Event reportGriffith University – NAHC PhD Scholars Symposium31 January 2020The Ship Inn Griffith University South Bank campus Brisbane, Australia

CRI

COS

No.

00

23

3E

2

Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics Griffith Business SchoolGriffith Business School is part of Griffith University—a dynamic, innovative and highly regarded university with 50,000 students from 131 countries. Ranking in the top 2% of universities worldwide, Griffith teaches across six campuses in South East Queensland including its Digital campus.

Griffith Business School degrees and programs are recognised nationally and internationally, and our senior researchers are leaders in their fields. With Asian studies, government and international relations, public policy and public administration, tourism, sport, event management, and real estate and property development in our broad program portfolio, the School provides a wide range of undergraduate and postgraduate programs, as well as a substantial PhD program.

The Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics is one of a number of departments within the School. It offers industry recognised undergraduate and postgraduate programs in accounting, banking, business statistics, economics, finance and financial planning.

Find out more at griffith.edu.au/gbs

National Affordable Housing Consortium (NAHC)NAHC is a not-for-profit company registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission. SLIC, a NAHC subsidiary, is a non-profit focused on housing solutions research.

The objectives of NAHC are to work with community groups, the private sector and governments to investigate, develop, promote and provide a range of innovative and quality housing options to meet housing need.

Between 2008 and 2015, NAHC facilitated the construction of more than 3,500 affordable homes as an ‘Approved Participant’ under the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS). NAHC is the most successful NRAS Approved Participant in the country having delivered more NRAS affordable housing than any other organisation.

Find out more at nahc.org.au

Sustainable Living Infrastructure Consortium (SLIC)The Sustainable Living Infrastructure Consortium (SLIC) is a not for profit research and innovation hub supporting the provision of ‘Sustainable Living Choices’. SLIC through its many Australian and International partners aims via its research to influence long-term housing supply, finance & management policy.

Find out more at slic.edu.au

Symposium hosts and co-sponsors

The 2020 Griffith University-NAHC PhD Scholars Symposium is proudly presented by Griffith Business School, Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics, the National Affordable Housing Consortium (NAHC) and the Sustainable Living Infrastructure Consortium (SLIC).

3

Contents

Symposium hosts and co-sponsors 2

Foreword 4

Opening and partnership overview 5

Research topics 7

Presentation summaries 8

Topic 1: Green building, split incentives and affordable rental housing policy in Australia 8

Topic 2: Whole of life approach and build-to-rent investments 11

Topic 3: Affordable housing as an infrastructure asset class: A public–private partnership investment pathway 13

Topic 4: Affordable housing risk and returns in a responsible investment portfolio: Australia and the world 15

Topic 5: A community developers guide to affordable build-to-rent housing in Australia 17

Topic 6: Machine learning and artificial intelligence: New tools in analysing housing affordability 19

Topic 7: Affordable housing in modular building technology: From research to design to community engagement 21

Panel discussion on research concepts 22

Attendance 23

Closing 24

Appendix 25

4

Foreword

Griffith Business School’s Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics in collaboration with the National Affordable Housing Consortium (NAHC) and Sustainable Living Infrastructure Consortium (SLIC), are proud to have organised the 2020 Griffith University – NAHC PhD Scholars Symposium.

In 2014, NAHC and Griffith University established a Knowledge Hub to facilitate practical, industry focused research and policy development across the housing system. Since then, our Knowledge Hub has produced over 100 research outputs, supporting five PhD students and one research fellow. The initiative has been a major driving force in the establishment of the Social and Affordable Housing research cluster at Griffith University.

This event builds on a successful series of organised events exploring solutions to the growing housing affordability crisis in Australia. The symposium has focused on practical, academic research, which has been delivered by Griffith University PhD scholars, and associates of the cluster. An overview of each session from the day is summarised in this report.

Thank you to all the participants for your valuable insights, and to the presenters who took part to make this year’s event another great success. We would also like to acknowledge and thank NAHC and SLIC for their ongoing support and collaboration.

The organising committee would also like to thank Daniela Weatherhil, Anita Peres, Tania Foot, Michelle Parr-Smith and Leah Grose for their assistance in organising this event.

Kind regards The Organising Committee

Professor Eduardo Roca Griffith Business School

Associate Professor Richard Chung Griffith Business School

Dr Benjamin Liu Griffith Business School

Professor George Earl CEO, SLIC and Adjunct Professor, Griffith Business School

Organising committee

5

Opening and partnership overview

Professor George Earl, CEO, SLIC opened the symposium by providing an overview of the day, including background on the research partnership between Griffith University, NAHC and the SLIC.

NAHC/SLIC research commitmentThe 2020 Griffith University - NAHC PhD Scholars Symposium continues to build on an existing track record of research outputs from the group. These are associated with a broader NAHC/SLIC research agenda, which in 2019 delivered over 10 public lectures and conference presentations on NAHC/SLIC/Griffith University research, as well as several comprehensive studies; including:

� housing supply and affordability study with the Isaac Regional Council

� regulatory system review with CHIA

� NRAS mach 2 report providing information from five completed reports on investor and tenant satisfaction and the economic impact of NRAS scheme

� financial risk report for the community housing sector and submitted to APRA

� economic impact study for the Gladstone Water Board.

2020 will see a continued pipeline of research projects, including broadening international partnerships and grant opportunities.

NAHC is committed to improving social and affordable housing outcomes via its not-for-profit knowledge hub entity the Sustainable Living Infrastructure Consortium (SLIC).

SLIC through its many Australian and international partners, in particular Griffith University, aims via its research to influence long-term housing supply, finance and management policy.Professor George Earl

6

Griffith University – NAHC/SLIC research partnership

The partnership seeks to apply an innovative PhD model - one that is based on close industry collaboration, where PhD students do actual and real-world research projects with NAHC and SLIC underpinned by rigorous theoretical framework and scientific methodology to solve real-world problems in social and affordable housing issues.Professor George Earl

The NAHC is pleased to engage with Griffith University in supporting innovative affordable housing research. A core objective of the NAHC is to engage with community stakeholders to investigate and promote a range of innovative and quality housing options to meet housing need in our cities. The GU-NAHC/SLIC PhD scholarship program is an important part of this objective.Mike Myers, Managing Director, NAHC

The symposium focuses on practical, academic research, which has been delivered by Griffith University PhD scholars, and associates. Through a joint-funded Griffith- NAHC/SLIC scholarship program, the intent is to drive academic research into, but not exclusive of, sustainable living pathways. A key pillar of which pertains to issues surrounding housing affordability in the urban environment. There are currently five PhD scholars, and one research fellow in the program which are delivering a broad range of relevant research outcomes.

