Yeganeh, A; McCoy, A P; Reichard, G; Schenk, T and Hankey, S (2021) Green building and policy innovation in the US low-income housing tax credit programme. Building Research & Information, 49(5), pp. 543-560. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This article analyses the integration of green building with the largest low-income housing production programme in the US and the innovativeness of state housing agencies. Drawing on policy innovation literature, panel data and regression analysis are employed to quantify associations between state-level characteristics and the adoption of green building criteria into the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programme. Results show that housing agencies have increasingly adopted green building criteria, and most have identified co-benefits from energy-efficient buildings and smart growth. Despite overall progress, the rate of adoption of green building criteria has decreased, few US states have comprehensive criteria, and many have dropped important criteria, such as on-site renewable energy generation, often due to perceived additional costs to developers and, in some cases, due to perceived progress in building codes. Results are consistent with hypotheses derived from the literature and suggest that the integration of green building with the LIHTC programme is significantly associated with the states' internal factors, such as public housing agencies' motivations and resources, and external factors like regional policy diffusion from other states. Future research should explore organization-level factors that affect environmental policy innovation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy efficiency; green buildings; housing policy; innovation theory |
| Index terms: | innovation theory, motivation, programme, drawing, green building, integration, housing, building code, agency, environmental policy, low-income housing, energy efficiency, on-site renewable energy generation, housing policy, public housing, regression analysis, energy-efficient building |
| Subjects: | construction type, psychology, public policy, sustainability and energy, technical documentation, energy systems, theoretical framing, design practice, sustainable design, organizational analysis, housing and residential development, project controls, sociology, regulatory law, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Time Control, Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Sustainability, Governance, Construction Technology, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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