirm the normal-
users' productivity ity of the sample, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test
Enhance the image of 24.801 .000 1.380 1.620 0.060 result was high and significant (χ2 (253) =1,272.4, p = .000).
the housing
The average mean for the benefits was 2.890 and the average
Enhance the status of 25.462 .000 1.406 1.643 0.060
the occupants standard deviation was 0.730 (Table 6). The relationship between
Support urban 28.798 .000 1.237 1.419 0.046 the mean and standard deviation assumed that 68% of the
regeneration and respondents' estimations would fall at a mean ± 1 standard deviation,
revitalization
95% would fall between a mean ± 2 standard deviations and all the
6 OLANREWAJU ET AL.

TABLE 6 Distribution of statistics comforts was the most rated benefit of sustainable affordable

Cronbach's Item‐total
housing. More specifically, 39% of the respondents considered that
Benefit SD alpha correlation Mean user/homeowner comforts would increase. A reduction in medical bills
Increase user/homeowner 0.617 0.919 0.445 2.557 of sustainable affordable housing for owners/occupants received the
comforts lowest ranking. Nearly 50% of respondents believed that sustainable
Enjoy natural ventilation 0.789 0.919 0.429 2.598 affordable housing had a low impact on medical bills.
Reduce water bills 0.684 0.918 0.490 2.623
Reduce electricity bills 0.743 0.917 0.556 2.672
Increase housing value 0.683 0.919 0.406 2.721
5 | DISCUSSION
Increase neighborhood 0.631 0.919 0.465 2.762
stability
Increase lifespan of the house 0.799 0.918 0.498 2.803 5.1 | Ranking of the benefits
Reduce transportation cost 0.833 0.917 0.583 2.820
The t‐test results confirmed qualitative findings that sustainable build-
Support urban regeneration 0.509 0.918 0.488 2.828
and revitalization ings have several benefits compared to conventional buildings. This is
Reduce penalties and fines to 0.688 0.919 0.422 2.853 also evident from the multicollinearity of the results. The KMO value
homeowners was also very high and the result was statistically significant. It was
Reduce adaptability and 0.715 0.919 0.443 2.869 also of note that the benefits were applicable to affordable housing.
refurbishment costs
Studies have shown a lack of compatibility between affordable hous-
Enable adaptations 0.704 0.921 0.302 2.869
ing and sustainability. The explanation for this is that affordability is
Reduce household waste 0.752 0.918 0.510 2.885
generation
about lower costs, while sustainability requires additional expenditure.