The following mind map was presented which provides an overview of the existing research, and the scholars leading each outcome. The symposium showcased research outcomes from all five of the PhD scholars, research fellow and an additional presentation from Professor Joerg Baumeister regarding his work with modular construction concepts.

A mind map of key researchers and overview of research topics is included in the appendix.

7

Research topics

The symposium focused on the research of the Griffith University PhD scholars, and associates. Seven topics were presented, six of which are part of the GU-NAHC partnership.

Topic 1 Green building, split incentives and affordable rental housing policy in AustraliaPresented by Stefen MacAskill, Griffith-NAHC PhD candidate

Topic 2 Whole of life approach and build-to-rent invementsPresented by Prince Acheampong, Griffith-NAHC PhD candidate

Topic 3 Affordable housing as an infrastructure asset class: Public–private partnerships investment pathwayPresented by Lee-Yun Chiang, Griffith-NAHC PhD candidate

Topic 4 An analysis of risk-return trade-off in real estate marketPresented by Prabath Morawakage, Griffith-NAHC PhD candidate

Topic 5 A community developers guide to affordable build-to-rent housing in AustraliaPresented by Malcolm Price, Research Fellow, Griffith University

Topic 6 Machine learning and artificial intelligence: New tools in analysing housing affordabilityPresented by Jaliya Amarasinghe, Griffith-NAHC PhD candidate

Topic 7 Affordable housing in modular building technology: From research to design to community engagementPresented by Professor Joerg Baumeister, Griffith University

More information, including a presenter biography and topic abstracts are included within the presentation summary of each speaker and the appendix respectively.

8

This section provides a comprehensive summary of each presentation. Presentations focused on an overview of the respective research projects purpose, context, objectives and preliminary findings. A ‘questions and answers’ session followed each speaker.

Topic 1 Green building, split incentives and affordable rental housing policy in Australia

Mr MacAskill’s presentation focused on providing new insights into the delivery of government supported rental housing to low- and middle-income households in Australia. The research focuses on two avenues. Firstly, to understand the impact of green building certification in a typical affordable housing development in Brisbane, and secondly, to identify opportunities within emerging alternative financing mechanisms, such as green bonds. Both of these concepts were discussed with regards to their relevance to supply and demand-side affordable housing policy schemes, such as the defunct National Affordability Scheme (NRAS).

PurposeThe purpose of the study is to understand how incentives directed towards green building principles in affordable rental housing, may yield benefits to broader government economic, environmental and social KPIs. Using system dynamics modelling, policy options are be tested to find optimal policy settings to deliver suitable outcomes to all stakeholders.

Research context � Escalating energy, gas and water bills are encompassing a larger proportion

of gross household expenditure, particularly for low- and middle-income households;

� Rental households often suffer from issues of split incentives, whereby landlords are reluctant to invest in utility efficiency (or green building) measures;

− Low- and middle-income rental households spend a growing proportion of their net income on utility costs.

� Presently, there is no policy to incentivise green building practices in mainstream Australian affordable housing policy;

� Upcoming changes to affordable housing policy offer an opportunity:

− To integrate an incentive structure which rewards investments into green building measures in affordable rental housing.

− To capitalise on a growing demand for ‘socially responsible’ or low-carbon asset classes. Particularly, as bond-based financing models for affordable housing emerge, a scaling up of the sector may offer investments of adequate size, risk and liquidity required by major institutional investors.

Our study looks at opportunities towards improving energy, water and gas efficiency within affordable housing. A case study in Brisbane was analysed for a BAU scenario and as compared to a ‘Green Building’ case to determine implementation costs and determine tenant utility savings over a typical NRAS tenure.

Presentation summaries

Stefen MacAskill Griffith–NAHC PhD candidate

Stefen is a Griffith University PhD candidate. His research explores policy incentive structures which capitalise of green building principles in affordable housing policy. He is engaged with both the School of Engineering and Built Environment, and the Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics. Stefen has had several years of professional sustainability/ environmental planning consultancy experience on numerous projects internationally.

9

Research objectives1. Understanding the value of green building principles in the South-East

Queensland (SEQ) case.

� A case study was conducted comparing a ‘business as usual’ (BAU) and Green certified affordable housing development in Yeronga, Brisbane.

� BAU case broadly followed the Queensland development code, which was contrasted to performance characteristics of the Green star multi-residential standard (Green Star Multi-Residential rating of 4 stars).

� Data on comparable consumption rates were collated from a range of sources. Consumption patterns of 428 comparable green star buildings and 1241 BAU buildings were collected, refined for local context and analysed for the case study.

� Household utility costs, as a function of market rent, are modelled over a NRAS tenure of 10 years. Utility consumption rates (and costs) are contrasted between two scenarios.

2. Do ‘Green’ financing avenues offer cost efficiencies?

� A review of bonds on the primary and secondary market

� Green bonds vs ‘vanilla’ government bonds;

3. Developing the business case for a ‘Green, Affordable housing policy’;

� Utilising system dynamics, the macro-economic impact of policy changes will be measured. A series of Policy options will be tested and measured against stakeholder objectives.

Summary of findings � A 4-green star multi-residential structure in Brisbane was found to save one-

and four-person households approximately $5-17 per week in utility bills versus a business as usual case (BAU).

� Inclusive of rental costs, green building may reduce overall housing costs by 1.68-3.77% over a 10-year rental tenure.

� The net present value of improvements was forecasted to be positive, suggesting favourable policy outcomes when considering a holistic view to affordable housing policy.

� Green building principles are found to be a plausible form of a demand-side subsidy for low- and middle-income households. Supply-side financial incentives offer a means to mitigate issues of split incentives for investors.

� Some suggested options include: (1) A direct annual incentive or property tax incentive for scheme participants (similar to the annual NRAS incentive payments); (2) Green building/performance grants to developers; (3) Controversially, capitalisation of part of the utility savings into the market rent.

� Broadly, Green Bonds trading on the secondary market have been found to trade at a 1-9 basis point premium*; These findings signal potential financing support towards a ‘green certified’ affordable housing asset class, albeit minor.

*based on a literature review of 30 academic papers which have examined the US and EU municipal and corporate bond markets.

Future work � Future work will involve the development of a policy analysis tool with the use

of systems dynamic modelling. The model will be used to simulate policy options and outcomes to changes in affordable housing policy in Australia.

In Australia, the impact of rising utility costs is often overlooked in mainstream affordable housing policy. Opportunities exist in future policy, by incentivising the integration of utility efficiency measures into government supported rental housing.

