Health and social impacts of exposure to mould-affected housing in Australia: a qualitative study
Maria Rosa Gatto A * , Ang Li A Rebecca Bentley AA
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the experiences of Australian residents living in mould-affected homes; the perceived physical and mental health effects of indoor mould exposure; and personal, social, and institutional barriers to remediation of homes affected by mould.
Using a multi-method approach, this study combined analyses of data from semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted in Melbourne (n = 11) with open-ended responses to a large national household survey on mould exposure in Australia (N = 598) to explore people’s direct experiences of living in mould-affected housing. Findings are presented as a narrative description.
Participants reported mould exposure to be associated with poor physical health, including respiratory and allergic symptoms and exacerbation of chronic illness. Participants also reported detrimental effects on their mental wellbeing, reporting anxiety, stress, decreased self-esteem, and decreased feelings of safety. Numerous barriers to remediation were identified, including a lack of knowledge of appropriate actions, costs, and time needed to arrange and/or conduct remediation works. Residents of the rental sector faced additional challenges, including dependence on the quality of landlord–tenant relations and lack of effective policy enforcement.
These findings support a policy focus on initiatives to assist rental tenants who have mould in their homes and to provide more information to homeowners on strategies for mould removal. The study underscores the need for better regulatory mechanisms to enforce minimum standards for buildings and for health assessments and treatments to consider indoor mould exposure.
Keywords: Australia, free-text responses, housing, housing remediation, landlord–tenant relations, mould, qualitative study, rental housing, semi-structured interviews.
Introduction
Damp and mould-affected housing can have a profound impact on health, as outlined in the World Health Organization’s housing and health guidelines,1 contributing to the onset and exacerbation of asthma, allergic symptoms, and respiratory infections.2,3 Increasing evidence additionally suggests that mould may be associated with poorer mental health, though the extent of and reason for that association remains unclear.4,5 In extant qualitative studies, dampness and mould are often characterised as contributors to poor health, particularly if there are delays in necessary repairs.6,7 Remediation of mould-affected homes may ameliorate these adverse health effects.8 Although no study has focused on the effects of mould remediation in terms of mental health, evidence from housing renewal studies suggests that remediation of housing problems improves mood and decreases psychological distress.9,10
In Australia, it is thought that a large proportion of the childhood asthma and allergy burden is due to damp housing and mould.11 However, the prevalence of mould in Australian homes is inconclusive, with considerable variation across studies and reports, ranging between 10 and 50% of homes that are estimated to be affected by mould.12 Awareness of the adverse health effects of mould exposure has increased in recent years, and most Australian states have passed reforms that address mould in rental properties. For example, the Victorian Government amended the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and passed the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021, which state (i) rental properties must be free from mould and damp related to the building structure; (ii) rental providers must disclose to new tenants whether there have been reports of damp and mould caused by structural factors; and (iii) mould or damp related to the building structure needs urgent repair to be done as soon as possible.13,14 However, building regulations have not yet been updated to provide guidance on mould prevention and remediation.15
Universal rather than targeted strategies are warranted to ensure that homes are fit for purpose and do not pose a health risk to their inhabitants. Although people with existing allergies to mould or pre-existing conditions are particularly at risk of health harms from mould exposure, its adverse effects have been observed in healthy populations.1 To provide guidance for households and housing practitioners, it is important, therefore, to better understand how people experience mould in their homes and what they identify as barriers to remediation. However, few qualitative studies exist that capture the experiences of people living with mould and the barriers they face to remediation relative to their housing circumstances. This evidence is required to inform the implementation of public health responses. Previous studies on housing improvement have found that lack of information and knowledge,16 cost,17 inadequate regulation,18 and imbalanced landlord–tenant power dynamics,19 may lead to health hazards and homes not being remediated. More research is needed to support an increased focus on the remediation of mould-affected homes as a preventive health measure.
To address the gap in our understanding of how people are affected by, respond to, and deal with mould in their homes, this study aimed to capture the experiences of residents living in mould-affected housing in Australia and explore the health and social effects of exposure to indoor mould and unhealthy housing.
