Adetooto, J; Windapo, A and Pomponi, F (2024) The use of alternative building technologies as a sustainable affordable housing solution: Perspectives from South Africa. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 22(5), pp. 1447-1463. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the perception of the local experts and end users on the drivers, barriers and strategies to the use of alternative building technologies (ABTs), with a focus on sandbag building technologies (SBTs) in the provision of sustainable housing in South Africa towards improving the public's understanding of SBTs. Design/methodology/approach: This research adopted a qualitative approach that used focus group meetings as the primary data collection method for this study. This study's focus group participants comprised ABT experts and end users of ABT houses in South Africa who were selected using a convenient sampling technique. The data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using NVivo 11 software. Findings: This study found that the perceived drivers to using ABTs such as SBT comprise sustainability, affordability, job creation potentials, fire-resistant and earthquake resistance. This study revealed strategies for the SBTs, including awareness, building sandbag prototypes across cities and training. Practical implications: This study's findings have practical implications for the practice and praxis of ABT implementation and uptake in South Africa. This study provides a framework for broadening the worldwide understanding of use and uptake of SBTs to provide sustainable and affordable housing. Originality/value: This study adds significantly to the limited body of knowledge on ABTs, focusing on sandbag houses. Consequently, the findings provide policymakers with information on the expert and end-user perspectives on the barriers and strategies to using ABTs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alternative building technology; building material; housing; sandbags; sustainability; focus group |
| Index terms: | end user, body of knowledge, housing, sampling, building material, prototype, earthquake, strategy, implementation, praxis, focus group, user perspective, qualitative approach, South Africa, building technology, sustainable housing, affordability, affordable housing, methodology |
| Subjects: | building materials, housing and residential development, contractual arrangements, management, user focus, data collection methods, environmental hazards, modelling and simulation, economic analysis, Geography, research methods, construction type, reflexivity, stakeholder, knowledge management, engineering systems |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Information Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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