10

Questions and answers

Do you include implications of carbon emission impacts in your study, for example, as they relate to carbon pricing and credits?

We will include an analysis on achievable carbon savings, however, at this time will not include carbon pricing considerations in the model. This is mainly because Australia does not yet have a well-defined carbon pricing structure—and including these may provide misleadingly optimistic results. System dynamics as a tool is very suitable for this type of analysis. The model will provide details on net energy, water and gas savings which can have broader implications for infrastructure planning and forecasting. It would be relatively simple to revisit carbon pricing considerations at a later date, however.

Regarding incentive structures, is there any prospect for a NRAS version 2?

Currently, to my knowledge there is no plan for a NRAS version 2. Affordable housing models, particularly for rental housing, are moving towards build-to-rent models backed by more sophisticated financing structures. Green Bonds may offer some support here.

Have you considered higher Green Star rating policy targets?

Yes. However, a four Green Star Rating is considered a reasonable target for the purposes of affordable housing. Care is taken to minimise the ‘green premium’ on construction cost. It is noted that higher star ratings often attract greater price premiums depending on the green building principles applied.

What is the investment appetite of the green bond investors?

The QLD government has issued some green bonds even though they have not been issued for Affordable housing. In the US municipal Green bond market- issues are often oversubscribed by several times. New York state, for example, has issued green bonds to raise money for ‘green’ affordable housing. This investment class is particularly suitable to attract institutional investment in the sector.

What are the weaknesses of the system dynamics approach?

Human behavioural factors are difficult to model. These are important when attempting to make utility consumption estimates of a building in operation. We seek to tailor the model to use realistic assumptions based on large reliable databases. Some econometric approaches can be integrated to reduce these weaknesses which can improve the accuracy of the model (i.e. price elasticity of energy/water on consumption considerations).

Will your study look at specific subsidies towards ‘greener’ construction?

Yes. ‘Green certification’ has been used as a general benchmark, but individual subsidies towards specific design characteristics may offer better value for money. These include direct subsidies for solar systems, insulation, minimum water faucet efficiency mandates- or a combination of several. We will run a series of sensitivity analyses with several policy options and ways to deliver the subsidy (ie. via a tax subsidy, rental yield top up or grant).

11

Topic 2 Whole of life approach and build-to-rent investments

Mr Acheampong’s presentation looked at introducing the ‘whole of life approach’ to offer a new, comprehensive method for analysing housing affordability challenges in Australia. With statistics derived from ABS and Corelogic (RPData) databases, the study provides evidence of severe housing affordability challenges, particularly among couples with dependent children and solitary survivors. The second study econometrically estimates the potential demand for affordable housing in Australia. Lastly, in the third study, the financial feasibility of BTR to deliver affordable housing to help resolve the housing affordability burden in Australia is analysed.

PurposeThe overall aim of the research is to develop a more comprehensive approach to measure the extent of the housing affordability burden in Australia and to introduce innovations in the supply of affordable housing that could stand the test of time and thus, help resolve housing affordability challenges.

Research context � Globally, housing affordability has become a crisis (Wetzstein, 2017; etc);

− Over 330 million households were estimated to be living in inhabitable accommodations and this number is expected to increase to 440 million households by the year 2025 (Woetzel et al., 2014).

� The percentage of median income households spending more than 30% of their disposable income on rents is increasing in Australia (ABS, 2018);

− The proportion of Households’ spending on non-housing necessities of life is also increasing;

− Many households are, therefore, unable to meet the minimum requirement for a healthy living standard after paying for rent.

� The severity of the housing affordability problem has not been analysed along the family life-cycle.

− There is a need to estimate for the potential demand for affordable housing with these factors in mind.

� Finally, the financial feasibility of BTR affordable housing investment in Australia has not been scientifically evaluated.

Research objectives1. To examine Rental Housing Affordability in Brisbane and Melbourne under the

‘whole of life approach’ relative to the ratio and residual income approach;

2. To identify the key determinants of the Demand for private rental housing in Australia;

3. To analyse the financial viability of BTR investment as a supply response to housing affordability problem in Australia.

The whole of life approach and the feasibility of build-to-rent as an innovative solution to housing affordability challenges in Australia.

We fill a gap previously missed in academic literature. A new, comprehensive method for measuring housing affordability is proposed; one which examines housing affordability along the ‘family life cycle’ of households from varying demographics and locations.

Presentation summaries cont.

Prince Acheampong Griffith–NAHC PhD candidate

Prince is a Griffith University PhD candidate and a sessional Lecturer with the Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics. His research focuses on developing a new approach to analysing housing affordability and the potential of built-to-rent as an investment vehicle to help resolve housing affordability challenges in Australia. He has had six years of teaching experience as a lecturer at one of the reputable state Universities in Ghana. Prince is a Chartered Accountant (CA-GHANA) and an Associate Member (ASA. Aust) of CPA Australia.

12

Summary of findings � Affordability problems are not homogenous across different households.

� Bachelors (i.e. Singles below 35 years) and Solitary Survivors are the most burdened in both Brisbane and Melbourne.

� The food and transportation costs are major issues that contribute to housing affordability problems in Melbourne vs Brisbane.

� More government assistance programs on transportation, medical expenses are needed to reduce housing affordability problem.

� For job seekers, they may want to raise a family in Brisbane rather than Melbourne.

Future workTwo further studies will be investigated:

� Estimating the potential demand for affordable housing.

� Evaluating the financial feasibility/viability of BTR investment in Australia.

Questions and answers How do you see the ‘whole of life’ housing affordability measurement

approach evolving in five years’ time?

Our expectation is that it will gain wider application in the future. Previous housing affordability measures on households often do not take into consideration key milestones in an individual’s lifespan as they progress through their housing tenure.

How do investments into Built to Rent (BTR) developments ‘fit’ with the prevailing perception of housing in Australia. Why is BtR better than the traditional relationship?

Australia has historically followed a ‘build to sell’ model, whereby there is a differentiation between developers and owners. Some units sold to private investors enter the rental market—however tenants often lack a sense of security in tenure due to a large variety of reasons (sale of the unit, short term leases, rent increases etc).

Build to rent offers institutional changes to the rental market where properties are developed and owned by an organisation or entity, and offered for rent on long term leases. These developments are often of a higher quality, since operation and maintenance costs are borne by the organisation.

With the substantial increases in rental demand and rental tenure across all major Australian cities—there is a need for a new perception of rental housing.

In your study, the retiring group is most vulnerable in terms of affordability. Where do you this problem most acute?

