A global multidisciplinary network onhousing research and learning

WHAT IS THE ADDED VALUE OF PUBLIC RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAMME AS SOCIAL INNOVATION

Gojko BežovanFaculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Josip PandžićFaculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Bratislava, 25 September 2015 Second International Conference

SUMMARY

Zagreb’s public rental housing programme as social innovation

• Public rental housing programme in city of Zagreb has been created to meet the needs of young families with children who are not eligible for residual social renting housing and they can’t afford housing loans to buy appropriate flats.

• Private renting housing market in cities is a fate for majority of young families renting small and expensive housing units, mostly without contract and, being sub-tenants and almost socially excluded people.

• Public rental housing programme comes like innovation to meet pressing housing needs.

• Homeownership programme is not sustainable

Housing estate of Novi Jelkovec, Zagreb – Location in the City

Housing estate of Novi Jelkovec – Zagreb

Housing Tenure Structure in Zagreb 2001 – 2011

Housing tenure Households 2001.

275,464

Total percentage

100.0%

Households 2011.

303,441

Total percentage

100.0%

Homeownership222,697 80.8% 259,833 85.6%

Private renting 11,742 4.3% 15,010 4.9%

Social housing 9,630 3.5% 6,589 2.1%

Renting part of flats 2,630 0.8% 3,478 1.1%

Housing – relatives 23,375 8.5% 16,325 5.4%

Others 5,731 2.1% 2,160 0.7%

Housing market challenges

• Croatian economy in recession sixth consecutive year and lost 12.9% of GDP. Unemployment in 2014 was 17.3% . From 2008 to 2013 risk of poverty was from 17.3 to 19.5%. Budget deficit was 4.1% of GDP in 2014 and public debt reached 78% of GDP. Migration of young to the West.

• Demand for housing loans going down and estimations say that about 16% of housing loans are in repayment risk. Share of housing loans in GDP in 2014 is 18.3%.

• From 2009 to 2014 housing prices in country went down by 33.5% in Zagreb by 35.1%. Level of rent decreased, estimated by 25%.

• Housing loans in Swiss Franc, increased number of evicted families and now it is a public issue.

How does public rental housing programme reach target groups?

• Recent survey of 270 families conducted in this housing estate shows that before 64.8% were sub-tenants, and 21.9 living with parents. Households exposed to an uncontrolled and instable housing market of private renting sector and those living with families became tenants in affordable public rental housing.

• Previously, they lived in small and inadequate flats so their housing needs were not met

• Program turned out to be very efficient, successfully reaching target population

Level of quality of life

Research done is focused on the following variables to measure the impact of this social innovation on tenant’s welfare: (1) Objective (number of rooms, flat size and rent costs); and (2) Subjective (satisfaction with housing quality and safety; satisfaction with the neighbourhood environment and infrastructure)

Table 1: Comparison of housing conditions before and after entering the programme

Indicator Flat N M SD t p

Number of rooms Before 269 2.13 .96

-13.72 .000Now 269 3.11 .80

Size in m2Before 267 57.75 26.33

-14.390 .000Now 267 85.38 17.26

Rent costsBefore 182 1625.31 518.70

-1.964 .051Now 182 1700.65 246.20

Housing quality assessment

Before 268 5.67 2.16-9.740 .000Now 268 7.42 1.87

Satisfaction with environmental-infrastructural

factors

Before 262 23.15 4.63

-.810 .418Now 262 23.47 4.29

Indicator Housing N M SD T p

SafetyBefore 270 3.56 1.29

2.212 .028Now 270 3.33 1.26

Quality of green spaces or parks

Before 270 3.69 1.31-2.094 .037

Now 270 3.93 1.11

Environmental cleanliness

Before 270 3.69 1.062.572 .011Now 270 3.43 1.29

Privacy BeforeNow

270270

3.384.39

1.36.97 -9.588 .011

Table 2. Comparison of satisfaction with particular environmental-infrastructural indicators between former and present housing

• Differences regarding the satisfaction with environmental-infrastructural factors exist within the neighbourhood with regards to four housing blocks (A, B, C and D).

