environmental sustainability in the delivery of affordable housing in south africa

Environmental sustainability in the delivery ofaffordable housing in South Africa

C.D. DALGLIESH*, P.A. BOWEN{ & R.C. HILL*

* Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town,{Department of Construction Economics and Management, University of Cape Town, Cape Town,South Africa; currently Visiting Professor to the Department of Building and Surveying, GlasgowCaledonian University, Glasgow, UK

Paper submitted 13 December 1995; accepted for publication 13 February 1996; discussionopen until September 1997

Abstract Housing delivery systems have been classified as developmentally-orientated

or conventionally-orientated. It has been claimed that a developmentally-orientated

approach to building procurement would encompass the parameters of community

empowerment and participation in design, job creation via the development process, and

economically and environmentally-sustainable procurement (Taylor & Norval 1995). New

building procurement systems display an increasing awareness of sustainability, but

concentrate on economic and social sustainability, as opposed to environmental

sustainability.

The purpose of this paper is to document and evaluate the extent to which issues of

environmental sustainability have been incorporated in the delivery of affordable housing

in South Africa. The paper elaborates on a range of relevant principles for sustainable

construction, which incorporate: minimisation of resource use; maximisation of reuse of

resources; maximisation of use of renewable and recycled resources; use of non-toxic

materials; protection of nature; achievement of quality criteria; and promotion of labour

intensive methods, skills training and capacity enhancement of local people. The authors

examine the extent to which the principles of environmental sustainability have been

applied, both in practice and in the formulation of South African housing policy. Finally,

recommendations are made for the application of criteria for environmental sustainability

in the delivery process of affordable housing in South Africa.

Keywords building, construction, delivery, environment, housing, procurement,

resources, sustainability

INTRODUCTION

Sustainable construction is a relatively new concept, but is one which is slowlygaining currency in South Africa. New housing delivery systems, for example,display an increasing awareness of sustainability, but invariably assume a level oftechnical sustainability and concentrate on economic and social sustainability, as

23

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 1997 4 | 1, 23±39

# 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd

opposed to environmental sustainability. This paper aims to address that short-coming.

The paper provides a brief outline of the causes and magnitude of the housingcrisis in South Africa and examines two procurement systems available to pro-viders of affordable housing. Conventional procurement systems, concernedalmost exclusively with technical specifications, are now largely discredited, anddevelopmentally-orientated procurement systems, which focus more on thehousing delivery process, are preferred (Taylor & Norval 1995). The contentionhere is that both of these procurement systems show very little regard for envir-onmental factors.

Ordinarily `environmental' is taken to include biophysical (climate, land, floraand fauna), economic and social factors. Given the separate treatment of the lasttwo factors in this paper, `environment' here refers to the biophysical, includingthe built, environment. `Sustainable development' refers here to `developmentefforts which seek to address social needs while taking care to minimise potentialnegative environmental impacts' (Hill & Bowen 1995, p.1).

It will be shown that environmental factors could readily be incorporated: asustainable construction framework premised on seven associated principles isintroduced. Each of these principles is examined in some detail to gauge theextent to which they are currently applied in the delivery of affordable housing.South African housing policy is analysed so as to establish the degree to whichenvironmental constraints are considered and incorporated. Finally, recom-mendations are made that environmental considerations be incorporated intohousing policy and developmentally-orientated procurement systems.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

There is a lack of agreement on the nomenclature relating to affordable housingand reference is made to low income, low cost, and, increasingly, affordablehousing. There is a view that the last of these is most politically correct (Smit1995) and least emotive and, as such, this paper refers to affordable housing.

In physical terms, an affordable house typically consists of a four-room struc-ture of approximately 40 m2 on a plot of between 150 and 220 m2 (Smit 1995).Two of the four rooms are likely to be utilitarian in nature, i.e. a kitchen andbathroom. However, extreme variations are not unusual; some houses in Delft inthe Western Cape measure only 17 m2, and plot sizes vary depending on theavailability of land.

Affordable housing has been defined as a house with a 1994 unit cost of lessthan R45 000 (R1 = £0.17) and a lifespan of at least 20 years (South AfricanGovernment Gazette 1994). However, houses below R65 000 qualify as afford-able housing (South African Government Gazette 1994) in terms of housingsubsidies granted to households with a joint income of less than R3500 per month.A further distinction which needs to be drawn is that between formal and informal(site-and-service) housing. The white paper on housing (South African Govern-

24

# 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 4 | 1, 23±39

Dalgliesh, C.D. et al.

ment Gazette 1994) defines urban formal housing as `any housing unit with ahousing structure estimated to have a lifespan of 20 years or longer'; while urbaninformal housing is defined as `any housing unit over which tenure is held, withaccess to at least basic services (water, sanitation and access routes). Accom-modation would generally consist of an informal house which is upgraded overtime'. By contrast, squatter housing refers to housing generally of a poor standard,with limited or no access to basic services, over which no formal tenure is held.

In this paper, `housing' is taken to refer to formal housing, i.e. a top structure(house) with basic services provided, and informal housing, i.e. basic servicesprovided but no top structure. Top structures often form the core around whichsubsequent incremental housing is added and are, therefore, frequently designedwith that option in mind. In such cases, plot sizes often have to be a little larger,i.e. a minimum of 220 m2 (Smit 1995).