Increase homeowners'/users' 0.606 0.919 0.407 2.885

Some even claim that such compatibility is a “myth” (Susilawati &
productivity Miller, 2013). In reality, sustainable housing need not be expensive
Reduce pollution 0.819 0.917 0.588 2.918 (Olanrewaju, Tan, Tat, & Mine, 2017) and in fact about 49% of certi-
Reduce variations and claims 0.780 0.918 0.502 2.951 fied green buildings in the UK are classified as affordable housing
during construction
(Watson, 2011). However, due to space limitations, only the first five
Reduce use and ownership of 0.832 0.917 0.590 2.951
benefits will be discussed. The results showed that the respondents
private cars
considered that the most important benefits that sustainable afford-
Promote cultural and 0.710 0.917 0.589 2.992
neighborhood integrations able housing could offer to homebuyers/occupiers was an increase
Increase the image of the 0.668 0.919 0.411 3.000 in user comfort. Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and thermal com-
housing fort are also a major consideration in the design and construction of
Increase the image of the 0.661 0.919 0.393 3.025 sustainable buildings (Allen et al., 2016). The finding was also consis-
occupants
tent with a similar study involving 69 countries that found that 70%
Reduce CO2 emissions 0.791 0.916 0.642 3.107
of demand for green buildings was to improve the health and
Reduce crime rate 0.840 0.915 0.715 3.148
wellbeing of users (Dodge Data & Analytics, 2017). The sustainable
Benefit from tax credits 0.768 0.916 0.611 3.148
materials for housing are healthy, natural and nontoxic and incorpo-
Reduce medical bills 0.798 0.916 0.658 3.254
rate passive design principles. Thus, it was not surprising that the sec-
ond benefit of sustainable affordable housing was that occupants
respondents estimations must fall between a mean ± 3 standard devi- would enjoy natural ventilation. Harnessing natural energy and venti-
ations. These statistics indicate that the housing industry measured lation are some of the hallmarks of sustainable buildings. The costs
that all the benefits were achievable in sustainable affordable housing. of energy are increasing, and to reduce energy costs and production,
The results showed that 25% of respondents considered that sustain- making use of natural lighting through passive designs and harnessing
able affordable housing would offer benefits to an extreme or very solar designs has been recognized as an essential part of sustainable
high degree (Figure 3). However, the remaining 18% considered that designs. Energy generation is a major source of greenhouse gases
sustainable affordable housing may not be able to offer the identified because it involves burning substances including petroleum, coal,
benefits to any significant degree. The increase in homebuyer/user wood, natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels. While carbon dioxide
emissions from energy generation are not exclusive to electricity gen-
eration, it takes up a major portion. In the USA, a LEED‐certified build-
ing reduced CO2 emissions by 34%, used 25% less energy and reduced
water consumption by 11% (Fowler et al., 2010). Therefore, it was
interesting that the next benefit that sustainable affordable housing
can offer was a reduction in water bills and reduction in the cost of
electricity. In the USA, United Aran Emirates and Brazil, the second
benefit of green buildings was a reduction in water usage (McGraw‐
FIGURE 3 Summary of the level of benefits [Colour figure can be Hill Construction, 2013). Malaysia receives heavy rainfall and abun-
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] dant sunshine. Unfortunately, neither of these resources is harnessed
OLANREWAJU ET AL. 7