Table 3: Differences in level of satisfaction with environmental-infrastructural factors regarding housing blocks

Environmental-infrastructural factors Block N M SD F p

Safety

A 102 3.32 1.299

.889 .447B 53 3.09 1.244C 23 3.48 .994D 92 3.42 1.294

Quality of green spaces or parks

A 102 3.55 1.191

9.478 .000B 53 3.81 1.287C 23 4.26 .810D 92 4.33 .813

Environmental cleanliness

A 102 2.87 1.295

25.837 .000B 53 2.96 1.358C 23 4.13 .626D 92 4.14 .897

Housing estate of Novi Jelkovec with A, B, C and D housing blocks

Event Name

Coping with the crisis

• Part of the problem with which this population was dealing were related to housing costs; a big share of usually low-income households’ budget – especially if they were renting flats in the private rental market – was spent on housing costs while other needs regularly remained unsatisfied. These households still use various strategies of coping with high housing costs (Table 4).

• Part of tenants with lower education and with low income rent larger flats and they have problems with paying rent and living cost, not eligible for housing allowance (flat examples are following)

Table 5. Frequency distribution for strategies of coping with high housing costs

Coping strategiesYes No

f % f %Limit energy consumption 206 77.2 61 22.8Limit expenses for other needs 207 77.5 60 22.5Work overtime 124 46.3 144 53.7Spend our savings 62 23.7 200 76.3Sell assets 17 6.4 248 93.6Rent out part of flat 0 0.0 266 100.0Look for a cheaper flat 25 9.4 241 90.6Financial aid from family and friends 58 21.7 209 78.3Seek housing allowance 23 8.6 243 91.4Have additional jobs 93 34.8 174 65.2Bank loans 182 67.9 86 32.1Other 13 5.9 207 94.1

Big flat examples:

(1) 3-room flat – 100.03 m2 (2) 4-room flat – 134.57 m2

Event Name

Additional findings

With the purpose of better understanding the position of different families as users of this innovation we tested two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Tenants with lower education and lower income which live in larger flats have more complaints related to conditions and costs of housing.

The hypothesis has partly been confirmed that tenants with lower monthly income estimate housing costs as higher.

Hypothesis 2: Tenants who were previously rented smaller flats are more satisfied with housing conditions.

The hypothesis has partly been confirmed that they are more satisfied with the size of flats. Furthermore, they are more satisfied with facilities and the environment in this housing estate.

Conclusion (I)• With reaching target groups vulnerable on the housing market

(93%) this innovation fulfilled an important part of its mission.• The residents’ quality of life in public rental housing has been visibly

improved compared to their previous housing. They live in new, decent and sufficiently large flats with stabile contracts where they can control their life and make plans for their future.

• Stabile housing contract for five years means real social integration, demographic investment and contribution to social cohesion.

• As the housing estate where they live is still in construction, the level of the quality of life in that respect is partly reduced. However, inside this housing estate the quality of life differs in terms of green spaces, parks and a clean environment.

• During the crisis households with a lower income have been threatened with a rather high rent and high living costs. They cope with these challenges mostly by limiting other expenses for other needs and consumption of energy, borrowing from banks and making more money.

Conclusion (II)• In terms of internal organisation and mode of working,

the innovation is rather stabile and only a marginal number of tenants terminated contracts and left housing. There is more room for the interaction of this innovation with the local welfare system.

• As output, this innovation made affordable decent housing for vulnerable social groups. The residents' wellbeing and quality of life have been enhanced and this is the outcome of this innovation. The innovation addressed the vital needs and enabled beneficiaries to plan their future – contributing thus to social integration, active citizenship and strengthened social cohesion - which is considered as the impact of the innovation. In that way this innovation has clear contour of social investment project.

This project is funded with support from the European Commission (Project number 539369-LLP1-2013-1-ES-ERASMUS). This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

If you would like more information about the content of this presentation please contact:

info@oikonet.org[gojko.bezovan@pravo.hr]

[jpandzic@pravo.hr]

or visit our web site

www.oikonet.org