Rental affordability for retirees is worse in the main Australian cities such as Melbourne, Brisbane.

In your study, the ‘other costs’ for retirees are more substantial in Melbourne versus other cities. It would be helpful to investigate this further as to why it is the case.

Data availability, particularly at the household level is a major challenge. We will however seek to address this.

Comments were raised for notable points to focus on as the research develops:

� Changes in life cycle patterns in the future and more data sought for specific demographic factors on housing affordability (ie. country of birth and family status).

� Inclusion of the ‘single parent’ category is crucial, and is an important focus for future research.

� ‘Bachelors’ vs ‘Bachelorettes’? Inclusion of these specific demographic categories is also suggested to add value to the research.

In Australia, the impact of rising utility costs is often overlooked in mainstream affordable housing policy. Opportunities exist in future policy, by incentivising the integration of utility efficiency measures into government supported rental housing.

13

Topic 3Affordable housing as an infrastructure asset class: A public–private partnership investment pathway

Ms Chiang focused on affordable housing investment via public-private partnerships (PPPs). The research looks at Build and Operate program, one of the PPPs arrangements currently implemented in the Victorian Government. It provides three perspectives on affordable housing under Build and Operate program: governments, housing providers and institutional investors.

PurposeThe purpose of the research is to promote effective affordable housing delivery through a public-private partnership model.

Research contextThe current Australia’s housing affordability challenge is to attract private institutional investment in affordable housing. Industry Super Australia (2016) has identified several barriers to increasing private investment in affordable housing, such as scale, risk/return, liquidity, diversification, investor awareness and government guarantee. There are couple of options for unlocking institutional investment in affordable housing. Debt models include AHURI model, bond aggregator model and impact investing model while equity models consist of Defence Housing Australia’s model, Housing trusts/equity model and housing cooperatives/shared equity model. The last option for unlocking institutional investment in affordable housing is public-private partnerships model which can involve both debt and equity.

Research objectivesThe objectives of the research are to (1) enhance the understanding of risk profiles faced by government; (2) assess quantitative value for money of affordable housing; and (3) enhance the understanding of risk profiles faced by institutional investors.

Summary of findings � For government agencies

− Understanding of the compilation and calculation of risk-adjusted Public Sector Comparator (PSC)

− Determination of the value-for-money achievement from project delivery by community housing providers

− Understanding the PPP structure to incentivise community housing providers to perform well and incentivise institutional investors to match their desired risk/return profiles

� For community housing providers

− Understanding of the project bundling process to help reduce the length of the procurement process and transaction costs

− Demonstration of achieving quantitative value-for-money

� For institutional investors

− Understanding of the compilation and calculation of risk-adjusted Net Present Value (NPV)

− Understanding the PPP structure to maximise the potential for fully matching the risk/return profiles.

There are a number of existing and proposed finance models being applied within Australia. We seek to investigate how to promote effective affordable housing delivery through a public–private partnership model.

Presentation summaries cont.

Lee-Yun Chiang Griffith–NAHC PhD candidate

Lee-Yun is a Griffith University PhD candidate. Her research focuses on affordable housing investment via public–private partnerships. Prior to this, she was a contributing analyst in evaluating the enabling environment for public–private partnerships in Asia. She has experience lecturing in real estate finance and taxation, and real estate investment trust analysis, as well as project finance and procurement in Australia.

14

Future work � Evaluate the risk profile of affordable housing faced by the government via a

public sector comparator, and undertake a Monte Carlo simulation.

� Assess quantitative value for money of the affordable housing via public sector comparator.

� Evaluate risk profile of affordable housing faced by the institutional investors via discounted cash flow analysis and Monte Carlo simulation.

Questions and answers ‘Value for money’ when assessing PPP’s are important considerations for

government when assessing investment options. Will you consider broader qualitative arguments for PPP structures in your research?

In this research we mainly focus on the quantitative value for money assessment, although indeed, PPP’s can offer a broader range of qualitative project delivery benefits.

What are the challenges of the comparative model?

A high discount rate used by the treasury is the main problem. It is currently very high which reduces the viability of this investment model. These investments are not traded in financial markets. Therefore, further research is required on how to best structure these contracts.

PPP is introduced as cost effective solution to government for delivering affordable housing. Governments are also debt adverse and seek to outsource balance sheet risk. How do you propose to convince policy makers to design policies which can make PPP’s work?

The ‘Risk Adjusted’ PSC can help to evaluate these aspects. Overall the research seeks to demonstrate how PPP models can provide a more efficient way to deliver affordable housing to those states that require it.

Using various modelling approaches, such as a Monte Carlo simulation, future work will examine the risk profiles of PPP’s for government and intuitional stakeholders, in addition to assessing the quantitative value for money in delivering affordable housing through PPP arrangements.

15

Topic 4Affordable housing risk and returns in a responsible investment portfolio: Australia and the world

Mr Morawakage’s study explores the notion of affordable housing as an asset class for socially responsible investors. Affordable housing offers an opportunity to capitalise on the increasing demand for socially responsible investment options, that are both profitable and provide social impact.

The risks and returns of affordable housing is analysed against other property investments, including those with a focus on Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria. Results presented in the scoping study confirm that affordable housing as an asset class is less risky than conventional alternatives and provides portfolio diversification benefits to socially responsible investors.

PurposeThe purpose of the study is to provide a clear picture of affordable housing as an asset class, suitable as a sustainable, low risk investment for socially responsible investors.

Research context � Government funding for affordable housing is decreasing;

� A major barrier to the expansion of affordable housing is the lack of large-scale private and institutional investment;

� Global sustainable investments which amounted USD 30.7 trillion in 2018 offer a potential source of funding for the much-needed affordable housing investments;

� Affordable housing relates to three Sustainable development goals (1,11,16);

� Affordable housing is aligned with impact investing;

� ESG Characteristics in Social Housing offer opportunity;

� Asset market for affordable housing does not currently exist.

Research objectivesResearch objectives are split between three studies. Study 2 and 3 are included as future work. Study 1 objectives include:

1. To estimate the risk of affordable home ownership assets in Australia;

2. To evaluate the risk and return of affordable home ownership assets against ESG, and other related Real Estate investments;

3. To determine the return drivers of affordable home ownership assets in Australia.

Affordable housing offers an opportunity to capitalise on the increasing demand for socially responsible investment options, that are both profitable and provide social impact.

Presentation summaries cont.

