Understanding Perceptions of Beneficiaries about Alternative Building Technologies RESEARCHED FOR The National Department of Human Settlements JUNE 2011 i Dept of Human Settlements, 2011 Understanding Beneficiary Perceptions of Alternative Building Technologies TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11 3. Literature Review ............................................................................................ 14 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................14 3.2 Conceptual issues ......................................................................................................14 3.3 Implementation of alternative technologies in low income housing in South Africa .....16 3.4 Benefits of alternative technologies ............................................................................21 3.5 Challenges of alternative technologies .......................................................................23 3.6 Issues emerging from the literature review .................................................................27 3.7 Research framework...................................................................................................28 4. Methodology .................................................................................................... 29 4.1 Research design .........................................................................................................29 4.2 Sample .......................................................................................................................30 4.3 Data collection instruments .........................................................................................31 4.4 Data collection process ...............................................................................................31 4.5 Research Challenges .................................................................................................44 5. Research Findings ............................................................................................. 46 5.1 Key respondents .........................................................................................................46 5.2 Beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries .....................................................................68 5.3 Key issues Emerging ................................................................................................ 127 6. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................ 134 6.1 Overview of project ................................................................................................... 134 6.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 135 References ............................................................................................................ 141 Annexure 1: Recruitment screener ................................................................................. 146 Annexure 2: In-depth Interview Guides ........................................................................... 148 Annexure 3: Guidelines for Field-Work/Site Visits ........................................................... 154 Annexure 4: Preparing for a Focus Group Discussion .................................................... 155 Annexure 5: Focus Group Discussion Guide - Beneficiaries ........................................... 157 Annexure 6: Focus Group Discussion Guide – Potential Beneficiaries ........................... 162 ii 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Of the 2.8 million houses delivered by the government since 1994, only 17000 have used alternative technologies. Anecdotal evidence suggests that negative perceptions of alternative building technologies (ABT) held by beneficiaries hamper the roll out of ABT housing on a larger scale. However, there is very little concrete evidence for this. Research conducted to date by the Department has focused on the views and opinions of provincial officials and practitioners, and not on the actual beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries themselves (Mulondo, 2010). This research aims to understand the perception of beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of ABT. LITERATURE REVIEW „Alternative‟ technology is an umbrella term for construction technologies that rely primarily on non-conventional technologies (DHS, 2008). This includes appropriate and indigenous technologies. „Appropriate‟ technology is simple technology that responds well to local needs and local culture using local materials, local techniques and local labour as far as possible (Troncoso et al, 2007). „Indigenous‟ technology is locally-based technology that uses local materials in a traditional manner. Perceived benefits of alternative technology include cheaper construction, quicker construction, job creation, and being more environmentally friendly. Research suggests that in South Africa, government does not benefit from any cost savings related to the technology as the subsidy amount is paid for each house, irrespective of technology (Mulondo, 2010). The perception that ABT is cheaper was not verified in research where respondents believed that it may well be more expensive, not only in terms of initial building costs, but also maintenance (DHS, 2008). While many ABT houses may be built in less time than conventional houses, the start up time of projects such as training is often more in ABT projects (Mulondo, 2010). Under the Breaking New Ground (BNG) programme the provision of housing is seen as a means of creating jobs and developing local economies. Dept of Human Settlements, 2011 Understanding Beneficiary Perceptions of Alternative Building Technologies Research conducted in 4 provinces in South Africa assesses the extent to which ABTs are used in low cost housing projects and their socio-economic impact on beneficiaries. This notes that the perceived benefits of ABTs include the possibility of job creation in the plants that manufacture the technology and in the construction of the houses, and the transfer of specific skills (NDHS, 2003). However, in Australia training and employment opportunities created in similar projects did not translate into sustained jobs or into a significant skills base (Walker, 2007). Challenges in ABT housing include lack of appropriate capacity and negative perceptions by beneficiaries, potential beneficiaries and officials. The capacity of private sector contractors to build in remote areas and the technical capacity of local communities has been a challenge in such projects in Australia (Walker, 2007). Lack of capacity is also a challenge in South Africa, particularly the human and financial capacity of innovators and contractors (Indaba, 2010). The perceptions held by beneficiaries and officials of alternative technologies are often cited as posing a major challenge to wide-spread roll-out of ABT housing (DHS, 2010; Indaba report, 2010). Official resistance to the new technologies rather than beneficiary perceptions presents a more significant barrier to the successful implementation of ABTs (Indaba report, 2010; Cortés Ballerino-Chile, 2002). Beneficiaries are suspicious of the unknown, and in low income housing, tend to regard its implementation as a sign that government is devaluing them by providing an inferior product (Chief Directorate: Research, DHS, 2010). Beneficiaries‟ perceptions are influenced by structural quality, exposure and consumer education, and participation in the construction process and familiarity with the material. The literature review shows that that there is no general consensus around the use of ABT in housing. In some cases perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of an ABT approach have been shown to be incorrect. What is clear is that many countries face similar challenges to those in South Africa, such as lack of capacity and negative perceptions of beneficiaries and officials. Research shows that these can be overcome to a certain extent by education and participation. 2 Dept of Human Settlements, 2011 Understanding Beneficiary Perceptions of Alternative Building Technologies Very little research focuses on the perceptions of beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of alternative building technologies, and it is important to establish whether common conceptions such as negative perceptions of ABT are valid in South Africa. The belief that beneficiaries may reject ABT houses impacts on the willingness of politicians and officials to embark on such projects. RESEARCH PROCESS The research involved key respondent interviews with officials involved in ABT housing at national and provincial level, 10 focus group discussions with beneficiaries (i.e. people living in ABT houses), and 10 focus group discussions with potential beneficiaries in 14 different areas across Gauteng, Northern Cape, Western Cape and Eastern Cape. Themes explored in focus group discussions included community consultation around ABT, experiences and perceptions of living in ABT houses, establishing the openness and willingness of those waiting for houses towards houses built using alternative technologies, and factors that affect perceptions. KEY ISSUES EMERGING Focus group discussions show that although most