Dave, Malay (2019) High performance prefab housing: towards an evaluation framework for design, sustainability and affordability. PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
The world is facing two major challenges in the context of housing: affordability and sustainability. Prefabrication (prefab) is claimed to offer significant opportunities on these fronts. However, its adoption remains a challenge in many countries including Australia as there are several important research gaps that need to be addressed. In this context, the overall aim of this thesis is to examine the role of design in delivering high performance (affordability and sustainability) in prefab housing and to investigate whether developing a holistic evaluation framework to aid designers and decision-makers is desirable and feasible. To address this aim, a three-pronged mixed methods research design was developed. Prong-1 focused on the relationship between affordability and sustainability from the perception point of view. It involved an exploratory international prefab industry survey and correlation research to examine industry’s perceptions and various gaps and needs. Prong-2 focused on the role of design in achieving high performance from the point of view of predicted performance. It involved a detailed practice-based case study aimed at developing high performance modular housing solutions. Prong-3 focused on the actual performance in prefab housing. It involved application and validation of the proposed conceptual Design-Performance Evaluation (DPE) framework through comparative case studies of four Australian prefab house projects. It examined the relationship between affordability and sustainability, as well as the influence of design on that relationship in the case study projects. The findings confirmed a strong perception of an inverse relationship between affordability and sustainability in the prefab industry. A mismatch between perception and performance was also observed. The findings revealed that the inverse correlation between affordability and sustainability was not absolute but instead partial, asymmetrical and complex. Design had a crucial influence on that relationship. However, different aspects of design had competing contributions requiring careful balancing to achieve high performance overall. This research proposed a novel conceptual DPE framework and demonstrated its practical application and effectiveness in comparative performance evaluation. If used as a tool for thinking during the design process, iteratively and collaboratively, it can become a part of the decision management toolkit for prefab housing companies and their clients.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Kimmel, L and Prasad, D |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | performance evaluation; prefabrication; client; designer; effectiveness; sustainability; case study; Australia |
| Index terms: | prefabrication, mismatch, modular housing, effectiveness, research design, designer, Australia, case study, mixed method, toolkit, conceptual design, performance evaluation, housing, affordability, validation, survey, design process, evaluation |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, design methods, research design and methodology, profession, data collection methods, professional development, performance management, software systems, performance measurement, design practice, economic analysis, engineering problems, construction type, building construction, Geography, economic development |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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