Prabath Morawakage Griffith–NAHC PhD candidate

Prabath is a Griffith University PhD candidate. His areas of study include affordable housing assets, socially responsible investments and portfolio optimisation with affordable housing. Prabath worked as a senior lecturer at the Department of Finance, Faculty of Commerce and Management Studies, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka with eight years of experiences in teaching and research before starting his PhD. He was also a visiting lecturer for many local and international programs. Prabath has worked in the corporate sector as an executive through which he enriched his knowledge and experience to engage in teaching and research productively.

16

Summary of findingsResults reveal that affordable housing has the highest downside protection compared to other real estate and ESG focussed investments. Returns of the sector are lower compared to ESG and other public real estate investments. However, the annualized returns after adjusting rent yield is 5%-6% which is attractive to socially responsible impact investors. Moreover, there is a positive impact from land area and rent yield while a negative impact from housing lending rate and previous crime rate on the affordable housing returns in long run. Previous crime rate, rent yield and housing lending rate, have impacts on the returns of certain postcodes in short run as well. Correlation results suggest that there is a huge potential for socially responsible and real estate investors to diversify their portfolios as ESG investments, other public real estate, and affordable housing returns are negatively correlated or not significantly correlated.

Future work � Study 2: Investigating the role of the affordable housing asset class in

different investment portfolios.

The risk and returns of the affordable housing asset class will be analysed for different countries. For investors, this will aid with optimizing different investment portfolios towards inclusion of affordable housing assets.

� Study 3: Mapping the responsible investors’ profile with the affordable housing asset class.

Research will be undertaken to profile the attributes and scale of responsible investors and evaluate the impact of affordable housing investments on the portfolios of responsible investors.

Questions and answers What is the typical expected return for responsible investment products?

Expected returns of the responsible investors from 5-6% according to the literature.

Can affordable housing be a environment, social, governance (ESG) focused investment?

There are many characteristics which can be matched to the ESG investments. Particularly in the areas of social and governance.

17

Topic 5A community developers guide to affordable build-to-rent housing in Australia

Malcolm is looking at developing a build-to-rent (BTR) design guide that would be useful to the Community Housing Sector, new housing NFPs and active local government authorities in Australia. His research asks three simple questions:

� Who is the best audience for an affordable BTR design guide?

� What is the opportunity for BTR in Australia?

� What is the best way the guide can support this audience and opportunities?

PurposeThe purpose of the research is to create a useful guide and tools that to benefit key players in the emerging affordable BTR sector; particularly developers and their partners.

Research contextBuild-to-rent is a small sector in Australia, and affordable Build-to-rent is even smaller, yet repeated housing market analysis suggests increased supply of affordable rentable housing is essential to meet our affordable housing crisis. Increasingly Australia is looking at the model of European/UK Build-to-rent and North American Multi-family housing as a solution to our housing crisis. BTR is long lease rental housing, developed, owned and managed by large professional institutions for long-term investment. We look to follow the example of the UK, their UK Build-to-rent: A Best Practice Guide and the BTR sector that has emerged there in the past ten years. However the Australian context is quite different in three ways:

� The policy, tax and regulatory environment in Australia, at present, is not supportive of developing a Build-to-rent sector, in the way it is in these other markets.

� The target sector to development affordable BTR is small and except for a handful of larger community housing providers, lacks capacity and access to finance.

� The make up of the physical housing market, in terms of dwelling types is quite different, so the opportunity might also be different.

Research objectivesThe primary objective is to develop a guide and tools that will be useful to the target audience to develop and manage new affordable BTR housing. Around this key objective are the sub-objectives and assumptions I make inherent in the three simple questions I pose, focusing toward the phrase ‘best way the guide can support’?

� How is BTR different to existing Australian housing development and how might the opportunity for Australian BTR be different to BTR or multi-family in other contexts.

� Exploration of the implications to development process of affordable BTR on community planning or ‘place making’.

� Exploration of implications of the very different ‘housing career’ of the tenant or customer within a BTR housing model.

� Exploration of what mean by long-term and what are the implications to housing design and management of owning and managing housing for the long term.

� Unpacking the complexity of the development equation in creating a viable value proposition.

� If the situation of developing affordable BTR is currently not hopeful, what is the value a design guide or this type of research in advocating for policy change.

Build-to-rent is a small sector in Australia, and affordable build-to-rent is even smaller, yet repeated housing market analysis suggests increased supply of affordable rentable housing is essential to meet our affordable housing crisis.

Presentation summaries cont.

Malcolm Price Research Fellow, Griffith University

Malcolm is a part-time research fellow at Griffith’s School of Engineering and Built Environment. His research is focusing on place standards and a design guide for affordable build-to-rent housing in Australia. Concurrently he has a small design and housing consultancy named ‘Social Habitat’. Malcolm has a background as an architect and community development worker in public housing estates and Aboriginal communities.

18

Summary of findingsA first edition design guide needs to grow its audience. It needs to build the capacity and confidence of this audience to engage partners in the housing development industry. ‘A dummies guide to BTR development’, specifically focused on

� The importance of educating the audience about the new and different aspects of BTR, in particular ’place making’ and ‘customer facing’ methodology and the financial and sustainability implications of owning and managing housing for the long term.

� Place making standards, which will likely be the focus of my later research deal with both threats and opportunities. Threats such as local NIMBY behaviour and how they are negotiated or overcome will likely be significant issue.

� Exploration of opportunity within the housing market to carve out a structural subsidy that allows affordable BTR to occur.

� How to make a feasible development value proposition that incorporates partnership, place, customer, planning system, sustainable design and financial feasibility.

Future work1. Continue to development outline of design guide.

2. Test outline with target audience in relation to usefulness.

3. Engage with other research areas within PhD program to start developing tools.

4. Begin focused BTR ‘place making’ research.

Questions and answers

Partnerships between large ‘Tier 1’ community housing providers and smaller regional providers are very important. From an International perspective, Australia is behind the BtR trend where partnerships between key players is more streamlined. It will be important to capture ways to facilitate co-operation in your guide.

Indeed, partnerships between large and small providers is important and much needed. Some of the biggest demand for affordable housing is often in regional communities. We will be mindful of ways to integrate this into the guide going forward.

General comments and audience discussion:

� Communication at different levels is important. It is important for practitioners, academics, and government to form partnerships and engage with local communities to share ideas on how affordable housing may be implemented in a community and what it might look like.

� Getting people together is costly, time consuming and risky. In affordable housing, the complexity involved with successful delivery is high. The development of systems for partnerships and communication, including a BTR guide for businesses and individuals may help to create the level of ‘predictability’ required.

� Financial stability and viability of BTR projects are fundamental, although communication strategies may help deliver better outcomes.