The magnitude of the housing crisis has made the delivery of houses a nationalpriority. More specifically, 150 000 houses need to be built annually for the nextten years merely to service the backlog. In addition, it is estimated that between1995 and 2000 a further 200 000 new households will be formed annually and thatmost of them will require government assistance (South African GovernmentGazette 1994). There are many causes of the housing crisis, including thefollowing:. Affordability, e.g. 88% of Black African households in the Cape Metropolitan

Area earn less than R1000 per month and are, therefore, unable to accessformal housing (Development Action Group 1993). Another set of figures(South African Government Gazette 1994) projected that in 1995, 69% of allhouseholds in South Africa would earn less than R1500 per month.

. Sets of minimum housing and associated service standards, which effectivelyoffered a choice between a (too) high quality house or no formal house at all(Development Action Group 1994). In effect, there was an overemphasis ontechnical sustainability.

. Apartheid policies (e.g. influx control and denial of property rights to BlackSouth Africans) resulting in an insecure pattern of tenure and low willingness ±on the part of prospective homeowners and developers ± to invest (World BankMission 1991).

. Lack of a recent housing policy and the political will to formulate one (SouthAfrican Government Gazette 1994).It is revealing to study the manner in which the housing crisis and its causes are

described. The emphasis is invariably on economic and social factors and, thoughvalid, it is interesting to note that little mention is made of the undeniableenvironmental problems associated with the provision of housing. This is anomission which recurs in Taylor and Norval's (1995) discussion of the conceptsinforming sustainable housing delivery processes.

25Affordable housing delivery in South Africa


HOUSING DELIVERY PROCESSES

New policies have been formulated in response to the housing crisis and much ofthe new legislation is now in place. The emphasis is on delivery of houses (SouthAfrican Government Gazette 1994), i.e. on building procurement. There are twoprincipal procurement systems and the choice of system is crucial for thesuccessful delivery of housing (Taylor & Norval 1995).

Historically, and especially in the developed world and formal South Africanconstruction sector, conventionally-orientated procurement systems have beenutilised. These have focused on the product ± the housing unit ± and the varioustechnical performance specifications prescribed for it. This has tended to producea complicated tendering and monitoring system resulting in a proliferation ofdocumentation (Wells 1986). Together with the prerequisite of a substantialcapital base, it has effectively excluded many (disadvantaged) groups from theconstruction industry (Wells 1986).

Developmentally-orientated procurement is a more recently-developedapproach: in general terms it can be described as a process which, at the outset,establishes client requirements and, thereafter, aims to ensure a seamlessprogression from design through construction to project completion (Harvey &Ashworth 1993). It is a holistic approach focused more on the housing deliveryprocess and less on the product itself, and is expected to be responsive to clients'requirements. To that end, such an approach affords salience to a set of para-meters set down by the Macro Economic Research Group (1993). In essence, thedelivery system is characterised by an open, participative approach with anemphasis on job creation and a programme of social empowerment. However, thedevelopmentally-orientated approach still retains the criterion requiring rapiddelivery of an affordable, functional housing unit, i.e. one that is economically andtechnically feasible.

The choice of procurement system is an important consideration. Friedman(1992) has shown that this choice significantly affects the channelling of resources,the level of technology adopted, the project management style and the likelihoodof community acceptance.

To a large extent, the developmental approach has been adopted for housingdelivery by the South African construction industry in order to comply withcontract conditions. Funding is often only awarded to those projects where asocial compact between stakeholders has been agreed. In fact, the housing subsidyscheme goes so far as to insist that, where developers build for a community, theproject must be underpinned by a social compact (National Housing Forum1994). A regular stipulation of such a compact focuses on the maximum utilisa-tion of local materials and labour.

Although developmentally-orientated procurement is probably the superiortheoretical approach, little is known about its efficacy. In a series of three casestudies undertaken in KwaZulu Natal, Taylor and Norval (1995) set out toinvestigate the applicability of developmentally-orientated procurement systems.

26



Evaluation of this (or any other) procurement system is not a straightforwardprocess and in many respects Taylor and Norval's `success factors' were influ-enced by those selected by Materu (1986) in a similar exercise in Tanzania.Materu proposed four evaluation factors, but in essence they amounted to tworequirements: that any project be both economically and socially sustainable. It isperplexing that Materu (1986) excluded environmental considerations, becausein his case study inappropriate siting of housing on land frequently inundated byfloodwaters was the direct cause of many problems.

Taylor and Norval (1995) implicitly accepted this scheme by judging thedevelopmentally-orientated procurement system in terms of community partici-pation, community contracting, dependency avoidance and sustainable (i.e.affordable) interventions. Mention is made of environmental impacts within thislast requirement ± `for example, environmental impacts associated with projectsare a facet' ± but it is clear in this instance that the primary concern is affordability.The perceived incidental nature of environmental sustainability is highlightedtowards the end of their paper where most of the learning points are economic andsocial in nature, and not environmental.

