The Dutch government has set the goal for the Dutch housing stock to be independent of gas by 2050. The funding for the needed energy efficiency retrofits is a bottleneck in the process. Owner occupiers within condominium associations come across many barriers in the application process for funding. One of which is the lack of a well suited funding mechanism. If implemented right, building-bound financing may be the solution to the funding problems. Seeing as it is a non-existing type of funding. The following research question was used: What is needed for building-bound financing to be an operable funding for owner occupiers in Dutch condominium associations to support energy performance retrofits? With use of the Governance Assessment Tool and a stakeholder analysis, the current situation of condominium associations with respect to sustainability policy and funding are analysed. From there backcasting is used to depict what changes are needed for successful implementation of building-bound financing for owner occupiers in condominiums. A institutional structure along with a list of coordination problems is provided, to depict what is has to be arranged for building-bound financing. It was found that the problem entails more than a new funding mechanism is able to solve. Furthermore, it was found that an opt-out option for funding is also a possible solution for the problems found. Further research is needed into the operation of the structure and the societal support for it.

The construction industry plays an essential role in the provision of infrastructure and particularly housing. At the same time, because of its size and participation in the national economies, the improvement of the construction industry could generate long-lasting benefits for the society. However, the construction industry has failed to adapt to modern societal and technological challenges. Offsite construction is being proposed as a solution to some of the structural failures that inhibit change and adaptation of the construction industry. Even though offsite construction has been long considered as a solution, its uptake remains low. Public authorities can play a large role in incentivizing offsite construction through public policy and as major clients of built environment products. In this research, we intend to answer the question of: How can public policy instruments at national and local levels help to overcome the barriers for adoption of offsite manufacturing in the construction industry of the Netherlands?”. An exploratory case study of the conditions in the Netherlands was used to determine adoption barriers and possible roles that public authorities could have in incentivizing offsite construction. We found five barriers that affect the prospect of adoption of offsite construction but also affect the general innovativeness of the construction industry, and fifteen barriers that are offsite construction technology-specific. Based on key activities derived from innovations systems and transformational approaches to innovation policy, we proposed different roles that the government could assume in the process of incentivizing the adoption of offsite construction. Six possible roles and instruments were proposed to improve the innovativeness of the construction industry; Five possible roles and instruments to improve the adoption and uptake of offsite construction and; ten roles to improve the uptake of offsite construction and the provision of housing.

During the last decade, two developments on the Dutch housing market have received a lot of attention. One of these developments concerns the recovering house prices and specifically the strong price rises in cities. The other development is related to the growth of the private rental sector and particularly the buy-to-let market. This market consists of the private rental dwellings owned by reasonably small private landlords. These landlords predominantly buy owner-occupied dwellings to rent them out, hence the name buy-to-let. The growing buy-to-let market and the recent price rises have often been linked to each other. Some people claim that the buy-to-let landlords are driving up the house prices. Nevertheless, the relation between these two developments has not been properly studied yet for the Netherlands. Consequently, the objective of this study is to gain more insight in the Dutch buy-to-let market in general and specifically the relation between this market and the regional house price development. Mostly quantitative research methods are applied to answer this research question since especially quantitative information on the Dutch buy-to-let market is missing. House price models have for instance been made for Groningen, Breda and Zoetermeer. The research shows that the Dutch buy-to-let market is still quite small as the buy-to-let dwellings only comprise 5% of the total Dutch housing stock. By comparing the house price development of different municipalities with a varying share of buy-to-let, it can be seen that the recent house price increases are on average stronger for the municipalities with a high share of buy-to-let dwellings. It is however possible that these stronger increases are caused by other factors than buy-to-let. When comparing the results of the three regional house price models no big differences in the drivers are found. The results show that the determinants for the house price development are, despite the varying share of buy-to-let dwellings, in general the same for the three municipalities. Furthermore, a buy-to-let indicator could not explain some of the remaining unexplained variance. Based on these results, it can be concluded that none of the results actually point at an inflationary effect of buy-to-let investments. However, because only three municipalities were studied, no general conclusions can be drawn and the possible inflationary effect of buy-to-let landlords cannot be completely excluded.