efficiently, and design teams do not plan for this while designing and 5.3 | Factor analysis
constructing affordable housing. Studies have found that owners of
Factor analysis was used to identify an association among the 23 ben-
sustainable housing have experienced an increase in the value of their
efits to investigate a pattern between the benefits. The data met all
buildings (Burnett, Chau, Lee, & Edmunds, 2008; Hamilton, 2015). A
the necessary requirements for factor analysis. For instance, there
total of 16% of respondents in 69 countries including Malaysia
were more than 10 benefits the number of respondents was more
claimed that housing values would increase due to their greenness
than twice the number of the benefits. Statistically, more than three
or sustainability status (Dodge Data & Analytics, 2017). New sustain-
respondents per construct are required for meaningful results. There
able buildings and green retrofit projects are expected to pay for
are two types of factor analysis: confirmatory and exploratory. While
themselves in 7–8 years (Dodge Data & Analytics, 2017; McGraw‐Hill
confirmatory factor analysis is suitable for positivism paradigms,
Construction, 2013) because of lower maintenance and operational
exploratory factor analysis is suitable for interpretivism. Because there
costs. However, if other incidental benefits are quantified, this
was a lack of similar research available for comparsion, exploratory
timespan can be reduced even further.
factor analysis was adopted in this research. Hence the discussion
and interpretation of the factor analysis results were “interactive.”
The data was subjected to a principal components analysis. The
5.2 | Implications of the present research on varimax rotation strategy was used. The resulting matrix was con-
knowledge of sustainable housing of stakeholders nected to the main component and the division of variance was based
on the degrees of freedom. Kaiser's normalization was used to normal-
The findings revealed that only 25% housing professionals considered
ize the row of the factor pattern. The results are presented in Tables 7
that sustainable affordable housing would offer a high level of benefits.
and 8 and Figure 4. The results suggest that benefits can be classified
Moreover, 57% of the respondents asserted that sustainable afford-
into five groups. This is also evident in Figure 4, as the function
able housing could only offer “benefits” (between 2.60 and 3.39 on a
appears to level off with the fifth component. The KMO value was
scale of 1–5) to home users. This implies that housing professionals
high and the relationship among the factors was significant (Table 7).
believed that sustainable affordable housing could only offer marginal
The results were consistent with Kaiser and Guttman's rule. The
benefits. In other words, the housing industry is not yet convinced of
R‐matrix (e.g., 1.23E‐005) implied a lack of multicollinearity. The
the potential benefits of sustainable affordable housing. The implica-
extracted communalities ranged between 0.393 and 0.772. In
tion of these findings is that housing providers, including the Real
Table 8, the components were shown to explain 60.04% of the total
Estate and Housing Developers Association, Master Builders Associa-
variance. The labels for each of the components are contained in
tion of Malaysia and The Malaysian Developers' Council, need to
Table 9. The table also contained the benefits attributed to each of
rethink their delivery process to cater to market needs. In line with
the components and their factor loadings.
the suggestions of Edeholt (2012), housing professionals need to be
The first component was named environmental, explained
encouraged and re‐educated to go beyond the current delivery pro-
32.194% of the total variance and comprised seven benefits. A sec-
cess. There is no evidence for Abidin's suggestion that the rate of
ond‐order factor analysis combined these factors into a single factor,
implementation of sustainable housing will increase by 2015. In fact,
environmental, which had an overall MSA = 0.839, χ2(21) = 216.462,
it cannot be concluded that the level of awareness of the housing
p < .001, with Cronbach's alpha of 0.804. Convergent validity was
industry with respect to sustainability has increased. Nevertheless, if
0.581. The correlations ranged between 0.204 and 0.575 and all were
it does, the housing industry is not convinced, impressed or aware of
statistically significant. The R‐matrix was 0.159 more than the
the benefits of sustainable buildings. This implies that it will be difficult
0.000001 threshold. The seven benefits fell into one component, with
for them to market sustainable housing to homebuyers. To market sus-
a factor loading that ranged between 0.534 and 0.753. The component
tainable buildings, developers, the government, site managers and con-
explained 46.10% of the model. One of the primary goals of sustain-
tractors must not only be aware of the concept and be ready to apply
ability is environmental protection. Sustainable buildings have diverted
the principles, but also convince themselves and especially customers
more than 80 million tons of waste from landfills in the USA alone
about the benefits. In fact, according to Williams and Dair (2007b)
(Fowler et al., 2010). Hence housing that generates less waste, less pol-
and OECD (2002), the major driver of sustainable construction is con-
lution and less CO2 is desirable. Pollution can be reduced through a
sumer demand. Olanrewaju, Yeow, and Tat (2015) explained that expe-
reduction in the use of primary cars and a reduction in refurbishments
rienced homebuyers are now questioning the sustainability credentials
and adaptations. Adaptation rather than mitigation was identified as a
of housing professionals. It is generally believed that the delivery of a
major strategy to respond to the impact of climate change (Gunawansa
high‐quality building would result in higher costs, more time or both.
& Kua, 2014). Refurbishments, adaptations and variations lead to high
Similarly, to obtain a benefit from sustainable housing, one or more
waste and pollution generation. Empirical studies have found that
benefits might be traded off. Therefore, the opportunity cost of the
benefits should be carefully considered. Thus, it was surprising that
this research found that all the benefits were obtainable without com- TABLE 7 Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test results
promise, except for a reduction of variations or claims during construc- KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.813
tion and the enablement of adaptations (r = −.057, p = .266). Bartlett's test of sphericity Approx. χ2 1,272.240
Nevertheless, the lack of statistical significance implies that the results df 253.000
Significance .000
are specific.
8 OLANREWAJU ET AL.