In some respects this emphasis is not surprising. The Reconstruction andDevelopment Programme (African National Congress 1994) and housing policy,in particular, are development-driven documents, the latter with the emphasis onthe construction of houses. The white paper for a new housing policy and strategyfor South Africa (South African Government Gazette 1994) makes only passingreference to environmental concerns in addressing land delivery where the goal isto `promote environmental sustainability and deal sensitively and responsibly withthe impact of the land development on the environment'.

The reasons for discounting environmental concerns are well-known: onereason is that conventional ownership rights deny value to environmental `ser-vices' which provide benefits to the community at large (Randall 1981). Fur-thermore, it is frequently believed that protection of the environment is achievedat the expense of development, thereby implicitly assuming that sustainabledevelopment is inherently unworkable. However, consideration only of economicand social sustainability cannot guarantee the success of a housing project, asrecent experience near Ocean View (south of Cape Town) has shown. Here,economic and social concerns were accommodated in the initial stages of theprocurement process, but environmental sustainability was overlooked. Con-struction of the planned houses was subject to a lengthy delay as a consequence ofthe injudicious clearance of vegetation and the subsequent erosion of the desig-nated development site.

There are other (economic) advantages to be gained by including environ-mental sustainability as a fourth component ± to be added to technical, economicand social sustainability ± of developmentally-orientated procurement systems.The formal construction sector has been quicker to recognise this than the(informal) building sector. The concept of environmental sustainability is not yetintegrated into the construction process ± there are still very few environmental



provisions in the standard contracts of agreement ± but where sensitive environ-ments are identified, some form of supplementary environmental assessment isfrequently commissioned (Hill et al. 1994).

For affordable housing, elementary concepts such as correct location, orien-tation and the use of appropriate materials have clear benefits for any deliverysystem (Olesen 1979). Kibert (1994) formalised `green' building concepts bydevising six principles of sustainable construction. Hill and Bowen (1995) dis-cussed these principles in terms of South African practice and added a further(social) principle, designed to meet the requirements of the reconstruction anddevelopment programme. These principles of sustainable construction canreadily be incorporated into the process of developmentally-orientated housingdelivery.

PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND A

FRAMEWORK FOR ITS ATTAINMENT

The principles of environmental sustainability listed by Kibert (1994) may beviewed as the environmental component to complement the principles of eco-nomic and social sustainability advocated by Taylor and Norval (1995). Clearly,technical sustainability is taken for granted, though this aspect is emphasised inthe sixth principle, which relates to quality. However, the seven principles listed byHill and Bowen (1995) need to be contextualised, i.e. placed within a frameworkfor sustainable construction, if they are to have a practical application. Hill et al.(1994) proposed a multi-stage framework for sustainable construction.

This framework requires the application of environmental assessment (EA)during the planning and design stages of projects, including a life cycle assessmentof alternative materials. Thereafter, the framework requires that environmentalmanagement systems (EMS), which typically aim to establish procedures toachieve organisations' environmental objectives (International Chamber ofCommerce 1991), be implemented during construction, operation and, whereappropriate, even decommissioning.

Hill et al. (1994) point out that there are four key requirements to be met indeveloping an environmental management system, without which environmen-tally-sustainable and developmentally-orientated procurement is unlikely tosucceed. These four requirements are to:. Determine an environmental policy (possibly predicated on state housing and

environmental policies). Provide an organisational structure clarifying the roles of the groups involved

(homeowners, government, developers, contractors and environmentalprofessionals)

. Develop an environmental management programme

. Undertake periodic audits of environmental performance of the buildingprocess and the effectiveness of the environmental management system.The formulation and implementation of an environmental management system

28



during construction will entail additional short term costs, although it can beanticipated that long term operational and maintenance savings which result willoffset the initial outlay. This might raise the unit cost of affordable houses,although it is possible that these costs could be minimised by adopting astreamlined generic environmental management system applicable, with onlyminor modifications, to most housing developments. This approach would beconsistent with the ISO 14001 specification which states that `the level of detailand complexity of the environmental management system . . . will be dependenton the size of an organisation and the nature of its activities' (InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation). In its most basic form, an environmentalmanagement programme might simply require a short checklist of procedures forcontrolling various actions and dealing with emergencies.

With the establishment of an agreed framework, the application of the sevenprinciples is better facilitated. The following discussion provides a closer exam-ination of these principles and the degree to which they have been adopted. It alsoillustrates that the principles can be, and have been, readily translated into practiceand that, in addition to environmental benefits, economic benefits are alsoderived.

Principle 1: Minimise resource consumption ± conserve and reduce use

of resources

This principle addresses the underlying cause of much environmental degradation(overconsumption of resources) and relates to all four generic resource inputs, i.e.energy, water, materials and land. Affordable housing, by definition, largelycomplies with this principle: a small house uses few resources. However, facedwith the prospect of erecting over 300 000 small houses annually for at least thenext five years, the collective utilisation of resources is immense and any reductionin resource consumption will have major benefits. Already large tracts ofproductive land are being lost because of the public's insistence on a plot perhousing unit and the apparent unacceptability of low-rise cluster alternatives(Smit 1995).