The Dutch population is facing a housing crisis. This crisis has slowly been affecting housing options in the whole country, but it predominantly shows problems in the densely populated urban regions. In September 2021, approximately 15000 gathered in Amsterdam at a large housing protest: the Woonprotest. This research is an explorative case study to comprehend the pluriformity of ideologies and protest motives that came together at the Woonprotest. By means of a literature review, a photo analysis and qualitative interviews, the differences in housing ideologies and protest motives of the protesters are determined. Based on a literature review, the run-up to the housing crisis is reconstructed. A photo analysis determines the different types of protest attendees. By analysing the interviews, it appears that protesters clearly have three different ideologies when it comes to housing: communism, anarchism, and solving the crisis within the current system. However, the respondents’ opinions on actual policy changes are very similar, even when it comes to radical ideas. Considering the protest motives, the respondents have equivalent purposes to protest. Protesters want to express their discontent with the housing shortage and they want something to change after the protest. The results of this research helps the movement to get a grip on its supporters. Further research is needed to understand the implications of having strong differences in ideologies within the housing movement.

The shortage of housing stock in The Netherlands is one of the major societal issues at present. It is predominantly the people who want to enter the housing market for the first time, the so-called ‘starters’, who face severe problems due to a lack of stock and suitable dwellings. This problem is manifest in the rental as well as in the owner-occupied housing sector. The sole focus of government policies is on housing for the lower social class and the rest of the housing market is dominated by the private sector. Objective – This research aims to define the position of starters on the Dutch housing market in comparison with the position of starters in the context of 1993. The research question that is answered is: ‘To what extent do the factors societal context, housing policy and housing stock influence the opportunities for starters on the housing market in 2018 compared to 1993?’. This question is answered on the basis of the housing choice model. This model is based on the career / life cycle theory of Priemus (1984). In the housing choice model, an extension has been made based on the theory of Dieleman (2001) which takes the external factors that determine the choice of a home into account. Methods – The research is conducted by a literature study and a quantitative analysis. The quantitative analysis has been done on data generated from an extensive quasi longitudinal study. Specifically, the data of 1993 and 2018 were compared to each other. Results – The literature study and the quantitative analysis show that the starter on the Dutch housing market has a good social position in terms of income, education and employment. However, as housing policies failed to respond to the changed social context ultimately resulting in too few houses being built, the position of the starter has deteriorated. This deteriation position is confirmed by the data analysis, which indicates that starters conform to the market situation. Firstly, it is apparent that significantly fewer starters than in the past are entering the housing market. Secondly, starters are entering the market at a much older age than their predecessors. Finally, it is clear that starters in every age category are more likely to choose to live in multi-person households to increase their payment capacity. Conclusions – The final conclusion of this study is that the opportunities for the starter on the housing market in 2018 are mainly determined by the housing stock. However, the relative scarcity of housing stock for the starter is chiefly the result of housing policies which have not responded to societal changes. This implies that housing policy is ultimately the decisive factor in the disadvantageous position of the starter. The average starter has a good starting position from a social perspective due to low unemployment, very low interest rates and good prospects for social growth. However, the starter has minimal chances of entering the housing market due to, in particular, insufficient suitable housing stock. This applies to both the free rental sector and the owner-occupied sector and homes are hardly financially accessible for starters. This good starting position has mainly been confined to the lower rental and owner-occupied sector on the housing market in 2018. This means that starters are more likely to opt for a home in a relatively expensive segment or postpone the choice for a home.