TABLE 8 Total variance explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction sum of squares loadings Rotation sum of squares loadings
Component Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %
1 7.405 32.194 32.194 7.405 32.194 32.194 3.078 13.383 13.383
2 2.047 8.898 41.092 2.047 8.898 41.092 3.078 13.381 26.764
3 1.606 6.983 48.075 1.606 6.983 48.075 2.675 11.629 38.394
4 1.492 6.487 54.562 1.492 6.487 54.562 2.606 11.332 49.726
5 1.260 5.480 60.042 1.260 5.480 60.042 2.373 10.317 60.042
6 1.084 4.711 64.753
7 0.939 4.084 68.837
8 0.898 3.903 72.740
9 0.796 3.460 76.200
10 0.727 3.162 79.362
11 0.688 2.991 82.353
12 0.590 2.564 84.917
13 0.531 2.309 87.226
14 0.479 2.083 89.309
15 0.425 1.847 91.156
16 0.369 1.602 92.758
17 0.342 1.488 94.246
18 0.295 1.283 95.529
19 0.276 1.199 96.727
20 0.263 1.145 97.872
21 0.183 0.797 98.669
22 0.162 0.705 99.373
23 0.144 0.627 100.000

FIGURE 4 Scree plot and variance explained

sustainable buildings experience significant reduction in construction natural and harmful materials are preferred for modification and main-
variations and claims and also lead to an increase in the lifespan of tenance (Olanrewaju et al., 2017). In the UK, affordable housing is
buildings (Spiegel & Meadows, 2010). The need to reduce operating designed and constructed to reduce CO2 emissions by 26% compared
costs of housing is increasing due to a lack of accuracy in predicting to standard houses. This means that affordable housing will have to
future modifications and maintenance works. Because sustainable achieve a minimum of 60 out of 100 points on an “Eco‐Point rating”
housing aims to reduce the impact of housing on the environment, instead of the usual 36 points (Boyd & Chinyio, 2008).
OLANREWAJU ET AL. 9

TABLE 9 Rotated component matrix technologies often used for sustainable buildings reduce the cost of

Component
energy, and use water efficiently. Housing layouts and indoor environ-
mental quality influences occupiers' comfort levels. All these factors
Benefit Environmental Energy Social Cost Status
increase housing values, especially from social and economic perspec-
Increase lifespan of 0.69
the house tives. Because sustainable housing blends nature, culture, home occu-
Reduce variations and 0.597 piers and social integration, this enhances urban regeneration and
claims during revitalization, especially by creating a sense of place. All these factors
construction
will also contribute high housing values. In the USA, green properties
Reduce household 0.586 0.498
waste generation are sold for a premium of 11–19% (Watson, 2011).

Reduce pollution 0.577 0.434 The social component consisted of four benefits and accounted

Reduce CO2 emissions 0.574 for 6.98% of the total variance. A second‐order factor analysis com-