In terms of density, urban township layout of affordable housing typically ischaracterised by:. low net residential densities, as a consequence of the requirement of a garden

per dwelling unit. low gross overall densities, i.e. the existence of unutilised open spaces between

and within townships (Urban Problems Research Unit 1983).This pattern results in higher unit costs for the delivery of services and provision

of public transport. Solutions to these problems include densification (moredwelling units per hectare) and residential infill, the latter seeking to utilise someurban open spaces for housing, while improving access to and better maintainingthe remaining open spaces. In 1986 the white paper on urbanisation (Departmentof Constitutional Development and Planning 1986) made very similar recom-



mendations, although there is little evidence of their application. Public resistanceto densification is a problem which must still be overcome.

In terms of energy, the frequently used prepayment system is believed to resultin considerably lower levels of consumption (Lawson 1995). Passive thermaldesign, defined as `. . . building in harmony with the local climate, obtainingindoor thermal comfort with minimal recourse to artificial heating or cooling'(National Energy Council 1992, p.1) is also an option. The National EnergyCouncil (1992) has shown how passive thermal housing design (e.g. orientation,windows and insulation) can be employed in affordable housing and requires littleor no additional expenditure. Once operational, these features are energy and costeffective, reduce the use of non-renewable sources of energy and actually savemoney over the life of a house (National Energy Council 1992).

South Africa is a semi-arid country which has already exploited its readilyavailable and inexpensive water resources, and yet it is estimated that 12 millionSouth Africans do not have adequate access to clean water (Asmal 1995). In theWestern Cape, the current urban population growth rate is approximately 5% perannum (van Niekerk & Little 1995), with a concomitant increase in pressure onregional water resources. As more and more water is abstracted from rivers, riv-erine ecosystems are pushed to the point of extinction (Davies & Day 1986).Furthermore, the unit cost of water goes up as water is obtained from sourcesincreasingly further from urban centres (Clayton 1995). The environmentalimpact and enormous capital cost of new water schemes have led to a recent focuson water demand management in South Africa, with the use of increased watertariffs and water-savings devices as two ways of reducing water consumption.

In the Cape Town municipal area, domestic water consumption accounts for58% of total water consumption (Clayton 1995). Urban homes are clearly adomain where significant water savings can be made. The estimated (average)breakdown of domestic water usage is 35% for gardening, 29% for toilets, 20% forbathing, 13% for washing, with drinking and cooking together using 3% (Clayton1995). The current thrust to deliver affordable housing in South African urbanenvironments provides an extraordinary and timeous opportunity to ensure thatthe devices fitted in affordable houses are efficient in their use of water. Theinstallation of showers rather than baths, low-flow showerheads, tap aerators,small cisterns for toilets with dual-flush mechanisms (for liquid and solid waste),and `xeriscaping' of gardens with indigenous, drought tolerant plants and lawnsare essential components in this process (Davies 1995).

Insofar as materials are concerned, it is unfortunate that the cement block andcorrugated iron or tile roofs have become the measure against which alternativehousing materials are judged and invariably rejected (Development Action Group1992). Alternative materials are mostly rejected because they are deemed to besocially unacceptable, and not because they do not perform as well as standardmaterials. This insistence on standard materials severely limits the choice of basicbuilding materials. In the process, many less-consumptive alternative materials(especially recycled building materials such as wood and vibracrete panelling ± see

30



third principle) are not even considered, restricting the application of this firstprinciple, and the focus of the principle necessarily shifts to other secondarymaterials. For example, the use of plastic piping can be reduced by concentratingall water connections together at the outside wall nearest the main sewer (Cuff1994).

In the former Eastern bloc, a `rationalisation' process reduced buildings to anumber of constituent parts in an attempt to conserve resources and build moreefficiently (Wells 1986). Though the parts could be assembled in a variety ofstyles, monotony created a problem of social acceptance. In order to conserveresources, Hill and Bowen (1995) have suggested that design for standard sizesand the reduced use of packaging would also result in less waste and lowerconsumption on the building site.

However, in a country such as South Africa, a reduction in packaging materialcan have unforeseen detrimental consequences. For example, Mercedes Benz inGermany decided that wooden-crate packaging of engines for export was envir-onmentally unsustainable and so introduced a suitable alternative. In East Lon-don (site of the South African Mercedes factory), however, local communities losta valued building resource (Hobbs 1994). In this example, it is feasible that thedecision in Germany to reduce packaging materials might have resulted in theincreased consumption of alternative resources in South Africa, as communitiessought new building materials. This illustrates how delivery systems need to takeall four forms of sustainability ± technical, economic, social and environmental ±simultaneously into account.

Principle 2: Maximise resource reuse ± avoid and reduce waste

In terms of housing in general, inhabitants of informal houses are the ultimatereusers; they frequently have to rely on discarded materials to build their dwell-ings. Indeed, it is probably the case that site-and-service schemes proceed fromthe premise that, without the reuse of building materials, the schemes will notwork. For formal housing structures, reuse is also a distinct possibility: windows,door frames and roofing can all be reused as people upgrade from informal shacksto formal housing. Materials from larger buildings designated for demolition canalso be used in this way. In the United States it has already been proven that reuseis not only environmentally, but also economically, sustainable, and that manybuilding contractors attempt to reuse wherever possible (Metro 1994).

This upgrading process presents a business opportunity, for depots or storesdealing in reusable materials. However, some form of government interventionmight be warranted initially so that the channels of distribution for reusablematerials are as efficient as the already-established distribution channels for newmaterials.