Materials and methods
We followed a multi-method approach. Interviews were conducted first to attain an in-depth description of Melbourne residents’ experiences, and subsequently, a survey of a national population was analysed to determine how broadly the themes identified in the interviews applied to identify potential missing themes or issues. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted via web conferencing during June and July 2022 with 11 participants who indicated, in the recruitment survey of a mould measurement validation study,20 that they were willing to engage with further studies. All participants who agreed to participate were included in the study. Participants were not provided with any incentive to participate. Present at each interview were the first author and the interview participant. Participants gave written and verbal informed consent to participate and for the interviews to be audio-recorded. The interview guide (see Supplementary Table S1) was pre-determined and pilot-tested with a small group of non-participants before commencing the interviews to ensure that questions were clear and comprehensible to people not part of the research team. Interviews lasted 20 min on average. To provide a broader understanding of the health and social consequences of residential exposure to mould and dampness and to gain further insight into the experiences of those living in mould-affected housing across Australia, 598 free-text responses from the recruitment survey, answering the question, ‘Is there anything you would like to add about dampness and mould in your home?’, were collated and analysed.20 In this recruitment survey, participants were also asked to subjectively rate the severity of the mould exposure in their home, with the question, ‘How would you rate any overall mould problems in your dwelling?’. Additional data collected in the recruitment survey included sociodemographic information (e.g. postcode, weekly income, gender, age, employment), housing type and build characteristics, location of the reported mould, frequency of habits that prevent or promote mould growth, health problems related to mould, residential tenure, and home structure (e.g. share house, couple only, family home).
Given our focus on residents’ experiences and perceptions of mould-affected housing and, therefore, the underpinning phenomenological theoretical framework, a process of codebook thematic analysis was used to make sense of the data.21 Codebook thematic analysis sits between inductive and deductive qualitative analysis methods, centring around the development of a coding frame.21 The questions in the interview guide functioned as a coding frame comprised of anticipated themes in which to loosely categorise sections of the interview transcripts. Sub-themes were then identified within each overarching code. Each transcript or response was read and coded multiple times until saturation was deemed to have been achieved, defined as the point when no new themes have been uncovered.22 Free-text responses were coded thematically according to the coding framework, allowing for new sub-themes to be added as they arose. Due to the similarity in sub-themes between interview transcripts and open-ended survey responses, plus our overall aim of capturing all issues mentioned, the results have been synthesised together as a narrative description.
Results
Table 1 presents the distribution of the sociodemographic characteristics of the 598 respondents in the free-text response section of the recruitment survey. Table 2 describes the 11 interview participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Both samples were predominantly comprised of females aged 25–44 years who either rented privately or were paying off a mortgage.
Variable | Category | n (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Australian state/territory | ACT | 10 (1.7) | |
NSW | 259 (43.3) | ||
NT | 1 (0.2) | ||
Qld | 56 (9.4) | ||
SA | 17 (2.8) | ||
Tas | 13 (2.2) | ||
Vic | 232 (38.8) | ||
WA | 10 (1.7) | ||
Mould severity | None | 38 (6.4) | |
Mild | 199 (33.3) | ||
Moderate | 199 (33.3) | ||
Severe | 130 (21.7) | ||
Unsure | 32 (5.4) | ||
Housing tenure | Outright owner/joint owner | 50 (8.4) | |
Owner with mortgage | 157 (26.3) | ||
Private renter | 330 (55.2) | ||
Public renter (e.g. government-owned housing/privately owned community housing) | 42 (7.0) | ||
Other | 14 (2.3) | ||
Unsure | 5 (0.8) | ||
Gender | Female | 443 (74.1) | |
Male | 121 (20.2) | ||
Other | 24 (4.0) | ||
Prefer not to say | 10 (1.7) | ||
Age (years) | 18–24 | 21 (3.5) | |
25–34 | 168 (28.1) | ||
35–44 | 224 (37.5) | ||
45–54 | 103 (17.2) | ||
55–64 | 57 (9.5) | ||
65–74 | 18 (3.0) | ||
75–84 | 2 (0.3) | ||
Other | 5 (0.8) |
ACT, Australian Capital Territory; NSW, New South Wales; NT, Northern Territory; Qld, Queensland; SA, South Australia; Tas, Tasmania; Vic, Victoria; WA, Western Australia.