Reduce use and 0.548 0.408 bined these factors into a single factor, namely social, which had an
ownership of overall MSA = 0.712, χ2(10) = 156.77 p < .001, and a Cronbach's alpha
private cars
of 0.750. The R‐matrix was 0.266. Convergent validity was 0.582. The
Reduce adaptability 0.498
extracted communalities ranged between 0.282 and 0.681. The corre-
and refurbishment
costs lation ranged between 0.150 and 0.471 and all were statistically signif-
Reduce water bills 0.800 icant. The five factors collectively explained 50.95% of the model with
Reduce electricity bills 0.724 factor loadings that ranged between 0.533 and 0.792. Various studies
Increase user 0.696 have shown that sustainable buildings increase occupants' perfor-
homeowner mance and well‐being. Various studies have shown that sustainable
comforts
buildings increase occupants' performance and wellbeing. Thus, it
Support urban 0.512 0.486
regeneration and was not surprising that the study finds a combine of reduction in
revitalization medical bills, and increase neighborhood integration, natural ventila-
Increase housing value 0.487 tion and productivity. Empirical research has shown that green build-
Increase 0.687 ings are able to increase productivity. A recent study in Australia
homeowners'/users'
productivity showed that occupiers' cognitive scores were 61% higher for green
Benefit from tax 0.572 0.410 buildings compared to standard buildings (Allen et al., 2016). Further-
credits more, owners of sustainable housing were also granted tax relief
Enjoy natural 0.556 because the use of sustainable materials, design and components
ventilation
increases the quality of life of individuals and the community.
Promote cultural and 0.556
neighborhood Undoubtedly, a neighborhood makes a home. In the UK, the issue of
integration housing sustainability is tied to the regeneration of communities.
Reduce medical bills 0.540 0.464 0.448 The house supply means developing communities (Boyd & Chinyio,
Reduce penalties and 0.708 2008). In other words, a neighborhood defines the quality of a home.
fines to
According to Boyd and Chinyio (2008), the need to regenerate com-
homeowners
munities is crucial, because if a neighborhood is deprived, isolated
Reduce transportation 0.426 0.625
costs and unable to create jobs, houses will deteriorate. A sense of place
Enable adaptations 0.613 is created by communities. Location obsolescence leads to neighbor-
Reduce crime rate 0.525 hood instability and a loss of economic activities and increases social
Enhance the image of 0.882 problems.
the housing The cost component explained 6.49% of the total variance. A sec-
Enhance the status of 0.831 ond‐order factor analysis combined these benefits into a single factor
the occupants
of cost, which had an overall MSA = 0.569, χ2(6) = 95.891, p < .001,
and the Cronbach's alpha analysis returned 0.717. Convergent validity
The second component was energy and consisted of five benefits. was 0.618. The extracted communalities ranged between 0.401 and
This component explained 8.90% of the total variance. A second‐order 0.612. The correlations ranged between 0.255 and 0.534 and were
factor analysis combined these factors into a single one, energy, which all statistically significant. The R‐matrix was 0.446. All the benefits
had an overall MSA = 0.723, χ2(10) = 185.114, p < .001, with loaded into one component with a loading that ranged between
Cronbach's alpha0.783. Convergent validity was 0.644. The extracted 0.633 and 0.782. The four factors in this component collectively
communalities ranged between 0.636 and 0.838. The correlations explained 54.31% of the model. Although the capital costs of sustain-
ranged between 0.264 and 0.713 and were all statistically significant. able housing construction are high, operating or ownership costs, such
The factor loading ranged between 0.646 and 0.838. The R‐matrix as lower transportation costs, commuting times, lower costs of adap-
was 0.210. The five benefits collectively explained 53.91% of the tations/maintenance and the elimination/reduction in fine/penalties,
model. Utility bills for water, electricity and the telephone use were are much less compared to conventional housing. Owners of sustain-
very high, especially during heat waves. Passive designs and able houses use bicycles to reduce pollution, increase the quality of
10 OLANREWAJU ET AL.

life and promote cultural and neighborhood integration. The costs of even misers. There is a societal prejudice against environmental
transportation will reduce by at least 50% (Watson, 2011). The costs esthetics, Indeed, there is a stereotypical image of environmentalists
of demolition and waste due to adaptations and for the provision of that they live off the grid and build with aluminum cans, tires and
security measures are also lower for sustainable housing. In the USA, straw bails (Spiegel & Meadows, 2010, p. 28). Nevertheless, this image
green products are used to reduce indoor air quality contaminants is changing. In fact, most recyclable building materials now resemble
and to resolve issues due to chemicals commonly found in building normal materials. Societies are now appreciating green buildings and
products. Indeed, as many as 30% of buildings in the USA exhibit some their occupants. Sustainable architecture should be usable and beauti-
kind of building sickness problems (Spiegel & Meadows, 2010). ful (Keitsch, 2012). In fact, most sustainable materials and components
The component status consisted of two benefits. The component are attractive. The market for sustainable products is growing. It was
explained 5.48% of the total variance. A second‐order factor analysis estimated that the cumulative market value of environmental mate-
combined these factors into a single factor, status, which had an over- rials would grow to over US$150 billion by 2030 in the USA alone
all MSA = 0.500, χ2(1) = 90.783 p < .001, with Cronbach's alpha of (Watson, 2011).
0.844. Convergent validity was 0.857. The extracted communality
was 0.739. The correlation was 0.478 and all were statistically signifi-
cant. An R‐matrix of 0.468 was returned. The two factors collectively 6 | S U M M A R Y A N D S U G G E S T I O N S FO R T H E
explained 86.46% of the model and the factor loading was 0.930 for HOUSING INDUSTRY
each. Sustainable housing is attractive and vibrant. Thus, the occu-
pants of sustainable buildings are often identified in the community It has been extensively recognized that sustainability requirements
as respected individuals. Many prefer sustainable building for altruistic need to be addressed in Malaysia. Moreover, the government and other
reasons. However, sometimes they are described as traditionalists or stakeholders including developers, contractors and third‐party agencies