In the Netherlands there is currently a high demand for affordable housing (Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke Ordening, 2022). Earlier research indicated modular integrated housing can serve as a repercussion against this problem (Khan et al, 2022). The Dutch government wants to promote innovation in the construction industry to help solve the housing shortage, but this industry has been described as traditional instead of being innovative (Abbot et al., 2006). Startups, though, are often linked with innovation (Colombo & Piva, 2008, De Groote & Backmann, 2020; Spender et al, 2017). However, when analyzing the Dutch housing construction industry and it’s challenges through the scope of Porter’s five forces (2008), which are the threat of new entrants, power of buyers, power of suppliers, threat of substitute products and rivalry between firms in the industry, it becomes clear that it is a difficult industry for startups to enter and become competitive. This is due to the barriers of entry (e.g. high fixed costs, volatility and access to clients), powerful buyers, and possible retaliation from competitors. Furthermore, innovation and partnerships play a significant role for startups to become competitive in this industry, as partnering with incumbent firms can help the startups overcoming the previously stated challenges linked with the house building industry. These type of partnerships between startups and incumbent firms are initiated because of a startup’s innovative capabilities and are a way for the larger firm to gain access to new business models, which is beneficial for the continuity of their own firm. However, due to their asymmetric nature, these partnerships could cause different types of challenges for managers of involved companies. In this research, the innovation strategies employed by the concept housing startups and their partners are analyzed to see how they plan to become competitive. This research is meant to help (future) startups of this industry, and to provide them with guiding principles on collaborating with incumbent firms. These principals are developed after an exploratory literature review and interviews with managers of concept housing startups and their partners already operating in the Dutch house building industry.

Housing affordability is a growing problem in the Netherlands. Approximately 15% of all households has a housing cost overburden rate (i.e. spending more than 40% of the household’s disposable income on the total housing expenses). This research explores a new way to contribute to housing affordability. Dwelling-generated revenue is introduced as umbrella concept to catch all potential ideas that may lead to revenue generated by a dwelling or its affiliated services that can be used to reduce housing expenses. A taxonomy of dwelling-generated revenue options is presented. Revenue options can be either object (i.e.: dwelling) or subject (i.e.: resident) bound. Object related revenues are selling a surplus of energy, third party compensation and (sub)letting. Subject related revenues are the monetization of in-home generated data and monetization of recyclable household waste. Through a multi-criteria analysis, in which five housing and innovation experts judged the revenue options, the most promising options are determined. The implementation of those options in the social housing sector is discussed, since most households with payment risks are found within sector.

This report analyzes the history of affordable housing policy decision making and the present system of affordable housing in the United States. At the same time, the cost efficiency of two affordable housing programs is calculated based on the federal affordable housing portfolio of the New York City Housing Authority. Cost efficiency and political and public support (which is also referred to as ideology in this research) are often conflicting goals. This report examines what affordable housing policy decisions have been based on and how cost efficient the two considered programs have been. The main research question is: “What has been driving federal affordable housing policy choices in the United States and how cost efficient have they been?” The information about the bases of past policy decisions and the cost efficiency of these programs over the years that this study provides can contribute to future policy decisions and make policy makers more aware of what their decisions are founded on. The history of affordable housing policies is an essential part to understand the current system. Both the history of affordable housing policies and current affordable housing programs are analyzed based on ideology. The cost efficiency study can be used to determine how cost efficient different housing programs – and thus affordable housing policies – have been. This study finds that cost efficiency has not played a significant role in decision making related to affordable housing policies in the United States, especially before the 1970s and 1980s; decisions have instead been based mainly on ideology. Over the years, affordable housing policies have moved from public-administered, project-based assistance to tenant-based assistance using the private market Since the 1970s, multiple cost efficiency studies have been conducted; however, they are self-admittedly disadvantageous towards public housing. The cost efficiency study conducted as part of this research concludes that public housing has been more than twice as cost efficient as housing provided through the federal government’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. It can thus be concluded that cost efficiency has not been a large part of affordable housing decision making, with housing policy decisions instead being driven mainly by ideology – which has resulted in decisions that are not necessarily cost efficient.

Traditional neo-classical economic theories are failing to explain the current situation in the Dutch housing market. There is a high demand for newly built owner-occupied dwellings, but the production is not increasing as quickly as expected. New Institutional Economics is offering explanations for this situation. The institutions in the development sector changed during the real estate crisis, which caused a disruption of the governance structures. There are still thresholds, even in this favourable time, to form new development alliances. Those thresholds are caused by serval reasons, like financing issues, capacity problems and an increased risk awareness of all the involved parties. Relations should be reinvented, and incentives for market parties should be created to invest early in the development process.