Pseudonym | Age range (years) | Housing type | Tenure | Reported mould level | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aiden | 25–34 | Apartment | Renter | Severe | |
Allison | 25–34 | House | Renter | Severe | |
Caroline | 35–44 | Apartment | Renter | Mild | |
Christine | 45–54 | Unit | Owner with mortgage | Mild | |
Ellen | 35–44 | Unit | Owner with mortgage | Mild | |
Gina | 45–54 | House | Outright owner/joint owner | Mild | |
Kate | 35–44 | House | Owner with mortgage | Mild | |
Liam | 25–34 | Apartment | Renter | Past exposure | |
Lily | 25–34 | Apartment | Renter | Moderate | |
Linda | 35–44 | House | Owner with mortgage | Severe | |
Tom | 25–34 | House | Renter | Moderate |
Extent of mould
Respondents described varying levels of mould contamination in their homes when elaborating in free-text responses and interviews. Interview respondents who rated the level of mould in their home as mild generally described mould that was limited to one area, commonly the kitchen, bathroom, or windows. Participants who reported moderate cases of mould described mould spread across multiple rooms, such as the bedrooms or main living area. The most severe cases of reported mould generally spanned most or all rooms in the home.
In numerous cases (42 free-text responses, 5 interview respondents), mould had transferred to and damaged possessions, including furniture, clothing, shoes, and keepsakes. Some participants were unable to replace these items due to the cost:
…we’ve had a wooden chest of drawers have mould, white mould, grow along the sides and back, where it was against a wall… replacing items is financially difficult, so we’ve just cleaned it to the best of our ability. – Caroline (private renter)
Causes of residential mould
Participants identified four categories of circumstances that they perceived to have caused the mould in their homes (Table 3). These categories were structural problems, climatic conditions, human behaviour, and causative incidents, such as a burst pipe or indoor flooding event.
Cause of mould | n free-text responses (%) | n interviewees (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Structural | 180 (76) | 11 (100) | |
Behavioural | 5 (2) | 4 (36) | |
Climatic | 39 (17) | 0 (0) | |
Causative incident | 12 (5) | 0 (0) | |
Total number of responses regarding mould causation | 236 (100) | 11 (100) |
Note: interviewees mentioned multiple categories of causative factors.
A large proportion of participants (all 11 interview participants and 180 free-text responses) identified a structural problem with their dwelling, which provided the conditions required for mould growth. Inadequate ventilation was a common issue, leading to a build-up of condensation and moisture in the affected homes. Many properties did not have fans in bathrooms, laundries, or stove rangehoods. Some extraction fans were improperly installed or not powerful enough for their purpose. Five interview respondents and more than 30 free-text responses reported a lack of, non-functional, or weak extraction fans in the bathroom and kitchen, which they pointed to as a cause of the mould:
We don’t have any extraction fans… all the humidity just goes into the bedroom, even with the windows open. – Lily (private renter)
The build-up of condensation, especially in winter, was mentioned frequently as a cause of mould (35 free-text responses mentioned condensation). In particular, homes built for energy efficiency were described as too airtight to prevent mould growth:
…my apartment is so airtight that a lot of moisture develops…There is always so much condensation on the windows when we wake up every day during winter. It drips. – Free-text response (owner-occupier)
Also common in the responses was the presence of water intrusion (e.g. roof leaks, seepage through walls, leaking showers/taps/water heaters) due to improper maintenance. Examples of maintenance problems that caused water intrusion included improperly maintained plumbing, improper installation and maintenance of drainage systems, and repairs completed by a property owner instead of a qualified tradesperson. Three interview participants and 61 free-text responses mentioned leaks and water ingress as a cause of mould, often coupled with other structural problems. One interview participant described the source of the water intrusion and subsequent mould as ‘an actual swamp’ below the floor of their home. Other structural causes included the use of porous building materials conducive to mould growth, carpets that got damp and held onto mould spores, and poorly built or maintained plumbing.
Human behaviours were reported less frequently as a cause of mould growth compared with structural problems; they were mentioned by four interviewees and five free-text responses. These behaviours included drying clothes indoors, not using the extractor fan, not using a dehumidifier, and opening windows infrequently. However, some participants accepted that cleaning and living habits were a potential cause of mould growth:
…the sunroom is where I have the clothes airer… all of the damp from the clothes is going into the air. – Kate (owner-occupier)
These participants mentioned that they lacked knowledge about mould prevention. Nonetheless, these behavioural causes of mould growth were commonly due to structural factors. People who reported drying clothes indoors, for example, reported that there was nowhere appropriate to line dry clothes, they did not own a clothes dryer, and/or they could not afford to run a clothes dryer due to energy costs. One free-text response explained that the reason for not running the bathroom extractor fan was due to the fan’s attachment to the overhead light, which caused them sensory issues.