FIGURE 5 Framework for the benefits of

sustainable affordable housing
OLANREWAJU ET AL. 11

have introduced measures to meet sustainability objectives. However, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

although various sustainable techniques may be theoretically and prac- The research presented in this paper was supported in full by a grant
tically possible to incorporate into affordable housing, it appears that from the “FRGS”; project: Analytical Investigation of Problems in Hous-
their incorporation has been hindered by a sequence of obstacles aris- ing Supply in Malaysia; project no.: FRGS/1/2015/TK06/UTAR/02/2.
ing from lack of knowledge and a lack of acceptance of the benefits. The
embryonic nature of sustainable affordable housing, resulting from a ORCID
lack of information or consensus on what sustainable affordable hous-
AbdulLateef Olanrewaju http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0541-3552
ing looks or behaves like, is a major problem to advance knowledge on
this topic. Affordable housing has great potential for sustainability,
RE FE RE NC ES
despite the fact that existing affordable housing stock does not comply
Abdul, Y., & Quartermaine, R. (2012). Delivering sustainable buildings:
with sustainability requirements. The present research investigates the Savings and payback. Retrieved from http://www.brebookshop.com.
benefit of sustainable affordable housing for homebuyers/occupiers. Abidin, N. Z. (2010). Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable
Although the benefits of sustainable affordable housing may not be construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat International,
34(4), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.011
immediately apparent, such housing will add value to homebuyers and
Ahn, Y. H., Pearce, A. R., Wang, Y., & Wang, G. (2011). Drivers and barriers
occupants' investments in the long run. It will also benefit developers,
of sustainable design and construction: The perception of green build-
because developers use ecological features to market their buildings. ing experience. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology
This framework will enable developers to market sustainable housing. and Urban Development, 4(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Although previous research has been conducted on the added value 2093761X.2012.759887

that sustainable affordable housing can offer, they are based on qualita- Allen, J. G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S., Vallarino, J., &
Spengler, J. D. (2016). Associations of cognitive function scores with
tive approaches, thereby making inferences and explanations difficult.
carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures
Developers, contractors and site managers need to be convinced and in office workers: A controlled exposure study of green and conven-
be aware of the benefits of sustainable affordable housing. The present tional office environments. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(6),
805–812. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037
research has produced a framework for the benefits of sustainable
Ang, S., Olanrewaju, A. L., Chia, F. C., & Tan, Y. S. (2017). Awareness on
affordable housing (Figure 5).
sustainable affordable housing among homebuyers in Malaysia. In.
The theoretical contribution of the present research is threefold: MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 103, p. 03014). EDP Sciences.
(i) it provides quantitative data to support arguments on the benefits https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201710303014.
of sustainable affordable housing, (ii) it gauges the level of understand- Boyd, D., & Chinyio, E. (2008). Understanding the construction client.
ing of the housing industry on the benefits of sustainable housing and Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

