发布时间 : 星期日 文章物业管理外文翻译文献编辑更新完毕开始阅读509d3be7370cba1aa8114431b90d6c85ed3a884e
programming (Zieba et al. 2013). Multiple studies show that green buildings often command higher rents and sales prices than conventional buildings(Eichholtz et al. 2010; Fuerst and McAllister 2011; Miller et al. 2008).
Property managers can also advise their clients about the advantages offered by environmentally-friendly leases. The provisions included in these leases impose few direct costs on real estate owners, while generating environmental benefits by requiring tenants to engage in sustainable behaviors such as using public transportation, composting or participating in recycling programs (Caulfield 2015). For example, a green lease could include an energy efficiency upgrade clause where tenants agree to have increased monthly rents to cover these costs. Besides the obvious environmental benefits, this can be mutually beneficial to the tenant and owner as the owner can receive a return on his or her investment and the tenant’s overall rental expenses can be lowered if the monthly energy savings are higher than the monthly rent increase (SPUR 2009).
Finally, third-party property management firms can work to ensure site managers and maintenance staff are appropriately trained in sustainable practices and procedures. Such training has been shown to effect the priorities of real estate practitioners, as well as their commitment to sustainability (Kyro¨ et al. 2012; Saha and Paterson 2008; Oladokun 2010). One way to implement this training is through an environmental management system (EMS). An EMS is a comprehensive environmental program addressing environmentaltraining, executive management support, teamwork, rewards, and empowerment while also documenting the process from commitment and policy to review and improvement (Daily and Huang 2001). An even more integrated method is to train staff on how sustainability measures impact financial performance. As more companies are seeing sustainable efforts increase revenue and decrease operating costs (Epstein and Roy 2003), a framework to implement sustainability into operations and decision making processes is helpful.
3.Housing industry barriers
The unwillingness to embrace new sustainable technologies continues to pervade
the housing industry (Pinkse and Dommisse 2009). One reason for this struggle stems from the fact that many technological activities are outsourced (Pinkse and Dommisse 2009). Furthermore, new technologies are not being embraced due to the qualitative attributes of some of these new technologies (Jaffe and Stavins 1994). For example, the hue of energy efficient lightbulbs can be less aesthetically pleasing than more traditional lightbulbs. Another reason for the lack of energy conservation technology adoption is the lack of information available (Jaffe and Stavins 1994; Pinkse and Dommisse 2009; Toole 1998). This lack of information can cause uncertainty.
Implementation costs also present a struggle in the residential building sector when deciding on sustainable initiatives implementation. The principal-agent problem remains persistent throughout the literature. Construction companies are hesitant to undertake the incorporation of energy-efficient technologies because the financial benefactor of lower utility bills are the end-users of the building, not the construction company (Farrell et al.2007; Jaffe and Stavins 1994). These challenges, coupled with the fact that many companies do not have the proper systems in place to evaluate the costs and benefits of sustainable building practices, compounds the problem (Epstein and Roy 2003).
Another major obstacle to sustainability adoption within the housing industry is skepticism regarding consumer demand. One reason for this skepticism is the lack of information provided to retailers and consumers regarding sustainability opportunities. From the retail perspective, knowledge on new sustainable products is needed just as much as existing conventional products in order to understand both options (Toole 1998). On the consumer side, educating homebuyers on the advantages and consequences of sustainable technologies can be helpful during the decision making process (Farrell et al. 2007; Pinkse and Dommisse 2009). Another cause for this obstacle is that consumers make decisions regarding sustainable features, such as energy use, based on more than just financial considerations. Consumers, no matter their income level, take into account the comfort and convenience versus strictly financial considerations when deciding on their energy use (Farrell et al. 2007). Furthermore, capital is often not available to the end user to invest in more efficient
technologies (Farrell et al. 2007).
4.Rental housing barriers
Along with the aforementioned barriers within the housing market, there are potential barriers to sustainability that are unique to the rental housing market. Lease provisions commonly used in the multifamily housing industry pose a problem because tenants are typically required to pay their own utility bills. This creates a disincentive for property owners to invest in things such as energy efficient appliances and fixtures because they do not realize a direct economic benefit from these investments unless tenants’ cost savings are fully capitalized into prevailing rental rates (Blumstein et al. 1980; Davis 2011; Klein et al. 2009; Economidou 2014).
Although sustainability actions impact customers’ decisions and therefore revenue (Epstein and Roy 2003), the multifamily housing market has been largely overlooked (Labanca et al. 2015). The typical shorter-term leases in multifamily housing (versus commercial buildings) prevent tenants from participating in sustainability programs (Cradduck and Wharton 2011).
Rental housing owners and managers may not realize the benefits of taking full advantage of greening measures (Carswell and Smith 2009). Uncertainty in implementation time and costs, long anticipated payback periods and tepid market demand for ‘‘green’’ apartments in some markets amplify these concerns (Kriese and Scholz 2011; Kyro¨et al. 2012; Miller and Buys 2008). In comparison to other property types, LEED certification of multifamily buildings can take approximately five extra months (Carswell and Smith 2009). Furthermore, managers believe that the economics of sustainable development clash with the environmental management (Bansal 2002) and the cost of sustainable buildings tend to be overestimated by building professionals (Kriese and Scholz 2011). While tenants recognize the benefits of sustainability, many are not willing to pay significantly more for it (Miller and Buys 2008). In the aggregate, these factors diminish the desirability ofsustainability initiatives in the rental housing industry, which may in turn discourage property managers from actively promoting such endeavors.
Another potential obstacle to sustainability is the lack of clear definitions and communicative frameworks to guide market participants. Real estate developers, property managers, owners, and tenants frequently have very different interpretations of what the term ‘‘sustainability’’ means from an environmental perspective (Evans and Jones 2008; Kriese and Scholz 2011; Priemus 2005). Information asymmetries of this type may encourage underinvestment in sustainable property management practices to the extent market participants revert back to service offerings with more clearly defined benefits.
5.Data and methodology
The data used to complete this study was collected through a series of interviews conducted with executives representing firms on the National Multifamily Housing Council’s (NMHC) list of the ‘‘50 Largest U.S. Apartment Managers’’ in 2015. The NMHC, whosemission is to provide insight, advocacy, and action in the multifamily sector, assists apartment industry leaders and the communities they serve. The NMHC compiles an annual list of the 50 largest managers in the United States by performing an annual survey. The 35 firms on the list offering third-party property management services comprise the population for the study at hand, as the objective of the research is to explore the perceptions of managers working in this capacity.
NMHC’s leadership graciously agreed to contact senior executives at these companies who were actively involved in the trade organization. This initial email correspondence included a summary of the research, an informed consent document for those interested in scheduling an interview, and an endorsement of the study’s value to the multifamily housing industry. Senior executives representing all of the firms in the population were then contacted directly by the research team via email and telephone to schedule interviews. A total of 25 firms agreed to participate in the research, which equated to a survey response rate of approximately 71 %. Interviewees included 11 CEOs/COOs, 8 executive/ senior vice presidents, and 6 vice presidents.
Semi-structured telephone interviews approximately 1 h in duration were