Thirty-nine free-text responses identified climatic conditions as the cause of the mould. Primarily, the humid and rainy conditions caused by the La Niña phenomenon in Australia in 2022 were reported as a primary driver of mould growth, with respondents describing La Niña as ‘the absolute worst period for mould,’ due to ‘multiple weeks with nonstop rain’. Respondents living in more humid regions of Australia, such as Queensland, characterised the climatic conditions as a consistent cause of the mould in their home, expressing that ‘the mould is not completely surprising’.
Physical health effects
Ninety-seven free-text responses and six interview respondents stated that symptoms of poor physical health emerged or were exacerbated while living in mould-affected housing (Table 4). Common reports included asthma and respiratory and allergic symptoms. One interviewee reported a ‘really strong metallic taste… stomach-aches, headaches, dizziness’ after moving into a mould-affected home. Several free-text responses described ‘mould illness’ or ‘toxic mould syndrome’, characterised by non-specific symptoms, such as headache and fatigue. Adults with chronic health conditions expressed concern about the potential for mould to exacerbate symptoms.
Physical health symptom | n (%) of free-text mentions | n of interview mentions (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
General poor health | 29 (30) | 2 (33) | |
Respiratory/allergic | 29 (30) | 2 (33) | |
Chronic inflammatory response syndrome/mould illness | 17 (18) | 1 (17) | |
Child health | 9 (9) | 1 (17) | |
Infections | 5 (5) | 0 (0) | |
Chronic illness exacerbation | 8 (8) | 0 (0) | |
Total mentions | 97 (100) | 6 (100) |
The health of children was of particular concern to parents, who attributed many child health concerns to mould in the home:
…I have a child who’s asthmatic and they required daily medication, had hospital admissions… clearly linked to the issues with that particular house, and the difficulty eradicating the mould or managing it. – Caroline (private renter)
Participants without reported chronic health conditions also described a variety of allergy-related symptoms they attributed to mould exposure, such as ‘chronic/intermittent sore throats/coughs, headache and fatigue’.
Participants believed that remediation or moving out of their current dwellings to an unaffected property would resolve their symptoms, with one participant stating that they ‘feel a lot healthier’ since moving out of a house with severe mould. Moving out of the home was often deemed the only option to relieve the health problems they reported, since they were ‘just not prepared to keep on jeopardising [their] health to live here’.
Mental health effects
Many participants (67 free-text responses and all 11 interview participants) reported that living in a mould-affected home adversely affected their mental wellbeing or expressed distress about the mould. Respondents described living in a mould-affected house as emotionally distressing, with several participants describing symptoms of anxiety and depression attributed to their living situation:
Today I was just sitting at work… nearly in tears thinking about all of the stuff that I had to do to resolve the issue. – Allison (private renter)
One renter stated that ‘having the mould there really takes away from that feeling of having a nice normal clean home’. Another renter stated that ‘you end up kind of internalising it’ and that the lack of action by the property manager led to the feeling that they did not deserve a healthy home. Some participants felt helpless, particularly in the case of lower-income renters since ‘the properties that are within your price range tend to be more run-down or have more structural issues,’ which limited their ability to rent out a mould-free home.
Barriers to remediation
Participants described significant barriers to the remediation of their homes (Table 5). The most common barrier reported was a lack of knowledge about managing mould. Participants expressed the desire for clear, consistent information:
You’d read…vinegar is the best thing to use, and then…no, vinegar can make other types of mould grow…what do I actually use? – Ellen (owner-occupier)
Barrier | n (%) free-text mentions | n (%) interview mentions | |
---|---|---|---|
Pushback from rental providers/property managers | 125 (75) | 6 (55) | |
Recurrence of mould after remediation | 19 (11) | 1 (9) | |
Lack of knowledge about how to fix mould problems | 14 (8) | 5 (45) | |
Cost of repairs | 6 (4) | 3 (27) | |
Inability to access the mould | 2 (1) | 1 (9) | |
Refusal by tradespeople to fix a problem | 0 (0) | 2 (18) | |
Total mentions | 166 (100) | 11 (100) |
Note: some interview respondents mentioned multiple barriers.