(iii) it develops knowledge of sustainability of affordable housing at an Burnett, J., Chau, C. K., Lee, W. L., & Edmunds, K. (2008). Costs and
financial benefits of undertaking green building assessments. Hong Kong:
operational level, all of which are nascent. However, practical implica-
Construction Industry Institute.
tions require further scrutiny. For example, it is not clear if the method
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Educa-
of normalization of the weighting of the components and factors were tion. 7th Edition. Oxon: Routledge.
theoretically grounded. However, its main defect is that the numbers Dempsey, N., Brown, C., & Bramley, G. (2012). The key to sustainable
of benefits are “small.” However, it may not be practical to include all urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social
benefits, especially as many are unique to specific projects (Abdul & sustainability. Progress in Planning, 77(3), 89–141. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.progress.2012.01.001
Quartermaine, 2012; Spiegel & Meadows, 2010; Susilawati & Miller,
Demographia (2017). 13th Annual Demographia International Housing
2013). The findings imply that governments need to formulate policies Affordability Survey Rating Middle‐Income Housing Affordability
that support social integration and sustainability and reduce housing (2017 Edition: Data from 3rd Quarter 2016).
operating costs. The present research could serve as a reference tool Dodge Data & Analytics (2017). World Green Building Trends 2016 Devel-
for governments, the housing industry, manufacturers, academics, the oping Markets Accelerate Global Green Growth. 1–800–591‐4462.
Retrieved from www.construction.com.
public and homebuyers/renters. A major limitation of this research
Easterby‐Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2012). Management
was the sample size. Future research could increase the sample size
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
and alter the distribution of respondents, perhaps by limiting it to just
Edeholt, H. (2012). Innovative Foresights in Sustainable Design and Archi-
developers and design teams. Governments may also be considered as tecture–How to Promote Seemingly Impossible, but Still Crucial,
clients on many occasions. This will allow a clear distinction to be made Radical Changes. Sustainable Development, 20(3), 155–165.
in terms of application. However, future research could examine the Fowler, K. M., Rauch, E. M., Henderson, J. W., & Kora, A. R. (2010).
possibility of expanding or even reducing current benefits. Future Re‐assessing green building performance: A post occupancy evaluation of
22 GSA buildings (No PNNL‐19369). Richland, WA (US): Pacific North-
research should examine the experience of homebuyers on similar
west National Laboratory (PNNL).
benefits. This allows an examination of the “measurement gap,”
Green Building Index (GBI). (2018). Executive Summary as of 15 May
because it is very likely that homebuyers attach different weights to 2018‐GBI Projects Register ‐ By Categories. Available at http://new.
these factors. Finally, future research should explore and confirm the greenbuildingindex.org/organisation/summary. Accessed on 04 June
2018.
claim that there is no trade‐off among the benefits of sustainable
Gunawansa, A., & Kua, H. W. (2014). A comparison of climate change
housing, as previous research has identified that a major problem in
mitigation and adaptation strategies for the construction industries of
sustainable building delivery is the existence of a trade‐off between three coastal territories. Sustainable Development, 22(1), 52–62.
benefits. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.527
12 OLANREWAJU ET AL.