Principle 3: Use renewable, recyclable and recycled resources

Sustainably-managed forests and solar and wind-powered energy are examples ofrenewable resources. Solar panels are used in South Africa, but the initial capitaloutlay means that they are still the preserve of the more affluent. Some form ofsubsidy might be warranted if they are to be extensively used in affordablehousing. Renewable timber and recycled materials could easily be used in alter-native building systems; the MANTAG system (devised by the AgreÂment Boardto assess the `fitness-for-purpose' of affordable housing building materials) inSouth Africa has already approved 480 alternative housing systems, most of themdifferentiated by their use of various recycled materials (Development ActionGroup 1992). As already noted, however, concrete cavity blockwork is preferred.

Although renewable and recyclable (and recycled) materials are available, notmany of them are being utilised in affordable housing. If it is social sustainabilitythat is the problem, then education focused on changing perceptions and gen-erating greater environmental awareness, is possibly required. Where cost(especially the initial capital outlay) is the problem, a government sponsoredincentive scheme, aimed at either producers or end-users, might be a solution.Once approved new materials are in use and have been shown to be effective, it islikely that community acceptance will follow.

This principle also requires house designs and site orientation which optimisethe use of breezes for natural cooling, and design for solar warming of houses.Mention has already been made, in the discussion of the first principle, of the useof passive thermal design as an example of reducing the use of non-renewableenergy by intelligent use of a freely available renewable resource. Renewableresources invariably have even greater benefits if life cycle costs, not simply capitalcosts, are considered (National Energy Council 1992). For example, the alter-native to thermal design might be, and often is, the use of coal fires to provideheating, resulting in air pollution and the creation of toxic living environments(see fifth principle). Furthermore, strategic planting of bushes and trees can`condition' the air entering a house. In the southern hemisphere, the leaves ofdeciduous creepers on the north facade keep a house cool in summer and allowthe warming rays of the sun to heat the wall in winter when the leaves no longerprovide a protective shield.

Principle 4: Protect the natural environment and restore environments

degraded by past activities

Heydenrych and Theunissen (1992) contest that environmental management hasnot been particularly well applied in the development of affordable housing,although some effort has been devoted to the evaluation of alternative sites inorder to protect precious natural environments. Developers are more concernedwith the lowest-cost provision of basic services than with biophysical considera-tions (Heydenrych & Theunissen 1992). Biophysical concerns are too often

32



sacrificed for socio-political reasons; for example, housing developments in thepast were sited to satisfy apartheid planning imperatives, not to accommodateenvironmental factors. Socio-political objectives are now very different, but thatdoes not guarantee protection of natural environments.

Informal settlements are often integrated into the natural environment,primarily because of the organic nature of their development (Quinlan &McCarthy 1994). Sensitive natural environments, e.g. wetlands, slopes and for-ests, are often left intact because the equipment to alter them is not available. Bycontrast, affordable housing developments are often of a large and uniform nat-ure, invariably achieved through large-scale earthworks without due regard forbiophysical constraints (or psychological effects). Evidence of this is apparentoutside Cape Town on the Cape Flats, for example, where dunes are flattened andsubsidences filled to create large, flat building surfaces. In many cases, a moresensitive approach would produce environmental and economic benefits, e.g. theretention of natural water courses would provide low-cost and effective stormwater management. The World Bank (1991) sectoral guidelines offer an extensivelist of mitigatory actions designed to ensure the protection of the natural envir-onment in the design of housing developments.

It is a commonly held public perception that township residents are notconcerned about their physical environment: litter, for example, appears to attestto that (Quinlan & McCarthy 1994). However, Quinlan and McCarthy regard thisanti-environment theory as a fallacy and are supported by Gubb (1990). Gubbpoints out that, given a basic level of services, communities will care for theirenvironment. The implications are promising: if affordable housing is appro-priately sited and basic services provided, then communities will manage envir-onmental problems, such as pollution, noise and litter, which they generate.

Principle 5: Create a healthy, non-toxic environment

This principle requires the elimination of, or careful, managed use of, toxicproducts in the indoor and exterior built environment. Many indoor fixtures, e.g.carpets, linoleum and painted artifacts, release volatile organic compounds, whilepesticides, smoke from (paraffin and coal) fires, odours associated with opendrains, for example, are outdoor problems. In many cases, lack of educationmeans that affected communities are not even aware of the potential dangers.

This ignorance of the dangers of toxic living environments is confirmed in arecent Brazilian study in which Jacobi (1994) established that a non-toxic envir-onment was not a major issue for affordable housing dwellers. Basically, residentsdisplayed a hierarchy of concerns headed by access to water and sanitation, whileair quality, for example, was perceived as a minor concern. This hierarchy wasconfirmed in a South African study which showed that diarrhoeal diseases andacute respiratory infections were the main health problems experienced bytownship dwellers, but that the link between living environments and health wasfar better understood in the case of diarrhoeal diseases (Maforah et al. 1993). In



addition to being a source of pollution, coal fires are often the cause of fires, e.g. atleast three fires have swept through the Marconi Beam informal settlement nearCape Town in the first 2 months of 1996.