Both owner-occupiers and renters mentioned several physical barriers that prevented them from fixing the problem. These physical barriers included the nature of mould (‘a semi-invisible enemy that can grow in places that you don’t check’ – Liam, private renter), the feasibility of permanently removing the mould (‘it always comes back’ – free-text response, owner-occupier) and accessing the area where the mould is growing (‘trying to get right up to that back corner… that’s been really tricky’ – Ellen, owner-occupier).
When trying to organise remediation works, participants’ interactions with tradespeople were generally characterised as unproductive, and some contractors refused to fix the structural causes of the mould. One owner-occupier speculated that ‘the inconvenience and the cost’ was the reason for the refusal to fix the underlying cause of the mould.
For owner-occupiers, the cost of having work done was presented as a significant barrier. One interviewee reported spending A$15,000 in remediation costs, which was of particular concern, since they had just bought the house ‘after years of saving’. Additionally, one owner-occupier expressed frustration that a repair that may be classed as urgent for renters (such as mould) is not treated the same for homeowners, who ‘have to fight [their] own battle’ where structural defects were the cause of the mould. However, cost was also mentioned by renters as a potential reason why their landlords had not arranged necessary repairs.
Barriers specific to private renters
For renters, the most common barrier was their landlords’ unwillingness to fix the underlying cause of the mould. Landlords either refused or ignored repair requests or organised short-term solutions, that did not address the root cause, so the mould returned:
… as soon as they claim responsibility I guess they have to do something. – Tom (private renter)
Landlords also often tried to rationalise the issue as something for which they are not liable so that they would not have to bear the financial responsibility for remediation:
[the landlord] walked to every room where there’s black mould on the ceiling like it’s freaking [the television show] ‘Stranger Things’ and she’s like ‘oh, a little bit of mould in winter, it’s very normal…’ – Allison (private renter)
Renters suggested several ways in which established tenancy laws do not protect renters’ interests, such as the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism of minimum standards, and the difficulties of bringing a case to the tribunal. Tribunals were described as ‘so overworked’, and the work required to gather evidence was ‘so immense’ that it was considered infeasible to try to obtain compensation. Participants felt that they needed more legal support:
I think tenants need more rights in being able to move out when a property is mouldy… support for possessions… support for their health that suffered, and… penalties and restrictions on what landlords can do… – Aiden (private renter)
Participants felt that, despite the presence of legislation meant to protect renters, landlords and property managers found ways to circumvent the regulations:
I’m inclined to believe that landlords and real estate agents will still try to rent out properties with these issues… it would be great if there was some kind of ‘rent worthy’ certificate… to demonstrate that the property has been inspected, to identify any structural issues that might affect the tenant’s health and wellbeing… before it’s even able to be advertised. – Caroline (private renter)
Participants felt that the current state of the rental market put tenants in a volatile situation, since the landlord may evict them ‘find a way to kick [them] out or not extend [their lease]’ or give them a bad rental record if they raised any issues. The potential of having to find a new home in a precarious housing market was a further deterrent:
Finally, some private renters described illegal or unethical behaviour by landlords to deflect responsibility for mould problems. These included telling their tenants to move out if they were dissatisfied, threatening eviction, denying their duty to repair, and increasing rent:
…at the beginning of this tenancy, before we picked up the keys we were asked to sign a form stating that mould is caused by tenants, and that it’s our responsibility not to allow condensation to form, and while I know that that’s not really our fault, because I’ve lived in many properties that don’t have mould issues, I kind of feel a bit powerless and quite anxious because I need somewhere to live… in that case I had to sign, I felt like I had to… so I had somewhere to live. – Caroline (private renter)
Barriers specific to public/community renters
Renters living in government-owned housing (i.e. public housing) or privately owned community housing faced similar problems to private renters, expressing difficulties in getting a response from their housing provider and describing similar illegal/unethical practices by housing providers:
Once I was threatened with roof repair costs for a responsibility of theirs. – Free-text response (public renter)
Discussion
This qualitative analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of the impacts of living in a mould-affected home, beyond the established physical health effects, and the factors that may impede people’s ability to remediate their home or prevent mould exposure.