Malcolm provides local example in Byron Shire, which motivates the study.

A design guide is needed for BTR in Australia that can build the capacity and confidence of an audience that can engage with partners in the housing development industry— a kind of ‘dummies guide’ to BTR development.

19

Topic 6 Machine learning and artificial intelligence: New tools in analysing housing affordability

PurposeThe purpose of the study will be to develop a system powered by AI and ML to generate insights and recommendations for the stake holders in housing industry including policy makers, investors, buyers and sellers.

Research context � Most industries are now moving towards AI and ML driven tools to improve

operational efficiency with the aim to deliver competitive advantages versus peer competitors. However, the real estate. industry is arguably behind in terms of using these technologies compared to the other industries.

� Past studies conclude that ML and AI can perform better compared to traditional forecasting or prediction methods.

� Australia needs 250, 000 new homes per annum and no macro level breakdown of where to build, what types of homes needed and whom to sell.

� Technologies like ML and AI can solve these types of problems accurately compared to traditional methods in predicting and forecasting.

� The housing market is too complex to handle with few assumptions using traditional methods. However AI models can be used to handle these complex situations much more efficiently.

Research objectives1. Identify the factors affecting the housing market.

� Develop a feature selection algorithm to filter the variables which are most significantly affecting the market.

� Determine the quantitative effects of those factors, and their relation to housing market fluctuations.

2. Develop algorithms to predict the future market behaviour.

� Predict housing demand.

� Predict house prices for different types

� Predict bestselling locations.

3. Integrate all algorithms to develop an expert system to generate recommendations.

� Simulate scenarios to understand future market status.

� Generate recommendations for many stake holders such as government bodies, investors and sellers.

Presentation summaries cont.

Jaliya Amarasinghe Griffith–NAHC PhD candidate

Jaliya is a Griffith University PhD candidate. His research focuses on developing tools powered by machine learning and artificial intelligence to understand the affordable housing market and predict future behaviour of the market accurately. He is engaged with the Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics. Prior to this, he has had several years of professional experience as a Data Scientist in private sector developing software solutions powered by machine learning and artificial intelligence for many industries such as pharmaceutical and retail.

20

Future workFuture work will involve developing a system which includes geo locations to predict and identify best selling locations, in addition to fulfilling the research objectives.

Questions and answers How can artificial intelligence (AI) and system dynamics be used together?

Is this possible?

Yes, in fact some facets of system dynamics follow similar logic structures to those used in AI, however with some differences. System dynamics relies on a series of equations which represent the dynamics of movement between several moving parts in a system, whereas an AI algorithms may work backwards to define particular conditions that can lead to a particular goal. In this way, the two methods can complement each other.

It was added that the team will be working together in an integrated approach.

Jaliya provides an overview of different artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches.

21

Topic 7Affordable housing in modular building technology: From research to design to community engagement

Professor Joerg Baumeister provided an overview of a study undertaken for the WA Housing Authority, Department of Communities and the Ministry for Housing in 2015.

His presentation focused on the role of modular construction techniques in affordable housing development, using cross-laminated timber (CLT), as a means to deliver personalised, cost effective and efficient housing solutions.

Through a series of successful community charettes a range of personalised concepts were developed by affordable housing tenants, representing their ideal ‘Future Home’.

For more information regarding this project, please contact Professor Joerg Baumeister at j.baumeister@griffith.edu.au

Presentation summaries cont.

Modular construction concept capable of many orientations

Professor Joerg Baumeister Griffith University

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Joerg Baumeister has been a practitioner, educator, researcher and consultant for Architecture and Urban Design for more than 20 years throughout Europe, Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Asia, and Australia. Joerg founded the ‘SeaCities’ research lab (SeaCities.org) at Griffith University’s Cities Research Institute to develop water-adapted cities and floating structures. He is consulting governmental institutions on the federal, state and regional level as well as NGOs and private industry leaders to apply his current research interests which comprises SeaCities, ecological cities, affordable housing in serial building technology, and design innovation through creative thinking.

22

Panel discussion on research concepts

Mr Mike Myers, CEO, NAHC chaired the panel discussion which engaged with the audience on the research presented and discuss key themes towards improving the industry. The session provided an opportunity for group knowledge sharing, and the dissemination of specific opportunities and constraints in the industry.

Key points raised in the discussion are summarised below.

Theme 1: The quality and availability of affordable and social housing data. � Collection and availability of data is a consistent issue with affordable housing

research.

� Up to date data is useful, particularly for several regional areas subject to large boom and bust cycles in real estate and rental prices. Diversity of community data should be considered.

� CoreLogic works with the Australian National University (ANU) on housing affordability data. Significant investments have been made to ensure data reliability and robustness.

� Is there a possibility for BtR as a data resource? For example, if tenants are willing to share their own data they may be eligible for a further discount. There is value in data for making better decisions towards future solutions.

� Data collection and dissemination of information should be supported by Government initiatives—free and available to all.

Theme 2: The economic model of affordable housing provision. � The economic model of affordable housing in Australia is flawed. Without

government support, truly ‘affordable’ rental housing is not commercially viable.

� Should social investors bear the burden? It is greed that is leading to market failure? For institutional investors, such as superfunds, many include social objectives amongst their investment ideologies- however these organisations are held to a fiduciary duty to their members- to be pursue an optimal risk-return balance. Given the current economic model, It can be argued that is it unrealistic to assume investor greed is to blame.

� NRAS demonstrated a willingness and ability for the market to deliver affordable housing under the right conditions, and with support from government.

Theme 3: Barriers to affordable housing development � Further understanding of barriers and a strategy to overcome them is needed

in the sector. Superannuation funds require a investable products which are appropriately sized, and offer adequate liquidity and risk/adjusted returns. Realistic returns/profit margins are required, which are backed by government incentives (policy support). It is a whole level of commitment. Funding models should be correctly designed. Social outcomes are important but still financial outcomes are the significant thing to look at. To start a project financial viability is important.

� Suitable funding models, that can meet the requirements of all stakeholders will be crucial.

� Broader development perception hurdles exist. Specialist items, for example building to a disability design specification may be perceived as higher risk than in reality.

� There is a disconnect between ‘bankable’ projects that can be delivered, and affordable housing capital announcements from large banking institutions.

� No one size fits all solution adds to complexity of solutions. Involvement of local government in a more significant capacity may help.

23

Attendance

We were pleased to welcome approximately 60 policymakers, practitioners and academics, including the Honourable Luke Howarth MP, Assistant Minister for Community Services, Community Housing and Homelessness.