This is not to say that the principle is not valid, as the dangers of living inunhealthy environments are real and explain diseases such as cholera, dysenteryand tuberculosis. Governments might need to intervene on behalf of (consulted)communities and set certain health standards. Part of the problem is addressed inthe housing white paper (South African Government Gazette 1994), where it isrecommended that a set of national standards for the provision of water andsanitation services be formulated.

Principle 6: Pursue quality in creating the built environment

This principle presumes that people prefer a quality abode to an ill-constructedone, and that this tenet holds even if the housing unit is of the most basic format.The manner in which Delft residents in the Western Cape rejected their newhouses as they started to perish and crack with the arrival of the first winter rains,confirms this supposition. As Hill and Bowen (1995) indicate, `cherished spacesare cared for while dehumanising structures are prone to vandalism'. A fine bal-ance between quality and cost must be achieved, bearing in mind that in the recentpast, rigorous quality standards have served to discourage the building ofaffordable housing (Urban Foundation 1990). However, a minimum standard oftechnical sustainability is assumed in determining the trade-off between cost andquality.

The principle of quality pursuance is concerned both with environmental andsocial sustainability. From the environmental perspective, the concern is that poorquality living environments deteriorate rapidly, requiring resource-consumingrenovation and refurbishment programmes. Any resource and cost savingseffected through the use of inferior materials and workmanship are, in the longerterm, likely to require more materials in order to maintain acceptable livingconditions.

Principle 7: Promote labour intensive methods, skills training and capacity

enhancement of local people

Taylor and Norval (1995) noted that, notwithstanding the many new problemswhich it generates, involvement of local communities in delivery systems is crucialif a project is to receive community acceptance. Community involvement entailsthe promotion of labour intensive methods, skills training and capacityenhancement (as encapsulated in this principle) and is, arguably, the key com-ponent of social sustainability. This point is also emphasised by the NationalHousing Forum (1994) and in the housing white paper (South African Govern-ment Gazette 1994). The application of this principle has the advantage of themultiplier effect manifesting itself most directly in the local community and not in

34



distant developers' neighbourhoods. The wealth created by construction is oftangible benefit to those communities where projects are undertaken.

Furthermore, given the chronic levels of unemployment, self-help formalhousing can effectively make use of unpaid labour, allowing more funds to beexpended on the structure itself and on skills training.

Aside from the seven principles discussed above, the issue of affordabilitywarrants further comment. Economic sustainability is not presented as a principlein this paper, but as Taylor and Norval (1995) have pointed out, this component iscrucial in the delivery of housing. Affordability is a concern at various levels fordifferent stakeholders and only if housing is affordable for all concerned can it besaid to be economically sustainable. In essence, housing must be fiscally afford-able (for the government), financially affordable (for the financial institutions) andpersonally affordable (for prospective homeowners). Given South Africa'sapartheid past, the focus in the white paper has been primarily, but not exclusively,on personal affordability (South African Government Gazette 1994).

To a large extent, the seven principles of environmental (and social) sustain-ability outlined above have not, as a matter of policy, been adopted by theaffordable housing construction sector. This might be partially explained by a lackof exposure to the concept of environmental sustainability and guidance as to howit may be implemented. Environmentally sustainable procurement, where it isevident, seems to have occurred more by default than through commission.Confused government thinking on housing might also have aggravated theproblem. However, a new government housing policy has been formulated andthis is briefly examined in the section below, in order to ascertain the extent towhich environmental sustainability has been considered.

GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In the formulation of a housing policy, the government has many factors (e.g.economic, political and fiscal) to consider. Environmental factors, too, areimportant, although the South African Housing Advisory Council (1992) notesthat environmental considerations, historically, have been subjugate to economic,functional, safety and convenience constraints.

There are, however, a number of environmental premises or truisms whichcould guide housing policy. Macoloo (1994) highlights the fact that housingpolicy does indeed have environmental consequences, particularly in pre-determining the utilisation of construction materials, and that environmentalconcerns should, therefore, be addressed. Macoloo also stresses that key envir-onmental issues are often best defined by potential homeowners themselves.Another premise is that the preceding seven principles, formulated specifically foraffordable housing, could easily inform or be incorporated into South Africanhousing policy.

In principle, the Government of National Unity is committed to environmen-tally-sustainable development. This much is made clear in the reconstruction and



development programme, where a specific reference to housing is also made:`Measures such as . . . housing . . . should ultimately reduce pressure on thenatural environment' (African National Congress 1994, p.39). In a more recentdiscussion document (Ministry in the Office of the President 1995) the govern-ment's vision is for cities and towns that are environmentally sustainable. Theintention is to introduce environmentally-sensitive management of development.The government goes further by recognising that `environmental concerns are nota luxury (and that) housing . . . and other services all have a direct bearing onenvironmental quality and the health and well-being of urban residents' (Ministryin the Office of the President 1995, p.19). Unfortunately, the government's statedconcern for the environment is not nearly as apparent in housing policy.