Evident in respondents’ testimonies was the health burden of living in a mould-affected home. Many participants reported allergic and respiratory symptoms, in line with the findings of numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses.3,23–27 However, although some symptoms are corroborated by current scientific consensus, some respondents reported symptoms and conditions, such as chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS), that are not recognised as sequelae of mould exposure. Indeed, other diagnoses may explain non-allergic illness reportedly induced by mould.28 Given this finding, more thorough research into the health effects of mould exposure as well as the public’s beliefs about the effects of mould exposure is warranted. Nonetheless, given the strong link between mould exposure and respiratory and allergic symptoms, providers should assess mould exposure when evaluating patients with these symptoms. Chew et al.29 provide advice on determining when a home assessment for mould exposure is needed. This resource can aid practitioners in advocating for their patients, particularly if the patient lives in rented housing and has less control over structural housing conditions.
These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the mental health impacts of residential mould exposure. Participants in this study characterised living in mould-affected housing as distressing, often due to factors outside of their control. In previous qualitative and quantitative studies, damp housing has been characterised as a contributor to poor mental health.4,5 Given the mental health burden described by patients in this study, providers should also consider housing as a stressor when evaluating patients’ mental health. However, there is a clear need for more research to better quantify and understand this link.
Residents’ desire for healthy housing is shown in their efforts to remove mould, remediate their homes, or move out of their current housing. The study documents many barriers that prevented participants from doing so. Participants cited a lack of information on how to protect against mould growth as a source of stress. Conversely, in a previous study, poorer knowledge correlated with less concern.30 The cost was additionally identified as a barrier. Indeed, remediation can cost a considerable amount, according to two trials of mould remediation.17,31 Nonetheless, having resources and education about mould were not inherently enablers to remediation, as described in this study. Indeed, in Australia, the construction industry’s knowledge of mould is low and construction codes are not in line with current knowledge of mould prevention and remediation.32 Therefore, education, training, and incentives for tradespeople to remove mould may be an effective intervention.
The present study describes the different ways in which landlords abdicate responsibility for mould-related repairs. The problems described accord with previous research, which has found that landlords are a barrier to the remediation of problems in rental properties.8,33,34 Tenants additionally felt that the existing regulatory framework for tenancies is not set up to protect or benefit them and that requesting repairs may have adverse consequences, such as eviction or a bad rental record. These grievances were despite the passing of new residential tenancy regulations in most Australian states, suggesting an incongruence between the law and its enforcement.
The study has limitations, that should be acknowledged. The study is not nationally representative. The sample of survey respondents was comprised mostly of renters, with 55% reporting renting through a private landlord. Although this may suggest that private renters are more affected by mouldy housing compared with other housing tenures, it limits the generalisability of our results, particularly to those of less represented tenures, such as those in government or social housing, which comprised only 7% of the sample in the survey and who were not represented by any of the interviewees.
This study emphasises the need for intervention and better regulation of both rental providers and building standards. Evidence from housing interventions outside of Australia shows the health benefits of remediating homes to reduce the proliferation of dampness and mould. The Healthy Housing Initiative in Aotearoa New Zealand, assesses homes of children and pregnant people at risk of health problems from mould and provides a tailored intervention, including advice on issues such as ventilation, advocacy to landlords on behalf of renters, and referral to other services.35 Beneficiaries of this program have reported reduction or eradication of mould and better physical and mental health among the benefits of the intervention.35 A similar program in Australia may provide similar benefits; however, renters’ health needs to be protected further through, for example, a mandated rental warrant of fitness, whereby trained independent assessors inspect homes and ensure that all minimum standards are met before a home can be rented out.36
Moreover, current guidelines and legislation would benefit from further clarification. While the National Construction Code37 stipulates requirements for extraction fans in bathrooms, for example, the enforcement mechanism is unclear. Moreover, while the Victorian Residential Tenancies Act 1997 states that rental properties must have adequate ventilation, it does not define what ‘adequate ventilation’ is.13 Similarly, the Act states that the home must be free from mould and damp ‘caused by or related to the building structure’,13 which leaves ambiguity around what counts as a structural cause of mould. Ambiguity in the interpretation of these regulations can allow rental providers to abrogate their responsibility for fixing a mould problem. Rental regulations in all states would benefit from in-depth clarification and definition of what is covered under minimum standards.