Häkkinen, T., & Belloni, K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sustainable build- Olanrewaju, A. A., Yeow, T. S., & Tat, L. L. (2015). Sustainable housing
ing. Building Research and Information, 39(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/ maintenance management model. Energy and Sustainability V: Special
10.1080/09613218.2011.561948 Contributions, 206, 13.
Hayles, C. (2006). An examination of the relationship between sustainability Olanrewaju, A., & Woon, T. C. (2017). An exploration of determinants of
and affordability in residential housing markets. Auckland New Zealand: affordable housing choice. International Journal of Housing Markets
PRRES. Available at: www. prres. net. Accessed 16 October, 2017. and Analysis, 10(5), 703–723.
Hamid, Z. A., Roslan, A. F., Ali, M. C., Hung, F. C., Noor, M. S. M., & Kilau, N. Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research:
M. (2014). Towards a national green building rating system for Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods
Malaysia. Malaysian Construction Research Journal, 14, 0–16. of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English
Hamilton, A. B. (2015). USGBC Green Building Economic Impact Study. Language Teaching, 5(9), 9. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9
Available at https://www.boozallen.com/e/media/press‐release/ Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: a skill build-
study‐finds‐green‐construction‐is‐major‐us‐economic‐driver.html ing approach. 5th Edn. UK: John Wiley and Sons, Limited.
[Accessed on 23 October 2016 Serpell, A., Kort, J., & Vera, S. (2013). Awareness, actions, drivers and bar-
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the Teacher. 2nd edition. riers of sustainable construction in Chile. Technological and Economic
London: Routledge Development of Economy, 19(2), 272–288. https://doi.org/10.3846/
Ibrahim, F. A., Shafiei, M. W. M., Said, I., & Ismail, R. (2013). Malaysian 20294913.2013.798597
housing developers' readiness in green homes development. World Sherwin, D. (2000). A Review of Overall Models for Maintenance Manage-
Applied Sciences Journal, 30, 221–225. ment. Quality Maintenance Engineering, 6(3), 138–164.
Ihlen, Ø., & Roper, J. (2014). Corporate reports on sustainability and sus- Spiegel, R., & Meadows, D. (2010). Green building materials: A guide to prod-
tainable development: “We have arrived”. Sustainable Development, uct selection and specification. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
22(1), 42–51. Susilawati, C., & Miller, W. F. (2013). Sustainable and affordable housing: A
John, G., Clements‐Croome, D., & Jeronimidis, G. (2005). Sustainable myth or reality. In S. L. Kajewski, K. Manley, & K. D. Hampson (Eds.),
building solutions: A review of lessons from the natural world. Proceedings of the 19th CIB World Building Congress (pp. 1–14).
Building and Environment, 40(3), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane Con-
buildenv.2004.05.011 vention and Exhibition Centre.
Keitsch, M. (2012). Sustainable architecture, design and housing. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2014). Sustainability
Sustainable Development, 20(3), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/ metrics: translation and impact on property investment and
sd.1530 management. A report by the Property Working Group of the United
Killip, G. (2006). The housing maintenance and sustainability debate. In Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, May 2014.
Proceedings of the Annual Research Conference of The Royal Institution USGBC (US Green Building Council) (2008). LEED 2009 for New Construc-
of Chartered Surveyors. London. tion and Major Renovations. Washington, DC: USGBC.
McGraw‐Hill Construction (2013). World green building trends: Watson, R. (2011). Green building: Market and impact report. Retrieved
Business benefits is driving new and retrofit market opportunities in from www.greenbizgroup.com.
over 60 countries. Retrieved from https://www.construction.com/ Williams, K., & Dair, C. (2007a). What is stopping sustainable building in
about‐us/press/world‐green‐building‐trends‐smartmarket‐report.asp England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable
Miller, W., & Buys, L. (2013). Factors influencing sustainability outcomes developments. Sustainable Development, 15(3), 135–147. https://doi.
of housing in subtropical Australia. Smart and Sustainable Built Envi- org/10.1002/sd.308
ronment, 2(1), 60–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/20466091311325854 Williams, K., & Dair, C. (2007b). A framework of sustainable behaviours
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development) (2002). that can be enabled through the design of neighbourhood‐scale devel-
Analytical report on the design of sustainable building policies ‐ scope opments. Sustainable Development, 15(3), 160–173. https://doi.org/
for improvement and barriers, 13 June 2002. ENV/EPOC/WPNEP 10.1002/sd.311
(2001)5/FINAL Wood, B. (2006). The role of existing buildings in the sustainability agenda.
Olanrewaju, A., Tan, S. Y., Lee, L. T., Ayob, F. M., & Ang, S. (2016). Facilities, 24(1/2), 61–67.
Investigating the compatibility of affordable housing with
sustainability criteria: A conceptual framework. In Proceedings—Putra-
jaya International Built Environment, Technology and Engineering How to cite this article: Olanrewaju AL, Tan SY, Abdul‐Aziz
Conference (PIBEC2016), 24–25 September, 2016, Bangi, Malaysia
A‐R. Housing providers' insights on the benefits of sustainable
(pp. 228–240).
affordable housing. Sustainable Development. 2018;1–12.
Olanrewaju, A., Tan, S. Y., Tat, L. L., & Mine, N. (2017). Analysis of
homeowners' behaviours in housing maintenance. Procedia Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1854
180, 1622–1632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.325