AcademicsApproximately 18% of the audience.

Professors, Associate Professors, Lecturers and PhD students.

Working in the fields of business, architecture, engineering and affordable housing (capital markets, superannuation, real estate, economics).

GovernmentApproximately 16% of the audience.

Minister of Parliament, Directors and Program Officers.

Representing the Department of Housing and Public Works and Queensland Treasury Corporation.

Industry practitionersApproximately 66% of the audience.

Directors, Managers, Proprietors, Lawyers, Consultants, Architects, Community Housing Providers, Financial services experts, Development managers.

Representing: BDO, NAB, Credit Union Australia, CHIA, NAHC, Q Shelter, BHC, Regional Housing Limited, Deloitte, McCullough Robertson Lawyers, Headway Partners, SR Socius, Oracle Building Corporation, MiCasa Realty, DecisionsxDesign and The Property Council of Australia.

industry practitioners66%

16%

6018%

government

attendees

academics

24

Closing

Professor Fabrizio Carmignani, Griffith Business School’s Dean (Academic), delivered the closing address.

The Social and Affordable Housing research cluster within the Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics, Griffith Business School continues to grow and deliver practical housing related research, strengthened through industry collaboration.

We thank the support of our partners, the organising committee, our PhD scholars and presenters, and to you, the audience, for your engagement. We look forward to welcoming you to the next symposium.

Housing research, and particularly affordable housing research falls within the GBS mission of social responsibility and sustainability, and we look forward to continuing to engage with stakeholders, and to our continuing partnership with the NAHC and SLIC.

Further enquiries

For further enquiries please contact:

Professor Eduardo Roca e.roca@griffith.edu.au

griffith.edu.au/social-affordable-housing

25

Appendix: Research mind mapGriffith University – NAHC/SLIC key researchers and overview of research topics

26

Appendix: Symposium program

Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics

griffith.edu.au/gbs

CRICOS No. 00233E

2020 Griffith University-NAHC PhD Scholars Symposium Presented by the Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics, Griffith Business School

Friday, 31 January 2020 9:00am to 3:10pm (registration from 8:30am) Ship Inn, Stanley Street & Sidon Street, South Brisbane The 2020 Griffith University-NAHC PhD Scholars Symposium is presented by Griffith Business School, Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics and the NNaattiioonnaall AAffffoorrddaabbllee HHoouussiinngg CCoonnssoorrttiiuumm (NAHC). In 2014, the National Affordable Housing Consortium and Griffith University established a Knowledge Hub to facilitate practical, industry focussed research and policy development across the housing system. Since then our Knowledge Hub has produced over 100 research outputs, five PhD students and one research fellow position and has been a major driving force in the establishment of the “Social and Affordable Housing Research Cluster” at Griffith University. NAHC and Griffith University are proud to deliver the 2020 symposium presented by our PhD students, research fellow and a senior Griffith University academic covering the following areas: Topic 1: Whole of life approach and Build-to-Rent Investments Topic 2: Affordable housing as an infrastructure investment class: Public-Private

Partnerships Investment Pathway Topic 3: Green Affordable Housing Policy

Topic 4: Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: New Tools in Analysing Housing Affordability

Topic 5: Risk and Return Trade-off in Affordable Housing Investments across Countries

Topic 6: A framework for “A Community Developers Affordable Build to Rent Design Guide”

Topic 7: Affordable Housing in Modular Building Technology: From research to design to community engagement

27

Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics

griffith.edu.au/gbs

CRICOS No. 00233E

Program

8:30 – 9:00 Registration

9:00 – 9:30 Welcome and Introduction Professor George Earl Adjunct Professor, Griffith University and Research Director, NAHC

9:30 – 10:00 Green Affordable Housing Policy Stefan MacAskill Griffith-NAHC PhD Student

10:00 – 10:30 Whole of Life Approach and Build-to-Rent Investments Prince Acheampong Griffith-NAHC PhD Student

10:30 – 11:00 Morning tea

11:00 – 11:30 Affordable Housing as an Infrastructure Asset Class: Public-Private Partnerships Investment Pathway Lee-Yun Chiang Griffith-NAHC PhD Student

11:30 – 12:00 An Analysis of Risk-Return Trade-Off in Real Estate Market Prabath Morawakage Griffith-NAHC PhD Student

12:00 – 12:30

A Community Developers Guide to Affordable Build to Rent Housing in Australia Malcolm Price Research Fellow, Griffith University

12:30 – 1:30 Lunch

1:30 – 2:00 Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: New Tools in Analysing Housing Affordability Jaliya Amarasinghe Griffith-NAHC PhD Student

2:00 – 2:30 Panel Discussion on PhD work Facilitated by: Mike Myers CEO, NAHC

2:30 - 3:00 Affordable Housing in Modular Building Technology: From research to design to community engagement Professor Joerg Baumeister Griffith University

3:00 – 3:10 Closing remarks Professor Fabrizio Carmignani Griffith University

28

Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics

griffith.edu.au/gbs

CRICOS No. 00233E

Abstracts

Green building, split-incentives and affordable rental housing policy: An Australian case study Stefen MacAskill Griffith-NAHC PhD Student Rising energy, water and gas costs exert financial pressure on low- and middle-income households who are often subjected to issues of split-incentives. The split-incentive problem concerns the lack of appropriate incentives for landlords to implement green building principles and associated utility efficiency measures for rental housing. We investigate the notion of capitalising on investments in utility efficiency within the context of affordable rental housing subsidy schemes; how associated utility savings offer a means to structure policy which mitigates for issues of split-incentives. An Australian case study is selected, representing a typical affordable housing development in Yeronga, Brisbane. From the design stage, two scenarios are analysed to determine the estimated household utility savings between a ‘Business as usual’ and ‘Green certified’ case. Over a 10-year rental tenancy, operational utility efficiencies, achieved through green building principles, are modelled to reduce total housing costs by 1.7- 3.8% (an average approximate savings of AUD $5-18 per week) for 1 and 4-person low-income households respectively. Over the building lifecycle, the net present value of the operational efficiency improvements are forecasted to be positive, signalling favourable support for policy interventions. The findings suggest that integrating green building principles reduce housing costs for tenants, particularly over time, and that incentives provided under government supported affordable housing policy offer an avenue for mediating for issues of split-incentives. Further, we examine how emerging sustainable financing mechanisms, such as green bonds, may offer synergies with future affordable housing policy changes.