Our study proposes important tasks for future research, the first of which is targeted qualitative research of social housing residents and older adults, who were underrepresented in this study. The second related task for future research is to examine why landlords are unwilling to engage in remediation works when they are warranted. Finally, it is important for future studies to examine patterns of exposure to dampness and mould, and to further investigate the health effects, to inform future interventions.
Conclusions
The proliferation of mould in homes has become of increasing concern, as more evidence emerges about the potential health effects of residential mould exposure. Using qualitative, semi-structured interviews and free-text survey responses, this study sought to capture some of the complexity attached to living in a mould-affected home. The findings of this study support the implementation of initiatives to provide households and housing providers with more information on mould and to support rental tenants to understand their options for action within their specific regulatory context.
Data availability
Due to ethical concerns/commercial restrictions, supporting data cannot be made openly available. The authors can provide further information about the conditions for access.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of funding
This research was conducted with funding support from the University of Melbourne Early Career Researcher Grant awarded to AL.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the survey respondents and interview participants in this study for their contributions and time.
Author contributions
MRG: Conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. AL: Conceptualisation, methodology, resources, writing – review and editing, supervision. RB: Conceptualisation, methodology, resources, writing – review and editing, supervision.
References
1 World Health Organization. WHO housing and health guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. 149 p. Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/276001 [cited 24 August 2023].
2 Shorter C, Crane J, Pierse N, Barnes P, Kang J, Wickens K, et al. Indoor visible mold and mold odor are associated with new-onset childhood wheeze in a dose-dependent manner. Indoor Air 2018; 28(1): 6-15.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
3 Caillaud D, Leynaert B, Keirsbulck M, Nadif R. Indoor mould exposure, asthma and rhinitis: findings from systematic reviews and recent longitudinal studies. Eur Respir Rev 2018; 27(148): 170137.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
4 Gatto MR, Li A, Bentley R. A state-of-the-science review of the effect of damp- and mould-affected housing on mental health. (in press). Environ Health Perspect 2024; 132: 086001.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
5 Brooks SK, Patel SS, Weston D, Greenberg N. Psychological effects of mould and damp in the home: scoping review. Hous Stud 2023; 323-45.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
6 Boomsma C, Pahl S, Jones R, Fuertes A. “Damp in bathroom. Damp in back room. It’s very depressing!” exploring the relationship between perceived housing problems, energy affordability concerns, and health and well-being in UK social housing. Energy Policy 2017; 106: 382-93.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
7 Holding E, Blank L, Crowder M, Ferrari E, Goyder E. Exploring the relationship between housing concerns, mental health and wellbeing: a qualitative study of social housing tenants. J Public Health 2020; 42(3): e231-8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
8 Sauni R, Uitti J, Jauhiainen M, Kreiss K, Sigsgaard T, Verbeek JH. Remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould for preventing or reducing respiratory tract symptoms, infections and asthma (Review). Evid-Based Child Health Cochrane Rev J 2013; 8(3): 944-1000.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
9 Blackman T, Harvey J. Housing renewal and mental health: A case study. J Ment Health 2001; 10(5): 571-83.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
10 Gilbertson J, Grimsley M, Green G. Psychosocial routes from housing investment to health: Evidence from England’s home energy efficiency scheme. Energy Policy 2012; 49: 122-33.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
11 Knibbs LD, Woldeyohannes S, Marks GB, Cowie CT. Damp housing, gas stoves, and the burden of childhood asthma in Australia. Med J Aust 2018; 208(7): 299-302.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
12 Coulburn L, Miller W. Prevalence, Risk Factors and Impacts Related to Mould-Affected Housing: An Australian Integrative Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19(3): 1854.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
13 Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic). Version 107, effective 18/09/2024. Available at https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/residential-tenancies-act-1997/107 [cited 27 May 2025].
14 Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 (Vic). Statutory rule number 3/2021. Available at https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/as-made/statutory-rules/residential-tenancies-regulations-2021-0 [cited 9 April 2025].
