Kempton, J (2007) Mixed versus mono tenure estates: Is there a difference in asset management needs? In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2007, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
A research gap has been identified concerning the long-term maintenance (asset management) of Mixed Tenure Estates (MTEs). The research question is: Do MTEs have different asset management needs from mono tenure estates? The research methodology is based on a case study of a social housing provider, supported by semi-structured interviews. The analysis has shown that there are differences. Whilst the use of a single case study does not allow generalisation of the findings to the population of RSLs, it does raise several hypotheses for future investigation. Two of the main findings are a lack of inter-working between functional departments at the RSL, and the impact of different social characteristics on asset management issues. The research should be of interest to a wide audience including social housing, developers and urban researchers.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | asset management; maintenance; mixed tenure; social housing |
| Index terms: | interview, case study, asset management, population, investigation, research methodology, social housing, tenure |
| Subjects: | real estate economics, research design and methodology, data collection methods, asset management, housing and residential development, demography |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here