Rethinking housing affordability based on ‘the whole of life approach’ Prince Acheampong Griffith-NAHC PhD Student Motivated by the family life-cycle theory of Modigliani and Brumberg (1954), we introduce a new approach, ‘the Whole of Life Approach’ to analyse housing affordability. We apply the approach in the Australian cities of Melbourne and Brisbane. Using data from CoreLogic on 12,000 private rental prices, as well as consumption and income data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2018, we found that housing affordability stress is not homogenous across the different stages of the life cycle. Our analysis reveals that bachelors and solitary survivors are the most burdened among all types of households in terms of housing affordability. Non-housing expenditure on food, transportation, education, and medical services are major contributors to housing affordability problems. We advocate that more government housing assistance policies be targeted at the vulnerable groups identified along the family life cycle.

29

Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics

griffith.edu.au/gbs

CRICOS No. 00233E

Affordable Housing as an Infrastructure Asset Class: Public-Private Partnerships Investment Pathway Lee-Yun Chiang Griffith-NAHC PhD Student The objective of the presentation is to present my research plan in a symposium to practitioners. The topic is affordable housing as an infrastructure asset focusing on public-private partnerships (PPPs) investment pathway. This study intends to enhance the understanding of project-based risk profiles faced by the government and institutional investors. In addition, it assesses the quantitative value-for-money of affordable housing. The methodology of the study includes public sector comparator (PSC), Monte Carlo simulation and discounted cash flow analysis. The findings of the research will provide an alternative investment pathway to inform housing affordability issues, particularly in increasing the institutional investment in the affordable housing sector. The PPPs model collaborates across the public sector, community housing provider sector and institutional investor sector in affordable housing delivery. Governments can benefit from the understanding of the compilation and calculation of risk-adjusted PSC, and the determination of value-for-money achievement. Community housing providers can benefit from the understanding of the project bundling process to reduce the procurement and transaction costs, resulting in achieving value-for-money. Institutional investors can benefit from the understanding of the compilation and calculation of the risk-adjusted net present value (NPV), and the understanding of the PPPs structure which can maximise the potential for superannuation funds to fully match their risk/return profile.

Affordable Housing Risk and Returns in a Responsible Investment Portfolio: Australia and the World Prabath Morawakage Griffith-NAHC PhD Student A major barrier to the expansion of affordable housing is the lack of large-scale private investments. Global sustainable investments which amounted USD 30.7 trillion in 2018 offer a potential source of funding for the much-needed affordable housing investments. Therefore, this study endeavours to demonstrate that affordable housing is a safe and sound investment that serves the need of socially responsible investors for assets that provide social impact and profitability. Employing recently developed and advanced econometric techniques such as panel ARDL models and downside risk measures, we examined the returns and risks of affordable housing in Australia with the data derived from Core-Logic during the period September 2009 to September 2019 after controlling for well-established factors that impact on risk and returns of housing. Results reveal that affordable housing has the highest downside protection compared to other real estate and ESG focussed investments. Returns of the sector is lower compared to the ESG and other public real estate investments. However, the annualized returns after adjusting rent yield is 5%-6% which is attractive to socially responsible impact investors. Moreover, there is a positive impact from land area and rent yield but a negative impact from housing lending rate and previous crime rate on the affordable housing returns in long-run. Crime rate, rent yield and housing lending rate have impacts on the returns of certain postcodes in short-run as well. Correlation results suggest that there is a huge potential for socially responsible and real estate investors to diversify their portfolios as ESG investments, other public real estate, and affordable housing returns are negatively correlated or not significantly correlated. Therefore, we conclude that the affordable housing as a safe asset class and it can be embedded in the portfolio of socially responsible investors.

30

Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics

griffith.edu.au/gbs

CRICOS No. 00233E

A Community Developers Guide to Affordable Build to Rent Housing in Australia Malcolm Price Research Fellow, Griffith University In 2018 NAHC identified both a need and opportunity for a Build to Rent design guide loosely based on The ULI UK Build to Rent Best Practice Guide, to serve the community housing sector in Australia. The UK guide and similar work in mainland Europe and multi family housing in the USA provides a good starting point, however these are mature markets and they have very different institutional housing support structures. This early outline of a guide is informed by: relevant overseas experience; the lack of current institutional support; regulatory complexity in Australia; the newness and undefined nature of affordable BtoR in Australia; and the relatively unsophisticated nature and smallness of the community housing sector as a housing developer. It starts with simple questions: Who is the best audience? What is the opportunity? How can the guide support this audience and opportunities? Key assumptions include: • The best opportunities for affordable BtoR

schemes are not yet understood within the Australian context and will primarily be defined by testing value propositions of different scales, locations and development types.

• Partnership is likely to be a key feature of affordable "build to rent" in Australia, including commercial and institutional partners, local and state governments and local communities.

• "Build to Rent" housing will be substantially different to previous housing development in Australia, principally, it will need to be customer facing, engage in place making, and be designed and managed for sustainability, durability and longevity.

This presentation is an outline of a proposed Build to Rent design guide including proposed tools for testing by the sector.

Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: New tools in analyzing Housing Affordability Jaliya Amarasinghe Griffith-NAHC PhD Student Over the last decade or so, there has been public concern over the crisis of housing affordability in major cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in Australia. The crisis of housing affordability has also been a dominant policy issue in some other developed countries such as the USA and Canada. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the area of real estate research has become a latest empirical attempt in most of parts in the world. However, there are no highly developed and mature contributions of AI in this area of research as these technologies are in their infant age. Industries all over the world are now changing their operations and processes to Machine Learning (ML) and AI technologies. Thus, policy analysts in real estate businesses also should consider in using these technological changes in computer technology. According to research currently being conducted, there are many areas such as Finding the Market Value of a Building (FMVB), Automatic Document Scanning (ADS), Predicting Long Term Value (LTV), Predicting Customer Lifetime Value (CLV), Image Recognition, Classification of Seller Score, Targeting Real Estate Markets, Predicting Where to Focus Marketing and Predict Zoning Developments which can be addresses using MI and AI. Therefore in future, ML and AI will dominate the real estate industry by providing customized services with higher efficiency and highly accurate predictions and forecasts with the ability to assist decision makers such as buyers, sellers, investors and government bodies.

31

Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics

griffith.edu.au/gbs

CRICOS No. 00233E

A special thanks to our sponsor:

Find out more:

For further information, please contact:

Associate Professor Richard Chung Phone: (07) 5552 8584 Email: r.chung@griffith.edu.au

Professor Eduardo Roca Phone: (07) 3735 7583 Email: e.roca@griffith.edu.au

32

Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics

griffith.edu.au/gbs

CRI

COS

No.

00

23

3E