15 Brambilla A, Sangiorgio A. Mould growth in energy efficient buildings: Causes, health implications and strategies to mitigate the risk. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020; 132: 110093.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
16 Chisholm E, Keall M, Bennett J, Marshall A, Telfar‐Barnard L, Thornley L, et al. Why don’t owners improve their homes? Results from a survey following a housing warrant‐of‐fitness assessment for health and safety. Aust N Z J Public Health 2019; 43: 221-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
17 Kercsmar CM, Dearborn DG, Schluchter M, Xue L, Kirchner HL, Sobolewski J, et al. Reduction in Asthma Morbidity in Children as a Result of Home Remediation Aimed at Moisture Sources. Environ Health Perspect 2006; 114(10): 1574-80.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
18 Wu F, Biksey T, Karol MH. Can Mold Contamination of Homes Be Regulated? Lessons Learned from Radon and Lead Policies. Environ Sci Technol 2007; 41(14): 4861-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
19 Chisholm E, Howden-Chapman P, Fougere G. Renting in New Zealand: perspectives from tenant advocates. Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 2017; 12(1): 95-110.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
20 Li A, Toll M, Candido C, Bentley R. How best to diagnose in-home mould exposure: The validity and accuracy of self-reported measures. J Build Eng 2025; 102: 111932.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
22 Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018; 52(4): 1893-907.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
23 Mendell MJ, Mirer AG, Cheung K, Tong M, Douwes J. Respiratory and Allergic Health Effects of Dampness, Mold, and Dampness-Related Agents: A Review of the Epidemiologic Evidence. Environ Health Perspect 2011; 119(6): 748-56.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
24 Jaakkola MS, Quansah R, Hugg TT, Heikkinen SAM, Jaakkola JJK. Association of indoor dampness and molds with rhinitis risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013; 132(5): 1099-110.e18.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
25 Quansah R, Jaakkola MS, Hugg TT, Heikkinen SA, Jaakkola JJ. Residential Dampness and Molds and the Risk of Developing Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2012; 7(11): e47526.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
26 Groot J, Nielsen ET, Nielsen TF, Andersen PK, Pedersen M, Sigsgaard T, et al. Exposure to residential mold and dampness and the associations with respiratory tract infections and symptoms thereof in children in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies. Paediatr Respir Rev 2023; 48: 47-64.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
27 Tischer C, Chen CM, Heinrich J. Association between domestic mould and mould components, and asthma and allergy in children: a systematic review. Eur Respir J 2011; 38(4): 812-24.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
28 Khalili B, Montanaro MT, Bardana EJ Jr. Inhalational mold toxicity: fact or fiction? a clinical review of 50 cases. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2005; 95(3): 239-46.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
29 Chew GL, Horner WE, Kennedy K, Grimes C, Barnes CS, Phipatanakul W, et al. Procedures to Assist Health Care Providers to Determine When Home Assessments for Potential Mold Exposure Are Warranted. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2016; 4(3): 417-22.e2.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
30 Vlosky RP, Shupe TF. An exploratory study of home builder, new-home homeowner, and real estate agent perceptions and attitudes about mold. For Prod J 2004; 54(12): 289-95.
| Google Scholar |
31 Klitzman S, Caravanos J, Belanoff C, Rothenberg L. A multihazard, multistrategy approach to home remediation: Results of a pilot study. Environ Res 2005; 99(3): 294-306.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
32 Hurlimann AC, Warren-Myers G, Browne GR. Is the Australian construction industry prepared for climate change? Build Environ 2019; 153: 128-37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
33 Small BM. Creating mold-free buildings: a key to avoiding health effects of indoor molds. Arch Environ Health Int J 2003; 58(8): 523-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
34 Bower M, Buckle C, Rugel E, Donohoe-Bales A, McGrath L, Gournay K, et al. ‘Trapped’, ‘anxious’ and ‘traumatised’: COVID-19 intensified the impact of housing inequality on Australians’ mental health. Int J Hous Policy 2021; 23: 260-92.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
35 Chisholm E, Logan A, Aspinall C, Davies C, Howden-Chapman P, Johnson E, et al. “Freedom to move through the house”: How a healthy housing initiative improves quality of life in Aotearoa New Zealand. Aust N Z J Public Health 2024; 48(5): 100190.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
36 Telfar-Barnard L, Bennett J, Robinson A, Hailes A, Ombler J, Howden-Chapman P. Evidence base for a housing warrant of fitness. SAGE Open Med 2019; 7: 2050312119843028.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
37 Australian Building Codes Board. National Construction Code 2022. Canberra: National Building Codes Board; 2022. Available at https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/editions/ncc-2022 [cited 9 April 2025].