With regard to formal housing policy, recent key legislation includes the HousingArrangements Act (No. 155 of 1993) and the Housing Amendments Act (No. 8 of1994). However, the guiding document now is the white paper A New HousingPolicy and Strategy for South Africa, issued in December 1994 (South AfricanGovernment Gazette 1994). This paper mirrors Taylor and Norval's (1995) focuson economic and social sustainability by emphasising job creation and the speedydelivery of affordable housing. For example, it is stated that `. . . the housing processmust be economically, fiscally, socially, financially and politically sustainable in thelong term' (South African Government Gazette 1994, p.25). This supportsRamsay's (1995) view that the current government approach to housing is simply tobuild as many houses as possible, irrespective of the environmental impact.

It is probable that government thinking is informed by the view that affordablehouses are needed immediately if social upheaval is to be avoided, and thatenvironmental factors can be addressed later. This would certainly seem to beborne out by the proportion of the white paper devoted to affordability, specificallythe housing subsidy scheme. Subsidies range between R5000 (where joint spousemonthly income is between R2501±R3000) and R15 000 (where joint income isless than R800). The subsidy can be used for either formal or informal housing(South African Government Gazette 1994).

Although the environmental sustainability of land delivery is mentioned in thewhite paper (South African Government Gazette 1994), environmentallysustainable construction is only obliquely referred to. On the penultimate page ofthe white paper, the following statement appears:

`. . . insufficient attention has been paid to the relationship between thethermal efficient qualities of housing and the generation needs of the energysector . . . (which could have) beneficial impacts . . . at the point of con-sumption as well as the point of production' (South African GovernmentGazette 1994, p. 63).

This amounts to the implicit encouragement of life cycle assessment of buildingmaterials.

Perhaps the lack of environmental awareness in the current housing policy isunderstandable; sustainable construction is a relatively new concept, especially inSouth Africa, and where it has been applied elsewhere in the world it has mostly

36



been aimed at more affluent communities. Although there are encouragingaspects to government housing policy, it is clear that environmental concerns havebeen relegated.

CONCLUSIONS

It is apparent that the work done on the environmentally-sustainable constructionof affordable housing has had little influence on the South African government'shousing policy. The white paper (South African Government Gazette 1994) andthe work of Taylor and Norval (1995) only serve to confirm this contention. Therehas, however, been progress in the application of appropriate delivery systems ingeneral and developmentally-orientated procurement systems are now invariablyfavoured over the conventional product-centred approach. Economic and socialsustainability are the primary tenets of this newer more enlightened approach. Asa method which is responsive to client requirements, it could be concluded thatthe failure of developmentally-orientated delivery systems to incorporate envir-onmental concerns, reflects directly on the collective client (developer) base inSouth Africa.

Environmental considerations have not yet been incorporated in housing policyand developmentally-orientated procurement systems. However, this omissioncan be addressed relatively easily as many of the guidelines for environmentally-sustainable construction (especially the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle) areemployed (to a certain extent) in the current delivery of affordable housing. Thisadoption of environmental principles often occurs either through default or foreconomic reasons, even in the short term. In addition, the short term costsassociated with formulating environmental management systems to direct theimplementation of the principles, should not be excessive, and bring with themlower operational, maintenance, social and environmental costs in the future.

Commencing at the design and planning stage, the technical-, social-, eco-nomic- and environmental-sustainability of affordable housing developmentneeds to be considered. Depending on the location, extent and nature of theproposed development, certain of these considerations will be more importantthan others. However, it is crucial that all four elements of sustainability areinitially considered. This paper recommends that environmental sustainability beadopted as the fourth component of sustainability in developmentally-orientateddelivery systems and that it be more explicitly written into housing policy. Thesustainable construction framework and seven associated principles described byHill et al. (1994, 1995) provide a good point of departure.

References

African National Congress (1994) The Reconstruction and Development Programme. Johannesburg,South Africa.

Asmal, K. (1995) Balancing supply and demand: the national water conservation programme. In



Proceedings of Conference on National Water Conservation Campaign. Department of Water Affairs andForestry, 2 October.

Clayton, A.J. (1995) Urban water demand management in Greater Cape Town. In Proceedings ofWorkshop on Urban Water Demand Management in Greater Cape Town. South African Institution ofCivil Engineers, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, and the Cape Town City Council, 29September.

Cuff, S.A. (1994) Prototype plan for Victoria Mxenge Housing and Development Association. People'sDialogue, Cape Town, South Africa.

Davies, B.R. (1995) Water-savings devices. In Proceedings of Workshop on Urban Water DemandManagement in Greater Cape Town. South African Institution of Civil Engineers, Department ofWater Affairs and Forestry, and the Cape Town City Council, 29 September.

Davies, B.R. & Day, J.A. (1986) The Biology and Conservation of South Africa's Vanishing Waters. Centrefor Extra-mural Studies, University of Cape Town.

Department of Constitutional Development and Planning (1986) White paper on urbanisation. Pretoria,South Africa.

Department of Environment Affairs (1992) IEM Guideline Series, Guideline Document Number 1: TheIntegrated Environmental Management Procedure. Pretoria, South Africa.

Development Action Group (1992) Housing Alternatives for the Western Cape: Technology and SystemsOptions. Cape Town, South Africa.

Development Action Group (1993) Well-Located Affordable Housing: A Feasible Alternative. CapeTown, South Africa.

Development Action Group (1994) The Housing Subsidy Scheme: A Short Overview. Cape Town, SouthAfrica.

