An effectiveness comparison between two different affordable housing provision approaches, Inclusionary Housing and Community Land Trust, through the cases of England. Which should be given a priority of public support?

This research looks at inclusionary housing approach and community land trust approach in parallel in order to compare the productivity in delivering affordable housing units, the durability and affordability of the produced affordable homes and the locational advantages initially the two approaches were chosen because both have gradually emerged in academia as alternative instruments for affordable housing provision during the last four decades since their inceptions in the United States and their first application practices in the 1970s. There is also a need to identify the pros and cons of each approach in order to allocate limited public resources to the best outcomes to achieve the original policy goals. For the comparison of the inclusionary housing approach and community land trust approach, England was chosen due to the geographical vicinity to visit for data collection and the availability of both approaches actively facilitated by the public bodies. For the productivity aspect, one rural jurisdiction, Cornwall Unitary County in the South West Region and one urban jurisdiction, Lambeth Borough in the London Region were chosen. For the aspect of durability of affordability, each tenure type, was linked to a disposal method of affordable homes, and was identified with each tenure type's computed formulae for model-based standardized calculation of each tenure type's appreciation rate. For the aspect of locational advantages, a total of two sites from each approach were chosen from the two fore-selected jurisdictions and each site's average distance to key facilities was measured. The inclusionary housing approach turned out to absolutely exceed the productivity of the community land trust approach. There are two reasons for this namely; one is because inclusionary housing is entailed by market developments. The stronger measure in order to make the provision of affordable homes sure is used in the case of the inclusionary housing approach. The other is because the inclusionary housing approach is made functioning by a combination of already existing strong institutions such as market-driven developers, housing associations and various funding sources. In the case of community land trust approach, supporting and implementing bodies have been developed in the recent years. In terms of the durability of affordability, the community land trust approach ensures a longer period of affordability, in other words there is a lower appreciation rate in general. Still, the inclusionary housing approach in practice might provide affordable homes at a low price than the community land trust approach. When there is a ceiling on rent appreciation which could work quite similarly with a resale covenant or other variables such as mortgage rate are taken into account, the durability and affordability of inclusionary housing might not be so much lower than community land trust. This result is based within the context of the English planning system which has relatively stronger regulations compared to the United States. In terms of the locational advantages of each approach's affordable homes, both approaches turned out having no significant difference. The location of the site is likely to depend on the scale of development, in other words, the number of built homes, rather than whether it is built by the inclusionary housing approach or by the community land trust approach. Yet, this can be generalized only in rural areas. In highly urbanized areas, even the scale of development does not make a significant difference because the main facilities for living are already spread across the area and well connected to each other. In a nut shell, the inclusionary housing approach is a stronger tool to enlarge the volume of production of affordable houses because it utilizes planning obligations borne by market developers for the production of affordable homes. Contrarily, the community land trust approach often lacks such an obligatory framework for getting access to land. Still, the community land trust approach can ensure long-term affordability in comparison with any other model by putting land out of the market. At the same time, locations of affordable housing sites depend on the accessibility of land through land use regulations and planning regulations which apply to the both approaches in general. In that sense, it could be recommended that the inclusionary housing approach be used as a tool to ensure the initial supply and community land trust approach as a tool to ensure the long-term affordability can better be combined and facilitated by the public in a mixed form.