Adetooto, J; Windapo, A; Pomponi, F; Companie, F; Alade, K and Mtya, A (2024) Strategies to promote the acceptance of sandbag building technology for sustainable and affordable housing delivery: The South African case. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 22(5), pp. 1505-1522. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: Sandbag building technologies (SBTs) have been offered as a cost-effective and sustainable alternative building technology (ABT) capable of accelerating house construction in South Africa, but its acceptance remains low. However, knowledge about how to effectively improve SBT social acceptance is limited. This study aims to develop and prioritise SBT social acceptability strategies towards providing a comprehensive framework for the successful deployment and widespread adoption of sandbag technology. Design/methodology/approach: This study used a quantitative research strategy that included a literature review and a structured questionnaire survey of 228 ABT professionals and stakeholders in the South African housing industry. The study statistically analysed 13 strategies for the social acceptance of SBT. Findings: The analysis showed that the top three strategies include the availability of sandbag demonstration projects in all provinces, the approval of a sandbag building code and the availability of standard design methods for earthbags. A factor analysis clustered the 13 strategies into Stakeholders integration and policy formation, Effective education and knowledge sharing and Grassroots advocacy and incentives. Practical implications: The current study’s findings provide a broad framework for the effective implementation and wide acceptance of sandbag technology in housing projects. It offered certain best practices that policymakers and practitioners might use to promote ABT and SBT societal acceptability. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, the study represents the first and only attempt to investigate the viewpoints of experts and housing market stakeholders in South Africa regarding sandbag technology social acceptance strategies and contributes to the social acceptance body of knowledge in ABT and SBT.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alternative building technologies; building materials; housing; sandbags; sustainability; questionaire survey |
| Index terms: | best practice, affordable housing, building material, factor analysis, implementation, design method, quantitative research, methodology, integration, policy formation, practitioner, questionnaire, building code, body of knowledge, South Africa, house construction, housing, approval, building technology, literature review, strategy, housing project, survey, knowledge sharing |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, construction type, contractual role, policy studies, business, engineering systems, design methods, practitioner, building materials, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, management, research methods, Geography, housing and residential development, organizational analysis, regulatory law, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Procurement, Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Information Management |
| 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