Friedman, J. (1992) Empowerment. The Politics of Alternative Development. Blackwell Scientific Pub-lications, Oxford.

Gubb, A.A. (1990) Environmental Conditions in the Squatter Settlements of the Greater East London Area.Unpublished Report.

Harvey, R.C. & Ashworth, A. (1993) The Construction Industry of Great Britain. Newnes, London.Heydenrych, C.M. & Theunissen, V. (1992) The urgency of low cost housing. Does IEM stand a

chance? In Proceedings of the Conference on Poverty and the Environment, Midrand, South Africa.Hill, R.C., Bergman, J.G. & Bowen, P.A. (1994) A framework for the attainment of sustainable

construction. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction, Tampa,Florida, December, pp.13±25.

Hill, R.C. & Bowen, P.A. (1995) Current issues in sustainable construction. In Managing the Envir-onment in Mining and Construction, supplement to Environmental Planning and Management, SAMining World and SA Construction World, July 14±17.

Hobbs, J. (1994) Personal Communication. Director, Industrial Environmental Forum, Johannes-burg, South Africa.

International Chamber of Commerce (1991) Guide to Effective Environmental Auditing. ICC PublishingS.A., Paris.

International Organisation for Standardisation (1995) Draft of ISO 14001: Environmental ManagementSystem ± Specification with Guidance for Use. Oslo.

Jacobi, P.R. (1994) Households and environment in the city of Sao Paulo: problems, perceptions andsolutions. Environment and Urbanisation, 6(2), 87±110.

Kibert, C.J. (1994) Establishing principles and a model for sustainable construction. In Proceedingsof the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction, Tampa Florida, December,pp.3±12.

Lawson, B.A.B. (1995) Personal Communication. Senior Environmental Adviser, ESKOM. CapeTown, South Africa.

Macoloo, G.C. (1994) The environmental impact of building materials choice for low income housingin Kenya. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction, Tampa,Florida, December, pp.847±856.

Macro Economic Research Group (1993) Making Democracy Work: A Framework for Economic Policy inSouth Africa. Centre for Development Studies, Cape Town, South Africa.

Maforah, N.F., Mathee, A., von Schirnding, Y.E.R., Arendse, R. & Cerff, P.J. (1993) EnvironmentalHealth in Informal Settlements: A Community Participation Intervention. Medical Research Council,Tygerberg, South Africa.

38



Materu, J. (1986) Sites and services projects in Tanzania, a case study of implementation. Third WorldPlanning Review, 8(2), 121±137.

Metro (1994) Resource Efficient Building. Solid Waste Department, Portland, Oregon.Ministry in the Office of the President (1995) The Urban Development Strategy of the Government of

National Unity. Pretoria, South Africa.National Energy Council (1992) Passive Thermal Design In Housing. Pretoria, South Africa.National Housing Forum (1994) Proposed National Housing Strategy. Johannesburg, South Africa.van Niekerk, P.H. & Little, P.R. (1995) Factors influencing urban water demand growth in the

Western Cape. In Proceedings of Workshop on Urban Water Demand Management in Greater CapeTown, South African Institution of Civil Engineers, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, andthe Cape Town City Council, 29 September.

Olesen, F. (1979) Affordable House Types for Kenya. Housing Research and Development Unit, Uni-versity of Nairobi, Nairobi.

Quinlan, T. & McCarthy, J. (1994) Rethinking the environment in urban informal settlements. In HereTo Stay (eds D. Hindson & J. McCarthy). Indicator Press, University of Natal, Durban, SouthAfrica.

Ramsay, G. (1995) Incremental Self-Build Housing in Site and Service Informal Residential Zones.Unpublished Paper, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Cape Town, Cape Town,South Africa.

Randall, A. (1981) Resource Economics: An Economic Approach to Natural Resources and EnvironmentalPolicy. Grid Publishing Inc., Columbus, Ohio.

Smit, H. (1995) Personal Communication. Director, Project Management Services, Cape Town CityCouncil. Cape Town, South Africa.

South African Government Gazette (1994) White paper. A new Housing Policy and Strategy for SouthAfrica, 354 (16178) Notice 1376. Pretoria, South Africa.

South African Housing Advisory Council (1992) Guidelines for the Provision of Engineering Services andAmenities in Residential Township Development. Pretoria, South Africa.

Taylor, R.G. & Norval, G.H.M. (1995) Developing appropriate procurement systems for developingcommunities. In Proceedings of the CIB W92 Symposium on Procurement Systems. East meets West, HongKong, December, pp.323±334.

Urban Foundation (1990) Proceedings from Informal Housing Workshop. Johannesburg, South Africa.Urban Problems Research Unit (1983) Some Theoretical Perceptions, Major Policy Issues and Principles

Concerning Urban Transportation in South Africa. University of Cape Town, Cape Town, SouthAfrica.

Wells, J. (1986) The Construction Industry in Developing Countries: Alternative Strategies for Development.Croom Helm, London.

World Bank (1991) Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, Volume II, Sectoral Guidelines. TechnicalPaper No.140. Washington.

World Bank Mission (1991) South Africa Urban Sector Reconnaissance. Unpublished Aide Memoire,Washington.



environmental sustainability in the delivery of affordable housing in south africa

Documents